Logos 1560 always post facts and useful information. Perhaps you do not like his post's because he is not KJVOnly.
Did a KJV translator make use of Codex Vaticanus text?
- Thread starter logos1560
- Start date
Yes. People noticed it was missing from codex Leningradis, the main Hebrew Text used in our day. So they thought it was not in the Hebrew. Why be sour over the mistake? There was no intent to decieve by Price or anyone else. Why add the propaganda and hopla? It's not necessary.
And being in the LXX, Syraic, Vulgate would have only reinforced the translators decision.
And being in the LXX, Syraic, Vulgate would have only reinforced the translators decision.
The information is not simply false because this misinformed poster makes an unproven allegation.
This edit per mod t the quotation specifically and directly stated "Masoretic text", not Hebrew text. The earlier printed editions of the Hebrew Old Testament text are not called the Masoretic text so the quotation would not refer to them; therefore, those Hebrew text editions would not make the statement false as this bogus allegation incorrectly tries to suggest.
Several or even many KJV-only authors have referred to the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayim as "the Masoretic text".
D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). Waite wrote: “We do want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek text that God has preserved for us and from which the King James Bible was taken the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew and the Traditional received Textus Receptus Greek” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite asserted: “The Masoretic Hebrew Text is the ONLY text to follow in the Old Testament! All others must be rejected!“ (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. xiii). Waite wrote: “The Hebrew Old Testament to use is that which underlies the King James Bible. It is the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25 which was the standard for the next 400 years” (Critical Answer to James Price‘s, p. 83). H. D. Williams indicated that the traditional Hebrew text is “the Masoretic, Ben Chayyim, Second Great Rabbinic (not the first) edition Hebrew text published by Daniel Bomberg” (Word-for-Word, p. xix). Dennis Kwok claimed: “The King James Old Testament is translated from the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text (Ben Chayyim)“ (Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 77). In the introductory “definitions” in the KJV-only book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them that is edited by Kent Brandenburg, this is stated: “the Old Testament text behind the King James Version is the Ben Chayyim MT” (p. 11). Thomas Holland wrote: “It was his [referring to Jacob ben Chayyim] text that was used by the translators of the King James Version for their work in the Old Testament” (Crowned, p. 114). David Cloud referred to “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text” and also referred to “the importance of having all the words of God” … “preserved for us in the Masoretic Hebrew” (Faith, pp. 170, 371). James Sightler maintained that “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” “was used for the KJV” (Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 272). Michael Bates wrote: “The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text is the Hebrew Text underlying the KJV” (Inspiration, p. 341). James Kahler wrote: “This work, known as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, the Daniel Bomberg edition, or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, is the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament of the King James Version was translated” (Charted History, p. 10). Steve Combs maintained that “the source text of the King James Bible was the Hebrew Masoretic text edited by Jacob Ben Chayim” (Practical Theology, p. 102). In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman wrote that “we shall accept Jacob Ben Hayyim’s text (Bomberg, 1524) as reliable” (p. vi). David W. Daniels wrote: “The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the ‘Bomberg Text’” (Answers to your Bible Version Questions, p. 178). Tim Fellure claimed that “God raised up Daniel Bomberg and Jacob Ben Chayyim to produce the standard Old Testament Masoretic text” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 125). Tim Fellure asserted that “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text stood unrivalled for over four hundred years as the only acceptable Hebrew Bible” (p. 133). Concerning sources used for making the KJV, Fellure wrote: “The primary Old Testament text was Ben Chayyim Second Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25” (p. 175). James Rasbeary wrote: “The King James Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” (What’s Wrong, p. 48). An article entitled “How We Got our English Bible” in the fourth edition of The Rock of Ages Study Bible asserted that the KJV “is the only translation based on the ben Chayyim Hebrew text” (p. xxiv).
Last edited by a moderator:
Does this statement arrogantly assume a supposedly perfect ability to read another person's mind?
Last edited by a moderator:
As already accurately and soundly pointed out, Hebrew scholar and Bible translator James D. Price was properly engaged in answering D. A. Waite's book Defending the King James Bible. D. A. Waite is supposedly the most scholarly KJV-only author. There was nothing wrong at all in Dr. Price taking the term "Masoretic Text" with the meaning as used by D. A. Waite himself in answering Waite's claims. There was no deception or con in using the term "Masoretic Text" with the same meaning as the KJV-only author D. A. Waite used it.
D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). Waite wrote: “We do want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek text that God has preserved for us and from which the King James Bible was taken the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew and the Traditional received Textus Receptus Greek” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite asserted: “The Masoretic Hebrew Text is the ONLY text to follow in the Old Testament! All others must be rejected!“ (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. xiii). Waite wrote: “The Hebrew Old Testament to use is that which underlies the King James Bible. It is the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25 which was the standard for the next 400 years” (Critical Answer to James Price‘s, p. 83). D. A. Waite indicated that the view that "the Second Rabbinic Bible is an inerrant reproduction of the original manuscripts" is his "position completely" or that it was a "perfect Masoretic text" is his "belief exactly" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 41). Waite contended that “the difference between the King James Bible and all the other versions and perversions is that the King James Bible translates what the Hebrew says” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 22).
D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). Waite wrote: “We do want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek text that God has preserved for us and from which the King James Bible was taken the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew and the Traditional received Textus Receptus Greek” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite asserted: “The Masoretic Hebrew Text is the ONLY text to follow in the Old Testament! All others must be rejected!“ (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. xiii). Waite wrote: “The Hebrew Old Testament to use is that which underlies the King James Bible. It is the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25 which was the standard for the next 400 years” (Critical Answer to James Price‘s, p. 83). D. A. Waite indicated that the view that "the Second Rabbinic Bible is an inerrant reproduction of the original manuscripts" is his "position completely" or that it was a "perfect Masoretic text" is his "belief exactly" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 41). Waite contended that “the difference between the King James Bible and all the other versions and perversions is that the King James Bible translates what the Hebrew says” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 22).
Ginsburg's notes in his TBS and B&FBS editions, and his comments in his monumental Introduction, are limited to printed editions prior to Ben-Hayim (1525), and there is (as far as I know) no catalogue of Hebrew Bibles comparable to Reuss's catalogue of Greek NTs, so we are mostly in the dark about the hundreds of Hebrew editions churned out since Ben-Hayim. Presumably every one of those editions strived to be a massoretic edition but there is no single text in existence which can be called THE massoretic text, only a smattering of mss and editions which can each be called A massoretic text, and which have minute, almost microscopic, differences from each other. The verses in Joshua 21 are examples of those minute differences. It is unfortunate that the two most celebrated exemplars - the Leningrad Codex and the Ben-Hayim edition - both lack those verses, but while they are authorities they are not Final Authorities.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Without the context this tells us nothing.
Waite is using the scholarly definition of emendation.
Not the absurd rigged nonsense from James Price.
Your opinion is wrong. You dodge and avoid the facts.
James Price gave a definition of emendation in relationship to how D. A. Waite used the word emend concerning the traditional Masoretic Text edited by ben Chayyim. He had read Waite's book Defending the KJB and was responding to it while you likely have not read Waite's book.
D. A. Waite wrote: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself. As we’ve pointed out before, the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE is the traditional Masoretic text, the 2nd Rabbinic Bible, Daniel Bomberg Edition, edited by Ben Chayyim in 1524-25” (Defending the King James Bible, p. 38).
James D. Price's statement "Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg second edition, edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus" (King James Onlyism, p. 280) could easily be understood to be derived from Waite's two statements [that were in agreement with other similar assertions by Waite], and it would be using "emend" in the same sense that Waite clearly used it.
Price demonstrates that he had read and understood Waite's book while a certain misinformed accuser likely has not read it and may not understand what Waite asserted.
James D. Price's statement "Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg second edition, edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus" (King James Onlyism, p. 280) could easily be understood to be derived from Waite's two statements [that were in agreement with other similar assertions by Waite], and it would be using "emend" in the same sense that Waite clearly used it.
Price demonstrates that he had read and understood Waite's book while a certain misinformed accuser likely has not read it and may not understand what Waite asserted.
It is the evident consensus that the Second Rabbinic Bible of Ben-Hayim and the Leningrad Codex (and possibly the surviving pages of the Aleppo Codex) constitute THE massoretic tradition against which all other texts will be measured. I quibble about this but I am obviously in a small minority.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Consensus of Hebrew Bible / Masoretic Text scholars.
Or a partial consensus of KJB scholars?
And how could three differing texts all be “THE masoretic tradition”?
Remember, there are hundreds of mss. and printed editions that are largely identical to the three mentioned. Would you try to place them outside the Masoretic tradition? As done by Rick?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Not my view, or that of my AV-defender friends.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Are you saying that James Price wrote in detail on the verses, but was simply ignorant of the Hebrew ms. and printed edition ? So it was just a “mistake” from ignorance?
And I just want to first confirm that this is your thinking
.Would a non-thinking or inconsistent thinking KJV-only advocate be really interested in knowing any Bible-believer's consistent scripturally-based thinking?
Does someone who has not completely read Dr. Price's book indicate that he sincerely wants to know his thinking?
It is clear that Dr. Price provided a sound response to D. A. Waite's stated thinking regardless of any inconsistent, unproven allegations by uninformed KJV-only advocates. Are unproven KJV-only allegations mistakes from ignorance?
D. A. Waite wrote: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself. As we’ve pointed out before, the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE is the traditional Masoretic text, the 2nd Rabbinic Bible, Daniel Bomberg Edition, edited by Ben Chayyim in 1524-25” (Defending the King James Bible, p. 38).
Does someone who has not completely read Dr. Price's book indicate that he sincerely wants to know his thinking?
It is clear that Dr. Price provided a sound response to D. A. Waite's stated thinking regardless of any inconsistent, unproven allegations by uninformed KJV-only advocates. Are unproven KJV-only allegations mistakes from ignorance?
D. A. Waite wrote: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself. As we’ve pointed out before, the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE is the traditional Masoretic text, the 2nd Rabbinic Bible, Daniel Bomberg Edition, edited by Ben Chayyim in 1524-25” (Defending the King James Bible, p. 38).
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I surely do defend my positions again and again, e.g. the wonderful heavenly witnesses verse.
However, part of proper defense is exposing any con men, and their supporters trying to given them cover.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
What nonsense. They were not beholden to what Donald Waite or James Price said 500 years later. There is NO place where any AV translator said that the Ben Hayim was their main Hebrew Masoretic text edition. And the facts on the ground say no.
Plus, you flunk the logic. Emendations are not made to a singular edition, they are made in variance to all the evidences.
You just made that up, using the blunders of Waite and Price.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
All being discussed on its own thread, currently page 4.
the James Price con job accusing the AV of Hebrew Bible emendations
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...sing-the-av-of-hebrew-bible-emendations.6695/
the James Price con job accusing the AV of Hebrew Bible emendations
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...sing-the-av-of-hebrew-bible-emendations.6695/
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Conan, I am still trying to figure out your position.
It looked like you simply considered these blunders and lies from James Price to be simply a "mistake".
Who are the "people" who were dependent on Codex Leningradensis? James Price?
I asked you about this above.
Are you saying that James Price wrote in detail on the verses, but was simply ignorant of the Hebrew mss. and printed editions ? So it was just a “mistake” from ignorance? And I just want to first confirm that this is your thinking
Thanks!