Love ka prov

James K. A. Smith (PhD, Villanova University [congratulations!]) is professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he also holds the Gary and Henrietta Byker Chair in Applied Reformed Theology and Worldview. He is also the editor of Comment magazine. His latest book, You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit (Brazos, 2016), releases today. en She later wrote to him: “Even though I thanked you very much that day, I also thanked Jehovah for using your kindness to remind me of his love.” —Prov. jw2019 luo Bang’e ne ondikone barua kowacho kama: “Kata obedo ni ne agoyoni erokamano ahinya chieng’no, bende ne agoyo ne Jehova erokamano kuom parona hera ma en-go, kotiyo gi ng ... Twilight meets Outlander. “TWILIGHT MEETS OUTLANDER” Experience the USA Today bestselling novel taking the world by storm! With over 3000 world-wide 5 star reviews, Vampire Girl puts a new twist on an old tale.For fans of Twilight, A Shade of Vampire, and Outlander, comes a new series that will suck you in and leave you wanting more. Amazon top 100 bestseller Rybárske články a blogy o love kaprov a love na boilies. Pár slov na úvod. Informácie, ktoré obsahuje tento článok nie sú z mojej hlavy, ale vďaka veľmi priaznivým okolnostiam sa mi dostala do rúk kniha, ktorá je skutočne cenným zdrojom informácií aj dnes v roku 2012. Naše Hookbaits sú extrémne atraktívne boilies dipované namáčaním a tvrdené sušením, aby vydržali na vlasovej montáží 24 h. Objavte Hookbaits, silno dipované boilies, aby ich kapry pri love ľahko a rýchlo našli. Erotic love is at the forefront of all three of the stories that I have examined. This is because it is a human reality that no society is able to ignore. Societies and governments are always faced anew with the task of how they are going to address this force. Love Ka-Prow! They clearly mark their gf dishes on the menu, have gf soy sauce and can make certain sushi rolls gf. All of the waitresses are very knowledgable and careful. Highly recommend Ka-Prow. Celiac friendly? Yes Updated 5 years ago read full review. Stevie. Overall Rating. Pri love na položenú sa používajú dlhšie prúty s väčšou gramážou návnada sa pomocou záťaže fixuje pri dne prípadne tesne nad dno jedná sa o viac menej statický rybolov. Naopak lov na plávanú je aktívnejší je jednoduchšie meniť miesto lovu, hĺbku umiestnenia nástrahy. Používajú sa menšie prúty s menšou gramážou. Mnoho rybárov si pod lovom na ťažko vybaví lov s teleskopickým prútom, krmítkom, fúkanou kukuricou na háčiku a klasickým „policajtom“. Iste, je to asi najrozšírenejší spôsob lovu kaprov a v období detského veku s ním začínalo veľa rybárov. Doba však pokročila a „lov na ťažko“ dostal nové podoby.

Job 40 - Behemoth and Leviathan

2019.08.25 01:22 bikingfencer Job 40 - Behemoth and Leviathan

Chapter Forty  
“In chaps. [chapters] 40-41, the chapter divisions (established in the 13th cent. [century] AD) and the verse numeration (16th cent.) are unhappily varied and may cause confusion in references. Our commentary uses the numeration of the Hebr [Hebrew] text, as followed by the NAB [New American Bible].” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 487)  
-1. And responded, YHVH, to [את, ’ehTh] ’eeYOB [Job] and he said,  
“The introduction (40:1), which interrupts Yahweh’s speech, creates a difficulty. Like similar anomalies in 27:1 … and 29:1, and the repetition in 40:6-7, it may be a sign of textual disorder… In any case, the Lord begins again in a second speech (40:6-41:34).” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 487)  
-2. “The contender with ShahDa-eeY ["My Breasts", the nurturing aspect of God];
returner [יסור, YeeÇOR] [of] argument [מוכיח, MOKheeYaKh],
[to] ’eLOHah [God] will respond.”  
Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? This translation is based upon the Masoretic pointing which understands the word רב (rôbh) as an infinitive absolute of the verb ריב [ReeYB], ‘to contend,’ and the hapax legomoenon [unique occurrence of] יסור (yiṣṣôr) as a noun derived from the verb יסר [YaÇaR], meaning ‘to yield,’ ‘to cease,’ ‘to desist’ (cf. [compare with] Isa. [Isaiah]11:13; Amos 6:7): thus one obtains a perfect parallelism of grammatical construction between vs. [verse] 2a and vs. 2b, as follows: ‘Will he who disputes with the Almighty yield? Will he who reproves God answer these things?’” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1182)  
-3. And responded, ’eeYOB, to [את, ’ehTh] YHVH and he said,  
-4. “Lo, I am a lightweight [קלתי QaLohThiY],
what can I return to you?
My hand I put to my mouth.
-5. Once I spoke, and I will not respond,
and twice, and I will not continue.  
Behold, I am of small account (vs. 4a; קלתי, ‘I am light, insignificant)… Job slowly discovers his proper place in the universe… His religion is undergoing a process of purification as little by little he abandons the position of paganism (idolatry of the self) and moves toward the new realm of authentic monotheism. He is gradually passing from an egocentric to a theocentric view of the world and of existence. He is not ready, however, to proceed from a confession of insignificance to a confession of repentance, because he has not yet grasped in its full import his confrontation with God (42:5-6). … His silence, however, is not one of dumbness. He could speak, but he refrains… The poet admirably succeeds in suggesting that humility does not come easily to a man of Job’s caliber, buffeted by pain and unbowed by the most horrible series of physical and mental tortures. If this exegesis is correct, the presence of a second discourse of Yahweh is quite justified.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1183)  
“… at least, the presence of God from which he had prayed to escape, a presence manifested only by successive blows of calamity and suffering, has changed to a speaking presence, in which Job knows God as addressing him personally and concerned with him as his servant.” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 487)  
“Here we have two very different sections. The speech in 40:8-14 is in the same style as the first speech: ironic questions and invitations addressed to Job, which make evident to the point of absurdity his human inability to ‘be like God.’… Only in 40:15, 25-32 is the style of address and questioning maintained, but even here (and more so in the rest) the tone is didactic and objective; the urgency and challenge of chaps. 38-39 are missing.” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 487)  
“Most modern commentators maintain that the second discourse of Yahweh on Behemoth (40:15-24) and Leviathan (41:1-34) represents a series of later additions, or at any rate is displaced from its original location at the end of the procession of animals (39:30). They argue that … Yahweh’s purpose is already achieved when Job submits (40:3-5)… Yahweh’s renewal of the challenge (40:6-14) is superfluous or even ‘comes perilously near nagging’ (Peake, Job, p. 332)…the development on Behemoth and Leviathan… are poetically inferior to those which precede and written in a different style, thus betraying a separate hand… Yahweh introduces the question of Job’s attacks on divine righteousness (40:8), but in his final answer (42:1-6) Job ignores this question completely and refers only to the might of the Deity…the final confession of Job (42:1-6) is obviously an integral continuation of the first (40:4-5).  
“While it is probable that the developments on Behemoth and Leviathan have been expanded by another poet, and it is possible that various alterations and transpositions have been imposed on the early forms of the MS [manuscript], the fact remains that the order of the present text revels rhetorical skill, psychological perspicacity [perceptiveness1 ]], and theological discernment… Yahweh’s purpose is not achieved when Job submits, because submission … does not mean repentance… consequently, Yahweh’s renewal of the challenge is not superfluous: it is made necessary by the purely negative character of Job’s acceptance of silence… the developments on Behemoth and Leviathan do not constitute merely a continuation of the gallery of animals, but introduce a new meditation on the nature and activity of God, with the help of mythical motifs… the differences of style and poetic ability may easily derive from the difference of subjects, and in any case literary heterogeneity – if demonstrated – is not at this point of direct relevance for the correctness of interpretation, since the exegete must ultimately deal with the book of Job as a finished product of the Joban school… the fact that Job ignores Yahweh’s question concerning divine righteousness is of no significance, since the hero in his final answer stands no longer on the level of intellectual discussion… Job’s last confession is of course an integral continuation of the first but it cannot take place at once: it needs a slow maturing which can occur only during a second discourse of Yahweh, and presumably under its impact. Thus, in addition to dramatic suspense, the separation of Job’s response in two different moments suggests a depth of anguish and a breadth of bewilderment which could not otherwise be communicated to the hearer or reader, and – a most important point – implies that the spiritual phenomenon of repentance includes not only a negative act of silent submission but also a positive recognition of the presence of God; not only an avowal of guilt but also a commitment to the will of God and a dedication to his serve (cf. mutatis mutandis [(“[with the things] to be changed having been changed”)] the medieval distinction between attrition and contrition).” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1183-1184)  
Revelations of [the] strength of the Name  
-6. And responded, YHVH, to [את, ’ehTh] ’eeYOB, from [the] storm [סערה, Çah`ahRaH], and he said,  
-7. “Gird, if you please, like a brave, your loins;
I will ask of you and you make known to me.  
Gird up thy loins] … Some think that this and the preceding verse have been repeated here from chap. [chapter] xxxvii. 1-3, and that several of the words there, here, and chap. xlii. 3. have been repeated, in after times, to connect some false gatherings of the sheets of parchment on which the end of this poem was originally written…” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 875)  
-8. “Would you even violate [תפר, ThahPhayR] my justice,
condemn me that you may be made righteous?  
Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? Vs. 8a… Job indeed has not only asserted his innocence, he has also denied the righteousness of God (9:22; etc.). … the next question will shift the argument from the plane of an academic query to the reality of an existential blow which will strike at the hero’s spirit rather than at his mind. Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? (Vs. 8b) The drama is reaching its theological apex. Job, the paragon of virtue and the example of morality, had expected to receive from God his due. When frustrated, and in all appearances condemned in the eyes of his fellow men and in his own, the alternative left him was either to confess that he had no claim upon God’s bounty or to declare God to be wrong in order to maintain his own self-righteousness. Thus the poet again and most eloquently exposes the sin of Job – not a sin of the horizontal type produced by ethical crimes directed against men, but a sin of the vertical type by which a creature dares to pass judgment upon his God and to indict his Creator… God’s further questioning is therefore infinitely sad, but his irony is not devoid of love and it half reveals compassion.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1185)  
-9. “And if an arm like ‘ayL [God] is to you,
and in a voice like his you thunder [תרעם, ThahR`ayM],
-10. deck [yourself], if you please, [in] majesty [גאון, Gah’ON] and exaltation [וגבה, VahGoBaH],
and [in] glory [והוד, VeHOD] and splendor [והדר, VeHahDaR] dress,
-11. cast [הפץ, HahPhayTs] abroad [עברות, `ahBROTh] your fury,
and see all arrogance [גאה, Gay’eH] and abase it [והשפילהו, VeHahShPeeYLayHOo],
-12. (see all arrogance, subdue it [הכניעהו, HahKhNeeY`ayHOo]),
and tread [והדך, VeHahDoKh] [the] wicked under them,
-13. hide them [טמנם, TahMNayM] in dust together,
their faces bind [חבש, HahBoSh] in hiding,  
Bind their faces in secret.] This seems to refer to the custom of preserving mummies…” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 875)  
-14. “and also I will praise you,
for your right [hand] saves you.  
“‘Then, I, myself, shall praise thee’ (אודך [‘OhDKha, “praise you”]) …thine own right hand can save thee (vs. 14; cf. Ps. [Psalm] 98:1)… a verse which may be considered as the pivot of the book, echoing the question of the Satan (1:9) and preparing the response of the hero (42:6)…Man is aping God whenever he attempts to save himself, i.e. [in other words], whenever he tries to be a man without God (cf. 3:5; cf. also Mark 14:31), the master of his own destiny, the author and fulfiller of his own salvation… The expression אודך ‘I would praise thee,’ is a technical term used in the cultic act by men who sing to God their gratitude (cf. Pss. [Psalms] 18:49; 30:9; etc.). The fact that the poet does not hesitate to lend it to God himself addressing a man provides the final touch of irony. The human hero is indeed offered by God the place of God! ‘The doubter is supposed to … draw the sword of justice, bathe it in the blood of all the wicked. He makes a solitude and calls it peace. He vindicates justice by emptying the world. It is now time for God to raise a paean, either as the ancients did, ‘Euge! macte virtute! [“Joy! More power!”]’ or as the moderns do, ‘See, the conquering hero comes!’… (James Strahan…1913).” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1186)  
“BEHEMOTH (40:15-24)  
“As Job replies nothing, Yahweh continues, according to the present text, with the description of Behemoth. In all probability this section… has been added to the original text by a wise man of the Joban school who interpreted Leviathan (41:1-34) as a crocodile of mythical proportion and thought that its Egyptian counterpart the mythical hippopotamus, was unfortunately absent. Both figures are found side by side or fighting together on many frescoes of the Ancient Egyptian Empire… and even on the late tomb of Petosiris. The Behemoth passage is not written in the style of questions as is the first discourse of Yahweh (38:2-40:5) or the section on Leviathan (41:1-34). It will be observed also that vs. 19 refers to ‘God’ in the third person – a strange procedure in the mouth of Yahweh.  
