Your search for "To" did not find any bible verses that matched.
Discovery Box| (0.22) | (Num 1:1) | 5 sn The English word “wilderness” is workable for the Hebrew term because it describes land that is wild. The term “desert” works if one thinks of land deserted by people. But to many modern readers “desert” suggests the idea of an arid land without growth. The word must not be pressed to mean only sand dunes; it describes land that has rocks, canyons, oases, shrubs and trees occasionally, some animal life, and of course sand. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 27:2) | 2 tn Heb “in your valuation, persons to the Lord,” but “in your valuation” is a frozen form and, therefore, the person (“your”) does not figure into the translation (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 73). Instead of offering a person to the Lord one could redeem that person with the appropriate amount of money delineated in the following verses (see the note on Lev 5:15 above and the explanation in Hartley, 480-81). |
| (0.22) | (Lev 26:16) | 2 tn Heb “soul.” These expressions may refer either to the physical effects of consumption and fever as the rendering in the text suggests (e.g., J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 452, 454, “diminishing eyesight and loss of appetite”), or perhaps the more psychological effects, “which exhausts the eyes” because of anxious hope “and causes depression” (Heb “causes soul [נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh] to pine away”), e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 185. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 24:17) | 1 tn Heb “And if a man strikes any soul [נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh] of mankind.” The idiom seems to derive from the idea of striking a fatal blow to the very “life” (literally, “soul”) of a human being, not just landing a blow on their body (HALOT 698 s.v. נכה hif.2). On the difficulty of the meaning and significance of the term נֶפֶשׁ see the notes on Lev 17:10-11. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 21:10) | 3 tn Regarding these signs of mourning see the note on Lev 10:6. His head had been anointed (v. 10a) so it must not be unkempt (v. 10b), and his garments were special priestly garments (v. 10a) so he must not tear them (v. 10b). In the translation “garments” has been employed rather than “clothes” to suggest that the special priestly garments are referred to here; cf. NRSV “nor tear his vestments.” |
| (0.22) | (Lev 20:14) | 3 tn Heb “in fire they shall burn him and them.” The active plural verb sometimes requires a passive translation (GKC 460 §144.f, g), esp. when no active plural subject has been expressed in the context. The present translation specifies “burned to death” because the traditional rendering “burnt with fire” (KJV, ASV; NASB “burned with fire”) could be understood to mean “branded” or otherwise burned, but not fatally. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 16:33) | 3 tn Heb “and the tent of meeting and the altar he shall atone.” The repetition of the verb כִּפֶּר (kipper, “to atone”) at the beginning and end of the sequence appears to be strange, but the MT accents suggest that only “the Most Holy Place” goes with the verb at the beginning of the verse. Of course, the purging of “the Most Holy Place” has been the main emphasis of this chapter from the start (see vv. 2-3 and 11-17). |
| (0.22) | (Lev 16:4) | 1 sn The term “tunic” refers to a shirt-like garment worn next to the skin and, therefore, put on first (cf. Exod 28:4, 39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27). It covered the upper body only. For detailed remarks on the terminology for the priestly clothing in this verse (except the “linen leggings”) see the notes on Lev 8:7-9 and the literature cited there. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 14:13) | 5 tn Since the priest himself presents this offering as a wave offering (v. 12), it would seem that the offering is already in his hands and he would, therefore, be the one who slaughtered the male lamb in this instance rather than the offerer. Smr and LXX make the second verb “to slaughter” plural rather than singular, which suggests that it is to be taken as an impersonal passive (see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:852). |
| (0.22) | (Lev 13:6) | 3 tn Heb “he shall make him clean.” The verb is the Piel of טָהֵר (taher, “to be clean”). Here it is a so-called “declarative” Piel (i.e., “to declare clean”), but it also implies that the person is put into the category of being “clean” by the pronouncement itself (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 176; cf. the corresponding opposite in v. 3 above). |
| (0.22) | (Lev 13:3) | 6 tn Heb “he shall make him unclean.” The verb is the Piel of טָמֵא (tameʾ) “to be unclean.” Here it is a so-called “declarative” Piel (i.e., “to declare unclean”), but it also implies that the person is put into the category of actually being “unclean” by the pronouncement itself (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 175; cf. the corresponding opposite in v. 6 below). |
| (0.22) | (Lev 10:19) | 2 tn Heb “today they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and like these things have happened to me, and (if) I had eaten sin offering today would it be good in the eyes of the Lord?” The idiom “would it be good in the eyes of [the Lord]” has been translated “would [the Lord] have been pleased.” Cf. NRSV “would it have been agreeable to the Lord?”; CEV, NLT “Would the Lord have approved?” |
| (0.22) | (Lev 10:10) | 2 sn The two pairs of categories in this verse refer to: (1) the status of a person, place, thing, or time—“holy” (קֹדֶשׁ, qodesh) versus “common” (חֹל, khol); as opposed to (2) the condition of a person, place, or thing—“unclean” (טָמֵא, tameʾ) versus “clean” (טָהוֹר, tahor). Someone or something could gain “holy” status by being “consecrated” (i.e., made holy; e.g., the Hebrew Piel קִדֵּשׁ (qiddesh) in Lev 8:15, 30), and to treat someone or something that was holy as if it were “common” would be to “profane” that person or thing (the Hebrew Piel הִלֵּל [hillel], e.g., in Lev 19:29 and 22:15). Similarly, on another level, someone or something could be in a “clean” condition, but one could “defile” (the Hebrew Piel טִמֵּא [timmeʾ], e.g., in Gen 34:5 and Num 6:9) that person or thing and thereby make it “unclean.” To “purify” (the Hebrew Piel טִהֵר [tiher], e.g., in Lev 16:19 and Num 8:6, 15) that unclean person or thing would be to make it “clean” once again. With regard to the animals (Lev 11), some were by nature “unclean,” so they could never be eaten, but others were by nature “clean” and, therefore, edible (Lev 11:2, 46-47). The meat of clean animals could become inedible by too long of a delay in eating it, in which case the Hebrew term פִּגּוּל (piggul) “foul, spoiled” is used to describe it (Lev 7:18; 19:7; cf. also Ezek 4:14 and Isa 65:4), not the term for “unclean” (טָהוֹר, tahor). Strictly speaking, therefore, unclean meat never becomes clean, and clean meat never becomes unclean. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 8:9) | 2 sn The gold plate was attached as a holy diadem to the front of the turban by means of a blue cord, and had written on it “Holy to the Lord” (Exod 28:36-37; 39:30-31). This was a particularly important article of high priestly clothing in that it served as the main emblem indicating Aaron’s acceptable representation of Israel before the Lord (Exod 28:38). |
| (0.22) | (Lev 8:8) | 1 sn The breastpiece was made of the same material as the ephod and was attached to it by means of gold rings and chains on its four corners (Exod 28:15-30; 29:5; 39:8-21). It had twelve stones attached to it (representing the twelve tribes of Israel), and a pocket in which the Urim and Thummim were kept (see following). |
| (0.22) | (Lev 6:4) | 1 tn Heb “and it shall happen, when he sins and becomes guilty,” which is both resumptive of the previous (vv. 2-3) and the conclusion to the protasis (cf. “then” introducing the next clause as the apodosis). In this case, “becomes guilty” (cf. NASB, NIV84) probably refers to his legal status as one who has been convicted of a crime in court; thus the translation “he is found guilty.” See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:559-61. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 5:7) | 2 tn Heb “and he shall bring his guilt which he sinned,” which is an abbreviated form of Lev 5:6, “and he shall bring his [penalty for] guilt to the Lord for his sin which he committed.” The words “for his sin” have been left out in v. 7, and “to the Lord” has been moved so that it follows the mention of the birds. |
| (0.22) | (Lev 1:1) | 1 tn Heb “And he (the Lord) called (וַיִּקְרָא, vayyiqraʾ) to Moses and the Lord spoke (וַיְדַבֵּר, vayedabber) to him from the tent of meeting.” The MT assumes “Lord” in the first clause but places it in the second clause (after “spoke”). This is somewhat awkward, especially in terms of English style; most English versions reverse this and place “Lord” in the first clause (right after “called”). The Syriac version does the same. |
| (0.22) | (Exo 33:8) | 1 tn The clause is introduced again with “and it was.” The perfect tense here with the vav (ו) is used to continue the sequence of actions that were done repeatedly in the past (see GKC 331-32 §112.e). The temporal clause is then formed with the infinitive construct of יָצָא (yatsaʾ), with “Moses” as the subjective genitive: “and it was according to the going out of Moses.” |
| (0.22) | (Exo 33:3) | 3 tn The clause is “lest I consume you.” It would go with the decision not to accompany them: “I will not go up with you…lest I consume (destroy) you in the way.” The verse is saying that because of the people’s bent to rebellion, Yahweh would not remain in their midst as he had formerly said he would do. Their lives would be at risk if he did. |
