You know those that looked for a proper name (seeing the LXX or the Vulgate) considered Cuo to be a part of Egypt for a long time, like a customs place. Geographically this is 100x more sensible than Kue (which messes up the geography and language flow of the verses) except that no such place exists.
Now he is back to denying Kue's existence? What confusion!
Avery's first position: "There was no such thing" [i.e., cuneiform records attesting to the existence of Kue]
Avery's second postion: "Definitely there are realms named Kue, or similar, whether Cilicia or neo-Hittite. The Cilician Kue participated in the Battle of Qarpar in 853 AD"
Avery's third position: "...no such place exists"
KJVO confusion....
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Tamar - could you explain why Solomon would buy horses, import them, from the distant northern regions (e.g. the Hittite region) and then export them to the distant northern region ?
To begin with, I do not know where this "Kue" was, whether it was the same place as other ancient references with similar names, etc., so I don't know how far or in what direction it was from Jerusalem.
Second, although the verse says the horses were "brought out" this does not definitely say that the horses were driven all the way back to Jerusalem. Even into the 19th century, such as the Crimean War, it was very common for armies to buy many or most of their horses in or around the regions where the battles were being fought, rather than bring all the required horses all the way from their home countries.
To begin with, I do not know where this "Kue" was, whether it was the same place as other ancient references with similar names, etc.,
There is no matching Bible reference at all, which already makes it dubious. Combined with this being an 'emendation' (TDOT) to extract the name from miqveh, compounding the difficulty. And this particular attempted extraction was never 'discovered' until after they identified Kue as a region akin to Celicia. And the area is not historically identified as a horse-breeding area. And Egypt alone fits very well, the earlier harumphs about Egypt not being a horse exporter now fully dissassembled. So we start with about five problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
so I don't know how far or in what direction it was from Jerusalem.
You know which way is Egypt (south and west) and which way is the Hittite and Syrian regions (north). So you know that the geography works perfectly with simply Egypt and the Hittite and Syrian regions, as per the Geneva and KJB and Reformation Hebraic commentators.
And also various modern version Hebraic commentators, those who tried to replace 'linen yarn' with drove and 5 or more other difficult translations. None of those attempts have the geography and historical mishamash, although they have grammatical and other difficulties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamar
Second, although the verse says the horses were "brought out" this does not definitely say that the horses were driven all the way back to Jerusalem. .
This is the drop shipment approach, which is not hinted on in the text and has huge problems trying to explain the two opposite geography sources for the horses.
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.
Many modern versions start making "at a price" to refer to a comparison of Kue and Egyptian prices ! "Wholesale prices at Kue" .. do you see that in the text ?
Then notice how in verse 17 only Egypt is given as a source for both chariots and horses .. yet another problem. What happened to Kue ? The source drops off the Bible radar. Then with the missing Kue you run into a dual source for horses -- yet only a single source for chariots -- in the new explanation. And then you have one horse source passing through Jerusalem from Egypt, with others being drop-shipped, perhaps by one theory, from Kue. Is that really in the Bible text ?
And none of which works well with history, political alliances, common sense, commerce or geography.
e.g most significantly .. the Hittites and Syrians could simply buy from Kue, why have a middleman ? The Hittites would have been virtual neighbors (if they did not overlap Celicia). Notice that the Hittite kingdom, in this map, even includes Celicia, although I doubt we know the exact extent at the time of Solomon.
.. if the NY Rangers want to buy hockey pucks from the Canadiens, are we really going to ask Hugo Chavez or the Brits to arrange the deal ? And this situation in the text is much simpler than modern commerce, simply (per the Kue theory) needing horses from a neighbor.
All this is if Kue had been a horse-breeding region, which is not documented historically, another super problem. And there was not a known southward trading route from Celicia, there were problems with access through the other regions with special care being needed for horses .. some even say they must have used the port from Kue to try to pigeon-hole some sense out of all this.
The problems are monumental, humongous, intractable and unsolvable. Which is why they switched to the Musri emendation fabrication.
Anyway, I do appreciate that you do try to understand the text, even if at times you seem to fall into the modernist pits.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-03-2009 at 07:23 AM.
To begin with, I do not know where this "Kue" was, whether it was the same place as other ancient references with similar names, etc., so I don't know how far or in what direction it was from Jerusalem.
Tamar, I know you prefer to stick with the language. However, we have very clear evidence that Kue existed and where it was located. So suggesting that you do not know whether Kue was a person or where this place was located will simply create more problems for you in this discussion. Perhaps you can look up thread at the material or find some other primary sources which discuss Kue. There is no real debate about this.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
There is no matching Bible reference at all, which already makes it dubious. Combined with this being an 'emendation' (TDOT) to extract the name from miqveh, compounding the difficulty. And this particular attempted extraction was never 'discovered' until after they identified Kue as a region akin to Celicia. And the area is not historically identified as a horse-breeding area. And Egypt alone fits very well, the earlier harumphs about Egypt not being a horse exporter now fully dissassembled. So we start with about five problems.
Well...Avery, the one who does not know Kue existed, has certainly painted himself into a corner... An "extraction from the name from miqveh" what a farce!
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
For those interested in the geography, take a look at the following two maps.
First a map of Kue (Tarsus).
Kue (Tarsus) http://bibleatlas.org/kue.htm
"The chief city of Cilicia, the southeastern portion of Asia Minor.. lake Rhegma"
Notice the water inlet (allowing a port), the city of Adana and you can look at the "regional map" for a bigger picture. They mix and match two errant translations, par for the modernist course .
Now look at a more reduced map of the Hittite kingdom than the previous one.
You can again use Adana as a reference. Notice that this map of the Hittite region actually includes the region with Kue ! And even if for some reason Kue was separated, they would be a close neighbor and a next-door trading partner and it would be absurd to involve Solomon in the proposed horse-trading (and the Hittites would have lots of regions from which to garner horses, the Bible tells us they traded for the Egyptian horses and chariots).
Yet another absurdity.
The only puzzle is how this nonsense got any mileage.
Unless you actually know what to search, you probably will not find it.
Google will not prevent one from making wrong assumptions.
Google, though it is making great progress, still has limits on serving up copyrighted primary source material.
Avery must either not be googling "king solomon trade routes" or his assumptions prevent him from doing so, or he simply lacks primary source material. I think all three are at play.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Unless you actually know what to search, you probably will not find it.
Google will not prevent one from making wrong assumptions.
Google, though it is making great progress, still has limits on serving up copyrighted primary source material.
Avery must either not be googling "king solomon trade routes" or his assumptions prevent him from doing so, or he simply lacks primary source material. I think all three are at play.
“The most fundamental presupposition of the philological method in Biblical exegesis is that all exegesis must be done in the original languages if it is to be competent and trustworthy exegesis…
The interpreter who interprets Scripture only in his modern language is always working with a linguistic veil between himself and original texts. And he never knows how thin or how thick this veil is.” – Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation
Yep, actually I agree with every point above that you quoted about google searches. They are very excellent, they have limitations, they require their own skill-set and dedication and often it is helpful to supplement them with additional checking, including university libraries and your own book purchases and focused inquiries.
As for "king solomon trade routes" there is no doubt that Solomon traded with Syria and with the Hittite region, which includes parts of modern-day Turkey, that is even in our specific verses in discussion in the two books. The superb Egyptian horses and chariots were brought to those regions.
1 Chronicles 1:17-18
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.
1 Kings 10:29
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.
Nothing real complicated about bringing forth horses and chariots and fine linens from Egypt and using some in Israel and also trading north for cedar, fir, pine, foodstuffs, gold, metals from the mines of the Bulgar Dagh, or this and that.
Now a lot of google references are modernist stupor circular, based on mistakenly reading Kue into the two verses, so any such mistaken references have to be modified unto truth. Since Kue in the two verses is a textual and cultural and geographical internal disaster. The text has to be fabricated-emended in as an orphan geographical reference, there is no indication of Kue as a horse-breeding area and Egypt alone fits perfectly as the horse and chariot source and the Bible text becomes absurdly difficult in multiple ways, as if written by wrong-way Corrigan.
However that does not mean there was no trade with Kue, since by simple geography and history it would likely be one of the many Hittite regions mentioned in our two verse sections above, which is why I included the map links.
Since Solomon brought horses and chariots to the Syrian and Hitttite regions he clearly would trade unto the north. Although any concept of using ship movement for the horses going north is dubious and could use some additional pizazz. Solomon's horse and chariot traffic was simply south to north, he did not have horse trains passing in the night.
(Unless you are stuck with some of the modern versions.)
And Solomon surely was not trading with a Musri in the verses rather than Mitzraim/Egypt.
What a modern version disaster.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-04-2009 at 01:31 PM.
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
