Still, it is the KJVOs who insist on the existence of "jot & tittle" perfection for the KJV down to the level of punctuation, capitalization and italics, not to mention word choice, so instead of questioning the assumptions and ideas of other posters, please demonstrate why it should be accepted that the KJV has this verse correctly translated and that earlier versions in the KJVOers' "stream of good Bibles" do not.
Were the KJV translators "more godly" than William Tyndale?
I'll address the highlighted portion:
Because those on this board profess that the English Authorized Version is the word of God and that unequivocally. They profess that their only objection is with the "ONLYISM" of KJVO and not with the AV itself. If their profession is true and not feigned it would mean they believe the AV to be the very word of God. As the word of God every word is true and to be believed, not doubted. This profession says nothing about other versions. As a person who speaks three languages I know for a fact that multiple translations of the same phrase can indeed be ALL correct!
Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.
William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, and John Rogers ... have "from Keva" at 1 Kings 10:28 while the KJV has "linen yarn."
First, it is quite unclear that Tyndale himself translated 1 King 10:28, and it definitely was not published with his Bible. So the Tyndale Bible does not have "from Keva".
Next, the Geneva clearly went away from the proper name, as the Hebraics became stronger. Afaik, no Hebraic commentator or source saw this as a locale reference.
However, translations heavily influenced by the Latin and Greek editions rather than the deeper Hebraics that developed in Oxford and Cambridge (and to a lesser extent in Geneva in the mid 1500s) would be likely to have a proper name.
Similarly the NKJV has :
Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh;
the king's merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price.
So I have a simple question.
Where is this Keveh that the NKJCV says sold horses to Solomon ?
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-22-2009 at 04:10 AM.
So I have a simple question.
Where is this Keveh that the NKJCV says sold horses to Solomon ?
"Keveh", assuming it is geographic reference, would not be the only geographic reference in Scripture that is now baffling. The fact that there is a slight difference in spelling in the two verses indicates that it was a foreign city and so rarely mentioned in Biblical times that the spelling of its name in Hebrew was not a settled matter.
Quote:
Afaik, no Hebraic commentator or source saw this as a locale reference.
By the same token, many (perhaps most, maybe all) Hebraic sources and commentators did not see this as a mention of linen.
As a person who speaks three languages I know for a fact that multiple translations of the same phrase can indeed be ALL correct!
Then as a person who speaks three languages, (not one of them Greek or Hebrew), you know that this is not pertinent. There is a difference between words in a semantic range and two totally unrelated words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
As for the verses and linen yarn .. that will be its own post. These are fascinating verses, I think the biggest problem the modernist (who tries to attack the pure King James Bible) has here is that they buy some linen clothing at Filenes and they do not understand the ancient trade and needs.
Here comes some more subjectivity.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
1 Kings 10:28
And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn:
the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price.
And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver,
and an horse for an hundred and fifty: and so for all the kings of the Hittites,
and for the kings of Syria, did they bring them out by their means.
An interesting addition, conveniently unmentioned by tricky Ricky.
The Geneva Bible 1599 :
1 Kings 10:28
Also Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and fine linen:
the King's merchants received the linen for a price.
Yes, the Geneva is often an excellent Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
"Keveh", assuming it is geographic reference, would not be the only geographic reference in Scripture that is now baffling.
Considering it would have to be a location that was involved with the horse trade with Solomon, it should surely be recognizable.
Most 'baffling' references are simply a name without a reference. Although the 'baffling' is simply more than one locale, needing more research, like Ur of the Chaldees. Do you have some similar 'baffling' references to Keveh, very recognizable aspects yet not even a theoretical locale anywhere known ?
And why Kevah ? There are about five different names offered in various versions and editions, why have one that even by modern archaeological and historical knowledge makes no geographical sense. Iin addition to having no Hebraic support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
The fact that there is a slight difference in spelling in the two verses indicates that it was a foreign city and so rarely mentioned in Biblical times that the spelling of its name in Hebrew was not a settled matter.
Yes the vowels could easily be a bit different, conceivably even a consonants. That said, is there any location at all that has ever been found that matches up to the proposed name and description ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
By the same token, many (perhaps most, maybe all) Hebraic sources and commentators did not see this as a mention of linen.
Actually the McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia says specifically :
"The sense derived in the A.V. is derived from Jewish interpreters"
Gersonides is clearly one.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-22-2009 at 09:38 AM.
