Chapter, Paragraph

 1 1,1 |         say that the rabbis made a correct distinction between normal
 2 3,6 |       impression — not necessarily correct — made by ch. 3 is that
 3 4,2 |            G. A. Smith is probably correct in suggesting (ibid. p.
 4 4,4 |           times been strong to put correct order in the first place.
 5 4,4 |            in the first place. But correct” order is no guarantee of
 6 4,4 |        order is no guarantee of a “correct” knowledge of God, and still
 7 4,4 |            God, and still less of “correct” living.~ ~
 8 4,6 |          The R.V. mg. in ver. 3 is correct.~ The kine of Bashan (4:
 9 4,6 | interpretation. Harper is probably correct in rendering ver. 25, “Was
10 4,7 |            Israel. The A.V. mg. is correct in 9:9, “…yet shall not
11 5,7 |           S.V. is almost certainly correct in rendering with a different
12 5,7 |         difficult. If the above is correct, then “Ephraim” merely indicates
13 6,6 |        Jeremiah are unanimous that correct worship without corres­ponding
14 6,6 |       noted that the demand is for correct behaviour toward one’s neighbour (
15 6,8 |           Jehovah, for the LXX are correct in interpreting “his face,” “
16 7,2 |           1) as only approximately correct, Micah’s work beginning
17 7,6 |         Cheyne (C. B). is probably correct in regarding this verse
18 8,3 |     expressed in ch. XI (p. 81) is correct, this be­comes improbable.
19 9,2 |       century. Were this tradition correct, Nahum will have been a
20 9,2 |        Nahum. If this tradition is correct, Nahum was the descendant
21 9,4 |            The chapter division is correct, for we have two poems on
22 10,3|        being one. In each case the correct translation is faithfulness.
23 11,7|        Outward Religion).~ For the correct understanding of this section
24 11,9|    footnote is only approxi­mately correct. Shorter portions in 7-20
25 11,9|            written above is at all correct, Jeremiah did not come prominently
26 12,1|      Criticism, p. 15) seems to be correct, when he maintains that
27 13,2|           interpretation of 1:1 is correct (see below), Ezekiel was
28 13,8|          year,” which is obviously correct.] ~ Ezekiel had been prepared
29 13,8|            earlier ex­planation is correct, means that from now on
30 13,9|         future (Ch. 34). ~ For the correct understanding of this chapter
31 15,3|   preincarnate Son is, we believe, correct, but this is based on general
32 15,4|  Zerubbabel and Joshua. If this is correct, it means that in the theocracy
33 15,5|         The crown (the singular is correct, see mg. to vers. 11, 14)
34 15,5|         doubt that the R.V. mg. is correct in ver. 13 and that it is
35 16,2|          shall be almost certainly correct in re­garding the book as
36 17,8|          be continued. The R.V. is correct in its rendering of 3:25, “
37 17,1|   Similarly in ver. 13 the R.V. is correct in rendering “one like unto
38 18,5|            more,” seems to be more correct than the R.V., though its
39 18,7|             7 the R.V. is probably correct in rendering “nobles” rather