Texts Notes Verse List Exact Search
Results 101 - 120 of 258 for decisions (0.000 seconds)
Jump to page: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
  Discovery Box
(0.22) (2Pe 1:20)

tn Grk “knowing this [to be] foremost.” Τοῦτο πρῶτον (touto prōton) constitute the object and complement of γινώσκοντες (ginōskontes). The participle is dependent on the main verb in v. 19 (“you do well [if you pay attention]”), probably in a conditional usage. An alternative is to take it imperativally: “Above all, know this.” In this rendering, πρῶτον is functioning adverbially. Only here and 2 Pet 3:3 is τοῦτο πρῶτον found in the NT, making a decision more difficult.

(0.22) (Act 15:19)

tn Or “I have decided,” “I think.” The verb κρίνω (krinō) has a far broader range of meaning than the often-used English verb “judge.” BDAG 568 s.v. κρίνω 3 places this use in Acts 15:19 in the category “judge, think, consider, look upon” followed by double accusative of object and predicate. However, many modern translations give the impression that a binding decision is being handed down by James: “it is my judgment” (NASB, NIV); “I have reached the decision” (NRSV). L&N 22.25, on the other hand, translate the phrase here “I think that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles.” This gives more the impression of an opinion than a binding decision. The resolution of this lies not so much in the lexical data as in how one conceives James’ role in the leadership of the Jerusalem church, plus the dynamics of the specific situation where the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church was being discussed. The major possibilities are: (1) James is handing down a binding decision to the rest of the church as the one who has ultimate authority to decide this matter; (2) James is offering his own personal opinion in the matter, which is not binding on the church; (3) James is voicing a consensus opinion of all the apostles and elders, although phrasing it as if it were his own; (4) James is making a suggestion to the rest of the leadership as to what course they should follow. In light of the difficulty in reconstructing the historical situation in detail, it is best to use a translation which maintains as many of the various options as possible. For this reason the translation “Therefore I conclude” has been used, leaving open the question whether in reaching this conclusion James is speaking only for himself or for the rest of the leadership.

(0.22) (Joh 1:13)

tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek thelēmatos andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anēr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

(0.22) (Luk 24:53)

tc The Western text (D it) has αἰνοῦντες (ainountes, “praising”) here, while the Alexandrian mss (P75 א B C* L) have εὐλογοῦντες (eulogountes, “blessing”). Most mss, especially the later Byzantine mss, evidently combine these two readings with αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (A C2 W Θ Ψ ƒ1,13 33 M lat). It is more difficult to decide between the two earlier readings. Internal arguments can go either way, but what seems decisive in this instance are the superior witnesses for εὐλογοῦντες.

(0.22) (Luk 7:19)

tc ‡ Although most mss (א A W Θ Ψ ƒ1 M it sy bo) read πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν (pros ton Iēsoun, “to Jesus”), other significant witnesses (B L Ξ ƒ13 33 sa) read πρὸς τὸν κύριον (pros ton kurion, “to the Lord”). A decision is difficult in this instance, as there are good witnesses on both sides. In light of this, that “Jesus” is more widespread than “the Lord” with almost equally significant witnesses argues for its authenticity.

(0.22) (Mat 6:1)

tc ‡ Several mss (א L Z Θ ƒ1 33 892 1241 1424) have δέ (de, “but, now”) at the beginning of this verse; the reading without δέ is supported by B D W 0250 ƒ13 565 579 700 M lat. A decision is difficult, but the conjunction seems to have been added by later scribes to indicate a transition in the thought-flow of the Sermon on the Mount. NA28 has δέ in brackets, indicating reservations about its authenticity.

(0.22) (Hos 11:8)

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.

(0.22) (Lam 2:6)

tn The verb נָאַץ (naʾats, “to spurn, show contempt”) functions as a metonymy of cause (= to spurn king and priests) for effect (= to reject them; cf. CEV). Since spurning is the cause, this may be understood as “to reject with a negative attitude.” However, retaining “spurn” in the translation keeps the term emotionally loaded. The most frequent term for נָאַץ (naʾats) in the LXX (παροξύνω, paroxunō) also conveys emotion beyond a decision to reject.

(0.22) (Isa 27:9)

tn Heb “and this [is] all the fruit of removing his sin.” The meaning of the statement is not entirely clear, though “removing his sin” certainly parallels “Jacob’s sin will be removed” in the preceding line. If original, “all the fruit” may refer to the result of the decision to remove sin, but the phrase may be a textual variation of an original לְכַפֵּר (lekhapper, “to atone for”), which in turn might be a gloss on הָסִר (hasir, “removing”).

(0.22) (Pro 28:27)

tn Heb “hides his eyes”; “to them” is supplied in the translation to indicate the link with the poor in the preceding line. Hiding or closing the eyes is a metonymy of cause or of adjunct, indicating a decision not to look on and thereby help the poor. It could also be taken as an implied comparison, i.e., not helping the poor is like closing the eyes to them.

