Must not spare the praise for Psalm 9 CEV

I like very much the laying out of the acrostic letters in Psalm 9. The layout implies that daleth is verse 6. It is the ד that is missing - verse 6 (Hebrew verse 7) is ה.

There is a suggestion that Psalm 10 is also part of the acrostic, but there only one letter ל is noted. There are more: מ, נ, ס, ע, פ, צ are missing but the remainder ק ר ש ת are quite clear.

It is such a good idea to name and note the Hebrew letters. It gives the reader the sense that the text is old and different and not 'common'.

There are 8 opportunities to teach the letters, but they have taken only 2: Psalm 9 and Psalm 119. These are opportunities missed, I think. Particularly since all the acrostics in book 5 are perfect but each in book 1 is missing at least one letter.

My Sunday School children love learning the Hebrew letters. They particularly like puzzles - like why are the acrostics not perfect in book 1 but are in book 5?

These are ordinary uncommon children.

CEB Psalm 3 and victory or the shopping-list Bible

I guess that some things that I consider important are not important to others. E.g. in Psalm 3, God and salvation are a pair of recurring words - verse 3(Hebrew 2) and 8(7) - and note verse 9(8) where salvation is from YHWH. It is the first time we have heard the designation God. And a first for salvation / victory / rescue also.

The CEB uses three different words: help, save, rescue for the three words related to salvation so the framing of the poem is rendered practically invisible.

What should one do here? Am I wrong to pick salvation for my gloss to rhyme with the verb to save?

At least - or so I think - the same root could be used three times. rescue, rescue, rescue. That would allow the poet's thought to be heard and seen.

Maybe my ways of seeing are less than interesting. Maybe these are not the same roots. (But they are)

Why do I bother looking for and pointing out structure? Because it often surrounds a key concept that I would otherwise miss. OK everyone knows that YHWH is God so no need to point out that the poet implies this connection here.

Here's another small point. Is there such a thing as a space between the lines? A space in which we are encouraged to hear a special word for us?

I lie down and I sleep
אֲנִי שָׁכַבְתִּי וָאִישָׁנָה
I awake for יְהוָה sustains me
הֱקִיצוֹתִי כִּי יְהוָה יִסְמְכֵנִי
or

I lie down, sleep, and wake up
because the LORD helps me

The second is a list of actions with the 'and' connecting the second and third in the list. The first has a pause where there is not a list. Am I at liberty to convert a non-list into a list?

Technically, the first is very close to the Hebrew. I did not note the separate personal pronoun as I often do, since it is not repeated in the poem. It might be emphatic, or it might just be there to equalize the syllable or word count on the consecutive lines. If the Hebrew is poetry, then the first follows the poet's selection of phrases.

This is a battle I will not win. But I have no intention of winning. What was it that verse 9 (Hebrew 8) reads?

Anyway, it's time to watch Mystery.

CEB Psalm 1

The first verse
The truly happy person
doesn't follow wicked advice
doesn't stand etc
...
These persons love the Lord's Instruction
...
They are like a tree
replanted ...
which bears fruit
...
That's not true for the wicked
They are like dust
...

I want to illustrate what I think is important that is missed here. Though I realize that my translation is often stilted, I wonder about other modern translations and what we have lost in our sensitivity to our own language.

Verse 1 - misses the chiasm a-b,b-a,b-a in the trio of thoughts. I am glad they kept the singular at least in verse 1. The opening 'truly happy' is a false sequence in human thought. What do you think - is happiness a consequence or a prevenient grace? A sequence - do this and you will be happy, or a mystery of the interaction of hidden dimensions?

(skipping the complex 'instead of doing these things', an explanatory gloss in a poem)
'These persons' -  the switch to plural here is potentially a misreading of the Psalter. In any case, it is not yet plural.

replanted - what's wrong with transplanted or just planted? Transplant is surely a very common word for trees.
The tree is singular, 'they' is plural. What does that do to the English agreement of relative pronoun and verb?

'dust' - this misses the harvest image. It is arguable that harvest (psalm 67) is a centrepiece of the Psalter. So missing the image here is unfortunate. The chaff is a necessary part of fruitfulness.