Your search for "That" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.17) | (Jon 2:6) | 9 sn Jonah pictures himself as being at the very gates of the netherworld (v. 6b) and now within the Pit itself (v. 6c). He is speaking rhetorically, for he had not actually died. His point is that he was as good as dead if God did not intervene immediately. See Pss 7:15; 30:3; 103:4; Ezek 19:3-4, 8. |
| (0.17) | (Jon 1:5) | 2 tn Or “gods” (CEV, NLT). The plural noun אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) might be functioning either as a plural of number (“gods”) or a plural of majesty (“god”) – the form would allow for either. As members of a polytheistic culture, each sailor might appeal to several gods. However, individuals could also look to a particular god for help in trouble. Tg. Jonah 1:5 interpretively renders the line, “Each man prayed to his idols, but they saw that they were useless.” |
| (0.17) | (Oba 1:8) | 3 tn Heb “understanding”; cf. NIV “men of understanding.” This undoubtedly refers to members of the royal court who offered political and military advice to the Edomite kings. In the ancient Near East, such men of wisdom were often associated with divination and occultic practices (cf. Isa 3:3; 47:10, 13). The Edomites were also renowned in the ancient Near East as a center of traditional sagacity and wisdom; perhaps that is referred to here (cf. Jer 49:7). |
| (0.17) | (Amo 9:1) | 4 tn Heb “cut them off on the head of all of them.” The translation assumes the objective suffix on the verb refers to the tops of the pillars and that the following prepositional phrase refers to the people standing beneath. Another option is to take this phrase as referring to the pillars, in which case one could translate, “Knock all the tops of the pillars off.” |
| (0.17) | (Amo 9:3) | 3 sn If the article indicates a definite serpent, then the mythological Sea Serpent, symbolic of the world’s chaotic forces, is probably in view. See Job 26:13 and Isa 27:1 (where it is also called Leviathan). Elsewhere in the OT this serpent is depicted as opposing the Lord, but this text implies that even this powerful enemy of God is ultimately subject to his sovereign will. |
| (0.17) | (Amo 8:8) | 7 tn The entire verse is phrased in a series of rhetorical questions that anticipate the answer, “Of course!” (For example, the first line reads, “Because of this will the earth not quake?”). The rhetorical questions entrap the listener in the logic of the judgment of God (cf. 3:3-6; 9:7). The rhetorical questions have been converted to affirmative statements in the translation for clarity. |
| (0.17) | (Amo 6:5) | 4 tn The meaning of the Hebrew phrase חָשְׁבוּ לָהֶם (khashevu lahem) is uncertain. Various options include: (1) “they think their musical instruments are like David’s”; (2) “they consider themselves musicians like David”; (3) “they esteem musical instruments highly like David”; (4) “they improvise [new songs] for themselves [on] instruments like David”; and (5) “they invent musical instruments like David.” However, the most commonly accepted interpretation is that given in the translation (see S. M. Paul, Amos [Hermeneia], 206-7). |
| (0.17) | (Amo 5:13) | 1 tn Or “the wise”; or “the prudent.” Another option is to translate “the successful, prosperous” and understand this as a reference to the rich oppressors. See G. V. Smith, Amos, 169-70. In this case the following verb will also have a different nuance, that is, the wealthy remain silent before the abuses they perpetuate. See the note on the verb translated “keeps quiet” later in this verse. |
| (0.17) | (Amo 5:5) | 4 tn In the Hebrew text the statement is emphasized by sound play. The name “Gilgal” sounds like the verb גָּלָה (galah, “to go into exile”), which occurs here in the infinitival + finite verb construction (גָּלֹה יִגְלֶה, galoh yigleh). The repetition of the “ג” (g) and “ל” (l) sounds draws attention to the announcement and suggests that Gilgal’s destiny is inherent in its very name. |
| (0.17) | (Amo 2:7) | 2 tn Heb “those who stomp on the dirt of the ground on the head of the poor.” It is possible to render the line as “they trample the heads of the poor into the dust of the ground,” thereby communicating that the poor are being stepped on in utter contempt (see S. M. Paul, Amos [Hermeneia], 79-80). The participial form הַשֹּׁאֲפִים (hashoʾafim) is substantival and stands in apposition to the pronominal suffix on מִכְרָם (mikhram, v. 6b). |
| (0.17) | (Amo 1:5) | 3 tn Heb “the one who sits.” Some English versions take the Hebrew term in a collective sense as “inhabitants” (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV). The context and the parallel in the next clause (“the one who holds the royal scepter”), however, suggest that the royal house is in view. For this term (יוֹשֵׁב, yoshev), see N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, 512-30. |
| (0.17) | (Joe 2:23) | 3 tn Normally the Hebrew word הַמּוֹרֶה (hammoreh) means “the teacher,” but here and in Ps 84:7 it refers to “early rains.” Elsewhere the word for “early rains” is יוֹרֶה (yoreh). The phrase here הַמּוֹרֶה לִצְדָקָה (hammoreh litsdaqah) is similar to the expression “teacher of righteousness” (Heb., מוֹרֶה הַצֶּדֶק, moreh hatsedeq) found in the Dead Sea Scrolls referring to a particular charismatic leader, although the Qumran community seems not to have invoked this text in support of that notion. |
| (0.17) | (Joe 2:20) | 1 sn The allusion to the one from the north is best understood as having locusts in view. It is not correct to say that this reference to the enemy who came form the north excludes the possibility of a reference to locusts and must be understood as human armies. Although locust plagues usually approached Palestine from the east or southeast, the severe plague of 1915, for example, came from the northeast. |
| (0.17) | (Joe 2:3) | 3 tn Heb “and surely a survivor there is not for it.” The antecedent of the pronoun “it” is apparently עַם (ʿam, “people”) of v. 2, which seems to be a figurative way of referring to the locusts and describes ants and rock badgers in Prov 30:25-26. K&D 26:191-92 thought that the antecedent of this pronoun was “land,” but the masculine gender of the pronoun does not support this. |
| (0.17) | (Joe 1:8) | 1 sn The verb is feminine singular, raising a question concerning its intended antecedent. A plural verb would be expected here, the idea being that all the inhabitants of the land should grieve. Perhaps Joel is thinking specifically of the city of Jerusalem, albeit in a representative sense. The choice of the feminine singular verb form has probably been influenced to some extent by the allusion to the young widow in the simile of v. 8. |
| (0.17) | (Hos 14:2) | 2 tn The word order כָּל־תִּשָּׂא עָוֹן (kol tisaʾ ʿavon) is syntactically awkward. The BHS editors suggest rearranging the word order: תִּשָּׂא כָּל־עָוֹן (“Forgive all [our] iniquity!”). However, Gesenius suggests that כָּל (“all”) does not function as the construct in the genitive phrase כָּל־עָוֹן (“all [our] iniquity”); it functions adverbially modifying the verb תִּשָּׂא (“Completely forgive!”; see GKC 415 §128.e). |
| (0.17) | (Hos 12:7) | 1 tn Heb “the merchant…loves to cheat.” The Hebrew has singular forms (noun and verb) that are used generically to refer to all Israelite merchants and traders in general. The singular noun II כְּנַעַן (kenaʿan, “a merchant; a trader”; BDB 488 s.v. II כְּנַעַן) is used in a generic sense to refer to the merchant class of Israel as a whole (e.g., Ezek 16:29; 17:4; Zeph 1:11). |
| (0.17) | (Hos 12:4) | 1 tc The MT vocalizes the consonantal text וָיָּשַׂר (vayyasar, vav consecutive + Qal preterite third person masculine singular from שׂוּר, sur, possibly a byform of one or more other roots. Parallelism with שָׂרַה (sarah, “he contended”) in 12:3 suggested that it be vocalized as ויִּשַׂר (vav consecutive + Qal preterite third person masculine singular from שׂרה [“to strive, contend”]). The latter is followed by almost all English versions here. |
| (0.17) | (Hos 11:8) | 2 tn The phrase נֶהְפַּךְ עָלַי לִבִּי (nehpakh ʿalay libbi) is an idiom that can be taken in two ways: (1) a tumult of emotions, not just a clash of ideas, that are afflicting a person (Lam 1:20; HALOT 253 s.v. הפך 1.c) and (2) a decisive change of policy, that is, a reversal of sentiment from amity to hatred (Exod 14:5; Ps 105:25; BDB 245 s.v. הָפַךְ 1; HALOT 253 s.v. 3). Some English versions express God’s emotional discomfort and tension over the prospect of destroying Israel: “mine heart is turned within me” (KJV), “my heart recoils within me” (RSV, NRSV), “My heart is turned over within Me” (NASB), and “My heart is torn within me” (NLT). Others stress volitional reversal of a previous decision to totally destroy Israel: “I have had a change of heart” (NJPS), “my heart is changed within me” (NIV), and “my heart will not let me do it!” (TEV). Both BDB 245 s.v. 1.b and HALOT 253 s.v. 3 suggest that the idiom describes a decisive change of heart (reversal of decision to totally destroy Israel once and for all) rather than God’s emotional turbulence, shifting back and forth between whether to destroy or spare Israel. This volitional nuance is supported by the modal function of the first person common singular imperfects in 11:8 (“I will not carry out my fierce anger…I will not destroy Ephraim…I will not come in wrath”) and by the prophetic announcement of future restoration in 11:10-11. Clearly, a dramatic reversal both in tone and in divine intention occurs between 11:5-11. |
| (0.17) | (Hos 11:4) | 1 tn Or “cords of human [kindness].” The noun אָדָם (ʾadam) is traditionally related to I אָדָם (“man”) and translated either literally or figuratively (as a metonymy of association for humane compassion): “cords of a man” (KJV, RSV margin, NASB), “cords of human kindness” (NIV, NCV), “human ties” (NJPS), and “cords of compassion” (RSV). But while it refers to humanity it rarely if ever means “humanely.” Another view sees the noun as II אָדָם (“leather”; HALOT 14 s.v. אָדָם) or possibly to be revocalized as אֹדֶם (ʾodem, “leather”; DCH rev. 1:153 s.v. אֹדֶם and 152 s.v. אָדָם II) and in parallel in this verse with II אַהֲבָה (ʾahavah, “leather”). This homonymic root is well attested in Arabic ʾadam (“skin”) and ʾadim (“tanned skin; leather”). It could fit the context of 11:4, which compares Israel to an animal: the Lord led him with leather cords, lifted the yoke from his neck, and fed him. Elsewhere, Hosea compares Israel to a stubborn cow (4:6) and harnessed heifer (10:11). It is somewhat common that the infrequent vocabulary of the Old Testament appears in poetic contexts, and this may be the case here. Richard S. Hess, “’ĀDĀM as ‘Skin’ and ‘Earth’: An Examination of Some Proposed Meanings in Biblical Hebrew,” TynBul (39) 1988: 141-42, claims that understanding the words as from the common roots is “acceptable for the context” and that taking the words as the more common roots is “the simplest and most suitable reading of the text.” HALOT cites Hans Walter Wolff for II אָדָם and II אַהֲבָה, but Hess notes that Wolff later rejected “leather” as a translation for these words in a commentary on Hosea. Hess is followed by NIDOTTE (261 s.v. אָדָם I). |
