Was Ruth an Israelite?

Bob Dobbalina

Active member
the plains of Moab is not the same place as the country of Moab...

I already answered you are trying to make a point about something that is already settled...those are two different places... Since the place does not settle the question of whether Ruth is an Israelite or not...we should ask Ruth herself...Ruth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?

a yes answer does not tell whether Ruth is an Israelite or not...all it does is say there is a place called the plains of Moab.

this has nothing to do with Ruth being an Israelite or a stranger...Ruth herself says that she is a stranger...Ruth 2:10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?

It appears they did since there was a famine in the land..Ruth 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
It’s always easier to go along than to think for oneself. To believe that Ruth was anything other than Israeli is to make the word of YHWH, particularly the curse against intermingling, of no effect. For most, it is easier to deny YHWH than the traditions of men. Sad.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
It’s always easier to go along than to think for oneself.
You should try thinking for yourself it is very easy
To believe that Ruth was anything other than Israeli is to make the word of YHWH, particularly the curse against intermingling, of no effect.
This is why the Israelites continually disobeyed God...they made the word of God of no effect...Ruth herself says that she is a stranger so why are you saying different?
For most, it is easier to deny YHWH than the traditions of men. Sad.
This has nothing to do with denying YHWH...for some reason you think that the Israelites always obeyed YHWH to the letter... I quoted from the scripture YOU are denying the scripture...Ruth was a stranger ..she said so...
 

Hawkeye

Active member
Silly it is but that doesn’t stop people from embracing tradition. I’ve come to understand that there’s nothing one can say or do to persuade another of their error. Only YHWH can pierce the delicious, hard candy coating that is the traditions of man.
See my friend...........this is the problem with many Christians who wish to maintain the "Fairy Tales" of their incompetent translations from the "dark Ages". You explain something and it's as if they never read it as they continue in the same silly vein.

Example....a number of time it has been shown from scripture using the Literal Translation that the "Country" of Moab is actually the "Fields of Moab" as the Hebrew word is "SADEH" and has no relationship to a political boundary. But yet, they continue to use the KJV "Country" of Moab because it fits their false narrative.

Believe me.....if you look at a topographical map of the terrain of the ancient Nation of Moab you would be hard pressed to find much flat land (Fields or Plains) in one location. It is mostly a hilly, rocky desert landscape and the people of Moab lost the better part of their Nation when Sihon wrested the Plains of Moab from the King of Moab......years before Moses even arrived there [Numbers 21:23-31].

Pertinent fact: Sihon continued to call the area the "Plains of Moab" ....as did the Israelites for the next 700 years until they were taken captive to Assyria.

Now watch him say that this did not include the Country of Moab. LOL

sadad
saw-dad'
a primitive root; to abrade, i.e. harrow a field:--break clods, harrow.​


sadeh
saw-deh'
or saday {saw-dah'-ee}; from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat):--country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.​

A normal reaction to this revelation would be: "Oh! I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out to me."

I can remember back in the day when I was instructed by a very learned man about these silly (usually Protestant stories) about Biblical Fairy Tales that have just been made up. That was generally my reaction....and I thought I was a pretty darn good student of the Bible. When you use the Literal words of the authors these stories simply fade away and the remaining narrative begins to make sense.

But of course the KJV translators had to make people believe this referred to the Nation of Moab with an evil attempt to show the bloodline of our Savior was a "Touchie Feelie" ....as you say, "Hallmark Card" narrative with cursed females inserted as his ancestors into the sacred bloodline of Israel.

I'm done with that poster as he just evades...............
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
See my friend...........this is the problem with many Christians who wish to maintain the "Fairy Tales" of their incompetent translations from the "dark Ages". You explain something and it's as if they never read it as they continue in the same silly vein.
Yes, I explained to you that Ruth said she was a stranger...Since we cannot agree on the issue about whether Naiomi went to the fields of Moab or the country of Moab it is not wise to continue with that argument since neither of us will be persuaded to change our mind about that particular issue. So let's move on from it. I presented another challenge to you. How does your bible translate Ruth 2:10?
Example....a number of time it has been shown from scripture using the Literal Translation that the "Country" of Moab is actually the "Fields of Moab" as the Hebrew word is "SADEH" and has no relationship to a political boundary. But yet, they continue to use the KJV "Country" of Moab because it fits their false narrative.

Believe me.....if you look at a topographical map of the terrain of the ancient Nation of Moab you would be hard pressed to find much flat land (Fields or Plains) in one location. It is mostly a hilly, rocky desert landscape and the people of Moab lost the better part of their Nation when Sihon wrested the Plains of Moab from the King of Moab......years before Moses even arrived there [Numbers 21:23-31].

Pertinent fact: Sihon continued to call the area the "Plains of Moab" ....as did the Israelites for the next 700 years until they were taken captive to Assyria.

Now watch him say that this did not include the Country of Moab. LOL

sadad
saw-dad'
a primitive root; to abrade, i.e. harrow a field:--break clods, harrow.​


sadeh
saw-deh'
or saday {saw-dah'-ee}; from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat):--country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.​

A normal reaction to this revelation would be: "Oh! I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out to me."
Your argument is inconclusive...the fact is we are not certain where Naiomi went. And we will not come to an agreement on that matter. Ler's move on to Ruth's claim. What does your translation say about Ruth 2:10
I can remember back in the day when I was instructed by a very learned man about these silly (usually Protestant stories) about Biblical Fairy Tales that have just been made up. That was generally my reaction....and I thought I was a pretty darn good student of the Bible. When you use the Literal words of the authors these stories simply fade away and the remaining narrative begins to make sense.
I get your point but it is not proof of anything
But of course the KJV translators had to make people believe this referred to the Nation of Moab with an evil attempt to show the bloodline of our Savior was a "Touchie Feelie" ....as you say, "Hallmark Card" narrative with cursed females inserted as his ancestors into the sacred bloodline of Israel.
Since this is what you believe please produce the translation of Ruth 2:10 where Ruth says she is a stranger/ foreigner.
I'm done with that poster as he just evades...............
why are you running? Don't Go you can say..."Oh! I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out to me."
 

Bob Dobbalina

Active member
See my friend...........this is the problem with many Christians who wish to maintain the "Fairy Tales" of their incompetent translations from the "dark Ages". You explain something and it's as if they never read it as they continue in the same silly vein.

Example....a number of time it has been shown from scripture using the Literal Translation that the "Country" of Moab is actually the "Fields of Moab" as the Hebrew word is "SADEH" and has no relationship to a political boundary. But yet, they continue to use the KJV "Country" of Moab because it fits their false narrative.

Believe me.....if you look at a topographical map of the terrain of the ancient Nation of Moab you would be hard pressed to find much flat land (Fields or Plains) in one location. It is mostly a hilly, rocky desert landscape and the people of Moab lost the better part of their Nation when Sihon wrested the Plains of Moab from the King of Moab......years before Moses even arrived there [Numbers 21:23-31].

Pertinent fact: Sihon continued to call the area the "Plains of Moab" ....as did the Israelites for the next 700 years until they were taken captive to Assyria.

Now watch him say that this did not include the Country of Moab. LOL

sadad
saw-dad'
a primitive root; to abrade, i.e. harrow a field:--break clods, harrow.​


sadeh
saw-deh'
or saday {saw-dah'-ee}; from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat):--country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.​

A normal reaction to this revelation would be: "Oh! I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out to me."

I can remember back in the day when I was instructed by a very learned man about these silly (usually Protestant stories) about Biblical Fairy Tales that have just been made up. That was generally my reaction....and I thought I was a pretty darn good student of the Bible. When you use the Literal words of the authors these stories simply fade away and the remaining narrative begins to make sense.

