+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: qere - ketiv

  1. Default qere - ketiv

    Hi Folks,

    Some interesting discussions and resources.

    How does the KJV handle the Kethiv/Qere issue?
    http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bib...ere-issue.html


    And note the Brian Tegart accusation page is now busted.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    19

    Default preservation paradigm prerequisite

    Hello Steve,

    It is clear that there are cases where the KJV translators favor the qere (spoken) over the kevit (written). From what I have read on this other forum, you appear to agree with that. Am I right to say that your explanation of this phenomena is that the translators were providentially guided to choose qere readings over ketiv readings?

    If this is how you explain this phenomena, I am seeing that the conclusion of Bible preservation via the KJV requires belief in the KJV-Bible preservation in order to explain such discordant information. Also, if the KJV Bible translators sourced such resources as the Latin and the Peshitta, where was the preserved Bible prior to that time since it could not be in the KJV? Was the Bible preserved eclectically in multiple textual traditions? How is such a position different than one a person could hold today....that the Bible is preserved in multiple textual traditions?

    kol tuv,
    Peter

  3. Default no fellowship between light and darkness

    Hi Folks,

    Quote Originally Posted by Psander View Post
    It is clear that there are cases where the KJV translators favor the qere (spoken) over the kevit (written). From what I have read on this other forum, you appear to agree with that.
    Seems to be a simple fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psander View Post
    Am I right to say that your explanation of this phenomena is that the translators were providentially guided to choose qere readings over ketiv readings?
    Providential guidance also involves the practicle utilization of sensible evidence, as was shown in the example of the thread.

    We have the similar situation in the decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus and Bezae and the various NT decisions of the King James Bible translators. There are times there is evidence on both sides.

    (eg 1 John 2:23b is not in the Greek Majority text and is mixed in Textus Receptus editions - there are a number of words and phrases that could be studied, often far more significant than most of the qere/ketiv issues.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Psander View Post
    If this is how you explain this phenomena, I am seeing that the conclusion of Bible preservation via the KJV requires belief in the KJV-Bible preservation in order to explain such discordant information.
    What was 'discordant' about seeing that the Tanach text has similar textual distinctions as the NT ?
    The main differences are:

    1) The corrupt Tanach texts (e.g LXX, Samaritan oddball DSS) are not considered relevant as tools to change the text (ie. replace MT readings with full support). Unlike the usage of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the NT, where two manuscripts can seek to fight hundreds of MSS with an abundance of supporting evidences. Although occasionally there is minor politicking to overhaul the proper Masoretic Text textual priority, the politics have gotten no scholarship mileage. The Received Text of the Tanach has similar status as we (KJB and TR) hold the Received Text of the NT.

    2) The differences within the Masoretic are much smaller in import than those in the NT, sometimes, like Genesis 49:13 so close to microscopic that the evidence can be viewed in multiple ways

    3) The differences have a specific historical method of notation and analysis in the Masorah


    Quote Originally Posted by Psander View Post
    Also, if the KJV Bible translators sourced such resources as the Latin and the Peshitta,
    When there were variants in the Received Texts, a manuscript division, and also when Hebrew words had uncertain meanings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psander View Post
    where was the preserved Bible prior to that time since it could not be in the KJV? Was the Bible preserved eclectically in multiple textual traditions?
    For the NT, precisely, the text was scattered, essentially in the Greek and the Latin, and the Reformation scholarship gathered that which had been scattered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psander View Post
    How is such a position different than one a person could hold today....that the Bible is preserved in multiple textual traditions?
    Simply because the Reformation gathering leads to the pure Received Texts, the providential hand of God was upon the development of the Reformation Bible.

    Now conceptually you could try to set up a debate before 1500 -- "Greek vs. Latin" -- to be some sort of analogy .. however this was never the historical debate ! ... the Bible labourers knew the truth was "Greek and Latin". (While some rcc claimed "Latin only" which led to the Vulgate defeat in the Reformation Battle of the Bible).

    At this point the battle is over. And there is no fellowship possible between light (the pure Reformation Bible) and darkness (the corrupt alexandrian counter-reformation text). There is no way to rehabilitate the decrepit scholarship and MSS behind the alternative texts. Their scholarship was born in rebellion and the fruits are textual and scribal blunders upon human pretensions and conceits.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •