Your search for "For" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.15) | (Eze 27:9) | 2 tn Heb “strengthening damages.” Here “to strengthen” means to repair. The word for “damages” occurs several times in 1 Kgs 12 about some type of damage to the temple, which may have referred to or included cracks. Since the context describes Tyre in its glory, we do not expect this reference to damages to be of significant scale, even if there are repairmen. This may refer to using pitch to seal the seams of the ship, which had to be done periodically and could be considered routine maintenance rather than repair of damage. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 27:8) | 1 tc The MT reads, “the residents of”; the LXX reads, “your rulers who dwell in.” With no apparent reason for the LXX to add “the rulers,” many suppose something has dropped out of the Hebrew text. While more than one may be possible, Allen’s proposal, positing a word meaning “elders,” is the most likely to explain the omission in the MT from a graphic standpoint and also provides a parallel to the beginning of v. 9. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:81. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 22:25) | 1 tn Heb “a conspiracy of her prophets is in her midst.” The LXX reads “whose princes” rather than “a conspiracy of prophets.” The prophets are mentioned later in the paragraph (v. 28). If one follows the LXX in verse 25, then five distinct groups are mentioned in vv. 25-29: princes, priests, officials, prophets, and the people of the land. For a defense of the Septuagintal reading, see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:32, and D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:720, n. 4. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 21:28) | 2 tn Heb “to contain, endure,” from כוּל (khul). Since that sense is difficult here, most take the text to read either “to consume” or “for destruction.” GKC 186 §68.i suggests that the form represents the Hiphil of אָכַל (’akhal, “consume”). The ’alef (א) would have dropped out, as it sometimes does and might do with אָכַל in Ezek 42:5. D. I. Block (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:693) prefers seeing כוּל as a byform of כָּלָה (kalah, “be complete”), with a meaning like “consume” in the Hiphil. The weakness of Block’s suggestion is that כָּלָה does not elsewhere exhibit a Hiphil. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 21:27) | 1 tn Heb “A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I will make it.” The threefold repetition of the noun “ruin” is for emphasis and draws attention to the degree of ruin that would take place. See IBHS 233 §12.5a and GKC 431-32 §133.k. The pronominal suffix (translated “it”) on the verb “make” is feminine in Hebrew. The probable antecedent is the “turban/crown” (both nouns are feminine in form) mentioned in verse 26. The point is that the king’s royal splendor would be completely devastated as judgment overtook his realm and brought his reign to a violent end. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 21:3) | 5 sn Ezekiel elsewhere pictures the Lord’s judgment as discriminating between the righteous and the wicked (9:4-6; 18:1-20; see as well Pss 1 and 11) and speaks of the preservation of a remnant (3:21; 6:8; 12:16). Perhaps here he exaggerates for rhetorical effect in an effort to subdue any false optimism. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:25-26; D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:669-70; and W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel (Hermeneia), 1:424-25. The words do not require all the people in each category to be cut off. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 19:9) | 1 tn Or “They put him in a neck stock with hooks.” The noun סּוּגַר (sugar), translated “collar,” occurs only here in the Bible. L. C. Allen and D. I. Block point out a Babylonian cognate that refers to a device for transporting prisoners of war that held them by their necks (D. I. Block, Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:597, n. 35; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel [WBC], 1:284). Based on the Hebrew root, the traditional rendering had been “cage” (cf. ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). |
