[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The companion thread to this is :

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=932
integrity accusations - subtile alexandrians at work

That thread is more for discussion of the overview of dealing with the wiles and woolies of the cornfuseniks. Understanding their tactics, sharing the pure Bible against their attempts to paint every ploughman's Bible as impure. While this thread is meant more for the straightforward analysis, although open discussion is welcome.

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

James Price and William Combs made this verse their battleground "best case" attack on the King James Bible. Here are the accusations.

James Price

Emendations with No Support from Ancient Versions

"The MT, supported by the LXX, Vulgate, and Targum reads 'captured' "
King James Onlyism: A New Sect p. 288 - James Price

(this was the first listing, and he marketed this as his best, through the following William Combs "indisputable error" strangeness)

William Combs
... the KJV was based on the Second Bomberg Edition of 1525 edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. However, on occasion the translators did not follow the Hebrew/Aramaic text before them.

The following example was supplied to me by Dr. James D. Price, who is currently producing a manuscript on this subject.

For instance, in Isaiah 13:15 the KJV reads “joined” (“every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword”). There is no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition. Instead, the correct reading is “captured” (“anyone who is captured will fall by the sword,” NASB). Possibly, the KJV translators misread one Hebrew letter for another, mistaking the word sapah, “capture,” for sapah, “join.” Whatever the case, the reading of the KJV is not the reading of the autographs and is thus an indisputable error.
Errors in the King James Version? - DBSJ 4 (Fall 1999): 151–64
(Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal)

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

And we can break down this accusation into three parts.

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

EVIDENCE OFFERED

no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition - Combs
The MT, supported by the LXX, Vgt., and Tgm., reads "captured," - James Price

THEORY OF TRANSLATION ERROR

"The translators misread one Hebrew letter for another" - James Price
"Possibly, the KJV translators misread one Hebrew letter for another" - William Combs

RESULT

"indisputable error" - William Combs
"emendation of the MT with no support from ancient versions" - James Price

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

Wow. Powerful accusations. This is supposed to be "without controversy" .. like "God was manifest in the flesh ...." (Wait ... Price and Combs might want to controvert that as not scripture.)

Anyway, we are supposed to have an "indisputable error" ? Must be a powerful case to make that claim, don't you think ?

Well .. this thread will be doing a spot of examination.

Notice that Price and Combs do not give the reader much to go by. In the alexandrian cult the lemmings are supposed to simply take the word of their leaders who tell them that no Bible is truly pure. Their non-faith is supposed to be taken by faith as truth.

The Combs paper even passed a Journal "peer review" . If you don't laugh at that now, come back to this post when all the evidences are in. Watch their "best case" turn into a "textbook case" of alexandrian bumbling incompetence (and that is putting it nicely and mildly).

Shalom,
Steven Avery.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

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

The first thing to consider is that to a sensible, sane writer .. any claim that King James Bible translators misread a word should have a very high bar of evidence. These were 50 world-class scholars reviewing every verse carefully, with final review editors checking after the initial committees. And the initial committees had a system for checking each verse passing their work one to another. Afaik this is the only verse in the whole Bible, multi-thousands of verses, where such an accusation arises. And it only arose in the 1990s, and only in the context of an anti-KJB polemic. Hmmm.

So if there is a claim of an error on one verse, what should be involved ?

Well the words should be close. Yes, that is the case here, a difference of the final letter and the vowels. (Ultimately, that was enough for James Price, who made this into his pet theory.)

What else ? .. well the verse as given in the King James Bible should be unusual, it should be unique to the King James Bible, since it is unlikely other scholars would make the same "error". The actual KJB translation word should be out of the semantic range of the actual word, unused in similar ways in the Bible, the KJB translation should be indisputably illegitimate, the actual word used should not appear in scholarly discussions, etc.

Just to understand what a sensible and sane writer would do before venting such an accusation. They would examine the lexical range, the other Bible versions, commentaries early and late, the rabbinics, the ancient versions, and only if the evidence was compelling, overwhelming, might they venture such an accusation.

Now to the actual situation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The Hebrew word is nispeh, 'joined' in the pure Bible. The accusation is that this word really must mean 'captured' and it was misread in the KJB as another word nispach meaning 'joined'. Thus, under this theory, nispeh should not at all legitimately mean joined.

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

The first obvious consideration is the other English Bibles of the period. The Geneva, Coverdale, Rheims, etc. Surely they could not have the same accidental oversight error ? A special mass one-word fuzziness that envelopes readers over decades or centuries ? Well, let's go to the videotape.

Verses from studylight.org.

Miles Coverdale (1535)
Who so is founde alone,
shalbe shot thorow:
And who so gather together,
shalbe destroyed wt the swerde.

Bishops Bible (1568)
Whoso is founde shalbe shot thorowe:
and whoso taketh their part,
shalbe destroyed with the sworde.

Geneva (1587)
Euery one that is founde,
shall be striken through:
and whosoeuer ioyneth himselfe,
shal fal by the sworde.

Here is the updated Geneva.

Geneva (updated English)
Everyone that is found,
shall be stricken through:
and whosoever joineth himself,
shall fall by the sword.

The two Latin translations translate closely.
To cometh about, to come to their aid - very close to join themselves.

Wycliffe (1395)
Ech man that is foundun, schal be slayn;
and ech man that cometh aboue,
schal falle doun bi swerd.

Rheims NT (1582)
Every one that shall be found, shall be slain:
and every one that shall come to their aid,
shall fall by the sword.

Wow. So this wasn't just a King James Bible misreading ? The excellent scholars of Geneva (world-class like those of Oxford and Cambridge) also made the exact same error !

And I actually asked James Price about this, when writing to him about some of the evidences. Did Price reconsider his theory ? Naaahhh.

In fact I had even added the literal translation by Robert Young (known from Young's Analytical Concordance). How did the supposed vision-reading problem go forward centuries ? As well as backwards ?

Young's Literal Translation (1862)
Every one who is found is thrust through,
And every one who is added falleth by sword.

Here is the James Price response !

"The pre-KJV editions indicate that the misreading was made before 1611 by Coverdale ... The Geneva translators evidently reworked Coverdale uncritically on this verse. The KJV translators followed Geneva without checking it out; this happened at times as the evidence indicates. I cannot speak for Young."

Geneva "reworked Coverdale uncritically" .. . Clearly they translated afresh, their text is quite different, they had world-class Hebrew scholars, however Price needs a Cover (dale) Story.

Today, I just noticed the "I cannot speak for Young" classic line. Hmm... top scholar James Price .. maybe you should think a little bit. If even Robert Young, on top of every Bible of the Reformation period, agrees with the King James Bible on the meaning of nispeh in Isaiah 13:15 .. maybe your theory is a tad on the flimsy side.

(And wait, there is a lot more.)

Earlier, when I first noticed this verse, I had tried corresponding to James Price, figuring a "scholar" would have no problem seeing that the claim did not wash and making a correction. Boy, was I mistaken on that one !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Next we watch the same supposed reading error on one Hebrew word cross the English Channel and travel into Germany. Amazing .. according to James Price there was a multi-century pan-Europe brain fog on just one Hebrew word. Actually with Robert Young it is multi-century pan-Europe, intercontinental brain fog.

Herb Evans had pointed out:

Luther Bible (1545)
"welcher dabei ist"�
(to unite by means of a joint or to become united or connected by or as of by a joint)

Or is the brain fog in James Price and William Combs ?

Shalom,
Steven

[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

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now it would not be necessary to do something so "difficult" as to check the Geneva Bible, or the John Calvin commentary, or the Luther Bible to realize that the "misread", "emendation" and "indisputable error" accusations were nonsense. You could also simply go some of the strongest popular commentaries after the King James Bible. The first is around 1700.

http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/bhenry2.html
Matthew Henry - Minister and Bible Commentator

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc4.Is.xiv.html
http://www.biblebrowser.com/isaiah/13-15.htm
Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary
The Doom of Babylon. B. C. 739.

Every one that is found alive shall be run through, as soon as ever it appears that he is a Babylonian. Nay, because the sword devours one as well as another, every one that is joined to them shall fall by the sword; those of other nations that come in to their assistance shall be cut off with them. It is dangerous being in bad company, and helping those whom God is about to destroy. Those particularly that join themselves to Babylon must expect to share in her plagues, Re 18:4.

Those who join themselves to Bablyon are in danger of :

Revelation 18:4
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying,
Come out of her, my people,
that ye be not partakers of her sins,
and that ye receive not of her plagues.

There are many today who willingly join themselves to the Bible version babylon, the confusion of the errant versions, the babble of conflicting texts, nothing pure and holy. Note that Matthew Henry did not express any doubt about the Hebrew nispeh being "join". All three commentators here found themselve "correcting" the King James Bible on numerous other verses, yet all fully accepted "join".

And here is John Gill around 1760.
[
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/vi...=013&verse=015
http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/i...l/isaiah13.htm
everyone that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword;

and everyone that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword; or "added" unto them; any of other nations that joined them as auxiliaries, see Revelation 18:4 or "that is gathered"; so the Septuagint, "they that are gathered"; that are gathered together in a body to resist the enemy, and defend themselves. Some render the word, "every one that is consumed," with age; neither old nor young, as follows, should be spared. The Targum is, "everyone that enters into the fortified cities," flees there for safety and protection.

John Gill discusses :

John Gill - "joined" or "added"
Greek OT - "they that are gathered"
Targum - "everyone that enters into the fortified cities"
"some" - "every one that is consumed"

John Gill has the same Rev 18:4 cross-ref as Matthew Henry. And on the translation question issue John Gill speaks almost identically to John Calvin two centuries earlier. Joined or added is the basic meaning, there is a "consumed" alternative (Calvin called it feeble, Gill just mentions it as from "some"). And Gill adds the Greek OT and the Targum, which both clearly given as far closer to "joined" than "captured".

Our final historic Commentator is Albert Barnes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bP42AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA273
Notes: Critical, Explanatory, and Practical on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah
- Albert Barnes (1854)

Every one that is joined unto them -

Their allies and friends. There shall be a vast, indiscriminate slaughter of all that are found in the city, and of those that attempt to flee from it. Lowth renders this, ' And all that are collected in a body;' but the true sense is given in our translation. The Chaldee renders it, ' And every one who enters into fortified cities shall be slain with the sword.'

Here is the Albert Lowth translation (1815)

http://books.google.com/books?id=p_IoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA81
Isaiah 13:15
Every one, that is overtaken, shall be thrust through :
And all that are collected in a body shall fall by the sword.

So even though Lowth is far closer to the Authorised Version than "captured", Barnes offers a specific correction "the true sense is given in our translation". ie. "joined".

Barnes also give the Chaldee, the Aramaic Targum given by Gill. Clearly a Hebrew translation understanding of everyone "joined" can become, cross-language, everyone "that enters". However you would never get to "enters" from either "consume/destroyed" or "captured". Thus we are already noting, en passant, that the Greek LXX and the Targum are strongly supporting the Authorized Version over "captured" as well, James Price pretensions notwithstanding.

So even if, somehow, both Price and Combs had lost their critical thinking abilities, and had missed the Geneva Bible, Luther Bible and the Calvin commentary, simply reading any one of these three historic commentaries would easily have shown them that they should avoid Price's Folly. The absurd assertion of a "misread" or an "emendation" or an "indisputable error". And any competent "peer review" should have flunked the Combs paper simply for this obvious blunder or at the very least sent it back with a request for full fact-checking afresh and documentation of every item. If a blunder this bad got through as the "indisputable error" - clearly the whole paper is trash.

Shalom,
Steven