Since Avery does have the ISBE available through his Google Toolbar, I thought it would be worthwhile to show this:
KUE: "The country from which Solomon imported horses, probably the ancient name for eastern Cilicia. Kue was one of the small neo-Hittite states of northern Syria and southern Anatolia...(3:52)
And from a source not available to Avery through the Google toolbar is the Anchor Bible Dictionary:
KUE (PLACE) [Heb qōweh (קֹוֶה); qōwē˒ (קֹוֵא)]. Name of a Neo-Hittite kingdom which occupied a fertile lowland area in SE Turkey (classical Cilicia campestris) during the first half of the 1st millennium b.c.e. It was bordered by the Taurus mountains on the N, by the Mediterranean on the S, and by the Amanus Mountains in the E. Access was controlled by the Cilician Gates in the Taurus Mountains and by the Syro-Cilician Gates in the Amanus range. Kue (Akk qu-we) was inhabited by Luwian and Hurrian populations which sometimes called themselves Danunites, a word related to Adana, the name of a chief city. Kue has been subsumed under various names, including Kizzuwatna in the Hittite period (1650–1200) and Cilicia (Gk Kilikia—cf. Ḫilakku, the Akk name of an ethnic group in Kue) in the Greco-Roman period. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (4:102).
Perhaps we should just keep this information to ourselves by not quoting this post. I am interested in watching the flailing of one who relies on the Google toolbar and prefers subjectivity.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
And why Kevah ? There are about five different names offered in various versions and editions, why have one that even by modern archaeological and historical knowledge makes no geographical sense. Iin addition to having no Hebraic support.
Fact is, we have plenty of conservative materials giving great information about Kue. Why does Avery have to fish around for Google snippets from unsaved Rabbis to confirm the existence of a city? Amazing!
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Bridges and Weigle claimed; "The phrase 'linen yarn' is a conjecture as to the meaning of the Hebrew word miqweh--a conjecture derived from the Geneva Bible (1560), which rendered it 'fine linen'" (KJV Word Book, p. 204). Farstad commented: "The 'linen yarn' of the KJV does not even seem to be a very good guess in the context of horse trading" (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 45).
The Liberty Bible Commentary noted: "Verse 28 is inaccurate as it stands in the AV. Linen yarn (Heb. miqweh) should rather be, 'from Kue,' or Cilicia" (p. 666). Leon Wood maintained: "The Hebrew word, miqweh of 1 Kings 10:28 (translated 'linen yarn' in KJV) is best taken in reference to the Asia Minor country, Kue, and so translated 'from Kue'" (Survey of Israel's History, p. 292, footnote 21). Howard Vos wrote: 'Solomon imported his horses from Egypt and Kue or Cilicia (v. 28), the plain in southeast Asia Minor" (1, 2 Kings, p. 81). Jack Lewis asserted: “’Que’ (1 Kings 10:28) is a place in Cilicia where Solomon got his horses rather than being ‘linen yarn’” (English Bible, p. 47). Bridges and Weigle pointed out: "Kue was the fertile coastal plain in the southeast portion of Asia Minor, known in the New Testament as Cilicia" (KJV Word Book, p. 204). They noted: “Assyrian cuneiform records uncovered by archaelogy have now shown that Tyndale and Coverdale were correct” (Ibid.). Many other translators and Bible scholars have agreed with Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers in thinking that this Hebrew word refers to a geographical place.
Because those on this board profess that the English Authorized Version is the word of God and that unequivocally. They profess that their only objection is with the "ONLYISM" of KJVO and not with the AV itself. If their profession is true and not feigned it would mean they believe the AV to be the very word of God. As the word of God every word is true and to be believed, not doubted. This profession says nothing about other versions. As a person who speaks three languages I know for a fact that multiple translations of the same phrase can indeed be ALL correct!
Brent/Mitex, as I'm sure you know, non-KJVO folks don't have difficulty with recognizing that there remain issues of uncertainty both as to the exact original text in places, and as to translation, especially for words which may occur but once or have meanings which may vary according to context.
For you to say "...those on this board profess that the English Authorized Version is the word of God and that unequivocally..." seems to imply that you are assuming non-KJVOs to hold some sort of inconsistency of belief, yet I think you're attempting to force everyone into a conceptual Procrustean bed here.
I do indeed believe that the KJV, the Geneva, and most modern Bible versions are all similarly the Word of God, while nonetheless recognizing that there remain areas of dispute and uncertainty and that all these versions differ in multiple ways.
I assume many other non-KJVO believers to accept a similar view.
Certain KJVOs apparently cannot tolerate this uncertainty, and insist that a single English version is and must be "jot and tittle" perfect.
You have stated that you are not KJVO, and you do seem to believe that other versions of the Bible (including in other languages) are or may be Scripture, since as you said, "...I know for a fact that multiple translations of the same phrase can indeed be ALL correct".
Are you again in effect simply arguing that the KJV deserves the utmost respect of believers?
Now for all of you who think linen is only Filene's and Marshall's. The context of linen yarn from Egypt at the time of Solomon is vital to our understanding. Emphasis added.
linen
In the time of Moses, the Pharaoh was arrayed in vestures of fine linen ; and on the tomb of Beni Hassan are shown the pulling of the flax and the ridding of the seeds by means of the ripple. It was the only material allowed for the garments of the priests and the bandaging of the dead. The ceremonial law of the Hebrews, also prescribes linen for the priests. Cotton was then unknown, except as a curiosity. Wool was regarded as foul. We read of the Egyptian linen in Genesis, Chronicles, Proverbs, and Ezekiel. Pharaoh arrayed Joseph in vestures of fine linen, 1716 B. c. The mixture of flax and wool in a fabric was forbidden (Lev. xix. 19). Solomon had linen yarn brought out of Egypt (1 Kings x. 28). "He [Aaron] shall put on the holy linen coat, and lie shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen miter shall he be attired ; these are holy garments." (continues)
1 Kings 10:28
And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn:
the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price.
The labour of Egypt was brought over to Israel in Solomon’s days. 1 Kings x. 28. “And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt and linen yarn. The king’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price;” which is agreeable to Isa. xlv. 14. “The labour of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia shall come over unto thee.” From that, 1 Kings x. 28. it is manifest that fine linen was very much used for clothing in Solomon’s days, at least by Solomon’s court, which is a fit emblem of spiritual purity and righteousness, and was manifestly used as such by priests and princes, and was abundantly used as such in the service of the sanctuary. This is agreeable to what is often spoken in the prophets of the extraordinary holiness and purity of the church in the Messiah’s days, and to Isa. lii. 1. “Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for henceforth there shall no more come unto thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”
Isaiah 45:14
Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.
Among the more important vegetable productions of Egypt, flax deserves the foremost mention. It was cultivated very extensively both for the oil which was expressed from it, and for the manufacture of linen. It is mentioned Ex. 9: 31, as one of the large and important crops smitten down by the plague of hail. " And the flax and the barley were smitten, for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was boiled." The manufacture of it is referred to in Ex. 20: 6, 36, and in other passages, in the phrase " fine twined linen." Also in Isaiah 19: 9, " Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave net works shall be confounded." It was also an article of foreign commerce. Solomon made large and regular importations of it, 1 Kings 10: 28, " And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn ; the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price." So Prov. 7: 16, " fine linen of Egypt." Ezekiel speaks of it as imported by the Tyrians and commonly used by them, 27:7, " Fine linen with bordered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail." The manufacture was of a very early date, and the wearing of it a matter of courtly use and luxury in the days of Joseph. (continues)
Proverbs 7:16
I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry,
with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.
Ezekiel 27:7
Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt
was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail;
blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was that which covered thee.
Isaiah 19:9
Moreover they that work in fine flax,
and they that weave networks,
shall be confounded.
Flax seems to have been put to various uses, as in the preparation of linen clothing, curtains, ephods, girdles, mitres, bonnets, ropes, and wicks. In many passages in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Chronicles allusions are made to the use of linen, and fine linen, in the formation of the priests' garments and of the hangings of the tabernacle. Samuel ministered before the Lord with a linen ephod (1 Sam. ii. 18). David danced before the ark, girded with a linen ephod (2 Sam. vi. 14). Jeremiah was told by the Lord to get a linen girdle, and put it upon his loins (Jer. xiii. 1). Solomon had linen yarn brought out of Egypt (1 Kings x. 28 ; 2 Chron. i. 16). Ezekiel speaks of a cord or measuring-line of flax (Ezek. xl. 3). Hosea also refers to flax as used for making garments (Hos. ii. 5, 9). (continues)
Matthew 12:20
A bruised reed shall he not break,
and smoking flax shall he not quench,
till he send forth judgment unto victory
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-22-2009 at 11:04 AM.
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.
Linear Mode
