0

See this:

«And one washed the charet in the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood (and they washed his armour) according vnto the word of the Lord which he spake.» ‭‭1 Kings‬ ‭22:38‬ ‭GNV‬‬

«And they washed his chariot in the pool of Samaria. And the dogs licked up his blood. And they washed the reins, in accord with the word of the Lord which he had spoken.» ‭‭1 Kings‬ ‭22:38‬ ‭CPDV‬‬

And this:

«They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood (now the harlots bathed themselves there), according to the word of the LORD which He spoke.» ‭‭1 Kings‬ ‭22:38‬ ‭NASB‬‬

«And they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it, according to the word of the Lord that he had spoken.» ‭‭1 Kings‬ ‭22:38‬ ‭ESV‬‬

You can notice the difference between the harlots and armor. Also, pay attention to the time at which the bathing of harlots was mentioned.

How do you explain to me the difference?

1
  • Questions like "what do you think" aren't really a good fit for Stack Exchange. See the help centre: If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK. Could you edit this to make it clearer what you want to know, specifically? – user2672 Jan 29 '19 at 17:52
1

It is only the KJV and its progeny (AKJV, KJ2000, etc) that have the translation "armour in 1 Kings 22:38. All other versions have something similar to the NIV, "They washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria (where the prostitutes bathed), and the dogs licked up his blood, as the word of the LORD had declared."

All that can be said for the KJV and its imitators can be summarised by Ellicott:

They washed his armour.--There seems little doubt that this is a mistranslation, and that the LXX. rendering (supported also by Josephus) is correct: "And the harlots bathed in it," that is, in the bloodstained pool, the usual public bathing-place of their shamelessness. The dog and the harlot are the animal and human types of uncleanness.

The operative word here is (as taken from https://biblehub.com/1_kings/22-38.htm )

enter image description here

Thus, NIV, NASB, etc, appear more correct.

Lastly, the remark about prostitutes bathing there is (I believe correctly) taken as a parenthetical comment to:

  • Help identify the place discussed (ie, which pool in Samaria)
  • Show that it is a place of uncleanness because it is associated with dogs and prostitutes.
3
  • «And they washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria, and they also washed his armour; {Heb. fornications}; and the dogs licked up his blood, according unto the word of the LORD which he had spoken». Jubilee Bible 2000. What is this «{Heb. fornications}»? – Богуслав Павлишинець Jan 29 '19 at 21:28
  • I cannot comment or defend the Jubilee Bible (which I do not use); however, their translation policy attempts to match each Hebrew or Greek word to a unique English word - such a translation policy is too simplistic as words have multiple meanings and thus gives incorrect results. The fact that in this instance they translate a word meaning fornications (or harlots) as "armour" betrays the problem this version has. – user25930 Jan 29 '19 at 21:34
  • Not only its supposed progeny contain the 'armor' rendering, also some of its predecessors(e.g. Geneva 1560, Bishops' 1568) . Seeing that the Vulgate has 'zanat' as 'reins', I would take the armor translation to be a derivative of this, as the harness of a horse(cmp. 1 Kings 10:25/2Chr. 9:24). I'm not sure this would qualify as an error but rather a choice of interpretation by the translator. – user21676 Jan 30 '19 at 2:10

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.