bracket
what should be said.

A curated collection of wild, outrageous, and hilarious profanity definitions and pronunciations for your churning, educational learning, and entertainment.

Results for "1 Chronicles 1:46"

1 chronicles 1:46

Definition: And when Husham was dead, Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city [was] Avith.


Explanation: Okay, let’s break down this Bible verse together. It’s a really interesting and somewhat mysterious passage from 1 Chronicles! Here's an explanation in simpler terms: The Basic Story: This verse tells us about a long-ago conflict. It describes a time when the kingdom of Israel was divided into two parts, and one of those parts was ruled by a powerful king named Hadad. However, this Hadad wasn’t a good ruler – he had a terrible and vengeful brother named Bedad who caused great suffering in the region of Moab. Let's unpack it: "And when Husham was dead..." - This refers to a significant event in the past – Husham, a powerful leader, died. It’s important to understand that Husham was a very important figure. "...Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab..." - Hadad was the king of a region called Midian. The word “smote” means to attack or harm. The verse says he attacked Moab – a region south of Israel. This is a serious act of aggression. "...reigned in his stead: and the name of his city [was] Avith." - After Hadad was defeated, Bedad took over as king. He named his city "Avith" (which means “the first”). What’s the big picture? This verse is a bit of a puzzle for scholars. It suggests that: A Succession Crisis: The division of Israel and the conflict with Hadad created a situation where the throne was passed down through a line of kings. A Cycle of Violence: The story highlights a pattern of conflict, revenge, and suffering – it’s a reminder of how sometimes power can lead to bad decisions. Important Note: The exact details of this history are debated among biblical scholars. It's likely that the verse is telling us about a specific period in the past, rather than providing a completely detailed account of events. --- To help me explain it even better and tailor it to your understanding, could you tell me: What are you hoping to understand from this verse? (e.g., its historical context, what it means?)