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

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,.

Thus, you could say that James Price made a “mistake” in his claim that the AV restored Joshua 21:36-37.from ancient versions.

That would get you out of the pickle of supporting a blatant lie, thus demolishing any credibility you might have.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The definitions of emendation and Masoretic Text have nothing to do with your context.
Your biased opinion is incorrect. You fail logic 101 since the context does matter, and the context does determine the intended meaning and purpose of statements related to it.

Waite's definitions of the Masoretic Text and of emendation as part of the context along with KJV-only accusations that the NKJV was supposedly not translated from the Bomberg edition underlie the intention and purpose of Price's statement which applies Waite's definitions and claims consistently to show that they are incorrect.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Why do you continue to support that lie?
Your loaded question makes a false accusation since I do not support a lie.

I have read the entire book, and I properly understand its statements according to their context instead of trying to take them out of context and twist them.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Your biased opinion is incorrect. You fail logic 101 since the context does matter, and the context does determine the intended meaning and purpose of statements related to it.

Nope. Either:

1) the learned men of the AV 1611 used the abundant Hebrew sources with the verses
(Manuscripts, printed editions, including the First Rabbinic Bible, Complutensian Polyglot, Antwerp Polyglot.)

Or

2) the verses were lost and they restored the verses from sources in other languages

(1) is clearly true
(2) is the height of absurd lying (or at best total incompetence)

edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

logos1560

Well-known member
The either/or fallacy or fallacy of false dilemma may be evident in the preceding post since there may be more than two options. Statements can often be interpreted or understood in more than two ways.

While I have already clearly acknowledged that the KJV translators had available Hebrew sources that included Joshua 21:36-37, it would also be possible to suggest that the verses could be considered to have been restored from sources in other languages according to a consistent application of some definitions and claims made by KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite.

That possibility would be in accord with the context that clearly stated that that chapter did not address the relative merits of the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible, but instead the statement is based on a consistent application of claims and definitions made by D. A. Waite. Thus, it was been clearly noted that that chapter was not stating anything about other Hebrew sources besides the Bomberg edition. Some KJV-only advocates such as Waite had suggested that the KJV was and had to be completely and solely translated from the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The purpose of the statement (taken out of context and misrepresented by a KJV-only poster) was to demonstrate that Waite's claims were incorrect, and its purpose was not to say that there were no other available Hebrew sources. Other Hebrew sources were pointed out in other places, proving that it was not the purpose of the statement in that chapter to declare that there were no other possible Hebrew sources. When the clear context and purpose for the statement is considered, it had a sound purpose of showing KJV-only claims such as those by Waite to be incorrect or to be inconsistently applied. That chapter may also demonstrate that if the same assertions or measures used by KJV-only authors (in alleging that the NKJV was based on a different Hebrew text than the KJV was) were applied consistently to the KJV it would also show that the KJV was not based solely on the Bomberg edition. As editor of the NKJV's Old Testament, James D. Price would be interested in demonstrating that unproven KJV-only allegations against the NKJV's OT were incorrect.

KJV-only advocates may have an ulterior motive in seeking improperly to attack the character and honesty of a sound Bible scholar who exposed errors in KJV-only claims.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
that that chapter did not address the relative merits of the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible,

Totallly irrelevant.
We can review.

James Price shows that the Hebrew text was available to the learned men (Appendix and Hebrew sources)

Rick Norris agrees the Hebrew text was available (in his obscure style.)

James Price lies outright and say the Hebrew text was only restored from the ancient versions, Greek, Laton or Syriac.
Total fabrication, against all scholarship.

Rick Norris agrees with the fraudulent claim.

Both writers work together to ply this deception.

Astute readers are not deceived, not played.

=========

Textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible are irrelevant..
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Totallly irrelevant.
incorrect. The context is relevant and important. It is ignoring the context that leads to misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Be careful about being deceived and played by inconsistent, unproven, misleading, or deceitful KJV-only allegations.

KJV-only advocates are the ones who demonstrate that they believe assertions for the KJV that are not true and who believe accusations against other genuine English Bible translations such as the NKJV that are not true. Some attempt to deceive by claiming falsely that the NKJV is a counterfeit.

The NKJV is a real English Bible translation and is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the 1611 KJV is a real English Bible translation and is the word of God translated into English.
 

Conan

Active member
=========

Textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible are irrelevant..
That is your errant view. The textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible is the Word of God. It is not irrelevant. It is the KJVOnlyist views that are irrelevant. Not the Hebrew Bible.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
That is your errant view. The textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible is the Word of God. It is not irrelevant. It is the KJVOnlyist views that are irrelevant. Not the Hebrew Bible.

Please read context.

It is irrelevant to the question of whether the learned men of the AV took Joshua 21:36-37 from Hebrew manuscripts or restored the verses from foreign language versions.

If they took the two verses from Hebrew editions manuscripts, (which they did) that ends the question, it does not matter how you classify those manuscripts. They were in fact Masoretic Text editions, but disputing or quibbling on the name "Masoretic Text" does not matter, the verses were taken from the Hebrew manuscript and printed edition tradition (not the lie that they were added or restored from Greek, Latin or Syriac.)

It also means that Arthur Farsted, James Price and Rick Norris have been giving their readers complete misinformation.

Hope that helps you follow the conversation.

Rick made the same error of a context that has no effect on this question.

incorrect. The context is relevant and important. It is ignoring the context that leads to misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
 
Last edited:

Shoonra

Active member
I doubt that the KJV translators had Hebrew manuscripts in their possession; I think they found Josh 21:36-37 in various printed Hebrew editions.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I doubt that the KJV translators had Hebrew manuscripts in their possession; I think they found Josh 21:36-37 in various printed Hebrew editions.

They would not carry them around :). However, Oxford and Cambridge likely had some in their libraries.

James Price actually wrote that they used manuscripts, based on notes, but none of his scholarship on this is trustworthy. So, in general, I agree that the verses came from Hebrew editions, including three mentioned by Price, the First Rabbinic Bible, the Computensian and the Antwerp.

The verses were not restored from Greek, Latin or Syriac. That would have been awkward and unnecessary and would have led to little textual differences that you have with back-and-forth translation.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Christian Ginsburg asserted that Chayim was "the first who has given in his edition of the Bible a large number of important variants which are known by the name Sevirin" and who has "carefully collated a number of Codices and frequently gives their variants in the margin of his edition" (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, p. 964). Ginsburg maintained that “Chayim himself has not infrequently wrongly deviated from the Massorah which he printed” (p. 966). Ginsburg provided examples of several glosses or variations that are not part of the Massorah that are noted by Chayim in the book of Genesis (pp. 964-965). Ginsburg observed that these variations "disclose the fact that some of the model Codices and the Massoretic Annotators not unfrequently differed in their readings, and that Jacob ben Chayim had to exercise his own judgment as to which was the better reading" (p. 965). Ginsburg observed that Chayim "only succeeded in collecting altogether about two hundred Sevirin (p. 194). Ginsburg provided some examples where he maintained that the KJV adopted the Sevir reading. Two of these examples are Genesis 49:13 (p. 190) and Numbers 33:8 (p. 192). Emanuel Tov noted that “more extensive than the lists in biblical manuscripts are the lists at the end of the books in the second Rabbinic Bible, which were culled from various sources by the editor of that edition” (Textual Criticism, p. 74).
 

Shoonra

Active member
Regarding Joshua 21:36-37: Both C.D. Ginsburg and Emanuel Tov (a century apart) consider the omission from the Second Rabbinic Bible (1525, Ben-Chayyim), the Leningrad Codex (1009) and the Aleppo Codex (895), as well as several other mss and printed editions as an error. Ginsburg ascribes it to homoeoteleuton, and Tov to a homoioarcton; two words I cannot spell from memory. Ginsburg gives cogent reasons why those verses belong in the text and his critical edition contained those verses in the main text, with a footnote to the effect that they were missing from some, but not all, mss and editions.

Accepting that the omission of those verses is a clerical error, I would presume it occurred fairly early in order to have been embodied in the Ben-Asher mss and in (most of) the mss that Ben-Chayyim consulted.

The Jerusalem Crown edition and the Breuer edition omit these verses without comment. The Letteris, Koren, and ArtScroll Bibles put these two verses in a footnote. The Biblia Hebraica includes them in the main text, but in slightly smaller type and with a footnote to the effect that these are not found in the Leningrad and most mss but found in some others (and in the Syriac and Greek versions).
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The accusation or claim that the NKJV is supposedly a counterfeit is not true, and the advocating of that bogus claim could be regarded as a con job that attempts to mislead or deceive people into believing something that is not true.

The NKJV is a genuine English Bible translation in the same sense (univocally) that the KJV is a genuine English Bible translation.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
James Price has acknowledged his error on Joshua 21:36-37, and thanked me for pointing it out.

“On page 280, I stated that the KJV translators made use of the Complutensian Polyglot among other resources. So, it was wrong to overlook that fact.”
 
Top