The New American Commentary on Isaiah 45:18 (Gary V. Smith)

Life and Death Are in the Power of the Tongue (Proverbs 18:21)

All of us have to watch  how we use our tongues (how we speak). We're imperfect and prone to "stumble many times" in word and deed (James 3:2). In fact, one proverb warns us that life and death are in the power of the tongue and those who love its fruit will eat the tongue's fruitage (Proverbs 18:21).

The ancients recognized this looming danger: hence, one writing states:

"The human tongue is not free, like some other members of the human body,  but is confined in the mouth, and moreover is constantly in moisture:  yet how many burns can it cause with its sharp edge and its fire. How  much worse then would it have been, were that dangerous member of the  human body possessed of more facilities."--Levit. Rabba 16.

James 3:6 (NAB)-"The tongue is also a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire by Gehenna."

Reading Zechariah 12:10---How?

The operative Hebrew words in Zechariah 12:10 are ELAY ET ASERDAQARU ("They shall look upon me whom they have pierced"). S.R. Driver recommends the MT emendation ELAYW ("to him" instead of "upon me") and Driver insists that more than fifty instances in the Hebrew text buttress this reading (See Driver, The Minor Prophets, p. 266).

Even if one reads "upon" or "to me" rather than "to him," it is still possible to understand the text as a reference to the representative of YHWH, that is, His shepherd (compare Zech 11:12-13; 13:7).

Another friend of mine once noted:

"Et-asher [--> 'whom'] is chosen here, as in Jer. 38:9, in the place of the simple 'asher' [whom], to mark 'asher' more clearly as an accusative, since the simple 'asher' might also be rendered 'who pierced (me).'" -- (K-D, Volume 10, page 609.)

Thus, one possible function of ET in Zechariah 12:10 is to clarify and specify the referential significance of the personal object, the one whom is pierced.

The Bible​—A Book of Fact, Not Fiction (Modified Talk)

Play Introduction to 1 Chronicles (4:50)

The first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles are mainly genealogies; that might make us wonder why this book was included in the Bible canon.

As our video noted, whenever the Israelites returned to Judah in 537 BCE, the lists in 1 Chronicles helped them to know who rightly belonged to the line of Davidic kings and it helped to establish the line of priestly descent, but are there other benefits we can derive from 1 Chronicles?

1 Chronicles 1:1 (read)-Adam was a real person whom Ezra counts as part of the ancestral line for restored Israel.

1 Chronicles 1:4-Noah was a real person.

Show and discuss the picture

Knowing that people in the Bible actually lived and went through experiences like ours can help to build our faith (James 5:17). It will make the Bible live for us as we study and work hard to apply the things we learn. As with other books of the Bible, 1 Chronicles gives us good reason to believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word.

Robert Alter Discusses the Literary and Syntactical Features of Genesis 2

"Now, after the grand choreography of resonant parallel utterances of the cosmogony, the style changes sharply. Instead of the symmetry of parataxis, hypotaxis is initially prominent: the second account begins with elaborate syntactical subordination in a long complex sentence that uncoils all the way from the second part of [Genesis] verse 4 to the end of verse 7" (Robert Alter, Genesis, comments on Genesis 2:4).

Genesis 2:7 in Alter's work now calls God "YHWH Elohim" rather than Elohim simpliciter.

Put Faith in Jehovah Your God! (Modified Talk)

What does it mean to put faith in Jehovah God? What benefits can we expect by placing our faith in the living God?

King Jehoshaphat and the people of ancient Judah provide answers to these questions.

They simultaneously faced three menacing groups of enemies: the Moabites, Ammonites, and the Ammonim. This "large crowd" (2 Chronicles 20:1-2) threatened Judah and King Jehoshaphat. How would they handle this threat? Please turn to 2 Chronicles 20:12-13.

Did you notice the attitude of Jehoshaphat when these forces came against him? He immediately turned to Jehovah in prayer.

There were men, little ones and wives standing before Jehovah at that time. Nevertheless, whether young or old, they strove to follow Jehovah’s direction, and he protected them from their enemies.

One way that Jehovah came to their aid was by raising up a Levite, Jahaziel. He spoke encouraging words to King Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah. Please turn with me to 2 Chronicles 20:17 to find out more about this Levite.

