The verses which speak of Athaliah's being put to death use the Hebrew word "muwth" (H4191) which is not the word "murder" (H7523, "ratsach") in Hebrew that is forbidden in the Ten Commandments.
Then Jehoiada the priest brought out the captains of hundreds that
were set over the host, and said unto them, Have her forth of the
Any King or Queen Could be Considered God's Anointed
The only explanation I can think of, and it is not very satisfying, is that any monarch could be considered to be God's anointed, and in the words of David, one should "not stretch out [his] hand against the LORD's anointed."
Other Monarchs Were Executed
God sanctioned of other monarchs, e.g. ...
Textually, it's all demonstrable transliteration - the LXX records the pre-Christian tradition of Joshua being translated as Yeasu:
καὶ ἐνετείλατο Ἰησοῦς τοῗς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων (Joshua 1:10)
Christians were then simply following the pre-existing tradition of translating Joshua's name, and were not adding any new meaning which had not been ...
I've actually read quite a lot of crazy alternate explanations for Jesus greek name but usually its something silly with very little plausibility. The only interesting one that seemed plausable was a connection of the name to a preexisting deity in the Greek Pantheon called Ieso or in Greek "Ἰησώ".
This deity is a child of the Greek God of Medicine ...
Let's take a look at the title the anointed one in the OT,
2 Chronicles 6:
LORD God, do not reject your anointed one. Remember the great love promised to David your servant.”
The Hebrew word is H4899 מָשִׁיחַ mashiach.
LXX uses G5547 Χριστός Christos
This title is served a name as well, Acts 2:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of ...
In the Old Testament, the name "Joshua" comes in at least two forms. We see them both in Numbers 13:16.
These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land.
And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua. (Numbers 13:16, KJV)
The word "Joshua/Jehoshua" is said to mean "Jehovah is salvation." But there are ...
This is a very good question, because the words appear to have identical spelling/appearance.
The two Hebrew words are understood to express a subtly different concept based on their context. The interlinear grammatical notes give the following bits of information.
Proverbs 8:4 has אֶקְרָ֑א, which is a Qal imperfect verb in first-person common singular.
What is the justification for substituting "Christ" for "the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 10:9 and Jesus for "the Lord" in Jude 1:5?
As to the translation of 1 Corinthians 10:9, note what is stated in the Appendix C3 "Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of 1 ...
1 Cor 10:9
There is a textual matter here - the NA28/UBS5, W&H, Byzantine, Orthodox, TR texts all have "Christ". However, a number of important MSS have "Lord" and this has been followed by W&H which influenced some modern versions. For details of which MSS have which reading, see UBS5.
This is another textual problem ...
**1 COR 10:9 ** nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;
‘Christ’ - christos - ‘anointed’.
Found 569 times in the New Testament. And translated ‘Christ’ 569 times in the NKJV. Strong’s concordance doesn’t even have ‘Lord’ in the range of meanings.
So, what justification is there that some translations use ‘Lord’? ...
Was Jesus personally present in these events?
What we know for sure is from the Gospels which tell us when Jesus - the Christ, came to be. He was born of Mary, so he cannot have been with the Israelites in the dessert while they were encountering the serpents.
Is there another Jesus? Another Christ? Not according to the scriptures. Nor are we told of this ...
Saul's royal court governed a country of many millions of people which would have required both a central and distributed bureaucracy or reasonable size. David, when he began his service as a court musician (1 Sam 16:19-23), would have been a very minor court official with the most perfunctory (brief with minimal details) introduction to Saul. This would ...
Is it possible that King Saul merely asks who David's father was in 1 Samuel 17 for rhetorical effect in response to seeing how a young shepherd boy like David killed a giant named Goliath?
1 Samuel 17:
55 Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this young man?”
2And he said, The Lord is come from Sina, and has appeared from Seir to us, and has hasted out of the mount of Pharan, with the ten thousands of Cades; on his right hand were his angels with him.
I consider any translation derived from the Masoretic text suspect. However, that's all we've got (as someone pointed out, above). So, I think ...
There is no personal pronoun in 2 Thessalonians 2:
7 τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται
Let's look at the genders:
For the mystery [neuter] of lawlessness [feminine] is already at work; only He who now restrains
the [one who]
Article - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 3588: The, the ...
το γαρ μυστηριον ηδη ενεργειται της ανομιας μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται [2 Thess 2:7 TR (undisputed) Beza, Stephanus, Elzevir and Scrivener all identical]
The literal reading of this (partly taken from the Englishman's Greek New Testament of 1870) gives :
For the mystery already is working the iniquity only who restrains at present until out ...
The translations are not so different from one another as they might, at first, otherwise seem.
The first two main differences are found in the phrase "ten thousands" and "myriads" and "saints" and "holy ones".
The key here is knowing that the word myriad originally meant ten thousand, and then later, any sufficiently ...
Psalm 141:5 New American Standard Bible 1995
5a Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me;
NASB translated from the LXX:
παιδεύσει με δίκαιος ἐν ἐλέει καὶ ἐλέγξει με
On the other hand,
Psalm 141:5 New King James Version
5a Let the righteous strike me; It shall be a kindness.
let his ...
The difference in translations depend on whether the negative וְאַל (= and not) is considered extended to the following verb וִיהִ֥י (= let be).
Note the suggestion of the Pulpit commentary:
Verse 6. - And let not his men be few. The negative, though not
expressed in the Hebrew, is to be carried into this clause from the
Ellicott is similar:
To help the English reader.
In the original manuscripts they don't exist.
There are times you can totally disregard them.
They don't add any understanding in scriptures.
I sometimes find people using them as a crowbar to pry
in doctrinal ideas not actually expressed in The Bible.
But they will say look a mark, I can throw this (insert denominational doctrine)...
NIV Genesis 30:
Then Leah said, “What good fortune!” So she named him Gad.
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 1409: Fortune, good fortune
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 1410: Gad -- a son of Jacob, also his tribe and its territory, also a prophet
It was a play on words גָ֑ד and גָּֽד sound ...
It's considered a figure of speech (Meiosis).
You've probably used this phrase at least once or have heard someone use it, the dog's bark is bigger than its bite, much less a dead dog.
And a flea bite is harmless. In this David expresses his humility;
he's harmless to Saul. David respected Saul and would never kill God's anointed.
I recall Saul was to step ...
With the terms "dead dog and one flea" David demeaned himself to emphasize how useless Saul's pursuit of him was. In the MT v15 (v14 in English translations) is almost a tongue twister.
כֶּ֫לֶב ... b. applied, fig., to men, in contempt 1 S 17:43, so of psalmist’s enemies ψ 22:17, 21, or in excessive humility 2 K 8:13; still more emphatically כ׳ ...
David used the art of rhetoric in 1 Samuel 24:
14 After whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog, a single flea?
Before the majesty of King Saul, David was nothing but a dead dog or a flea. There was no point for Saul to mobilize his glorious army to pursue a powerless and insignificant David. The rhetoric worked:
16 When ...
I suppose the Bible reader could infer/deduce that when David uses the metaphor "a single flea" for himself as meaning that King Saul is attacking David for David's minor flaws/faults. Therefore, one could say that David is complaining to King Saul that Saul's violent actions against David are disproportionate because David's flaws/faults are ...