But of course the KJV translators had to make people believe this referred to the Nation of Moab with an evil attempt to show the bloodline of our Savior was a "Touchie Feelie" ....as you say, "Hallmark Card" narrative with cursed females inserted as his ancestors into the sacred bloodline of Israel.

I'm done with that poster as he just evades...............
I certainly understand foregoing conversation with the intransigent majority but hope you will persist on your posts for the sake of those with ears to hear. YHWH bless and keep you, my friend.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I certainly understand foregoing conversation with the intransigent majority but hope you will persist on your posts for the sake of those with ears to hear. YHWH bless and keep you, my friend.
so Bobby what do you understand by Ruth saying that she is a stranger in Ruth 2:10?
 

Hawkeye

Active member
I certainly understand foregoing conversation with the intransigent majority but hope you will persist on your posts for the sake of those with ears to hear. YHWH bless and keep you, my friend.
[Ruth 2:10]Rth 2:10 - Then she fell H5307 on her face, H6440 and bowed H7812 herself to the ground, H776 and said H559 unto him, Why have I found H4672 grace H2580 in thine eyes, H5869 that thou shouldest take knowledge H5234 of me, seeing I am a stranger? H5237

Strong's #5237 (stranger)
nokriy
nok-ree'
from 'neker' (second form); strange, in a variety of degrees and applications (foreign, non-relative, adulterous, different, wonderful):-​

Here is the other word for stranger used in a manner which would identify the person as from another culture....or Nation:

Gen 15:13 - And he said H559 unto Abram, H87 Know H3045 of a surety H3045 that thy seed H2233 shall be a stranger H1616 in a land H776 that is not theirs, and shall serve H5647 them; and they shall afflict H6031 them four H702 hundred H3967 years; H8141

Strong's #1616 (stranger)

ger
gare
or (fully) geyr (gare); from 'guwr' (1481); properly, a guest; by implication, a foreigner:--alien, sojourner, stranger.​

As always.......the correct interpretation of the original language will give you the correct translation.

Ruth was a stranger to Boaz because she was not related (different tribe)....a non relative. It was not because she was from a different nation or culture as many would have you believe.

If she had been from the nation of Moab the Hebrew would have called her by the proper word, "ger". But instead she was referred to as "Nokriy"....a non relative....but an Israelite just the same.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
I am constantly amazed why people don't ask the simple question: "Why in the world would Naomi and family travel to a heathen Nation like Moab when they probably had relatives living across the river in what Moses had described as a very fertile land..... good for crops and livestock"..................

[Numbers 32:1-5] Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle; The children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spake unto Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and unto the princes of the congregation, saying, Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon, Even the country which the LORD smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle: Wherefore, said they, if we have found grace in thy sight, let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession, and bring us not over Jordan.

I doubt the famine in Judah was of much consequence on these fertile Plains of Moab where Ruth was born and raised. If there was famine in Judah....there was probably wide spread starvation in the Nation of Moab with its rocky, desert like landscape incapable of growing much of anything.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
[Ruth 2:10]Rth 2:10 - Then she fell H5307 on her face, H6440 and bowed H7812 herself to the ground, H776 and said H559 unto him, Why have I found H4672 grace H2580 in thine eyes, H5869 that thou shouldest take knowledge H5234 of me, seeing I am a stranger? H5237

Strong's #5237 (stranger)
nokriy
nok-ree'
from 'neker' (second form); strange, in a variety of degrees and applications (foreign, non-relative, adulterous, different, wonderful):-​
Sir the word means foreigner H5237 ..https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5237.htm... It is clear she was not related...all Israelites are related
Here is the other word for stranger used in a manner which would identify the person as from another culture....or Nation:

Gen 15:13 - And he said H559 unto Abram, H87 Know H3045 of a surety H3045 that thy seed H2233 shall be a stranger H1616 in a land H776 that is not theirs, and shall serve H5647 them; and they shall afflict H6031 them four H702 hundred H3967 years; H8141

Strong's #1616 (stranger)

ger
gare
or (fully) geyr (gare); from 'guwr' (1481); properly, a guest; by implication, a foreigner:--alien, sojourner, stranger.​
we are not interested in another word for stranger since stranger is one word chosen from many words...for H5237...
As always.......the correct interpretation of the original language will give you the correct translation.
You are inputting your own bias...the original language says... נָכְרִי nokri: foreign, alien. Translators use words that we relate to, in this case, stranger would be applicable.
Ruth was a stranger to Boaz because she was not related (different tribe)....a non relative.
Yes, she said so and we know that all the tribes of Israel are related...hence children of Israel...so your argument is moot.
It was not because she was from a different nation or culture as many would have you believe.
It is exactly because she was from a different nation
If she had been from the nation of Moab the Hebrew would have called her by the proper word, "ger". But instead she was referred to as "Nokriy"....a non relative....but an Israelite just the same.
You are double speaking...look at this...your words... Ruth was a stranger to Boaz because she was not related (different tribe)....a non relative.
you are clearly saying that she is a non-relative....
Now here you are saying...she was referred to as "Nokriy"....a non relative....but an Israelite just the same.
How can you not know that all Israelites are related? And where does it say she is an Israelite just the same?
That is dishonest and misleading...do you actually follow righteousness?
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I am constantly amazed why people don't ask the simple question: "Why in the world would Naomi and family travel to a heathen Nation like Moab when they probably had relatives living across the river in what Moses had described as a very fertile land..... good for crops and livestock"..................
there was a famine in the land
[Numbers 32:1-5] Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle; The children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spake unto Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and unto the princes of the congregation, saying, Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon, Even the country which the LORD smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle: Wherefore, said they, if we have found grace in thy sight, let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession, and bring us not over Jordan.
How long was it from the time when Moses was alive to when Ruth went to Moab?
I doubt the famine in Judah was of much consequence on these fertile Plains of Moab where Ruth was born and raised.
you are consumed with plains of Moab...Naiomi and her family went to the land of Moab. You are using the same faulty logic to make Ruth an Israelite...
If there was famine in Judah....there was probably wide spread starvation in the Nation of Moab with its rocky, desert like landscape incapable of growing much of anything.
Why? because you say so?... You have to deny that the children of Israel are related for your nonsense to hold. Lol you think some children of Israel are foreigners to other children of Israel. You are funny...
 

Bob Dobbalina

Active member
there was a famine in the land

How long was it from the time when Moses was alive to when Ruth went to Moab?

you are consumed with plains of Moab...Naiomi and her family went to the land of Moab. You are using the same faulty logic to make Ruth an Israelite...

Why? because you say so?... You have to deny that the children of Israel are related for your nonsense to hold. Lol you think some children of Israel are foreigners to other children of Israel. You are funny...
Half of Americans are foreigners to each other.
I’m not being glib; the last four years have demonstrated just how estranged people are from one another.
I usually ignore your posts because your allegiance to the traditions of men is apparent. The silliness that is the last paragraph of your post couldn’t go unappreciated, however. You are funny.
 

Bob Dobbalina

Active member
so Bobby what do you understand by Ruth saying that she is a stranger in Ruth 2:10?
I believe I’ve made my opinion known. I am persuaded by Hawkeye’s thesis; it makes perfect sense.
I’m from the hills of Arkansas; I now live in NYC. I’m surrounded by foreigners and they’re all Americans just like me.
There was once a great video on the subject on YouTube but I don’t know if it’s still up. I’ll see if I can find it. Maybe some pictures will help.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Half of Americans are foreigners to each other.
I don't see what that has to do with the issue
I’m not being glib; the last four years have demonstrated just how estranged people are from one another.
are you referring to this forum?
I usually ignore your posts because your allegiance to the traditions of men is apparent.
I that was so you would have pointed out my allegiance in any post. You ignore it because you can't argue against my position.
The silliness that is the last paragraph of your post couldn’t go unappreciated, however. You are funny.
Indicate the silliness point by point. Just saying it is silliness is not an argument or proof of anything.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I believe I’ve made my opinion known.
That is your choice
I am persuaded by Hawkeye’s thesis; it makes perfect sense.
again your choice
I’m from the hills of Arkansas; I now live in NYC. I’m surrounded by foreigners and they’re all Americans just like me.
You should read that again...You are saying foreigners are Americans at the same time while being foreigners.
There was once a great video on the subject on YouTube but I don’t know if it’s still up. I’ll see if I can find it. Maybe some pictures will help.
It didn't help you, did it?
 

Hawkeye

Active member
I believe I’ve made my opinion known. I am persuaded by Hawkeye’s thesis; it makes perfect sense.
Here is an interesting point that many folks gloss over in their studies but would question it.... if they stopped to think about it.

Yahweh told Moses not to bother the Moabites....nor contend with them [Deuteronomy 2:8-9]....but then He buries him there [Deuteronomy 34:5-6]..........in the Land of Moab?

Wouldn't that be kind of a contradiction on Yahweh's part? If He didn't want the Moabites to be bothered by the presence of Moses don't you think they would also be bothered if the Israelites drug his body back there and buried him in the Nation of Moab? Just silly........

Deu 34:5 - So Moses H4872 the servant H5650 of the LORD H3068 died H4191 there in the land H776 of Moab, H4124 according to the word H6310 of the LORD. H3068
Deu 34:6 - And he buried H6912 him in a valley H1516 in the land H776 of Moab, H4124 over against H4136 Bethpeor: H1047 but no man H376 knoweth H3045 of his sepulchre H6900 unto this day. H3117

Strong's #776 (land)
'erets
eh'-rets
from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

Over against Bethpeor. Where is that?

Bible Map: Beth-baal-peor

Well....as you can see.....Beth-Peor is further north than the northern boundary of the Dead Sea....northwest of mount Nebo.

The passages below show some of the locations where the Israelites were......at the end of the journey to the Jordan River.

[Numbers 32:3] Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon,

[Numbers 32;38] And Nebo, and Baalmeon, (their names being changed,) and Shibmah: and gave other names unto the cities which they builded.

[Numbers 33:47] And they removed from Almondiblathaim, and pitched in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo.

[Deuteronomy 34:1] And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,

So............. the Israelites are told to stay out of Moab and not bother them....but then Moses dies and is buried in Moab?

No! He was buried by Beth Peor, northwest of Mount Nebo in the Land of Moab. This Territory now belonged to the tribe of Reuben ....but still called in Scripture....the Land of Moab. In actuality........it is in the Plains of Moab where Ruth was born and raised. The same area where Naomi and family fled the famine in Judah and traveled to the "Fields of Moab" as it is called in the Literal Hebrew.

https://davidrobertlewis.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/map-of-tribes-of-israel-2gif.jpg
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Here is an interesting point that many folks gloss over in their studies but would question it.... if they stopped to think about it.

Yahweh told Moses not to bother the Moabites....nor contend with them [Deuteronomy 2:8-9]....but then He buries him there [Deuteronomy 34:5-6]..........in the Land of Moab?

Wouldn't that be kind of a contradiction on Yahweh's part? If He didn't want the Moabites to be bothered by the presence of Moses don't you think they would also be bothered if the Israelites drug his body back there and buried him in the Nation of Moab? Just silly........

Deu 34:5 - So Moses H4872 the servant H5650 of the LORD H3068 died H4191 there in the land H776 of Moab, H4124 according to the word H6310 of the LORD. H3068
Deu 34:6 - And he buried H6912 him in a valley H1516 in the land H776 of Moab, H4124 over against H4136 Bethpeor: H1047 but no man H376 knoweth H3045 of his sepulchre H6900 unto this day. H3117

Strong's #776 (land)
'erets
eh'-rets
from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.
Over against Bethpeor. Where is that?

Bible Map: Beth-baal-peor

Well....as you can see.....Beth-Peor is further north than the northern boundary of the Dead Sea....northwest of mount Nebo.

The passages below show some of the locations where the Israelites were......at the end of the journey to the Jordan River.

[Numbers 32:3] Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon,

[Numbers 32;38] And Nebo, and Baalmeon, (their names being changed,) and Shibmah: and gave other names unto the cities which they builded.

[Numbers 33:47] And they removed from Almondiblathaim, and pitched in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo.

[Deuteronomy 34:1] And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,

So............. the Israelites are told to stay out of Moab and not bother them....but then Moses dies and is buried in Moab?

No! He was buried by Beth Peor, northwest of Mount Nebo in the Land of Moab. This Territory now belonged to the tribe of Reuben ....but still called in Scripture....the Land of Moab. In actuality........it is in the Plains of Moab where Ruth was born and raised. The same area where Naomi and family fled the famine in Judah and traveled to the "Fields of Moab" as it is called in the Literal Hebrew.

https://davidrobertlewis.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/map-of-tribes-of-israel-2gif.jpg
you are trying to convince yourself with your rhetoric...all you have to do now is realize that the children of Israel did not obey God. We will never agree on where Ruth actually lived. I showed you where Ruth said she was a foreigner, you twisted and contorted the scripture but still could not show she was otherwise. So you agreed that she was a foreigner but still an Israelite...Which is silly.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
of course the Israelis did not always obey YHWH- your point? Please don’t tell me what I think as you haven’t a clue.
In post #237 I said that Beth-Poer was Northwest of Nebo. I don't know why I said that as it's obviously northeast. Nevertheless.....in the Land of Moab where Ruth was born and raised an Israelite....and where Moses was buried. This territory was subsequently ceded to the tribe of Reuben.

I'm usually pretty good reading maps.

I have suspected for a long time that Ruth was actually of the tribe of Manasseh. The scriptures aren't clear as to which of the three tribes she belonged....but certain possibilities point toward Manasseh. The fact that she was raised an Israelite and therefore did not contaminate the bloodline of our Savior with the 10 generation curse is beyond question.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
I believe I’ve made my opinion known. I am persuaded by Hawkeye’s thesis; it makes perfect sense.
When the KJV translators did their work they had to deal with a culture shortly removed from Pagan Catholicism and its traditions.....not to mention the King Himself who still believed much of that tradition. He was baptized a Catholic but whether he remained devout or not is speculation. His Mother, Mary Queen of Scots was a diehard Papist. Because of this it is said many translators were fearful of translating too far from Roman doctrine...and of course Philogy itself remained in its infant stages with generally not much precedent.

So......some passages in scripture do not reflect the true meaning which when compared to context shows the absurdity of the translation. It appears some corners were cut throughout the work....maybe because of fear????? Maybe because of ignorance.........

When Naomi told Ruth to join her sister-in-law and go back home the KJV says this is how Ruth responded:

[Ruth 1:16-17] And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Italics are present in most new works to show insertions into the KJV which are not present in the original manuscripts.

Here is the improved Literal Translation by 19th century Hebrew/Greek Scholar Robert Young:

[Ruth 1:16-17] And Ruth saith, ‘Urge me not to leave thee — to turn back from after thee; for whither thou goest I go, and where thou lodgest I lodge; thy people my people, and thy God my God.

Young says....the manuscripts do not say "Thy people shall be my people". It says....."Thy people my people......thy God my god". This should cause some to reflect on just who Ruth really was.

Ruth is saying in essence........"Our people are the same. Our God is the same". This does not square up with traditional belief.....but it's the Literal.
 
Top