Your search for "But" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.21) | (Pro 22:2) | 1 tn The form of the verb is the Niphal perfect of פָּגַשׁ (pagash). The perfect verb form can be understood as perfective “have met together” but the Niphal may focus on the result “are met together.” Having different economic status does not affect that they are met together (cf. NAB, NASB “have a common bond,” NIV, NLV “have this in common”) in having the same Maker. Some commentators have taken this to mean that they should live together because they are part of God’s creation, but the verb form will not sustain that meaning. |
| (0.21) | (Pro 19:25) | 1 tn The Hiphil imperfect תַּכֶּה (takkeh) is followed by another imperfect. It could be rendered: “strike a scorner [imperfect of instruction] and a simpleton will become prudent.” But the first of the parallel verbs can also be subordinated to the second as a temporal or conditional clause. Some English versions translate “beat” (NAB “if you beat an arrogant man”), but this could be understood to refer to competition rather than physical punishment. Therefore “flog” has been used in the translation, since it is normally associated with punishment or discipline. |
| (0.21) | (Pro 18:8) | 2 tn The word כְּמִתְלַהֲמִים (kemitlahamim) occurs only here (and 26:22 where the verse is repeated verbatim). It is related to a cognate verb meaning “to swallow greedily,” so here “things swallowed greedily,” meaning food delicacies. Earlier English versions took it from a Hebrew root הָלַם (halam, see the word לְמַהֲלֻמוֹת [lemahalumot] in v. 6) meaning “wounds” (so KJV) or reflexively for the Hitpael as “self-inflicted wounds.” But the translation of “choice morsels” seems to fit the next image of going into the belly better. But that could also show the extent of wounds. |
| (0.21) | (Pro 12:27) | 2 tn Heb “the precious possession of a man, diligent.” The LXX reads “but a valuable possession [is] a pure man” while Rashi, a highly esteemed 11th century Rabbi, interpreted it as “a precious possession of a man is to be diligent” (R. Murphy, Proverbs [WBC] 88). The translation assumes that the word יָקָר (yaqar, “precious”) should either be a construct form or transposed into predicate position. The implication is not to desire or overvalue possessions themselves but to take care of what one has. |
| (0.21) | (Pro 9:17) | 1 sn The offer is not wine and meat (which represented wisdom), but water that is stolen. The “water” will seem sweeter than wine because it is stolen—the idea of getting away with something exciting appeals to the baser instincts. In Proverbs the water imagery was introduced earlier in 5:15-19 as sexual activity with the adulteress, which would seem at the moment more enjoyable than learning wisdom. Likewise bread will be drawn into this analogy in 30:20. So the “calling out” is similar to that of wisdom, but what is being offered is very different. |
| (0.21) | (Pro 8:16) | 2 tc Many of the MT mss read “sovereigns [princes], all the judges of the earth.” The LXX has “sovereigns…rule the earth.” But the MT manuscript in the text has “judges of righteousness.” C. H. Toy suggests that the Hebrew here has assimilated Ps 148:11 in its construction (Proverbs [ICC], 167). The expression “judges of the earth” is what one would expect, but the more difficult and unexpected reading, the one scribes might change, would be “judges of righteousness.” If that reading stands, then it would probably be interpreted as using an attributive genitive. |
| (0.21) | (Pro 7:21) | 1 sn While this verb is a Hebrew perfect (and so past tense in English) the next verb is an imperfect (past progressive). The sage is taking us inside the transition in the man’s mind. He is hooked but not yet reeled in. He has turned and maybe taken a step in her direction, but not really committed yet inside. The second half of the verse points to her continuing enticement to keep him coming until he commits; she is close to closing the deal. |
| (0.21) | (Pro 3:35) | 1 tc MT reads מֵרִים (merim, “he lifts up”): singular Hiphil participle of רוּם (rum, “to rise; to exalt”), functioning verbally with the Lord as the implied subject: “but he lifts up fools to shame.” The LXX and Vulgate reflect the plural מְרִימִים (merimim, “they exalt”) with “fools” (כְּסִילִים, kesilim) as the explicit subject: “but fools exalt shame.” The textual variant was caused by haplography or dittography of ים (yod and mem), depending on whether MT or the alternate tradition is original. |
| (0.21) | (Psa 109:21) | 1 tn Heb “but you, Lord, Master, deal with me for the sake of your name” or “on account of your name.” Here “name” stands metonymically for God’s reputation. The Psalmist’s appeal is for God to act consistently with, and therefore maintain, his reputation (as a deliverer of the righteous and one who punishes evildoers). Note that “for your name’s sake” is paralleled by “because your loyal love is good.” The point is that the Psalmist is making an appeal not based on his own personal whim or vendetta but is calling for judicial penalties (or the fulfillment of prior prophetic indictment). |
| (0.21) | (Psa 55:3) | 5 tc The verb form in the MT appears to be a Hiphil imperfect from the root מוֹט (mot, “to sway”), but the Hiphil occurs only here and in the Kethib (consonantal text) of Ps 140:10, where the form יַמְטֵר (yamter, “let him rain down”) should probably be read. Here in Ps 55:3 it is preferable to read יַמְטִירוּ (yamtiru, “they rain down”). It is odd for “rain down” to be used with an abstract object like “wickedness,” but in Job 20:23 God “rains down” anger (unless one emends the text there; see BHS). |
