Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v73w27q-how-geez-preserved-meaning-when-english-flattened-it.html
Synopsis
This episode examines how Scripture can remain the same on the page while meaning shifts in the mind. Genesis did not move directly from Hebrew to modern English; it passed through living languages that carried responsibility, consequence, and condition differently than English does. Geʽez, the sacred language of the Ethiopian canon, preserved how authority was heard as burden rather than domination, and how death was understood as entry into mortality rather than immediate execution. English, shaped by power, law, and control, flattened those meanings without changing the words themselves. Tonight is not about rewriting the Bible, but about recovering how Scripture was originally heard—and why misunderstanding language has quietly reshaped theology, authority, and fear for centuries.
Breaking News
Tonight’s field of headlines, dated Saturday, January 3, 2026, is already forming a familiar pattern: pressure on sovereign governments, pressure on financial credibility, pressure on movement and resources, and pressure on truth itself. This combination consistently produces one of two outcomes in history—repentance and reform, or consolidation and control—and tonight the signals lean toward consolidation.
The most strategically charged story tonight is Venezuela, where renewed diplomatic pressure, sanctions enforcement, and regional military signaling are again pushing the country into the global spotlight. Venezuela is one of the original founders of OPEC. Trump took it. And miraculously crude went from $60 to $57 a barrel. The left blue states (China) will cry and sue but nothing will be done. Venezuelans are happy because China isn’t persecuting the Christians there now. Remember, China controls most of the ports in blue states and the economic war between China and The USA is still continuing via private corporations. What Trump singlehandedly did was save the dollar for another 40 years. In other words, he stopped BRICS from gaining already on their 30% control of the world’s money. In new world order terms, Venezuela remains a textbook case of how resource-rich nations that resist dominant financial systems are slowly encircled rather than swiftly confronted. Energy, currency settlement, and alignment matter more than rhetoric. For the children of God, discernment means praying for the Venezuelan people without sanctifying coercion, and remembering that liberation language is often used to mask economic and strategic conquest. Reuters
Iran remains another combustible front, as economic strain and internal unrest continue to draw pointed language from Western leaders about “consequences” and “red lines.” In new world order terms, this follows the familiar script where civilian suffering becomes the lever for geopolitical escalation, with humanitarian framing preparing public consent for future force. For the children of God, the warning is restraint of the heart. Compassion for suffering people must never turn into excitement over war, because the Kingdom of God is not advanced by bombs or regime collapse. Reuters
Wall Street closed the week with uneven conviction, as AI-linked stocks continue to carry disproportionate weight while broader markets remain nervous about rates, trade policy, and political uncertainty. In new world order terms, this is what a managed economy looks like when markets are conditioned to depend on central guidance and a small cluster of system-critical companies. For God’s people, the call is sobriety rather than fear. Volatility reveals where trust has drifted from God’s provision to the illusion of permanent growth. Reuters
Alongside equity uncertainty, the U.S. dollar continues to show sharp movement after last year’s decline, reinforcing how central currency stability is to global order. In new world order terms, large swings in the reserve currency accelerate the argument for monetary “upgrades,” coordination, and increased oversight. For the children of God, discernment asks a simple question of every proposed fix: what freedoms are being traded for the promise of stability?
Reuters
In the United Kingdom, market milestones and official optimism contrast with ongoing household pressure and cost-of-living strain. In new world order terms, this is narrative management at work, where headline numbers are used to project confidence even as underlying stress remains unresolved. For God’s people, this is a reminder to measure health by human wellbeing rather than by charts, and to keep compassion anchored in reality rather than statistics.
The Guardian
On the industrial front, competition in electric vehicles and battery supply chains continues to intensify, with Asian manufacturers gaining ground. In new world order terms, this is not merely a business rivalry but a struggle over infrastructure dominance, materials access, and long-term policy leverage. Transportation becomes a governance layer once energy and mobility are standardized. For the children of God, discernment means refusing to confuse “green” language with moral purity, and recognizing how easily sustainability can become a tool for restriction. The Guardian
A deadly fire at a public venue in Europe has renewed calls for tighter safety regulations and inspections. In new world order terms, tragedy often becomes the gateway for expanded compliance regimes and surveillance, introduced in moments when resistance feels immoral. For the children of God, compassion must lead the response, but clarity must follow. Safety matters, yet grief must never be used to normalize permanent loss of freedom. AP News
Natural disasters in the Americas, including a strong earthquake in Mexico, again highlight how quickly normal life can fracture. In new world order terms, emergencies accelerate centralization, fast-track authority, and bypass oversight in the name of speed. For the children of God, this is both a call to mercy and a reminder that fear makes people easy to manage, while faith steadies hands and hearts to serve. AP News
In Gaza, winter conditions continue to compound civilian suffering, with recent fires and shortages underscoring the human cost of unresolved conflict. In new world order terms, prolonged instability turns entire populations into managed humanitarian zones, where aid, access, and narrative are tightly controlled. For the children of God, the discernment is to resist dehumanization on all sides and to keep mercy from becoming partisan. AP News
Finally, tension between the United States and China continues to deepen through technology restrictions and national security reviews, including blocked deals in sensitive sectors. In new world order terms, technology is now treated as sovereignty itself, and de-risking is how globalism fragments into controlled blocs. For the children of God, this is not a reason for fear, but for discernment, understanding that systems seeking total control always move through infrastructure, identity, and access before they move through force.
Taken together, tonight’s headlines are not random. They are consistent with a world tightening its grip through economics, safety, technology, and fatigue. For the children of God, the response remains the same: clarity without panic, compassion without manipulation, and peace that cannot be shaken by the machinery of the age.
Monologue
Before we begin, I want to acknowledge something important. A listener named Craig reached out to me today and pointed out a detail that genuinely matters. Thank you, Craig, for raising it, because this can be confusing for anyone reading the Bible in English from Geʽez sources.
Last night, I may have given the impression that the words themselves changed in translation. That is not the full picture. In many cases, the words look the same on the page. What changes is how those words are heard and understood when you move from Geʽez into English. That difference isn’t obvious unless you actually read and think in Geʽez.
So tonight isn’t about correcting Scripture. It’s about correcting a misunderstanding of how translation works. The words may stay the same, but the meaning they carry doesn’t always survive the move into English without explanation. That’s what we’re going to slow down and talk through together.
Tonight’s conversation needs to start with clarity, not correction. This is not an advanced linguistics lesson, and it is not an academic debate. Everything we are going to talk about tonight can be understood at a fourth-grade level, because God never hid truth behind education. What He hid was pride. Scripture was given to be heard, not to require credentials. So if anything feels confusing at first, that does not mean it is complicated. It means we have been trained to hear words in a way they were never meant to be heard.
When most people read the Bible, they assume something very simple. They assume that if the words on the page are the same, then the meaning must be the same. That assumption feels reasonable, but it is wrong. Meaning does not live in words alone. Meaning lives in how a language teaches the human mind to hear responsibility, authority, life, and death. Scripture did not move from Hebrew straight into English. It passed through living languages and living people who understood the world very differently than we do today.
Geʽez, the ancient language of the Ethiopian canon, preserved something that English struggles to carry. It preserved meaning without changing the story. When Geʽez speaks about authority, it does not sound like power or control. It sounds like burden and responsibility. When Geʽez speaks about death, it does not sound like instant punishment. It sounds like entering a condition that unfolds over time. English can repeat the same words, but it cannot naturally carry that way of thinking. So the words stay, but the meaning flattens.
This is why two people can read the same verse and walk away with very different ideas about God. One hears domination. Another hears responsibility. One hears fear. Another hears consequence. Scripture did not change. The hearing did. English is a language shaped by law, force, and control. It is very good at commands and outcomes. It is very bad at carrying process, obligation, and relational consequence without explanation. That limitation is not sinful. It is simply human.
So tonight is not about saying the Bible was wrong. It is about saying our language has limits. The Ethiopian tradition never relied on text alone. Meaning was carried through language, teaching, and shared understanding. Once Scripture was reduced to printed English words without that framework, people began hearing things God never said. Authority became domination. Death became terror. Responsibility became hierarchy. None of that required changing a single verse.
If at any point tonight you think, “Why have I never heard this explained before,” the answer is simple. Because translation rarely explains itself. It assumes the reader already thinks the right way. Tonight is about slowing down and letting Scripture be heard the way it was meant to be heard. Same Bible. Same words. Different hearing.
And if this makes Scripture feel clearer instead of more confusing, that is how you know we are on the right path.
Part 1
Before we talk about Geʽez, we have to reset one assumption almost everyone carries without realizing it. Most people believe words contain meaning. They don’t. Words only point to meaning. Meaning lives in how a language trains the mind to understand the world. That is why two people can hear the same sentence and walk away with completely different conclusions, even when neither is trying to distort the truth.
