| |  |
PARALLEL HISTORY BIBLE - Deuteronomy 28:47
CHAPTERS: Deuteronomy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 
VERSES: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68
TEXT: BIB | AUDIO: MISLR - DAVIS | VIDEO: BIB
ENGLISH - HISTORY - INTERNATIONAL - FACEBOOK - GR FORUMS - GODRULES ON YOUTUBE
HELPS: KJS - KJV - ASV - DBY - DOU - WBS - YLT - HEB - BBE - WEB - NAS - SEV - TSK - CRK - WES - MHC - GILL - JFB
|
LXX- Greek Septuagint - Deuteronomy 28:47 ανθ 473 ' ων 5607 5752 3739 ουκ 3756 ελατρευσας κυριω 2962 τω 3588 θεω 2316 σου 4675 εν 1722 1520 ευφροσυνη και 2532 αγαθη 18 καρδια 2588 δια 1223 2203 το 3588 πληθος 4128 παντων 3956
Douay Rheims Bible Because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things:
King James Bible - Deuteronomy 28:47 Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;
World English Bible Because you didn't serve Yahweh your God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things;
World Wide Bible Resources
Deuteronomy 28:47
Early Christian Commentary - (A.D. 100 - A.D. 325) Npnf-201 iii.xv.ix Pg 24
Npnf-201 iv.vi.i.xxxviii Pg 12
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 72.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 109.1
Anf-02 vi.ii.viii Pg 17.1
Anf-03 v.iv.ii.iv Pg 3
Isa. xl. 18; 25. Human circumstances may perhaps be compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God. God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. Once more:2371 2371 Denique. you who apply the example of a king, as a great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he will be dislodged2372 2372 Excidet. from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which fails2373 2373 Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2. in all the purposes which belong to a comparison? Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others)2374 2374 Scilicet. who is King of kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other ranks2375 2375 Graduum. to Him) the very summit,2376 2376 Culmen. as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty2377 2377 Minutalibus regnis. prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points2378 2378 Undique. into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features2379 2379 Substantiis. and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound2380 2380 Eliquetur. to one alone,—all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature, and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be not the greater, however great. Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme, which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to share His power.
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 72.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 109.1
Anf-03 v.iv.ii.iv Pg 3
Isa. xl. 18; 25. Human circumstances may perhaps be compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God. God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. Once more:2371 2371 Denique. you who apply the example of a king, as a great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he will be dislodged2372 2372 Excidet. from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which fails2373 2373 Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2. in all the purposes which belong to a comparison? Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others)2374 2374 Scilicet. who is King of kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other ranks2375 2375 Graduum. to Him) the very summit,2376 2376 Culmen. as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty2377 2377 Minutalibus regnis. prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points2378 2378 Undique. into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features2379 2379 Substantiis. and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound2380 2380 Eliquetur. to one alone,—all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature, and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be not the greater, however great. Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme, which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to share His power.
Anf-02 v.ii.ix Pg 5.1
Npnf-201 iii.xiii.xiii Pg 9
Npnf-201 iv.vii.xviii Pg 37
Npnf-201 iii.xiii.xiii Pg 9
Npnf-201 iv.vii.xviii Pg 37
Anf-01 viii.iv.xxvii Pg 2
Isa. lviii. 13, 14.
Anf-01 ix.vii.xxxv Pg 9
Isa. lviii. 14. This is what the Lord declared: “Happy are those servants whom the Lord when He cometh shall find watching. Verily I say unto you, that He shall gird Himself, and make them to sit down [to meat], and will come forth and serve them. And if He shall come in the evening watch, and find them so, blessed are they, because He shall make them sit down, and minister to them; or if this be in the second, or it be in the third, blessed are they.”4754 4754
Anf-03 iv.ii Pg 171
Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 18. and on Ezek. xxxvi.;55 55 P. 952, tom. iii. Opp. ed. Bened. and by Gennadius of Marseilles.56 56 De Ecclesiæ dogmatibus, c. 55.
Anf-01 ix.vi.xxvii Pg 22
Num. xvi. 15. In this way, too, Samuel, who judged the people so many years, and bore rule over Israel without any pride, in the end cleared himself, saying, “I have walked before you from my childhood even unto this day: answer me in the sight of God, and before His anointed (Christi ejus); whose ox or whose ass of yours have I taken, or over whom have I tyrannized, or whom have I oppressed? or if I have received from the hand of any a bribe or [so much as] a shoe, speak out against me, and I will restore it to you.”4167 4167
Anf-03 iv.ii Pg 49
See Judg. ix. 2 sqq. and perhaps, too, to the “thistle” of Jehoash’s.31 31
Npnf-201 iii.xv.ix Pg 24
Npnf-201 iv.vi.i.xxxviii Pg 12
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 72.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 109.1
Anf-02 vi.ii.viii Pg 17.1
Anf-03 v.iv.ii.iv Pg 3
Isa. xl. 18; 25. Human circumstances may perhaps be compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God. God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. Once more:2371 2371 Denique. you who apply the example of a king, as a great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he will be dislodged2372 2372 Excidet. from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which fails2373 2373 Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2. in all the purposes which belong to a comparison? Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others)2374 2374 Scilicet. who is King of kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other ranks2375 2375 Graduum. to Him) the very summit,2376 2376 Culmen. as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty2377 2377 Minutalibus regnis. prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points2378 2378 Undique. into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features2379 2379 Substantiis. and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound2380 2380 Eliquetur. to one alone,—all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature, and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be not the greater, however great. Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme, which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to share His power.
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 72.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.xiv Pg 109.1
Anf-03 v.iv.ii.iv Pg 3
Isa. xl. 18; 25. Human circumstances may perhaps be compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God. God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. Once more:2371 2371 Denique. you who apply the example of a king, as a great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he will be dislodged2372 2372 Excidet. from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which fails2373 2373 Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2. in all the purposes which belong to a comparison? Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others)2374 2374 Scilicet. who is King of kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other ranks2375 2375 Graduum. to Him) the very summit,2376 2376 Culmen. as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty2377 2377 Minutalibus regnis. prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points2378 2378 Undique. into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features2379 2379 Substantiis. and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound2380 2380 Eliquetur. to one alone,—all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature, and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be not the greater, however great. Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme, which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to share His power.
Anf-02 v.ii.ix Pg 5.1
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 28VERSE (47) - De 12:7-12; 16:11; 32:13-15 Ne 9:35 1Ti 6:17-19
|
|
PARALLEL VERSE BIBLE
|
