Your search for "In" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.15) | (1Sa 14:3) | 1 tn Heb “bearing.” Many English versions understand this verb to mean “wearing” (cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NLT). The ephod could be used for consulting the Lord’s will (1 Sam 23:9-10; 30:7-8) and is not always worn (1 Sam 23:6). The significance in this context is probably not that Ahijah was dressed for sacrificial duties or to appear before God at the tabernacle, but rather that the ephod was available for consulting God, given the people’s ignorance about Jonathan’s activities. (Cf. the note at 1 Sam 2:28.) |
| (0.15) | (1Sa 10:1) | 5 tc The MT reads simply “Is it not that the Lord has anointed you over his inheritance for a leader?” The translation follows the LXX. The MT apparently suffers from parablepsis, whereby a scribe’s eye jumped from the first occurrence of the expression “the Lord has anointed you” to the second occurrence of this expression at the end of v. 1. This mistake caused the accidental omission of the intervening material in the LXX, which appears to preserve the original Hebrew text here. |
| (0.15) | (1Sa 4:2) | 2 tn The MT has וַתִּטֹּשׁ (vattittosh), from the root נָטַשׁ (natash). This verb normally means “to leave,” “to forsake,” or “to permit,” but such an idea does not fit this context very well. Many scholars have suspected that the text originally read either וַתֵּט (vattet, “and it spread out”), from the root נָטָה (natah), or וַתִּקֶשׁ (vattiqesh, “and it grew fierce”), from the root קָשַׂה (qasah). The former suggestion is apparently supported by the LXX ἔκλινεν (eklinen, “it inclined”) and is adopted in the translation. |
| (0.15) | (1Sa 2:33) | 5 tc The MT says “all the increase of your house will die men.” The LXX and a Qumran ms, read “all…will die by the sword of men.” This reading (cf. ESV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT) makes sense syntactically. Some translations take “men” adverbially, “die as men,” and then understand it to mean something like “all…will die in the prime of life” (cf. NASB, NIV, KJV). However, the proposed syntax is very odd and such an adverbial function for “men” is otherwise unattested. |
| (0.15) | (1Sa 3:13) | 1 tc The MT has וְהִגַּדְתִּי לוֹ (vehiggadti lo). The verb is Hiphil perfect first person common singular, and apparently the conjunction should be understood as vav consecutive (“I will say to him”). But the future reference makes more sense if Samuel is the subject. This would require dropping the final י (yod) and reading the second person masculine singular וְהִגַּדְתָּ (vehiggadta). Although there is no external evidence to support it, this reading has been adopted in the present translation. The alternative is to understand the MT to mean “I said to him,” but for this we would expect the preterite with vav consecutive. |
| (0.15) | (1Sa 2:21) | 1 tn The core component of Hebrew verb פָּקַד (paqad) is “to take note of.” But it also carries the implication of acting accordingly with what is noted. When the syntax combines the Qal of פָּקַד (paqad) plus a direct object which is a person, plus contextually stated benefits, the verb regularly describes assisting or providing for someone (Brian Webster, The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009] 230). The same verb is used to describe enabling Sara to have Isaac in Gen 21:1. |
| (0.15) | (1Sa 2:6) | 2 tn The first three verbs are participles; the last is a preterite which is normally past consecutive. It is rare, even in poetry, for a preterite verb to follow a participle. The English translations all render the last verb as a participle. They either reason that the preterite continues the force of the participle or assume that it should be repointed as a simple vav plus imperfect (which can be habitual present). If the participles are understood as substantival, then the latter half might mean “the Lord…is one who brings down to [the point of] the grave and then raised up.” |
| (0.15) | (Rut 3:3) | 3 tn Heb “and put your outer garment on yourself”; NAB “put on your best attire.” The noun שִׂמְלָה (simlah) may refer to clothes in general (see R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth [NICOT], 197, n. 7) or a long outer garment (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 150-51). Mourners often wore mourning clothes and refrained from washing or using cosmetics (Gen 38:14, 19; 2 Sam 12:20; 14:2), so Ruth’s attire and appearance would signal that her period of mourning was over and she was now available for remarriage (see Bush, 152). |
| (0.15) | (Rut 2:17) | 2 tn Heb “there was an ephah.” An ephah was a dry measure, equivalent to one-tenth of a homer (see HALOT 43 s.v. אֵיפָה). An ephah was equivalent to a “bath,” a liquid measure. Jars labeled “bath” found at archaeological sites in Israel could contain approximately 5.8 gallons, or one-half to two-thirds of a bushel. Thus an ephah of barley would have weighed about 29 to 30 pounds (just over 13 kg). See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 179. |
| (0.15) | (Rut 1:5) | 2 tn The term יֶלֶד (yeled, “offspring”), from the verb יָלַד (yalad, “to give birth to”), is used only here of a married man. By shifting to this word from the more common term בֵּן (ben, “son”; see vv. 1-5a) and then using it in an unusual manner, the author draws attention to Naomi’s loss and sets up a verbal link with the story’s conclusion (cf. 4:16). Although grown men, they were still her “babies” (see E. F. Campbell, Ruth [AB], 56; F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 66). |
