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

[Steven Avery]

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.

Sure you are. The statement from James Price that the learned men of the AV ("The text was restored from the ancient versions." p. 284) restored the Joshua 21:36-37 verses from LXX, Vulgate or Syriac is simply a lie. At best it represents total confusion and incompetence, an amazing blunder.

It is even shown to be a lie by James Price acknowledging that the verses were supported by Hebrew mss, in the Appendix.

Also James Price mentions three sources of the Hebrew text, that he says were used by the learned men, that have the verses. Hmmmmm

Thus, claiming that the verses were restored from ancient versions is blatant lying, supported by you, Rick Norris. You could always acknowledge the statement from James Price is false, that would be the honest approach. Then you could make up various excuses as well, but at least you would no longer be supporting a lie against the AV text.

 

[Steven Avery]

My criticism is not of Price

Do you agree with James Price that Joshua 21:36-37 was "restored from the ancient versions?"

 

[logos1560]

Sure you are. The statement from James Price that the learned men of the AV ("The text was restored from the ancient versions." p. 284) restored the Joshua 21:36-37 verses from LXX, Vulgate or Syriac is simply a lie. At best it represents total confusion and incompetence, an amazing blunder.

You are wrong in your improper attempt to put words in my mouth that I did not say.

Dr. James D. Price did not make up his own definition of the word emendation since he in effect gave a definition based on D. A. Waite's definition of "the Masoretic text" and use of "emend." Since he was answering D. A. Waite's book Defending the KJB, James D. Price had to take terms as Waite used or defined them. It would have been wrong to try to impose a different meaning on the terms than the way that D. A. Waite used them.

Price's statement that you incorrectly call a lie is not actually one when considered in the light of the definition of Masoretic Text and emendation from D. A. Waite that was being properly used in that chapter and being applied consistently to show Waite's claims were incorrect. It was not wrong nor incompetent for Dr. Price to demonstrate that Waite's claims were incorrect.

You are improperly taking the statement out of context in its relationship to Waite's definitions of Masoretic text and of emendation. You are improperly misrepresenting and twisting what was stated. By removing its context and ignoring the whole truth which includes the applying of Waite's definitions consistently, you are bearing false witness.

You also making false allegations against me for presenting the additional in-context information that you try to avoid and dodge.

 

[Steven Avery]

Price's statement that you incorrectly call a lie is not actually one when considered in the light of the definition of Masoretic Text and emendation from D. A. Waite that was being properly used in that chapter and being applied consistently to show Waite's claims were incorrect. It was not wrong nor incompetent for Dr. Price to demonstrate that Waite's claims were incorrect.

Total nonsense.
Saying of the Joshua 21:36-37 text :

("The text was restored from the ancient versions." p. 284, James Price, King James Onlyism: A New Sect)

Is obviously a lie, and is refuted even by two notes given by James Price, one in the Appendix acknowledging Hebrew manuscripts for the verses while he says the learned men used Hebrew manuscripts, p. 280. And, more importantly, one mentioning the Complutensian Polyglot, the Antwerp Polyglot and the 1519 Rabbinic Bible (likely means 1517), all of which have the verses in their Hebrew texts.

This claim of being restored (Farsted used "added") from the ancient versions is clearly a lie, and has nothing to do with the bogus definitions that Price tries to use for emendation and Masoretic Text. It is simply his own blunder.

The fact that you will not acknowledge that the learned men of the AV used Hebrew sources for Joshua 21:36-37 is absolute proof that your writing is NOT interested in truth and facts. Only posturing.

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

Perhaps your difficulty is in good old Logic 101. You cannot think straight about the two verses, due to your confusion in trying to parrot James Price, with whatever twists and turns are involved. However, if you can not grasp something so logically simple as the Hebrew sources available to the learned men of the AV for Joshua 21:36-27, I believe the best choice is you should leave public writing. Come back after a breather with a tabula rasa, where you can understand simple logic.

 

[logos1560]

Perhaps your difficulty is in good old Logic 101.

You describe you yourself. Whenever your incorrect allegations are exposed, it is typical of you to make additional false accusations.

