Discovery Box| (0.48922404347826) | (Eze 24:21) |
2 sn Heb “the delight of your eyes.” Just as Ezekiel was deprived of his beloved wife (v. 16, the “desire” of his “eyes”) so the Lord would be forced to remove the object of his devotion, the temple, which symbolized his close relationship to his covenant people. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Eze 28:3) |
1 sn Or perhaps “Danel” (so TEV), referring to a ruler known from Canaanite legend. See the note on “Daniel” in 14:14. A reference to Danel (preserved in legend at Ugarit, near the northern end of the Phoenician coast) makes more sense here when addressing Tyre than in 14:14. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Eze 28:10) |
1 sn The Phoenicians practiced circumcision, so the language here must be figurative, indicating that they would be treated in a disgraceful manner. Uncircumcised peoples were viewed as inferior, unclean, and perhaps even sub-human. See 31:18 and 32:17-32, as well as the discussion in D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:99. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Eze 32:27) |
1 tc Heb “of the uncircumcised.” The LXX reads, probably correctly, “from of old” rather than “of the uncircumcised.” The phrases are very similar in spelling. The warriors of Meshech-Tubal are described as uncircumcised, so it would be odd for them to not be buried with the uncircumcised. Verse 28 specifically says that they would lie with the uncircumcised. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Dan 4:13) |
2 tn Aram “a watcher and a holy one.” The expression is a hendiadys; so also in v. 23. This “watcher” is apparently an angel. The Greek OT (LXX) in fact has ἄγγελος (angelo", “angel”) here. Theodotion simply transliterates the Aramaic word (’ir). The term is sometimes rendered “sentinel” (NAB) or “messenger” (NIV, NLT). |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Dan 7:7) |
2 sn The fourth animal differs from the others in that it is nondescript. Apparently it was so fearsome that Daniel could find nothing with which to compare it. Attempts to identify this animal as an elephant or other known creature are conjectural. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Dan 7:25) |
1 tn Aram “wear out” (so KJV, ASV, NRSV); NASB, NLT “wear down.” The word is a hapax legomenon in biblical Aramaic, but in biblical Hebrew it especially refers to wearing out such things as garments. Here it is translated “harass…continually.” |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Hos 2:23) |
2 tn The Hebrew text, carrying out the reference to the son born in 1:8-9, uses the third person masculine singular pronoun here; some English translations use third person plural (“they,” so KJV, NASB, NIV, CEV) in keeping with the immediate context, which refers to reestablished Israel. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Hos 4:11) |
1 tn Heb “take away the heart of my people.” The present translation assumes that the first word of v. 12 in the Hebrew text is to be construed with the noun at the end of v. 11 (so also TEV, CEV, NLT). |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Hos 5:10) |
1 tn Heb “like water” (so KJV, NAB, NRSV); NLT “like a waterfall.” The term מַיִם (mayim, “water”) often refers to literal flood waters (Gen 7:7, 10; 8:3, 7-9; Isa 54:9) and figuratively describes the |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Hos 7:5) |
2 tc The MT preserves the awkward 1st person common plural suffix reading מַלְכֵּנוּ (malakenu, “our king”). The BHS editors suggest reading the 3rd person masculine plural suffix מַלְכָּם (malkam, “their king”; so CEV), as reflected in the Aramaic Targum. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Hos 9:8) |
7 tn Heb “house.” The term בַּיִת (bayit, “house”) is used as a figure of speech, referring to either (1) the temple or official sanctuaries (so TEV, CEV) or (2) the land of Israel (e.g., Hos 9:15). |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Hos 11:5) |
3 tn Heb “return” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV). The root שׁוּב (shuv, “to turn, return”) appears at the beginning and ending of this verse, creating an inclusio. This repetition produces an ironic wordplay: because Israel refuses to “return” to God or “turn” from its sin, it will “return” to Egypt. The punishment fits the crime. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Joe 1:8) |
4 sn Heb “the husband of her youth.” The woman described here may already be married, so the reference is to the death of a husband rather than a fiancé (a husband-to-be). Either way, the simile describes a painful and unexpected loss to which the national tragedy Joel is describing may be compared. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Joe 1:19) |
2 sn Fire here and in v. 20 is probably not to be understood in a literal sense. The locust plague, accompanied by conditions of extreme drought, has left the countryside looking as though everything has been burned up (so also in Joel 2:3). |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Joe 1:20) |
2 tn Heb “long for you.” Animals of course do not have religious sensibilities as such; they do not in any literal sense long for Yahweh. Rather, the language here is figurative (metonymy of cause for effect). The animals long for food and water (so BDB 788 s.v. עָרַג), the ultimate source of which is Yahweh. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Joe 2:1) |
1 tn The word translated “trumpet” here (so most English versions) is the Hebrew שׁוֹפָר (shofar). The shophar was a wind instrument made from a cow or ram’s horn and used as a military instrument for calling people to attention in the face of danger or as a religious instrument for calling people to occasions of communal celebration. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Joe 2:17) |
1 tn Heb “between the vestibule and the altar.” The vestibule was located at the entrance of the temple and the altar was located at the other end of the building. So “between the vestibule and the altar” is a merism referring to the entire structure. The priestly lament permeates the entire house of worship. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Amo 1:5) |
4 tn Heb “valley of wickedness.” Though many English versions take the Hebrew phrase בִקְעַת־אָוֶן (biq’-at ’aven) as a literal geographical place name (“Valley of Aven,” so NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT), it appears to be a derogatory epithet for Damascus and the kingdom of Aram. |
| (0.48922404347826) | (Amo 5:25) |
1 tn Heb “Did you bring me…?” This rhetorical question expects a negative answer. The point seems to be this: Since sacrifices did not characterize God’s relationship with Israel during the nation’s formative years, the people should not consider them to be so fundamental. The |
