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

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?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Rick Norris never dealt with the horrid blunder claim of James Price.

Joshua 21:36-37—The MT omits the verses, as does the Tgm. However, the King James Version added the verses because they are contained in three ancient versions, LXX, Vgt., and Syr.; and the inclusion of the verses is supported by the parallel passage in I Chronicles 6:63-64. The MT evidently lost these verses by scribal omission. The text was restored from the ancient versions.

The truth is simple, hundreds of Masoretic text manuscripts have the verses, it is a Majority reading.

The accusation that the learned men of the AV ignored the Masoretic text sources, and instead went to other language versions, is totally false. The evidence within the Masoretic text sources was far more than sufficient.

Rick Norris is trying to pretend to defend one of the worst blunders in modern Bible textual writing. Now, it is true that Price blunders repeatedly in this section but for simplicity all we have to do is focus on Joshua 21:36-37.
 
Last edited:

Conan

Active member
Steve Avery denies the KJV Translators consulted and used the Septuagint, Latin and Syraic. It's a good thing the 1611 Translators used these biblical sources. Their Bible is better and more accurate when they did. True, sometimes it led to errors, but still a good overall policy.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The truth remains that the claimed blunders would be the responsibility of KJV-only author D. A. Waite, whose incorrect KJV-only reasoning was soundly exposed by a sound Hebrew scholar and Bible translator James D. Price. 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.

There is no "horrid blunder" on the part of James D. Price in his sound exposing of Waite's inconsistent, erroneous KJV-only claims.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Steve Avery denies the KJV Translators consulted and used the Septuagint, Latin and Syraic. It's a good thing the 1611 Translators used these biblical sources.

You are simply fabricating words I never used.

Clearly they used all the above as part of their English translation decisions. They were auxiliary helps to the Mikraot Gedolot and Kimchi, Eben Ezra and other Hebraic sources.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The truth remains that the claimed blunders would be the responsibility of KJV-only author D. A. Waite

Absurd. Ridiculous. Even textual insanity.

James Price in his unscholarly book.
Joshua 21:36-37—The MT omits the verses, as does the Tgm. However, the King James Version added the verses because they are contained in three ancient versions, LXX, Vgt., and Syr.; and the inclusion of the verses is supported by the parallel passage in I Chronicles 6:63-64. The MT evidently lost these verses by scribal omission. The text was restored from the ancient versions.

Why is Donald Waite responsible for these multiple blunders by James Price? If Donald Waite erred in a definition, it should be corrected, NOT repeated, parroted and used to confuse readers and make totally bogus accusations against the Authorized Version..

The majority of Masoretic Text manuscripts, hundreds of manuscripts, contain the verses.
The learned men of the AV knew the Masoretic Text support.

This verse history is covered well in Ginsburg, a book that is easily available. He would give the Masoretic Text edition or manuscript, and properly explain whether it had the verses, making it very easy for researchers to know the score.

Why are you aligning yourself with the most false and absurd claims?

==========================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Where are your documented statements from the KJV translators where that state what you claim? Are you suggesting that you have read their minds so that you know what they supposedly knew?

There strong knowledge of Hebraic sources is in the David Daiches book.

The King James Version of the English Bible: An Account of the Development and Sources of the English Bible of 1611 With Special Reference to the Hebrew Tradition (1968)

Plus it is easy to see how often they use sources like Kimchi, Eben Ezra, Rashi, etc. when you study individual variants. And there are many scholars who have discussed the strong Christian Hebraist tradition at that time.

Even James Price acknowledged:

The marginal notes in the King James Version indicate that the translators had access to some Hebrew manuscripts.
King James Onlyism: A New Sect - p. 280

==================

Now, explain the mind-reading of James Price:

Joshua 21:36-37—The MT omits the verses, as does the Tgm. However, the King James Version added the verses because they are contained in three ancient versions, LXX, Vgt., and Syr.; and the inclusion of the verses is supported by the parallel passage in I Chronicles 6:63-64. The MT evidently lost these verses by scribal omission. The text was restored from the ancient versions.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
James Price in his unscholarly book.
You improperly and absurdly take statements out of context from a scholarly book written by a Bible scholar (that is a problem for KJV-only advocates), and you try to misrepresent and twist them.

James D. Price stated:
"The King James translators had two printed editions of the Hebrew Bible: (1) the Second Bomberg Edition of 1525 edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, which the standard Rabbinic Bible; and (2) the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot. The two texts are essentially the same."

"This chapter does not address the relative merits of the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Emendation 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).

James D. Price was writing in response to the claims of D. A. Waite in his books. You improperly try to make Dr. Price be stating things that he does not claim.

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:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
James D. Price stated:
"The King James translators had two printed editions of the Hebrew Bible: (1) the Second Bomberg Edition of 1525 edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, which the standard Rabbinic Bible; and (2) the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot. The two texts are essentially the same."

"This chapter does not address the relative merits of the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Emendation 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).

This is the root blunder that moved him towards the false, bogus, absurd, deceptive claims against the AV, as in Joshua 21:36-37.

However, even with the fake definition of "emendation", there is no justification for his phony claim that the Masoretic Text does not support Joshua 21:36-37.


Joshua 21:36-37—The MT omits the verses, as does the Tgm. However, the King James Version added the verses because they are contained in three ancient versions, LXX, Vgt., and Syr.; and the inclusion of the verses is supported by the parallel passage in I Chronicles 6:63-64. The MT evidently lost these verses by scribal omission. The text was restored from the ancient versions.

Price gives no source for the first claim, about "two printed editions", it is surely wrong. I showed you that Price even acknowledged other Hebrew manuscripts, and there would have been MANY Hebrew printed editions available in 1611. There were much more easily available than manuscripts.

Blunder upon blunder.
 
Last edited:

Shoonra

Active member
I am not at all sure that the KJV translators had only two printed Hebrew Bibles to work with, much less the two named. There were several dozen editions available by 1604 and some of them much more reader-friendly; for example, with now-conventional chapter and verse numbers. Both the Complutensian (1517) and the Second Rabbinic Bible (1525) were inconveniently bulky.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
This is the root blunder that moved him towards the false, bogus, absurd, deceptive claims against the AV, as in Joshua 21:36-37.
There was no root blunder. There were no false, bogus, deceptive claims made against the KJV.

In his scholarly book, Bible scholar James D. Price was soundly answering and refuting deceptive, false claims made against the NKJV by D. A. Waite and other KJV-only authors. You improperly misrepresent and distort what was stated, and you ignore or misrepresent the context.

In his Appendix I, Dr. Price noted that Hebrew MSS include Joshua 21:36-37 even though the Bomberg printed edition does not (p. 563). Dr. James D. Price clearly stated: "This chapter does not address the relative merits of the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Emendation 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). Dr. Price soundly used the term emendations with the same definition used by D. A. Waite in order to expose the problems with Waite's claims, and Dr. Price soundly refuted Waite's accusations against the NKJV.

Your root blunder is your acceptance of erroneous KJV-only reasoning that misleads and deceives you to believe assertions for the KJV that are not true and misleads and deceives you to make false allegations against the NKJV such as your bogus claim that the NKJV is supposedly a counterfeit.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I am not at all sure that the KJV translators had only two printed Hebrew Bibles to work with, much less the two named. There were several dozen editions available by 1604 and some of them much more reader-friendly; for example, with now-conventional chapter and verse numbers. Both the Complutensian (1517) and the Second Rabbinic Bible (1525) were inconveniently bulky.

This makes total sense. And I believe that James Price was only looking for cheap debating tricks against Waite, historical truth was of no concern. Btw, the Complutensian has the verses!

This phony unsourced claim of James Price of the two editions was part of the trickery.
Ironically, he mentions the AV following manuscripts, but, other than the Complutensian, never mentions editions like:

Soncino 1488 - "it has the two verses in Joshua XXI, viz 36 and 37"
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/830/mode/2up

Pesaro 1510-11 (Soncino) "This edition has the two verses in Joshua XXI, viz. 36, 37 with the proper vowel-points and the accents."
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/880/mode/2up

Complutensian Polyglot - Alcala 1514-1517 This edition has the two verses in Josh XXI, viz. 36, 37. - p. 917
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/906/mode/2up
The Naples Bible (1491—93), however, is not the only printed edition which the editors of the Cornplutensian utilized for the construction of their text. I was fortunate enough to discover amongst the MSS. in the famous Library of the Escorial the two volumes of the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491 which wore actually used as printers-copy for the Polyglot. - p. 923

First Rabbinic Bible of Felix Pretensis , published by Bomberg, Venice 1516-1517
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/924/mode/2up
"This edition has the two verses in Josh. XXI, viz. 35,36. They are not only furnished with the vowel points and the accents, but various readings of some of the words are recorded in the margin in exactly the same way as in the rest of the text." p. 943

Bomberg 3rd edition - 1525-1528 - "reinstated the two verses in Joshua XXI, viz 36 and 37"
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/974/mode/2up

The next three I do not have specific information on our verses.

Stephanus Hebrew Bible 1539-1543
https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalcy00eadi/page/74/mode/2up
In the years 1539-1514 Robert Stephens printed his edition of the Hebrew Bible, in four quarto volumes; and in 1544-1546, his very beautifully
printed edition, in seven volumes sixteenmo.

Antwerp Polyglot - (Plantin Polyglot) - 1568. 1573
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantin_Polyglot

Elias Hutter - 1587 - quote from same url
In 1587 was printed at Hamburgh the edition of Elias Hutter, in large characters.
https://digitalcollections.lmu.edu/documents/detail/12247

And there would be many other Hebrew Bible printed editions from 1530 to 1605.

======================

In their back and forth, Donald Waite only complained that he seemed to be putting Bomberg and the Complutensian on an equal footing, he did not point out the actual shoddy scholarship from James Price about what was used by the learned men of the AV.

Second Rabbinic Bible, Jacob B. Chayim, 1524-1525 is here:
https://archive.org/details/introductionofma00ginsuoft/page/956/mode/2up
... in this respect a modern editor is not bound to abide by Jacob b. Chayim’s decision. A striking illustration of this fact we have in the two verses of Joshua XXI, viz. 36, 37. We have seen that some of the best MSS. and all the early editions without exception have these two verses. Jacob b. Chayim, however, decided to omit them in accordance with a certain School of Massorltes, but we are perfectly justified in restoring them on the authority which we have adduced.1
1 Vide supra, Part. II, chap. VI, p. 178 &c.
p. 965

Christian David Ginsburg discussion
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYgJqQG44PUC&pg=PA178

Moreover these two verses are given in the text of all the early editions: The first edition of the Prophets, Soncino 1485—86, has them; so also the first edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488; the second edition, Naples 1491 — 93: the third edition, Brescia 1494; the Former
Prophets, Pesaro 1511; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517: and in the three quarto editions of Bomberg, Venice 1517, 1521 and 1525- Jacob b. Chayim was the first who omitted these verses in the editio princeps of his Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah 1324—23- (he also mentions many early manuscripts)
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
This makes total sense.

How does it make total sense for you in effect to contradict yourself by suggesting that the KJV translators would have used printed Hebrew texts that did not include the Jewish commentaries as found in the Rabbinic Hebrew editions instead of using the Rabbinic editions?

Along with use of early translations, the KJV translators of the Old Testament also made great use of Jewish commentators, such as David Kimchi, in order to clear up doubtful points in the Hebrew text (Daiches, KJV of the English Bible, p. 91). David Daiches commented: "The A.V. translators as a whole depended on Kimchi to a quite surprising degree: he was the only Jewish commentator whom they used continuously" (Ibid., p. 153). Also known by the acronym Radak, Rabbi David Kimchi (1160-1235) was the most prominent member of a family of Hebrew grammarians and translators (Kolatch, This is the Torah, p. 8). Encyclopaedia Judaica noted that Kimchi's "influence on the Christian Hebraists of the Renaissance was profound" (Vol. X, p. 1003). David Kimchi, a native of Spain, was the compiler of a Hebrew grammar and dictionary that became a standard. Kimchi's commentary on the Old Testament was printed in all subsequent major editions of the Rabbinic Bible, influencing both Jews and Christians (Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, p. 228). Besides that of Kimchi, other Jewish commentaries usually found in Rabbinic Bibles such as the 1525 Rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben Chayim include those of Rashi--Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac (1040-1105), Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1164), Ralbag or Gersonides--Rabbi Levi ben Gershom (1288-1344), and Ramban or Nahmanides--Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (1194-1270).
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I believe that James Price was only looking for cheap debating tricks against Waite, historical truth was of no concern.
You believe incorrectly.

Are you showing readers that you are only looking for cheap debating tricks against a Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. James D. Price as you try to misrepresent and distort and take his statements out of context?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Some Hebrew scholars have questioned the KJV's rendering "digged down a wall" at Genesis 49:6. In the concise Hebrew dictionary in Strong's Concordance, James Strong indicated that the Hebrew word was translated "wall" in the KJV "by mistake" (p. 114). In his Exposition of Genesis, H. C. Leupold contended that this KJV rendering "is not correct" (p. 1174). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman indicated that "the word 'ox' (Heb. Shor) is translated by the A. V. as Shur" (p. 840). John Gill contended that Simeon and Levi "don't seem to have had proper instruments" for digging down a wall of a city, "nor a sufficient number for such work, and which would have required longer time than they used" (Exposition, I, p. 302). Benjamin Kennicott asserted that the Hebrew word “does not signify a wall, may be inferred from the history of the destruction of the Sichemites by Simeon and Levi; chapter 34:25 etc., since no such circumstance is at all mentioned as their digging down the walls of the city: which indeed could have answered no end, as they had murdered all the men and plundered the city” (State, I, p. 57). Kennicott added that “it is more unlikely still, that old Jacob should in this solemn manner curse their passion most for doing, what (if they had done it) would have been the least part of their crime” (Ibid.). KJV defender Charles Surrett asserted that “based on vowel pointing” the Hebrew supports the NKJV’s rendering “hamstrung an ox” at Genesis 49:6 (Certainty of the Words, p. 109).

William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV, translated the Hebrew at Genesis 49:6 as "houghed an ox." The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and 1537 Matthew’s also have "houghed an ox." In its marginal note at Genesis 49:6, the 1611 KJV has "houghed oxen" as an acceptable alternative rendering. Would David Cloud give Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers the benefit of the doubt and “admit that they had serious reasons for every translation they gave” (For Love of the Bible, p. 65)? Was Grady unaware of this rendering in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew’s and as the acceptable alternative rendering in the 1611 KJV [see Final Authority, p. 312)? Are the renderings “ox” and “wall” “pure synonyms” according to Gail Riplinger’s claim?

Luther’s German Bible on the KJV-only line of good Bibles also had a rendering [“ochsen”] at this verse that means “ox.“ Jewish scholars in their 1917 English translation of the Hebrew Massoretic Text translated it as "houghed oxen." Isaac Leeser translated the Hebrew as "lamed the ox." Magil's Linear School Bible has "lamed an ox." In his 1864 Jewish School and Family Bible, Abraham Benisch has “lamed an ox.“ Aryeh Kaplan rendered it as “maimed bulls” (Living Torah, p. 134). Berry's Interlinear Hebrew-English O. T. rendered it "they houghed oxen" (p. 210). William Greenfield’s 1828 Interlinear of Genesis has “hamstrung a bull” (p. 178). For this verse, The Liberty Annotated Study Bible has a center column note "hamstrung an ox" (p. 95). Andrew Willet wrote: “Shor, the word here used, signifieth an ox” (Hexapla in Genesin, p. 390). In 1672, George Hughes pointed out that the Hebrew word “is most generally carried for an ox, and so the singular being put for the plural” (Analytical Exposition, p. 583). E. W. Bullinger also maintained that this was an example of the singular used for the plural [in their self-will they houghed an ox (i.e., oxen)” (Figures, p. 528).

Concerning Genesis 49:6, Rosenbaum and Silbermann translated Rashi's Commentary as noting: "it has the same meaning as in (Joshua 11:6)"--hamstring (p. 244). Andrew Willet noted that this Hebrew verb “signifieth to hough or cut sinewes, as Joshua 11:6” (Hexapla in Gensin, p. 390). Concerning this verse, Milton Terry maintained that “in all other passages where the Piel of this word occurs, it means to hamstring or hough an animal. Compare Joshua 11:6, 9; 2 Samuel 8:4; 1 Chron. 18:4“ (Biblical Heremeneutics, p. 189). Terry asserted: “When the usus loquendi can thus be determined from the language itself, it has more weight than the testimony of many versions” (Ibid.). Terry had indicated that the Piel was the active of the intensive form of a Hebrew verb (p. 81). Terry defined his use of usus loquendi as “current usage of words as employed by a particular writer, or prevalent in a particular age” (p. 181). He noted that “a further and most important method of ascertaining the usus loquendi is an extensive and careful comparison of similar or parallel passages of scripture” (p. 186). KJV-only author H. D. Williams favorably quoted Thomas Horne’s principle that stated: “Ascertain the usus loquendi, or notion affixed to a word by the persons in general, by whom the language either is now or formerly was spoken, and especially in the particular connection in which such notion is affixed” (Word-for-Word, p. 104). Wilson’s O. T. Word Studies affirmed that the Piel form of this Hebrew word means “to hamstring” (p. 223). The Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible observed that "examples of hamstringing animals can be found in Genesis 49:6; Joshua 11:6, 9; 2 Samuel 8:4; and 1 Chronicles 18:4" (p. 457). In his commentary on Genesis, Ruckman asserted that “the verb ’digged’ or ’houghed’ is ’Aqar’ and can be translated either way” (p. 840). Can he show that the Piel form of this Hebrew verb can be translated either way?

The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible translated by Theodore Haak into English for the Westminster Assembly of church leaders and published in 1657 supported Tyndale's translation of the Hebrew word as "ox" or "oxen." The Dutch Annotations has "in their wilfulness they have removed the oxen" in the text at Genesis 49:6 (p. 47). In his 1600's commentary concerning this verse, Matthew Poole wrote: "Or rather thus, they rooted out, or drove away an ox, i. e. the oxen, the singular number for the plural, as before; and under them are comprehended the other cattle of the Shechemites, which they drove away, as we read they did, Genesis 34:28. For as the words may bear this sense, so it seems more reasonable to understand them of that which was certainly was done by them, than of their breaking a wall, of which we do not read any thing in the history" (p. 109). Concerning this verse, John Gill wrote: "It is better to take the words in a literal sense, either of the oxen that Simon and Levi took from the Shechemites, which they plucked or drove away from their mangers, as some render the words; and some of them they might hough or hamstring, that they might not get away from them, or rather of Shechem himself, who was a prince, a word which has some likeness and affinity to this in the text" (Exposition, I, p. 302). William Greenfield maintained that “bulls, in poetical language, denotes princes,” and he suggested that the last part of this verse “is a delicate, and highly poetical description of the manner in which they first disabled, and then basely murdered Hamor and Shechem, and the whole of their people” (Book of Genesis, p. 178).
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
How does it make total sense for you in effect to contradict yourself by suggesting that the KJV translators would have used printed Hebrew texts that did not include the Jewish commentaries as found in the Rabbinic Hebrew editions instead of using the Rabbinic editions?

An epic Rick Norris fail of Logic 101.

Using commentary editions and text editions are not mutually exclusive.
 
Top