Bible Myth #12: Horses were hamstrung
The idea that horses were hamstrung by Joshua’s and David’s men is a myth.
Although some translations of the Hebrew Scriptures say they were hamstrung, the accurate translation is that they were gelded.
Joshua 11:6. And the LORD* said to Joshua, “Do not be in awe because of them! For tomorrow about this time I AM will deliver them up, all slain before Israel: you will make geldings of their horses and burn their chariots with fire. God specifically told Joshua to geld the horses.”
David also gelded horses, recorded in 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:3.
And David smote Hadarezer king from Zobah to Hamath, as he went to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates. 4. And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen and twenty thousand foot soldiers. David also castrated all the chariot horses, but reserved of them a hundred for chariots.
The literal translation is castrated, making geldings of the war horses.
To hamstring a horse would be terribly cruel and leave it crippled, so it could not be used at all to pull a wagon or to ride. Making the horse a gelding made it unsuitable for war as a chariot horse, but very useful for riding or pulling a wagon.
The word “hamstring” is from the Latin text, kept in various translations by tradition, but it not accurate.
*Excerpted from Myths of the Bible
Special Offer 20% – 50% Off!
Free One New Man Bible e-version (pdf) with pre-order of the 11th printing edition of the One New Man Bible. (click here for details)
This is a special pre-order offer! Bibles will arrive from the printer and individual orders will be shipped in April 2020.
Free, immediate download of the One New Man Bible with your order.
ATTENTION GROUPS! Order 8 Bibles or more and receive a 50% bulk discount (discount is automatic at checkout)
I stumbled over this article as my dog attacked my sheep and severed the hamstring. For an animal to survive this a vet has to use a carbon fiber to stitch the two pieces of the tendon together. Even then it only heals 1/3 if the time. If not corrected by surgery, the animal cannot lift it’s toe correctly and will drag the leg behind it, not putting weight on the foot. In a sheep we may be able to amputate, Or maybe create a permenant cast, but in a horse, if they can’t load weight evenly on four feet, it causes founder very often in the feet being weighted too heavily. It’s a slow Painful death. Part of the reason broken bones are a death sentence in a horse. Castration in this bible verse makes much more sense. The animals would be unfit for work for a few weeks, thus removing them from immediate battle, but then be calm geldings rather than stallions.
Shalom Tina,
The question is one of translation, not about the animal. The Hebrew word is “T’aker” which means to make sterile, to cut. The point is that the hamstring is a translation of the Latin text, not the Hebrew. One New Man Bible is a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text, not the Latin text.
Blessings, Bill
Repeatedly in Joshua they houghed horses obtained in battle and scripture specifically says houghed not gelded.
Shalom Faith,
The difference is in the translation: houghed is the translation of the Latin text, which was used by the earliest English translation. The Hebrew text was used for the One New Man Bible and it means to make sterile, or geld the stallions.
Blessings, Bill
This information is false though. What translation are you finding the word castration or gelding in? Every translation says either, “hamstring”, “hough”, “hock”, “cripple”, or “cut the muscle in the leg”.
I couldn’t find a single translation that says castrate or gelding, and I notice you didn’t cite any translation.
You just said your theory is the correct translation. But, no offense, that seems to be made up from whole cloth.
This question of hamstringing is valid to wonder about, and I’d love to believe your theory, but we have to stick to the truth in all things. There is an answer but this isn’t it.
I’m sorry but you seem to have made this up from your own invention.
Shalom Cory,
The Hebrew woed Aker, the tense in HEBREW IS ‘AKER, MEANS TO CASTRATE, TO MAKE STRERILE, which is cstration. The Latin text is the source of Hamstring and many translators go by tradition, not translating. We have to stick to the Hebrews translation, not tradition or Latin.
Blessings, Bill
I’m sorry, but cstr. in BDB (as used in the entry under this verb) stands for “construct” not “castrate.”
Shalom Greg,
DBD gives the meaning as “pluck or root up’. The adjective in DBD means barren, as in sterile which describes a gelding. The only reference to hamstring is in Arabic, where horses and camels were hamstrung for funeral processions.
Blessings, Bill
Finally, I would like your comment on;
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/6131.html
Thank you very much for challenging us.
Shalom Tom,
Try the Ben-Yehuda’s Hebrew-English Dictionary.
Blessings, Bill
After searching several resources, I cannot find any agreement with the author on “gelding “, they all say “hamstrung”.
Shalom Roger,
Thank you for writing. Apparently you do not have a Hebrew-English dictionary where you would find that AKER, Ayin-Koof-Resh means to castrate. The Latin word subnervavit means to hamstring, so is just evidence that our early English translations were made from Latin, not Hebrew.
Blessings, Bill
Do you use this as your reference?
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
[Torah, Neviʼim u-Khetuvim] = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Shalom Tom,
Thank you for writing. I use the Masoretic Text.
Blessings, Bill
It wouldn’t make much of a difference to spare enough for one hundred chariots, unless hmstrung meant hamstrung. 1 Chronicles 18:4
Shalom Daniel.
Thank you for writing. Hamstrung is from the Latin text from which the first English Bibles were translated. The Hebrew text which is the real word of God says the horses were castrated, making geldings of the horses. This is a practical work because geldings are very docile, useful for any number of domestic uses.
Blessings, Bill
The word for HOUGH in the specific scripture in this discussion is demonstrated in Stong’s as עָקַר, H6131, ʿāqar, a total of 6 times:
Gen 49:6, Josh 11:6, Josh 11:9, II Sam 8:4, I Chro 18:4, Ecc 3:2, Zeph 2:4.
Please describe the translations of the verses that do not relate to horses.
Shalom Tamie,
Thank you for writing. The Hebrew word is T’aker which means to castrate, making geldings of the war horses. Hough is not an acceptable translation of t’aker. Strong’s is not an appropriate bible Dictionary. Many people use Strong’s but it is not accurate.
Blessings, Bill
How do you make a mare a gelding? Apparently all the horses were stallions. In any case god could have simply moved the horses to a area such as the American Plains, unless the story is a myth.
Shalom Roger,
Thank you for writing. All the war horses were stallions. We had horses when our children were growing up so we know geldings are very easily domesticated and all we had were either geldings or mares. Only the most experienced horsemen could handle stallions.
Blessings, Bill
Oops! I accidentally replied to another comment instead of making it a general comment!
So glad I found this blog post.
As I can’t afford a copy of the Alcalay book you mentioned, I went looking online for free translators. Lexilogos has a whole list of links, one of which is https://terms.hebrew-academy.org.il/
I went to that link and then went and copied the Hebrew term from Biblehub (aqar : עָקַר ) and pasted the Hebrew into the translator line. It translated it as “STERILE” https://terms.hebrew-academy.org.il/munnah/40864_1
This also confirms and corroborates Deuteronomy 17:16 regarding the King not building up large stables of horses.
So, as far as I’m concerned, this makes much more sense.
Shalom Karen,
Thank you for sending this. It is good news that you are now satisfied with my translation.
Blessings, Bill
Hello and cheers for discussing this subject that hit me while reading the bible in a year chronologically. Something about it didn’t seem right so I had to look it up and was very glad to see that it actually meant castration and not hamstringing. May I ask you where you found this information? I looked at every translation I could find and the only other descriptive words I could see were ‘Hough’ and ‘Hock’ which mean to sever the sinew or to ‘Hamstring’?
Shalom Kieran,
Thank you for writing. One source is the R. Alcalay “The Complete Hebrew English Dictionary” but there are others I have used.
Blessings, Bill
I am interested in your take on BDB’s definition as found here:
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/6131.html
Shalom Tom,
Thank you for writing. BDB for qal conjugation has castrate.
Blessings, Bill
Hello! So I’ve proved the castration translation my own way – Biblehub.com, Interlinear Bible, Joshua 11:6, I copied the Hebrew letters for te-‘aq-qer, and I pasted them into Hebrew-English online translator – answer Sterilize. But that was Yiddish, which is a more modern German kind of Hebrew? and not the Hebrew of the Old Testament day.
So I put the letters into other translators – context.reverse.net/translation/Hebrew-English and this gave many uses of the word in different contexts. The base meaning says ‘cut out’, and the contexts include ‘sterilize them’, ‘spay and neuter’, ‘remove them’, ‘pull out’, ‘extract’, ‘carve out’and so on. The whole feel of it is like a ‘removal’ rather than a ‘slicing’ which would describe hamstringing.
imtranslator.net/translation/Hebrew/to-English also came up with Sterilize. I think I’m convinced. I don’t believe this is re-writing the Bible. I think this is searching the Scriptures for truth, like the Bereans.
Shalom Ruth,
Thank you for writing about your extensive research and your conclusion that ONMB is not re-writing Scripture, but is bringeing Truth to replace Tradition.
Blessings, Bill
I’m sorry, but cstr. in BDB (as used in the entry under this verb) stands for “construct” not “castrate.”
Shalom Greg,
In other Hebrew/English dictionaries the meaning is castrate.
Blessings, Bill
Shalom Ton,
Again thank you for writing. Hough and Hamstring are from the Latin. The Hebrew has hamstring added, specifically referring to Arab funeral practices for horses and camels for their owners funerals. Rooted up in those definitions means castrated. in several verses (Dt. Dt. 5:14, 7:14, etc.) it is translated Barren, meaning sterile. What would the reason be to hamstring a horse? That would render the horse useless, so would they keep feeding it? Gelding the horse prohibits its future use for war, but makes it available for all manner of domestic use.
Blessings, Bill
Above, you say that Brown-Driver-Briggs is more reliable than Strongs’ but Brown-Driver-Briggs given no other deifntion than hamstring. Does not the possibility that the horses were killed make more sense? One of Strongs’ defintion for עקר is “exterminate.”
hamstrung all but a hundred for his own personal use as war horses….. what part of that do you not get….. are we not talking about the same God who struck a whole city of people down in one moment….
Shalom Gary,
Thank you for writing. In 2 Samuel 8:4 David kept about 200 or more stallions for war horses, added to his army’s strength. From your comment “What part do you not get” I assume you are sticking with the traditional Hamstrung. My choice is translate what the Hebrew text has, castrating, making them geldings. One New Man Bible is about TRUTH, not Latin tradition. The Latin from which the first English translations were made is the source of Hamstrung, the Hebrew has castrate.
Blessings, Bill
Why does the term have to be so literal? Why can’t it just mean that the horses couldn’t practice what they were 100% good at? Perhaps they had a way of doing something to the hamstrung so that the horse no longer runs with the velocity, but can walk well.
Why even castrate? It would be stupid to not increase the herd.
PLEASE STOP RE-WRITING THE BIBLE.
Shalom Trotty,
Thanks for writing. A hamstrung horse would have been useless for any farm or utility use, whether riding or pulling a cart. The word HAMSTRUNG is from the Latin text which was used for our first English translation. Hamstrung has remained because of tradition. The Hebrew text says they castrated, made geldings of the war horses, making those horses valuable for civilian use.
I AM NOT RE-WRITING THE BIBLE, JUST BRINGING TRUTH TO OLD TRADITIONAL MISTAKES.
Blessings, Bill
Hello Bill, I appreciate your willingness and patience in answering these questions about this translation. I’m very curious about this and was wondering why wouldn’t the Bible then use the hebrew words for castrate (לְעַקֵר) or geld (לְסַרֵס) or more similar words rather than “root out, to cut off”. Thank you!
Shalom Kelly,
Thank you for writing. The reason is simple: TRADITION! That and the fact that our modern translators are commonly city folk, knowing nothing about horses, and the fact nearly every translation is by a committee, so most translations are by agreement. I owned and rode horses for decades, knowing them as wonderful animals that should not be disabled. Who would keep a horse that could not be used?
Blessings, Bill
So glad I found this blog post.
As I can’t afford a copy of the Alcalay book you mentioned, I went looking online for free translators. Lexilogos has a whole list of links, one of which is https://terms.hebrew-academy.org.il/
I went to that link and then went and copied the Hebrew term from Biblehub (aqar : עָקַר ) and pasted the Hebrew into the translator line. It translated it as “STERILE”
This also confirms and corroborates Deuteronomy 17:16 regarding the King not building up large stables of horses.
So, as far as I’m concerned, this makes much more sense.
Why did you name your book One New Man???
Shalom Sussanne,
Thank you for asking. The name “One New Man Bible” was given to me one morning while I was praying. That title is very appropriate for this time and for the thrust of the ONM Bible.
Blessings, Bill
Very interested in this. I questioned our Bible teacher about this. he has a very extensive library and has the Brown Drivers Briggs Lexicon. He looked it up and said that it says “hamstring” in there as well…
Shalom Janet,
Thank you for writing. The Brown Driver Briggs also lists “castrate” as the meaning. So those who opt the cruel “hamstring” can have that, making all the chariot horses absolutely useless, but not killing them can have that, All those who opt for the practical way to keep them for domestic use, can also have that. The root meaning of ayin-koof-resh is to root out, to cut off, with modern Hebrew having to same meaning. The Latin “subnervo” means to hamstring or weaken. Having owned hoeses and enjoyed riding for years, I cannot see anyone hamstringing a chariot horse to render it useless. All chariot horses were stallions, so gelding them makes sense because you then have a much gentler horse, suitable for pulling a wagon or just using it for riding, for messengers or whatever. Why would anyone feed a useless horse? Would they then starve the horse to give it a slow death? In modern Hebrew Ayin-koof-resh would only mean castrate.
Blessings, Bill
Thank you! I was just reading the passage and wondering about the unnecessary cruelty. It would seem to me that might almost be more merciful to kill them all rather than hamstring them. Gelding them makes SO much more sense.
Shalom David,
Thank you for the comment. It is also significant that castrate is the primary meaning Ayin-Koof-Resh.
Blessings, Bill
Hamstring is hamstring. No other way about it
STRONG’S NUMBER: h6131
Dictionary Definition h6131. עָקַר ‘âqar; a primitive root; to pluck up (especially by the roots); specifically, to hamstring; figuratively, to exterminate: — dig down, hough, pluck up, root up.
AV (7) – hough 4, pluck up 1, rooted up 1, digged down 1;
to pluck up, root up(Qal) to pluck up, root up(Niphal) to be plucked up
to cut, hamstring(Piel) to cut, hamstring
Shalom Tina,
Thank you for writing and being so concerned about horses being crippled, made useless. The word hamstring in English translations is from the Latin subneravit, ayin-koof-resh is the Hebrew. The definition you give does not mean hamstring. It is unclear just what the meaning is, but the meaning of the Hebrew word does include castrate. Why are you so insistant on crippling horses? on making them unusable? Why would anyone continue feeding and caring for a horse that had no possible use? By the way, Strong’s dictionary is not accurate and should not be used.
Blessings, Bill
I agree with you. I’m not sure why this writer is trying to change the character of God. In no translation does it say gelded.
Shalom Leon,
Thank you for writing, but understand that I am not changing the character of God, just correcting the tradition that came from the Latin text. The Hebrew t’aker means to castrate. Latin is the only source of hamstrung.
Blessings, Bill
Do you actually believe that in the heat of battle the men are running around castrating horses? Have you ever gelded a horse? you could conceivably hamstring a horse as it moves past. By the way geldings are perfectly capable of pulling a chariot.
Shalom Dave,
Thank you for writing. The horses would never be castrated or hamstrung in the heat of battle. It would have to be after the battle when the victors would complete complete control over the defeated forces. The Hebrew language is clear: the horses were castrated, gelded so they could be used domestically.
Blessings, Bill
The Strongs reference # is H6131
Original: עקר
Transliteration: ‛âqar
Phonetic: aw-kar’
BDB Definition:
to pluck up, root up
(Qal) to pluck up, root up
(Niphal) to be plucked up
to cut, hamstring
(Piel) to cut, hamstring
Origin: a primitive root
TWOT entry: 1681,1682
Part(s) of speech: Verb
Strong’s Definition: A primitive root; to pluck up (especially by the roots); specifically to hamstring ; figuratively to exterminate: – dig down, hough, pluck up, root up.
So, one of the Strong’s definitions was to exterminate. That would mean to kill. To me, that would be more humane than to hamstring. Also would take less time to just slit their throats than to slit the little hamstrung muscles with enough precision that they’d actually be hamstrung and live rather than bleed out. Just sayin
Shalom Donna,
Please use the Brown Drivers Briggs Lexicon. Stong’s dictionary is not accurate.
Blessings,
Bill
1. STRONG’S Concordance is exhaustively accurate.
2. The YLT uses the term “hough”, which means to hamstring. While we may not understand why God says to do specific things, calling Him a liar is not an option. And if God commanded Joshua to exterminate whole city populations, He would have no qualms about commanding him to cut tendons on a horse to make it useless in war.
Shalom Brandi,
Thank you for traditional meanings. Hebrew was the language used for the Scriptures, so go there for the translation.
Blessings, Bill
I would have to disagree with you. Primarily because your reasoning is based on your emotions…”to hamstring a horse would be terribly cruel…” Animals are lovable and we see them as innocent so why would The Almighty YHWH hurt them?…that is human reasoning. Adonai did many things that conflict with our sense of being humane. It’s funny that you’re more concerned about the cruelty towards horses than you are about the children and babies put to death as Joshua left none breathing. The Children of Israel were quick to put their trust in chariots and horses, I can see YHWH completely destroying that trust by extreme, even humanly considered cruel measures. If we want HIS victory in our lives, we have to get out of our feelings and stop trying to align HIS commands/ways with our definition of who and how HE should be.