You have difficulty understanding statements in light of their proper context. Logic 101 would acknowledge that statements should be understood and interpreted in their context. The context matters regardless of your efforts to ignore it. Your improper smear tactics show that you are the one who cannot think straight and cannot properly and soundly consider the context of statements.

According to the context, the actual definitions of Masoretic Text and emendation of D. A. Waite were applied consistently to show that Waite's claims were incorrect.

 

[logos1560]

The fact that you will not acknowledge that the learned men of the AV used Hebrew sources for Joshua 21:36-37 is absolute proof that your writing is NOT interested in truth and facts. Only posturing.

Your statements are not true. Your false allegations are the posturing. What you allege is not at all a fact. Your statements bear false witness. You do not understand "absolute proof" since you have not at all proved your false allegation. I have acknowledged what you falsely claim that I supposedly have not. I have nowhere stated that there were no Hebrew sources for Joshua 21:36-37.

All I have been doing is providing the proper context for the statements that you try to misrepresent. The point of the statements that you misrepresent was to apply consistently KJV-only claims in order to show that they were incorrect. Dr. Price did not actually say that there were no Hebrew sources for Joshua 21:36-37 since he pointed out that there were Hebrew manuscripts that had the two verses. His statement that you twist and distort was merely according to Waite's definition of Masoretic text.

 

[Steven Avery]

According to the context, the actual definitions of Masoretic Text and emendation of D. A. Waite were applied consistently to show that Waite's claims were incorrect.

Try to think. No matter what your definition of emendation and Masoretic Text, the claim that the learned men restored Hebrew words to Joshua 21:36-37 from versions is simply a lie, only embraced by James Price when he wrote his book and Rick Norris today.

 

[Steven Avery]

I have nowhere stated that there were no Hebrew sources for Joshua 21:36-37.

You have agreed with the lies of Farsted and Price that these verses were lost in the Hebrew and thus added and restored from other language versions.

This support of the big lie makes you the current one deceiving. We do not know what James Price says today. Nobody in actual scholarship circles ever made this fraudulent and obviously false claim, other than James Price.

As I pointed our above, James Price refutes his own claim when he references Hebrew Bible editions used by the learned men, with the verses.

 

[Conan]

There you go, projecting ill will again.

 

[Steven Avery]

There you go, projecting ill will again.

The ill will came with the false and fraudulent claims, such as the King James Bible restoring Joshua 21:36-37 from the ancient versions. And those who still support that claim, against logic, sense and evidence.

Focusing on correcting such a blunder is surely "good will" to those who want to have an honest discussion about the Bible.

 

[logos1560]

In a 1994 book, Gail Riplinger referred to “the historic ben Chayyim Rabbinic Bible, used by the KJV” (Which Bible, p. 47).

In the 2003 printing of her book, Gail Riplinger claimed that “the NKJV and all new versions have abandoned the traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 594).

Did she later admit that the KJV abandoned the traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text in some places?

 

[logos1560]

Benjamin Kennicott wrote: “In the 21st chapter of Joshua; the 36th and 37th verses, though clearly necessary to the sense of the chapter, having been accidentally omitted in some ancient copy, are omitted in many latter MSS: and being omitted in that copy or copies, on which the Masora was formed, they have been refused admittance into the printed Hebrew text, upon Masoretic authority” (State, II, p. 330). Kennicott maintained that the Masora would “exclude at least two whole verses, which are beyond all disputation genuine” (pp. 284-285). Ginsburg noted that Jacob ben Chayim "decided to omit them [Joshua 21:36-37) in accordance with a certain school of Massorites" (Introduction, p. 965). Kyle McCarter observed that Joshua 21:36-37 “are entirely missing in the Leningrad Codex and other major manuscripts of MT” and that the “cause of their omission in MT was homoioteleuton: Verses 35 and 37 ended with the same sequence” (Textual Criticism, p. 41).

 

[logos1560]

Focusing on correcting such a blunder is surely "good will" to those who want to have an honest discussion about the Bible.

You fail to show that you focus on correcting blunders since you do not correct your blunder that alleges that the NKJV is a counterfeit.

Your misleading, out-of-context misrepresentations and distortions and even some false allegations do not further an honest discussion about the Bible.

