I decided to give this WIP part its separate post, since so much was updated and added about the grammar and also about Keveh in the Jewish web-site translation.
The poster Masao made one salient point simply and clearly.
מקוה (mikveh) is a word that means several things in Hebrew. Why in the world would the Hebrew scribes of Kings and Chronicles use מקוה to transliterate Que, Kue, Qeve, Coa, Kue or Keveh? I understand if the scribes wrote "קוה (kveh)," but why is there a mem before קוה? If the scribes intended to refer to Kue, adding an unnecessary mem is so unnecessarily confusing because adding the mem makes it into an actual Hebrew word with many meanings. It is very difficult to see how mikveh (an actual Hebrew word) could be the transliteration of Kue.
Very well stated.
A bit too clear and simple and compelling for the modernist 'scholars' .
And it can be emphasized that this difficulty is enormously heightened if the locale is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and would be ultra-obscure. (Even putting aside the extra geographical and textual difficulties, simply from a linguistic perspective). The case with our verses.
Now is the Masao claim overstated ? Cases where mem is added as a preposition in front of a place name as "from" would have to be compared, especially noting if they have a similar dual+ meaning obscurity and a place-name obscurity as well. Checking, we do have mimitzrayim (from Egypt - as in the song Dayenu !) in the Bible texts, מִמִּצְרָיִם of 1 Kings, so that would allow the consideration, except there is the huge difficulty that mitzrayim is immediately recognizable in the Bible text and has one and only one meaning, Egypt (as long as we are not wasting time with emendation cornfuseniks who change the text to read Musri).
This post was updated when I double-checked the Bible text online from work to check the Egypt form, which you can see at:
1 Kings Chapter 10 מְלָכִים א http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a10.htm
And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt;
also out of Keveh, the king's merchants buying them of the men of Keveh at a price.
Note that the Tanach edition given has the more honest locale mistranslation of Keveh, as in Tyndale (Keva) and the NKJV. (Yes, in that case, the NKJV is more honest than the NIV, NAS etc.). Since Kue is an absolute disaster, as discussed above, if one wants to read a location in they would do better to simply give it as "unknown" like Keveh and leave it like that.
e.g. That would allow (with small preposition translation updates) for the Egyptian custom house idea, which, even though there is no such locale known, is the only geographical idea that does not badly mangle geography, history, text and/or common sense. (Not that it is necessarily without additional difficulties beyond the missing locale, that is barely checked since nobody offers the idea anymore.)
Kue in Cilicia fails miserably (with or without Musri), Musri in Arabia similarly flunks, Tekoa (given in various forms) from the Greek does not work at all since we know where is that locale and Coa is simply a Latin orphan reading. Thus if you want a name, better to not point it to any known locale, and better to do no emendation, leaving from the Hebrew - Keveh.
While still a poor translation (note Masao - why would the writer create a deliberate double+ meaning obscurity to an unknown locale) at least that translation is closer to textual integrity than the variety pack of Kue and Musri absurdities.
When Kue is called Keveh in historical literature I have seen absolutely no real support for this name for the region in Celicia (e.g. from the Assyrian texts or locale archaeology - Tadmor even points out Kue-alternative phonetics of the Assyrian with nothing close to Keveh); what you have is a circular reverse engineering of the geographical name to match the conjectured Hebrew of the Bible -- ie. if the Hebrew had been a proper name and if it had not been emended ! You have a pretend that there was such a name solely based on matching textual manipulations. Reducing the modernists to their core, you have nothing but sleight of hand.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-06-2009 at 10:33 AM.
You just copied and pasted your original post because you saw that I posted after you...
Another thing... adding a mem does not give many other meanings. That is simply wrong. Tell us what these other meanings are since you are simply copying another person's work...
Quote:
Note that the Tanach edition given has the more honest locale mistranslation of Keveh, as in the NKJV. (Yes, in that case, the NKJV is more honest than the NIV, NAS etc.). Since Kue is an absolute disaster, as discussed above, if one wants to read a location in they would do better to simply give it as "unknown" like Keveh and leave it like that. (e.g. That would allow for the Egyptian custom house idea.) When Kue is called Keveh in literature I have seen absolutely no support for this name (e.g. from the Assyrian texts); what you have is a circular reverse engineering of the geography to match the actual Hebrew - if the Hebrew had been a proper name; you have a pretend that there was such a name based on textual manipulations.
Since we are on the subject of honesty, don't make provocative statements when you do not know Hebrew. Keveh is a transliteration. Kue is a translation.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Luther (1545) says "allerlei Ware" (all kinds of goods) goes with our post #50.
For technical precision, Luther's first edition agreed with Tyndale's Keva with von Keva. Later he went with "allerlei Ware... dieselbe Ware".
Luther would be less likely than the Geneva or KJB scholars to be aware of the Hebraics of Gersonides, with which the Reformation Hebraists generally agreed. Their timing was generally a bit after Luther and Tyndale.
1 Chronicles 1:16-18
And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn:
the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price.
And they fetched up,
and brought forth out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred shekels of silver,
and an horse for an hundred and fifty:
and so brought they out horses for all the kings of the Hittites,
and for the kings of Syria, by their means.
The Hittite Kingdom had been at its peak before Solomon, and yet the Bible in our verses clearly refers to Hittite kings. In modern parlence this is the "Neo-Hittite" states. The Wikipedia articles are straightforward and are in line with the maps we showed a few posts above.
The states that are called Neo-Hittite, or more recently Syro-Hittite, were Luwian, Aramaic and Phoenician-speaking political entities of Iron Age northern Syria and southern Anatolia that arose following the collapse of the Hittite Empire around 1180 BC and lasted until roughly 700 BC.
Notice that Anatolia is itself defined within modern Turkey, with various regions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turkey_Regions.png A curiousity is that the major city of Antalya is in what is called the "Meditteranean Region" in that map, so the Anatolian region can be considered larger.
All told .. simple enough, there were a number of regions and kings in Turkey (south-eastern Turkey) unto Syria (Syria being a separate region in the Bible text) that collectively are the Hittites. (Incidentally, the capital of the larger ancient kingdom was Hattusa, due north of the green area.)
This fits our Bible description superbly. Solomon traded the Egyptian horses and chariots north to the Syrians (the non-Hittite region around Damascus) and with the Hittite kings.
Yet what do we see in this refined Hittite map ? Look at the Meditterean area, and sit on the dock of the Quwę. !
Oopsie, daisie. If you believe the Bible -- this totally destroys the attempted emendation imposition of Kue as the horse source --> to the Hittites (through Solomon) ! (Even the Musri textual abomination would be of no help, and notwithstanding that Celicia was not a horse-breeding center.) This blunderama alternative flunks Bible Grade School on every level.
Can these emendation-folks even read a map ?
"Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not correct it!"
Oopsie, daisie. If you believe the Bible -- this totally destroys the attempted emendation imposition of Kue as the horse source --> to the Hittites (through Solomon) !
Kue is NOT an emendation. Egypt is emended to Mutsur/Musri by some because Kue is definitely in the text.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
'name' extracted from - "an actual Hebrew word with many meanings"
. 
Linear Mode