(0.22) (Pro 25:3)

sn The proverb is affirming a simple fact: The king’s plans and decisions are beyond the comprehension of the common people. While the king would make many things clear to the people, there are other things that are “above their heads” or “too deep for them.” They are unsearchable because of his superior wisdom, his caprice, or his need for secrecy. Inscrutability is sometimes necessary to keep a firm grip on power.

(0.22) (Job 6:10)

sn The “words” are the divine decrees of God’s providence, the decisions that he makes in his dealings with people. Job cannot conceal these—he knows what they are. What Job seems to mean by this clause in this verse is that there is nothing that would hinder his joy of dying for he has not denied or disobeyed God’s plan.

(0.22) (1Sa 1:19)

tn The verbs זָכַר (zakar) is often translated “remember.” It does not simply mean the ability to recall (as “forgetting” does not simply mean the inability to recall). It means the decision to recall or to bear in mind, here with regard to her previous request. The Hebrew verb is often used in the OT for considering the needs or desires of people with favor and kindness.

(0.22) (Deu 7:3)

sn Heb “Do not give your daughter to his son.” The command (beginning at 7:1) is given in the singular form of “you” to emphasize individual responsibility. At this point, the Hebrew also switches from the plural (see previous clause) to the singular in reference to the Canaanite sons and daughters. While the principle applies to everyone in the nation, the rhetorical presentation is of an individual father making a decision about his specific child and a particular potential spouse.

(0.22) (Num 16:28)

tn The Hebrew text simply has כִּי־לֹא מִלִּבִּי (ki loʾ millibbi, “for not from my heart”). The heart is the center of the will, the place decisions are made (see H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament). Moses is saying that the things he has done have not come “from the will of man” so to speak—and certainly not from some secret desire on his part to seize power.

(0.22) (Exo 33:3)

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.

(0.22) (Exo 28:15)

tn Heb “a breastpiece of decision” (חֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט, khoshen mishpat; so NAB). The first word, rendered “breastpiece,” is of uncertain etymology. This item was made of material similar to the ephod. It had four rows of three gems on it, bearing the names of the tribes. In it were the urim and thummim. J. P. Hyatt refers to a similar object found in the Egyptian reliefs, including even the twisted gold chains used to hang it from the priest (Exodus [NCBC], 282).

(0.19) (1Jo 3:19)

tn Further difficulties are created by the meaning of καρδία (kardia) in 3:19. Although it may be agreed that the term generally refers to the “center and source of the whole inner life, w. its thinking, feeling, and volition” (BDAG 508 s.v. l.b), this may be further subdivided into references to (a) “the faculty of thought…as the organ of natural and spiritual enlightenment,” that is, the mind; (b) “the will and its decisions”; (c) “the emotions, wishes, desires,” i.e., the emotions or feelings; or (d) “moral decisions, the moral life,” that is, the part of the individual where moral decisions are made, which is commonly called the conscience. Thus καρδία in 3:19 could refer to either the mind, the will, the emotions, or the conscience, and it is not transparently clear which concept the author has primarily in view. In light of the overall context, which seems to discuss the believer’s assurance of his or her standing before God (ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ [emprosthen autou] in 3:19 and the mention of παρρησία [parrēsia, “boldness” or “confidence”] in 3:21) it seems probable that the conscience, that aspect of one’s καρδία which involves moral choices and the guilt or approval for having made them, is primarily in view here. Thus the meaning “convince” is preferred for the verb πείθω (peithō), since the overall subject seems to be the believer’s assurance of his or her standing before God, especially in the case when (v. 20) the believer’s conscience attempts to condemn him on account of sin.

(0.19) (Jud 1:18)

tc The ὅτι (hoti) before ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου χρόνου (ep eschatou chronou, “at the end of time”), found in the NA27 text, can either be translated as “that” or left untranslated as a marker of direct discourse. The NA28 has dropped the ὅτι, though with a diamond preceding it in the apparatus indicating a toss-up on the initial wording. Without the conjunction, direct discourse is surely meant, and with it it is just as likely as indirect discourse. The translation above makes no decision on the presence or absence of the conjunction, but renders either variant as direct discourse.

(0.19) (1Jo 2:19)

sn All of them do not belong to us. The opponents chose to depart rather than remain in fellowship with the community to which the author writes and with which he associates himself. This demonstrates conclusively to the author that they never really belonged to that community at all (in spite of what they were claiming). 1 John 2:19 indicates that the departure was apparently the opponents’ own decision rather than being thrown out or excommunicated. But for John, if they had been genuine believers, they would have remained in fellowship. Now they have gone out into the world, where they belong (compare 1 John 4:5).



TIP #13: Chapter View to explore chapters; Verse View for analyzing verses; Passage View for displaying list of verses. [ALL]
created in 0.07 seconds
powered by bible.org