Note: This view shows ‘verses’ which are not natural language units and hence sometimes only part of a sentence will be visible. Normally the OET discourages the reading of individual ‘verses’, but this view is only designed for doing comparisons of different translations. Click on any Bible version abbreviation down the left-hand side to see the verse in more of its context. The OET segments on this page are still very early looks into the unfinished texts of the Open English Translation of the Bible. Please double-check these texts in advance before using in public.
Key: khaki:verbs, red:negative.
Note: Automatic aligning of the OET-RV to the LV is done by some temporary software, hence the OET-RV alignments are incomplete (and may occasionally be wrong).
BrLXXἮλθον δὲ εἰς Μεῤῥᾶ, καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιεῖν ἐκ Μεῤῥᾶς· πικρὸν γὰρ ἦν· διὰ τοῦτο ἐπωνόμασε τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου, Πικρία. (Aʸlthon de eis Meɽɽa, kai ouk aʸdunanto piein ek Meɽɽas; pikron gar aʸn; dia touto epōnomase to onoma tou topou ekeinou, Pikria. )
BrTrAnd they came to Merrha, and could not drink of Merrha, for it was bitter; therefore he named the name of that place, Bitterness.
ULTAnd they came to Marah, and they were not able to drink the waters of Marah, because they were bitter. So he called its name Marah.
USTSo they went on and came to a place named Marah. There was water there, but they could not drink it, because it was bitter. That is why they named the place Marah, which is the Hebrew word that means ‘bitter.’
BSBAnd when they came to Marah,[fn] they could not drink the water there because it was bitter. (That is why it was named Marah.)
NETThen they came to Marah, but they were not able to drink the waters of Marah, because they were bitter. (That is why its name was Marah.)
LSVand they come to Marah, and have not been able to drink the waters of Marah, for they [are] bitter; therefore [one] has called its name Marah.
FBVWhen they arrived at Marah, the water there was too bitter to drink. (That's why the place is called Marah.)
T4TSo they/we went on and came to a place named Marah. There was water there, but they/we could not drink it, because it was bitter. That is why they named the place Marah, which is the Hebrew word that means ‘bitter’.
LEBAnd they came to Marah, and they were not able to drink water from Marah because it was bitter. Therefore it was named[fn] Marah.
15:23Literally “its name was called”; the Hebrew word for “bitter” is pronounced “marah”
BBEAnd when they came to Marah, the water was no good for drinking, for the waters of Marah were bitter, which is why it was named Marah.
JPSAnd when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter. Therefore the name of it was called Marah.
ASVAnd when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.
DRAAnd they came into Mara, and they could not drink the waters of Mara, because they were bitter: whereupon he gave a name also agreeable to the place, calling it Mara, that is, bitterness.
YLTand they come in to Marah, and have not been able to drink the waters of Marah, for they [are] bitter; therefore hath [one] called its name Marah.
DrbyAnd they came to Marah, and could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore the name of it was called Marah.
RVAnd when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.
WbstrAnd when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah; for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.
KJB-1769¶ And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.[fn]
KJB-1611¶ [fn]And when they came to Marah, they could not drinke of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah. (Modernised spelling is same as from KJB-1769 above apart from footnotes)
BshpsAnd when they came to Marah, they coulde not drynke of the waters of Marah, for they were bytter: therefore the name of the place was called Marah. (And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bytter: therefore the name of the place was called Marah.)
GnvaAnd whe they came to Marah, they could not drinke of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of the place was called Marah. (And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of the place was called Marah. )
CvdlThen came they to Marath, but they coude not drinke ye water for bytternes, for it was very bytter. Therfore was it called Marah, (yt is bytternes.) (Then came they to Marath, but they could not drink ye/you_all water for bitterness, for it was very bytter. Therefore was it called Marah, (yt is bitterness.))
WyclAnd thei camen in to Marath, and thei miyten not drynk the watris of Marath, for tho weren bittere; wherfor and he puttide a couenable name to the place, and clepide it Mara, that is, bitternesse. (And they came in to Marath, and they might not drink the waters of Marath, for those were bittere; wherfor and he put a couenable name to the place, and called it Mara, that is, bitterness.)
LuthDa kamen sie gen Mara; aber sie konnten des Wassers zu Mara nicht trinken, denn es war fast bitter. Daher hieß man den Ort Mara. (So came they/she/them to/toward Mara; but they/she/them could the waters to Mara not drink, because it what/which nearly bitter. Therefore was_called man the place Mara.)
ClVgEt venerunt in Mara, nec poterant bibere aquas de Mara, eo quod essent amaræ: unde et congruum loco nomen imposuit, vocans illum Mara, id est, amaritudinem.[fn] (And venerunt in Mara, but_not they_could to_drink waters about Mara, eo that they_would_be bitter: whence and congruum instead nomen imposuit, calling him Mara, id it_is, amaritudinem. )
15.23Et venerunt, etc. ORIG., hom. 6 in Exod. Post transitum maris Rubri, post choros et tympana, post triumphales hymnos, venitur ad Mara, aquam scilicet amaram, quam populus bibere non poterat; venitur ad periculum sitis. Sed clamavit Moses ad Dominum, et ostendit ei lignum, quo dulcis facta est aqua, et ibi posuit Deus illi justitias et judicium; ubi scilicet amaritudo, ubi sitis, et, quod gravius est, in abundantia aquarum, alius non erat locus dignior et aptior. Præterea quod dicit, ostendit illi lignum Deus, et misit illud in aquam, et facta est dulcis, quasi non posset sine ligno aquam facere dulcere Deus, aut Moses lignum nesciret. Sed si lex secundum litteram accipiatur, amara est et ipsa Mara. Quid enim tam amarum quam ut puer octavo die circumcisionis vulnus accipiat, et rigorem ferri tenera patiatur infantia? Amarum est enim poculum legis, populus Dei, non qui in Mose baptizatus est in nube et in mari, sed qui in spiritu et aqua non possit bibere et gustare, nec hostiarum ferre amaritudinem, nec sabbati observantiam. Sed si Deus ostendat lignum quod mittatur in hanc amaritudinem, dulcis fit aqua legis et potabilis. Prov. 3: Sapientia lignum vitæ est in omnibus amplectentibus eam. Si ergo lignum sapientiæ Christi missum fuerit in lege, ostendens quomodo debeat intelligi circumcisio, sabbatum, lex lepræ et hujusmodi, amaritudo legis vertitur in dulcedinem intelligentiæ spiritualis, ut populus bibere possit qui idola reliquit et ad Deum confugit. Si audiat legem de sacrificiis docentem, continuo refugit et bibere non potest. In hanc ergo amaritudinem, id est litteram legis, posuit Deus justitias et testimonia, velut scilicet in vasculo quodam sapientiæ suæ et scientiæ thesauros concludit [condidit]. Unde: Habemus thesaurum istum in vasis fictilibus II Cor. 3.. Ut ergo possit hæc aqua bibi, ostendit Deus lignum quod mittatur in eam, ut qui biberit non moriatur, non sentiat amaritudinem. Si quis ergo sine ligno vitæ, id est, sine mysterio crucis, sine fide Christi, sine intelligentia spirituali biberit, amaritudine morietur. Unde: Littera occidit, id est, aqua Mara, si bibatur non mutata et in dulcedinem versa.
15.23And venerunt, etc. ORIG., hom. 6 in Exod. Post transitum maris Rubri, after choros and tympana, after triumphales hymnos, venitur to Mara, aquam scilicet amaram, how populus to_drink not/no poterat; venitur to periculum sitis. But clamavit Moses to Dominum, and ostendit to_him lignum, quo dulcis facts it_is water, and there put God illi justitias and yudicium; where scilicet amaritudo, where sitis, et, that gravius it_is, in abundantia waterrum, alius not/no was locus dignior and aptior. Præterea that dicit, ostendit illi lignum God, and he_sent illud in waterm, and facts it_is dulcis, as_if not/no posset without ligno waterm facere dulcere God, aut Moses lignum nesciret. But when/but_if lex after/second litteram accipiatur, amara it_is and herself Mara. What because tam amarum how as puer octavo day circumcisionis vulnus accipiat, and rigorem ferri tenera patiatur infantia? Amarum it_is because poculum legis, populus of_God, not/no who in Mose baptizatus it_is in nube and in mari, but who in spiritu and water not/no possit to_drink and gustare, but_not hostiarum ferre amaritudinem, but_not sabbati observantiam. But when/but_if God ostendat lignum that mittatur in hanc amaritudinem, dulcis fit water legis and potabilis. Prov. 3: Sapientia lignum of_life it_is in to_all amplectentibus eam. When/But_if therefore lignum sapientiæ of_Christ missum has_been in lege, ostendens how debeat intelligi circumcisio, sabbatum, lex lepræ and huyusmodi, amaritudo legis vertitur in dulcedinem intelligentiæ spiritualis, as populus to_drink possit who idola reliquit and to God confugit. When/But_if audiat legem about sacrificiis docentem, continuo refugit and to_drink not/no potest. In hanc therefore amaritudinem, id it_is litteram legis, put God justitias and testimonia, velut scilicet in vasculo quodam sapientiæ suæ and scientiæ thesauros concludit [condidit]. Whence: Habemus thesaurum that in vasis fictilibus II Cor. 3.. Ut therefore possit these_things water bibi, ostendit God lignum that mittatur in eam, as who biberit not/no moriatur, not/no sentiat amaritudinem. When/But_if who/any therefore without ligno vitæ, id it_is, without mysterio crucis, without fide of_Christ, without intelligentia spirituali biberit, amaritudine morietur. Whence: Littera occidit, id it_is, water Mara, when/but_if bibatur not/no mutata and in dulcedinem versa.
