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.
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).
BrLXXἮλθε δὲ Ἀμαλὴκ καὶ ἐπολέμει Ἰσραὴλ ἐν Ῥαφιδείν. (Aʸlthe de Amalaʸk kai epolemei Israaʸl en Ɽafidein. )
BrTrAnd Amalec came and fought with Israel in Raphidin.
ULTAnd Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim.
USTThen the people of Amalek came and fought against the Israelite people at Rephidim.
BSB § After this, the Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim.
BshpsThen came Amelec and fought with Israel in Raphidim.
GnvaThen came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
CvdlThen came Ameleck, & fought agaynst Israel in Raphidim. (Then came Ameleck, and fought against Israel in Raphidim.)
WyclForsothe Amalech cam, and fauyt ayens Israel in Rafidym. (Forsothe Amalech came, and fought against Israel in Rafidym.)
LuthDa kam Amalek und stritt wider Israel in Raphidim. (So came Amalek and argued/fought against Israel in Raphidim.)
ClVgVenit autem Amalec, et pugnabat contra Israël in Raphidim.[fn] (Venit however Amalec, and pugnabat on_the_contrary Israel in Raphidim. )
17.8Venit autem Amalec, etc. STRAB. Amalec fuit filius Ismæl, a quo Amalecitæ, qui et Ismælitæ sunt: ipsi sunt Saraceni. Interpretatur autem bibens vel lambens sanguinem, et significat diabolum, qui sanctos de Ægypto exeuntes, et ad terram promissionis tendentes, semper impugnat, et animarum sanguinem bibere desiderat. ORIG., hom. II in Exod. Describitur bellum cum Amalecitis factum. Antequam manducaret panem de cœlo, et biberet aquam de petra, non dicitur pugnasse populus; sed dicitur ad eum: Dominus pugnabit pro vobis, et vos tacebitis. Est ergo quando Dominus pugnat pro nobis, nec permittit tentari supra id quod possumus, nec impares viribus sinit ad fortem venire congressum. Job quoque certamen tentationis suæ jam perfectus implevit; et tu ergo cum cœperis manducare manna, panem cœlestem verbi Dei, et bibere aquam de petra, cumque ad interiora doctrinæ spiritualis accesseris, exspecta pugnam, præpara te ad bellum.
17.8Venit however Amalec, etc. STRAB. Amalec fuit son Ismæl, from quo Amalecitæ, who and Ismælitæ are: ipsi are Saraceni. Interpretatur however bibens or lambens sanguinem, and significat diabolum, who sanctos about Ægypto exeuntes, and to the_earth/land promissionis tendentes, always impugnat, and animarum sanguinem to_drink desiderat. ORIG., hom. II in Exod. Describitur bellum when/with Amalecitis factum. Antequam manducaret panem about cœlo, and biberet waterm about petra, not/no it_is_said pugnasse populus; but it_is_said to him: Master pugnabit for vobis, and you tacebitis. Est therefore when Master pugnat for nobis, but_not permittit tentari supra id that possumus, but_not impares viribus sinit to fortem venire congressum. Yob too certamen tentationis suæ yam perfectus implevit; and you therefore when/with cœperis manducare manna, panem cœlestem verbi of_God, and to_drink waterm about petra, cumque to interiora doctrinæ spiritualis accesseris, exspecta pugnam, præpara you(sg) to bellum.
17:8Amalek was Esau’s grandson (Gen 36:11-12). His descendants were nomadic, though loosely based in the land of Edom. They seem to have supported themselves by raiding more settled peoples.
Amalek and Israel both refer to the nations (people groups) descended from that individual by simply using the name of the ancestor. If your readers would not understand this, you could use an equivalent expression or plain language. Alternate translation: “the Amalekites … the Israelites”
Amalek and Israel are both collective nouns that refer to the nations (people groups) descended from that individual. If your language does not use singular nouns in that way, you can use a different expression. Alternate translation: “the Amalekites … the Israelites”
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.