| (0.21) | (Psa 51:16) | 3 sn You do not desire a burnt sacrifice. The terminology used in v. 16 does not refer to expiatory sacrifices, but to dedication and communion offerings. This is not a categorical denial of the sacrificial system in general or of the importance of such offerings. The psalmist is talking about his specific situation. Dedication and communion offerings have their proper place in worship (see v. 19), but God requires something more fundamental, a repentant and humble attitude (see v. 17), before these offerings can have real meaning. |
| (0.21) | (Psa 37:35) | 2 tn Heb “being exposed [?] like a native, luxuriant.” The Hebrew form מִתְעָרֶה (mitʿareh) appears to be a Hitpael participle from עָרָה (ʿarah, “be exposed”), but this makes no sense in this context. Perhaps the form is a dialectal variant of מִתְעָלָה (“giving oneself an air of importance”; see Jer 51:3), from עָלָה (ʿalah, “go up”; see P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 [WBC], 296). The noun אֶזְרָח (ʾezrakh, “native, full citizen”) refers elsewhere to people, but here, where it is collocated with “luxuriant, green,” it probably refers to a tree growing in native soil. |
| (0.21) | (Job 42:8) | 6 sn The difference between what they said and what Job said, therefore, has to do with truth. Job was honest, spoke the truth, poured out his complaints, but never blasphemed God. For his words God said he told the truth. He did so with incomplete understanding, and with all the impatience and frustration one might expect. Now the friends, however, did not tell what was right about God. They were not honest; rather, they were self-righteous and condescending. They were saying what they thought should be said, but it was wrong. |
| (0.21) | (Job 39:19) | 1 tn The second half of the verse contains this hapax legomenon, which is usually connected with the word רַעְמָה (raʿmah, “thunder”). A. B. Davidson thought it referred to the quivering of the neck rather than the mane. Gray thought the sound and not the movement was the point. But without better evidence, a reading that has “quivering mane” may not be far off the mark. But it may be simplest to translate it “mane” and assume that the idea of “quivering” is part of the meaning. |
| (0.21) | (Job 38:11) | 3 tn The MT literally says, “here he will put on the pride of your waves.” The verb has no expressed subject and so is made a passive voice. But there has to be some object for the verb “put,” such as “limit” or “boundary”; the translations “confined; halted; stopped” all serve to paraphrase such an idea. The LXX has “broken” at this point, suggesting the verse might have been confused—but “breaking the pride” of the waves would mean controlling them. Some commentators have followed this, exchanging the verb in v. 11 with this one. |
| (0.21) | (Job 30:18) | 2 tc This whole verse is difficult. The first problem is that this verb in the MT means “is disguised [or disfigured],” indicating that Job’s clothes hang loose on him. But many take the view that the verb is a phonetic variant of חָבַשׁ (khavash, “to bind; to seize”) and that the Hitpael form is a conflation of the third and second person because of the interchange between them in the passage (R. Gordis, Job, 335). The commentaries list a number of conjectural emendations, but the image in the verse is probably that God seizes Job by the garment and throws him down. |
| (0.21) | (Job 29:10) | 1 tn The verb here is “hidden” as well as in v. 8. But this is a strange expression for voices. Several argue that the word was erroneously inserted from 8a and needs to be emended. But the word “hide” can have extended meanings of “withdraw; be quiet; silent” (see Gen 31:27). A. Guillaume relates the Arabic habiʾa, “the fire dies out,” applying the idea of “silent” only to v. 10 (it is a form of repetition of words with different senses, called jinas). The point here is that whatever conversation was going on would become silent or hushed to hear what Job had to say. |
| (0.21) | (Job 26:3) | 1 tc The phrase לָרֹב (larov) means “to abundance” or “in a large quantity.” It is also used ironically like all these expressions. This makes very good sense, but some wish to see a closer parallel and so offer emendations. Reiske and Kissane suggested “to the tender” for this word. But the timid are not the same as the ignorant and unwise. So Graetz supplied “to the boorish” by reading לְבָעַר (lebaʿar). G. R. Driver did the same with less of a change: לַבּוֹר (labbor; HTR 29 [1936]: 172). |
| (0.21) | (Job 24:22) | 3 tn This line has been given a number of interpretations due to its cryptic form. The verb יָקוּם (yaqum) means “he rises up.” It probably is meant to have God as the subject, and be subordinated as a temporal clause to what follows. The words “against him” are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation to specify the object and indicate that “rise up” is meant in a hostile sense. The following verb וְלֹא־יַאֲמִין (veloʾ yaʾamin), by its very meaning of “and he does not believe,” cannot have God as the subject, but must refer to the wicked. |
| (0.21) | (Job 22:18) | 3 tc The LXX has “from him,” and this is followed by several commentators. But the MT is to be retained, for Eliphaz is recalling the words of Job. Verses 17 and 18 are deleted by a number of commentators as a gloss because they have many similarities to 21:14-16. But Eliphaz is recalling what Job said, in order to say that the prosperity to which Job alluded was only the prelude to a disaster he denied (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 156). |
