the James Price con job accusing the AV of Hebrew Bible emendations

Conan

Active member
Your opinion is not true.

Someone who blindly accepts the blunders involved in human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning does not understand and accept the truth.
That is the bottom line. Some KJVOnlyist in some weird way think that God likes their dishonesty. They confuse dishonesty with belief. They deny all facts and twist their meaning to what they want them to mean.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Quote box removed
Your diversionary tactics to avoid the specific truth about your acceptance of false KJV-only teaching are on display. You dodge and avoid specifics that would conflict with your over-generalized, oversimplified KJV-only assumptions that depend upon fallacies.

It was soundly demonstrated that Dr. Price properly used the terms "Hebrew Masoretic text" and "emend" with the same meaning as KJV-only author D. A. Waite had used them since he was responding to Waite's book. You use improper carnal smear tactics to try to avoid the truth that Dr. Price exposed the erroneous allegations of D. A. Waite's KJV-only reasoning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

logos1560

Well-known member
You did not give to the context, so I came to a reasonable conclusion, albeit one I should have held back.
You jumped to an unreasonable, wrong conclusion, not a reasonable conclusion since you already had been informed and knew from other direct statements by D. A. Waite what he meant by "the traditional Masoretic text." What Waite meant was already very clear without the added next sentence since he had already directly stated on page 27 of the same book what he identified as being "the traditional 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).

D. A. Waite wrote: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself.” (Defending the King James Bible, p. 38).

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).

D. A. Waite asserted: “We do not favor EMENDATION of that Masoretic Hebrew Text by way of use of (1) other ancient versions, (2) Dead Sea Scrolls, (3) the Septuagint, (4) the Latin Vulgate, or (5) PURE CONJECTURE” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1979, p. 2).
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
In his negative review or response to Dr. Price's book, D. A. Waite asked: "What does Price mean by emendation"? (A Critical Answer to James Price's King James Onlyism, p. 108).

D. A. Waite ignored and avoided the fact that James D. Price gave a clear definition for what he meant by emendation, and that Price's definition was actually based on Waite's own uses and meanings of "emend" and "emendation" and of "the traditional Masoretic text". Does Waite not know what he himself meant by emendation?
 
Top