I'm a bit puzzled with some verses of the Vulgata, regarding the use or not of genitive. Consider 3 Regnum (1 Kings in non LXX-based bibles). Verses 13-15 in Chapter 10 go as follows:
 Rex autem Salomon dedit reginae Saba omnia quae voluit et petivit ab eo: exceptis his, quae ultro obtulerat ei munere regio. Quae reversa est, et abiit in terram suam cum servis suis.
 Erat autem pondus auri, quod afferebatur Salomoni per annos singulos, sexcentorum sexaginta sex talentorum auri:
 excepto eo, quod afferebant viri qui super vectigalia erant, et negotiatores, universique scruta vendentes, et omnes reges Arabiae, ducesque terrae.
I highlighted the words of interest. I don't understand why reginae is not in accusative but in dative (genitive?). Compare with pondus, which is in nominative (and not accusative, because of the nature of the esse verb, as I gather from here). And then, talentorum is in genitive but the talent (currency) are of gold (auri), so why not in accusative (as the direct object of afferebatur)? Verse 15 then shows two examples of "proper" use of genitive, with kings (of Arabia) and leaders (of the land) being in nominative.
So, in short, I don't understand why sometimes the genitive is extended from the noun representing the attribute (auri) to the object/subject to which that attribute belongs (talentorum).