Scripture has always depended on hearing, not just reading. Long before most people owned scrolls or books, the Word of God was spoken, remembered, repeated, and explained within a community. Language shaped how people understood responsibility, authority, life, and consequence. When Scripture moved across languages, it did not stop being true, but it did begin to sound different depending on how each language worked.
English gives us the illusion of precision. It feels exact because it is blunt. English likes clean verbs, clear commands, and obvious outcomes. That makes it very good for law, contracts, and control. But it also means English struggles to carry ideas like condition, process, and burden without explanation. When English sees authority, it hears power. When English sees death, it hears an event. That is not because Scripture teaches that, but because English thinks that way.
Geʽez does not. Geʽez is a relational language. It is comfortable describing roles instead of force, responsibility instead of dominance, and conditions instead of instant outcomes. When Scripture passed through Geʽez, it entered a language that naturally preserved how authority feels heavy and how consequence unfolds over time. Nothing had to be added. Nothing had to be removed. The language itself carried the weight.
This is why it is possible for the same verse to exist in multiple languages and still shape people differently. The words can remain faithful while the hearing changes. That difference does not mean someone corrupted Scripture. It means language does not function the way modern readers assume it does.
So this is not about Geʽez yet. It is about humility. If meaning can shift without words changing, then we have to be careful before we argue over translations. We have to ask not only what the verse says, but how the language teaches us to hear it. That question is where recovery begins.
Part 2
To understand why this matters, we need to talk about hearing, not intelligence. This has nothing to do with education level or theological training. God never designed His Word to require degrees. He designed it to require attention. The issue isn’t that people are missing something because they’re uneducated. The issue is that language trains us to hear certain ideas automatically, without asking whether those ideas came from Scripture or from the language itself.
When an English reader sees a word like “rule,” the mind instantly reaches for ideas of power, control, hierarchy, and dominance. That reaction feels natural, but it isn’t neutral. It’s the result of living in a language shaped by governments, laws, and systems of command. English doesn’t pause to ask what kind of rule is being described. It assumes power first and explains responsibility later, if at all.
Geʽez hears the same idea very differently. In Geʽez, authority is never detached from consequence. To be placed over something is to be answerable for it. Responsibility comes before privilege. Burden comes before control. A Geʽez reader doesn’t hear permission to dominate. They hear assignment of accountability. That isn’t a theological add-on. It’s how the language itself works.
This is why translation can be so misleading without explanation. When the English word stays the same, readers assume the meaning stayed the same too. But the hearing changed. The language shifted how the mind pictures authority, and that shift quietly reshapes theology. Scripture didn’t tell people that authority means domination. English suggested it.
So the danger isn’t bad translation. The danger is unexamined hearing. When we don’t recognize how language guides interpretation, we begin defending ideas God never taught, simply because the words sounded familiar. That’s why slowing down here isn’t optional. It’s necessary if we want Scripture to shape us instead of our language shaping Scripture.
Part 3
Now we need to address something that often gets misunderstood. This difference did not start in English. And it is not because Hebrew was flawed or incomplete. Hebrew already carried the idea that authority comes with responsibility and that death unfolds as a condition, not just a moment. The problem is not the Hebrew words. The problem is how later languages and cultures leaned on certain meanings and ignored others.
Hebrew words often carry a range, not a single definition. They allow meaning to be shaped by context, relationship, and outcome. When Hebrew speaks of ruling, it does not automatically mean domination. It means being placed in charge, being accountable, being the one who answers when something goes wrong. That understanding was normal to ancient readers. It didn’t need to be explained.
When Hebrew moved into Geʽez, that accountability-centered meaning was preserved naturally. Geʽez didn’t need to force the idea. It already thought that way. Authority as burden fit cleanly into the language. Death as a condition that enters the human story fit cleanly too. So nothing felt dramatic or harsh. It simply made sense.
The trouble begins when Scripture finally lands in English. English does not like ranges. It wants one meaning per word. It wants clarity through force, not through relationship. So English grabs the strongest, most obvious sense and lets the rest fade into the background. Over time, readers stop knowing that other meanings were ever there.
This is why English readers often think something drastic happened in Genesis that the story itself never describes. They expect immediate death, total domination, and absolute hierarchy because that is how English words sound. Hebrew allowed nuance. Geʽez preserved it. English compressed it.
So, this is about continuity, not loss. The meaning didn’t disappear suddenly. It narrowed. And once meaning narrows, theology follows. That’s why recovering how Scripture was heard matters just as much as recovering what it said.
Part 4
This narrowing of meaning has real consequences, and this is where it stops being theoretical. When authority is heard as domination instead of responsibility, relationships change. When death is heard as an instant punishment instead of an entered condition, fear replaces understanding. These aren’t small shifts. They affect how people see God, themselves, and one another.
In Scripture, authority always attracts judgment first. The one placed “over” is the one questioned first. That pattern is consistent from Genesis onward. Adam is addressed before Eve. Kings are judged before nations. Shepherds answer before flocks. This only makes sense if authority is understood as burden. If authority were privilege, Scripture would read very differently. English often hides this pattern because it emphasizes control instead of accountability.
The same distortion happens with death. Genesis does not describe Adam collapsing the moment he eats. It describes exile, decay, labor, sorrow, and eventual death. Death enters as a condition that reshapes human life, not as an immediate execution. Geʽez hears this naturally. English readers often don’t, because English wants verdicts, not processes.
Once these ideas flatten, theology shifts quietly. Authority becomes something to grasp instead of something to fear. Death becomes something God does to people instead of something humanity enters by consequence. Over time, these misunderstandings harden into doctrines, and doctrines harden into systems. None of that required changing Scripture. It only required changing how the words were heard.
This is where the warning lives. If we don’t slow down and examine how language shapes belief, we end up defending ideas God never said and fearing outcomes God never described. Scripture remains faithful. The question is whether our hearing has remained faithful with it.
Part 5
This brings us to the question many people are quietly asking right now: why hasn’t this been explained more clearly before? The answer is simpler than it sounds. Translation was never meant to carry the full weight of meaning by itself. Scripture was always designed to live inside teaching, community, and shared understanding. When the Bible was read aloud in its original settings, people didn’t argue over single words because they already knew how their language worked.
The Ethiopian tradition never treated Scripture as text alone. Meaning was carried through how the language was spoken, how elders taught, and how stories were understood together over time. When Geʽez speakers heard words about authority or death, the language itself guided their understanding. Nothing had to be spelled out. The culture already knew that authority meant responsibility and that consequence unfolded over time.
Modern readers don’t have that framework. English readers are often left alone with the page, expected to extract meaning without guidance. When that happens, the language fills in the gaps with its own instincts. English instincts lean toward control, punishment, and immediacy. Not because people are doing something wrong, but because that is how the language has trained them to think.
So, this is all about restoring context, not correcting people. This isn’t about saying, “You should have known better.” It’s about recognizing that we were handed Scripture in a form that assumes knowledge we were never given. Once you see that, the confusion makes sense. And once it makes sense, it loses its power to divide or mislead.
This is also why slowing down matters. Rushing Scripture through modern language without explanation doesn’t make it clearer. It makes it louder and harsher than it was ever meant to be. Understanding how meaning travels across languages doesn’t weaken faith. It steadies it.
Part 6
At this point, it’s important to say what this teaching is not doing. It is not asking people to relearn the Bible. It is not asking people to mistrust their English translation. And it is not creating a special class of readers who “know better.” That would defeat the entire purpose. What this is doing is restoring orientation—helping people hear Scripture without unnecessary fear or distortion.
When people misunderstand authority, they often either abuse it or reject it entirely. When people misunderstand death, they either live in terror or denial. Neither response reflects the heart of God. These extremes don’t come from Scripture itself. They come from how language shapes emotion before understanding has a chance to catch up.
Geʽez doesn’t soften Scripture. It steadies it. It keeps authority heavy instead of attractive. It keeps consequence serious without making God cruel. That balance is not intellectual. It’s relational. And it’s why this matters for everyday faith, not just theology.
Most people don’t need more information. They need relief from misunderstandings they didn’t know they were carrying. Once authority is seen as responsibility, many questions dissolve. Once death is seen as a condition entered, not a weapon wielded, fear loosens its grip. Scripture becomes clearer, not more complicated.
This is all about reassurance. Nothing essential has been lost. Nothing needs to be torn down. What’s being restored is trust—trust that God has always been consistent, and that confusion often comes not from what He said, but from how we were trained to hear it.
