[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

With all these evidences, I want to emphasize a point. ....

We don't need the extra evidences .. to shred Price's Folly.

This 'misread' idea should have been tabled the moment James Price saw nispeh used as add and augment in other verses. By then it was already very, very dubious, ready to be put to sleep.

Yet even if James Price wanted to keep the accusation alive, just one simple, strong evidence, like the John Calvin commentary, or the earlier English Bibles like the Geneva, or the Albert Barnes commentary, totally destroys the accusation. And are trivially easy to find. With any one of Calvin or Barnes or Kimchi, the word, the variation in translation, is explained, it is shown to be a discussion of the exact word, there is no 'misread' possible. The whole thing is over. James Price can move on to other endeavors, hopefully more fruitful and edifying.

The only disadvantage of having 20 evidences is that you may ferget that one is more than sufficient.

Or the opponents may nit-pick about one of the 20 evidences, when most any one, or two or three of them together, provide a full and clear refutation.

So we are continuing, not looking for "more evidences" (although they will be presented when found, such as the Diodati and the other translations above) but more a wipe-up action and, most importantly, the learning experience.

I wonder if there is one of those logical constructs about arguments whose problem is the overwhelming weight of the evidences can make you a smidgen top-heavy. A nice 'problem' to have, yet that is what we are dealing with on the 'misread' canard.

Shalom,
Steven