Shalom Kathy & db3,
You can be philosophical with each other, I will just go to the text because the horses were not hamstrung, they were castrated, made geldings. As a former horse owner i had several geldings, very gentle. The Hebrew word Ayin-Koof-Resh means to make barren, which is to ged a stallion.
Blessings, Bill
Torturing animals is not the heart of our loving and merciful heavenly Father. How you could even think that shows you don’t have deep intimacy with him. Animals are his totally innocent and beloved creation and God loathes torture and cruelty. In fact he forbids cruelty.
Proverbs says the righteous man cares for the needs of his animals while the wicked are always cruel. Just as surely as our Savior Jesus loved and treated animals with care, so too does our Father. Castrating the horses is what happened as the Holy Spirit has confirmed for me. Not hamstringing which is sadistic and demonic. People like you make God out to be a cruel monster. Btw Killing captive people who would be orphans isn’t cruel. Keeping them alive would be.
Shalom Toni,
Thank you! Yes, and in Hebrew T’aker means Castrate!
Blessings, Bill
Myself and my Jewish husband are hugely against Jewish manipulation of the Bible and Christianity and hold that Judaism has nothing to do with the Bible, but it makes NO sense to be cruel to animals and to kill infants instead of letting them grow up orphans is insane. There IS something wrong with the text. Someone has gone in and altered things. It doesn’t WORK for him to order the murder of innocent infants and animals. He GAVE us the ability to feel emotions and wrong and right. Seeing animals sacrificed ALWAYS looks and feels satanic. There is nothing Godly about bleeding out innocent creatures.
I am intrigued by this. I looked up the Hebrew word (aqar), and the only definition I saw was “barren”. I can see that castrating the horses would make them no permanent thing in Israel–nothing to depend on, since the horses would not reproduce. But even my copy of the Tanakh translates the word as “hamstring”. :/
Shalom Rena,
Thank you for writing. T’aqer is qal conjugation where it means to sterilize, according to Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew/English Lexicon. in modern Hebrew it means to castrate. To hamstring was a custom in Arab funeral processions for horses and camels. To hamstring makes the animal lame, no longer to be useful.
Blessings, Bill
That does not make sense. The performance of a stud horse and gelded horse is the same. If anything a gelded horse is a better work or performance animal than a stud. Not saying you are wrong in the translation but your explanation shows a lack of understanding of horses.
Respectfully disagree that “there is no difference between performance of a stallion and a gelding” as I have been around horses all my life and stallions are much more aggressive and bold, just last year a friend of mine had a young 3 yr old stallion her trainer wanted her to keep “intact” so he would be energetic and bold but she finally had to geld him as he was becoming just too hard to handle. I can totally get behind this as it makes much more sense.
Shalom Dan,
Thank you for writing. I too have been around horses for years and I know there is a world of difference between a stallion and a gelded horse. I thank Denise for her comment.
Blessings,
Bill
Hi Bill, please let me know where to get this version of the Bible…. I live in the Western Cape, South Africa, (Simons Town – 57 Dorries Drive, Postal Code 7975)…
not sure if One New Man Bible delivers here.
All I do know is that if this Hebrew version of the bible is correct, I will continue to serve God.
If not, I simply cannot continue to worship a God of cruelty, and will cease to believe in Him immediately.
Shalom Deborah,
Thank you for writing. Mail service to S.A. is not good. Books get held up at customs. The publisher will answer you because there is a distributor in S.A.
Blessings,
Bill
Hello Debora,
We hope to have a South African distributor available by the time our 10th printing is available in October.
We have stopped shipping to individual addresses in South Africa due to unreliable delivery to some areas.
Shalom Deborah,
Thank you for writing. Mail service to S.A. is not good. Books get held up at customs. The publisher will answer you because there is a distributor in S.A.
Blessings,
Bill
Seems your judging God, interesting. You aren’t worried about million of human beings God helped Israel destroy, but concerned about horses being either castrated or lamed. As bible states, remember man from dust you came and dust you shall return….God is loving, just, kind; he also can’t stand sin and the kings/ their possessions were sinful and God commanded Joshua to kill everything. Don’t believe in him because of his cruelty to animals…really….at your eternal risk.
Shalom Richard,
Thank you for writing. God is concerned about animals, but even more about mankind. The Bible concerns Eternal Life, which God wants all to seek and to attain. Life on Earth provides each one with the opportunity to attain Eternal Life.