Part 7
Now we can talk honestly about why this matters right now. When language distorts meaning, it doesn’t stay in books. It shows up in families, churches, and systems of power. If authority is heard as domination, people will either chase it or fear it. If death is heard as instant punishment, people will relate to God through anxiety instead of trust. These are not abstract problems. They are lived ones.
A language that flattens meaning also flattens responsibility. When authority sounds like privilege, leaders feel entitled instead of accountable. When responsibility sounds like hierarchy, people either submit blindly or rebel completely. Scripture never taught either extreme. Those extremes grow in the space where meaning has been compressed and never explained.
This is why restoring how Scripture is heard is an act of protection, not correction. It protects people from projecting human power systems onto God. It protects leaders from mistaking position for approval. And it protects ordinary believers from carrying fear God never intended them to carry.
Geʽez preserved a way of hearing Scripture that resists abuse. Authority stays heavy. Judgment stays sober. Consequence stays real without becoming cruel. That balance matters more in unstable times than in comfortable ones. When the world is loud, Scripture must be clear—not louder.
So, this is a warning, but also an invitation. If we allow language to do our thinking for us, we will repeat the same misunderstandings generation after generation. But if we slow down and listen carefully, Scripture still speaks with the same steadiness it always has. The question isn’t whether the Bible can be trusted. The question is whether we’re willing to hear it beyond the limits of our own language.
Part 8
This also explains why explanation feels threatening to some people. When meaning has been flattened for a long time, clarity can feel like contradiction. People assume that if something is being explained, something must be wrong. But explanation is not correction. It’s restoration of depth. Scripture was never meant to be reduced to slogans or single-word conclusions.
In the Ethiopian tradition, Scripture was always layered. A verse was not treated as a weapon or a verdict. It was treated as an entry point into understanding. The language itself invited reflection instead of reaction. That is very different from how modern readers are trained to consume text quickly and decisively.
English culture rewards speed and certainty. Geʽez culture rewarded patience and responsibility. When those two worlds collide, people can mistake careful explanation for uncertainty, or humility for weakness. But Scripture has always favored the slow listener over the loud one.
This is why it’s important to say plainly: explaining how language works does not undermine faith. It strengthens it. It removes false certainty and replaces it with confidence rooted in understanding. God does not need us to defend Him with oversimplified words. He asks us to hear Him faithfully.
This is about releasing defensiveness. Nothing is being taken away from Scripture. Something is being given back to it: room to speak without being forced into the narrow limits of modern language.
Part 9
So where does this leave us as readers and believers? It leaves us with responsibility. Once we understand that language shapes hearing, we can no longer pretend that every misunderstanding comes from rebellion or ignorance. Sometimes it comes from inheritance. We received Scripture in a language that did not explain itself, and we trusted it the only way we knew how.
This means humility has to come before certainty. It means listening before arguing. It means recognizing that God has always been faithful, even when our hearing has been uneven. Scripture does not need to be defended against language. It needs to be heard within it carefully.
This also changes how we treat one another. If meaning can shift without words changing, then disagreements are not always about disobedience. They are often about hearing. That realization should slow our judgments and deepen our compassion. God judges hearts. We often judge interpretations without understanding how they were formed.
This is an invitation to maturity. Not to abandon convictions, but to hold them with awareness. To ask not only “What does the verse say?” but “How am I being trained to hear it?” That question doesn’t weaken faith. It refines it.
When Scripture is heard through responsibility instead of power, and through consequence instead of fear, it does what it has always done best. It restores relationship. And that is something no language barrier can truly erase.
Part 10
This brings us to what we actually do with all of this. The goal is not to become language experts. The goal is to become better listeners. Scripture has never demanded technical mastery. It has always asked for faithfulness in hearing. Once we understand that words can stay the same while meaning shifts, we gain freedom from unnecessary fear and false confidence alike.
Going forward, this means we slow down when something sounds harsh or confusing. We resist the urge to build doctrine from a single English impression. We remember that God spoke into real languages, real cultures, and real people who understood responsibility and consequence differently than we do today. That remembrance keeps us grounded.
It also means we speak more carefully when we teach. Precision matters, not to protect pride, but to protect people. Saying “the words changed” when what we mean is “the hearing changed” can confuse even honest listeners. Clarity builds trust. And trust allows Scripture to do its work without resistance.
This is not a conclusion about Geʽez. It is a posture for the future. Same Bible. Same story. Same God. But better hearing. When Scripture is allowed to speak beyond the limits of our language, it doesn’t become weaker. It becomes truer to the God who spoke it in the first place.
Conclusion
Tonight was not about winning an argument or correcting a verse. It was about recovering trust—trust that God has always spoken clearly, and that confusion often enters not through Scripture itself, but through the limits of human language. The Bible did not change. The words did not betray us. What shifted was how those words were received once they passed into languages that think differently than the ones God originally spoke through.
Geʽez did not preserve meaning because it was mystical or superior. It preserved meaning because it still heard authority as responsibility and consequence as process. English did not ruin Scripture, but it struggles to carry those ideas without explanation. When we mistake that struggle for God’s voice, we end up with fear where there should be understanding and control where there should be accountability.
The invitation tonight is simple. Read Scripture slowly. Listen carefully. Be humble about what language does to meaning. When something sounds harsh, ask whether it is God speaking—or the limits of your language speaking for Him. That question alone can restore clarity, peace, and trust.
Same Bible. Same God. Same truth. But a deeper hearing.
Bibliography
- Augustine. On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis. Translated by John Hammond Taylor. New York: Newman Press, 1982.
- Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
- Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Book of Adam and Eve. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1899.
- Cowley, Roger W. The Ethiopian Biblical Canon. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.
- Gragg, Gene. “Geʽez.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 498–523. London: Routledge, 1997.
- Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.
- Knibb, Michael A. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
- Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
- Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
- Ullendorff, Edward. Ethiopia and the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
- Wolde Mariam, Getatchew. An Introduction to Ethiopic Christian Literature. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press, 2004.
Endnotes
- Biblical texts did not move directly from Hebrew into modern English. The transmission history of Scripture involved multiple languages, cultures, and interpretive communities, each of which preserved meaning differently depending on linguistic structure and worldview. See Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 1–25.
- Geʽez functioned not only as a liturgical language but as a theological and interpretive medium within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition. Meaning was preserved through language, oral teaching, and communal memory rather than text alone. See Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 23–47.
- The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (māshal), commonly translated “rule,” carries a semantic range that includes governance, oversight, and responsibility, not domination by default. Its meaning is shaped by covenantal context rather than coercive power structures. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 109–112.
- Ancient Semitic languages often encode authority as accountability and obligation rather than privilege. This conceptual framework is preserved more explicitly in Geʽez, which naturally frames authority as burden and answerability before God. See Gene Gragg, “Geʽez,” in The Semitic Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron (London: Routledge, 1997), 498–523.
- English, as a post-medieval language shaped by legal, imperial, and administrative systems, tends to compress relational and process-oriented concepts into force-oriented verbs. This linguistic tendency can flatten meaning without altering surface wording. See William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 187–191.
- In Genesis, death is presented narratively as an entered condition involving exile, decay, and eventual physical death rather than immediate execution. This understanding aligns with early interpretive traditions that treat death as a process rather than a momentary act. See Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor (New York: Newman Press, 1982), 7.24–28.
- The Ethiopian biblical tradition consistently understands Scripture as requiring explanation and teaching alongside the text itself. Isolated verse reading without linguistic or communal context is a modern development. See Getatchew Wolde Mariam, An Introduction to Ethiopic Christian Literature (Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press, 2004), 11–19.
- Differences between English translations of Ethiopian Scripture often reflect translator choices aimed at preserving familiar biblical cadence rather than rendering the full semantic weight of the Geʽez original. These choices prioritize recognizability over linguistic precision. See Roger W. Cowley, The Ethiopian Biblical Canon (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 92–101.
- Misunderstandings of authority and death language have historically contributed to theological distortions involving domination, fear-based faith, and hierarchical abuse. These distortions arise more often from interpretive inheritance than from the biblical text itself. See F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 214–219.
- Scripture was originally received through hearing within community rather than silent, individual reading. Meaning was carried as much through how language was understood as through the words themselves. Modern reliance on text alone increases the likelihood of mishearing. See Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 13–18.
#Geʽez #EthiopianCanon #BiblicalTranslation #LostInTranslation #SameBibleDifferentHearing #AuthorityAsResponsibility #DeathAsMortality #ScriptureExplained #AncientLanguages #CauseBeforeSymptom
Geʽez, Ethiopian Canon, Biblical Translation, Lost in Translation, Same Bible Different Hearing, Authority as Responsibility, Death as Mortality, Scripture Explained, Ancient Languages, Cause Before Symptom