Jehovah comforted his people by providing them with clear direction: the battle was not theirs, but Jehovah's. Their faith in him was rewarded, but the people of Judah must have wondered what would happen next since they were instructed to go out against their enemies without using weapons. Yet their comfort would be in the fact that Jehovah promised to be with them.

If we turn to 2 Chronicles 20:21-22, we see Jehovah's response to the Judeans' faith. (Read).

Jahaziel told God's people to "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah."

That is not how armies normally fight battles, but those instructions did not come from a human: they originated with Jehovah. Therefore, with full trust in his God, Jehoshaphat implicitly followed divine instructions. When the king and his people went out to meet the enemy, he placed unarmed singers at the front of his troops, not the most skilled soldiers. Jehovah did not let Jehoshaphat down; He soundly defeated the Moabites, Ammonites, and the people from the region of Seir by making them strike one another down. Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah were rewarded for their faith in Jehovah.

Discuss picture 

Conclusion:

When Gog of Magog attacks Jehovah’s people during the great tribulation, those who put faith in Jehovah and who trust those whom he is using to take the lead will have nothing to fear (2 Chron. 20:20). Their faith in Jehovah God will be rewarded with an imperishable gift--everlasting life.

Ecclesiastes 3:11-"eternity in their hearts"

What did Qoheleth mean when he wrote that God "put eternity" (הָעֹלָם֙) in the heart of man? And how does the last part of the verse connect with the preceding portion?

Robert Alter (The Hebrew Bible: A Translation): "Everything He has done aptly in its time. Eternity, too, He has put in their heart, without man’s grasping at all what it is God has done from beginning to end."

Alter's Footnote: "The Hebrew ʿolam means 'eternity' in the biblical language, though some interpreters argue that here it has the sense of 'world' that it carries in rabbinic Hebrew—that is, God has planted in the human heart the love of the world. It seems more likely that the intended meaning is: man is conscious of the idea of eternity (Qohelet as philosopher surely is), but that is the source of further frustration, for he is incapable of grasping 'what it is God has done from beginning to end.' Other interpreters reverse the second and third consonants of ʿolam to yield ʿamal, 'toil.' "

See also https://www.academia.edu/3770261/A_Reexamination_of_Eternity_in_Ecclesiastes_3_11

Ezekiel 41:11 and the Temple Vision

Hebrew (Leningrad Codex): וּפֶ֤תַח הַצֵּלָע֙ לַמֻּנָּ֔ח פֶּ֤תַח אֶחָד֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ הַצָּפֹ֔ון וּפֶ֥תַח אֶחָ֖ד לַדָּרֹ֑ום וְרֹ֙חַב֙ מְקֹ֣ום הַמֻּנָּ֔ח חָמֵ֥שׁ אַמֹּ֖ות סָבִ֥יב ׀ סָבִֽיב׃

Ezekiel's temple vision is one of the most fascinating accounts in the Bible to me--it raises numerous questions and there is so much to learn from the vision. I've often tried to envision just what the prophet saw although our Pure Worship publication supplied some help.

NET: "There were entrances from the side chambers toward the open area, one entrance toward the north, and another entrance toward the south; the width of the open area was 8¾ feet[a] all around."

Ftn: tn Heb “5 cubits” (i.e., 2.625 meters).

The NA Commentary on Ezekiel (Lamar E. Cooper, Sr.) makes these remarks:  "The base extended away from the building for five cubits on every side (v. 11). Behind the temple was another building seventy by ninety cubits with a wall five cubits thick (v. 12). The exact function of this building is unknown (see Figs. 2 and 3),42 although it has been associated with the parbar (“court”) of 1 Chr 26:18, which probably was an open area. This open area may have been in front of the building, or it may refer to the open area of the large room inside the building, whose purpose is unclear."

King David, "a man according to" Jehovah's Heart

King Saul was told: "Jehovah hath sought for Himself a man according to His own heart, and Jehovah chargeth him for leader over His people, for thou hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee'" (1 Samuel 13:14, YLT).

King David was that person according to God's own heart. Additionally, he served YHWH (Jehovah) with a complete heart, one that was fully devoted to him. Yet if David was this kind of person, we may wonder how he could commit adultery with Bathsheba, hide the indiscretion, then have Uriah killed. How could a person so highly favored by God and devoted to him commit such unspeakable acts?