Like several other events recorded in Scripture, the Bible’s account of the Israelites’ journey from Egypt to Mount Sinai includes an abundance of geographical references, yet it remains one of the most hotly debated topics among scholars, and numerous theories have been offered. The vast majority of geographical references provided in the story are disputed, including the place where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, the location of Mount Sinai (see Proposed Locations for Mount Sinai map), and the various stops along the Israelites’ journey. A few locations have been established with some degree of scholarly consensus, but even these are not without opposing viewpoints. Amidst this incredible diversity of opinion, however, a single verse provides one of the most helpful clues for weighing the merits of one viewpoint over another: “By the way of Mount Seir it takes eleven days to reach Kadesh-barnea from Horeb” (Deuteronomy 1:2). For those who assume the Bible’s account to be trustworthy, this verse appears to require the following for any theory to be considered viable: 1) Kadesh-barnea and Mount Sinai must have been located at a distance from each other that could reasonably have been expected to take eleven days for an entire nation of people with small children, flocks, equipment, and perhaps even elderly members to travel on foot; and 2) the pace established by this distance over eleven days should most likely be considered the typical pace for the Israelites as they traveled from place to place along the other parts of the journey. This two-pronged test clearly strains many of the theories put forth to this point, especially when one factors in the time references given for the start of the journey (Exodus 12:6; Numbers 33:3), the middle of the journey (Exodus 16:1; Numbers 33:8), and the end of the journey (Exodus 19:1). In short, the journey from Rameses to the Wilderness of Sin took 31 days, since it included the 15th day of the second month, and the rest of the journey took another 16 days, assuming they arrived at Mount Sinai on the 15th day (not the first day, etc.) of the third month. Along with these criteria, a theory’s overall congruence with other established geographical and archeological data should bolster its credibility over other proposals. Another consideration is the extreme similarity between the events at Rephidim (Exodus 17) and the events at Kadesh-barnea (Numbers 20:1-13; 27:12-14; Deuteronomy 32:51; Ezekiel 47:19; 48:28), raising the question of whether Rephidim (meaning “resting places”) is in fact Kadesh-barnea. With these things in mind, the map below proposes a route for the exodus that meets virtually all of these criteria. A careful analysis and explanation of all the elements of the map is far beyond the scope of this article, but a few key points should be noted. The term Red Sea, in addition to referring to what we now regard it, must have also applied to the interconnected lakes and marshlands that lay along what is now the Suez Canal. Also, the portion of the journey that passed through the wilderness for three days without water (Exodus 15:22; Numbers 33:8) may have been comprised of a partial first day, a full second day, and a partial third day, much like Jesus’ time in the tomb is reckoned as three days in Matthew 12:40. Most notably, Mount Sinai is placed on this map at Gebel Khashm et-Tarif, which is appropriately located near, but not in, Midian (Exodus 3:1; 18:5; Numbers 10:29-30). It is also located 89 miles from Kadesh-barnea (assuming Kadesh is at Tall al-Quderat), which establishes a reasonable pace of 7.6 miles (12.2 km) per day to travel between them in 11 days. This lines up well with several known sources of water along that route (e.g., `Ain Qedeis [Hazar-addar?], Tamilat Suwelima [Hor-haggiggad?], and the spring at Kuntillet al-Girafi [unknown ancient identification]). This general pace then synchronizes very well with the timetable and distances required by this map for the other parts of the journey. The distance from Rameses to the Wilderness of Sin (where it is located here) could be completed in under 26 days, leaving an acceptable buffer of about 5 days for the parting of the Red Sea and perhaps a slower pace through the Wilderness of Shur/Etham. The entire journey took about 60 days, and the journey from the Wilderness of Sin to Mount Sinai took about 29 days. This leaves an acceptable buffer of time to complete the rest of the journey (about 16 days of travel) with a very adequate two weeks of extra time for Jethro to visit Moses and the Israelites to do battle with the Amalekites (Exodus 17-18). It should be noted that this timetable generally assumes (but does not necessarily require) that travel continued on sabbath days, but Scripture does not make clear whether travel was prohibited as work prior to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai.
