Texts Notes Verse List Exact Search
Results 661 - 680 of 1821 for senses (0.001 seconds)
Jump to page: First Prev 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next Last
  Discovery Box
(0.35) (Pro 3:5)

sn The word בְּטַח (betakh, “trust”) is used in the OT in (1) literal physical sense: to physically lean upon something for support and (2) figurative sense: to rely upon someone or something for help or protection (BDB 105 s.v. I בְּטַח; HALOT 120 s.v. I בטח). The verb is often used with false securities, people trusting in things that prove to be worthless. But here the object of the secure trust is the Lord who is a reliable object of confidence.

(0.35) (Pro 1:5)

tn The noun תַּחְבֻּלָה (takhbulah, “direction; counsel”) refers to moral guidance (BDB 287 s.v.). It is related to חֹבֵל (khovel, “sailor”), חִבֵּל (khibbel, “mast”) and חֶבֶל (khevel, “rope; cord”), so BDB suggests it originally meant directing a ship by pulling ropes on the mast. It is used in a concrete sense of God directing the path of clouds (Job 37:12) and in a figurative sense of moral guidance (Prov 11:14; 20:18; 24:6). Here it refers to the ability to steer a right course through life (A. Cohen, Proverbs, 2).

(0.35) (Psa 32:4)

tc Heb “my [?] was turned.” The meaning of the Hebrew term לְשַׁד (leshad) is uncertain. A noun לָשָׁד (lashad, “cake”) is attested in Num 11:8, but it would make no sense to understand that word in this context. It is better to emend the form to לְשֻׁדִּי (leshuddi, “to my destruction”) and understand “your hand” as the subject of the verb “was turned.” In this case the text reads, “[your hand] was turned to my destruction.” In Lam 3:3 the author laments that God’s “hand” was “turned” (הָפַךְ, hafakh) against him in a hostile sense.

(0.35) (Psa 18:25)

tn The imperfect verbal forms in vv. 25-29 draw attention to God’s characteristic actions. Based on his experience, the psalmist generalizes about God’s just dealings with people (vv. 25-27) and about the way in which God typically empowers him on the battlefield (vv. 28-29). The Hitpael stem is used in vv. 26-27 in a reflexive resultative (or causative) sense. God makes himself loyal, etc. in the sense that he conducts or reveals himself as such. On this use of the Hitpael stem, see GKC 149-50 §54.e.

(0.35) (Job 34:36)

tc The MT reads אָבִי (ʾavi, “my father”), which makes no sense. Some follow the KJV and emend the word to make a verb “I desire” or use the noun “my desire of it.” Others follow an Arabic word meaning “entreat, I pray” (cf. ESV, “Would that Job were tried”). The LXX and the Syriac versions have “but” and “surely” respectively. Since this is the only ms support, albeit weak, it may be the best choice. In this sense Elihu would be saying that because of Job’s attitude God will continue to test him.

(0.35) (Job 29:24)

tn The connection of this clause with the verse is difficult. The line simply reads: “[if] I would smile at them, they would not believe.” Obviously something has to be supplied to make sense out of this. The view adopted here makes the most sense, namely, that when he smiled at people, they could hardly believe their good fortune. Other interpretations are strained, such as Kissane’s, “If I laughed at them, they believed not,” meaning, people rejected the views that Job laughed at.

(0.35) (Job 6:15)

tn The verb is rather simple—יַעֲבֹרוּ (yaʿavoru). But some translate it “pass away” or “flow away,” and others “overflow.” In the rainy season they are deep and flowing, or “overflow” their banks. This is a natural sense to the verb, and since the next verse focuses on this, some follow this interpretation (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 15). But this idea does not parallel the first part of v. 15. So it makes better sense to render it “flow away” and see the reference to the summer dry spells when one wants the water but is disappointed.

(0.35) (Job 1:22)

tn The last clause is difficult to translate. It simply reads, “and he did not give unseemliness to God.” The word תִּפְלָה (tiflah) means “unsavoriness” or “unseemliness” in a moral sense. The sense is that Job did not charge God with any moral impropriety in his dealings with him. God did nothing worthless or tasteless. The ancient versions saw the word connected with “foolishness” or “stupidity” (תָּפֵל, tafel, “to be tasteless”). It is possible that “folly” would capture some of what Job meant here. See also M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography XII,” Bib 55 (1974): 381-93.

(0.35) (1Ch 17:17)

tn The translation “You have revealed to me what men long to know” is very tentative; the meaning of the Hebrew text is unclear. The text appears to read literally, “and you see me like the searching of man, that which is upward,” which is nonsensical. The translation above assumes the following: (1) The Qal verb translated “you see me” is repointed as a Hiphil, “you showed me,” (2) תּוֹר (tor) is understood in the sense of “searching, exploring,” and (3) הַמַּעֲלָה (hammaʿalah) is taken in a temporal sense of “that which lies beyond.” Thus one could translate, “you have shown me what men search for, what lies beyond.”

(0.35) (2Sa 22:26)

tn The imperfect verbal forms in vv. 26-30 draw attention to God’s characteristic actions. Based on his experience, the psalmist generalizes about God’s just dealings with people (vv. 26-28) and about the way in which God typically empowers him on the battlefield (vv. 29-30). The Hitpael stem is used in vv. 26-27 in a reflexive resultative (or causative) sense. God makes himself loyal, etc. in the sense that he conducts or reveals himself as such. On this use of the Hitpael stem, see GKC 149-50 §54.e.

(0.35) (Deu 4:34)

tn The translation assumes the reference is to Israel’s God in which case the point is this: God’s intervention in Israel’s experience is unique in the sense that he has never intervened in such power for any other people on earth. The focus is on the uniqueness of Israel’s experience. Some understand the divine name here in a generic sense, “a god,” or “any god.” In this case God’s incomparability is the focus (cf. v. 35, where this theme is expressed).

(0.33) (Rev 19:21)

tn On the translation of ἐχορτάσθησαν (echortasthēsan) BDAG 1087 s.v. χορτάζω 1.a states, “of animals, pass. in act. sense πάντα τὰ ὄρνεα ἐχορτάσθησαν ἐκ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτῶν all the birds gorged themselves with their flesh Rv 19:21 (cp. TestJud. 21:8).”

(0.33) (Rev 18:14)

tn On ὀπώρα (opōra) L&N 3.34 states, “ἡ ὀπώρα σου τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ψυχῆς ‘the ripe fruit for which you longed’ Re 18:14. In this one occurrence of ὀπώρα in the NT, ‘ripe fruit’ is to be understood in a figurative sense of ‘good things.’”

(0.33) (Rev 18:3)

tn According to BDAG 949 s.v. στρῆνος and στρηνιάω, these terms can refer either to luxury or sensuality. In the context of Rev 18, however (as L&N 88.254 indicate) the stress is on gratification of the senses by sexual immorality, so that meaning was emphasized in the translation here.

(0.33) (Rev 17:1)

tn Here one Greek term, κρίμα (krima), has been translated by the two English terms “condemnation” and “punishment.” See BDAG 567 s.v. 4.b, “mostly in an unfavorable sense, of the condemnatory verdict and sometimes the subsequent punishment itself 2 Pt 2:3; Jd 4τὸ κ. τῆς πόρνης the condemnation and punishment of the prostitute Rv 17:1.”

(0.33) (Rev 9:7)

tn Or “human faces.” The Greek term ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) is often used in a generic sense, referring to both men and women. However, because “women’s hair” in the next clause suggests a possible gender distinction here, “men’s” was retained.

(0.33) (Rev 2:2)

tn The translation “tolerate” seems to capture the sense of βαστάσαι (bastasai) here. BDAG 171 s.v. βαστάζω 2.b.β says, “bear, endureκακούς Rv 2:2.…bear patiently, put up with: weaknesses of the weak Ro 15:1; cf. IPol 1:2; evil Rv 2:3.”

(0.33) (Jud 1:12)

tc Several witnesses (A Cvid 88 1243 1846 2492 al), influenced by the parallel in 2 Pet 2:13, read ἀπάταις (apatais, “deceptions”) for ἀγάπαις (agapais, “love-feasts”) in v. 12. However, ἀγάπαις has much stronger and earlier support and makes much better sense in the context; it should therefore be considered authentic.

(0.33) (1Jo 5:19)

tn The preposition ἐκ (ek) here indicates both source and possession: Christians are “from” God in the sense that they are begotten by him, and they belong to him. For a similar use of the preposition compare the phrases ἐκ τοῦ πατρός (ek tou patros) and ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (ek tou kosmou) in 1 John 2:16.

(0.33) (1Jo 5:3)

tn Once again the genitive could be understood as (1) objective, (2) subjective, or (3) both. Here an objective sense is more likely (believers’ love for God) because in the previous verse it is clear that God is the object of believers’ love.



TIP #13: Chapter View to explore chapters; Verse View for analyzing verses; Passage View for displaying list of verses. [ALL]
created in 0.07 seconds
powered by bible.org