Discovery Box| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 4:15) |
2 sn The function of the band of iron and bronze is not entirely clear, but it may have had to do with preventing the splitting or further deterioration of the portion of the tree that was left after being chopped down. By application it would then refer to the preservation of Nebuchadnezzar’s life during the time of his insanity. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 7:1) |
3 tn Aram “and visions of his head.” The Aramaic is difficult here. Some scholars add a verb thought to be missing (e.g., “the visions of his head [were alarming him]”), but there is no external evidence to support such a decision and the awkwardness of the text at this point may be original. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 7:5) |
2 sn The three ribs held securely in the mouth of the bear, perhaps representing Media-Persia, apparently symbolize military conquest, but the exact identity of the “ribs” is not clear. Possibly it is a reference to the Persian conquest of Lydia, Egypt, and Babylonia. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 7:9) |
2 tn Traditionally the Aramaic word נְקֵא (nÿqe’) has been rendered “pure,” but here it more likely means “of a lamb.” Cf. the Syriac neqya’ (“a sheep, ewe”). On this word see further, M. Sokoloff, “’amar neqe’, ‘Lamb’s Wool’ (Dan 7:9),” JBL 95 (1976): 277-79. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (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.” |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 8:2) |
3 tn The Hebrew word בִּירָה (birah, “castle, palace”) usually refers to a fortified structure within a city, but here it is in apposition to the city name Susa and therefore has a broader reference to the entire city (against this view, however, see BDB 108 s.v. 2). Cf. NAB “the fortress of Susa”; TEV “the walled city of Susa.” |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 8:12) |
2 tn Heb “in (the course of) rebellion.” The meaning of the phrase is difficult to determine. It could mean “due to rebellion,” referring to the failures of the Jews, but this is not likely since it is not a point made elsewhere in the book. The phrase more probably refers to the rebellion against God and the atrocities against the Jews epitomized by Antiochus. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 9:26) |
1 sn The expression have nothing is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting a vicarious death, cannot be defended. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 9:27) |
2 tn The referent of the Hebrew word כְּנַף (kÿnaf, “wing”) is unclear here. The LXX and Theodotion have “the temple.” Some English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV) take this to mean “a wing of the temple,” but this is not clear. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Dan 10:6) |
1 tn The Hebrew word translated “yellow jasper” is תַּרשִׁישׁ (tarshish); it appears to be a semiprecious stone, but its exact identity is somewhat uncertain. It may be the yellow jasper, although this is conjectural. Cf. NAB, NIV “chrysolite”; NASB, NRSV “beryl.” |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 2:7) |
2 tn In the Hebrew text the accusative direct object pronoun אֹתָם (’otam, “them”) is omitted/elided for balanced poetic parallelism. The LXX supplies αὐτους (autous, “them”); but it is not necessary to emend the MT because this is a poetic literary convention rather than a textual problem. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 2:7) |
4 tn Heb “to my man, the first.” Many English translations (e.g., KJV, NAB, NRSV, TEV) take this as “my first husband,” although this implies that there was more than one husband involved. The text refers to multiple lovers, but these were not necessarily husbands. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 2:13) |
3 tn The accusative direct object pronoun וְאֹתִי (vé’oti, “me”) is emphatic in the word order of this clause (cf. NIV “but me she forgot”), emphasizing the heinous inappropriateness of Israel’s departure from the |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 5:3) |
2 tn The phrase “the evil of” does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied by the metonymical (cause-effect) use of the term “Israel.” It is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. Cf. NCV “what they have done is not hidden from me.” |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 5:6) |
3 tn Heb “the |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 10:8) |
1 tn Alternately, “Aven” (KJV, NAB, NRSV, NLT) for the city name “Beth Aven.” The term “Beth” (house) does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied (e.g., Hos 4:15). It is supplied in the translation for clarity. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 12:6) |
3 tn The phrase “to return to you” does not appear in the Hebrew text but is implied; it is provided in the translation for clarity. This ellipsis fills out the implicit connotations of the verb קָוָה (qavah, “to wait for”). |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Hos 13:1) |
1 sn In Hosea the name “Ephraim” does not refer to the tribe, but to the region of Mount Ephraim where the royal residence of Samaria was located. It functions as a synecdoche of location (Mount Ephraim) for its inhabitants (the king of Samaria; e.g., 5:13; 8:8, 10). |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Joe 1:7) |
1 tn Heb “it.” Throughout vv. 6-7 the Hebrew uses singular forms to describe the locust swarm, but the translation uses plural forms because several details of the text make more sense in English as if they are describing the appearance and effects of individual locusts. |
| (0.47155097727273) | (Joe 1:13) |
1 tn Heb “put on.” There is no object present in the Hebrew text, but many translations assume “sackcloth” to be the understood object of the verb “put on.” Its absence in the Hebrew text of v. 13 is probably due to metrical considerations. The meter here is 3 + 3, and that has probably influenced the prophet’s choice of words. |