Behemoth… has been identified with the hippopotamus, an animal of the Nile Valley, unknown in the western part of Asia Anterior. However, the poet had in mind a creature of mythical significance, not a mere representative of an animal species… although he conceived it largely according to a stylized image of the hippopotamus which he may well have obtained de visu [“by seeing”]. It has been maintained by some that the word Behemoth is a loan word from the Egyptian pe-e-mu, ‘water horse’ (?), but the Hebrew בהמות can be explained simply as a plural of majesty of בהמה [BeHeMaH], ‘quadruped,’ meaning ‘the animal colossus par excellence’ (cf. Ps. 73:22).” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1186-1187)  
-15. “Behold, if you please, BeHayMOTh, which I made with you,  
“The word בהמות behemoth, is the plural of בהמה behemah, which signifies cattle in general, or gramnivorous animals, as distinguished from חיתו chayeto, all wild or carnivorous animals…” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 875)  
“… but one creature is certainly meant…” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 488)  
“The monster in question is a creature of Yahweh, like Job … and the poet’s insistence upon this point may betray some polemical intent: not even a primeval beast… originates outside of the creative act of God.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1187)  
“grass [חציר, HahTseeR], like an ox, it eats.  
-16. Behold, if you please, its strength in its loins,
and its power [ואנו, Ve’oNO] in [the] muscles of its belly.
-17. It stiffens [יחפץ, YahHPoTs] like a cedar its tail,
sinews of its thigh entwined [ישרגו, YeSoRahGOo].  
“The description stresses the sexual vigor of the giant (vs. 16 and probably also vs. 17ab; the word in the dual פכדו [PaHDOh], thighs [qere, marginal note] is euphemistic… (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1187)  
“Read probably ‘he stiffens his penis like a cedar-beam, the sinews of his testicles are closely knit.” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 488)  
-18. “Its bones are tubes [אפיקי, ’ahPheeYQaY] of brass,
its body [גרמיו GRaMahYV] like bars [כמטיל, KeeMTeeYL] [of] iron.  
-19. He is [the] first of [the] ways of ‘ayL,  
“The same phrase is used of this creature as is applied to Wisdom in Prov [Proverbs] 8:22…” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 488)  
“the maker of him [העשו, Hah`oSO], bring his sword.  
“Behemoth is not an animal similar to those of the first discourse but a unique monster, the chief of the ways of God (… cf. Gen. [Genesis] 49:3; Prov. 8:22… the text of vs. 19b is corrupt beyond recognition).” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1187)  
-20. “For produce [בול, BOoL] of mountains are borne to him,
and every animal of the field plays there.  
-21. Beneath acacias [צאלים, Tseh’ehLeeYM] he lays,
in secret cane and marsh [ובצה, OoBTsaH];
-22. screen him [יסכהו, YeÇooKooHOo] acacias, his shade,
surround him willows of river.  
Figure 2 Las Acacias - Posada de Campo  
-23. Lo, a turbulent [יעשק, Yah`ahSoQ] river; he is not alarmed [יחפוז, YahHPOZ],
he is secure if [כי, KeeY] [the] YaRDayN [“Descender’, Jordan] bursts unto his mouth.  
-24. In his eyes he caught,
in snares is perforated [his] nose.  
“… the whole verse is doubtful.” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 488)  
“It is not a mere hippopotamus, for, although some details suggest an Egyptian habitat… others point to a different geographical location… Moreover, the Egyptians did capture the hippopotamus… whereas Behemoth eludes human hunt (vs. 24); the RSV [Revised Standard Version] wrongly paraphrases the Hebrew in his eyes [“Can one take him with hooks or pierce his nose with a snare?”] which refers to a method used for the seizure not of the hippopotamus but of the crocodile (the blinding of the animal’s eyes with clay; Herodotus History[2]…); also, instead of במוקשים [BeMOQSheeYM] (plural), with a snare (singular, a meaning which obviously does not fit the context pierce his nose), read בקמושים [BeQahMOShiYM], ‘with thorns’ or ‘with harpoons.’” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1187-1188)  
“As noted above… the second discourse of Yahweh in its original form probably passed from the unanswered challenge (40d:6-14) directly to the questions on Leviathan (41:1-34 …[Hebrew 40:25-41:26])…  
Leviathan is different from an ordinary crocodile because it is a sea monster which cannot be captured (vss. 1 [25 in versions] ff [and following] …), produces eclipses (3:8; cf. 26:13), and is associated with the forces of the primeval chaos (Ps. 74:14; Enoch 60:7-9; II Baruch 29:4; II Esdras 6:49-52). Like the whole of mankind, Job is totally impotent before it… Each line of humorous interrogation leads to the final questions which give meaning to the whole passage (vss. 10-11 [41:2-3]).” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1188)  
-25. [41:1 in versions] “Draw LeeVYahThan [Leviathan] in hook [בחכה, BeHahKaH]
and by rope [ובחבל, OoBeHehBehL] set down his tongue.  
Or his tongue with a cord] Thevenot says that, in order to take the crocodile, they dig holes on the banks of the river, and cover them with sticks. The crocodiles fall into these, and cannot get out… and then [they] let down nooses which they pitch on their jaws, and thus draw them out. This probably what is meant here.” (Adam Clarke, 1831, pp. II 878-879)  
-26. [2.] “Can you put a ring [אגמונ ‘ahGMON] in his nose
and with a thorn penetrate [תקוב TheeQOB] his jaw?  
“Some have thought that this means, Canst thou deal with him as with one of those little fish which thou stringest on a rush by means of the thorn at its end?” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 879)  
-27. [3.] “Are multiplied unto you supplications,
if he speaks unto you pleasantries [רכות, RahKOTh]?
-28. [4.] Will he cut a covenant with you,
will you take him to slave eternal [עולם, `OLahM]?  
-29. [5.] Will you play in him like a bird,
and join him to your maidens;
-30. [6.] prepare a banquet upon him, friends,
halve him between merchants?  
Shall thy companions make a banquet] Canst thou and thy friends feast on him…? Or, Canst thou dispose of his flesh to the merchants…?” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 879)  
-31. [7.] “Will you fill in harpoons [בשכות, BeSooKOTh] his hide [עורו, `ORO],
and with a fish-gaff [ובצלצל, OoBeTseeLTsahL] his head,
-32. [8.] put upon him your palms?  
Remember war,
do not continue [תוסף, ThOÇahPh].”  
1 I am the future reader, and probably won’t remember the definition of perspicacity  
2 Herodotus: “They take the back or chine of a swine, and bait a hook with it, and throw it into the midst of the river; and the fisherman stands at some distance on the shore holding a young pig, which he irritates, in order to make it squeak. When the crocodile hears this, he immediately makes toward the sound; and, finding the Baited hook in his way, swallows it, and is then drawn to land, when they dash mud into his eyes, and blind him; after which he is soon dispatched.” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 878)  
An Amateur's Journey Through the Bible
submitted by bikingfencer to BibleExegesis [link] [comments]

2019.06.29 20:56 bikingfencer Job 19 - Show yourself

Chapter Nineteen – Job believes that the Name will defend his righteousness  
“He is now fully aware of his friends’ total lack of comprehension… and this awareness intensifies the sense of his isolation: cornered by God… and ostracized by man… he is brought to such a paroxysm of misery that in the rebound of despair he dreams once more of a heavenly witness … breaks the limits of his present condition (vss. [verses] 22-24), transcends the inevitable prospect of imminent death, and seizes in triumph upon the certainty of his ultimate vision of God (vss. 25-29).” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1040)  
“Between introductory and closing two-line strophes, the chapter contains four three-line strophes, one four-line, another three-line, one five line, i.e. [in other words], 2; 3, 3, 3; 3, 4, 3; 5; 2.” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 477)  
-1. And responded, Job, and said:  
-2. “Until when [אנה, ’ahNaH] will you afflict [תוגיון, ThOGYON] my soul
and crush me in words [במלים, BeMeeLeeYM]?  
“Job begins by throwing Bildad’s exordium back at him (using the same expressions, ‘How long…? and ‘words,’ as 18:2). (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 477)  
-3. “This ten times you insulted me;
you are not ashamed of injury to me.  
These ten times, i.e. [in other words], often, repeatedly (cf. [compare with] Gen. [Genesis] 31:7; Num. [Numbers] 14:22)… The Hebrew word [הכר HahKahR] is uncertain… Ewald, followed by many modern commentators, has suggested that the Hebrew הכר is related to the Arabic hakara, ‘to oppress,’ ‘to torment,’ ‘to torture.’ The meaning of the word should be strong enough to match those which precede.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1041)  
-4. “And even if truly I did crazily,
with me lodges my craziness.  
And be it indeed that I have erred [shāghîthî]… mine error [meshûghāthî] remainith with myself: As in 7:20, Job is not making a confession of culpability. He is merely offering a conjecture for the sake of the discussion. Vs. [verse] 4b is susceptible of several interpretations. … ‘If I had erred (which I have not), my error would dwell with me and remain in my memory. I would remember it, but I do not; therefore, I have never violated the commandments of the Almighty, I have not made even a mistake.’ This exegesis is unlikely, since the word שגה [ShaGaH] and its derivatives appear to refer to an act of offense by ignorance, inadvertence, or default, e.g. [for example], in a state of intoxication and irresponsibility caused by drunkenness or the passion of love (Lev. [Leviticus] 4:14; Num. 15:22; Ezek. [Ezekiel] 45:20; etc.); thus, Job might be accused of having been unconscious of his crime, a charge that he definitely denies…  
“The context following (vs. 5)… suggests the possibility… Even if Job has committed a meshûghāh, this error or ‘mistake’ (as opposed to a sin of intention) would be his own business and should not concern his friends… This verse seems therefore to open up the theme of social isolation, which will be the object of a pathetically eloquent and even gripping description in the course of the next few lines.  
“…Following the LXX, [the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] which gave to the verb לין [LeeYN “lodge”] (vs. 4b) its literal meaning, one should probably render the verse as follows;  
If in truth I had erred,
My error would have remained with me only for a night.  
“In other words, it would have been an aberration without any lasting effect. It would not offer a satisfactory explanation of Job’s present misery…  
“The confession of an error in words, temporarily entertained, carries a denial of any graver guilt which would have permanently stained the record of the sufferer and would have been, according to the friends’ thesis, the cause of his torments. Far from pleading guilty, Job turns to the offensive, and in the next lines delivers the thus-far mightiest blow of his encounter with the three antagonists.” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1041-1043)  
“If Job is wrong, he will only harm himself; why must they be so bitter and so intolerant? (The reason is that he threatens their religious existence; he must not be right, otherwise their whole faith would be undermined. It is their insecurity that makes them cruel.)” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 477)  
-5. “If truly upon me you aggrandize [תגדילו, ThaGDeeYLOo],
and argue upon me my reproach,
-6. know His fury,
for ‘eLOHa subverts me
and His net upon me He wraps.  
“The rendering of ‘iwwethānî is not easy, for the verb עות [`eeVTha], used in the Piel1 , means ‘to falsify,’ ‘to bend,’ ‘to subvert,’ ‘to make crooked,’ and is here linked directly with the personal pronoun ‘me’ instead of with a concrete object like ‘scales’ (as in Amos 8:5) or an abstract substantive2 like ‘justice’ (as in 8:3). In any event, the general meaning is clear, for Job is plainly and bluntly stating that God, the author of his plight has willfully distorted the truth concerning him… It is a grave charge. Once more one of the devices of the dialogue technique used by the poet appears in full light. It seems that the hero has slowly and silently meditated upon the statement made by Bildad in the first speech. To the question ‘Doth the Almighty pervert righteousness?’ (8:3b) Job did not immediately make open reply. But now, cornered like a hunted animal, he dares to utter the blasphemy: ‘I tell you, it is God who has falsified my case.’ … Job’s statement is exceptionally intrepid and borders on titanic usurpation of divine powers. By asserting that Eloah has distorted his right (cf. Rom. [Romans] 3:5), he judges the Deity’s conduct, motivation, and nature. He, the finite dwarf, the son of clay, the ephemeral moth, has lost the sense of his dependence upon God. Job denounces and rebukes his Creator. Man condemns God.” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1043-1044)  
“THE ENMITY OF GOD (19: 7-12)  
“In the second strophe Job rises to the stature of the noble damned by substantiating the charges he has just made against the nature of the divinity… he concentrates on the task of offering evidence that God is not indifferent but hostile and malicious.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1044)  
“From the seventh to the thirteenth verse there seems to be an allusion to a hostile invasion, battles, sieges, &c.” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 784)  
7. “Lo, I shout, ‘Violence!’
and am not responded to,
‘Halloo!’ and there is no justice.
-8. My course is hedged in,
and I cannot pass,
and upon my path darkness is put.  
“The thought and the expressions are closely related to those of Hab. [Habakkuk] 1:2; Jer. [Jeremiah] 20:8… Lam. [Lamentations] 3:8… The silence of God could not be interpreted as a sign of his indifference. He has maliciously blocked all the exits (vs. 8a) and in addition has blinded his prisoner (vs. 8b).” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1044)  
9. “My honor from upon me is stripped,
and He removed [the] crown from my head.
-10. He breaks me down around and I walk [away],
and He uproots like a tree my hope.  
-11. And He heats upon me His fury,
and I am thought of to Him as a distressor.
-12. Together come His troops,
and they shore up upon me their way,
and they encamp around to my tent.  
“In contrast with his former status, the sufferer feels not only stripped (vs. 9a) but also marked for the final onslaught. According to the blunt colloquialism, ‘he is a goner’ (cf. ‘I am gone,’ vs. 10a) … They have cast up siegeworks against me (vs. 12b), preparing for the final attack.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1045)  
“… It is God who has spurred and wrought his enemy’s social seclusion. Through a relentless and gradual tightening of the circles which close upon the hero to ensure thereby his utter loneliness, the strophe moves to its climax of desolation and horror. As in some symphonie fantastique, one can hear below and behind the musical phrasing, sustained by strings and winds, the haunting, growing, inevitably faster and faster rhythm of the percussion instruments. Here is more than a mere enumeration of terms or a sociological catalogue. Here is the poetic expression of an isolation which prepares psychologically for the birth of hope told in the subsequent strophe (vss. 23-29). Observe the monotonous and yet progressive accumulation of words… ‘The book of Job was written [partly] against a theology which bred suspicion, soured the milk of human kindness, alienated bosom friends, and covered with infamy those who should have been crowned with honour and glory.’ (Strahan)  
“As may be expected, critics do not agree upon the correct translation of these verses.” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1045-1046)  
-13. “My brother from upon me has distanced himself,
and my acquaintances even are estranged from me.
-14. Failed have those near to me,
and from my acquaintances I am forgotten.  
“Verse 15. They that dwell in mine house] in this and the following verses the disregard and contempt usually shown to men who have fallen from affluence and authority, into poverty and dependence, are very forcibly described… A bishop… being obliged to leave his country and fly for his life, in the days of bloody Queen Mary, and who never regained his bishopric, being met one morning by one like those who Job describes, who, intending to be witty at the expense of the venerable prelate, accosted him thus: - ‘Good morrow, BISHOP quondam. [“at one time”]’ To which the bishop smartly replied, ‘Adieu, KNAVE semper [“always”].” (Adam Clarke, 1831, pp. II 784-785)  
nobody knows you when you're down and out  
-15. “Residents of my house and my maidens to a stranger think of me,
an alien am I in their eyes.  
“Verse 15. They that dwell in mine house] in this and the following verses the disregard and contempt usually shown to men who have fallen from affluence and authority, into poverty and dependence, are very forcibly described… A bishop… being obliged to leave his country and fly for his life, in the days of bloody Queen Mary, and who never regained his bishopric, being met one morning by one like those who Job describes, who, intending to be witty at the expense of the venerable prelate, accosted him thus: - ‘Good morrow, BISHOP quondam. [“at one time”]’ To which the bishop smartly replied, ‘Adieu, KNAVE semper [“always”].” (Adam Clarke, 1831, pp. II 784-785)  
-16. To my slave I called
and he did not answer;
with [במו, BeMO] my mouth I beseeched him.
-17. My spirit estranged to my wife,
and my beseeching to sons of my belly.  
“… this passage… is used as a weapon by those who claim that the poet is not the author of the folk tale (in which the sons of Job have all died; cf. 1:18-21) and even that he was not aware of it.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1046)  
“But the mention of his children in this place may intimate that he had still some remaining; that there might have been young ones, who, not being of a proper age to attend the festival of their elder brothers and sisters, escaped that sad catastrophe.” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 785)  
-18. “Also youngsters [עוילים, `ahVeeYLeeYM] are fed up [מאסו, Mah’ahÇOo] in me,
I rise and they word in me.
-19. Abhor me all adults [מתי, MahThaY], secret to me,
and this, whom I love, reversed in me.  
“The inner circle of intimates, of whom even greater loyalty was expected than of wife or brothers, my intimate friends: Lit. [literally], ‘men of my secret council.’” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 477)  
“FINAL PLEA TO MEN (19:20-24)  
“Vs. 19 in the preceding strophe is a hinge for the transition which leads in this strophe to the most passionate appeal yet made to man in the dialogue…” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1047)  
-20. In my skin and in my flesh cleft are my bones,
and I escape in skin [of] my teeth.  
“Although the general meaning of this verse is obvious, both lines present a great deal of uncertainty and they have challenged the ingenuity of interpreters.

“Vs. 20b has become a proverbial saying… it has therefore received a great deal of exegetical scrutiny, but no certain interpretation seems to be possible. Most critics conclude that the M.T. [Masoretic Text, the authorized Hebrew Bible] is corrupt and they emend it in many different ways.

“The extraordinary variety of these corrections… reveals the wholly hypothetical nature of the attempt. Several scholars therefore assume that the Hebrew text has been correctly preserved and that the traditional translation, I have escaped by the skin of my teeth3 , represent an idiomatic expression, the precise meaning of which may only be guessed.” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1047-1048)  
-21. “Pity me, pity me, you, my neighbors,
for [the] hand [of] ‘eLOHa has touched in me.  
“Under stress of agony the pride and anger which have prompted many of his invectives abate at last. He had previously refused, against the explicit advice he had received (8:5), to implore the grace, mercy, or pity of God (9:15). He has however come to implore – in vain – the pity of his own slave (19:16); and now in the depth of his distress he beseeches these three friends, who are still willing to remain with him, to speak and to listen to him… This sudden break in the pride of the lone eagle offers another evidence of the profound incisiveness with which the poet probes into the recesses of human nature. Job is completely misunderstood by his friends, and he claims that they are entirely wrong in the judgment which they pass upon his case and are even cruel in the way they treat him. Nevertheless he craves their approval… He cannot yet bring himself to pray for the grace of the pity of God cf. Ps. [Psalm] 123:3), because it is precisely the hand of God which hath touched him (vs. 21b; cf. the use of the same verb in the confession of the suffering servant in Isa. [Isaiah] 53:4). This is the reason for which he appeals to the pity of his friends…” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1049)  
-22. “Why do you pursue me like ‘ayL,
and from my flesh are not sated?  
“In one sentence Job castigates all religious inquisitors who justify their inhumanity to man by the illusory claim of being divinely appointed to their task. ‘Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service’ (John 16:2)… ‘To eat the flesh of someone’ is an Aramaic and Arabic idiom for ‘slandering’ (Dan. [Daniel] 3:8; cf. Job 31:31).” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1049-1050)  
-23. “Who will give, where,
and write my words?
Who will give [them] in an account
and engrave them 24. in a pen [of] iron and lead to until,
in rock chisel?  
“Having recognized the futility of appealing to the pity of his friends, Job tries a different method. … If nobody vindicates him now, he will appeal to the verdict of posterity… Some commentators observe that there is no progression from vs. 23 to vs. 24 because the verb חקק [HaQaQ] means ‘to engrave,’ and thus the noun ספר [ÇayPheR] ‘scroll,’ should be understood as a Hebrew equivalent of the Akkadian siparru, ‘brass,’ ‘bronze’ (cf. Judg. [Judges] 5:14; Isa. 30:8)[?]). This brilliant suggestion has found support in the discovery – near the Dead Sea – of two scrolls of copper inscribed with Hebrew characters…  
“…Even this literary fancy, however, fails to satisfy his desire. He realizes that an eventual vindication in the distant future would be of no significance… The fetters of his isolation, not only from men but also from God, must be broken now. Thus, pushed to the extreme limit of agony, rejects the dream of a human verdict of acquittal in the centuries to come and enters the yet unexplored world of personal certainty: he looks for a defense and a vindication now in the afterlife (vs. 25 ff. [and following])” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1050)
-25. “And I know my redeemer lives,
and at last upon dust he will rise,  
“Any attempt to establish the true meaning of this passage is almost hopeless. By learned men and eminent critics, the words have been understood very differently…” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. II 786)  
“…the conjunctive letter waw does not imply a link of logical sequence with the preceding verses, but on the contrary suggests an adversative sense… The word gô’ēl represents (a) the man, usually next of kin, who is the avenger of the blood, i.e., of the blood which has been shed by murder (II Sam. [Samuel] 14:11); (b) the man, also next of kin, who has the right to buy or ‘redeem’ the estate of a dead person or to raise up a posterity for him (Deut. [Deuteronomy] 25:5-10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9; 4:4 ff., cf. Lev. 25:25; Num. 5:8); (c) by extension, the defender of the oppressed (Prov. [Proverbs] 23:10-11), and especially therefore the defender par excellence, i.e., God. The verb gā’al or the participial noun gô’ēl is used for the Deity when (i) Israel is delivered from the Egyptian bondage (Exod. [Exodus] 6:6; 15:13; Ps. 74:2; etc.) and from the Exile (Isa. 41:14; 43:1; etc.); (ii) individuals are saved from oppression (Ps. 119:154; Prov. 23:11; Jer. 50:34), evil (Gen. 48:16), or death (Pss. 69:18…)…  
“It is generally agreed that the gô’ēl in vs. 25 cannot be a human being since the hero’s sons are dead and his relatives have deserted him. Thus commentators usually maintain that Job, through an upsurge of passionate will to be vindicated, suddenly breaks through the wall of his isolation, passes from the stage of vain wish (vss. 23-24) into that of positive conviction, and declares his unshakable knowledge that God himself will be the vindicator of his innocence, the defender of his good name, and the restorer of his honor. It is pointed out that (a) the word ḥay, ‘alive,’ ‘living,’ is a common designation of the Deity (Josh. [Joshua] 3:10; Hos. [Hosea] 1:10 [Hebrew 2:1]; etc.) … (b) the word ’aḥarôn, last, clearly describes the gô’ēl (cf. Isa. 48:12; especially 44:6, ‘Thus saith Yahweh, the King of Israel and his gô’ēl, Yahweh of hosts, I am first and I am last [’aḥarôn] …’); (c) the verb yāqûm, he shall stand (vs. 25b), or rather, ‘he shall rise up’ (cf. 16:8), is the terminus technicus [technical term] for the theophanies4 ] (Artur Weiser, […1951]… cf. many parallels, e.g., ‘For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise…’ [Ps. 12:6]); (d) the expression ’al- āphār, upon the dust (vs. 25b), is identical with that found in 41:33 (cf. 5:6; 8:19; 14:8): it indicates that God will come down from heaven and appear within the frame of history to take up the defense of his hero… As Yahweh will appear at the eschatological time (‘the last’) to save Israel in her extremity, so also will God appear to Job; and it will be his judgment, not that of men, which will constitute the final act of the drama…  
“Against this prevailing interpretation it may be argued that (a) the gô’ēl cannot be God, for Job has heretofore consistently thought of the Deity as an implacably hostile being, and (much more important) continues to do so in the remaining part of the poetic discussion (cf. 27:2); (b) it is hard, if not impossible, to believe that Job, who has just declared that God persecutes him (vs. 22), at once would completely reverse his position and declare that God is his eternal vindicator (vs.25); (c)… it has been seen (cf. Exeg. [exegesis] on 16:1-22) that the witness in heaven is to be distinguished from God, and that therefore the identification of the gô’ēl with God cannot find any support from the text of 16:19 ff.: (d) the words ‘living’ last, shall stand, and upon the earth may well apply to the mysterious being whom Job conceived for a moment as a ‘mediator’ (9:33), and later recalled to his psychological consciousness not merely as the object of a fleeting fancy but as the heavenly person ‘who vouches for [him] on high and will maintain the right of man with God’ (16:19, 21). Now that irrepressible confidence once more enraptures him, and at this climatic moment he shouts, ‘But I know that my defender lives! He will survive my unjust death, and over the dust of my grave… he will stand at the last instant. Through his intermediation, by his activity, he will summon God and me together, and bring me before the face of God!’ Such an interpretation… overcomes the otherwise insurmountable difficulty raised by the fact that in the end of the poem, in spite of the weighty opinion of several critics to the contrary, God does not reveal himself as the gô’ēl of Job but rather as the transcendent and holy Deity who, far from upholding the honor and integrity of the sufferer, casts him down into utter self-abhorrence and repentance (42:2-6). In this connection it is important to note that if this exegesis is correct, Job has indeed begun to abandon the hope of defending or justifying himself, but nevertheless remains adamant in the conviction of his innocence. His pride stands, exactly as it shows itself to the end of the poetic discussion (31:40).  
“A liturgical formula from the Ugaritic literature presents a verbal parallel to vs. 25a which may be either purely accidental or extremely important and significant, especially in the light of the above discussion. The worshiper declares in the course of a liturgical celebration of a season festival,  
wid’kḥy aliyn b‘l
lot zbl b‘l arṣ  
And I know that the powerful baal liveth,
Existent is the prince, Lord of the earth!  
“… This formula is repeated in the sequence of the Ugaritic text… and appears to be a ritual rubric used in celebrating the festival of the dying and rising god… let it be made clear that it is not possible to demonstrate the play of the polytheistic influence of some ancient Semitic cult upon the Joban poet. Yet one can reasonably conjecture that the hero, forsaken of all men and separated from God, may have pinned his hope upon the existence of a heavenly being who would survive his own untimely death and bring about the miracle of a divine-human confrontation. ‘The parallel may be merely be accidental. But it is equally possible that archaic religious terminology about a god who had been dead but was now alive (and therefore able to act decisively) comes to the surface in this formulation. The prolonged absence of divine help may well have led the poet to think of the situation that existed in the pagan world when a god had departed for the land of the dead, while the joyous moment of his restoration to life and the resumption of his accustomed helpful role is recaptured in the assertion that ‘he lives.’ …  
“In any case, and although Job is no way alluding to a Messiah, the passage foreshadows an obstinacy of faith which transcends the limitations of the original poem.” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1051-1053)  
-26. “and afterward my skin is wrapped up thus [זאת, Zo’Th],  
“Vs. 26a is in a state of textual corruption which defies the resources of exegesis. The Hebrew of the M.T. is syntactically incoherent. The words mean, lit., ‘And after’ (preposition introducing a noun, or conjunction governing a verb) or ‘afterwards’ (adverb), ‘my skin’ (masculine noun), ‘they have stricken off’ (Piel of נקף [NaQaPh] I…) or ‘they surrounded’ (hypothetical Piel of נקף II…), ‘this’ (feminine pronoun). The ancient versions differ widely from the present M.T. and also among themselves.

