chariot

The Hebrew, Latin, Ge’ez, and Greek that is translated into English as “chariot” is translated into Anuak as “canoe pulled by horse.” “Canoe” is the general term for “vehicle” (source: Loren Bliese). Similarly it is translated in Lokạạ as ukwaa wạ nyanyang ntuuli or “canoe that is driven by horses.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )

Other translations include:

  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “cart pulled by horses” (source: Larson 1998, p. 98)
  • Chichicapan Zapotec: “ox cart” (in Acts 8) (ox carts are common vehicles for travel) (source: Loren Bliese)
  • Chichimeca-Jonaz, it is translated as “little house with two feet pulled by two horses” (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
  • Hausa Common Language Bible as keken-doki or “cart of donkey” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
  • Mairasi: “going-thing [vehicle]” (source: Enggavoter 2004)

It is illustrated for use in Bible translations in East Africa by Pioneer Bible Translators like this:

Image owned by PBT and Jonathan McDaniel and licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

See also cart.

Grecian juniper

A tall evergreen, the Grecian Juniper Juniperus excelsa, also known as the Eastern Savin, grew in the mountains of Lebanon along with cedars, firs, and cypress (the Hebrew word berosh probably covered all three of these trees). The association of berosh with Mount Senir in Ezekiel 27:5 argues for the Grecian juniper there, since Mount Senir was known to have plenty of Grecian junipers. Lebanese people up to today refer to the juniper as brotha, a likely cognate with berosh. King Solomon undoubtedly hauled these trees to Jerusalem along with cedars and firs to use in constructing his palace and the Temple of Yahweh.

The Grecian juniper is a conical tree reaching a height of 20 meters (65 feet). Its “leaves” are round rather than flat, and the fruit is an inedible seed-bearing, fleshy cone.

There is no single Hebrew or Greek word that refers specifically to the Grecian juniper. In our discussion of cypress and fir, we have advocated translating berosh generically or as “fir” or “juniper” in 1-2 Kings and 2 Chronicles (where it is typically associated with Lebanon or cedar). If no generic word is available in the receptor language, a descriptive phrase such as “strong, beautiful tree/wood” can be used. In poetical passages, local poetic equivalents could be considered.

Grecian juniper, photo by Ray Pritz

Source: Each According to its Kind: Plants and Trees in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

See also Phoenician juniper (coastal juniper).

servant / slave

While the Greek term doulos in the New Testament and ‘ebed in the Old Testament refer to slightly different concepts (unlike in New Testament Judea in Old Testament Israel and Judah, Hebrew servants/slaves were required to be released after six years of labor and, regardless of when they started their servitude, all Hebrew servants were to be automatically freed during the year of Jubilee), translation issues are somewhat similar.

Joel Baden (2025, p. 65ff.) says this about the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible:

“The English words ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ have decidedly different connotations. ‘Servant’ has the sense of ‘employee.’ ‘Slave,’ by contrast, carries with it the ideas of an owned and controlled body, of violence and dishonor. The connotation of ‘servant’ can verge on the positive; ‘slave’ is predominantly negative. How a reader of the Bible understands the identity of a character or the relationship between one character and another or the world of ancient Israel depends significantly on whether the word ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ is used. In Hebrew, however, there is but one word underlying every occurrence of ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ in our modern translations. The distinction between the two exists only on the level of interpretation.

“It is not a matter of mere nomenclature. Take the story of Genesis 24, in which Abraham sends his servant off to find a wife for Isaac. The servant — though the main character of the passage — has no name and is identified only by his title, which he even uses to introduce himself: ‘I am Abraham’s servant,’ he says (Genesis 24:34, Jewish Publication Society). This is often read as a warm story about a devoted servant — usually imagined to be relatively old — who carries out the elderly patriarch’s final wishes. How does it change, how do we reimagine it, when we read all thirteen mentions of Abraham’s servant as, in fact, Abraham’s slave? We know Abraham has slaves: His ‘servant’ even says so in this very chapter in the very next verse: ‘The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become rich: he has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and asses’ (24:35, JPS). Yet generations of translators, interpreters, and readers have failed to connect the slaves (the property with which God has blessed Abraham) and the servant — the slave who is the protagonist of this same story.

“When slaves are turned into servants, the Bible itself is changed. Our revulsion at the institution of slavery is kept at a distance from the biblical text that stands as our religious heritage. The Bible is protected, albeit from itself. Slavery is minimized, or worse: The King James Version, notably, does not translate ‘ebed as ‘slave’ a single time. The result? Some KJV readers have denied that there is any slavery in the Bible whatsoever. Yet the word ‘ebed appears around 800 times in the Bible. That’s 800 moments when a slave, and the existence of slavery in ancient Israel and the biblical text, has been erased.

