1 Kings 11:17

[stevencarrwork]

How should 'qatan naar' in 1 Kings 11:17 be translated?

The KJV translates it as 'little child'. Can this really be right?

[yxboom]

I am moving it into the Biblical Exegesis forum.

[Jaltus]

No, the word is masculine, so it is "little boy."

It would need to be "naarah qatanah" in order to be a little girl, I believe.

GP, feel free to correct me.

[GrayPilgrim]

According to Halot נער means
1. lad, adolescent

And of course קטן
means little

So little child is a good translation.

Why?

[GrayPilgrim]

03-05-2003 @ 11:56 AM
Jaltus:

No, the word is masculine, so it is "little boy."

It would need to be "naarah qatanah" in order to be a little girl, I believe.

GP, feel free to correct me.

Am I missing something from another thread?

[stevencarrwork]

03-05-2003 @ 06:24 PM
GrayPilgrim:

According to Halot נער means
1. lad, adolescent

And of course קטן
means little

So little child is a good translation.

Why?

Thanks for the translation.

In 2 Kings 2:23-24 when the bears rip 'qatan naar' to pieces, would it be reasonable to translate that as 'little children'?

[Jaltus]

Young boys, or young youths would make sense, yes.

The problem is that "young" is very imprecise. GP, have any hard data on this for us?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

sounds like steve is going for the argument by outrage card again.

[Socrates]

In CONTEXT, it MUST be youths, but don't expect context-phobic misotheists like Carr to know anything about that. It's like his fellow biblioskeptic Dan Barker, who might ask Jaltus if "hate" is a correct translation of miseo, getting a "yes" answer, and then concluding that Jesus couldn't possibly have meant it hyperbolically when he talked about "hating" one's family for His sake.

Note that King Solomon uses the same expression na'ar qatan to describe himself after his ascension to the throne in 1 Kings 3:7, so it certainly CAN refer to young men. And those are the only sorts of people who would be running around in a gang and challenging God's messenger like that.

[stevencarrwork]

03-10-2003 @ 11:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=31333#post31333)
Socrates:

In CONTEXT, it MUST be youths, but don't expect context-phobic misotheists like Carr to know anything about that. It's like his fellow biblioskeptic Dan Barker, who might ask Jaltus if "hate" is a correct translation of miseo, getting a "yes" answer, and then concluding that Jesus couldn't possibly have meant it hyperbolically when he talked about "hating" one's family for His sake.

Note that King Solomon uses the same expression na'ar qatan to describe himself after his ascension to the throne in 1 Kings 3:7, so it certainly CAN refer to young men. And those are the only sorts of people who would be running around in a gang and challenging God's messenger like that.


1 Kings 3:7 "Now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties.'

Is Solomon talking hyperbolically by comparing himself to a little child? Is he saying that in comparison to the greatness of his father David, he, although a young man, is but as a little child?

Socrates can, of course, choose any translation he likes of 1 Kings 3:7. I'm sure he will produce dozens and dozens and dozens of translations of 1 Kings 3:7 , which translate 'naar qatan' as 'young man'. Actually, he won't produce one , because the words mean 'little child', and Socrates has ignored the context and hyperbole of the verse.

[GrayPilgrim]

I would say it is hyperbolic in relation to the experience of his father David. Let's remember that when David came to the throne he had already commanded the army of Saul and led a guireilla (sp?) campaign and thus he vast amounts of conspiriacy, but by the time Shlomo the Shmu came to the throne he'd only been involved by a palace conspiracy orchestrated by his mom and Nathan.

GP

[stevencarrwork]

GrayPilgrim is quite right. Nice to see Christians who can recognise hyperbole and exaggeration when they see it.

The use of 'little child' in 1 Kings 3:7 to refer to somebody who has just become king is obvious hyperbole. The literal meaning of the phrase was, and remains, 'little child'.

[Sher]

GrayPilgrim: I would say it is hyperbolic in relation to the experience of his father David.:hi:GP, wouldn't you say, therefore, that the hyperbole would be "little child" but the literal meaning of the words would be similar to "unimportant/insignificant young man", right ... Especially since he was exhibiting self-depreciation ("...and do not know how to carry out my duties")?

Wouldn't it be reasonable, then, to translate this phrase that way in other scripture as well?

As #5288 is used in Ex 33:11 for "Young Man" for instance:

Exo 33:11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Wouldn't it be subjective to context and related scripture that "Unimportant/insignificant young man" would then also fit this phrase as translation in this and other instances

... and then would possibly take the absolute literal meaning of the phrase ("young men lacking power or position") when we know it is not used as hyperbole ("little child"), right?

--------------------------------------for reference:

H6996
קטן / קטן
qâṭân / qâṭôn
BDB Definition:
1) young, small, insignificant, unimportant
1a) small
1b) insignificant
1c) young
1d) unimportant
Part of Speech: adjective

H5288
נער
na‛ar
BDB Definition:
1) a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer
1a) boy, lad, youth
1b) servant, retainer
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H5288
נער
na‛ar/ nah'-ar
Strong's Definition:
From H5287; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication a servant; also (by interchange of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age): - babe, boy, child, damsel [from the margin], lad, servant, young (man).

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 01:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67792#post67792)
SherBear:

GrayPilgrim: I would say it is hyperbolic in relation to the experience of his father David.:hi:GP, wouldn't you say, therefore, that the hyperbole would be "little child" but the literal meaning of the words would be similar to "unimportant/insignificant young man", right ... Especially since he was exhibiting self-depreciation ("...and do not know how to carry out my duties")?

Wouldn't it be reasonable, then, to translate this phrase that way in other scripture as well?

As #5288 is used in Ex 33:11 for "Young Man" for instance:

Exo 33:11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Wouldn't it be subjective to context and related scripture that "Unimportant/insignificant young man" would then also fit this phrase as translation in this and other instances

... and then would possibly take the absolute literal meaning of the phrase ("young men lacking power or position") when we know it is not used as hyperbole ("little child"), right?

--------------------------------------for reference:

H6996
קטן / קטן
qâṭân / qâṭôn
BDB Definition:
1) young, small, insignificant, unimportant
1a) small
1b) insignificant
1c) young
1d) unimportant
Part of Speech: adjective

H5288
נער
na‛ar
BDB Definition:
1) a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer
1a) boy, lad, youth
1b) servant, retainer
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H5288
נער
na‛ar/ nah'-ar
Strong's Definition:
From H5287; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication a servant; also (by interchange of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age): - babe, boy, child, damsel [from the margin], lad, servant, young (man).


I agree that it is the context that gives it this meaning, whereas the context in 1 Ki 11:17 the more likely reading owuld be that Hadad would have been a little child as it is not the subjective experience, but a declaritive statemetn of Hadad.

GP

[Sher]

Today @ 02:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67872#post67872)
GrayPilgrim:

I agree that it is the context that gives it this meaning, whereas the context in 1 Ki 11:17 the more likely reading owuld be that Hadad would have been a little child as it is not the subjective experience, but a declaritive statemetn of Hadad.Definately, I agree! :thumb:

So, by context, I think we can determine that 2 Kings 2:23-24 would more likely mean young men.

This is what TSK says about these verses:little children: The words nearim ketannim not only signify little children but young men; for katon signifies not only little, but young, in opposition to old; and naar signifies not only a child, but a young man grown to years of maturity. thus Isaac is called naar when twenty-eight years old, Joseph when thirty-nine, and Rehoboam when forty. These idolatrous young men, having heard of the ascension of Elijah, without believing it, blasphemously bade Elisha to follow him. The venerable prophet, from a Divine impulse, pronounced a curse “in the name of the Lord,” which was immediately followed by the most terrible judgment; thus evincing the Source from which it flowed.

And Clarke says:Now I suppose the objection means children from four to seven or eight years old; for so we use the word: but the original, nearim ketannim, may mean young men, for katon signifies to be young, in opposition to old, and is so translated in various places in our Bible; and naar signifies, not only a child, but a young man, a servant, or even a soldier, or one fit to go out to battle; and is so translated in a multitude of places in our common English version. I shall mention but a few, because they are sufficiently decisive: Isaac was called naar when twenty-eight years old, Gen_21:5-12; and Joseph was so called when he was thirty-nine, Gen_41:12. Add to these 1Ki_20:14 : “And Ahab said, By whom [shall the Assyrians be delivered into my hand?] And he said, Thus saith the Lord, by the Young Men, benaarey, of the princes of the provinces.” That these were soldiers, probably militia, or a selection from the militia, which served as a bodyguard to Ahab, the event sufficiently declares; and the persons that mocked Elisha were perfectly accountable for their conduct.

[stevencarrwork]

And early Christian Bibles translated the passage in 2 Kings 2 it as 'mikro paidarion' - 'small boys'. Why did the early Christians use that phrase?

And every other use of 'qatan naar' in the Bible is translated 'little child'.

As for Sherbears, distraction that 'naar' can be used about men.

The phrase is qualified in 2 Kings 2 by 'young', so why bother with these examples (often with different forms of the word 'naar') in other contexts that are irrelevant to the subject in hand.

I've heard the word 'boys' used about the Chicago Bears.

When we read in English about 'young boys', should we think of people who resemble nose-tackles and free safeties?

But Christian apologetics is about finding uses of words elsewhere, and then pretending that these are relevant to the subject in hand - a tactic also used by David Irving, and one which would be laughed at if they tried it in a language that their readers understood.

Notice how Sherbear started talking about the word 'benaarey', a word which is not even in 2 Kings 2.

And she says sceptics start diversion tactics! But this different word 'benaarey', means something different , and she desperately needs to make 2 Kings 2 mean something different.

So she pretends that a different word, one not used in 2 Kings 2, is what the word in 2 Kings 2 means.