Monday, 27 August 2007

10 Reasons Why I'm Thankful For The God-Breathed Bible

1. The Bible awakens faith, the source of all obedience.
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (Romans 10:17)

2. The Bible frees from sin.
You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)

3. The Bible frees from Satan.
The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)

4. The Bible sanctifies.
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. (John 17:17)

5. The Bible frees from corruption and empowers godliness.
His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. (2 Peter 1:3-4)

6. The Bible serves love.
And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment. (Philippians 1:9)
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:5)

7. The Bible saves.
Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. (1 Timothy 4:16)
Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. (Acts 20:26)
[They will] perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. (2 Thessalonians 2:10)

8. The Bible gives joy.
These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. (John 15:11)

9. The Bible reveals the Lord.
And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord. (1 Samuel 3:21)

10. Therefore, the Bible is the foundation of my happy home and life and ministry and hope of eternity with God.

© Desiring God

Why We Believe the Bible 1&2

Wednesday, 8 August 2007

More Challenges

Earlier on this week, I encountered two additional challenges to translating the Bible into Jamaican. The first relates to the fact that Jamaican is mainly an oral language; the second is a reminder of the fact that many persons have difficulties reading English – let alone Jamaican! I believe the person who raised these concerns has got the good of the Jamaican people in mind, and I do respect his/her opinion. However I offer the following quick responses.

1. Re Patois being an oral language. EVERY LANGUAGE YOU CAN THINK OF STARTED OUT ONLY IN SPOKEN FORM. Our beloved Jamaican/Patois is no exception to the laws of linguistic development. Caribbean creoles have been around for about 400. In comparison with most of the world’s languages, this is very young. Did you know that the Bible has had a remarkable/considerable influence on development of the German language, modern Hebrew, English and a host of other languages?!

My employer, Wycliffe Bible Translators, has translated the Bible into many languages which were only oral. (Many more are being done, and are yet to be done.) Wycliffe missionary linguists write down these languages with what is called the International Phonetic Alphabet. This alphabet has got a symbol for every sound possible to human beings. Using this alphabet, our missionaries work alongside local people and develop an alphabet for each unwritten language, analyse the grammar, produce primers and teach the speakers to read their own language! A lot of this work has already been done on our Jamaican language. In fact, Jamaican/Patois is one of the most studied Creole languages in the world! Bible translation no easy, however, it’s exciting stuff!

2. Re problems reading. The simple (??? Perhaps an overstatement!) problem is that Jamaicans are not being taught in their native tongue but in a language which is foreign to them; hence the crisis in our present educational system. English is not the natural (mother tongue), primary language of Jamaica; it should be taught as a separate language. Linguists believe that cognitive and linguistic skills are best acquired and developed in one’s “heart language.” It’s much easier then for the acquired skills to be transferred to the 2nd language systematically. I believe our present system is walking back ways! People have probs reading English because the present system is deficient.

A recent study, conducted by the Department of Linguistics, UWI, Mona, has revealed that nearly 80% of Jamaicans felt that Jamaican/Patois is a separate language and that nearly 70 % agreed that it should be made official alongside English! 71% of the population would like to have bilingual schools!

Much more could be said, but it’s good to leave room for discussion.

If you’ve got time (?), perhaps you would like to read the following online:
1. The Importance of Mother Tongue-Based Schooling for Educational Quality
2. Language Attitude Survey of Jamaica – Data Analysis and Summary of Results
3. Language Rights, Justice and the Constitution (Pt 1)
4. Language Rights, Justice and the Constitution (Pt 2) – I’ll get the link for this one asap.
5. Jamaican Creole Morphology & Syntax

Saturday, 5 May 2007

Can God's Word Be Translated?


Muslims claim that the original Arabic Koranic text is untranslatable and that all “translations” are “interpretations.” Is the Bible translatable and are there only “interpretations”?
[1] The required length of this essay makes it impossible to do a full treatment of the issue. What I will attempt, however, it to give a cursory outline of the issues that are involved in Bible translation and their bearing upon the church.


The translation of the scriptures began as early as 270 BC with the Septuagint. To date, 2,500 languages do not have a Bible translation.
There are therefore immense needs and opportunities in the field of Bible translation; however there are a commensurate amount of problems which the translator faces. Firstly, no two words are exactly alike. Secondly, the vocabulary of any two languages will vary in size. Thirdly, different languages have different syntactical rules. Fourthly, languages differ in their stylistic preferences.


Despite these challenges the Bible implies that it is imperative that the Church produces the Scriptures into each of the world’s languages.
[4] I shall restrict myself to two New Testament evidences.

Firstly, the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20
[5] confers upon the Church the responsibility of presenting the Word of God to each ethnolinguistic people group. The eleven are commanded to make disciples of all the nations,[6] and to teach them everything He (Jesus) had taught them. This command to make disciples of “all the nations” is a charge to go beyond the boundaries of the nation of Israel[7] with the message of God’s Kingdom into the linguistically diverse peoples (especially Gentiles) of the world.[8] Notice Jesus’ uses of the imperatival participle “διδάσκοντες” expresses one of the components of “making disciples.” The root verb is one of speech which necessitates transference of all that Jesus had taught His disciples into the vernaculars of “all the nations. In order for any people group to hear the gospel it has got to be in their vernacular or another learnt language.

The second evidence is in Acts 2:1-12 where on three occasions we are told that believers were enabled to speak in other languages.
[9] Adjith Fernando suggests that one of the immense implications of this passage is that we need to learn the “heart language” of people and share the gospel with them in that language.[10] Luke tells us that “…Jews from many nations[11] ….were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers.” These Jews said “we hear them speaking the languages of the lands where we were born!...we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!"[12] Luke then proceeds to give an extensive catalogue of fifteen linguistically diverse nations which the people represented.[13]

The believers’ enablement by the Spirit to speak of “the mighty works of God”
[14] demonstrates God’s grace in accommodating His revelation in human languages.[15] It also shows that what the onlookers form the Jewish Diaspora heard were true and accurate declarations of God’s deeds in languages which were at first a curse upon humanity. God transformed a symbol of Babel into a medium of exuberant praise and declaration of His might works. Thus one can give an emphatic yes to the question: Are the Scriptures translatable?

Everyone is agreed that the Bible endorses its translation and that they should aim at translating the “meaning” from the source-language into the receptor-language.
[16] The question, however, is: How does the translator transfer the meaning from the source-language into the receptor-language? There are two different philosophies which seek to answer this pertinent question: Formal Equivalence and Functional equivalence.[17]

Formal Equivalence
1 Corinthians 2:12-13 reads, “we have received…the Spirit…from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us… And we speak of these things in words…taught by the Spirit…”
[18] Paul claims that his words are Spirit inspired. Because of this, many well meaning translators will not go beyond a word-for-word translation until the proper transfer of meaning necessitates a slight shift in syntax and grammar.[19]

This philosophy requires the translator to choose one of a limited number of meanings assigned to each Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek lexeme or word. The translator then fills in the words that belong in the sentence and at the same time follows the syntax (or from) characteristic of the original language.
[20] Accordingly, nouns are translated by nouns, verbs by verbs, prepositions by prepositions, et cetera. Proponents of this philosophy believe semantic equivalence and Formal Equivalence are identical. This supposed to be “accurate” renderings have proven to be awkward, unnatural, incomprehensible, amusing, and in the words of Eugene Nida, “tragically misleading.”[21]

Notwithstanding, Formal Equivalent translations are indispensable for those who do not know or have a limited knowledge of the biblical languages as they are valuable in helping to: identify the formal structure of the original text; examine Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek idioms, figures of speech, and formal patters of language; trace recurrent words; identify textual ambiguities;
[22] trace formal verbal allusions;[23] identify, become familiarized, and appreciate an author’s unique style and use of words and therefore being able to see how the original authors expressed their meaning; be aware of the historical distance between the original authors, readers, and contemporary readers.

Functional Equivalence
Whilst Formal Equivalence seeks to reproduce in the receptor-language the equivalent of the source-language[25] message in terms of form, Functional Equivalence seeks to reproduce in the receptor-language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the source-language, primarily in terms of meaning and secondarily in terms of form. This philosophy does not disregard the form of the original languages. Conversely, it uses the grammatical and lexical form of the original provided the original meaning is communicated accurately. Hence, “lexical and syntactical semantics must always take precedence over lexical and syntactical forms.”[26] This is because a word has no inherent meaning in its sound or form, but from the “conventional meaning” attributed to it by a specific sociolinguistic group.[27]

However, Functional Equivalent translations are prone to abuses and or pitfalls. These include: oversimplification or destruction of the literacy or artistic integrity of the translated text;
[28] destruction of specialised “biblical vocabulary,”[29] verbal allusions and parallels;[30] and allows for interpretative bias.


The various linguistic challenges as well as the different translation philosophies make the need for teachers
[31] within the church more daunting.[32] In relation to Bible translation, I believe there are at least three reasons for this need.

“To Translate is to Betray”
Firstly, whilst all translators seek to be faithful to the original text, translation is an inexact science, and as a result, some meaning is either lost or added in any translation whether formal or functional.
[33] This is due to the fact, as we have already seen that no two languages are identical - for example, in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Consequently certain nuances in the source-language are either untranslatable or difficult to transfer into the receptor-language. These will only be made clear to the contemporary reader as the teacher expounds the biblical text. The teacher’s responsibility therefore would be to make sure that the meaning that is lost or added in translation is explained to those under his or her care.

Teachers are also needed to elucidate/clarify the translated scriptures. One of the complaints levied against some adherents of Functional Equivalence is that they strive to perform the work of the pastor/teacher. They have ignored the fact that biblical illiteracy is at the heart of the problem with contemporary Bible readers and that the novice will never perceive the meaning of the biblical text until he/she has resolved him/herself to much Bible study. How can the beginner or the novice understand significant biblical terms such as propitiation, justification, righteousness, sanctification, et cetera but by becoming familiar with the Bible and by the vital role of teachers who expound the biblical text?

Peters refers to some of Paul’s writings as being “hard to understand.”
[35] Certainly Peter is not implying that most believers will find most of the Scriptures unfathomable; nor is he proposing that such difficulty was the intention of its authors;[36] but that there are some passages of Scriptures which are not easily understood. Surely, the mysteries of the sacred Scriptures will not be solved by any new translation whatever its quality, respectability, and underlying translation philosophy. Like Christ, the teacher is to make perplexed truths clear and to effect the edification of the hearer.[37]

Contextualisation and Application
Finally, teachers are needed because of the barriers which stand between the original biblical audience and the contemporary reader.
[38] In Titus 1:9, Paul speaks of good teachers as those who are able to make the established Christian doctrine bear upon the lives of their hearers. Therefore, after the Scriptures have been translated local teachers need to not only to elucidate the meaning of a particular passage for the original audience, but to properly contextualise and apply that same passage to his/her audience.[39]

Translating the word of God into all the world’s ethnolinguistic communities is one of the Church’s responsibilities. Let us support the many those missionaries who are all over the world translating the scriptures whenever and however we can – whether prayerfully, financially, et cetera. After the Bible has been translated may the Lord will gift His Church with teachers who will elucidate, contextualise, and apply the sacred text.


[1] For a discussion on this matter see, Carson, D.A. ”The Inclusive Language Debate – A Pleas for Realism (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1998), 72. Also, see Strauss, Mark “Form, Function, and the ‘Literal Meaning’ requested notes pg 17-18.
[2] In addition to these languages 1,700 translation projects are on the way.
[3] An example of this would be the use of the passive voice in Greek and Hebrew. In Jamaica our English teachers encourage us to use as little passives as possible. However, in Greek there is a high regard for the use of passives. For these and more see Carson pg 47-76 and MacRae, Allan A. “The Problems of Translation” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) pg 37-44
[4]There are over 6,000 of these. For some useful statistics visit http//
[5] See also Matt.24:14; 26:13; Mk.16:15; Acts 1:8; Col.1:23
[6] For a summary of the usage of this phrase as used in the New Testament see Piper, John, Let the Nations Be Glad-The Supremacy of God in Missions (IVP: Leicester, 2003) pg 186-188.
[7] See Matt.10:5-6 and 15:24
[8] Matthew emphasises the nations see 1:3-5; 2:1-2; 3:9; 4:15; 8:5, 11, 28; 11:21-22; 15:22; 16:13; and 27:24. look up
[9] vv 4 6,8,11. Thus, the Church is enabled by the Spirit to fulfil the Commission of Matthew 28.
[10] Fernando, Adjith, The NIV Application Commentary – Acts (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1998) pg 86.
[11] Lit every nation under heaven. Not every single nation but those in the Greco-Roman world situated around the Mediterranean basin – every nation in which there Jews. Stott 63.
[12] Acts 2:1-5 How many languages were represented? NLB.
[13] Those from the east of Palestine, Judea, Asia Minor, North Africa, Rome, the Island of Crete, and Arabia. See Kistemaker Simon J., New Testament Commentary - Acts (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1990) pg 82. and Bruce¸ F.F. The New London Commentary on the New Testament – The Book of Acts (Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London, 1954 ) pg 62
[14] v11
[15] As is the case with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
[16] Source-language is also known as the donor-language. The receptor-language or the target-language.
[17] Strictly speaking all translations exist on a continuum between Formal Equivalence and Functional Equivalence.
[18] NRSV. Emphasis mine.
[19] For a response to this objection see Dillard, Raymand B., “Some Objections to Idiomatic Translations” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) esp pgs 110-112.
[20] In reality, Formal Equivalent translators have no choice but to adjust the grammar and syntax of the source-language in order to produce a reasonable recognizable and understandable translation in the target-language. Hence the saying, “So frei wie nötig, so treu wie möglich” – as free as necessary, but as accurate (faithful) as possible.”
[21] Nida, pg 5
[22] Therefore Formal Equivalence reduces the possibility of interpretative bias.
[23] Strauss, pg 158.
[24] Also known as “idiomatic,” “ thought-for-thought,” “dynamic equivalence,” “free translation,” and “meaning-based translation.”
[25] Throughout this paper the terms “source-language” and “original” will be used interchangeably to refer to the of the Scripture in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
[26] Stauss, pg 157.
[27] Ibid, pg 159. In addition to words, Functional Equivalence proponents believe meaning is expressed in word relationships, phrases, clauses, sentences, and the use of idioms. Cultural and historical contexts are also important.
[29] Propitiation, expiation, or a sacrifice of atonement?
[30] For the issue of verbal allusions and parallels see, Strauss, pg 13.
[31] Ones who are immersed constantly in the history, culture, symbolisms, genres, and theology of the Bible.
[32] Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28f
[33] See Carson Inclusive, pg 59-61.
[34] Heb 5:12. See, Fisher Milton C. “Normative Principles for Bible Translating” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) pg 21-22, 23-27 on the subject of “lowering the terminology of the Bible for each succeeding generation.”
[35] 2 Pet.3:15-16
[36] Barns Notes. Electronic version.
[37] Lk 24:27; 1 Cor 12:30; :5,13,17; The Ethiopian eunuch wanted someone to explain to him what D.A. Carson describes as a “grammatically clear text.” Carson, D. A., “The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation,” in Evangelical Review of Theology 9 (1985): 212
[38] These include language, culture, time, and covenant Duvall, J.S and Hays J.D., Grasping God’s Word (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2001) pg 22.
[39] See Tit 1:9. Raymond B. Dillard has given a interesting response to the objection that Functional Equivalence translators are taking upon themselves the role of pastors. “Some Objections to Idiomatic Translations” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) esp pgs 113-115.