| (0.15) | (Eze 12:10) | 1 tc The MT reads: “The prince, the load/oracle, this, in Jerusalem.” The term מַשָּׂא (massaʾ) may refer to a “burden” or prophetic “oracle” (the two homonyms also coming from the same root, cf. Isa 13:1). Also the preposition ב (bet) can mean “in” or “against.” The Targum says, “Concerning the prince is this oracle,” assuming the addition of a preposition. The LXX reads the word for “burden” as a synonym for leader, as both words are built on the same root, but the result does not make good sense in context. The current translation assumes that the verb יִשָּׂא (yisaʾ) from the root נָשָׂא (nasaʾ) has dropped out due to homoioteleuton (cf. vv. 7 and 12 for the verb). The original text would have three consecutive words based on the root נָשָׂא and an environment conducive to an omission in copying: הַנָּשִׂיא יִשָּׂא הַמַּשָּׂא הַזֶּה (hannasiʾ yissaʾ hammassaʾ hazzeh, “the prince will raise this burden”). Another possibility is that הַנָּשִׂיא is an inadvertent addition based on v. 12, so that the text should be “[This is] the oracle against…,” but the formula typically uses the construct state to mean “the oracle about…,” and this would be the only case where Ezekiel uses this term for an oracle. It is also unlikely that this is a copulative sentence, “The prince is the oracle.” While Hebrew can make copulative sentences without a verb, it is odd to do so with articular nouns. The sequence article + noun + article + noun is normally: a case where the second term is an adverbial accusative of place or time, a case where the second term acts as an adjective, part of a list, a case of apposition, or an improper construct chain (or other textual issue involving one of the apparent articles). Besides this verse, only Jer 4:26 (הַכַּרְמֶל הַמִּדְבָּר, hakkarmel hammidbar, “Carmel is/had become a wilderness”) may be suggested as a place where this syntax makes a copulative sentence, but there the first word should be understood as a proper noun. Also if the syntax were this simple (“the A is the B”), one would have expected the versions to follow it. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 7:23) | 1 tc The Hebrew word “the chain” occurs only here in the OT. The reading of the LXX (“and they will make carnage”) seems to imply a Hebrew text of הַבַּתּוֹק (habbattoq, “disorder, slaughter”) instead of הָרַתּוֹק (haratoq, “the chain”). The LXX is also translating the verb as a third person plural future and taking this as the end of the preceding verse. As M. Greenberg (Ezekiel [AB], 1:154) notes, this may refer to a chain for a train of exiles, but “the context does not speak of exile but of the city’s fall. The versions guess desperately, and we can do little better.” |
| (0.15) | (Eze 5:8) | 1 tn Or “I challenge you.” The phrase “I am against you” may be a formula for challenging someone to combat or a duel. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:201-2, and P. Humbert, “Die Herausforderungsformel ‘hinnenî ’êlékâ’” ZAW 45 (1933): 101-8. The Hebrew text switches to a second feminine singular form here, indicating that personified Jerusalem is addressed (see vv. 5-6a). The address to Jerusalem continues through v. 15. In vv. 16-17 the second masculine plural is used, as the people are addressed. |
| (0.15) | (Eze 1:10) | 1 tc The MT has an additional word at the beginning of v. 11, וּפְנֵיהֶם (ufenehem, “and their faces”), which is missing from the LXX. As the rest of the verse only applies to wings, “their faces” would have to somehow be understood in the previous clause. But this would be very awkward and is doubly problematic since “their faces” are already introduced as the topic at the beginning of v. 10. The Hebrew scribe appears to have copied the phrase “and their faces and their wings” from v. 8, where it introduces the content of 9-11. Only “and (as for) their wings” belongs here. |
| (0.15) | (Lam 5:21) | 2 tn Heb “our days.” The term “days” is a synecdoche of time (= days) for what is experienced within that time span (= life) (e.g., Gen 5:4, 8, 11; 6:3; 9:29; 11:32; 25:7; 47:8, 9; Deut 22:19, 29; 23:7; Josh 24:31; Judg 2:7, 18; 2 Sam 19:35; Job 7:1, 16, 18; Pss 8:9; 39:5, 6; 90:9, 10, 12, 14; 103:15; Prov 31:12; Eccl 2:3; 5:17, 19; 6:3). |
| (0.15) | (Lam 4:12) | 2 tn Heb “they did not believe that.” The verb הֶאֱמִינוּ (heʾeminu), Hiphil perfect third person common plural from אָמַן (ʾaman, “to believe”), ordinarily is a term of faith and trust, but occasionally it functions cognitively: “to think that” (Job 9:16; 15:22; Ps 116:10; Lam 4:12) and “to be convinced that” (Ps 27:13) (HALOT 64 s.v. I אמן hif.1). The semantic relationship between “to believe” = “to think” is metonymical, that is, effect for cause. |
| (0.15) | (Lam 3:26) | 1 tn Heb “waiting and silently.” The two main words (plus two conjunctions) וְיָחִיל וְדוּמָם (veyakhil vedumam, “waiting and silently”) form a hendiadys where the first functions verbally and the second adverbially: “to wait silently.” The adverb דוּמָם (dumam, “silently”) also functions as a metonymy of association, standing for patience or rest (HALOT 217 s.v.). This metonymical nuance is captured well in less literal English versions: “wait in patience” (TEV) and “wait patiently” (CEV, NJPS). The more literal English versions do not express the metonymy as well: “quietly wait” (KJV, NKJV, ASV), “waits silently” (NASB), and “wait quietly” (RSV, NRSV, NIV). |
| (0.15) | (Lam 3:1) | 4 tn The noun שֵׁבֶט (shevet, “rod”) refers to the weapon used for smiting an enemy (Exod 21:20; 2 Sam 23:21; 1 Chr 11:3; Isa 10:15; Mic 4:14 HT [5:1 ET]) and to the instrument of child-discipline (Prov 10:13; 22:15; 29:15). It is used figuratively to describe discipline of the individual (Job 9:34; 21:9; 37:13; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:33) and the nation (Isa 10:5, 24; 14:29; 30:31). |
| (0.15) | (Lam 2:19) | 2 tn The noun לֵבָב (levav, “heart”) functions here as a metonymy of association for the thoughts and emotions in the heart. The Hebrew לֵבָב (levav) includes the mind, so in some cases the translation “heart” implies an inappropriate division between the cognitive and affective. This context is certainly emotionally loaded, but as part of a series of admonitions to address God in prayer, these emotions are inextricably bound with the thoughts of the mind. The singular “heart” is retained in the translation to be consistent with the personification of Jerusalem (cf. v. 18). |
| (0.15) | (Lam 2:14) | 2 tc The Kethib שְׁבִיתֵךְ (shevitekh) and the Qere שְׁבוּתֵךְ (shevutekh), which is preserved in many medieval Hebrew mss here and elsewhere (Ps 85:1 [85:2 HT]; 126:4; Job 42:10), are struggling with the root. The ancient versions take it from שָׁבָה (shavah), meaning “captivity.” Such a meaning is not tenable for the Job passage, which suggests, along with a similar phrase in the Sefire inscription, that the proper meaning is “to restore someone’s fortunes.” See HALOT 1386 s.v. שְׁבוּת. |
| (0.15) | (Lam 2:8) | 3 tn Heb “they languished together.” The verbs אָבַל (ʾaval, “to lament”) and אָמַל (ʾamal, “languish, mourn”) are often used in contexts of funeral laments in secular settings. The Hebrew prophets often use these terms to describe the aftermath of the Lord’s judgment on a nation. Based on parallel terms, אָמַל (ʾamal) may describe either mourning or deterioration and so makes for a convenient play on meaning when destroyed objects are personified. Incorporating this play into the translation, however, may obscure the parallel between this line and the deterioration of the gates beginning in v. 9. |
| (0.15) | (Lam 1:21) | 5 tn Heb “day.” The words “of judgment” were supplied in the translation. The term יוֹם (yom, “day”) is often used as a metonymy of association, standing for the event associated with that particular time period: judgment (e.g., Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Jer 46:10; Lam 2:22; Ezek 13:5; 30:3; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14; Zech 14:1; Mal 4:5 [3:23 HT]) (BDB 399 s.v. 3). |
| (0.15) | (Lam 1:13) | 1 tn Heb “He sent fire from on high.” Normally God sends fire from heaven. The idiom מִמָּרוֹם (mimmarom, “from on high”) can still suggest the location but as an idiom may focus on the quality of the referent. For example, “to speak from on high” means “to presume to speak as if from heaven” = arrogantly (Ps 73:8); “they fight against me from on high” = proudly (Ps 56:3) (BDB 928-29 s.v. מָרוֹם). As a potential locative, מִמָּרוֹם designates God as the agent; idiomatically the same term paints him as pitiless. |
