Your search for "To" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.22) | (Job 1:5) | 1 tn The verse begins with the temporal indicator “and it happened” or “and it came to pass,” which need not be translated. The particle כִּי (ki, “when”) with the initial verbal form indicates it is a temporal clause. |
| (0.22) | (Job 1:1) | 5 tn In Hebrew the defining relative clause (“whose name was Job”) is actually an asyndetic verbless noun-clause placed in apposition to the substantive (“a man”); see GKC 486 §155.e. |
| (0.22) | (Job 1:1) | 2 sn The book of Job is one of the major books of wisdom literature in the Bible. But it is a different kind of wisdom. Whereas the book of Proverbs is a collection of the short wisdom sayings, Job is a thorough analysis of the relationship between suffering and divine justice put in a dramatic poetic form. There are a number of treatises on this subject in the ancient Near East, but none of them are as thorough and masterful as Job. See J. Gray, “The Book of Job in the Context of Near Eastern Literature,” ZAW 82 (1970): 251-69; S. N. Kramer, “Man and His God, A Sumerian Variation on the ‘Job’ Motif,” VTSup 3 (1953): 170-82. While the book has fascinated readers for ages, it is a difficult book, difficult to translate and difficult to study. Most of it is written in poetic parallelism. But it is often very cryptic, it is written with unusual grammatical constructions, and it makes use of a large number of very rare words. All this has led some scholars to question if it was originally written in Hebrew or some other related Semitic dialect or language first. There is no indication of who the author was. It is even possible that the work may have been refined over the years, but there is no evidence for this either. The book uses a variety of genres (laments, hymns, proverbs, and oracles) in the various speeches of the participants. This all adds to the richness of the material. And while it is a poetic drama using cycles of speeches, there is no reason to doubt that the events represented here do not go back to a real situation and preserve the various arguments. Several indications in the book would place Job’s dates in the time of the patriarchs. But the composition of the book, or at least its final form, may very well come from the first millennium, maybe in the time of the flowering of wisdom literature with Solomon. We have no way of knowing when the book was written, or when its revision was completed. But dating it late in the intertestamental period is ruled out by the appearance of translations and copies of it, notably bits of a Targum of Job in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the general works and commentaries, see A. Hurvitz, “The Date of the Prose Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered,” HTR 67 (1974): 17-34; R. H. Pfeiffer, “The Priority of Job over Isaiah 40-55, ” JBL 46 (1927): 202ff. The book presents many valuable ideas on the subject of the suffering of the righteous. Ultimately it teaches that one must submit to the wisdom of the Creator. But it also indicates that the shallow answers of Job’s friends do not do justice to the issue. Their arguments that suffering is due to sin are true to a point, but they did not apply to Job. His protests sound angry and belligerent, but he held tenaciously to his integrity. His experience shows that it is possible to live a pure life and yet still suffer. He finally turns his plea to God, demanding a hearing. This he receives, of course, only to hear that God is sovereignly ruling the universe. Job can only submit to him. In the end God does not abandon his sufferer. For additional material, see G. L. Archer, The Book of Job; H. H. Rowley, “The Book of Job and Its Meaning,” BJRL 41 (1958/59): 167-207; J. A. Baker, The Book of Job; C. L. Feinberg, “The Book of Job,” BSac 91 (1934): 78-86; R. Polzin and D. Robertson, “Studies in the Book of Job,” Semeia 7 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). |
| (0.22) | (Est 7:7) | 2 tn Heb “for he saw that calamity was determined for him from the king”; NAB “the king had decided on his doom”; NRSV “the king had determined to destroy him.” |
| (0.22) | (Est 5:8) | 3 tn Heb “I will do according to the word of the king,” i.e., answer the question that he has posed. Cf. NCV “Then I will answer your question about what I want.” |
| (0.22) | (Est 3:7) | 3 tc The LXX adds the following words: “in order to destroy in one day the race of Mordecai, and the lot fell on the fourteenth day of the month.” The LXX reading is included by NAB. |
| (0.22) | (Est 3:7) | 1 sn This year would be ca. 474 b.c. The reference to first month and twelfth month indicate that about a year had elapsed between this determination and the anticipated execution. |
| (0.22) | (Est 3:5) | 1 tn Heb “Haman.” The pronoun (“he”) was used in the translation for stylistic reasons. Repeating the proper name here is redundant according to contemporary English style, although the name is repeated in NASB and NRSV. |
| (0.22) | (Est 3:1) | 2 sn The promotion of Haman in 3:1 for reasons unexplained contrasts noticeably with 2:19-23, where Mordecai’s contribution to saving the king’s life goes unnoticed. The irony is striking. |
| (0.22) | (Est 2:14) | 1 tn Heb “second.” The numerical adjective שֵׁנִי (sheni, “second”) is difficult here. As a modifier for “house” in v. 14 the word would presumably refer to a second part of the harem, one which was under the supervision of a separate official. But in this case the definite article would be expected before “second” (cf. LXX τὸν δεύτερον, ton deuteron). Some scholars emend the text to שֵׁנִית (shenit, “a second time”), but this does not completely resolve the difficulty since the meaning remains unclear. The translation adopted above follows the LXX and understands the word to refer to a separate group of women in the king’s harem, a group housed apparently in a distinct part of the residence complex. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 12:17) | 1 tn Or “of Miniamin,…; of Moadiah, Piltai,” where the name of the leader of the family of Miniamin has dropped out of the text due to a problem in transmission. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 11:35) | 1 tc The translation reads וְגֵי (vegey, “and the valley”) rather than the MT reading גֵּי (gey, “the valley”). The original vav (ו) probably dropped out accidentally due to haplography with the final vav on the immediately preceding word. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 10:32) | 2 tc The MT reads “to give upon us.” However, the term עָלֵינוּ (ʿalenu, “upon us”) should probably be deleted, following a few medieval Hebrew MSS, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Vulgate. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 6:16) | 2 tn Heb “they greatly fell [i.e., were cast down] in their own eyes.” Some scholars suggest emending the reading of the MT, וַיִּפְּלוּ (vayyipelu) to וַיִּפָּלֵא (vayyippaleʾ, “it was very extraordinary in their eyes”). |
| (0.22) | (Neh 5:14) | 2 tc The translation reads with one medieval Hebrew MS פֶּחָה (pekhah, “governor”) rather than פֶּחָם (pekham, “their governor”) of the MT. One would expect the form with pronominal suffix to have a tav (ת) before the suffix. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 3:25) | 1 tc The MT lacks the phrase אַחֲרָיו הֶחֱזִיק (ʾakharayv hekheziq, “after him worked”). This phrase is used repeatedly in Neh 3:16-31 to introduce each worker and his location. It probably dropped out accidentally through haplography. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 3:13) | 1 tn Heb “1,000 cubits.” The standard cubit in the OT is assumed by most authorities to be about 18 inches (45 cm) long, so this section of the wall would be about 1,500 feet (450 m). |
| (0.22) | (Neh 3:8) | 2 tn Heb “[the city wall of] Jerusalem.” The term “Jerusalem” probably functions as a metonymy of association for the city wall of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the phrase “the city wall of” has been supplied in the translation to clarify this figurative expression. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 3:1) | 4 tc The translation reads וְעַד (veʿad, “and unto”) rather than the MT reading עַד (ʿad, “unto”). The original vav (ו) was probably dropped accidentally due to haplography with the final vav on the immediately preceding word in the MT. |
| (0.22) | (Neh 3:1) | 3 tc The MT adds קִדְּשׁוּהוּ (qiddeshuhu, “they sanctified it”). This term is repeated from the first part of the verse, probably as an intentional scribal addition to harmonize this statement with the preceding parallel statement. |
