[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

We have not discussed yet how and why the modernists got confused about the verse.

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.

And changed it to "every one that is caught" in the modern versions - away from the historic Reformation Bible.

This is secondary to showing the insipidity of the Price/Combs debacle, although it is rather interesting in its own right. Understand that the somewhat subjective question of "proper translation" and "prove to me that 'joined' is correct" will be the diversion attempt of those trying to defend the deceptions and incompetence of Price and Combs. By getting into a three-week or three-year discussion of lexical matters (actually the issues are not complicated, however they can be made to appear so, and such discussions can be never-ending) they could hope to never acknowledge the Price/Combs bumbling incompetence and deception. And of course nothing can ever be "proven" to the Bible skeptics anyway, even when the evidence is overwhelming (e.g. even the ending of Mark as scripture they will never consider "proven" .. Price considers the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus given by Mark as "problematic"). So that type of reverse spin is the standard modus operandi of the minions indoctrinated in the Price/Combs mentality. Remember - this was addressed in the original post, they can play this game even more so because they will claim that the "error" is small. That we are making the issue, who really cares about the verse. The clones and drones will do most anything to avoid acknowledging the bumbling incompetence of Price and Combs, the gross deception, the false, fabricated integrity accusation against the KJB Bible text and the competence of the translators. They want anything other than to acknowledge the Price/Combs integrity gross failure, their stupid effort, based on their own agenda and ignorance and incompetence, to deceive the Christian public into thinking that the 50 world class scholars misread a simple Hebrew word !

Continuing with the study. There is a bit more to be said about the commentaries. We were going forward from the Reformation, we will go back to the Hebraics shortly after this section.

First, I have come across an unambiguous "captured" before my 1890 date above attributed to Delitzsch.

Thomas Kelly Cheyne in 1870 has "everyone that is taken" in "The Book of Isaiah, chronologically arranged : an amended version with historical and critical introductions and explanatory notes".

However since Franz Delitzsch is 1813-1890, and his OT commentary was 1861, I think he may well have the translational background for Cheyne. And Delitzsch would also be ultimately the BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs) source, with Delitzsch and Driver essentially driving the whole translation change. So the George Herbert Box and Samuel Rolles Driver translation of 1908 had "caught" and with Driver having worked on the decrepit Revision this became the modern version translation, available for lemmings everywhere.

One that did not take the bait - Conrad Von Orelli (The Prophecies of Isaiah translated by John Shaw Banks 1899) has "whoever remains in the city, or is surprised outside" in the translation of his commentary by John Shaw Banks.

The others with superior translations are generally a bit earlier. Robert Young (1862) as mentioned above, is very close to the historic translation ("every one who is added") Noah Webster (1833) had simply kept the clearest "joined", and John Nelson Darby (c.1880) was close. ("in league with them"). Since James Price was OT editor of the NKJV, of course he took that inferior version down the primrose path, diverting from the proper "joined" to the inferior "captured".

There is actually very little discussion about the translational change that I have found anywhere. Once "caught" got into BDB it was generally simply accepted by the modern version lemmings (commentaries and versions) without thought or care. Later, we will visit the "fixation" with BDB (or a superficial reading thereof) on the verse, as a learned Hebraist scholar discusses how they switched the translation from the sensible, clear and contextually fine "joined" to the oddball usage "captured". Note "captured" becomes an inconsistent, oddball translation among the 20 NT verses with nispeh. And has simply no support in ancient versions, rabbinics or Reformation scholars whatsoever (yes, James Price was deceiving his readers). In fact I have found no direct mention of this strained translation before Driver, which would be around 1860, although there was historic discussion of the more lexically-accurate "feeble" alternative (consume or destroy).

And this "caught" over "joined" is the James Price "best case" not just for an alternative translation, but also for the KJB to have "emended" the text, and for the scholars to have "misread" the Hebrew, for an "indisputable error" (Combs).

Perhaps the NKJV was translated by Alice, in Wonderland.

Shalom,
Setven

[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.

James Price wants to pretend that "joined onto them" is some sort of unusual verse translation that would only be reached by a "misreading" of the Hebrew Masoretic text. Thus the King James Bible could not possible be pure and perfect and the 50 world-class scholar-translators in the careful, diligent, multiple review committee system would be rather incompetent. (Rather we have found that the incompetence is through James Price.) We showed by a mountain of historical evidence that this is absurd, that version after version, in multiple languages, that commentator after commentator, before and after 1611, all agreed on the "joined" translation.

One irony in all this is that a simple checking of the usage of nispeh would show an add/join concept to be common in the Tanach (OT) and with especially two similar usages in the very book of Isaiah. This was unnoticed and/or unreferenced by Price and Combs.

As Herb Evans said,
"The word is used in the following passages as HEAP, AUGMENT, JOIN, GATHER, and ADD "

Here are five other such verses in the OT. Note that two are in Isaiah (where there is also one "consume the beard"). And no "captured" in Isaiah, or anywhere. In fact, the other common reading is to consume, destroy or perish throughout the OT, which would not work well in Isaiah 13:15, as pointed out by multiple commentators.

Isaiah. 29:1
Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt!
add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

Isaiah 30:1
Woe to the rebellious children,
saith the LORD, that take counsel,
but not of me;
and that cover with a covering,
but not of my spirit,
that they may add sin to sin

Deuteronomy. 32:23
I will heap mischiefs upon them;
I will spend mine arrows upon them.

Numbers 32:14
And, behold, ye are risen up in your fathers' stead,
an increase of sinful men, to augment
yet the fierce anger of the LORD toward Israel.

Deuteronomy 29:19
And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse,
that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace,
though I walk in the imagination of mine heart,
to add drunkenness to thirst: --

Jeremiah 7:21
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel;
Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.

We can see a semantic range that is fine for "joined unto them". And used especially in Isaiah.

And we will have another special commentator, missed by William Combs in his claim that all the rabbinics support "captured" (!) shortly mentioning three of the verses above.

The word nispeh is also often used as consume, especially outside Isaiah, about a dozen times in all (one of those is in Isaiah). This can easily be seen by the lexicons including crosswalk.com. However in Isaiah 13:15 "consume" or "destroy" is a potential usage that is "feeble" (John Calvin, likely understanding and following the Hebraist commentators, with which he was also acquainted) and is similarly looked upon poorly by others commentators and is in no versions that I have seen.

As indicated above, it seems that Delitzsch morphed the translation to "captured" (possibly convincing himself that this was in the semantic range of consume, destroy). This was picked up by modernists and, with a significant unnoticed nuance added, by BDB. And James Price (one of what I sometimes call the "modern lexcicon scholars" who lack deep understanding of the languages, who do not read and breath and understand the ancient Hebrew and rabbinics like the Hebraists of Oxford and Cambridge in 1611, approached Isaiah 13:15 only from that one lexicon dimension, like a typical modernist.

And thus Price accused, simply ignoring about seven different full refutations of his weird theory of a "misread", an "emendation", an "indisputable error". And simply fabricating evidence. Price and Combs showing amazing incompetence and bumbling and ignorance unto accusation.

The NT verses above show there is nothing unusual or strange for nispeh to be used in the phrase "joined unto them".

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

In post #5 the excellent John Calvin commentary on the verse is referenced. John Calvin is often vague with his precise Hebraic sources, although he references the interpretative translation of the Targum Jonathan for Isaiah 13:15 in that paragraph. Scholars place John Calvin as familiar with some or all of Rashi, Kimchi and Ibn Ezra directly. And also Nicholas of Lyra, who referenced the rabbinics. And Rashi and Kimchi, we will see, directly reference Isaiah 13:15.

Many sources would be in the mikraot gedolot. Here is a bit of info, wikipedia, sound on the basic facts.

Mikraot Gedolot (מקראות גדולות), often called the "Rabbinic Bible" in English, is an edition of Tanakh (in Hebrew) that generally includes four distinct elements:

* The Biblical text according to the mesorah in its letters, vocalization, and cantillation marks.
* Masoretic notes on the Biblical text.
* Aramaic Targum.
* Biblical commentaries (most common and prominent are medieval commentaries in the peshat tradition).

First published in 1524–25 by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, the Mikraot Gedolot was edited by the masoretic scholar Yaakov ben Hayyim.

the Mikraot Gedolot typically includes the commentaries of:

* Targum Jonathan (For the Torah, Pseudo-Jonathan)
* Rashbam
* Abraham ibn Ezra
* David Kimhi (Rada"k)
* Nahmanides
* Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno
* Shabbethai Bass (Siftei Chakhamim)

In addition there could be individual publications works of the hebraist scholars that were used as the sources for the mikraot gedelot. And Rashi would be published separately. Ibn Ezra's Isaiah commentary was translated to English in 1826 and is on the net. How much of this rich literature did James Price and William Combs reference in making their assertions ?

To give an interesting side-example. In the debate over Messianic application of Psalm 110, which modernist Jewish writers may try to paint as not about the Messiah, it turns out that Obadiah Sforno clearly applies the Psalm to Messiah. This was discovered by a friend, simply by reading a Jewish translation in English that uses the mikraot gedolot as a source for the footnotes. Yet it was totally unmentioned in the public articles and discussions.