“All textual emendations suggested by modern critics (and their number is high) represent skillful but wholly conjectural proposals. It is better to leave the clause of vs. 26a untranslated…” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1053-1054)  
I thought maybe mummy imagery.  
“and from my flesh I envision ‘eLOHa
“The Hebrew of vs. 26b appears at first sight to be clear and well preserved, but its meaning is ambiguous, and the evidence from the ancient versions suggests the probability of textual corruption here also. It reads, lit., ‘And from my flesh I shall see God.’ … there is no valid reason for challenging the accuracy of the present M.T., since vs. 27 obviously indicates that Job expected to see God. Two questions remain: (a) Will this experience take place before his death or afterward? (b) If the answer to the preceding question is ‘afterward,’ in what mode of existence will Job face the Deity – as a disincarnated spirit, or in a form of being which is described pictorially as in carne [“in flesh”]?  
“On the one hand, it will be observed that the preposition מן [MeeN] assumes a privative meaning not only with verbs of motion and separation (as is ordinarily the case), but also in spatially neutral contexts… On the other hand, there is no doubt that when used with a verb expression vision or perception, the same preposition מן refers to the point of vantage, the locale from which or through which the function of sight operates. Thus ‘Yahweh looketh from [מן] heaven…’ (Ps. 33:13…)… It is therefore evident that 19:26b should be translated with the KJV [King James Version], in my flesh shall I see God. This exegesis is confirmed (a) negatively by the fact that the idea of a bodiless mode of human existence is totally foreign to the Semitic mentality (as proved by the growth and development of the belief in carnal resurrection); and (b) positively by the subsequent and emphatic assertion, apparently needed to convince the astonished and even skeptical listeners (and exegetes?), that Job himself will see God with his own eyes (vs. 27).  
“Now if Job expects to be ‘in his flesh’ when he confronts the Godhead, does he think that his meeting will take place on earth before he dies, or does he refer to a post-mortem experience? At first glance the former alternative appears to be defensible…It is claimed that he poet is here anticipating the theophany of Yahweh, through which God appears and meets Job face to face (38:1-42:6) while the sufferer is still alive upon earth. Against this view, and in favor of the post-mortem alternative, other exegetes strongly stress the fact that the sufferer’s consistent prospect in the whole poetic discussion up to this point has been that of his imminent and inevitable death. In addition, the thought of the gô’ēl, especially when it is considered as a reiteration and development of the wish for a mediator (9:33) and of the hope in a heavenly witness (16:19), which in turn presupposes Job’s murder by bloodshed (16:18), points to the conclusion that vss. 25-26a, whatever their exact rendering should be, refer to the final, earthly, bloody act, which is death … If so, Job faced a situation more paradoxical than ever: On the one hand, he was convinced that he would see God after his death; on the other hand, he knew that in Sheol human existence is no longer what might be called ‘life’ (14:20-21) and that there is for a dead man no hope of returning to earth (7:10; 14:7-15), yet he believed that in some way (probably hinted at in the now corrupt vs. 26a) he would receive new flesh for the specific purpose of the divine-human interview. This flash of expectation has nothing to do with the Greek belief in the natural immortality of the soul, nor is it to be confused with the later Jewish-Christian belief in a bodily resurrection effecting entrance into eternal life. It is merely the dying thought that he, Job, in order to be enabled to plead his defense before God, will again be made fully alive, that his personality will be endowed with the concreteness, the substantial reality, the ‘carnal’ vitality and vigor of complete existence of a man breathing upon earth, not the shadowlike tenuousness and impassibility of the dead in Sheol.” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1054-1056)  
-27. “that I will envision to myself,
and my eyes see, and not a stranger’s.”  
“The prospect of meeting the Deity is so portentous, and at the same time so stirring to the imagination of the hero, that he feels compelled to repeat his conviction (vs. 27ab); and he cannot repress a lyrical outcry of his impatience (vs. 27c). The translation Whom I shall see on my side (RSV [Revised Standard Version], after Duhm, Budde, Driver and Gray, Kissane, et al.) is most unnatural. Such a rendering of the preposition and pronoun לי [LeeY], for myself, cannot be supported from texts like Gen. 31:42; Pss. 46:2; 56:10; 118:7; 124:2, where the preposition is constructed either with the verb ‘to be’ or with a predicate which presupposes the verbal copula. It also disregards the Masoretic accentuation (maqqēph5 and daghesh forte conjunctivum). The correct rendering is the traditional one, Whom I shall see for myself (KJV, RSV mg. [margin]), which recognizes in the word לי a variation of the dative ethicus6 , well known in biblical Hebrew (see not only the many examples with the imperative, but also the close parallels of Isa. 36:8…). Job says literally, linking vs. 27a to 26b, ‘Whom I, even I, shall see for myself.’ Indeed, Job insists, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another (vs. 27b). He is overwhelmed by the utter novelty … of his conviction. As if he needed to reassure himself while new doubts harass him, or perhaps because he perceives the bewildered incredulity of his listeners, Job insists that the man who will see God will not be ‘a stranger’ … some dead being ‘estranged’ from himself and not identical with his present personality – a mere shade of his present self – but on the contrary, the very same individual who is now passing through the travails of theological parturition. Such an insistence would be superfluous, and indeed incomprehensible, were the hero thinking of an earth and ante-mortem experience.” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1056-1057)  
Consumed [כלו, KahLOo] are my kidneys in my bosom,”  
“His anticipation can hardly be contained. Though my reins be consumed within me (vs. 27c). According to the metaphorical use of the bodily organs which was common among the ancient Semites, the reins designate the most vital and intense part of the body, the seat of vigor, desire, and longing.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1057)  
Elsewhere כליה (KaLeeYah, “kidney”, which, by the way, alliterates with the verb: כלו כליתי KaLOo KeeLYoTha-eeY “Consumed are my kidneys”) is described as the seat of emotions7 ], just as the heart is described as the seat of the intellect.  
“The word translated within me means, lit., ‘in my bosom’… and is usually applied to females (Gen. 16:5; Ruth 4:16; II Sam. 12:3; etc.). Chiefly for this reason some critics wish to correct the Masoretic vocalization of כלו כלתי בחקי from kālû kilyôthay beḥēqî into kālô kullêthî bheḥuqqî, and thus translate, “I am utterly exhausted in my appointed time,’ a suggestion which neither fits common Hebrew usage nor yields clarity of meaning. In fact, Job uses elsewhere (23:12) the word ḥêq as an apparent synonym of qérebh, ‘inward being’ (cf. I Kings 22:35; Eccl. [Ecclesiastes] 7-9). There is no compelling argument against the present form of the M.T. or against the authenticity of the line.” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1057)  
-28. “for you say, ‘What, are we to pursue to Him?’
and [that the] root [of the] word is found in me.
