Interpretation Exercises I

a) The God of Abraham, Nahor and the God of their father is the same God

b) Terah is the father of Abraham

c) The text does not specify who is the God of Abram, Naor and the God of the father of the two.

d) The text says that there are three true Gods

e) Laban who pronounced that text

          We have in Gen 31:53 the meaning [Abraham's worshiping Being (God), and Naor's (Being or being) worshiping (God being or being), worshiping (God being or being) of their father, judge between us]. The ancient Hebrew language does not make uppercase and lowercase alphabetic differentiation as we have in Latin writings, nor does it occur in differentiation texts (God - God) as we do, in the case of Gen 31:53 the translator decided to determine that Naor, brother of Abram and Terah Abraham's father served the true God (YHVH), Nahor, Terah and Abram had already died by the time Laban spoke this text. Necessarily the Bible did not forcefully report that Nahor and Terah were servants of the true God. Let us look at the text of the Patriarchs and Prophets. 
"The call from Heaven first came to Abraham while he lived in" Ur of the Chaldeans "(Gen. 11:31), and in obedience to it he moved to Haran. Up to this point his father's family accompanied him; together with their idolatry, they joined the worship of the true God. There Abraham remained until Terah's death. Only his father buried, the divine voice told him to continue. home and its idols. " PP 127
          We can accept but not determine with certainty that Terah died having [his (Being or being) of worship] the true God, but already with Naor the situation is clearer because it says that "they clung to their home and their idols." being that the true God is not produced by human hands Naor did not have for God, the True God. Someone would say that the Bible is wrong in this text, but the Bible did not make mistakes because the words that define both Nahor and Abram are the same, if someone made a mistake it was the translator. Therefore, in the original Biblical text the word True God (by Abraham) and other gods (by Naor) is implied by one who follows the same "God of Abram", which is not implied in the verse for those who follow the gods of Naor.

a) Jacob swore by the God of Abraham only.

b) Jacob swore by the God of Abraham and the God of naor, the God of their father

c) Jacob swore by Isaac his father.

d) Jacob swore by the fear of Isaac

e) Jacob feared Isaac, his father

a) Terah, Nahor, and Abraham, served the God of Israel.

b) Terah, Nahor, and Abraham, served other gods when they lived after the Euphrates

c) He will have served other gods and is one of the fathers of Israel.

d) Abraham served other gods.

e) Naor is one of the fathers of Israel.

Luke 3:24   Eli, son of Matath, Matath, son of Levi, Levi, son of Melchi, this, son of Janai, son of Joseph;

Luke 3:25   Joseph, son of Matathias, Matathias, son of Amos, Amos, son of Nahum, this, son of Esli, son of Nagai;

Luke 3:26   Nagai, son of Maat, Maat, son of Matatias, Matatias, son of Semei, this, son of Joseph, son of Jodá;

Luke 3:27   Jodah, son of Joanan, Joanan, son of Resa, Resa, son of Zorobabel, this one, of Salatiel, son of Neri;

Luke 3:28   Neri, son of Melqui, Melqui, son of Adi, Adi, son of Cosan, this, of Elmadhan, son of Er;

Luke 3:29   Er, the son of Joshua, Joshua, the son of Eliézer, Eliézer, the son of Jorim, the latter of Matath, the son of Levi;

Luke 3:30   Levi, son of Simeon, Simeon, son of Judah, Judah, son of Joseph, this son of Jonan, son of Eliakim;

Luke 3:31   Eliakim, son of Melaah, Melea, son of Mená, Mená, son of Matatá, this, son of Nathan, son of David;

Luke 3:32   David, son of Jesse, Jesse, son of Obed, Obed, son of Boaz, this, son of Salah, son of Naasson;

Luke 3:33   Nahson, son of Aminadab, Aminadab, son of Admim, Admim, son of Arni, Arni, son of Esrom, this, son of Perez, son of Judah;

Luke 3:34   Judah, son of Jacob, Jacob, son of Isaac, Isaac, son of Abraham, this son of Terah, son of Nahor;

Luke 3:35   Nahor, son of Serugue, Serugue, son of Ragaú, Ragaú, son of Faleque, this son of Éber, son of Salá;

