- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,064
- Reaction score
- 2,150
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Steven Avery said:
Such as, for example, the word "blunder" in place of "fact" . . .
Hebrew Masoretic Text vs the KJV
- Thread starter logos1560
- Start date
Such as, for example, the word "blunder" in place of "fact" . . .
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
Emanuel Tov on emendation - compared with James Price definition of convenience
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1605943-post4.html
"The emendation of the biblical text refers to a different process, i.e., the suggestion (invention) of new readings which are not transmitted in the witnesses of the biblical text."
Definitions and applications can vary a bit, but they would never call taking a text well supported text in the Hebrew (for the OT) or the Greek (for the NT) an emendation.
James Price was simply a charlatan in calling a reading like Joshua 21:36-37 an emendation. It is supported by the majority of Masoretic Text mss. Rick Norris becomes his puppet in deception.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Price and Norris are our Humpty Dumptys.
Steven Avery
Read the thread. The Emanuel Tov definition is simple enough.FSSL said:
Emanuel Tov on emendation - compared with James Price definition of convenience
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1605943-post4.html
"The emendation of the biblical text refers to a different process, i.e., the suggestion (invention) of new readings which are not transmitted in the witnesses of the biblical text."
Definitions and applications can vary a bit, but they would never call taking a text well supported text in the Hebrew (for the OT) or the Greek (for the NT) an emendation.
James Price was simply a charlatan in calling a reading like Joshua 21:36-37 an emendation. It is supported by the majority of Masoretic Text mss. Rick Norris becomes his puppet in deception.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Price and Norris are our Humpty Dumptys.
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,064
- Reaction score
- 2,150
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Steven Avery said:
And speaking of definitions, being lectured on semantics by a poster whose rhetoric is laced with neologistical malapropisms such as "blunderama," "cornfusenik," and "Hortian fog," is the very definition of irony.
Price clearly spoke and gave the parameters of his discussion.
Avery wants us to believe that he agrees with Emmanuel Tov. Avery's definition begins and ends with the KJV.
Tov would NEVER agree with Avery's starting point regarding emendations.
Avery wants us to believe that he agrees with Emmanuel Tov. Avery's definition begins and ends with the KJV.
Tov would NEVER agree with Avery's starting point regarding emendations.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
All textual writers are pretty close on the "starting point" for emendation. NO textual writer, of any logic and sense, would ever say that using a majority reading is an emendation. Logic 101.
The definition of Tov is handy and sensible. However, use any other, by anybody involved in textual criticism or analysis, if you prefer, and James Price remains a textual charlatan.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
More FSSL confusions. Any textual definition of emendation refutes the James Price warped definition, which was designed to give an appearance of accusing the AV. The Price definition makes the now discarded Hort designation of the "neutral text" look honest. Since at least Hort was inventing a new term, not warping an existing term.FSSL said:
All textual writers are pretty close on the "starting point" for emendation. NO textual writer, of any logic and sense, would ever say that using a majority reading is an emendation. Logic 101.
The definition of Tov is handy and sensible. However, use any other, by anybody involved in textual criticism or analysis, if you prefer, and James Price remains a textual charlatan.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Since the text was neither in the MT or Targums, the KJV translators brought it in from other places. They corrected the text.
EIGHT times in the Preface to the KJV, the translators told us they were CORRECTING the text.
You are running to other scholars as if their points change this. An emendation is a correction. You cite Emmanuel Tov as if he would agree with you. He wouldn't.
You misrepresent Price, Tov AND the KJV translators.
EIGHT times in the Preface to the KJV, the translators told us they were CORRECTING the text.
You are running to other scholars as if their points change this. An emendation is a correction. You cite Emmanuel Tov as if he would agree with you. He wouldn't.
You misrepresent Price, Tov AND the KJV translators.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
As a simple example, the biggest variant in the MT tradition, the two verses of Joshua 21:36-37 are in the majority of the Masoretic text mss. James Price and Rick Norris call those verses an emendation in the AV, which follows the majority of the MT mss. Do you make the same claim / accusation?
Steven
What verses / variants -- "the text" -- are you talking about?FSSL said:
As a simple example, the biggest variant in the MT tradition, the two verses of Joshua 21:36-37 are in the majority of the Masoretic text mss. James Price and Rick Norris call those verses an emendation in the AV, which follows the majority of the MT mss. Do you make the same claim / accusation?
Steven
Steven Avery said:
We were talking about the Joshua 21 example...
Are they in the Bomberg MT?
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 38
FSSL said:
BP is such a hoot.
How is a guy that does not read Hebrew going to know one way or the other?
It would seem he would be forced to rely on a 3rd party to read it for him.
One who does not read Hebrew has no credibility when discussing textual issues.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,064
- Reaction score
- 2,150
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
bgwilkinson said:
That's OK. Avery doesn't read Greek, so between the two of them, we've got a complete panel of experts! :
Missing from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text Bomberg Edition which the KJV translators used.
The verses were RIGHTFULLY introduced into the KJV. I don't understand why this has become a mission for Avery.
The verses were RIGHTFULLY introduced into the KJV. I don't understand why this has become a mission for Avery.
Does EMENDATION = BAD?
I don't understand Steven's viewpoint. Why would an emendation be something that is negative? It is neutral unless there is no support for it and all of the evidence is against it.
I don't understand Steven's viewpoint. Why would an emendation be something that is negative? It is neutral unless there is no support for it and all of the evidence is against it.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 38
FSSL said:
How can it be bad it is simply using the best available information to give us a text that is as close to the original God breathed words as possible. This has been standard procedure throughout history when dealing with the scriptures.
Right on...
ESPECIALLY since the emendation supports the KJV.
ESPECIALLY since the emendation supports the KJV.
logos1560 said:
Steven Avery said:
It is very clear from Dr. James D. Price himself stated what his own statement means, which demonstrates that your bogus accusation of some supposed or imagined desire to deceive is false, improper, and wrong.
Why would I supposedly need to tell readers what Dr. Price's statement means when that is very clear from the statement itself?
In his book published by Samuel Gipp, James Kahler asserted: “It [referring to the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text] alone can attest to being the faithful text of the Old Testament†(Charted History, p. 10).
In his book published by the Dean Burgon Society, Dennis Kwok asserted: “The Ben Chayyim Text is the faithful text that follows the traditional and providentially preserved manuscripts. This Hebrew Text underlying the KJB is totally infallible and inerrant†(Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 128).
Troy Clark claimed: “This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, called the Great Second Rabbinic Bible became the standard Old Testament Text for the next 400 years leading up to the 20th century. This is the Hebrew Old Testament Text mirroring the English 1611 King James Bible Old Testament. It is perfectly inspired, and equally preserved by Word-equals-Word formal equivalency method from the original, God-breathed Old Testament books†(Perfect Bible, p. 60).
D. A. Waite indicated that the view that "the Second Rabbinic Bible is an inerrant reproduction of the original manuscripts" is his "position completely" or that it was a "perfect Masoretic text" is his "belief exactly" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 41). Waite contended that “the difference between the King James Bible and all the other versions and perversions is that the King James Bible translates what the Hebrew says†(Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 22). Waite asserted that “something with alleged ‘scribal errors’ cannot be ‘preserved for us’ if you mean, as I do, inerrant preservation of the Words of the Bible†(p. 23). Waite wrote: “it is my considered opinion that the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Bible are also inerrant and infallible†(p. 10). Waite maintained that “the words of the Old Testament Hebrew were preserved to the letter†(Bob Jones, p. 21).
In his book published by the Dean Burgon Society, Dennis Kwok asserted: “The Ben Chayyim Text is the faithful text that follows the traditional and providentially preserved manuscripts. This Hebrew Text underlying the KJB is totally infallible and inerrant†(Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 128).
Troy Clark claimed: “This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, called the Great Second Rabbinic Bible became the standard Old Testament Text for the next 400 years leading up to the 20th century. This is the Hebrew Old Testament Text mirroring the English 1611 King James Bible Old Testament. It is perfectly inspired, and equally preserved by Word-equals-Word formal equivalency method from the original, God-breathed Old Testament books†(Perfect Bible, p. 60).
D. A. Waite indicated that the view that "the Second Rabbinic Bible is an inerrant reproduction of the original manuscripts" is his "position completely" or that it was a "perfect Masoretic text" is his "belief exactly" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 41). Waite contended that “the difference between the King James Bible and all the other versions and perversions is that the King James Bible translates what the Hebrew says†(Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 22). Waite asserted that “something with alleged ‘scribal errors’ cannot be ‘preserved for us’ if you mean, as I do, inerrant preservation of the Words of the Bible†(p. 23). Waite wrote: “it is my considered opinion that the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Bible are also inerrant and infallible†(p. 10). Waite maintained that “the words of the Old Testament Hebrew were preserved to the letter†(Bob Jones, p. 21).
Some KJV-only authors seem to use the term “the Masoretic text†to refer especially to this one printed edition edited by Chayim.
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). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself†(p. 38). Waite wrote: “We do want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek text that God has preserved for us and from which the King James Bible was taken the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew and the Traditional received Textus Receptus Greek†(Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite asserted: “The Masoretic Hebrew Text is the ONLY text to follow in the Old Testament! All others must be rejected!“ (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. xiii). Waite wrote: “The Hebrew Old Testament to use is that which underlies the King James Bible. It is the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25 which was the standard for the next 400 years†(Critical Answer to James Price‘s, p. 83). H. D. Williams indicated that the traditional Hebrew text is “the Masoretic, Ben Chayyim, Second Great Rabbinic (not the first) edition Hebrew text published by Daniel Bomberg†(Word-for-Word, p. xix). Dennis Kwok claimed: “The King James Old Testament is translated from the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text (Ben Chayyim)“ (Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 77). In the introductory “definitions†in the KJV-only book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them that is edited by Kent Brandenburg, this is stated: “the Old Testament text behind the King James Version is the Ben Chayyim MT†(p. 11). Thomas Holland wrote: “It was his [referring to Jacob ben Chayyim] text that was used by the translators of the King James Version for their work in the Old Testament†(Crowned, p. 114). David Cloud referred to “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text†(Faith, p. 170). James Sightler maintained that “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text†“was used for the KJV†(Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 272). Michael Bates wrote: “The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text is the Hebrew Text underlying the KJV†(Inspiration, p. 341). James Kahler wrote: “This work, known as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, the Daniel Bomberg edition, or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, is the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament of the King James Version was translated†(Charted History, p. 10). In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman wrote that “we shall accept Jacob Ben Hayyim’s text (Bomberg, 1524) as reliable†(p. vi). David Daniels wrote: “The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the ‘Bomberg Text’†(Answers, p. 178). James Rasbeary wrote: “The King James Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text†(What’s Wrong, p. 48). An article entitled “How We Got our English Bible†in the fourth edition of The Rock of Ages Study Bible asserted that the KJV “is the only translation based on the ben Chayyim Hebrew text†(p. xxiv).
Likewise, some non-KJV-only authors seem to have adopted this same use or a similar use of the term “Masoretic Text†perhaps in order to answer KJV-only claims.
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). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself†(p. 38). Waite wrote: “We do want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek text that God has preserved for us and from which the King James Bible was taken the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew and the Traditional received Textus Receptus Greek†(Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite asserted: “The Masoretic Hebrew Text is the ONLY text to follow in the Old Testament! All others must be rejected!“ (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. xiii). Waite wrote: “The Hebrew Old Testament to use is that which underlies the King James Bible. It is the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25 which was the standard for the next 400 years†(Critical Answer to James Price‘s, p. 83). H. D. Williams indicated that the traditional Hebrew text is “the Masoretic, Ben Chayyim, Second Great Rabbinic (not the first) edition Hebrew text published by Daniel Bomberg†(Word-for-Word, p. xix). Dennis Kwok claimed: “The King James Old Testament is translated from the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text (Ben Chayyim)“ (Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 77). In the introductory “definitions†in the KJV-only book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them that is edited by Kent Brandenburg, this is stated: “the Old Testament text behind the King James Version is the Ben Chayyim MT†(p. 11). Thomas Holland wrote: “It was his [referring to Jacob ben Chayyim] text that was used by the translators of the King James Version for their work in the Old Testament†(Crowned, p. 114). David Cloud referred to “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text†(Faith, p. 170). James Sightler maintained that “the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text†“was used for the KJV†(Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 272). Michael Bates wrote: “The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text is the Hebrew Text underlying the KJV†(Inspiration, p. 341). James Kahler wrote: “This work, known as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, the Daniel Bomberg edition, or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, is the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament of the King James Version was translated†(Charted History, p. 10). In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman wrote that “we shall accept Jacob Ben Hayyim’s text (Bomberg, 1524) as reliable†(p. vi). David Daniels wrote: “The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the ‘Bomberg Text’†(Answers, p. 178). James Rasbeary wrote: “The King James Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text†(What’s Wrong, p. 48). An article entitled “How We Got our English Bible†in the fourth edition of The Rock of Ages Study Bible asserted that the KJV “is the only translation based on the ben Chayyim Hebrew text†(p. xxiv).
Likewise, some non-KJV-only authors seem to have adopted this same use or a similar use of the term “Masoretic Text†perhaps in order to answer KJV-only claims.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2014
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
logos1560 said:
There is a distinction between KJBO and TRO. Some of whom you call "KJV-only" are in fact TRO.
bibleprotector said:
Which authors whom I quoted do not make any exclusive only claims for one English translation--the KJV?
For example, D. A. Waite has clearly made exclusive "only" claims for the KJV that provide valid evidence for considering his position to be a form of “KJV-only“ view. For example, D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129). He wrote: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (Ibid., p. 47). He declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (Ibid., p. 136). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (Ibid., p. 80). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (Ibid., p. 131). Waite maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (Fuzzy Facts, pp. 8-9). Waite asserted that the KJV “is the only accurate translation†or “the only accurate, faithful, and true translation“ (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 5, 41, 131). Waite claimed that “the King James Bible accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language†(Foes, p. 39). When Waite contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’†and that means “nothing harms or defiles it,†he would also seem to be implying perfection or inerrancy (Defending the KJB, p. 1). Waite maintained: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible†(Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). Waite's very own statements indicate that the term "KJV-only" can be accurately applied to his view.