[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now we realize this is a tad complex for a public forum (what in the world is he talking about !?) .. however there really is a point or three. Allow me to summarize to date.

Isaiah 13:15 (KJB)
Every one that is found shall be thrust through;
and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

Price/Combs, the dynamic duo, belligerently attacked the King James Bible "joined unto them" as a "misreading", an "indisputable error" .. with the correct word supposedly being "captured". They claimed that this was because there were two words similar, and the other similar word nispach was "joined". (To push this idea they also made totally false assertions about the historic evidence in the rabbinics and ancient versions.)

Overall they missed or suppressed many simple facts.

1) The word in consideration nispeh has two distinct NT usages.

a) consume, perish, destroy
b) add, augment, join

Any argument that the word must have only has one of those meanings in a particular tense is ultra-dubious - (that was part of the implied underlying technical error of the accusation).

Thus the commentators throughout the centuries generally looked at the two meanings and were quite aware of the distinction within the NT text. And to a man, until the mid-1800s, the commentators preferred the "joined" or "collected" or "added" type of meaning. These commentators included Rashi, Kimchi, Calvin, Gill, Barnes -- thus including the crème de la crème of Hebraic commentators. The commentators rejected the (a) meaning and consciously and deliberately embraced the (b) meaning, even giving similar verses using the word to match (especially Rashi did this, almost a millennium back, while John Calvin is especially helpful in describing the overall considerations. In fact, the level of commentator insight and explanation is quite helpful and appreciated, almost astounding especially considering the weird accusation).

Thus any idea that they all "misread" the same word in some vast multi-century word-blindness (à la James Price vis-à-vis the Geneva Bible and the Coverdale and even leaving the translator Robert Young in the lurch) is a theory so ludicrous that it is hard to decide whether laughter or derision is the appropriate response. Since the commentators were talking about the two meanings of the word nispeh, and the verses where nispeh is used -- to claim that all these commentators mixed nispeh with another word nispach is the height and depth of insipidity.

The technical info about the two main understandings, and any offshoots and interpretations of each, are quite fascinating, covered fairly well in the quotes, discussion and urls on the thread and a bit beyond the scope of the summary.

2) The commentators and versions throughout the centuries are generally in close harmony with the King James Bible reading, until the mid-19th century, when a translational change began and we see the split between "joined" and "captured" (both words have similar alternate words in translations). All as discussed above.

3) "captured" had no support whatsoever until the 19th century, not in the rabbinics, not in ancient versions, not in commentaries, not in the Reformation Bible, not in commentators. That is "0 - zilch - nada" historic support for "captured" until the 19th century.

4) The underlying errors of Price/Combs were magnified by their false claims, discussed up-thread, that "captured" had the rabbinic and ancient version support. The details of this charade are quite interesting.

5) And it is worth emphasizing that this was an "integrity" and "competence" accusation -- not just a claim that "captured" was superior (false claims of that nature against the King James Bible are commonplace) -- we have a very special accusation that the King James Bible translators in a careful, multiple review committee structure, with world-class Hebraists, misread this one word out of thousands. Much like the laughable 'one 400-year misprint' (the world's longest typo) claim for the gnat. Such a claim, made in arrogance and ignorance against men far the language superiors of Price and Combs, is rather amazing.

The main conceptual difference is that this one is the handiwork only of James Price (NKJV-OT editor and active in anti-pure-KJB writing) only, funneled over to anti-pure-KJB writer William Combs. Thus James Price was wedded to the accusation blunder, as came forth clearly in our correspondence in 2007. Other than Combs and internet modern version drones nobody else has carried the banner of this ludicrous accusation (afawk Wallace, White, Glenny, Sproul, Kutilek et al have passed this by). The gnat, by comparison, has had a rather long and undistinguished "run of the lemmings". And is still today the fav ignorant integrity accusation of one Daniel Wallace.

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

Now, once the fantasy of the textual dynamic duo is discarded - other issues remain.

1) How did the "captured" translation arise -- what is its support ?

2) What is the history of the modern version translation changeover ?

3) Which is the superior translation.

After all, as King James Bible defenders, since this was called an "indisputable error" by the opponents -- even if the silly "misread" accusation is discarded, what in the world are they talking about ? Is "captured" really sensible, accurate, consistent, and superior by any sensible scholarship ?

Now keep in mind -- #3 has a subjective component. You can never "prove" anything to a Bible skeptic. (The really hard-core pure Bible skeptics will even hold the "misread" accusation as their own even against the Everest-mountain of evidence.)

Overall - I strongly believe that anybody who searches out the facts (including #1 and #2) with sincerity will agree that "joined unto them" is correct while "captured" is simply a strange and strained attempt. In fact, the logic behind it looks like a case of the logical fallacy of "special pleading". Where the desire first comes forth for the alternate "new" translation and then a convoluted method of getting there is attempted to be justified. However you can weigh in on this as well, especially when Delitzsch and Gesenius (the two who are the theoretical base of "captured") are complete.

And this is where we are now, looking at the "captured" proponents. We saw that Delitzsch is mired in quicksand, so next we will try to see if he is extracted by Gesenius. Or did Wilhelm Gesenius lead Franz Delitzsch into the quicksand ditch ? To be followed into the ditch by the blob of modernist lemmings, moving without thought or insight, all captured by the inferior and inaccurate translation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery