Discovery Box| (0.31) | (Num 30:12) | 1 tn The verb is the imperfect tense in the conditional clause. It is intensified with the infinitive absolute, which would have the force of saying that he nullified them unequivocally, or he made them null and void. |
| (0.31) | (Num 21:6) | 1 tn Heb “flaming serpents”; KJV, NASB “fiery serpents”; NAB “saraph serpents.” This figure of speech (metonymy) probably describes the venomous and painful results of snakebite. The feeling from such an experience would be like a burning fire (שָׂרָף, saraf). |
| (0.31) | (Num 20:24) | 2 tn The verb is in the second person plural form, and so it is Moses and Aaron who rebelled, and so now because of that Aaron first and then Moses would die without going into the land. |
| (0.31) | (Num 20:4) | 2 tn The clause uses the infinitive construct with the preposition ל (lamed) preposition. The clause would be a result clause in this sentence: “Why have you brought us here…with the result that we will all die?” |
| (0.31) | (Num 15:2) | 2 tn The Hebrew participle here has the futur instans use of the participle, expressing that something is going to take place. It is not imminent, but it is certain that God would give the land to Israel. |
| (0.31) | (Num 14:28) | 1 sn Here again is the oath that God swore in his wrath, an oath he swore by himself, that they would not enter the land. “As the Lord lives,” or “by the life of the Lord,” are ways to render it. |
| (0.31) | (Num 14:11) | 1 tn The verb נָאַץ (naʾats) means “to condemn, spurn” (BDB 610 s.v.). Coats suggests that in some contexts the word means actual rejection or renunciation (Rebellion in the Wilderness, 146, 7). This would include the idea of distaste. |
| (0.31) | (Num 13:24) | 2 tn Or “Wadi Eshcol.” The translation “brook” is too generous; the Hebrew term refers to a river bed, a ravine or valley through which torrents of rain would rush in the rainy season; at other times it might be completely dry. |
| (0.31) | (Num 12:6) | 2 tn The form of this construction is rare: נְבִיאֲכֶם (neviʾakhem) would normally be rendered “your prophet.” The singular noun is suffixed with a plural pronominal suffix. Some commentators think the MT has condensed “a prophet” with “to you.” |
| (0.31) | (Num 11:15) | 2 tn The imperative of הָרַג (harag) is followed by the infinitive absolute for emphasis. The point is more that the infinitive adds to the emphasis of the imperative mood, which would be immediate compliance. |
| (0.31) | (Num 11:15) | 1 tn The participle expresses the future idea of what God is doing, or what he is going to be doing. Moses would rather be killed than be given a totally impossible duty over a people that were not his. |
| (0.31) | (Num 11:1) | 3 tn Heb “it was evil in the ears of the Lord.” The word רַע (raʿ) is a much stronger word than “displeased” would suggest. The bold anthropomorphism shows that what the Lord heard was painful to him. |
| (0.31) | (Num 9:15) | 6 tn The imperfect tense in this and the next line should be classified as a customary imperfect, stressing incomplete action but in the past time—something that used to happen, or would happen. |
| (0.31) | (Num 8:8) | 1 sn The first sacrifice was for the purification of the Levites. The second animal, which Moses was to take, would be used for the purification of the tabernacle from all pollution. |
| (0.31) | (Num 6:20) | 3 tn The imperfect tense here would then have the nuance of permission. It is not an instruction at this point; rather, the prohibition has been lifted and the person is free to drink wine. |
| (0.31) | (Num 6:7) | 4 tn The genitive could perhaps be interpreted as possession, i.e., “the vow of his God,” but it seems more likely that an objective genitive would be more to the point. |
| (0.31) | (Num 5:20) | 3 tn This is an example of the rhetorical device known as aposiopesis, or “sudden silence.” The sentence is broken off due to the intensity or emphasis of the moment. The reader is left to conclude what the sentence would have said. |
| (0.31) | (Num 5:15) | 2 tn The Hebrew word is “jealousy,” which also would be an acceptable translation here. But since the connotation is that suspicion has been raised about the other person, “suspicion” seems to be a better rendering in this context. |
| (0.31) | (Num 4:27) | 3 tn The expression is literally “upon/at the mouth of” (עַל־פִּי, ʿal pi); it means that the work of these men would be under the direct orders of Aaron and his sons. |
| (0.31) | (Num 3:8) | 1 tn The construction uses the infinitive construct (epexegetically) followed by its cognate accusative. It would convey “to serve the service of the tabernacle,” but more simply it may be rendered as “serving.” Their spiritual and practical service is to serve. |
