2 Samuel 14:6

14:6 Your servant ¹  has two sons. When the two of them got into a fight in the field, there was no one present who could intervene. One of them struck the other and killed him.

Mazmur 7:2

7:2 Otherwise they will rip ²  me ³  to shreds like a lion;

they will tear me to bits and no one will be able to rescue me. ⁴ 

Mazmur 50:22

50:22 Carefully consider this, you who reject God! ⁵ 

Otherwise I will rip you to shreds ⁶ 

and no one will be able to rescue you.

Daniel 3:15-17

3:15 Now if you are ready, when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, trigon, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music, you must bow down and pay homage to the statue that I had made. If you don’t pay homage to it, you will immediately be thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire. Now, who is that god who can rescue you from my power?” ⁷  3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, ⁸  “We do not need to give you a reply ⁹  concerning this. 3:17 If ¹⁰  our God whom we are serving exists, ¹¹  he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well.

[14:6]  ¹ tn Here and elsewhere (vv. 7, 12, 15a, 17, 19) the woman uses a term which suggests a lower level female servant. She uses the term to express her humility before the king. However, she uses a different term in vv. 15b-16. See the note at v. 15 for a discussion of the rhetorical purpose of this switch in terminology.

[7:2]  ² tn The verb is singular in the Hebrew text, even though “all who chase me” in v. 1 refers to a whole group of enemies. The singular is also used in vv. 4-5, but the psalmist returns to the plural in v. 6. The singular is probably collective, emphasizing the united front that the psalmist’s enemies present. This same alternation between a collective singular and a plural referring to enemies appears in Pss 9:3, 6; 13:4; 31:4, 8; 41:6, 10-11; 42:9-10; 55:3; 64:1-2; 74:3-4; 89:22-23; 106:10-11; 143:3, 6, 9.

[7:2]  ³ tn Heb “my life.” The pronominal suffix attached to נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) is equivalent to a personal pronoun. See Ps 6:3.

[7:2]  ⁴ tn Heb “tearing and there is no one rescuing.” The verbal form translated “tearing” is a singular active participle.

[50:22]  ⁵ tn Heb “[you who] forget God.” “Forgetting God” here means forgetting about his commandments and not respecting his moral authority.

[50:22]  ⁶ sn Elsewhere in the psalms this verb is used (within a metaphorical framework) of a lion tearing its prey (see Pss 7:2; 17:12; 22:13).

[3:15]  ⁷ tn Aram “hand.” So also in v. 17.

[3:16]  ⁸ tc In the MT this word is understood to begin the following address (“answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar’”). However, it seems unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar’s subordinates would address the king in such a familiar way, particularly in light of the danger that they now found themselves in. The present translation implies moving the atnach from “king” to “Nebuchadnezzar.”

[3:16]  ⁹ tn Aram “to return a word to you.”

[3:17]  ¹⁰ tc The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.

[3:17]  ¹¹ tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (’itay, “is” or “exist”). There are several possibilities. (1) Some interpreters take this word closely with the participle later in the verse יָכִל (yakhil, “able”), understanding the two words to form a periphrastic construction (“if our God is…able”; cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, 365, §111b). But the separation of the two elements from one another is not an argument in favor of this understanding. (2) Other interpreters take the first part of v. 17 to mean “If it is so, then our God will deliver us” (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB). However, the normal sense of ’itay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 45, §95. The present translation maintains the sense of existence for the verb (“If our God…exists”), even though the statement is admittedly difficult to understand in this light. The statement may be an implicit reference back to Nebuchadnezzar’s comment in v. 15, which denies the existence of a god capable of delivering from the king’s power.