Luke 3:36   Salah, son of Cainan, Cainan, son of Arfaxad, Arfaxad, son of Shem, this, son of Noah, son of Lamech;

Luke 3:37   Lamech, son of Methuselah, Methuselah, son of Enoch, Enoch, son of Jared, this, son of Maalalel, son of Cainan;

Luke 3:38   Cainan, son of Enos, Enos, son of Seven, and this son of Adam, son of God.

a) Naor is Abraham's grandfather

b) Nahor is Abraham's brother

c) Terah is the father of Abraham of Naor

d) Abraham's brother named Nahor is one of Israel's fathers.

e) He will have found the name of Naor beautiful.

Version: João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated
Genesis 24:24   She answered: I am the daughter of Betuel, son of Milca, whom she gave birth to Nahor.

Version: New Translation in Today's Language
Genesis 24:24   She replied: - I am the daughter of Betuel, son of Milca and Naor.

a) Updated Almeida is correct and with more information but the part "which she gave to" is not easy to interpret

b) Revised and updated is correct because Naor is the son of Milca.

c) In today's language, it has more information than the other two

d) All three translations have the same meaning, without any ambiguity.

e) He will have found the name of Naor beautiful.

 Version: João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated
Genesis 3:15 I   will put enmity between you and the woman, between your descendants and their descendants. He will hurt your head, and you will hurt his heel. Genesis 17: 7 I will   establish my covenant between you and me and your descendants throughout their generations, a perpetual covenant, to be your God and your descendants. Galatians 3:16   Now the promises were made to Abraham and his descendant. He does not say: And to the descendants, as if speaking of many, but as of one: And to your descendant, which is Christ. Genesis 22:18   All the nations of the earth will be blessed in it, because you have obeyed my voice.

Version: New Translation in Today's Language
Genesis 3:15   I will make you and the woman enemies of each other, and so will be enemies of your offspring and her offspring. It will crush your head, and you will sting the heel of her offspring. Genesis 17: 7   The covenant that I am making forever with you and your descendants is as follows: I will forever be your God and your descendants' God. Galatians 3:16   For God made his promises to Abraham and his descendant. When the Scriptures say that God made his promises to Abraham "and to his offspring", they do not mean that they are many people, but one, that is, Christ. Genesis 22:18   Through your descendants I will bless all the nations of the world, for you have done what I have commanded.

a) TLH is correct because the alliance is with " with your descendants" and not with "your descendants" as referred in ARA and AA

b) AA is correct because it talks about the descendant or descendant as one does not use "descendants" but only one, and when it says " your descendants and their descendants" it speaks of Christ and Satan, and when it says "I will put enmity between you and the woman "talks about the church (the children of God) and you (the children of Satan) .

c) TLH is correct because it says " your offspring and her offspring will be enemies ", and uses the plural "enemies" to imply that there are several people fighting, which differs from ARA and AA because they say " your offspring and the his offspring ", as implying that (offspring) Christ and (offspring) Satan.

d) TLH is correct because it says " your descendants I will bless all the nations of the world " using "descendants" as several and not as it says in AA " and in your descendants all the nations of the earth " using "descendants" as one only.

e) The TLH is correct in Gal's verse. 3:16 is that this is wrong, this verse should be abolished as it goes against the TLH translation.

 There was yet another fight against the Philistines in Gobe; and El-Hanã, son of Jaaré-Oregim, the Belemite, killed Goliath the Gitee, whose spear the rod was like a weaver's organ. II Sam 21:19

a) David didn't kill Goliath, David only hurt him. Goliath was killed in another fight by El-Hanã

b) David killed another Goliath that had nothing to do with the Goliath that El-Hanã killed, the two Goliaths were totally different.

c) The Goliaths were brothers of the same family.

d) Goliath is the name of the Goliath family, like the surname we have today, Pedro da Silva, and João da Silva, one person can kill Mr. Silva (Pedro), and another person kill Mr. Silva (João) ., each person killed a Mr. Silva.

e) Goliath is the name of the Philistine god, as Daniel was called Beltssazar, (who was a Babylonian god) so everyone who fought as a leader of the Philistines was called Goliath.

