[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now clearly for this accusation to have any traction it would be absolutely necessary for there not to be commentary discussion of the verse variant, the word nispeh as joined, before the King James Bible. At least not by well-known commentators.

Anybody here ever heard of John Calvin ?
Has James Price or William Combs ever heard of John Calvin ?

John Calvin's Verse Commentary

And every one that is joined to them shall fall by the sword.

And every one that is joined to them shall fall by the sword. Some translators render this clause differently from what I have done; because the Hebrew verb ספה (saphah) signifies to destroy or consume, they read it, Whosoever shall be destroyed, and explain it as relating to the old men, who were already worn out with age, and could not otherwise live longer; as if he had said, “Not even the men of advanced age, who are sinking into the grave, shall be spared, even though they are half-dead, and appear to be already giving up the ghost.” But because that is a feeble interpretation, and the verb ספה (saphah) signifies likewise to add, I rather agree with Jonathan and others, who think that it denotes companies of soldiers, as in taking a city the soldiers are collected together in the form of a wedge, to ward off the attacks of the enemy. But it will perhaps be thought better to understand by it the confederates or allies who were joined to Babylon, and might be said to be united in the same body, in order to show more fully the shocking nature of this calamity.

(saphah == nispeh)

So John Calvin tells his readers that there is an alternatives to "joined". (Note also that he is very specific as to the Hebrew word.) The alternative is to destroy or consume .. which is actually the common other meaning of nispeh, not "capture". And that he agrees with "joined" (or "add") as correct against the "feeble" alternative.

Now this is a sharp forum, with clear thinkers, so I think most all of the readers here will quickly see how fully this shreds any remaining vestige of the idea that the King James Bible translators misread the Hebrew or were involved in some sort of textual emendation of the Masoretic Text.

Anybody who simply picked up John Calvin's Commentary (from before the King James Bible, about 1550, easily available in various editions and on the net) would read about the words in Isaiah 13:15, understand the situation, maybe study a bit more, and move on. Not Price or Combs though.

So going back to post #1 on this thread, two of the three accusations, all the integrity aspects, are fully busted. There was no misreading, there was no emendation.

What remains is to see if there is any support for "joined" or "captured" in rabbinics and ancient versions. We have not gone back to earlier days yet. And also to simply fill out some additional material, like other commentaries. And look at the NT verses with nispeh and to take a look at the lexical aspects.

And to wonder .. how do men like Price and Combs go so far astray ? How can supposed learned men write on a level that should embarrass a fifth grader .. except that rarely would the fifth grader be involved in such a gross deception, a fabrication accusation designed to attempt to attack the purity and accuracy of the King James Bible. Oh, what a web.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven