[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Let's try to dot a couple of jots and tittles .

Originally Posted by Buythetruth

they did in fact use it, but of the endorsement, you are unsure of?

Right. They simply used what the 'scholars' generally use today.
No specific declarations "we support ...".

Originally Posted by Buythetruth

the "Textus Receptus" has been on the RCC "forbidden book list" for generations and maybe still is.

The Erasmus NT TR.
No effect on the OT question.

Originally Posted by Buythetruth

Another titbit I heard from a lecture on a cassette tape was that the Jews do not use the Ben Asher - only the Ben Hayim.

That sounds right, for the Hebrew text of the Orthodox Jews, and likely some of the historic English translations like Soncino (not modern, liberal ones like recent JPS editions though). The information is a bit obscure, and sometimes there will be references to Ginsburg, or Kittel with the year of the earlier editions, or the Rabbinic Bible. And BHS, or the Lengingrad Codex, will not be mentioned as the source text.

Gordon Laird has a web-site with some good info about the Rabbinic Bible www.glaird.com . Actually excellent, such as Psalm 110 in the Jewish-Christian debate, and the Kimhi commentary, and he invites discussion and contact. He may know as much about aspects of the Rabbinic Bible as any Christian currently writing, along with Risto Santala who uses the mikra'ot gedelot as a primary source in his Messianic writings.

Also you can read the older books (that usually have more depth than new books) on google, e.g. if you put in "Jacob Ben Hayim" some good material comes up, including an 1895 book on the canon of the OT that mentions that the Ben Hayim test is the Hebrew Bible..

http://books.google.com/books?id=JetJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&
The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament - Gerrit Wildeboer

The newer books, if they are readable, come up in a limited "Preview" mode, often that is sufficient for some good insight. Another interesting read is the posts on "mail-jewish" which will show up with various searches.

On specific questions I also could simply ask a friend living in the orthodox Jewish community, a believer, or another friend on Paltalk who has been very helpful in digging out info (e.g. he helped with Psalm 110 and Jeremiah 8:8 and other issues). Among those writing on the web, and the mail-jewish forum, Gil Student has shown himself to be a good source on many issues.

However the short answer to the above question I am quite sure is "yes". I did a little version checking yesterday. The information is obscure (because they don't look at it as Ben Asher vs Ben Hayim, not because of any grand conspiracy) however it seems like BHS/Ben Asher is limited to the more recent Hebrew-English translations done by the less religious elements. The comment on the tape is likely right for the Hebrew Bible used by the Orthodox.

On the translations, in a pinch someone could simply email the following .. ArtScroll/Stone .. Judaica Press .. Soncino .. Living Torah/Living Nach .. JPS .. and ask, if the info is not clear from the respective publishers websites. The ones pretty definitely using Ben Asher through BHS would be the later editions of JPS and the independents like Robert Alter and Everett Fox (Penteteuch only, so the differences would be minuscule, or non-existent). However, in a sense the Hebrew Bible issue is the more significant one anyway.

Originally Posted by Buythetruth

What I heard or read about Kittel was about the thousands of footnotes he added, perverting the original meaning of the text, kind of like the NKJV study Bible does.

There probably is truth to that. However I really don't think the Kittel footnotes are used that much, and if not, the issue reverts to the text. The issue boils down to particular verses, with Westcott and Hort we have many hundreds, where is the list of radical changes caused by Kittel ?

Originally Posted by Buythetruth

I have read many terrific articles by Will Kinney but not John Hinton. Could you point me to some that have been writtenby each of them that would be realted to the subject here?

Will shows one verse at a time the corrupt and nonsensical and arbitrary translations in the OT.

Some of Will's you will find here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html
Another King James Bible believer

John Hinton's articles are available on this site.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...e-corrections/
Ridiculous KJV Bible "Corrections"

You can also check here.

http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defence.htm
AUTHORISED VERSION DEFENCE

Glad to be of assistance.
I'd like to see King James Bible scholarship stronger on these points.
Iron sharpeneth iron.

Shalom,
Steven