Discovery Box| (0.03) | (Job 34:17) | 3 tn The two words could be taken separately, but they seem to form a fine nominal hendiadys because the issue is God’s justice. So the word for power becomes the modifier. |
| (0.03) | (Job 31:23) | 2 tn The form is וּמִשְּׂאֵתוֹ (umisseʾeto); the preposition is causal. The form, from the verb נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, “to raise; to lift high”), refers to God’s exalted person, his majesty (see Job 13:11). |
| (0.03) | (Job 31:14) | 2 tn The verb פָּקַד (paqad) means “to visit,” but with God as the subject it means any divine intervention for blessing or cursing, anything God does that changes a person’s life. Here it is “visit to judge.” |
| (0.03) | (Job 31:6) | 1 tn “God” is undoubtedly the understood subject of this jussive. However, “him” is retained in the translation at this point to avoid redundancy since “God” occurs in the second half of the verse. |
| (0.03) | (Job 29:3) | 5 tn The accusative (“darkness”) is here an adverbial accusative of place, namely, “in the darkness,” or because he was successfully led by God’s light, “through the darkness” (see GKC 374 §118.h). |
| (0.03) | (Job 26:12) | 3 sn Here again there are possible mythological allusions or polemics. The god Yam, “Sea,” was important in Ugaritic as a god of chaos. And Rahab is another name for the monster of the deep (see Job 9:13). |
| (0.03) | (Job 21:9) | 4 sn In 9:34 Job was complaining that there was no umpire to remove God’s rod from him, but here he observes no such rod is on the wicked. |
| (0.03) | (Job 16:9) | 4 tn The verb is used of sharpening a sword in Ps 7:12; here it means “to look intently” as an animal looks for prey. The verse describes God’s relentless pursuit of Job. |
| (0.03) | (Job 16:8) | 1 tn The verb is קָמַט (qamat) which is used only here and in 22:16; it means “to seize; to grasp.” By God’s seizing him, Job means his afflictions. |
| (0.03) | (Job 16:9) | 2 sn The figure used now is that of a wild beast. God’s affliction of Job is compared to the attack of such an animal. Cf. Amos 1:11. |
| (0.03) | (Job 14:20) | 1 tn D. W. Thomas took נֵצַח (netsakh) here to have a superlative meaning: “You prevail utterly against him” (“Use of netsach as a superlative in Hebrew,” JSS 1 [1956]: 107). Death would be God’s complete victory over him. |
| (0.03) | (Job 13:8) | 1 sn The idiom used here is “Will you lift up his face?” Here Job is being very sarcastic, for this expression usually means that a judge is taking a bribe. Job is accusing them of taking God’s side. |
| (0.03) | (Job 12:4) | 4 tn Heb “one calling to God and he answered him.” H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 92) contends that because Job has been saying that God is not answering him, these words must be part of the derisive words of his friends. |
| (0.03) | (Job 10:16) | 2 sn There is some ambiguity here: Job could be the lion being hunted by God, or God could be hunting Job like a lion hunts its prey. The point of the line is clear in either case. |
| (0.03) | (Job 10:13) | 2 sn The meaning of the line is that this was God’s purpose all along. “These things” and “this” refer to the details that will now be given in the next few verses. |
| (0.03) | (Job 9:35) | 1 tn There is no conjunction with this cohortative, but the implication from the context is that if God’s rod were withdrawn, if the terror were removed, then Job would speak up without fear. |
| (0.03) | (Job 9:28) | 4 sn A. B. Davidson (Job, 73) appropriately notes that Job’s afflictions were the proof of his guilt in the estimation of God. If God held him innocent, he would remove the afflictions. |
| (0.03) | (Job 9:17) | 1 tn The relative pronoun indicates that this next section is modifying God, the Judge. Job does not believe that God would respond or listen to him because this is the one who is crushing him. |
| (0.03) | (Job 9:3) | 1 tn Some commentators take God to be the subject of this verb, but it is more likely that it refers to the mortal who tries to challenge God in a controversy. The verb is used of Job in 13:3. |
| (0.03) | (Job 7:20) | 2 sn Job is not here saying that he has sinned; rather, he is posing the hypothetical condition—if he had sinned, what would that do to God? In other words, he has not really injured God. |