Beekman, J, and Callow J., Translating the Word of God (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1978)
Bock¸ D.L., “Are Gender-Sensitive Translations Safe or Out?” in The Bible Translator (UBS Technical Papers vol.56, No 3, July 2005) ed Towner, P.H., et al.
Carson, D. A., “The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation,” in Evangelical Review of Theology 9 (1985)
Carson, D.A. ”The Inclusive Language Debate – A Pleas for Realism (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1998)
Dillard, Raymond B., “Some Objections to Idiomatic Translations” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
Duvall, J.S and Hays J.D., Grasping God’s Word (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2001)
Fernando, Abijith, The NIV Application Commentary – Acts (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1998)
Fisher Milton C. “Normative Principles for Bible Translating” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
Kistemaker Simon J., New Testament Commentary - Acts (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1990)
MacRae, Allan, A., “The Problems of Translation” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
Nida, Eugene A. “The Book of a Thousand Tongues” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
Piper, John, Let the Nations Be Glad-The Supremacy of God in Missions (IVP: Leicester, 2003)
Strauss, Mark “Form, Function, and the ‘Literal Meaning’ requested notes

Friday, 4 May 2007

OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE - Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 1)

“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet as they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in diverse manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of the Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary; these former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.”

The Bible: A Religious Book, an Enlightening Book, an Historical Book, or a Book with a Message?

For millions of Christians, the Bible is the world’s most treasured, loved, appreciated, and revered book. Thus, they read it, study it, memorize it, preach from it, write songs from it, and defend it. Some have even given their lives to it. To date, Wycliffe Bible Translators boast over some 6,000 members from over 70 countries. Wycliffe workers have helped to complete nearly 600 Bible translations, making God's Word available to over 35 million people. Presently, Wycliffe members are involved in 1,700 translation projects.
[1] This is all because Christians believe the Bible is God’s revelation of Himself.

What has God revealed in the Bible? In the following paragraphs, I suggest that the Bible is a book with a particular message - an enlightening religious message which was progressively revealed in human history.

The Bible consists of sixty-six different books and was written at various periods during the space of about 1600 years in three different languages, by many different writers under dissimilar circumstances. These human writers are of several social ranks.
[2] Nonetheless, Evangelicals maintain that the Bible, in its numberless aspects and relations, is a unit which deals with only one theme: the redemption of Yahweh’s creation[3] through His appointed Messiah – Jesus Christ.

Several questions naturally come to mind one of which is: “How are evangelicals justified in claiming that these human writers, most of whom were unknown to each other, had a solitary theme in mind?” This is a just question and Evangelicals are incapable of proving that all the men who wrote the sacred Scriptures were consciously aware of their writings contributing to an ultimate theme. In fact, it cannot be demonstrated that they had a canon in mind.

Evangelicals are however justified by the Scriptural teaching “inspiration” which upholds the dual authorship of the Scriptures. Biblical inspiration could be defined as the supernatural activity of the Holy Spirit on the mind of the human authors of the Bible thus making what they wrote not merely their own words but the very word of God.
[4] We are told that the Old Testament is “God-breathed”[5] and that “ spoke from Yahweh as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”[6] By the same Spirit the New Testament authors were lead into “all truth.”[7] Thus it is conclusive that over a long period of 1,600 years, through the combination of various individuals, sources, circumstances, and languages, Yahweh by His Spirit graciously reveals to us the sole message of the Bible: the redemption of His creation through His appointed Messiah – Jesus Christ.

Many Bible passages could be used to prove that the Scriptures point to Christ, the Redeemer of Yahweh’s creation. We shall only note a few:

a. The Testimony of the Old Testament
One of the models of Jesus in the Old Testament is that of a “descendant” of Abraham. Through this seed Yahweh promised to bless all the families of the earth.
[8] Moses also prophesied of a prophet.[9] John Stott refers to “indirect pictures” that also pointed to Jesus and concludes that the Christian’s election, atonement, covenant, redemption et cetera “all began in the Old Testament in relation to God’s grace towards Israel.”[10] These “indirect pictures” include the Exodus, the mannar from heaven, and the sacrificial system, the suffering servant, the son of man, the shepherd, the son of David, and the kinsman redeemer.

b. The Testimony of Jesus
Christ knew that He was the fulfillment of the Hebrew Old Testament. He maintained that the “Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms bore witness pointed to Him.
[11] Elsewhere He said that the Scriptures testify about Him,[12] that He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them,[13] and that His coming was written in the scroll.[14]

c. The Testimony of the New Testament Authors
The gospel authors wrote with the conviction that that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, hopes and expiations:
[15] His life was one of perfect obedience to Yahweh’s Law and by His death and resurrection He accomplished the promised redemption. The Epistles further demonstrates Christ fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies, types, et cetera, unfolds the glory of Christ’s divine-human person and saving work, and relates the life of the Christian and of the Church to Him.[16]