| (0.15) | (Rut 1:2) | 3 sn The name Mahlon (מַחְלוֹן, makhlon) is from חָלָה (khalah, “to be weak, sick”) and Kilion (כִּלְיוֹן, kilyon) is from כָּלָה (kalah, “to be frail”). The rate of infant mortality was so high during the Iron Age that parents typically did not name children until they survived infancy and were weaned. Naomi and Elimelech might have named their two sons Mahlon and Kilion to reflect their weak condition in infancy due to famine—which eventually prompted the move to Moab where food was abundant. |
| (0.15) | (Jdg 14:15) | 1 tc The MT reads “seventh.” In Hebrew there is a difference of only one letter between the words רְבִיעִי (reviʿi, “fourth”) and שְׁבִיעִי (sheviʿi, “seventh”). Some ancient textual witnesses (e.g., LXX and the Syriac Peshitta) read “fourth,” here, which certainly harmonizes better with the preceding verse (cf. “for three days”) and with v. 17. Another option is to change שְׁלֹשֶׁת (sheloshet, “three”) at the end of v. 14 to שֵׁשֶׁת (sheshet, “six”), but the resulting scenario does not account as well for v. 17, which implies the bride had been hounding Samson for more than one day. |
| (0.15) | (Jdg 13:22) | 1 tn Or “seen God.” Some take the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) as the divine name (“God”) here, but this seems unlikely since v. 21 informs us that Manoah realized this was the Lord’s messenger, not God himself. Of course, he may be exaggerating for the sake of emphasis. Another option, the one followed in the translation, understands Manoah to be referring to a lesser deity. The term אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) is sometimes used of an individual deity other than the Lord (see BDB 43 s.v. 2.a). One cannot assume that Manoah was a theologically sophisticated monotheist. |
| (0.15) | (Jdg 13:19) | 1 tc Heb “Doing an extraordinary deed while Manoah and his wife were watching.” The subject of the participle is missing. The translation assumes that the phrase “the Lord’s messenger” was lost by homoioteleuton. If the text originally read לַיהוָה מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה (layhvah malʾakh yehvah), the scribe’s eye could have jumped from the first יְהוָה to the second, accidentally omitting two of the three words. Later the conjunction וּ (shureq) would have been added to the following מַפְלִא (mafliʾ) for syntactical reasons. Another possibility is that a pronominal subject (הוּא, huʾ) has been lost in the MT due to haplography. |
| (0.15) | (Jdg 12:2) | 1 tc Heb “A fighting man was I was and my people, and the Ammonites greatly.” The LXX reads “I was man fighting, and my people [also]. And the sons of Ammon were humiliating me greatly.” The imperfect form of ταπεινόω (tapeinoō) in the LXX probably represents the Hebrew verb עָנָה (ʿanah) as it commonly does elsewhere. Two nearby words begin with ע (ʿayin): עַמִּי (ʿammi; “my people”) and עַמּוֹן (ʿammōn; “Ammon”). So a form of עָנָה (ʿanah) could easily have been omitted by haplography. A piel perfect would begin with ʿayin, (עִנּוּ; ʿinnu), while a piel participle (as might be suggested by the Greek imperfect) would begin with mem and ʿayin, מְעַנֶּה (meʿanneh). |
| (0.15) | (Jdg 3:23) | 1 tn Again the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, used only here in the OT, is uncertain. Since it is preceded by the verb “went out” and the next clause refers to Ehud closing doors, the noun is probably an architectural term referring to the room (perhaps a vestibule; see HALOT 604 s.v. מִסְדְּרוֹן) immediately outside the king’s upper chamber. As v. 24 indicates, this vestibule separated the upper room from an outer room where the king’s servants were waiting. |
| (0.15) | (Jdg 3:16) | 1 tn The Hebrew term גֹּמֶד (gomed) denotes a unit of linear measure, perhaps a cubit (the distance between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger—approximately 18 inches [45 cm]). Some suggest it is equivalent to the short cubit (the distance between the elbow and the knuckles of the clenched fist—approximately 13 inches [33 cm]) or to the span (the distance between the end of the thumb and the end of the little finger in a spread hand—approximately 9 inches [23 cm]). See BDB 167 s.v.; HALOT 196 s.v.; B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 142. |
| (0.15) | (Jos 11:2) | 2 sn Kinnereth was a city in Galilee located near the Sea of Galilee (Deut 3:17). The surrounding region also became known by this name (1 Kgs 15:20; cf. Matt 14:34), and eventually even the lake itself (Josh 12:3; cf. Luke 5:1). The “rift valley south of” Galilee probably refers to the northern part of the Jordan Valley from the lake to where the Jezreel Valley joins the rift valley. Dor is nearly due west from that point. |
| (0.15) | (Jos 5:14) | 1 tc Heb “He said, “Neither.” An alternative reading is לוֹ (lo, “[He said] to him”; cf. NEB). This reading is supported by many Hebrew mss, as well as the LXX and Syriac versions. The traditional reading of the MT (לֹא, loʾ, “no, neither”) is probably the product of aural confusion (the two variant readings sound the same in Hebrew). Although followed by a number of modern translations (cf. NIV, NRSV), this reading is problematic, for the commander of the Lord’s army would hardly have declared himself neutral. |
| (0.15) | (Jos 5:9) | 2 sn One might take the disgrace of Egypt as a reference to their uncircumcised condition (see Gen 34:14), but the generation that left Egypt was circumcised (see v. 5). It more likely refers to the disgrace they experienced in Egyptian slavery. When this new generation reached the promised land and renewed their covenantal commitment to the Lord by submitting to the rite of circumcision, the Lord’s deliverance of his people from slavery, which had begun with the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, reached its climax. See T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), 59. |
