Texts Notes Verse List Exact Search
Results 501 - 520 of 876 for traditional (0.000 seconds)
Jump to page: First Prev 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next Last
  Discovery Box
(0.17) (Jer 51:29)

sn The figure here, common in the poetic tradition, is of the Lord going forth to do battle against his foes, and the earth’s reaction to it is compared to a person trembling with fear and writhing in agony, agony like that of a woman in labor (cf. Judg 5:4; Nah 1:2-5; Hab 3:1-15 [especially v. 6]).

(0.17) (Jer 3:7)

sn Open theists suggest that passages such as this indicate God has limited foreknowledge; however, more traditional theologians view this passage as an extended metaphor in which God presents himself as a deserted husband, hoping against hope that his adulterous wife might return to him. The point of the metaphor is not to make an assertion about God’s foreknowledge, but to develop the theme of God’s heartbreak due to Israel’s unrepentance.

(0.17) (Isa 33:2)

tn Heb “Be their arm each morning.” “Arm” is a symbol for strength. The mem suffixed to the noun has been traditionally understood as a third person suffix, but this is contrary to the context, where the people speak of themselves in the first person. The mem (מ) is probably enclitic with ellipsis of the pronoun, which can be supplied from the context. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:589, n. 1.

(0.17) (Sos 8:2)

tc The Masoretic vocalization of מִיַּיִן הָרֶקַח (miyyayin hareqakh) suggests that הָרֶקַח (“spiced mixture”) stands in apposition to מִיַּיִן (“wine”): “wine, that is, spiced mixture.” However, several Hebrew mss read the genitive-construct vocalization מִיַּיִן הָרֶקַח (“spiced wine”). This alternate vocalization tradition is reflected in the Targum and other versions, such as the LXX. The genitive noun הָרֶקַח (“spices, spiced mixture”) functions as an adjective modifying the preceding construct noun יַיִן (“wine”).

(0.17) (Sos 7:9)

tc The MT reads שִׁפְתֵי יְשֵׁנִים (shifte yeshenim, “lips of those who sleep”). However, an alternate Hebrew reading of שְׂפָתַי וְשִׁנָּי (sefatay veshinnay, “my lips and my teeth”) is suggested by the Greek tradition (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus): χείλεσίν μου καὶ ὀδοῦσιν (cheilesin mou kai odousin, “my lips and teeth”). This alternate reading, with minor variations, is followed by NAB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NLT.

(0.17) (Ecc 8:1)

tc The MT vocalizes the consonantal form ישנא as יְשֻׁנֶּא (yeshunneʾ, Pual imperfect third person masculine singular from I שָׁנָה, shanah, “to change”). However, the LXX μισθήσεται (misthēsetai) reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of יִשָּׂנֵא (yissaneʾ, Niphal imperfect third person masculine singular from שָׂנֵא, saneʾ, “to hate”), while the Vulgate’s commutabit reflects יְשַׁנֶּה (yeshanneh, Piel imperfect third person masculine singular from II שָׁנָה, shanah, “to repeat”).

(0.17) (Ecc 5:6)

tc The MT reads הַמַּלְאָךְ (hammalʾakh, “messenger”), while the LXX reads τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou, “God”) which reflects an alternate textual tradition of הָאֱלֹהִים (haʾelohim, “God”). The textual problem was caused by orthographic confusion between similarly spelled words. The LXX might have been trying to make sense of a difficult expression. The MT is preferred as the original. All the major translations follow the MT except for Moffatt (“God”).

(0.17) (Pro 13:4)

tn The noun נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, traditionally “soul”) has a broad range of meanings, and here denotes “appetite” (e.g., Ps 17:9; Prov 23:3; Eccl 2:24; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5; BDB 660 s.v. 5.c) or “desire” (e.g., Deut 12:20; Prov 19:8; 21:10; BDB 660 s.v. 6.a).

(0.17) (Pro 13:2)

tn The noun נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, traditionally “soul”) has a broad range of meanings, and here denotes “appetite” (e.g., Ps 17:9; Prov 23:3; Eccl 2:24; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5; BDB 660 s.v. 5.c) or (2) “desire” (e.g., Deut 12:20; Prov 13:4; 19:8; 21:10; BDB 660 s.v. 6.a).

(0.17) (Psa 118:10)

tn Traditionally the verb has been derived from מוּל (mul, “to circumcise”) and translated “[I] cut [them] off” (see BDB 557-58 s.v. II מוּל). However, it is likely that this is a homonym meaning “to fend off” (see HALOT 556 s.v. II מול) or “to push away.” In this context, where the psalmist is reporting his past experience, the prefixed verbal form is best understood as a preterite. The phrase also occurs in vv. 11, 12.