Though I disagree with his theological premise the black theologian James H. Cone, who unlike Barthian mysticism,
[17] rightly maintains that Yahweh makes His divine purpose and will known “through participation in human history.”[18] Garry Williams concurs, “The Bible commits us to be historical creatures. In telling the history of the world, it tells us of our place in it…Divinely revealed message occurred in history. Otherwise we would have some abstract never really incarnate Christ, born nowhere in particular, at a time of no significance.”[19] Consider John Stott’s remark, “Since biblical history is salvation history, history and theology are inseparable.”[20] Hence knowledge of redemptive history is necessary for a full grasp of biblical theme which speaks of something that was planned before time, but achieved and worked out in time.[21] Where does it all start?

a. The Protoevangelion
When Yahweh created the first human couple, Adam and Eve, He made with them the so-called “covenant of works.”
[22] Adam broke his covenant obligation which resulted in his death. That is, separation from Yahweh his Creator and his progressive physical degeneration.[23] Romans 5:12-21 reads, “… sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned.”[24]

In His judgment on the Serpent
[25] Yahweh said, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."[26] It is commonly held by theologians that this verse contains the protoevangeliun. Protoevangeliun is derived from the Greek prefix prw/toj "first" and the noun euvagge,lion "gospel" or "good news." Thus Genesis 3:15 is said to record the first Biblical reference to and presentation of the gospel, namely, one of the woman’s descendants would “crush” the Serpent’s head but that he[27] would be damaged in the process. To quote Anthony Hoekma this is the first “promise of a future redeemer.”[28]

The New Testament writers portray Christ as the promised Messiah and the one who through His physical death conquered spiritual and physical death which has plagued humanity since Adam.
[29] But this did not happen immediately after the Protoevangeliun. Eve’s promised Descendant came to redeem “when the time had fully come.”[30] Nonetheless, this Descendant was identified progressively in history.

b. Progressive Revelation
Anthony Hoekma agues that Genesis 3:15 is "the mother promise" which “sets the tone for the entire Old Testament…The further history of redemption will be an unfolding of the elements of this mother promise. From this point on, all the Old Testament revelation looks forward, points forward, and eagerly awaits the promised redeemer."

The author of Hebrews who wrote to persuade believers that Jesus is the fulfillment (and is therefore superior to) of the Old Testament sacrificial system commences his epistle with the statement, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son….”
[32] In this passage we note a difference in time and continuity (“in the past” and “in these last days”), a difference in objects (“to our fathers” and “to us”), a difference in medium (“through the prophets” and “by his Son”). We can notice how the author indicates the superiority and finality of God’s revelation in Christ when we consider the contrast in the time of revelation (in the past and in the present) and the nature of the mediums of communication (mere humans –the prophets, and deity -God’s Son).

The suggestion that God’s revelation in His Son is both final and superior to that of the Old Testament prophets should prove to us that Yahweh saw it fit to reveal His message to humans not at once but over a period of time. Thus revelation is progressive. Yahweh’s revelation through the prophets came “in various” such as angelic revelations and prophetic words. This revelation was also “at many times” that is “the whole vista of Old Testament history.”
[33] The latter is true especially in light of what Robert Reymond calls “blackouts of divine communication.”[34] So between Genesis 49:27 and Exodus 2:1 there is no divine revelation to “the fathers” for over four hundred years. There was also another four hundred year lapse after the passing of the last prophet, Malachi. This “blackout” ended with Gabriel’s appearance to Zachariah and thus the commencement of the New Testament canon.[35] In the New Testament we see Yahweh’s final revelation in Jesus in the teaching of Jesus Himself as well as in the words of the apostolic writers ad hoc epistles – all of which are Christocentric.

Let us look at an example of progressive revelation. Since we have already made mention of the descendant model of Jesus we shall use it as our example. In Genesis 3 Yahweh promises that Eve’s “descendant” would “crush” the Serpent’s head. About 2,000 years later we are told that that Descendant is going to be from the descendants of Abraham.
[36] Later, He is to come from the line of David.[37] Even later that He is to be born in Bethlehem[38] and is to be called Emmanuel,[39] and even later still, we are told that Jesus is this Emmanuel.[40] Paul identifies Him as Abraham’s seed.[41]

Since the Old Testament revelation prepared the way for God’s revelation through His Son
[42] William Lane is correct to conclude that “The revelation of God in the Son can only be understood within the context of God’s revelation to the prophets in the past…Those who are sons of the fathers understood that the word spoken through the Son constituted an extension of a specific history marked by divine revelation.” [43]

This idea of progressive revelation also adds weight to the Evangelical insistence on the unity of the Scriptures.

In light of what has just been said, we need to note that the Bible is not a historical book. That is, whilst the biblical message was given in a real historical context, the Bible is selective in its historical data.
[45] Also, we need to realize that whilst the Bible without error, its divine and human authors set out to produce neither a scientific nor a philosophical volume. In the Bible Yahweh gives us “special revelation” which we are unable to obtain either by either the natural science or social sciences. Having considered the message of the Bible we can conclude that the Bible is an enlightening religious book which with both Christians and non-Christians in mind.[46] This is true in three ways.

a. Salvation
We have already seen that the Bible has a single message and that this message as well as its aim are developed progressively in time. This progressive process is known as “redemptive history.” Several Bible passages tell us that knowledge of this Bible’s message is necessary for salvation irrespective of where one is in the stage of redemptive history. Romans 10:13-17: For "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?...Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”

b. Knowledge of Yahweh
“Religion is either an illusion or it must be based on belief in the existence, revelation, and knowability of God,” wrote Herman Bavnick.
[48] True, special revelation is not necessary for knowing about Yahweh’s existence, character, and moral law.[49] Nonetheless, in the process of revealing the biblical theme Yahweh tells us about Himself. This revelation enlightens because the knowledge of Him which is gathered by observing the cosmos is clouded, distorted, and made unreliable by sin.[50] Some of the things we learn are that Yahweh is merciful, He is transcendent, and He is Trinity.

c. Growth
Thirdly, the biblical message and its “incidental” teachings inform us of God’s will and foster spiritual maturity.
[51] Paul told Timothy that Scriptures are “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus… is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”[52] We are told elsewhere that believers are nourished daily with God’s word.[53]

Whilst bibliolatry is sinful, the Bible deserves our respect and our time as in it God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Let us allow its message, and all the other themes that come with it to mould our knowledge, inform our consciences, sanctify our wills, and regulate our actions. Let us study the Bible diligently remembering our Lord’s high priestly prayer: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”
[54] Finally, let us support those individuals and organizations which are involved Bible translation.


