Genesis 3:6

3:6 When ¹  the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, ²  was attractive ³  to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, ⁴  she took some of its fruit and ate it. ⁵  She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. ⁶ 

Genesis 39:6-7

39:6 So Potiphar ⁷  left ⁸  everything he had in Joseph’s care; ⁹  he gave no thought ¹⁰  to anything except the food he ate. ¹¹ 

Now Joseph was well built and good-looking. ¹²  39:7 Soon after these things, his master’s wife took notice of ¹³  Joseph and said, “Have sex with me.” ¹⁴ 

Genesis 39:2

39:2 The Lord was with Joseph. He was successful ¹⁵  and lived ¹⁶  in the household of his Egyptian master.

Genesis 11:2

11:2 When the people ¹⁷  moved eastward, ¹⁸  they found a plain in Shinar ¹⁹  and settled there.

Job 31:1

Job Vindicates Himself

31:1 “I made a covenant with ²⁰  my eyes;

how then could I entertain thoughts against a virgin? ²¹ 

Job 31:1

Job Vindicates Himself

31:1 “I made a covenant with ²²  my eyes;

how then could I entertain thoughts against a virgin? ²³ 

Job 2:1

Satan’s Additional Charge

2:1 Again the day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also arrived among them to present himself before the Lord. ²⁴ 

[3:6]  ¹ tn Heb “And the woman saw.” The clause can be rendered as a temporal clause subordinate to the following verb in the sequence.

[3:6]  ² tn Heb “that the tree was good for food.” The words “produced fruit that was” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.

[3:6]  ³ tn The Hebrew word תַּאֲוָה (ta’avah, translated “attractive” here) actually means “desirable.” This term and the later term נֶחְמָד (nekhmad, “desirable”) are synonyms.

[3:6]  ⁴ tn Heb “that good was the tree for food, and that desirable it was to the eyes, and desirable was the tree to make one wise.” On the connection between moral wisdom and the “knowledge of good and evil,” see the note on the word “evil” in 2:9.

[3:6]  ⁵ tn The pronoun “it” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied (here and also after “ate” at the end of this verse) for stylistic reasons.

[3:6]  ⁶ sn This pericope (3:1-7) is a fine example of Hebrew narrative structure. After an introductory disjunctive clause that introduces a new character and sets the stage (3:1), the narrative tension develops through dialogue, culminating in the action of the story. Once the dialogue is over, the action is told in a rapid sequence of verbs – she took, she ate, she gave, and he ate.

[39:6]  ⁷ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Potiphar) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[39:6]  ⁸ sn The Hebrew verb translated left indicates he relinquished the care of it to Joseph. This is stronger than what was said earlier. Apparently Potiphar had come to trust Joseph so much that he knew it was in better care with Joseph than with anyone else.

[39:6]  ⁹ tn Heb “hand.” This is a metonymy for being under the control or care of Joseph.

[39:6]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “did not know.”

[39:6]  ¹¹ sn The expression except the food he ate probably refers to Potiphar’s private affairs and should not be limited literally to what he ate.

[39:6]  ¹² tn Heb “handsome of form and handsome of appearance.” The same Hebrew expressions were used in Gen 29:17 for Rachel.

[39:7]  ¹³ tn Heb “she lifted up her eyes toward,” an expression that emphasizes her deliberate and careful scrutiny of him.

[39:7]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “lie with me.” Here the expression “lie with” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

[39:2]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “and he was a prosperous man.” This does not mean that Joseph became wealthy, but that he was successful in what he was doing, or making progress in his situation (see 24:21).

[39:2]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “and he was.”

[11:2]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “they”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:2]  ¹⁸ tn Or perhaps “from the east” (NRSV) or “in the east.”

[11:2]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “in the land of Shinar.”

[31:1]  ²⁰ tn The idea of cutting a covenant for something may suggest a covenant that is imposed, except that this construction elsewhere argues against it (see 2 Chr 29:10).

[31:1]  ²¹ tn This half-verse is the effect of the covenant. The interrogative מָה (mah) may have the force of the negative, and so be translated “not to pay attention.”

[31:1]  ²² tn The idea of cutting a covenant for something may suggest a covenant that is imposed, except that this construction elsewhere argues against it (see 2 Chr 29:10).

[31:1]  ²³ tn This half-verse is the effect of the covenant. The interrogative מָה (mah) may have the force of the negative, and so be translated “not to pay attention.”

[2:1]  ²⁴ tc This last purpose clause has been omitted in some Greek versions.