Blessings, Bill
Hello-I can understand why you think this way. It’s a hard thing to contemplate from a God of love. But this part of the Bible has to be considered in the entirety of Scripture where God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just at the same time-a concept we can’t completely wrap our heads around. This is meant to show our need for Jesus. God is also perfectly holy and by that nature HAS to deal w/ sin in people who were made in His image and have a soul He wants w/ Him for eternity. Since Creator God knows the hearts of all people, He would know these people were completely evil w/o hope of ever turning to HIm. He couldn’t let them have any power over His people and risk their corruption of the Israelites, which they had proved to be prone to; hence, the need for destroying the most powerful things they had, their horses. It’s hard to read, but we don’t see the whole plan of God. But one thing is absolutely certain in Scripture, all of His plans are for our good and to point us to Him, the One True God who sent Jesus so we wouldn’t have to live this kind of life anymore. Steep yourself in that, continue to read through the whole Bible and ask God to answer some of those hard questions. He will. I promise.
You, putting conditions on God as a measuring stick for whether to worship him or not is like you having a child of your own, who decides whether they’ll respect, obey and honor you based on you disciplining their sibling for the wrong THE SIBLING did. You’re the parent. You see the bigger picture where as your child doesn’t. God is God. He saw the end from the beginning. You don’t see what He sees so your posture shouldn’t be conditional based on HIS actions. It should be for who HE IS. IF you truly trust Him as salvation through Christ requires, then trust that He is a Just and HOLY God. He’s OmniPOTENT- ALL POWERFUL, OmniSCIENT- ALL KNOWING and He’s OmniPRESENT- EVERYWHERE. HIS ways faaaar surpass our ways. His thoughts are MUCH higher than our thoughts. He doesn’t OWE us an explanation even though at times He gives it to us in His word. Your servitude to Him should be unconditional because His LOVE FOR US IS.
Shalom David,
Thank you for writing. YES!
Blessings, Bill
The whole point of this text isnt focused on what he did to the horses…but rather why he disabled the horses. David did not want anyone to think that the reason for victory in battle was because of the sheer size of the force used. Ultimately, they used only 100 chariots so that everyone would know that it was God and God alone who was the reason for the victory and not due to outnumbering the enemy.
This argument is as pointless as arguing what kind of water was being pulled from the well. It has no bearing on any of the message from God
Shalom Jeff,
Thank you for writing. You have reasoned out what you want, look at the Lexicon for the meaning of the word T’aker. It means to castrate.
Blessings,
Bill
Repeating yourself over and over again does not drive the point home…it makes you wise only in.your own eyes.
But let me guess your response…
“Im right!…thanks…and blessings!”
Shalom Jeff,
David did not disable the horses, but made them very useful for domestic, non-war roles. you are correct in saying they did not have the huge number of horses ready for battle because geldings are gentle and not suited for chariot use. The correct translation still gives God credit.
Blessings, Bill
Why does the term have to be so literal? Why can’t it just mean that the horses couldn’t practice what they were 100% good at? Perhaps they had a way of doing something to the hamstrung so that the horse no longer runs with the velocity, but can walk well.
Why even castrate? It would be stupid to not increase the herd.
PLEASE STOP RE-WRITING THE BIBLE.
I think it was much more cruel for a perfect man to be put through hours of excruciating pain and suffering for your sins. But He did so because He loves you. Believe through the difficult texts and in the end we will understand.
AMEN!
I would love to believe this is true. But if so, why is yours the only source online where I see this interpretation,and why do all Bible versions gave it otherwise? I am not disputing, just need more assurance.
Shalom Ellen,
Thank you for writing. It is true! The reason others have hamstrung is that is from the early English translations which were from the Latin text, not the Hebrew, but TRADITION has kept hamstrung. The Hebrew text is clear, with David and Joshua gelding horses, not crippling them.
Blessings, Bill
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=13&page=18
the greek word is literally “paralyse”, but perhaps it means something different.
this may be a newer septuagint…
i wonder if the word is any different in the Dead sea scrolls.
Shalom,
Thank you for writing. The Septuagint is an inapropriate source.The Hebrew in which the Scriptures were written is the place to go for accuracy. David made geldings of the horses.
Blessings, Bill
I don’t see any support for this notion; if anything it’s more likely that they were “exterminated” rather than castrated based on the word that’s used. Can you support your claim with a reference or two please?
Shalom David,
Thank you for writing. i assume you are referring to castrating the horses. The reason for translating the Hebrew word Ayin-Koof-Resh as castrate, is because that is the meaning of the word in 1 Chronicles 18:4. The text does not say David exterminated them. He simply made them available for domestic us.
Blessings, Bill