Barth Karl, Church Dogmatics 1.1 The Doctrine of the Word of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975)
Bavnick Herman, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003)
Cone James H. A Black Theology of Liberation (New York: Orbis, 1990),
Elwell Walter Evangelical Dictionary of theology (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1984
Geisler Norman L., Nix William E., From God to Us (Chicago: Moody, 1974)
Grudem Wayne, Systematic Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1994)
Guthrie Donald, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries – Hebrews (Leicester: IVP, 1983)
Hensen G. W., The IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Galatians (Leicester: IVP, 1993)
Hodge Charles Systematic Theology vol.1 (London: James Clarke, 1960),
Hoekema, Anthony,
The Bible and the Future, (Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979).
Lane, William L., Word Biblical Commentary – Hebrews 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1991)
Reymond Robert L., A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1998)
Sheehan Robert J., The Word of Truth (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1998)
Stott John Understanding the Bible –rev ed. (Milton Keynes: Scripture Union, 1972)
Edwards David, and Stott John, Essentials (London: Hodder, 1990)
Williams Garry, Audio seminar at Evangelical Alliance.
Young E.J., They Word is Truth (London: Banner of Truth, 1972)

Other Sources

Alexander T.D, From Paradise to the Promised Land -2nd ed (Cumbria: Paternoster, 2002)
Bruce F.F., The Cannon of Scripture (Glasgow: Chapter House, 1988)
Culver Robert D., Systematic Theology (Fearn: Mentor, 2005)
Goldsworthy Graeme, According to Plan (Leicester: IVP, 1991)
Kaiser Walter C. Jr., The Old Testament Documents (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001)
Olyott Stuart, Jesus is Both God and Man (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2000)
Packer J.I., Collected Shorter Writings of J.I. Packer - Honouring the Written Word of God vol.3 (Cumbria: Paternoster, 1999)
Wenham John, Christ and the Bible (London: Tyndale, 1972)

[1] 82% of all translation work currently being done.
[2] Statesmen, kings, priests, educated, Jews, peasants, herdsmen, fishermen, tax-gatherers, tentmakers, and uneducated, and Gentiles.
[3] That is the church and the cosmos.
[4] See Elwell Walter Evangelical Dictionary of theology (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1984), p.145-148 for more detail.
[5] 2Tim.3:16
[6] 2 Peter 1:20 - 2:1. All Scripture quotes are from The Holy Bible, New International Version ®, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.
[7] Jn.16:12-15.
[8] Gen.12:1-3 Cf 15; 49:10.
[9] Deut.18:15,18
[10]Stott John, Understanding the Bible –rev ed. (Milton Keynes: Scripture Union, 1972) p.8,9
[11] Lk.24:44 cf v27. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the Law of Moses refers the Pentateuch; the Prophets refer to the major and minor prophets as well as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The “Writings” refers to the Poetic books as well as to Lamentations, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. See Geisler Norman, and Nix William E., From God to Us (Moody: Chicago, 1974), p.10
[12] Jn.5:39
[13] Matt.5:17
[14] Hebrews 10:7 cf Ps.40:6-8. See also Matt.13:16,17.
[15] Matt.1:22,23. Matthew speaks of the Old Testament being fulfilled twelve times (here, 2:15, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 15:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14,35; 21:4; 27:9). See also Luke 1:68-75
[16] Stott, p.14. See for example Gal.3:16, 23,24; Hebews; Colossians.
[17] Barth Karl, Church Dogmatics 1.1 The Doctrine of the Word of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), p.88ff
[18] Cone James H. A Black Theology of Liberation (New York: Orbis, 1990), p.46.
[19] Williams Garry, CD recorded by the Evangelical Alliance.
[20] Edwards David, and Stott John, Essentials (London: Hodder, 1990),p.95.
[21] Stott, Understanding the Bible p.6
[22] See Grudem Wayne, Systematic Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1994) p.516. Reymond Robert L., A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1998),p. 404-5, 430-35, 439-40,
[23] Gen.2:17; 3:19, 22-23
[24] cf 1Cor.15:21
[25] The serpent is identified as Satan in Rev.12:9; 20:2
[26] Genesis 3:14-15
[27] That is, the woman’s descendant
[28] Hoekema, Anthony A., The Bible and the Future, (Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1979), p.4
[29] Heb.2:14-15; Rom.5:17; 1Timothy 1:10; Rev.1:18; 21:4
[30] Galatians 4:4-5
[31] Hoekma, p.5
[32] 1:1-2
[33] Guthrie Donald, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries – Hebrews (Leicester: IVP, 1983), p. 62
[34] Reymond, p.11-12
[35] Ibid
[36] Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 24:7.
[37] 2Sam.7:8-17; Ps.32:11 Ps.32:11, cf Is.9:6,7; Mic.4:1-5:15
[38] Mic.5:2 cf 4:8
[39] Is.7:14; 9:6-7
[40] Matt.1:21-23
[41] Gal.3:16. See Hensen G. W., The IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Galatians (Leicester: IVP, 1993), p.97-98.
[42] Guthrie, p.62
[43] Lane, William L., Word Biblical Commentary – Hebrews 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), p.11
[44] See Hodge Charles Systematic Theology vol.1 (London: James Clarke, 1960), p. 446-7
[45] By no means am I suggesting that the biblical authors erred in their documentation of history. What I am saying is that whilst the biblical message was revealed progressively in human history, the human authors of the Bible only gave historical details as far as they contributed to their particular aim(s). Thus, biblical history is not exhaustive.
[46] See Sheehan Robert J., The Word of Truth (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1998), p.29ff.
[47] Other passages are Jn.3:18; Acts 4:12; 1Tim.2:5-6; Heb.11:13
[48] Bavnick Herman, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), p.285
[49] Ps.19:1-6; Acts.14:16-17; Rom.1:19-21, 32; 2:14-15; 1Cor.8:10; Heb.5:14; 10:22.
[50] Jer.17:9; Rom.2:14-15,
[51] Deut.29:29; Ps.1:2; 119:1, 105; Jn.5:3. Grudem, p.119-121.
[52] 2 Timothy 3:15-17
[53] Matt.4:4 cf Deut.8:3; 32:47; 1Pet.2:2, 23-25.
[54] Jn.17:17 cf Ps.119:142. See Young, p.161ff for a discussion on Jn.17:17.

Sunday, 11 March 2007

2 Jan

Below is preliminary translation of 2 John into Jamaican/Patois. The spelling system used is the one approved by UWI - the Cassidy/Le-Page spelling system. It is very phonetic…as you read, don’t try pronouncing the words the way you would in English.



1 Fam di elda, tu di liedi huu Gad chuuz an tu har pikni dem, buot a huu mi lov ina di chuut. Ana mi a di ongl wan huu lov unu; ebribadi huu nuo di chuut lov unu tu, 2 bikaaz di chuut dehn wid wi an it gwai tan wid wi fi eva. 3 Gries, mersi, an piis ago com tu wi – ina chuut an ina lov- faa Gad di Faada an fram Im Son, Jiizas Krais.


