[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

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

A bit more.

You will find that John Hinton gives an example of improper interpretation by Rudolph Kittel. e.g this one is on Proverbs 26:23 and apparently Dahood used a Kittel idea.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...-ugaritic.html

However, note: it is not a Ben Hayim - Ben Asher textual issue, and afaik Dahood's doofus ideas don't make it into many translations.

Here John mentions that the vowel pointings of the Tetragram are consistent in Ben Hayim, which I mentioned above, and not in Leningrad and BHS. And I agree that this is a very significant textual difference.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...hova-YHVH.html
Who is Yahweh? - John Hinton
The perverted Hebrew text of Rudolf Kittel, derived from the Ben Asher text with Kittel's amendments, which is known as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), may mislead any Hebraicist who tries to follow my argument if he looks at the wrong verses. The better Ben Hayim text, which is what the KJV and earlier translators utilized, should be used to understand the issue properly. The BHS is inconsistent in its vowel markings for YHVH (Yehovah), while the Ben Haim text is consistent.

Here is a textual issue, on Ezekiel 27:25, there are some.

http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_v...f_tarshish.htm
What Ankerberg and White have done, although it is highly unlikely that they have the slightest idea what they've done, is to ignore the Masoretic Text and to side with the corrupt Kittel manuscript as represented in the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia, which offers the alternative reading that the modern versions follow here. The verb shyr, meaning "to sing" is changed to shvr, which means, according to most modern versions "to travel".

I consider John as one of the best informed Christians as to the Hebrew Bible I have ever seen. So if anyone can find the variants, where they effect the King James Bible vs. modern version debate, it will be John.

However the quantity and range (outside the Tetragram) of these issues is small. They are significant enough that we can say with conviction "Masoretic Text - Ben Hayim" - however they are not on the level often implied in the pro-KJB writings.

John has many great examples of corruptions in the Old Testament in modern versions and modern scholarship, often based on nonsensical cognate language theories. However, I have not seen any other than those above that are in the version debate and where the issue is the Ben Hayim - Ben Asher text. (There are some subtle nuances I am not going into here, such as the closed mem in Isaiah 7:14, where the version difference could come to play.)

Remembering, there is a small but significant textual variant in Psalm 12, it is possible that it is Ben Hayim - Ben Asher, if so that one is of significance. We would have to research.

Another possibility is Psalm 22:16 where there is a variant (the true reading is the minority variant, with other early Hebraic and other language support and strong grammatical and internal consistency support and now the DSS) . And how it is handled by Ben Hayim I have not fully gotten a handle on. An 1859 encyclopedia entry by Haydock says:

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id746.html
"Drusius informs us that a Jew threatened Bomberg, when he designed to adopt this correction, that if he did, he would prevent any of his brethren from purchasing a single copy."

Shalom,
Steven

[Buythetruth]

Wow, thanks for the muscle you put with this one. I see exactly what you are saying about the few examples we have to focus on. I did find John Hinton's site last night and he has some very good articles there. I will spend some time there for awhile to absorb the golden nuggets. Thanks for the links to more info. You certainly have gone to great lengths in this effort to find what you have found. I hope this blossems into some more attention being paid to the 'other' differences out there in the O.T. Your info. is greatly appreciated - I will store it up for futute use, hopefully, adding to it as I go along. It's exciting to get new information like this. Maybe the ball will continue rolling on this one.

The Lord bless you,
Buythetruth

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Buythetruth, it is my pleasure, and reasonable service, to research these issues and share what I have learned and what new I can find with my little google skills and the precious gift of God to his children, a sound mind..

This has been on my heart for quite a while and I am glad you brought in up in this forum of King James Bible defenders, as a deep and earnest inquiry. I've watched some of the discussions for a few years, both among the defenders, and on the scholarly forums, and felt there was a bit of a disconnect that needed to be addressed. Perhaps with this thread, and the ongoing studies, discussion, research and sharing, we will help uplift the defense of the pure and perfect word of God, the King James Bible. In some cases we need to share the truth of God's word in the more excellent way.

Shalom,
Steven

[Billie]

Shalom Steven,
Thanks so much for all the in-depth research you've done here. This is great
info and I will also be reading and searching through the links you've posted.
This is a much needed study, and will hopefully answer questions for all who
needed clarity..

Blessings,
Billie