KJVO tenets

Shoonra said:
nann


I am not clear on how you can present "a solid majority" of Masoretic mss as evidence. There are several hundred (perhaps more than a thousand) Masoretic mss, most of which have not been adequately collated. Ginsburg described 60 of them in his Introduction, and used 75 in the sidenotes to his big B&FBS edition (some of these mss covered only a portion of the Bible).

The Leningrad and Aleppo Codices are, for the moment, considered dispositive and they omit these verses - but printed Bibles insert the missing verses, usually in smaller type. I, personally, doubt the supremacy of the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices, and the B&FBS evidently also doubted it because, ca. 1952, they got Norman Snaith to work up a new Hebrew edition (to replace the Letteris edition) and he used Or. 2626-28, which Ginsburg described as "one of the finest specimens of Sephardic calligraphy and illumination". About the same time, Koren, in Israel, was working up a beautifully printed Bible supposedly based on the Ben-Hayyim edition. All this even though the Leningrad Codex had been published as the main text of the 1937 Biblia Hebraica.
Click to expand...

I can't say I agree with everything but it is well referenced and reasoned. I would be nice to see something similar from Avery. It really would.....
 
Shoonra said:
I am not clear on how you can present "a solid majority" of Masoretic mss as evidence. There are several hundred (perhaps more than a thousand) Masoretic mss, most of which have not been adequately collated. Ginsburg described 60 of them in his Introduction, and used 75 in the sidenotes to his big B&FBS edition (some of these mss covered only a portion of the Bible).
Click to expand...

With Ginsburg you can see the clear majority have the two verses, since he indicates include or omit on every manuscript (from memory). His manuscripts give a solid sampling size.

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
"these two verses, are thus absolutely necessary for the truth and consistency of this chapter, are happily preserved in no less than 149 MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott, and upwards of 40; collated by De Rossi."

Adam Clarke again referencing Benjamin Kennicott:
See on this place my edition of the Hebrew Bible, where no less than one hundred and forty-nine copies are described, which happily preserve these verses, most clearly essential to the truth and consistency of this chapter. See also General Discourse, pp. 19, 26, 54."

Thus, your skepticism about the Leningrad and Aleppo pedestal is quite healthy.
 
Steven Avery said:
With Ginsburg you can see the clear majority have the two verses, since he indicates include or omit on every manuscript (from memory). His manuscripts give a solid sampling size.
Click to expand...

What memory? You have proven you don't have one. Don't make claims you "don't remember"..

Steven Avery said:
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
"these two verses, are thus absolutely necessary for the truth and consistency of this chapter, are happily preserved in no less than 149 MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott, and upwards of 40; collated by De Rossi."

Adam Clarke again referencing Benjamin Kennicott:
See on this place my edition of the Hebrew Bible, where no less than one hundred and forty-nine copies are described, which happily preserve these verses, most clearly essential to the truth and consistency of this chapter. See also General Discourse, pp. 19, 26, 54."

Thus, your skepticism about the Leningrad and Aleppo pedestal is quite healthy.
Click to expand...

So you can consult a commentary but not examine the raw evidence yourself?????
 
christ_undivided said:
What memory? You have proven you don't have one. Don't make claims you "don't remember"..
So you can consult a commentary but not examine the raw evidence yourself?????
Click to expand...

I went through the Ginsburg book, and the results were solidly for inclusion.

Interesting how you refuse to take a position on the three variants.

Nor have you offered even one helpful thought.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
"these two verses, are thus absolutely necessary for the truth and consistency of this chapter, are happily preserved in no less than 149 MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott, and upwards of 40; collated by De Rossi."

Adam Clarke again referencing Benjamin Kennicott:
See on this place my edition of the Hebrew Bible, where no less than one hundred and forty-nine copies are described, which happily preserve these verses, most clearly essential to the truth and consistency of this chapter. See also General Discourse, pp. 19, 26, 54."
Click to expand...

Not to disagree with you, but I would greatly appreciate the names, etc., of the books you are quoting, as I feel I should get copies.
 
Shoonra said:
Not to disagree with you, but I would greatly appreciate the names, etc., of the books you are quoting, as I feel I should get copies.
Click to expand...