 

[logos1560]

In his introduction to his translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney (editor of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition), maintained that the KJV “often represents the errors of a faulty Original with too exact a resemblance; whilst on the other hand it has mistaken the true sense of the Hebrew in not a few places; and sometimes substituted an interpretation so obscure and perplexed, that it becomes almost impossible to make out with it any sense at all” (p. xv). Benjamin Blayney referred to “the present defective state of the Hebrew Text,” “the various kinds of mistakes that have found their way into it,” and “the probability of rectifying many of those mistakes by the help of ancient Versions and Manuscripts” (p. vii).

 

[Steven Avery]

In the 2003 printing of her book, Gail Riplinger claimed that “the NKJV and all new versions have abandoned the traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 594). Did she later admit that the KJV abandoned the traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text in some places?

You would have to ask her.
And I know I point out such corrections.

Do errors made by Donald Waite or Gail Riplinger, challenged and corrected by many AV defenders, justify lies and decptions by James Price, that you support?.

 

[Steven Avery]

Benjamin Kennicott wrote: “In the 21st chapter of Joshua; the 36th and 37th verses, though clearly necessary to the sense of the chapter, having been accidentally omitted in some ancient copy, are omitted in many latter MSS: and being omitted in that copy or copies, on which the Masora was formed, they have been refused admittance into the printed Hebrew text, upon Masoretic authority” (State, II, p. 330). Kennicott maintained that the Masora would “exclude at least two whole verses, which are beyond all disputation genuine” (pp. 284-285). Ginsburg noted that Jacob ben Chayim "decided to omit them [Joshua 21:36-37) in accordance with a certain school of Massorites" (Introduction, p. 965). Kyle McCarter observed that Joshua 21:36-37 “are entirely missing in the Leningrad Codex and other major manuscripts of MT” and that the “cause of their omission in MT was homoioteleuton: Verses 35 and 37 ended with the same sequence” (Textual Criticism, p. 41).

Shoonra and I covered these topics. Since most of the Masoretic Text manuscripts and printed edition have the verses, (quotes that you skip, by your style) this does not help the James Price lie about

"The text was restored from the ancient versions", and your continuing support of that lie.

 

[Steven Avery]

In his introduction to his translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney (editor of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition), maintained that the KJV “often represents the errors of a faulty Original with too exact a resemblance ..."

Sounds like Blayney was too liberal at times, attacking the Hebrew text of Jeremiah.

 

[logos1560]

lies and decptions by James Price

Your biased opinion is wrong. There were no lies and deceptions when the statements are considered in their context. You keep ignoring and dodging the context of the statements that explain and show the purpose of those statements to be to show Waite's claims to be incorrect since Price was applying Waite's definitions and claims consistently.

 

[Steven Avery]

Benjamin Kennicott wrote: “In the 21st chapter of Joshua; the 36th and 37th verses, though clearly necessary to the sense of the chapter, having been accidentally omitted in some ancient copy, are omitted in many latter MSS: and being omitted in that copy or copies, on which the Masora was formed, they have been refused admittance into the printed Hebrew text, upon Masoretic authority” (State, II, p. 330). Kennicott maintained that the Masora would “exclude at least two whole verses, which are beyond all disputation genuine” (pp. 284-285).

The two quotes with more context can be seen here:

The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament Considered: A Dissertation in Two Parts. Part the First Compares I Chron. XI with 2 Sam. V and XXIII; and Part the Second Contains Observations on Seventy Hebrew Mss, with an Extract of Mistakes and Various Readings, Volume 2 (1785)
https://books.google.com/books?id=AORDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA284
https://books.google.com/books?id=AORDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA330

Kennicott also points to his Dissertation, which we have online, in Latin.

Dissertatio super ratione textus hebraïci V. T. in libris editis atque scriptis (1758)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3-Y7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA424

 

[Steven Avery]

Your biased opinion is wrong. There were no lies and deceptions when the statements are considered in their context.

The definitions of emendation and Masoretic Text have nothing to do with your context.

Under any definitions the following statement that you support is simply a lie.

"The text was restored from the ancient versions"

That never happened. For many reasons that are abundantly clear.
Even James Price shows us that the statement is false.

Why do you continue to support that lie?