4 Mi rijais nof nof wen mi fain out dat som a yu pikni dem a waak ina di chuut, jus laik ou di Faada tel wi fi waak. 5 Nou, mi a aks yu, mi liedi, fi mek wi lov wan anada. A no even fi seh dat mi a rait yu bout somting nue, kaaz a laang taim nou wi get dis ya komaanment ya.6 Lov miin dat wi obiea Gad komaanment dem. Laik yu hier fraa lang taim, Gad koman a dat unu shuo lov.7 Nof a dem ou woo tap trai fuul piiple gaan out ina di werl. Dem no biliiv dat Krais wehn kom ina ihn flesh. Di smadi ou biliiv dat a di disiiva an im a di antikrais. 8 Unu wach out so dat yu kiyaa get unu ful riwaad an no luuz wa unu werk fa.9 Enibadi ou gaan bout im oun bizniz an no stie ina Krais tiichin no hab Gad; di smadi ou stie ina di tiichin hab buot di Faada an di Son.10 If smadi kom tu yu an im no tek dis ya tiichin wid im, duo mek im kom ina unu ous an duo even chech out yu han fi griit im. 11 Enibadi ou griit im a tek paat ina im iivel werk.


12 Aalduo mi hab nof ada tingz dat mi waa fi taak tu unu bout, mi no waa fi dwiit wid piepa an ink. Mi huop fi vizit unu an taak tu unu fies tu fies, so dat di tuu a wi jaay mait ful op.13 Di pikni dem a yu sista ou Gad chuuz seh houdi.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aland, Barbara, et al, The Greek New Testament UBS 4th rev.ed (Stuttgart 80: Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft, 1993); De Jonge, Haas, and Swellengrebel, J. L., A Translator’s Handbook on the Letters of John (London: UBS, 1972); Marshall, I. Howard, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1978); NET Bible; Smalley, Stephen S., Word Biblical Commentary – 1, 2, 3 John (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1981); Zerwick, Max, and Grosvernor, Mary, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament 3rd rev.ed (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988)



Kraasiz Ina Elimekek Faambli

1:1 Wen di joj dem wena ruul Izrel, waa famin wehn tek di lan. So waa man fraa Betliem ina Juuda go op fi lib ina Muowab. Im wehn go op de fi lib wid im waif ahn im tuu son dem. 1:2 Nou, di man niem Elimelek, im waif niem Nyuomi, ahn im son dem niem Malon ahn Kilion. Dem wena Efratait frahn Betliem ina Juuda. Wen dem riich ina Muowab, dem tan de.

1:3 Aafaa wail, Nyuomi hozban, Elimelek go ded, bot shi wehn stil mek op har main fi tan ina Muowab wid har tuu son dem. 1:4 Som taim aafa dem faada ded, Malon ahn Kilion marid tuu Mowabait uman; di fus wan niem Opra, ahn di sekan wan niem Ruut. Aafaa di wedin, dem tan ina Muowab fi bout ten muor yier.

1:5 Den Nyuomi tuu buoi dem, Malon ahn Kilion, go ded af jos laik dem fada. So di puor uman wehn di de aluon ina Muowab widout har tuu pikni buwoi dem ahn widout har hozban.

1:6 Wan die Nyuomi ahn har tuu daata-in-laa dem pakop fi liiv Muowab, bicaaz shi wehn hier se Yahweh behn piea Im piipl a vizit, dat fi se, Im behn gi dem fuud fi niam.

Ruut No Waa Fi Abandan Nyuomi

1:7 So shi lef fraa wehn shi wena stiea wid har tuu daata-in-laa dem; ahn di tree a dem tek di road fi gaa Juuda. 1:8 Den Nyuomi se tu har daata-in-laa dem, “Kom kom, di tuu a unu gwaan bak a unu mada yaad. 1:9 Mie Yahwen triit unu as nais az unu wehn triit unu hozban dem bifuo dem beh ded ahn as unu triit mi. Mie Yahweh mek iich a unu fain res ina di hous a wan nuu hozban.”

Shi den gi dem a gud-bai chups, ahn buoi, dem did pu dong a piis a cow baalin. 1:10 Dem se tu Nyuomi, “No sah, wi a kom wid yu, ahn wi a-go lib wid yu piipl dem.”

1:11 Bot Nyuomi ansa, “Unu go bak, mi daata. Wa mek unu waa fi kom wid mi, iihn? It luk laik mi caa stil ab biabi, so dat unu caa marid dem? 1:12 Unu gwaaaaan bak uuom, mi daata. Unu beta gwan, caaz mi tuu uol fi ab man nou! Ahn aal if mi did tel unu dat it wehn pasibl fi mi fi get marid ti’nite ti’nite ahn hab buoi pikni, 1:13 unu miin fi tel mi dat unu wuda wiet fi dem antil dem ton man? Unu wuda riili la’kiin unuself ahn no get marid? Nata taal mi daata! Mi bitanis tuu moch fi unu bier. Di LAWD an de gens mi.”

1:14 Ahn den dem staat di cow baalin agen. Opra gi har mada-in-laa a gud-bai chups ahn tun bak, bot Ruut heng-aan tu har mada-in-laa. 1:15 So Nyuomi se tu Ruut, “Luk, yu sista-in-laa gaan bak tu har piipl dem ahn tu ar gad. Fala bak a yu sista-in-laa.” 1:16 Bot Ruut ansa,
“Duo bada fuos mi fi abandan yu,
Duo bada fuos mi fi no fala bak a yu!
Bikaaz eniweh yu go, a de mi a-go.
Eniweh yu lib, a de mi a-go lib.
Fi yu piipl dem a-go bi fi mi piipl dem
Ahn fi yu Gad a-go bi fi mi Gad.
1:17 Eniweh yu a-go ded, a de mi a-go ded –
ahn a di siam plies mi a-go beri.
Mie Yahweh traik mi tif ded, if mi no kip dis ya pramis.
Ongl det a-go brok wi op.”

1:18 Wen Nyuomi si se Ruut nehna flinch bot wehn ditermin fi go wid har, shi jos giv-op ahn no bada tri fi chiange har main.

Nyuomi Ahn Ruut Riich Betliem

1:19 So di tuu a dem chavel antil dem riich Betliem. Wen dem riich Betliem, dier woz wan piic a eksaitment ina di uol siti ouva dem. Ahn di uman dem ou lib ina di siti aks, “A Nyuomi dis ya?”
1:20 Nyuomi se tu dem, ”Unu duo kaal mi 'Nyuomi' yaah; kaal mi 'Maara' bicaaz di Almiti mek mi laif bita, bita, bita. 1:21 Ful, mi lef ya ful; bot emti, Yahweh mek mi kom bak emti. So nou, sins Yahweh de gens mi, ahn sins di Almiti mek mi a sofa, wa mek unu a kaal mi Nyuomi?“

1:22 So den, Nyuomi go bak huom wid Ruut, har daata-in-laa ou kom bak fraa Muowab. Nou wen dem wehn kom ina Betliem, di baarli haaves wehn jos taat.

Ruut Werk Paa Buaz Lan

2:1 Nou Nyuomi wehn hab waa nier faambli memba pan har hozban said. Im wena a waa powaful man, im wena waa a rich man, an im ahn Elimelek kom frahn di siam piipl dem. Im niem Buaz.