David clearly dropped his guard: he erred and acted detestably toward the Law of Jehovah (2 Samuel 12:9-10). Maybe he relied too much on himself or became confident in his own strength (compare 1 Corinthians 10:12). Whatever happened, the king was humble, penitent--yes, genuinely sorry for his errors when Jehovah's prophet brought it to his attention (2 Samuel 12:13). God looked beyond what David did, took into account his repentance, and reckoned David as righteous despite these sins. That divine forgiveness undoubtedly felt like water to one traveling in a parched desert (Acts 3:19). How this account emphasizes the richness of God's mercy and extent of his loyal love.

Resources for Esther and the Tetragrammaton

 https://www.galaxie.com/article/bsac171-684-04

https://sats.ac.za/blog/2021/03/01/surprises-in-esther/

https://www.academia.edu/10195380/ACCIDENT_OR_ACRONYMY_THE_TETRAGRAMMATON_IN_THE_MASORETIC_TEXT_OF_ESTHER

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42751218.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa58bc3114ebc8336b2b48b215a83555b&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1

https://www.jewishideas.org/article/why-name-god-not-mentioned-megillat-esther

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/the-hidden-hand-of-god/

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/03/esthers-acrostic-secret.html

The Word of God and the Will of God (A Brief Reflection)

I think it was Bruce Laurin who wrote (or he penned words to this effect): "not everything that happens in the word of God is the will of God." From what I recall, he was talking about the "holy war" that occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Yes, there is war in the Tanakh: people are slaughtered, hacked, and run through. However, I believe that Laurin has a point. For while some of the "violence" in the Hebrew Bible was certainly said to be sanctioned by YHWH (Jehovah), not all of it was. There is also a question about how we should define violence or categorize it. For example, is all violence morally objectionable? Furthermore, what counts as violence?

Another way I want to address the violence in the Hebrew Bible is to distinguish between prescription and description: much of what I find in the Tanakh is a description of how imperfect humans acted as they rebelled against the dictates of God, not a prescription to commit violence. In fact, Psalm 11:5 condemns the person who loves violence and says that YHWH "hates" such an individual. Another consideration is that even when YHWH used Israel or other nations for the cause of war, God set limits, which limits imperfect humans transgressed.

The accounts of holy war are part of the Bible's candor; Scripture may utilize euphemisms at times but it likewise supplies very open accounts that honestly lay bare human iniquity. On the other hand, the justice of God can be severe and Scripture doesn't hide that fact either. See Hebrews 10:26-31.

In the spirit of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I believe we can learn many lessons from the accounts of war found in the Hebrew Bible.

The McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia contains some interesting remarks under its entry for "war":

It has been questioned whether wars are, under any circumstances, justifiable from Jewish example. While it is certain that the practice of offensive' wars cannot be defended by reference to sacred history, it is equally clear, if wars must be, that they can only be consistent with the light of that dispensation which breathes forgiveness and forbearance on the clear and obvious ground of necessity and self-defense. When the principles of the Bible shall have illuminated the minds of all nations, wars shall cease from the ends of the earth, and all men will give glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good-will will universally prevail (Ps 46:9; Ps 76:3; Isa 2:4; Eze 39:9; Lu 2:14).

Proverbs 8:22 (New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. V, Page 98)

 See also pages 92-93.

Ezra’s Conduct Brought Honor to Jehovah (Modified Talk)

As our heavenly parent, Jehovah is worthy of all due honor. Just as we honor our earthly parents, so we should accord Jehovah the honor that he deserves. This is why from time to time, it is good to ask ourselves whether our conduct honors Jehovah.

Ezra 7:6 calls Ezra, "a copyist who was well-versed in the Law of Moses." He was skilled in his assignment and took it seriously: the biblical accounts about Ezra teach us that he loved God's word. Please notice what Ezra 7:10 states.

Note the three reasons why Ezra prepared his heart: in order to study, to make personal application, and to teach Jehovah's law. 

How can we imitate his example? It is important not only to read the Bible, but we need to study God's Word, and think deeply about what we read. That includes meditating on the application of Bible principles. This is one way that our conduct can honor Jehovah.

However, recall that the third reason Ezra prepared his heart was so he could teach others about God. Ezra 7:25 bring out a similar point.

(After reading)

Ezra was a wise man because he listened to Jehovah's law and had God's holy spirit. The Persian world-ruler recognized godly wisdom in Ezra and commissioned him with broad civil powers within the juridical domain of Judah. (Ezra 7:12-26) Ezra was thus equipped with authority from Jehovah and the Persian king, and this enabled him to teach others. 

Hence, another way that we can honor Jehovah like Ezra did, is by teaching others, whether in the field ministry or by communicating divine wisdom in the congregation. We can only accomplish this task through Jehovah's powerful spirit.

Yet, out of all the qualities that we might possess, there is one quality that we must have in order for Jehovah to use us fully. Turn with me to Ezra 8:21-23 and notice how he set an example for those who want to honor Jehovah.

Read Ezra 8:21-23.

Ezra humbled himself before Jehovah. The Insight book states: "One who humbles himself before God can expect to have God’s guidance."

Think about the heavy responsibility that Ezra had: he led numerous Israelites back from Babylon while they carried gold and silver to rebuild the temple. Although they needed protection for this journey, Ezra did not want to ask the king of Persia for a military escort because it would have shown reliance on military might instead of Jehovah. So Ezra proclaimed a fast instead to make the Israelites humble themselves before Jehovah. As a result of their humble reliance on God, they completed the hazardous trip from Babylon to Jerusalem successfully, all to the honor of Jehovah.

[Discuss picture of brother being commended by his employer]

Closing question: Ask Yourself: ‘Do unbelievers respect me for my godly conduct?’

Job 1:5,11--A Euphemism?

NLT: "But reach out and take away everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face!"

The Hebrew word barak appears here (בָרַךְ), a term that normally means "to bless" (Genesis 2:3; 12:3). 

BDB entry for barak: "bless, with the antithetical meaning curse (Thes) from the greeting in departing, saying adieu to, taking leave of; but rather a blessing overdone and so really a curse as in vulgar English as well as in the Shemitic cognates: 1 Kings 21:10,13; Job 1:5,11; Job 2:5,9; Psalm 10:3."

John Gray (The Book of Job, page 121): "MT uberaku (lit. ‘and blessed’), a regular euphemism of the orthodox scribes, to whom ‘curse God’ was intolerable."

Commenting on Job 1:5, John E. Hartley offers this perspective (The Book of Job, page 65): 

"The word translated 'curse,' barak (also in 2:5,9), which usually means 'bless,' is used euphemistically. Many consider it a scribal change for an original qillelu (which Targ. reads here), but there is no reason why this euphemistic style may not have been original."

Commenting on Job 1:5, Robert Alden writes (Job, NAC):  “ 'Curse' is the translation of the common brk that ordinarily means 'bless.' The context makes clear that brk is intended here as a euphemism. Such a diametrically opposite meaning occurs again at 1:11; 2:5,9."

In a footnote, Alden adds:  "Used in this polar sense brk occurs also in 1 Kgs 21:10,13; Ps 10:3. E. Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 272) explains that it could be either a scribal change or a euphemism used by the original author."

Compare Douglas Mangum. "Euphemism in Biblical Hebrew and the Euphemistic ‘bless’ in the Septuagint of Job." 

October 2020. 

HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 76(4).

DOI:10.4102/hts.v76i4.6140

Another source that explains these Job verses in terms of a potential euphemism or scribal substitution is Robert Alter's The Hebrew Bible.

How Some Commentators View Job 42:11

David Clines (Job 38-42, WBC): The little phrase of the narrator’s, “for all the misfortune that Yahweh had brought on him,” lets slip the fact that neither Job nor his friends ever get to know anything of the events in heaven that precipitated his woes, or anything of the role played by the Satan. On the other hand, if they had known what readers know about the origins of Job’s sufferings, they may still have been inclined to refer to them as “the misfortune that Yahweh had brought on him,” since it was Yahweh who had no doubt been morally responsible for all that had transpired—despite the fact that the Satan was their immediate cause.

John Hartley (The Book of Job, page 541): Like the dialogue, this scene attributes the cause of Job's misfortune to Yahweh. There is no discussion of intermediate causes, for it was believed that Yahweh was the cause of all that takes place.

Norman Habel (The Book of Job, OTL, page 585): Job is now approachable like other mortals; he is no longer the isolated hero challenging heaven with his lawsuits. The misfortunes which Job experienced are here identified as "all the evil" (ra'a) inflicted by Yahweh. The agency of the Satan is now irrelevant. The "evil" Job experienced is indeed the "evil" he acknowledged from Yahweh's hands (2:10; cf. 30:26). God does indeed cause the innocent to suffer evil; such things are part of his cosmic "design."

Robert Fyall (Now My Eyes Have Seen You): Two important expressions crystallize the events as they have unfolded and are yet to happen. Verse 11 speaks of ‘all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him’, and verse 12 says that ‘The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first.’ The Lord is the sole cause of all that has happened and will happen. Verses 11–12 raise a number of questions that bear especially on the relationship of God and evil.

Robert Alden (Job, NAC): The first to welcome Job to his restored state were his siblings and friends, presumably the ones who shunned him during the height of his trial (19:13-15). They did what the friends had originally come to do, “comfort and console/sympathize with him” (2:11). “Trouble” is rendered “evil” in the older translations, but the Hebrew word is also the opposite of “prosperity/peace/well-being” as Isa 45:7 indicates.

Greg Welty (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-problem-of-evil/): It is one thing to acknowledge God’s sovereign and purposeful providence over the moral and natural evils mentioned in the Job, Joseph, and Jesus narratives. It is quite another to claim that God is sovereign over all moral and natural evils. But this is what the Bible repeatedly teaches. This takes us a considerable way towards licensing the GGT [greater good theodicy] as a general approach to the problem of evil. The Bible presents multitudes of examples of God intentionally bringing about natural evils – famine, drought, rampaging wild animals, disease, birth defects such as blindness and deafness, and even death itself – rather than being someone who merely permits nature to ‘do its thing’ on its own.

Prayer Moved Jehovah to Intervene-The Case of Hezekiah (Modified Talk)

Prayer Moved Jehovah to Intervene

I want to start out by giving you a brief quiz.

Is the following statement True or False?

"The prayers of righteous people are completely ineffectual."

The Bible Answer Is found at James 5:16 where it assures us that "A righteous man’s supplication has a powerful effect." 

Hence, supplications or intense prayers can have a powerful effect when they're uttered by righteous people. King Hezekiah of Judah was one such righteous person. Did his prayers have a powerful effect?

2 Kings 20:1-We can just imagine the scene. The Assyrians brought major force against Jerusalem while Hezekiah was sick to the point of death, and Isaiah told the king that he would not recover from his illness: he would certainly die. To make matters worse, Hezekiah had no heir to succeed him. Therefore, he wondered who would fight for Jerusalem after his demise? What would Hezekiah do in this situation?

2 Kings 20:2-3-what kind of prayer did Hezekiah offer? He offered supplications because the account says he begged Jehovah to remember his faithful course and how he had walked with a complete heart before God. Hezekiah's prayer was intense, even accompanied by profuse tears. 

What was the result of this earnest entreaty to Jehovah?

2 Kings 20:4-6 answers.

Would you say that Hezekiah's prayer had a powerful effect? Yes, it caused Jehovah to intervene and extend the life of Hezekiah by fifteen years. Is there a lesson for us today?

We learn that our supplications to Jehovah are never in vain. It is possible that Jehovah might be moved by our supplications to act and do something he otherwise might not have done; our supplications might cause Jehovah to intervene as he did in Hezekiah's case. However, we don't necessarily expect miraculous healings today or longer lives because we offer supplications. Nevertheless, we can be confident that Jehovah will give us what we need to endure hardship and distress if we earnestly implore him (1 Corinthians 10:13). Jehovah invites us to pour out our hearts to him (Psalm 62:8). So, regardless of the outcome, it is good to know that the prayers of righteous persons are effectual and powerful.

Psalm 139:16 and The Rendering, "Embryo"

Oxford Languages Definition for "Embryo":

an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus).

Some choose to render the Hebrew word golem in Psalm 139:16 as "unformed substance" or something to that effect, but Brown-Driver and Briggs (BDB) Hebrew-English Lexicon tells us that golem is a word at times used for the "embryo." Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon likewise says that golem refers to something "rolled together" or "rude and unformed matter, not yet wrought, the parts of which are not yet unfolded and developed." It then states that the word is used "of the embryo." The word occurs one time in the Hebrew Bible.

Nancy Declaisse-Walford prefers the translation "unshaped form" for the Hebrew word, which she points out is a hapax legomenon (Latin for a saying that happens once). She writes: "In Babylonian Aramaic, the word is used to designate a formless mass or an incomplete vessel. The Syriac word galmā means 'uncultivated soil.' "

Declaisse-Walford is critical of the translation, "embryo" because she thinks it is too precise and potentially misleading, probably in light of what the ancients knew about embryology. However, as we have seen, two lexicons (BDB and Gesenius) give embryo as the term's potential sense, even if that is not the strict meaning. Some translations opt for "before I was born" language in Psalm 139:16 (NET Bible). Yet see the entry for golem in HALOT.

A recent translation of the Hebrew Bible by Robert Alter renders the word "unformed shape." In my humble assessment, whether one handles the word like Alter does or like the NWT and other Bibles, it seems that David did not know (at least not in any great detail) as we do today that a baby goes through an embryonic state which differs markedly from the fetal state. One cannot know such things in any great detail without modern technology, but the ancients knew that babies were conceived, started out real tiny, then began to grow bigger. We call the early stage "embryonic."

Having said the foregoing, I see nothing wrong with the NWT handling of the verse: it communicates what we would understand by "unformed substance" in the womb. As you all know, when it comes to babies, there are even finer distinctions we could make, like talk about the blastocyst. But none of these tangential matters were likely David's inspired concern.

Is Daniel 8:25 MT Textually Reliable? (Comments by Holger Gzella)

 

Latin Vulgate (Jerome):

secundum voluntatem suam et dirigetur dolus in manu eius et cor suum magnificabit et in copia rerum omnium occidet plurimos et contra principem principum consurget et sine manu conteretur

"According to his will, and craft shall be successful in his hand: and his heart shall be puffed up, and in the abundance of all things he shall kill many: and he shall rise up against the prince of princes, and shall be broken without hand"

See https://vulgate.org/ot/daniel_8.htm

"The Divine Name in Early Judaism" by Anthony Meyer (Link to Doctoral Dissertation)

 See https://areopage.net/PDF/Meyer_DivineName.pdf

Compare https://brill.com/abstract/title/57653?language=en

A Case Example in Translation: 2 Kings 8:26

One of my friends posted about this subject in another venue, but I want to take the topic in a different direction than he did.

NWT 2013: A·ha·ziʹah was 22 years old when he became king, and he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ath·a·liʹah the granddaughter* of King Omʹri of Israel.

Note: Lit., “daughter.”

ESV: Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah; she was a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.

NET Bible: Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king and he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter^[a] of King Omri of Israel.

Note [a]: tn Hebrew בַּת (bat), “daughter,” can refer, as here to a granddaughter. See HALOT 166 s.v. בַּת.

KJV: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

This brings up an issue of how one should translate the Bible: should it be according to dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence principles? What is the difference?

Bible translators explain that dynamic equivalence is also known as functional equivalence: Bibles that chiefly use this translation principle might render certain passages "literally," but for the most part, they seek to render the source language in an idiomatic way for the target audience. For example the NLT (a dynamic equivalence translation) renders Ezekiel 40:5, "I could see a wall completely surrounding the Temple area. The man took a measuring rod that was 10 1⁄2 feet^[b] long and measured the wall, and the wall was 10 1⁄2 feet^[c] thick and 10 1⁄2 feet high." Conversely, the RSV translates this same passage: "And behold, there was a wall all around the outside of the temple area, and the length of the measuring reed in the man’s hand was six long cubits, each being a cubit and a handbreadth in length; so he measured the thickness of the wall, one reed; and the height, one reed."

The differences in these renderings illustrate how dynamic equivalence Bibles differ from functional equivalence translations: the NLT gives the measurements in feet whereas the RSV provides the units in cubits. Contra dynamic equivalence translations, formal equivalence Bibles attempt to stick to the form of the source language: they are called "literal" translations as we see with the RSV. The formal/functional translating of Hebrew and Greek applies not just to individual words but to the way sentences are constructed too (i.e., syntax).

Going back to 2 Kings 8:26, which way should translators handle the verse? Should they render the Hebrew word, bat, as "daughter" (KJV) or "granddaughter" (NWT, et al.). One way seems more "literal" than the other but could be misleading since the Hebrew word in this context refers to a granddaughter. Another option is to do like NWT/NET and translate "granddaughter," but then add notes explaining the choice. Conversely, if one chooses "daughter," a note could also be supplied. I'm glad to know that Athaliah was the granddaughter of King Omri, not his daughter. It is interesting how Hebrew used this term as a reference to a daughter or granddaughter.

The NABRE translates bat in this case as "daughter," but includes the following note:

Note for 2 Kings 8:26: It is unclear whether Athaliah was Omri’s daughter (v. 26) or his granddaughter (v. 18). Perhaps “daughter” here is being used loosely for “female descendant.”