“The social role that we associate with the term ‘servant’ didn’t exist in ancient Israel. Slaves, however, did. Israel knew what it was to be a slave, and Israel knew, too, what it was to own a slave. And thus Israel uses the language and metaphor of slavery again and again to express the basic notions of obedience, of power disparity, of bodily control and the absence of agency. Samuel says to Yahweh upon being called, ‘Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening’ (1 Samuel 3:9, JPS). ‘Let my lord go ahead of his servant,’ Jacob says to Esau in Genesis 33:14 (JPS). Rendered as ‘servant’ in every translation, this is a sort of formally obsequious, self-abnegating speech. While literal slavery is not at stake in these sorts of expressions, the metaphorical reference to the relative status of slave and master is lost when it is translated as ‘servant.’

“So, too, when those figures who are the ‘ebed to a king are referred to as ‘courtiers,’ ‘officials,’ ‘attendants,’ ‘soldiers,’ ‘subjects,’ ‘envoys,’ ‘ministers,’ or even sometimes simply ‘men,’ of the king. These are all translations of the same word, and the instinct to specify their distinctive roles in the royal court is understandable. Yet in doing so, translations obscure the actual language with the connotations that it presents: subordination, threat of violence to one’s person, absolute control over will and agency. And so, too, when it is not a human king but God to whom one is said to be ‘ebed. In the book of Joshua, God states, ‘My servant Moses is dead’ (1:2, JPS) — we are relatively comfortable with the idea of serving God but perhaps less so with the idea of being God’s slave. Yet the qualities of obedience, subservience, and loyalty — and the implicit threat of punishment for the lack thereof — are part of this picture as well. One might point to the way this language is picked up in the New Testament in the phrase ‘slave of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 7:22.

“If ‘servants’ and ‘slaves’ are not understood to be equivalent — and in modern English it is safe to say that they are not — then every time that the word ‘ebed appears, a choice has to be made by the translator. The diminishment of the very word ‘slave’ in English translations of the Hebrew Bible results in the diminishment of the idea and reality of slavery in the Bible and in the world that produced it. Though there is no debate to be had about whether there was slavery in the Bible and in ancient Israel, a lay reader of the text in translation might well wonder.

“Our ears, and eyes, have become accustomed to seeing the word ‘servant’ in the Bible. ‘Slave’ often sounds wrong, inapt, almost harsh. Yet it is just this discomfort that signals how important the change is. Whenever we encounter the word ‘servant’ in our English translations, we should be obliged to ask why it says ‘servant’ and not ‘slave’ — and what difference it would make to our reading of the text as an individual, as a community, and as a culture if we were instead to read ‘slave.’”

Ruden (2021, p. lviii) says this about the Greek term in the New Testament:

“In Judea, servitude was sui generis and could be complicated, and accordingly the Greek vocabulary in scripture is varied. But there appears to be no basis for sugarcoating the word meaning a chattel slave in nearly all Greek literature, doulos. It is unlikely that the internationally oriented authors of the Gospels didn’t mean what their peers meant by the word — ‘slave.’ Also, the English word ‘servant’ is too vague for the array of servitors (including trusted house slaves and personal attendants), military and administrative subordinates, and ritual helpers the Greek of the Gospels distinguishes.”

Some English New Testament translations (Ruden 2021, Hart 2017, The Orthodox New Testament 2004) have consistently used slave for the Greek doulos but no Old Testament translation consistently translates ‘ebed with only one term.

In a number of leading German translations, including the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung (1980 / 2016) and the Protestant Elberfelder Bibel (1871 / 2006), BasisBibel (2021), as well as the translation by Luther (all editions) use the term Knecht throughout. Knecht is an old-fashioned term for a low-class, often agricultural servant with little or no social mobility, a position that is somewhat located between Diener (“servant”) and Sklave (“slave”). The only times these versions specifically don’t use Knecht is where slavery is specifically in the focus (such as Leviticus 25:44 or Philemon 1:16).

complete verse (Isaiah 37:24)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 37:24:

  • Kupsabiny: “You insulted God through your people saying,
    ‘I climbed with my many chariots every mountain
    and I forced my way to every hill of Lebanon.
    I cut down the tall cedars of that place
    and the straight podo trees.
    I entered inside the forest
    where no one has touched its trees.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “By your messengers
    you have severely disgraced the LORD.
    You have spoken like this,
    ‘Taking many chariots and going,
    I have conquered the very high mountains
    and the very remote peaks of Lebanon.
    I cut down its tallest cedars tree and good cypress trees
    And I went its remotest heights
    and its thick forests.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Through your (sing.) servants, you (sing.) have-mocked me. You (sing.) still said, ‘With my many chariots I have-gone/[lit. climbed] up the high mountains, the peaks of the mountains of Lebanon. I have-cut-down its tallest cedar and finest pine/[sipres]. I have-reached its peak that has the thickest trees.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “The messengers whom you sent made fun of me.
    You said, ‘With my many chariots I have gone to the highest mountains,
    even to the highest mountains in Lebanon.
    We have cut down its tallest cedar trees
    and its nicest pine/cypress trees.
    We have been to the most distant/remote peaks
    and to its densest forests.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

2nd person pronoun with low register (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used anata (あなた) is typically used when the speaker is humbly addressing another person.

In these verses, however, omae (おまえ) is used, a cruder second person pronoun, that Jesus for instance chooses when chiding his disciples. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also first person pronoun with low register and third person pronoun with low register.

cedar

Long ago the majestic cedars of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) completely covered the upper slopes of the Lebanon Mountains on the western and northern sides. Now only a few pockets of these mighty cedars remain. At that time they were mixed, as they are today, with other trees such as Cilician fir, Grecian juniper, cypress, and Calabrian pine.

We know from 1 Kings that Solomon used cedar wood in his palace and in the Temple. Cedar was used for beams, boards, pillars, and ceilings. Historians tell us that the Assyrians also hauled cedars to their land for use in buildings. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon also imported cedars from Lebanon. In some versions of Isaiah we read that people made idols of cedar and oak (44:14-20). Finally, when the Temple was rebuilt by the returning exiles (Ezra 3:7), they again cut down cedar trees to grace the house of God.

In 2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra, when Lebanon is specifically mentioned, there can be no doubt that ’erez is Cedrus libani, the “cedar of Lebanon,” although it is possible that sometimes the word was used loosely to include various evergreen trees.

In the description of the purification rituals (Leviticus 14:4 at al.), the word ’erez probably refers to the Phoenician juniper tree, since that was the only cedar-like tree in the Sinai Desert.

Cedar trees can reach 30 meters (100 feet) high with a trunk more than 2 meters (7 feet) in diameter. The leaves of true cedars are not flat like those of most trees, but consist of tufts of dark green, shiny spines. (The cedars in North America have a flatter type of spine than the biblical cedar.) The wood is fragrant and resistant to insects. Cedars bear cones and can live to be two or three thousand years old.

The cedar of Lebanon is famous for its large size (see Isaiah 2:13 et al.), and for the fragrance of its wood. Psalm 92:12 links the cedar to righteousness, that is, presumably, to its straightness and height above other trees. The cedar is the national emblem of Lebanon.

Cedrus species are found in the mountains of North Africa, in the Himalayas, in India, and in North America. Translators in these places, should, of course, use the local name in nonfigurative references. In sub Saharan Africa, translators can transliterate from Hebrew (’erez), Greek (kedar), English (sedar), or another major language, or they can take a generic solution such as “large, beautiful tree.” In poetic passages (wisdom literature and prophecy), some translators may wish to use a cultural equivalent with these traits. In Africa, according to Burkhill (The Useful Plants of West Tropical Africa, volume 4. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens, 1985), the Pink Mahogany Guarea cedrata is also called the pink African cedar because of the cedar-like scent of its timber. Likewise, some people in India and Australia use “cedar” to refer to the toon because of its reddish wood. I do not recommend such substitutes in historical passages, since the ’erez is not related to these trees. In some figurative passages, however, the substitution could be effective, since all are large trees with reddish wood. However, each passage has to be evaluated to determine the intended effect of the image.

Cedar of Lebanon, Wikimedia Commons

Source: Each According to its Kind: Plants and Trees in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

cypress

The Hebrew word berosh probably covered cypress, fir, and juniper; we are including here only those instances of berosh that possibly refer specifically to the cypress. The Cypress Cupressus sempervirens, native to Israel, was once common in the mountains of Judea. It also grew abundantly in Lebanon along with cedars, firs, and Grecian junipers. Cypresses also grew in Judea, Gilead and Edom, and do so up to the present day.

A comparison of English versions reflects the disagreement among scholars on the identification of the coniferous trees. For example, the Hebrew word berosh in 1 Kings 5:8 is translated as “cypress,” “pine,” “juniper,” or “fir.”

The disagreement here arises from the fact that berosh is probably a generic term, and it should probably be translated generically, if possible, or differently according to the context. We take the word berosh in 1-2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, where it is usually paired with ’erez (“cedar”) and/or Lebanon, to refer to the Cilician fir or to the Grecian juniper rather than to the cypress (see fir and Grecian juniper). In the few other places where it occurs, it may refer to any one of the three conifers. The logic here is that since cypresses grew in Judea, King Solomon would not need to import them from Lebanon. However, it could also be argued that Lebanon may have produced better specimens than King Solomon could find in Israel and he might have imported some of them. In either case, this does not argue against berosh as a generic term.

Closely related to the pines, firs and cedars, the cypress may reach 9-15 meters (30-50 feet) high. It has small scale-like leaves and round cones. The tall, narrow specimens that are common today in Israel and other countries are a modern variety (pyramidalis) that has been specially developed.

Cypress, photo by Ray Pritz
Cypress branch with seed cones, photo by Nigel Hepper

Source: Each According to its Kind: Plants and Trees in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

Lord

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.

In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.

In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:

  • referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
  • meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
  • as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
  • or, most often, referring to Jesus

In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.

Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”

When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):

  • Navajo (Dinė): “the one who has charge”
  • Mossi: “the one who has the head” (the leader)
  • Uduk: “chief”
  • Guerrero Amuzgo: “the one who commands”
  • Kpelle: “person-owner” (a term which may be applied to a chief)
  • Central Pame: “the one who owns us” (or “commands us”)
  • Piro: “the big one” (used commonly of one in authority)
  • San Blas Kuna: “the great one over all” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Guhu-Samane: Soopara (“our Supervisor”) (source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation July, 1967, p. 5ff.)
  • Balinese: “Venerated-one” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Yanesha’: “the one who carries us” (source: Nida 1952, p. 159)
  • Northern Emberá: Dadjirã Boro (“our Head”)
  • Rarotongan: Atu (“master or owner of a property”)
  • Gilbertese: Uea (“a person of high status invested with authority to rule the people”)
  • Rotuman: Gagaja (“village chief”)
  • Samoan: Ali’i (“an important word in the native culture, it derives from the Samoan understanding of lordship based on the local traditions”)
  • Tahitian: Fatu (“owner,” “master”)
  • Tuvalu: Te Aliki (“chief”)
  • Fijian: Liuliu (“leader”) (source for this and six above: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. )
  • Bacama: Həmə miye: “owner of people” (source: David Frank in this blog post )
  • Hopi: “Controller” (source: Walls 2000, p. 139)
  • Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
  • Ghomala’: Cyəpɔ (“he who is above everyone,” consisting of the verb cyə — to surpass or go beyond — and pɔ — referring to people. No human can claim this attribute, no matter what his or her social status or prestige.” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn )
  • Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
  • Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)

    We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.

    New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.

    Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )

  • Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
  • Angami Naga: Niepu (“master,” “owner”)
  • Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
  • Ao Naga: Kibuba (“human master,” “teacher,” “owner of property,” etc.) (source for this and two above: Nitoy Achumi in The Bible Translator 1992 p. 438ff. )
  • Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
  • Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
  • Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
  • Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
  • Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
  • Yagaria: Souve, originally “war lord” (source: Renck, p. 94)
  • Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
  • Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
  • Chichewa: Ambuye Ambuye comes from the singular form Mbuye which is used to refer to: (1) someone who is a guardian or protector of someone or group of people — a grandparent who has founded a community or village; (2) someone who is a boss or master over a group of people or servants and has absolute control over them; (3) owner of something, be it a property, animals and people who are bound under his/her rule — for people this was mostly commonly used in the context of slaves and their owner. In short, Mbuye is someone who has some authorities over those who call him/her their “Mbuye.” Now, when the form Ambuye is used it will either be for honorific when used for singular or plural when referring to more than one person. When this term is used in reference to God, it is for respect to God as he is acknowledged as a guardian, protector, and ruler of everything. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation).
  • Hdi uses rveri (“lion”) as a title of respect and as such it regularly translates adon in the Old Testament. As an address, it’s most often with a possessive pronoun as in rvera ɗa (“my lion” = “my lord” or “sir”). So, for example, Genesis 15:2 (“O Lord God”) is Rvera ɗa Yawe (“My lion Yahweh”) or Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 2:13: “May I find your grace [lit. good-stomach] my lion.” This ties in nicely with the imagery of the Lord roaring like a lion (Hosea 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16). Better still, this makes passages like Revelation 5:5 even richer when we read about rveri ma taba məndəra la Yuda, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah”. In Revelation 19:16, Jesus is rveri ta ghəŋa rveriha “the lion above lions” (“lord of lords”). (Source: Drew Maust)

Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”

See also Father / Lord.