Adam

The name that is transliterated as “Adam” in English is translated in Finnish Sign Language with the sign signifying “rib” (referring to Genesis 2:21). (Source: Tarja Sandholm)


“Adam” in Finnish Sign Language (source )

In Spanish Sign Language it is a sign that combines apple/fruit + man. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Adam” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

In Kenyan Sign Language it is a sign pointing to the Adam’s apple (laryngeal prominence). (Source )

See also Eve.

covenant

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that are translated as “covenant” in English are translated in a variety of ways. Here are some (back-) translations:

  • Mossi: “helping promise”
  • Vai: “a thing-time-bind” (i.e. “an arrangement agreed upon for a period of time”)
  • Loma (Liberia): “agreement”
  • Northwestern Dinka: “agreement which is tied up” (i.e. “secure and binding”)
  • Chol: “a word which is left”
  • Huastec: “a broken-off word” (“based on the concept of ‘breaking off a word’ and leaving it with the person with whom an agreement has been reached”)
  • Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “a death command” (i.e. “a special term for testament”)
  • Piro: “a promised word”
  • Eastern Krahn: “a word between”
  • Yaka: “promise that brings together” (source for this and all above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Nabak: alakŋaŋ or “tying the knot” (source: Fabian 2013, p. 156)
  • Nyamwezi: ilagano: “agreement, contract, covenant, promise” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Q’anjob’al: “put mouths equal” (representing agreement) (source: Newberry and Kittie Cox in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. )
  • Manikion, Indonesian: “God’s promise” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
  • Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
  • Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):

“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”

See also establish (covenant) and covenant (book).

Translation commentary on Hosea 6:7

But at Adam they transgressed the covenant: But renders the Hebrew waw conjunction (literally “And”). Here it introduces a contrast with the preceding section: the disappointing behavior of Yahweh’s people in connection with what he requires. New International Version omits it, but we recommend a contrastive connector in this context.

Instead of at Adam, the Hebrew text reads “like Adam,” which is difficult to interpret. King James Version says “like men” (in the sense of “humanity”), since the name Adam means “man,” but it does not make sense to say that the Israelites, who were men, were “like men.” “Like Adam” (New International Version, New Living Translation, God’s Word) is theologically attractive in the light of Adam’s first sin (Gen 3), and we can be sure that this involved a wordplay that the original listeners immediately recognized. However, the following verses have place names, and the adverb there in the next line normally refers to a place, a so-called locative. So a place name is a likely option here. Revised Standard Version and others assume that an error was made on the first consonant for the Hebrew expression meaning “like Adam,” so they emend the text to read at Adam, but there is no manuscript evidence to support this change. Good News Translation follows Revised Standard Version but makes explicit what it assumes to be implicit, namely that at Adam refers to Israel’s invasion of Canaan: “as soon as they entered the land at Adam.” So Adam would refer to the town on the Jordan River where the river stopped flowing temporarily while the Israelites crossed the dry riverbed downstream into Canaan (see Josh 3.16). The problem with this explanation is that the narratives of the conquest of Canaan mention no action of the Israelites at Adam.

It is also possible that at Adam refers to a more recent sin there that was known to the people of Hosea’s time but is not mentioned in the Bible. This seems to be the most satisfactory interpretation. With this interpretation it is possible to keep the preposition “like” as functioning to compare the deeds of people in Hosea’s time with that town’s actions; for example, Andersen and Freedman say “as at Adam” (so also Hebrew Old Testament Text Project), which is a helpful model.

The pronoun they may refer to the people of the northern kingdom, Israel (Ephraim), but in view of 6.4 and 6.11a it is more likely that people of Judah are also included. The Hebrew verb for transgressed often means “pass over/through” (see, for example, Exo 12.12), but in this context it means “overstep” or “violate” (so New American Bible). For covenant see 2.18. Here it refers to the covenant relationship between Yahweh and his people, spelled out in his Law. In 6.6 “steadfast love” and “knowledge of God” are closely related to the idea of this covenant.

There they dealt faithlessly with me is parallel in meaning with the previous line. For the Hebrew verb rendered dealt faithlessly, see 5.7. It may be translated “were unfaithful” (New International Version) or “dealt treacherously/deceitfully.” No specific crime is mentioned in these lines, but it is clear that the people have not acted loyally in their relationship with Yahweh. The verses that follow show that in this case the emphasis is not merely on the idolatry of the people but is much more on their crimes against each other, which they commit even though they are God’s people. So in sinning against each other they also sin against Yahweh.

For this verse Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch (1982) has “The Lord says, ‘At the town Adam they became covenant breakers, and so as there they have always rebelled against me,’ ” and Andersen and Freeman say “They, as at Adam, broke the covenant; there they practiced deception against me.” Another possible model is:

• But at Adam they broke the covenant,
there they dealt unfaithfully with me.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .