A Hand is on the Throne of the Lord!
When KJV interprets rather than translates
This marvelous prophetic mysterious imagery of (Exo14: 17) so reads in its original Hebrew text:
ויאמר כי־יד על־כס יה מלחמה ליהוה בעמלק מדר דר
It literally means:
YLT: ‘Because a hand is on the throne of Jah, war is to Jehovah with Amalek from generation--generation.’
What could that mean? It sounds like the KV translator got puzzled at the same question, so he rendered it how it made sense to his mind:
KJV: ‘Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’
With all its literal accuracy, and its evading the interpretive temptation in translation, especially in the OT scriptures, KJV upset me when I came by this ‘interpretively’ translated verse.
Even worse, the ‘interpretation’ sense came wrong. Even it lashed a principal hilarious prophecy on the cross!
What is the chair of the Lord, but the Cross: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..
What is the hand, but that of the Lord Himself? Who else is capable to put his hand on the Lord’s chair except the Lord Himself?
And when was that all said?
In the very day and in the heart of the context when Moses was made an apparent symbol to the cross, as he defeated Amalekites by raising his hand (Exodus 17:11)!
Just afterwards’ Moses was ordered to build an altar..
What does that symbolize and does it have to do with the Lord putting his hand on His chair?
What made the Lord's hand on the chair?
Is not that what the Lord describing the situation on the Cross:
‘and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.' (Joh 12:32)
‘And this he said signifying by what death he was about to die.’ (Joh 12:23)
‘…having stripped the principalities and the authorities, he made a shew of them openly--having triumphed over them in it.’ (Colossians 2:15)
What about the word “hand” coming without a definite article?
The disappearance of the definite article does not necessarily mean indefinite case in the Semitic languages!
There is what could be loosely translated as ‘meant indefinites’
Such a style underlines the implication of the word.
The indefinite words, in general, add enigma that goes well with the magnificence.
They brainstorm the minds of the truth seekers.
In this very place, it prophetically adds a prophetic sense of the words: It said by then that the Lord’s hand had not been ultimately revealed.
Still a major work by the same hand was to come, said the Indefiniteness of the Hand. And that was the cross work!!!
Hitherto, the revision does not tell that the ‘interpretation’ is wrong.
Nay. It is very compatible contemplation. One can provide a scripture in support:
The Lord was the higher priest on the cross as He brought forth His own soul as propitiation to the Father. It is written in a psalm prophecy about that high priestly sacrifice as such:
‘Jehovah hath sworn, and doth not repent, `Thou art a priest to the age, According to the order of Melchizedek.’ (Psa110:4, also Heb7:21)
God’s swearing is not estranged to the scene. But the act of swearing is not the crucifixion itself. It is a related act. In principle, swearing could take various forms, and the cross is just the master scene of God’s promises and oaths that whose description should not be replaced by any related meaning.
Take it for what it is: In this scripture,
KJV’s interpretive translation is a good interpretation but a bad translation!
By one interpretive translation stroke, KJV ruined conveying the unique kind of prophecy.
This unfortunate time, the good KJV is not as good as it has almost been!
Quotations from the bible are taken from YLT, as a kind of punishment to KJV for its flaw.
P. Eng. Basil Lamie (aka C. Mark) !
Detailed contemplation in Arabic on this scripture in the ‘OT Troves’  folder