 There was war again with the Philistines; and El-Hanã, son of Jair, killed Lami, brother of Goliath, the Gitee, whose spear had the rod as a weaver's organ, II Chron 20: 5

We have that El-Hanã killed the brother of Goliath who was called Lami, as in alternative C, see that alternative D is a deduction and not a clear "so says the Lord", if alternative D is correct the text in II Sam 21:19, I Sam 21: 9 and II Chron 20: 5 are correct, but if alternative D is wrong II Sam 21:19 was spelled wrong.

   Here we come to a standstill, we do not have a clear "so says the Lord" saying that Goliath is a family name, that is, one can be called Goliath and another Lami, nor do we have a clear "so says the Lord" saying that Goliath is not family's name.

    But if we say that Goliath is not a family name, we say that 2 Sam 21:19 was misspelled. And if we say that Goliath is a family name, we say that II Sam 21:19 was spelled correctly. As the golden rule is a clear "so says the Lord" so silence is gold about whether or not Goliath is a family name.

    Now with certainty both who were killed were brothers, therefore accepting alternative C

Version: João Ferreira de Almeira Revised and Updated
Judas 1:14 As for these, Enoch also prophesied, the seventh after Adam, saying: Behold, the Lord came among his holy myriads.
Version: New Translation in Today's Language
Judas 1:14 It was Enoch, from the seventh generation from Adam, who long ago prophesied this about them: "Look! The Lord will come with many thousands of his angels.
Version: João Ferreira King James Version
Judas 1:14 For these Enoch also prophesied, the seventh after Adam, saying, Behold, the Lord has come with his thousands of saints,

a) "ten" means "many"

b) A better transliteration of the verse is "Judas 1:14 As for these, Enoch, the seventh after Adam, also prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord comes with his holy myriads."

c) The translations are different "ten" does not mean many means "ten" and "saints" means "saints" and not angels, so the Portuguese version is right and the English version is poorly transliterated.

d) The translations are different "ten" does not mean many means "ten" being that "ten thousands" is better transliterated to Portuguese as "myriads" and "saints" means "saints" and not angels, so the English version is right and Portuguese is poorly transliterated.

e) Both are correct, because the word of God is of particular interpretation.

jude-01-14 eprofhteusen de kai toutois ebdomos apo adam enwx legwn idou hlqen kurios en agiais muriasin autou (Westcott-Hort)

ten thousand murias ; by extension, a "myriad" or indefinite number:
hagios # 3461
something or someone holy (something tremendous) sacred (morally, physically pure without guilt, or religious, ceremonially consecrated).
For both transliterations to cooperate in the same verse the best translation would be

Jude 1:14 As for these, Enoch, the seventh after Adam, also prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with his holy myriads.

in AR we have an almost perfect transliteration for Portuguese, if it weren't for the term "came", which denotes past "erchomai" it is only used in the present sense, it is not used nor in the future "will" as in NTL, myriads is the word which encompasses the meaning of "murias", and "hagios" has its meaning transliterated in the word "santo". It should be noted that if the choice of "hagios" refers to the holy angels, it must be determined by the one who reads and not by the one who transliterates the text. Here the ambiguities are in the slight interpretative tendencies as in NTL that uses "will" refer to a future, deducing that even being  "erchomai"used only in the present, he preferred to play for the future referring to Christ's return, since AR and AA uses "came" as the past which seems to inform that it is the first coming of Christ. If we happen to take a clearer interpretation of just the verse, we would have Enoch this in a prophetic vision, as at the present time "erchomai" seeing the Lord coming (present action). In other words, Enoch sees the action, not saying he will come, because he is saying in the first person and in full action, nor saying "came" in the same sense. What transliterates has to do without an interpretive concept, even if it is a correct interpretive sense, the transliterator's opinion cannot occur, that is, "erchomai"it has to be felt present, as the lexicon refers, "hagio" and "murias" on the same thought. Remember the deductions are from the reader and not the transliterator.

Therefore, alternative b is the one that best fits.