(0.17) (Psa 84:10)

tn Heb “I choose being at the entrance of the house of my God over living in the tents of the wicked.” The verb סָפַף (safaf) appears only here in the OT; it is derived from the noun סַף (saf, “threshold”). Traditionally some have interpreted this as a reference to being a doorkeeper at the temple, though some understand it to mean “lie as a beggar at the entrance to the temple” (see HALOT 765 s.v. ספף).

(0.17) (Psa 56:8)

tn Traditionally “your bottle.” Elsewhere the Hebrew word נֹאד (noʾd, “leather container”) refers to a container made from animal skin which is used to hold wine or milk (see Josh 9:4, 13; Judg 4:19; 1 Sam 16:20). If such a container is metaphorically in view here, then the psalmist seems to be asking God to store up his tears as a reminder of his suffering.

(0.17) (Psa 52:4)

tn Heb “you love all the words of swallowing.” Traditionally בַּלַּע (balaʿ) has been taken to mean “swallowing” in the sense of “devouring” or “destructive” (see BDB 118 s.v. בָּלַע). HALOT 135 s.v. III *בֶּלַע proposes a homonym here, meaning “confusion.” This would fit the immediate context nicely and provide a close parallel to the following line, which refers to deceptive words.

(0.17) (Psa 18:3)

tn Heb “worthy of praise, I cried out [to] the Lord.” Some take מְהֻלָּל (mehullal, “worthy of praise”) with what precedes and translate, “the praiseworthy one,” or “praiseworthy.” However, the various epithets in vv. 1-2 have the first person pronominal suffix, unlike מְהֻלָּל. If one follows the traditional verse division and takes מְהֻלָּל with what follows, it is best understood as substantival and as appositional to יְהוָה (yehvah): “[to the] praiseworthy one I cried out, [to the] Lord.”

(0.17) (Psa 16:10)

tn A “faithful follower” (חָסִיד [khasid], traditionally rendered “holy one”) is one who does what is right in God’s eyes and remains faithful to God (see Pss 4:3; 12:1; 18:25; 31:23; 37:28; 86:2; 97:10). The psalmist here refers to himself, as the parallel line (“You will not abandon me to Sheol”) indicates.

(0.17) (Job 19:29)

tc The last word is problematic because of the textual variants in the Hebrew. In place of שַׁדִּין (shaddin, “judgment”) some have proposed שַׁדַּי (shadday, “Almighty”) and read it “that you may know the Almighty” (Ewald, Wright). Some have read it יֵשׁ דַּיָּן (yesh dayyan, “there is a judge,” Gray, Fohrer). Others defend the traditional view, arguing that the שׁ (shin) is the abbreviated relative particle on the word דִּין (din, “judgment”).

(0.17) (Job 15:19)

sn Eliphaz probably thinks that Edom was the proverbial home of wisdom, and so the reference here would be to his own people. If, as many interpret, the biblical writer is using these accounts to put Yahwistic ideas into the discussion, then the reference would be to Canaan at the time of the fathers. At any rate, the tradition of wisdom to Eliphaz has not been polluted by foreigners, but has retained its pure and moral nature from antiquity.

(0.17) (Est 2:22)

sn The text of Esther does not disclose exactly how Mordecai learned about the plot against the king’s life. Ancient Jewish traditions state that Mordecai overheard conspiratorial conversation, or that an informant brought this information to him, or that it came to him as a result of divine prompting. These conjectures are all without adequate support from the biblical text. The author simply does not tell the source of Mordecai’s insight into this momentous event.

(0.17) (Ezr 4:7)

tn The LXX understands this word as a prepositional phrase (“in peace”) rather than as a proper name (“Bishlam”). Taken this way it would suggest that Mithredath was “in agreement with” the contents of Tabeel’s letter. Some scholars regard the word in the MT to be a textual variation of an original “in Jerusalem” (i.e., “in the matter of Jerusalem”) or “in the name of Jerusalem.” The translation adopted above follows the traditional understanding of the word as a name.

(0.17) (Ezr 1:1)

tc The MT reads מִפִּי (mippi, “from the mouth of”), but this should probably be emended to בְּפִי (befi, “by the mouth of”), which is the way the parallel passage in 2 Chr 36:22 reads. This is also reflected in the LXX, which is either reflecting an alternate textual tradition of בְּפִי or is attempting to harmonize Ezra 1:1 in light of 2 Chronicles.



TIP #17: Navigate the Study Dictionary using word-wheel index or search box. [ALL]
created in 0.06 seconds
powered by bible.org