-29. Be afraid [נורו, NOoROo] to yourselves because of [מפני, MeePNaY, “from [the] face of”] a sword,
for hot are iniquities [of] sword,
so that you know that there is judgment.””  
“The last word, šaddîn [in the text] (or šaddûn [in the margin]), is unknown and hard to explain. It is tempting to understand it as a variant of šadday, ‘that [so] you may come to know the Almighty…” (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1990, p. 478)  
“… the text of vs. 29b is highly uncertain. The end of the threat is equally difficult, that you may know there is a judgment (vs. 29c)…  
“Some interpreters find it hard to conceive that Job, ‘immediately after swooning at the anticipation of seeing God’ (Strahan…) … should address his opponents with such vindictiveness…Such an attitude may or may not deserve to be called ‘theologically unsatisfying’; but it is psychologically true to the character of the hero (cf. 13:6-11).” (Terrien, 1954, pp. III 1057-1058)  
1 Piel: Active - The subject does the action of the verb. Meaning - Intensive: quality, quantity, reality (factitive; denominative). QAL and NIPHAL verbs were very simple, but the opposite is true with Piel and Pual verbs. They are extremely difficult even for the advanced scholar. These verbs are intensive in nature, but the intensification happens in one of four ways:  
-1. Quality: Something becomes stronger
-2. Quantity: Something becomes greater
-3. Reality: It is made reality  
a. Denominative verbs are verbs made from nouns. When a man harpoons a whale he merely uses a harpoon.
b. Factitive: An act is received by an object. The navy made him a man.
-4. Simple: Words were often used in this form and eventually the meaning was lost. The Israelites stopped using the QAL/NIPHAL forms and only used the PIEL/PUAL of some words.  
2 An Abstract Substantive is the name of an attribute regarded in our minds as having an actual and independent existence. Abstract Substantive definition.html  
3 “Taking the expression skin of my teeth in the physical sense, one might argue in an entirely different direction. Although the teeth of an adult are not covered by skin the teeth of infants are protected against lactate acids by a cutaneous tissue called Nasmyth’s membrane, which wears out after the weaning process. If this fact had been known to the learned poet (who reveals throughout the book an astoundingly wide and accurate acquaintance with natural phenomena), one could suggest the following interpretation: The skin of [his] teeth is for Job the symbol of his childhood innocence…” (Terrien, 1954, p. III 1048)  
4 Theophany (from Ancient Greek (ἡ) θεοφάνεια theophaneia, meaning "appearance of a god") refers to the appearance of a deity to a human or other being. - Wikipedia  
5 Maqqēph (מַקֵּף‎ i.e. binder) is a small horizontal stroke between the upper part of two words which so connects them that in respect of tone and pointing they are regarded as one, and therefore have only one accent. Two, three, or even four words may be connected in this way, e.g. כָּל־אָדָ֫ם‎ [KoL ‘aDaM] every man, אֶת־כָּל־עֵ֫שֶׂב ‎[‘eTh KoL `aSeB] every herb , אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ‎ [‘eTh KoL ‘aSheR LO] all that he had.  
Certain monosyllabic prepositions and conjunctions, such as אֶל־‎ ['eL] to, עַד־‎ [`aD] until, עַל־‎ [`aL] upon, עִם־‎ [`eeM] with, אַל־‎ [‘aL] “do not”, אִם־‎ [‘eeM] if, whether, מִן־‎ [MeeN] from, פֶּן־‎ [PeN] lest, are almost always found with a following Maqqēph, provided they have not become independent forms by being combined with prefixes, e.g. מֵעַל‎ [M’aL*, "from upon"], מֵעִם‎ [*MaeeM, "from with], in which case *Maqqēph as a rule does not follow. -  
6 ethical dative ‎- a form of the dative case applied to pronouns to show a certain interest felt by the person indicated.
Knock me on this door.
I'll rhyme you so eight years together, —Shakespeare, As You Like It, 3.2  
Knock me at this gate. —Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, 1.2  
7 HALOT - 4475 כִּלְיָה [4476] (Hebrew) (page 480) (Strong 3629)
-1. lit. [literally], as physical organ,
a. of man, only poet. [poetically], as created by י׳ [Y' - abbreviation for YHVH] Psalm 139:13; as the most sensitive and vital part, in metaph. [metaphor] of one wounded by י׳'s arrows Jb [Job] 16:13, La [Lamentations] 3:13.  
b. of sacrificial animals, offered as choice part to י׳ Lv [Leviticus] 3:4.  
-2. fig. [figuratively], as seat of emotion and affection Jb 19:27, Pr [Proverbs] 23:16, Psalm 16:7, 73:21; וְרָחוֹק מִכּ׳ קָרוֹב אַתָּה בְּפִיהֶם [VeRaHOQ MeeK [abbreviation] QaROB ‘aThaH BePheeYHeM] Je [Jeremiah] 12:2 near art thou in their mouth, and far from their affections; hence, as involving character, the obj. [object] of God's examination -
An Amateur's Journey Through the Bible
submitted by bikingfencer to BibleExegesis [link] [comments]

Çka ka shpija - Gabimet në prove - Xhiruese 🎬 - YouTube Lov kaprov na pelety. Na Kunovskej priehrade súťažilo 22 tímov v love kaprov ... JaY Prov - YouTube Lov kaprov S dcérkou na love kaprov

Karpov Kinrade – Home of the USA TODAY bestselling fantasy ...

  1. Çka ka shpija - Gabimet në prove - Xhiruese 🎬 - YouTube
  2. Lov kaprov na pelety.
  3. Na Kunovskej priehrade súťažilo 22 tímov v love kaprov ...
  4. JaY Prov - YouTube
  5. Lov kaprov
  6. S dcérkou na love kaprov
  7. In Love Ka Ba Talaga? 5 Signs of Fake Love

Najťažší kapor vážil viac ako 15 kilogramo #Çkakashpija #Ckakashpija #Xheksetra #Rtk #qkakashpija Donation 👇 Instgram : Tik... Easy to tie carp rigs for beginners, 100% effective , budget, catch more carp. - Duration: 11:25. Northumberland Carper Recommended for you Sign in to like videos, comment, and subscribe. Sign in. Watch Queue Queue Kapry pod vodou + dcérkin zdolaný kaprík, ktorý jej dal poriadne zabrať :-))) Nasaktan at na-ghost? Pero In Love Ka Ba Talaga? Baka naman infatuated ka lang? Narito ang mga senyales na infatuation lang ang nararamdaman mo at hindi love. When in doubt, check first your ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue