Your search for "To" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.32) | (Pro 20:9) | 3 tn In the Qal this verb, זָכָה (zakhah), means to be (morally) “clean; pure.” Here in the Piel it is factitive to “make clean” (so NRSV) or “keep clean” (so NIV). This verb only appears 8 times in the Bible, but this phrase “to cleanse the heart/mind” also occurs in Ps 73:13, where Asaph despairs of having cleansed his heart (or kept it clean). Ps 119:9 remarks that one can keep your path clean by carefully observing God’s word. And Isa 1:16 advises cleansing oneself by putting away and ceasing to do evil. In an ultimate sense, no one has kept a clean heart in every regard. However these other passages suggest that one can repent in order to cleanse the heart and attend to God’s word to keep it clean. The question thus points out the inherent lack of purity and poses the obligation to take steps to safeguard purity. In other words, since my heart is not (natively) pure, what do I need to do to keep it pure (as in being true to God not in a sense of works adding up to purity)? |
| (0.32) | (Psa 127:2) | 3 tn Heb “he gives to his beloved, sleep.” The translation assumes that the Hebrew term שֵׁנָא (shenaʾ, “sleep,” an alternate form of שֵׁנָה, shenah) is an adverbial accusative. The point seems to be this: Hard work by itself is not what counts, but one’s relationship to God, for God is able to bless an individual even while he sleeps. (There may even be a subtle allusion to the miracle of conception following sexual intercourse; see the reference to the gift of sons in the following verse.) The statement is not advocating laziness, but utilizing hyperbole to give perspective and to remind the addressees that God must be one’s first priority. Another option is to take “sleep” as the direct object: “yes, he gives sleep to his beloved” (cf. NIV, NRSV). In this case the point is this: Hard work by itself is futile, for only God is able to bless one with sleep, which metonymically refers to having one’s needs met. He blesses on the basis of one’s relationship to him, not on the basis of physical energy expended. |
| (0.32) | (Jdg 2:22) | 1 tn The Hebrew text of v. 22 simply begins with “to test.” Some subordinate this phrase to “I will no longer remove” (v. 21). In this case the Lord announces that he has now decided to leave these nations as a test for Israel. Another possibility is to subordinate “to test” to “He said” (v. 20; see B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 111). In this case the statement recorded in vv. 20b-21 is the test in that it forces Israel to respond either positively (through repentance) or negatively to the Lord’s declaration. A third possibility is to subordinate “to test” to “left unconquered” (v. 21). In this case the Lord recalls that Joshua left these nations as a test. Israel has failed the test (v. 20), so the Lord announces that the punishment threatened earlier (Josh 23:12-13; see also Judg 2:3) will now be implemented. As B. G. Webb (Judges [JSOTSup], 115) observes, “The nations which were originally left as a test are now left as a punishment.” This view harmonizes v. 23, which explains that the Lord did not give all the nations to Joshua, with v. 22. (For a grammatical parallel, where the infinitive construct of נָסָה [nasah] is subordinated to the perfect of עָזַב [ʿazav], see 2 Chr 32:31.) |
| (0.32) | (Gen 12:3) | 2 tn In this part of God’s statement there are two significant changes that often go unnoticed. First, the parallel and contrasting participle מְקַלֶּלְךָ (meqallelekha) is now singular and not plural. All the versions and a few Masoretic mss read the plural. But if it had been plural, there would be no reason to change it to the singular and alter the parallelism. On the other hand, if it was indeed singular, it is easy to see why the versions would change it to match the first participle. The MT preserves the original reading: “the one who treats you lightly.” The point would be a contrast with the lavish way that God desires to bless many. The second change is in the vocabulary. The English usually says, “I will curse those who curse you.” But there are two different words for curse here. The first is קָלַל (qalal), which means “to be light” in the Qal, and in the Piel “to treat lightly, to treat with contempt, to curse.” The second verb is אָרַר (ʾarar), which means “to banish, to remove from the blessing.” The point is simple: Whoever treats Abram and the covenant with contempt as worthless God will banish from the blessing. It is important also to note that the verb is not a cohortative, but a simple imperfect. Since God is binding himself to Abram, this would then be an obligatory imperfect: “but the one who treats you with contempt I must curse.” |
| (0.31) | (Rev 21:18) | 3 tn Or “transparent crystal.” See L&N 6.222, which notes the emphasis is on transparency here. The same Greek word, καθαρός (katharos), means both “pure” (referring to the gold) and “transparent” (referring to the glass). |
| (0.31) | (Rev 21:11) | 1 tn Grk “from God, having the glory of God.” Here a new sentence was started in the translation by supplying the words “the city” to refer back to the previous clause and translating the participle (“having”) as a finite verb. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 20:11) | 3 tn Or “and the sky.” The same Greek word means both “heaven” and “sky,” and context usually determines which is meant. In this apocalyptic scene, however, it is difficult to be sure what referent to assign the term. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 20:3) | 3 tn Or “and shut.” While the lexical force of the term is closer to “shut,” it is acceptable to render the verb ἔκλεισεν (ekleisen) as “locked” here in view of the mention of the key in the previous verse. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 19:10) | 7 tn The Greek term “brother” literally refers to family relationships, but here it is used in a broader sense to connote familial relationships within the family of God (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.a). |
| (0.31) | (Rev 16:21) | 2 tn Or “the sky.” Due to the apocalyptic nature of this book, it is probably best to leave the translation as “from heaven,” since God is ultimately the source of the judgment. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 16:21) | 3 tn Grk “on men,” but ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) is used here in a generic sense to refer to people in general (the hailstones did not single out adult males, but would have also fallen on women and children). |
| (0.31) | (Rev 13:11) | 3 tn Grk “and it had,” a continuation of the preceding sentence. On the use of the pronoun “he” to refer to the second beast, see the note on the word “It” in 13:1. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 11:18) | 7 tn Or “who deprave.” There is a possible wordplay here on two meanings for διαφθείρω (diaphtheirō), with the first meaning “destroy” and the second meaning either “to ruin” or “to make morally corrupt.” See L&N 20.40. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 9:7) | 3 tn The translation attempts to bring out the double uncertainty in this clause in the Greek text, involving both the form (ὡς στέφανοι, hōs stephanoi, “like crowns”) and the material (ὅμοιοι χρυσῷ, homoioi chrusō, “similar to gold”). |
| (0.31) | (Rev 7:16) | 1 tn An allusion to Isa 49:10. The phrase “burning heat” is one word in Greek (καῦμα, kauma) that refers to a burning, intensely-felt heat. See BDAG 536 s.v. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 7:4) | 4 tn Grk “the sons of Israel,” normally an idiom for the Israelites as an ethnic entity (L&N 11.58). However, many scholars understand the expression in this context to refer to Christians rather than ethnic Israelites. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 4:4) | 2 tn Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation by supplying the words “They were” to indicate the connection to the preceding material. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 3:15) | 1 sn Laodicea was near two other towns, each of which had a unique water source. To the north was Hierapolis which had a natural hot spring, often used for medicinal purposes. To the east was Colossae which had cold, pure waters. In contrast to these towns, Laodicea had no permanent supply of good water. Efforts to pipe water to the city from nearby springs were successful, but it would arrive lukewarm. The metaphor in the text is not meant to relate spiritual fervor to temperature. This would mean that Laodicea would be commended for being spiritually cold, but it is unlikely that Jesus would commend this. Instead, the metaphor condemns Laodicea for not providing spiritual healing (being hot) or spiritual refreshment (being cold) to those around them. It is a condemnation of their lack of works and lack of witness. |
| (0.31) | (Rev 3:4) | 1 tn Grk “a few names”; here ὄνομα (onoma) is used by figurative extension to mean “person” or “people”; according to L&N 9.19 there is “the possible implication of existence or relevance as individuals.” |
| (0.31) | (Rev 2:6) | 1 tn Grk “But you do have this.” The words “going for you” are supplied to complete the English idiom; other phrases like “in your favor” (NIV) or “to your credit” (NRSV) could also be supplied. |