Hi Shoonra, we have Adam Clarke, the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and what we can find from:

Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783)
Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi (1742-1831)

Adam Clarke (1762-1831) goes back to his 1811 Bible commentary, which was the same in the 1830s, with it showing up now in the Adam Clarke commentary sections on the verse. Here is the HTML commentary and the 1811 section.

ADAM CLARKE'S BIBLE COMMENTARY -
JOSHUA 21
https://godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejos21.htm
(Typos fixed, city of Reuben, remove a Deuteronomy, italics not inserted, remove hot links under words)

Verse 35. "Dimnah with her suburbs, &c."
It is well known to every Hebrew scholar that the two following verses are wholly omitted by the Masora; and are left out in some of the most correct and authentic Hebrew Bibles. Between critics there is no small controversy relative to the authenticity of these verses; and those who wish to see the arguments at large on both sides, must consult the Variae Lectiones of Deuteronomy Rossi on this place. Dr. Kennicott, who is a strenuous advocate for their authenticity argues thus in their behalf: "Verses 41 and 42 of this chapter tell us that the Levitical cities were forty-eight, and that they had been all as such described; so that they must have been all specified in this chapter: whereas now in all the Hebrew copies printed in full obedience to the Masora, which excludes two verses containing four of these cities, the number amounts only to forty-four. "The cities are first mentioned, in the general, as being thirteen and ten, with thirteen and twelve, which are certainly forty-eight. And yet when they are particularly named, ver. 13-19 gives thirteen cities; ver. 20-26 gives ten cities; ver. 27-33 gives thirteen; ver. 34-36 gives four cities; and ver. 35-36 gives four more, all which can make but forty-four. And what still increases the wonder is, that ver. 40 infers from the verses immediately preceding, that the cities allowed to the Merarites were twelve, though they here make eight only, unless we admit the four other cities expressed in those two verses, which have been rejected by that blind guide the Masora. In defiance of this authority these two verses, thus absolutely necessary, were inserted in the most early editions of the Hebrew text, and are found in Walton's Polyglot, as well as in our English Bible. But they have scarce ever been as yet printed completely, thus, And out of the tribe of Reuben, A CITY OF REFUGE FOR THE SLAYER, BEZER, IN THE WILDERNESS, with her suburbs, and Jahazah with her suburbs, Kedemoth with her suburbs, and Mephaath with her suburbs; four cities. See on this place my edition of the Hebrew Bible, where no less than one hundred and forty-nine copies are described, which happily preserve these verses, most clearly essential to the truth and consistency of this chapter. See also General Discourse, pp. 19, 26, 54." Though this reasoning of Dr. Kennicott appears very conclusive, yet there are so many and important variations among the MSS. that retain, and those that reject these verses, as to render the question of their authenticity very difficult to be determined. To Dr. Kennicott's one hundred and forty-nine MSS. which have these two verses, may be added upwards of forty collated by Rossi. Those who deny their authenticity say they have been inserted here from 1 Chron. vi. 78, 79, where they are found it is true, in general, but not exactly as they stand here, and in Dr. Kennicott's Hebrew Bible.

The Holy Bible: First book of Moses called Genesis-Fifth book of Moses called Deuteronomy (1811)
Adam Clarke
https://books.google.com/books?id=sGQ7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PT428
1685089954289.png
1685090027582.png

The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge goes from 1833 to 1910, when Reuben Archer Torrey was editor. This quote started as a commentary on the Joshua verse, and likely sources directly or indirectly to the Adam Clarke section above, so it does not really have much independent value. However, the phrase:

"thus absolutely necessary for the truth and consistency of this chapter"

looks to rewrite Adam Clarke a bit.

Tomorrow we can see what we have for the two sources, Benjamin Kennicott and Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi. Note the need for the exact Rossi name, as there are a few with similar names.
 
Last edited:
I am acquainted with Kennicott's work and also with de Rossi's (Wurthein spells it di Rossi). Both of them collected and collated scores of mss in the 18th century. I am grateful for the guidance to the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (is that the Torrey book?).
 
Shoonra said:
I am acquainted with Kennicott's work and also with de Rossi's (Wurthein spells it di Rossi). Both of them collected and collated scores of mss in the 18th century. I am grateful for the guidance to the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (is that the Torrey book?).
Click to expand...

What has this world come to when someone is relying upon Steven Avery for "direction"....

Clark, Kennicott and etc.... are all very late resources far removed from the introduction of the issue. They exclude relevant information necessary to understand the issue at hand.

Avery lives in "smoke and mirrors".....

I'll give some advice..... You can spend the rest of you life reading what others have to say about a topic or you can embrace the tangible evidence itself. I gave up chasing the whims found in "commentaries" a very long time ago.

I'm betting you're found things that you don't want to believe, thusly, you're searching for any shred/sliver of information from a commentary that might easy your feelings and give you a little peace.....

Avery has been doing this his entire life. One false narrative leads to another false narrative..... and before you know it.... you're endless lost in another person's make believe delusion.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Hi Shoonra, we have Adam Clarke, the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and what we can find from:

Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783)
Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi (1742-1831)

Adam Clarke (1762-1831) goes back to his 1811 Bible commentary, which was the same in the 1830s, with it showing up now in the Adam Clarke commentary sections on the verse. Here is the HTML commentary and the 1811 section.

ADAM CLARKE'S BIBLE COMMENTARY -
JOSHUA 21
https://godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejos21.htm
(Typos fixed, city of Reuben, remove a Deuteronomy, italics not inserted, remove hot links under words)

Verse 35. "Dimnah with her suburbs, &c."
It is well known to every Hebrew scholar that the two following verses are wholly omitted by the Masora; and are left out in some of the most correct and authentic Hebrew Bibles. Between critics there is no small controversy relative to the authenticity of these verses; and those who wish to see the arguments at large on both sides, must consult the Variae Lectiones of Deuteronomy Rossi on this place. Dr. Kennicott, who is a strenuous advocate for their authenticity argues thus in their behalf: "Verses 41 and 42 of this chapter tell us that the Levitical cities were forty-eight, and that they had been all as such described; so that they must have been all specified in this chapter: whereas now in all the Hebrew copies printed in full obedience to the Masora, which excludes two verses containing four of these cities, the number amounts only to forty-four. "The cities are first mentioned, in the general, as being thirteen and ten, with thirteen and twelve, which are certainly forty-eight. And yet when they are particularly named, ver. 13-19 gives thirteen cities; ver. 20-26 gives ten cities; ver. 27-33 gives thirteen; ver. 34-36 gives four cities; and ver. 35-36 gives four more, all which can make but forty-four. And what still increases the wonder is, that ver. 40 infers from the verses immediately preceding, that the cities allowed to the Merarites were twelve, though they here make eight only, unless we admit the four other cities expressed in those two verses, which have been rejected by that blind guide the Masora. In defiance of this authority these two verses, thus absolutely necessary, were inserted in the most early editions of the Hebrew text, and are found in Walton's Polyglot, as well as in our English Bible. But they have scarce ever been as yet printed completely, thus, And out of the tribe of Reuben, A CITY OF REFUGE FOR THE SLAYER, BEZER, IN THE WILDERNESS, with her suburbs, and Jahazah with her suburbs, Kedemoth with her suburbs, and Mephaath with her suburbs; four cities. See on this place my edition of the Hebrew Bible, where no less than one hundred and forty-nine copies are described, which happily preserve these verses, most clearly essential to the truth and consistency of this chapter. See also General Discourse, pp. 19, 26, 54." Though this reasoning of Dr. Kennicott appears very conclusive, yet there are so many and important variations among the MSS. that retain, and those that reject these verses, as to render the question of their authenticity very difficult to be determined. To Dr. Kennicott's one hundred and forty-nine MSS. which have these two verses, may be added upwards of forty collated by Rossi. Those who deny their authenticity say they have been inserted here from 1 Chron. vi. 78, 79, where they are found it is true, in general, but not exactly as they stand here, and in Dr. Kennicott's Hebrew Bible.

The Holy Bible: First book of Moses called Genesis-Fifth book of Moses called Deuteronomy (1811)
Adam Clarke
https://books.google.com/books?id=sGQ7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PT428
View attachment 4283
View attachment 4285

The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge goes from 1833 to 1910, when Reuben Archer Torrey was editor. This quote started as a commentary on the Joshua verse, and likely sources directly or indirectly to the Adam Clarke section above, so it does not really have much independent value. However, the phrase:

"thus absolutely necessary for the truth and consistency of this chapter"

looks to rewrite Adam Clarke a bit.

Tomorrow we can see what we have for the two sources, Benjamin Kennicott and Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi. Note the need for the exact Rossi name, as there are a few with similar names.
Click to expand...

You don't have anything that anyone needs nor can't readily be accessed apart from his "polluted" hands.

See how Avery revels in the idea of "leading someone to water"?????
 
Steven Avery said:
Nor have you offered even one helpful thought.
Click to expand...

I have. You're ignoring them.....

1. Stop endlessly looking for explanations that fit your desire narrative.
2. Stop accepting arguments from silence.
3. Accept the extant evidence just as it is..... without embellishment or conjecture.
4. Admit you've been wrong most of your adult life on the perfection of the KJV.

Pay close attention to #4......

Anyone that takes such a preposterous position as KJVOism.... should never be trusted.
 
christ_undivided said:
You don't have anything that anyone needs nor can't readily be accessed apart from his "polluted" hands.
See how Avery revels in the idea of "leading someone to water"?????
Click to expand...

You seem to be obsessed with my posting, yet you take no positions, and backtrack from the assertions (like the Isaiah manuscripts and the debate with no topic.)
 
christ_undivided said:
4. Admit you've been wrong most of your adult life on the perfection of the KJV.
Pay close attention to #4......
Click to expand...

Actually I read largely corruption versions from 1976 into the 1990s.
Including "Sacred Name" versions.

When I learned about the pure Bible, over some years, I admitted I had been wrong to use the corruption versions.
 
christ_undivided said:
Clark, Kennicott and etc.... are all very late resources far removed from the introduction of the issue. They exclude relevant information necessary to understand the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Christian David Ginsburg was a premier resource I referenced, however his number of manuscripts was far fewer than Kennicott.

If you have a post-Ginsburg collation of Joshua 21:36-37, why not post the reference?

If you have salient information missed by Kennicott and Clarke, why not post the information?
 
Steven Avery said:
You seem to be obsessed with my posting, yet you take no positions, and backtrack from the assertions (like the Isaiah manuscripts and the debate with no topic.)
Click to expand...

You're full of false claims. I am obsessed with the Truth. That is why I oppose you. It has nothing to do with being obsessed with you. Again. Your self centered nonsense has betrayed you.
 
Steven Avery said:
Actually I read largely corruption versions from 1976 into the 1990s.
Click to expand...

You've read corrupt version since you first read the KJV. There is no English edition that is perfect.

Steven Avery said:
Including "Sacred Name" versions.
Click to expand...

No one but you has claimed the "sacred title".....

Your message is clear.... STOP LOOKING... I'VE found the answer FOR YOU.... That is false teachers do. They want others to use them/their approved lists as their only sources of information.

Steven Avery said:
When I learned about the pure Bible, over some years, I admitted I had been wrong to use the corruption versions.
Click to expand...

Acts 8:32 doesn't match Isa 53:7 in the KJV. Your edition of choice isn't "perfect". Remember, we discussed this. You ran away from these facts.
 
Steven Avery said:
Christian David Ginsburg was a premier resource I referenced, however his number of manuscripts was far fewer than Kennicott.
Click to expand...

Neither author dealt adequately with the extant information. Which is why I don't follow commentaries/men.

Steven Avery said:
If you have a post-Ginsburg collation of Joshua 21:36-37, why not post the reference?
Click to expand...

Why "post"? Do you know what that word means? You're using late information.

Steven Avery said:
If you have salient information missed by Kennicott and Clarke, why not post the information?
Click to expand...

The fact you believe they're the only proper source of information shows how little you know concerning the subject. You read what you wanted to read from THEM. You found the narrative you were looking for and you STOPPED LOOKING.....

That is what someone does that has an agenda. They look for things to confirm their predisposition and then they STOP LOOKING.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top