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

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Similarly, can any claim of Rick Norris be trusted, when he stands behind all the blatant falsehoods documented above?
 

Conan

Well-known member
Rick Norris is 100% totally reliable. Has been giving factual evidence for years against the cult of KJVOnlyism. Everyone, especially KJVOnlyist should listen and soak in all he says. It will leed you to the truth that onlyism is man made idolatry.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
false, fabricated claims against the AV text.)
You fail to prove your bogus, misleading, out-of-context, and unproven allegations that any false, fabricated claims were made against the KJV and its text. You fail to prove any blatant falsehoods, but instead ignore the context and clear explanations that explained what was being done.

It has been soundly documented and demonstrated that false, fabricated allegations were made against the NKJV and incorrect claims were made for the KJV, and those KJV-only claims were soundly demonstrated to be incorrect in Dr. James D. Price's book. Dr. Price was directly answering claims made by D. A. Waite by applying those claims consistently to show that they were incorrect. James D. Price honestly used the definitions of Hebrew Masoretic Text and emendations earlier used by D. A. Waite and applied them consistently. Many actual statements made by KJV-only authors, especially by D. A. Waite, have been provided that would confirm the honesty and accuracy of those observations. Dr. Price was actually kinder and more considerate in what he stated concerning the KJV than KJV-only authors are in their many allegations against the NKJV.

It is not claimed that Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. James D. Price was perfect and did not make any mistakes in his book, but he was an honest believer who was answering erroneous KJV-only claims.

Evidently Dr. Price so soundly made his points showing KJV-only claims to be incorrect that now some KJV-only advocates are improperly trying to attack and smear his character.

The NKJV is a genuine, real, honest English Bible translation regardless of the many false KJV-only allegations against it. The NKJV is a genuine English Bible translation (univocally) in the same sense and way (univocally) that the KJV is a genuine English Bible translation. The NKJV is not a counterfeit as some KJV-only advocates incorrectly allege.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
There are at least three incredibly important spots where the NKJV does NOT follow the Bomberg text. Either they did not check the text, or they are incompetent, or they are lying.

The two verses in Joshua 21:36-37 and the verse of Nehemiah 7:68 refute the ignorant statements of Farsted and Price above. The Bomberg omits those verses. Psalm 22:16 is another.
Your claims are bogus and false. You continue to ignore the entire context. You are taking statements made concerning the few differences between the Bomberg edition and the Stuttgart edition and misapplying them. In those eight or nine places where the Stuttgart edition differed from the Bomberg edition, it is being stated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition. It is being stated that the NKJV followed the same Hebrew text as the KJV did in contrast to the incorrect KJV-only allegations that it did not.

Those three and other places where the NKJV did not follow the Bomberg text are in agreement with the same places where the KJV did not follow it. Appendix I-I (pp. 561-571) in Dr. Price's book listed 82 places as justifiable emendations to the Bomberg edition.

Bogus KJV-only allegations against the NKJV ignore and contradict factual accuracy.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

Notice that these are simple factual blunders. Even if you close your eyes to the misuse of the terms emendation and Masoretic Text, a major part of the James Price trickery, it is still an obvious FACTUAL BLUNDER. The learned men of the AV used the Hebrew text sources for the two verses.

No claims of Rick Norris can be accepted as true, if he will defend absurd factual blunders, trying to defend lies from James Price.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It is not claimed that Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. James D. Price was perfect and did not make any mistakes in his book, but he was an honest believer who was answering erroneous KJV-only claims.

At the moment, the problem now is more with Rick Norris than James D. Price.

Rick Norris will try to defend an obvious, major, blatant error by James Price. So of course Rick can not properly evaluate the methodology and motives of James Price in his wacky private definitions. He can not even get the facts straight.

Dr. Price was actually kinder and more considerate in what he stated concerning the KJV than KJV-only authors are in their many allegations against the NKJV.

The vitriol of James Price was masked by his setting up a bogus methodology, changing the definitions of the words "Masoretic Text" and "emendation", well understood textual terms, in order to make false and lying attacks against the Authorized Version. And also his building on the factual blunder about the editions used by the learned men.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Appendix I-I (pp. 561-571) in Dr. Price's book listed 82 places as justifiable emendations to the Bomberg edition.

The chart acknowledges that Joshua 21:36-37 is supported by "some Hebrew manuscripts". (Using his wacky definitions of "Masoretic Text".) Definitively proving that Price was simply lying in this explanation in the book where he claims the verses were "restored from the ancient versions." (Price was hoping that his readers would not go to the effort to compare the chart to his written explanation.)

In fact, it is also proving that, using normal textual definitions, used in dozens of books and papers, there was in fact no emendation.

Oh, Price is also hiding the simple fact that "some Hebrew manuscripts" is the majority of manuscripts and printed editions for these two verses.

Now, again, Price's lying description in his book:
King James Onlyism: A New Sect
https://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA284

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. p. 284

is also that of Rick Norris.

Rick is claiming that the learned men of the AV restored Joshua 21:36-37 from ancient versions!
Totally false. They used the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) editions.


in fact, James Price himself in one spot mentions three Hebrew editions that they could have used for the Joshua 21:36-37 text, the First Rabbinic Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot and the Antwerp Polyglot. p. 82 (The Second Rabbinic Bible has a margin note.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=hL4XgUSGP8sC&pg=PA82

The Hebrew Bibles used were the Rabbinic Bibles of 1519 and I525,42 and the Hebrew Text in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots.
42 The Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Jacob ben Chayyim and published by Daniel Bombcrg (1524/25). p. 82

If Price was not lying in p. 284, where he claims the text was restored from ancient versions, then he was totally incompetent.

And if Rick Norris can not write the truth on such a simple and clear matter, none of his words can be trusted as to factual accuracy.

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

As to the editions, what he writes on p. 82 contradicts p. 254:

This second edition of the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible ... and the Complutensian Polyglot were the Hebrew Bibles used by the translators of the King James Version of 1611.

And it contradicts p. 280.

Two Hebrew Texts Were Used
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 is the standard Rabbinic Bible; and (2) the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot.

Also, James Price was wrong in saying the two editions were "essentially the same".
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
, changing the definitions of the words "Masoretic Text" and "emendation",
Your accusation has already been proven to be false more than once.

It was soundly demonstrated that Dr. James D. Price used the same definitions for Masoretic Text and for emendation that D. A. Waite used. It was not changing the definitions to use the same definitions as the person that he was answering and whose claims he was showing to be incorrect by applying them consistently. There was no misuse of the terms since he was using them in the same way that the person that he was answering had used them.

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).

You are one who is not writing the truth as you make false allegations. You merely show that your allegations cannot be accepted as being true. I wrote the truth and backed up what I stated with documented statements.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member


Rick is claiming that the learned men of the AV restored Joshua 21:36-37 from ancient versions!
That is not at all what I stated nor claimed. Your statement is false, and it improperly tries to put words in my mouth that I did not say and do not claim. You continue to take statements out of context and misrepresent and twist them. I have clearly and repeatedly pointed out that the KJV is based on multiple original languages texts.

The statement that you quoted from Dr. Price is in the clear context of applying D. A. Waite's definition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text consistently to show that Waite's claim is incorrect. Dr. Price plainly and clearly told his readers that statements in that chapter that it did not relate to other Hebrew text editions and to Hebrew manuscripts because he was showing the problems with Waite's claim [Dr. Price wrote: "This chapter does not address the relative merits of the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible".] You are bearing false witness with your false allegations.

I was properly pointing out how you are ignoring the context and are misrepresenting what was being pointed out and demonstrated.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Here is a spot on p. 220 where James Price gives a more truthful definition of "The Masoretic Text".


1660566950758.png


. The Masoretic Text Is the Hebrew Majority Text

The Hebrew text of the Old Testament supported by the majority of Hebrew manuscripts is known as the Masoretic Text, discussed in Chapter 12. Thus, the Hebrew Majority Text is the Masoretic Text. The difference between the Traditional Text (Textus Receptus) and the Majority Text for the Hebrew Bible is minute. For this reason, one seldom hears of a Hebrew Majority Text.

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

Note: add to the previous post, a cryptic acknowledgment that the learned men of the AV used other Hebrew sources. Price says "manuscripts" but printed editions would be more likely the sources.

The marginal notes in the King James Version indicate that the translators had access to some Hebrew manuscripts. p. 280

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

Also, here is a spot where Price mentions some of the other editions, (which were clearly available to the learned men of the AV.)

The first edition of the complete Hebrew Bible was printed in 1488 in Soncino, Italy. Other complete editions were printed in Naples (1491-93), in Brescia (1494), and in Pesaro (1511-17). p. 252

James Price omits later important editions, including Pagnini in 1571 and Elias Hutter in 1587.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The statement that you quoted from Dr. Price is in the clear context of applying D. A. Waite's definition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text consistently to show that Waite's claim is incorrect.

The statement is FACTUALLY FALSE. It does not matter the "context" of fake word definitions by Price, it is factually wrong. As even James Prices de facto shows in the Appendix. The learned men took the words from Hebrew sources, they did not restore the words from ancient versions.

And you do not care, you are supporting the lie.

Try to relate to the actual facts on the ground.
You have the opportunity to correct this blunder from James Price.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The Antwerp Polyglot was based on the Complutensian Polyglot.

The Old Testament of the Antwerp Polyglot was displayed in four columns over two pages with the Hebrew text and Latin Vulgate on the left and a Latin translation of the Septuagint and the Septuagint itself on the right. At the bottom of the page, the Onkelos Targum was included.

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible as revised by H. B. Hackett maintained that the Antwerp Polyglot “took the Complutensian as the basis of its Hebrew text, but compared this with one of Bomberg’s, so as to produce a mixture of the two” (III, p. 2223).
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It was soundly demonstrated that Dr. James D. Price used the same definitions for Masoretic Text and for emendation that D. A. Waite used.

Price could have simply corrected this nonsense, note how he had the true definition of Masoretic Text on p. 220.

James Price preferred to use false definitions, in order to make fake accusations of "emendation" against the AV text. That was more important to James Price than accurate scholarship.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Try to relate to the actual facts on the ground.
You have the opportunity to correct this blunder from James Price.
You do not practice what you preach. You are not relating to the actual facts as you ignore and avoid the facts and the context that Dr. Price was taking Waite's definitions and applying them consistently to show that Waite's claims were incorrect. It was not a blunder to show that Waite's claims were incorrect.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible as revised by H. B. Hackett maintained that the Antwerp Polyglot “took the Complutensian as the basis of its Hebrew text, but compared this with one of Bomberg’s, so as to produce a mixture of the two” (III, p. 2223).

Proving that the claim of Price that the Complutensian and the Second Rabbinic Bible were "essentially the same" (p. 280) was false.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You do not practice what you preach. You are not relating to the actual facts as you ignore and avoid the facts and the context that Dr. Price was taking Waite's definitions and applying them consistently to show that Waite's claims were incorrect. It was not a blunder to show that Waite's claims were incorrect.

Wake up. The errors about restoring Joshua 21:36-37 from ancient versions ("The text was restored from the ancient versions." p. 284) or adding the text from ancient versions (Farsted) are simply historical factual blunders, no matter what definitions are used. You can even see that in the Appendix! You can even see that by the note from Price about the First Rabbinic Bible, the Complutensian and the Antwerp Polyglots.

Why are you defending a lie?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Proving that the claim of Price that the Complutensian and the Second Rabbinic Bible were "essentially the same" (p. 280) was false.
Your conclusion is unproven. [ Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible as revised by H. B. Hackett maintained that the Antwerp Polyglot “took the Complutensian as the basis of its Hebrew text, but compared this with one of Bomberg’s, so as to produce a mixture of the two” (III, p. 2223). ] You are assuming that Hackett's statement is true, and you are assuming the claimed mixture involved essential differences. You did not know if Hackett actually compared the two or if he is repeating someone else's unverified claim, you do not know whether he was a Hebrew scholar, and you do not know where any claimed mixture involved any essential differences.

No actual examples of any significant, essential differences have been given in any source of which I am aware, and you list no essential differences between the time to back up your unverified, unproven opinion.

Therefore, the assertion that their texts were "essentially the same" has not been proven to be false by you.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Why are you defending a lie?
I am not defending any lie. Your loaded question would attempt to bear false witness. I am not supporting any lie as you falsely allege.
You continue to ignore important facts such as the context and all the relevant statements in that context. I present the information that you omit and may try to keep hidden.

When properly considering the context and the fact that Dr. Price was taking Waite's definitions and showing Waite's claims to be incorrect, it was not a lie and not a blunder. Waite's claims were properly demonstrated to be incorrect.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Your conclusion is unproven. [ Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible as revised by H. B. Hackett maintained that the Antwerp Polyglot “took the Complutensian as the basis of its Hebrew text, but compared this with one of Bomberg’s, so as to produce a mixture of the two” (III, p. 2223). ] You are assuming that Hackett's statement is true, and you are assuming the claimed mixture involved essential differences.

As I posted earlier, the Christian David Ginsburg description of the Complutensian Polyglot explains many deficiencies and differences in the Hebew text.

However, it may have had large use in the Apocrypha, which is a Greek text.
 
Top