2:2 Wan die, Ruut, di Moabaites, se tu Nyuomi, “Du, mek mi go out a di fiil, so dat mi caa gyada di wat-lef grien bihain enibadi ou mai’ta tek a laikin tu mi.” Nyuomi ansa, “Gwan mi daata.” 2:3 So Ruut lef ahn shi gyada op di wat-lef grian ina di fiil behain di werkaz dem. Ahn it go hapen dat di fiil wehn shi wena werk ina wena di fiil dat bilang tu Buaz, Elimelek faambli memba!

Buaz Hear Bout Ruut

2:4 Den out a di bluu, Buaz go kom fraa Betliem! Im se houdi tu di werkaz dem. “Mie Yahweh bii wid unu!,“ im se. “Yahweh bles yu!,“ dem ansa bak.

2:5 Buaz aks di man ou im lef inchaag a im werkaz dem, “A ou da yong unam de bilang tu?“ 2:6 Di man ansa, “Shi iz a yong Muobaites uman ou kom bak wid Nyuomi fraa Muowab. 2:7 Shi akz, 'Pleez, mi caa gyada ahn bongl op di wat-lef grian dem behyn di werkaz dem ou a du di haavestin?’ Shi ongl tek waa likl res ina di hut fi a shaat taim. Apaat fraa dat, shi no stap werk sins shi kom - fraa maanin antil nou.“

Buaz Miit Ruut

2:8 Den Buaz se tu Ruut, “Lisin nou mi dier! Duo gyada wat-lef ina smadi els fiil; no liiv dis ya wan ya. Yu caa tan ya ahn du yu gyadarin wid mi uman werkaz dem. 2:9 Tek nuot a wichpaat ina di fiil di man werkaz dem a-go du di haavestin ahn fala bak di uman werkaz dem. Mi tel di man werkaz dem fi no put a finga paa yu. If yu tersti, go wepaat di waata jaar dem de ahn jrink di waata dat di man werkaz dem jaw.”

2:10 Ruut go dong pan har fias, bow dong tu di grong, ahn se tu im, “Wa mek yu so kain ahn nais tu mi; mi a farina yu nuo?” 2:11 Den Buaz se tu har, “Mi hier bout ebri-singl-ting yu du fi yu mada-in-laa, eba sins har hozban kik-di-bokit – ou yu lef biain yu faada, yu mada, ahn di lan af yu bert; ahn ou yu kom koo lib wid piipl yu neba nuo bifuo ina yu laif. 2:12 Mie Yahweh pia yu bak fi aal yu werk. Mie Yahweh, di Maiti Wan af Izrel, anda fuufa wing yu kom fi shelta, pia yu tu di ful.“ 2:13 So Ruut se tu im, “Sar, yu riili kain tu mi. Yu komfert mi ahn yu taak nais tu mi, yu likl servant, aalduo mi a no wan a yu ada uman servant dem!”

2:14 Wen di taim wehn kom fi ebribadi fi nyam dem fuud, Buaz se tu Ruut, “Kom ova ya so ahn nyam som a di fuud! Kom, dip yu bred ina di viniga!” So shi sidung bisaid di werkaz dem, ahn Baoz gi har som paach grian. Shi nyam antil shi ful; shi did iivn lef uova som.

2:15 Wen shi git-op fi gyada muor grian, Buaz tel im man werkaz dem, ”Mek shi du har gyadarin even outa di prapa bongl a grian, ahn unu no bada shiam har. 2:16 Pan tap a dat, mek shuor dat as unu werk, unu tek out som a di beta grian outa fiunu bongl, ahn drap dem paa perpos, so dat shi caa tek dem op fi harself. Ahn no tel har fi lef dem aluon!

2:17 So Ruut tan ina di fiil ahn du har gyadarin. Wen eevling kom, shi bata out di griean wehn shi gyada. Di baarli weh shi get in aal wie bout terti poun!

Ruut Go Bak Home

2:18 As Ruut finish, shi tek-op har baarli ahn tek it tu di siti, ahn Nyuomi si di amount a baarli shi gyada. Ruut den gi har mada-in-laa di fuud wehn shi wehn siev fraa har lonch.

2:19 So Nyuomi aks Ruut, “A wepaat yu du yu gyadarin tide? A wepaat yu go werk? Gad bles di smadi ou tek nuotic a yu.”

So Ruut tel har mada-in-laa ou shi wehn werk wid. Shi se, “Ih man ou mi werk wid tide niem Buaz.” 2:20 Den Nyuomi se tu har daata-in-laa,”Mie di LAWD bles im bicaaz im no stap shuo laayalti tu buot di libin ahn di ded.” Den shi se tu Ruut, “Di man ahn wi a nier faambli; im a wi faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima].”

2:21 Den Ruut di Muoabitis se tu Nyuomi, "Im aal se tu mi, 'Yu caa tan kluos tu mi werkaz dem, antil dem finish gyadarin aal a mi haaves.’” 2:22 So Nyuomi se tu Ruut har daata-in-laa, “It gud, mi daata, dat yu caa go wid im uman werkaz dem, so dat nobadi wii damig yu in anada fiil.”

2:23 So Ruut tan kluos tu Buaz uman werkaz dem antil di baarli ahn wiit haaves don. Ahn evri iibnin shi go huom tu har mada-in-laa.

Nyuomi Set-Op Ruut Pan A Ting

3:1 Wan die, Ruut mada-in-laa, Nyuomi, se tu har, “Mi daata, shud mi nat fain somwe resful fi yu lib, so dat tingz caa guan fi yu? 3:2 Nou, Buaz - di siam wan wid fuufa uman werkaz dem yu wehn werk - im a wi faambli memba. So lisin mi nou, tinait im a-go a di plies wepaat im werkaz dem wehn bata out de baali so dat im caa fan out di trash outa it. 3:3 Gwan go biad, swiit-op swiit-op yuself, put aan yu kluoz, ahn go dong a di plies wepaat dem bata out di trash. Bot no mek Buaz nuo se a yu. Yu jos wiat antil im don nyam ahn jrink.

3:4 Aafta im don nyam ahn jrink, im guai li-dong, so di fus ting yu guai du is tu tek nuotis a di plias wepaat im li-dong. Aafta dat, go ouva tu im, muuv aaf di klaat aafa im leg, ahn den li-dong saida im. Wen yu du dat, im wii tel yu wa yu fi du.” 3:5 So shi se tu har mada-in-laa, “A guai du ebriting yu tel mi fi du.”

Ruut Ahn Buaz On Di Treshing Fluor

3:6 So Ruut go dong a di plies wepaat dem bata out di trash, ahn shi du ebriting har mada-in-laa wehn tel har fi du. 3:7 Buaz nyam ahn jrink tu im haat cantentment, den im go li-dong a di en a wepaat di grian wehn pail-op. Ruut den tek har taim ahn skriichi uova de, muuv aaf di klaat aafa im leg, ahn den li-dong saida im.

