1st Kings Chapter 9 verse 28 Holy Bible

ASV 1stKings 9:28

And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon.
read chapter 9 in ASV

BBE 1stKings 9:28

And they came to Ophir, where they got four hundred and twenty talents of gold, and took it back to King Solomon.
read chapter 9 in BBE

DARBY 1stKings 9:28

and they went to Ophir, and fetched thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon.
read chapter 9 in DARBY

KJV 1stKings 9:28

And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon.
read chapter 9 in KJV

WBT 1stKings 9:28

And they came to Ophir, and imported from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon.
read chapter 9 in WBT

WEB 1stKings 9:28

They came to Ophir, and fetched from there gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon.
read chapter 9 in WEB

YLT 1stKings 9:28

and they come in to Ophir and take thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and bring `it' in unto king Solomon.
read chapter 9 in YLT

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 28. - And they came to Ophir [It is perhaps impossible to identify this place with any degree of precision. The opinions of scholars may, however, be practically reduced to two, The first would place Ophir in India; the second in southern Arabia. In favour of India is (1) the three years' voyage (but see on 1 Kings 10:22); (2) most of the other treasures brought back by the fleet, exclusive of gold, are Indian products. But against it is urged the important fact that no gold is now found there, south of Cashmere, whilst south Arabia was famed for its abundant gold (Psalm 72:15; Ezekiel 27:22). On the other hand, it is alleged that in ancient times India was rich in gold (Ewald, 3. p. 264), and that there are no traces of gold mines in Arabia. The question is discussed at considerable length and with great learning by Mr. Twisleton (Dict. Bib. art. "Ophir"). He shows that it is reasonably certain (1) that the Ophir of Genesis 10:29 is the name of some city, region, or tribe in Arabia, and . . .

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(28) Ophir.--All that can be certainly gathered from the mention of Ophir in the Old Testament is, first; that it was situated to the east of Palestine and approached by the Red Sea (as is clear from this passage, from 1Kings 22:48, and from 2Chronicles 8:18; 2Chronicles 9:10), and next, that so famous was the gold imported from it, that the "gold of Ophir" became proverbial (Job 22:24, Job_28:16; Psalm 45:10; Isaiah 13:12; 1 Chronicles 4). All else is matter of speculation and tradition. Setting aside merely fanciful conjectures, substantial reasons have been given for fixing it geographically in Africa, Arabia, and India; and of these three positions, evidence strongly preponderates for the second or third. Tradition is in favour of India; the LXX. renders the name as Soufir, or Sofir, which is the Coptic word for "India; the Arabic versions actually render it "India;" and Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, 4) srates unhesitatingly that Ophir was in his day called "The Golden Chersonesus," which is the Malay peninsula. On the other hand, it is urged that "Ophir," in the ethnological list of Genesis 10:29, is placed among the sons of Joktan, clearly indicating an Arabian position; and that the mention of Ophir (here and in 1Kings 10:11), stands in close connection with the visit of the Queen of Sheba and the gold brought from Arabia. But neither of these considerations is conclusive. Looking to the products described as brought from Ophir, the "gold and precious stones" would suit either. but India better than Arabia (although, indeed, so far as gold is concerned, Western Africa would have better claim than either); while the "almug," or "algum" wood is certainly the "sandal wood" found almost exclusively on the Malabar coast, and the very word "algum" appears to be a corruption of its Sanscrit name valguka. If the other imports mentioned in 1Kings 10:22 were also from Ophir, this latter argument would be greatly strengthened. (See Note there.) But putting this aside as doubtful, the preponderance of evidence still appears to be in favour of India. The Tyrians, it may be added, are known to have had trading settlements on the Persian Gulf, and to have rivalled in the trade of the East the Egyptians, to whom it would more naturally have belonged. Various places have been named conjecturally as identical with Ophir: as in Arabia, Zaphar or Saphar, Doffir, and Zafari; in Africa, Sofala; and in India, Abhira, at the mouth of the Indus, and a Soupara mentioned by ancient Greek geographers, not far from Goa. . . .