Discovery Box| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 13:17) |
3 tn Heb “the priest shall pronounce the infection clean,” but see v. 4 above. Also, this is another use of the declarative Piel of the verb טָהֵר (taher, cf. the note on v. 6 above). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 13:20) |
1 tn Heb “and the priest shall see.” The pronoun “it” is unexpressed, but it should be assumed and it refers to the infection (cf. the note on v. 8 above). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 15:23) |
2 tn The MT accent suggest that “when he touches it” goes with the preceding line, but it seems to be better to take it as an introduction to what follows (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 202). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 16:13) |
2 tn Heb “and he will not die,” but it is clear that the purpose for the incense cloud was to protect the priest from death in the presence of the |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 17:13) |
1 tc A few medieval Hebrew |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 19:14) |
2 tn Heb “And you shall fear.” Many English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV) regard the Hebrew conjunction ו (vav, “and”) as adversative in force here (“but”). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 21:1) |
2 tn Heb “no one,” but “priest” has been used in the translation to clarify that these restrictions are limited to the priests, not to the Israelites in general (note the introductory formula, “say to the priests, the sons of Aaron”). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 22:4) |
1 tn Heb “Man man.” The reduplication is a way of saying “any man” (cf. Lev 15:2; 17:3, etc.), but with a negative command it means “No man” (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 147). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 24:7) |
1 tn This is not just any “incense” (קְטֹרֶת, qÿtoret; R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 3:913-16), but specifically “frankincense” (לְבֹנָה, lÿvonah; R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:756-57). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 24:10) |
2 tn Heb “the Israelite man,” but Smr has no article, and the point is that there was a conflict between the man of mixed background and a man of full Israelite descent. |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 24:21) |
2 tn Heb “and,” but here the Hebrew conjunction ו (vav, “and”) is adversative, contrasting the consequences of beating an animal to death with those of beating a person to death. |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 25:9) |
1 sn On the “loud horn blasts” see the note on Lev 23:24, but unlike the language there, the Hebrew term for “horn” (שׁוֹפָר, shofar) actually appears here in this verse (twice). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 25:36) |
2 tn In form the Hebrew term וְחֵי (vÿkhey, “shall live”) is the construct plural noun (i.e., “the life of”), but here it is used as the finite verb (cf. v. 35 and GKC 218 §76.i). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 26:9) |
1 tn Heb “cause to arise,” but probably used here for the |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Lev 27:19) |
3 tn Heb “and it shall rise to him.” See HALOT 1087 s.v. קום 7 for the rendering offered here, but see also the note on the end of v. 14 above (cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 476, 478). |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Num 1:5) |
1 tn The verb is עָמַד (’amad, “to stand”). It literally then is, “who will stand with you.” They will help in the count, but they will also serve as leaders as the camp moves from place to place. |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Num 3:8) |
1 tn The construction uses the infinitive construct (epexegetically) followed by its cognate accusative. It would convey “to serve the service of the tabernacle,” but more simply it may be rendered as “serving.” Their spiritual and practical service is to serve. |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Num 3:17) |
1 tn The word “sons of” does at the outset refer to the sons of Levi. But as the listing continues the expression refers more to the family groups of the various descendants. |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Num 4:15) |
1 tn The verb form is the Piel perfect with a vav (ו) consecutive; it continues the future sequence, but in this verse forms a subordinate clause to the parallel sequential verb to follow. |
| (0.50493204545455) | (Num 5:15) |
2 tn The Hebrew word is “jealousy,” which also would be an acceptable translation here. But since the connotation is that suspicion has been raised about the other person, “suspicion” seems to be a better rendering in this context. |