3:8 Den wen it riich somweh bout di migl a di nait, Buaz shiba ahn den staat fi twis ahn tern. Den, aal af a soden, im si a uman li-dong a im fut! 3:9 “A ou yu bi?” im aks. So shi ansa, “A mi, Ruut, yu servant. Pliiz mari yu servant, bicaaz yu iz a faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima].
3:10 Buaz den se tu har, “Mie Yahweh bles yu, mi daata. Wehn yu jos du beta daa wa yu wehn du bifuo. Yu cuda wel ah go aafta di yonga man dem – weda dem rich ar weda dem puor – bot yu no dweet. 3:11 Nou, me daauta, duo wori yuself. A guai du fi yu ebriting yu aks mi fi du; bicaaz ebribadi ina di siti nuo dat yu iz a gud uman.

3:12 Nou den, a cheu dat mi a waa faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima], bot di ting iz dat dier iz anada faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima] ahn im iz a niera faambli memba tu yu muo dan mi. 3:13 A tel yu wat, tan ova yaso tinait, ahn a maanin mi wii taak tu im. If im waa fi ridiim yu, wel gud, mek im dwiit. Bot if im no hapi fi ridiim yu, den as shuorli as maasa Gad lib, mi pramis fi ridiim yu. Li-dong ya so til a maanin.”

3:14 So Ruut li-dong a Buaz fut til maanin kom. Bot shi git op erli erli bifuo a suol kuda rekagaiz har. (Nou Buaz wehn se tu imself, “A huop dat nobadi no nuo dat wa uman kom a di plies wehn dem bata out trash.”) 3:15 “Tek aaf yu shaal ahn huol ih tait,” Buaz se tu har. Wen shi huol ih tait, im meja out ahn gi har bout sixti poun a baarli ahn den help har put it pan ar ed. Den im lef fi go ina di siti. 3:16 Ahn Ruut go bak huom tu har mada-in-laa.

Ruut Tel Nyuomi Wa Hapen

“So den, ou did tingz go wid yu, mi daata?” Nyuomi aks Ruut. So Ruut labrish tu Nyuomi ebriting dat Buaz du fi har. 3:17 Shi se, “Im gi mi da sixti pown a baarli ya ahn tel me dat mi nofi go bak tu mi mada-in-laa suo-so so.”

3:18 So Nyuomi se tu Ruut, “Si-dong mi daata til yu fain out ou tingz werk out. A tel yu, dis ya man naa go tan-todi antil im tek kier a tingz tide tide ya.

Buaz Straik A Diil Wid “Mista”

4:1 So den, Buaz go op tu di siti giat ahn si-dong de. Den aal aaf a sodin, no di ada faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima] ou Buaz wehna taak bout dat ou go waak paas im! Buaz se tu im, “Oye de ‘Mista’ yu ton ruon ahn koo si-dong ya so.” So im si ton ruon ahn si-dong.

4:2 Den Buaz pik out ten a di siti liida dem ahn se tu dem, “Unu kom koo si-dong ya so.” Aafta dem si-dong, 4:3 Buaz se tu di ada faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima], “ Nayoni, ou con bak fraa Muowab, a tink se si guai sel di piice a lan wehn bilang tu wi breda, Elimelek. 4:4 So mi wena tink dat mi wuda tel yu bout ih ahn aks yu, in front a aal ou si-dong ya so ahn bifuo di liidaz a mi piipl dem, dat if yu a-go ridiim ih, den duiit; bot if yu naa go ridiim ih, tel mi. Mek mi nuo nou bicaaz yu hab muo rait daa mi fi ridiim ih.” So di ada man se, “Mi wii duiit.”

4:5 Buaz den se tu im, “Wen yu bai di lan fraa Nyuomi, pan tap a dat yu guai get fi marid Ruut, di Moabotes widou, so dat Elimelek niem caa continu ahn so dat im lan caa tan ina im faambli.” 4:6 Den di ada faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima] se, “No, mi caa bada ridiim ih den, bikaaz dat de muuv wuda mash-op fi mi bizniz. Yu caa ridiim ih insted a mi, caaz mi caa duiit.” 4:7 (Nou, dem diez de ina Izrel, wen ih kom aan tu ridemshan ahn seklin liigal mataz: di man ou a du di selin wuda tek aaf im slipaz ahn gi it tu di baiya. A so dem uuz fi sain kantrak ina Izrel.) 4:8 So di ada faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima] se tu Buaz, “Bai di lan fi yuself,” den im tek aaf im slipaz.

4:9 Buaz den se tu di siti liidaz ahn tu aal di piipl dem, “Unu bier mi wiknis tide dat mi bai fraa Nyuomi ebriting wehn bilang tu Elimelek, Kilion, ahn Malon. 4:10 Pan tap a dat, mi get Ruut, di Moabites, Malon waif, fi bii mi waif, so dat mi caa kiip Elimelech lan in im faambli, ahn so dat im niem kaa kantinu mongs im faambli ahn ina im komuuniti. Unu bier mi wiknis tide.”

4:11 Aal a di piipl dem ahn di siti liidaz dem se tu Buaz, “Wi bier yu wiknis. Mie Yahweh mek di uman ou kom ina yu ous ton out fi bii laik Riechel ahn Lia fuufa pikni dem ton out fib bii di nieshan a Izrel. Mie yu praspa ina Efraata, ahn mie ebribadi ina Betliem nuo ou yu bi. 4:12 Mie yu faambli bii laik fi Perez faambli - di siame pikni ou Tiemar beh hab fi Juuda – cheu di pikny dem wehn Yahweh guai gi yu cheu da yong uman ya.

Nyuomi Get A Granson

4:13 So Buaz marid Ruut ahn hab sex wid har. Yahweh den mek Ruut get prignant, ahn shi gi birt tu waa son.

4:14 Wen Ruut biebi bawn, di uman dem ina di siti se tu Nyuomi, “Priez di Laad, bicaauz Im no mek yu go widout a faambli protekta [ar kinsman ridiima] tide! Mie ebribadi ina Izrel nuo ou yu faabli protekta bi. 4:15 Im a-go inkorij yu ahn provaid fi yu wen yu oul, bicaaz yu data-in-laa ou lov yu gib bert tu im. Shi wert muor tu yu dahn seven buoi pikni!”

4:16 Nyuomi tek di pikni ahn put im pan har lap; shi tek kier a im. 4:17 Ahn har uman nieba dem miam im, ah se, “Nyuomi get a buoi.” Dem call im miam “Obed.” Obed bikom di faada a Jesi – ou apen fi bii Dievid!

Dievid Faambli Chrii

4:18 Dis ya a fi Perez faambli lain: Perez wena Hezron faada, 4:19 Hezron wehna Ram faada, Ram wena Aminadab faada, 4:29 Aminadab wena Nachshon faada, Nachshon wena Salma faada, 4:21 Salmon wena Buaz faada, Buaz wena Obed faada, 4:22 Obed wena Jesse faada, ahn Jese wena Dievid faada.