Returning to the accusation.

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

"There is no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition." - William Combs

It is hard to see that they referenced any sources for "captured" whatsoever, or checked any sources with any thoughtfulness !

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

The rich Christian Hebraist movement was in full flower in the late 1500s and early 1600s and largely faded in the late 1600s and 1700s, with John Gill being one notable later exception. And later, in the 1800s, Hebriast studies became mixed with confusions like higher criticism and an attitude of unbelief and skepticism and misplaced rationalism applied against the Bible text. Nonetheless that may qualify as the last age of some depth in Christian Hebraism. See the work by Samuel Driver together with Adolf Neubauer (Jewish) with an intro by Edward B. Pusey, on the rabbinic commentators on Isaiah 53 as an example of the best of that last age. Along with Alfred Edersheim.

Overall, for depth of scholarship, faith in the word of God, depth of undersanding, the time of the Reformation though 1611 was a special day and age.

The King James Bible scholars were in the incredible Oxford and Cambridge scholarship world (iron sharpeneth iron) which attracted language experts from all over the world. Including Desiderius Erasmus and Franciscus Junius and Paulus Fagius and Immanuel Tremellius. The later two, and and Edward Lively, being among those having tenures as Regius Professors of Hebrew at Cambridge in the period leading up to the King James Bible. The KJB translators would be deeply familiar with all these rabbinical works above and also the recent Reformation-age scholarship of men outside England like Sebastian Münster and of course the major Reformation writers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and Theodore Beza.

Do today's lexicon scholars have knowledge and depth and understanding of the ancient Hebraics ? Do they read Rashi and Kimchi and Ibn Ezra daily as part of their studies ? Are men with such background working on modern commentaries and translations ? Nope, very few.

There are individual exceptions like Gordon Laird on the net who is clearly very familiar with Kimchi, or Risto Santala in Finland (not involved in the modern translations, involved in interesting Messianic studies) who studied the mikraot gedolot for years. Michael Brown likely picked up a fair background because he deliberately emphasized those studies at NYU and utilized the knowledge in apologetics geared to answering Jewish objections.

None of those names are involved in the world of modern version consultancy, promoting the modern versions and looking for angles to attack the pure King James Bible. In the James Price, James White, Gordon Fee, D. A. Carson, Norm Geisler world of attacking the historic King James Bible, you will find very little deep Hebraist studies. This is one reason for the scholastic poverty of their attacks, like the one we are discussing in this thread.

There are Hebraist exceptions of course in the scholarship world as a whole, especially those with a Yeshiva or Hebrew University background. There are men like Emanuel Tov. Even Nehemiah Gordon is a decent source in Tanach (OT) studies for precisely that reason (Nehemiah had a Yeshiva background and worked with Tov. Thus he helped explain the superiority of Yehovah/Jehovah to the paganism 'yahweh'. Often on a quiet day, such men will express an admiration for the King James Bible scholarship and rhythm, even if they are taking a different position on the translation of the "Messianic" battleground verses.) And surely there are some Christian scholars who reference those sources above, yet very few who immerse themselves daily in such literature, working with men of similar interests and scholarship and studies, as occurred in Oxford and Cambridge during the early 1600s.

A book worthy of a good read in "Hebrew in the Church" by Pinchas Lapide.

Next we will look at the strange specific accusation from William Combs above. We know the integrity part of the accusation is shredded, yet what about the ancient rabbinics and versions ? Do they really support "captured" and not "joined" ? So we will next look at the writings of the rabbinical writers on Isaiah 13:15.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Hope you enjoyed that overview, intro. It was prepared for my own understanding as well, to place in print ideas that that had only been touched upon in a scattered or less focused manner earlier.

The desire to look at Price's Folly in fulness has led to new areas of studies and exposition .

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

"There is no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition." - William Combs

Remember that the translation of the Hebrew manuscripts and text is exactly the issue being discussed, clearly there are alternatives in the traditions and clearly there is strong support to translate the Hebrew nispeh as "joined". So "Hebrew manuscript, text" are irrelevant as an accusation. With "joined" with at the very least a solid, acceptable translation of nispeh (based on the wide and strong Reformation and version and commentary and multi-language support) "joined" has as much claim to Hebrew manuscript and text evidence as any other English word.

So the actual 'corrected' accusation is:

"There is no support for this reading in any ... ancient version, or rabbinic tradition." - William Combs

"rabbinic tradition" is our next study.

Three major names comes to mind that any scholar much check for the early rabbinics. Rashi, Kimchi, and Ibn Ezra. Another primary writer, Maimonides, is less likely to have a technical commentary on a specific verse, he was a bit more of a philosopher. Incidentally these writers are often known by two names, one their given name, the other a type of acronym. e.g Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) has a shortened name - Rambam. Note, my preference, I would not call these men "rabbis", they are Hebraists, Jewish scholars, experts in the Hebraic writings and the Hebrew Bible Text.

When it comes to Hebrew grammar and vocabulary and basic verse interpretation, if you have covered Rashi, Kimchi and Ibn Ezra, you will normally have the basics, and maybe even close to the full substance. An exception is a section of special interest in interpretation like Psalm 110. Or Isaiah 53, where writers like Saadia Gaon and Abarbanel and Nachmanides and Nachman and Luzzatto and Graetz are a vital part of the rabbinic tradition.

Now we go to Rashi, who is in many ways the premier rabbinical writer for verse interpretation.

Wikipedia gives a good overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi
Rashi

Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, (Hebrew: רבי שלמה יצחקי‎), better known by the acronym Rashi (Hebrew: ‏רש"י‎), (February 22, 1040 – July 13, 1105), was a rabbi from France, famed as the author of the first comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, and comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh (Bible) ... (continues)

In the John Calvin commentary, there is a footnote from the editor that mentions the Rashi commentary on Isaiah 13:15. Jarchi == Rashi.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pfRnIYZ6sJYC&pg=PA424
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah - John Calvin (1850 edition)

Jarchi quotes the words, to add the drunken to the thirsty, (De 29:19,) add year to year, (Isa 29:1,) and add burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, (Jer 7:21,) and his annotator Breithaupt translates the verb ספה (saphah) by a word in his native French, accueillir, which means to gather, or flock together. (footnote.. body of text given on pg. 1, post #5.)

And we see the Rashi edition directly online. Rashi, perhaps the single most respected Hebraic/rabbinic expositor (and the Judaic Press translation) doesn't have anything at all about being "captured". Instead Rashi talks of "anyone who takes refuge with the people of the city" which is analogous to being "joined unto them" and has no relation to "captured" whatsoever

http://www.judaicapress.com/product_...accfc6548e293e
Prophets/Neviim: Isaiah, Vol. One

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...Chapter-13.htm
Judaica Press translation
"Everyone who is found shall be stabbed, and anyone who takes refuge shall fall by the sword."

Rashi
Everyone who is found outside, shall be stabbed.

and anyone who takes refuge with the people of the city to be included with them in the siege, shall fall by the sword when the city capitulates. נִסְפֶּה is an expression similar to (Deut. 29: 18): “To add the unintentional sins to the lustful ones (סְפוֹת) ” ; (infra 29:1) “Add year upon year (סְפוּ) ” ; (Jer. 7:21) “Add (סְפוּ) to your sacrifices.” [akojjlir in O.F.], to join.

Notice that the Rashi editor even tells us specifically that the Old French word used by Rashi, means "to join". While the earlier editor Breithaupt (c. 1710) gave a similar explanation .. to gather, or flock together. (Our experts in Old French can help determine which has the precise spelling.)

Notice also that Rashi specifically considers Jeremiah 7:21 and Deuteronomy 29:18 and Isaiah 29:1, three verses given in post #12 above, as similar to Isaiah 13:15. (Note: Deut 29.18 in the Hebrew Bible == Deut 29.19 in the KJB.)

For a bit of commentary on the Rashi translation see footnote (1) below.

So Price and Combs had the facts exactly opposite from the truth. Rashi, to many the single most important name in rabbinic traditions, is a powerful and strong support and confirmation of the King James Bible translation "joined unto them". And shows absolute no interest in "captured" or any other meaning.

Question:
Has anybody, especially a purported "scholars" like James Price and William Combs .. ever put together an multi-point (misread, emendation, no evidence in ancient sources, "captured" is correct) series of integrity accusations against the King James Bible that were more nonsensical and ludicrous than his attack on Isaiah 13:15 in the pure word of God ?

Would it even be possible to be more wrong and dishonest in scholarship ? Especially considering the goal is to try to cast doubt on the accuracy and integrity and purity of the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

(1)
Hayim Sheynin, a very sound modern Hebraist (we will return to Professor Sheynin shortly) adds a bit about the Rashi translation above. This does not affect the basics of our discussion, since the explanation is about other parts of the verse (as well as giving his general approval of the Rashi understanding). However it may assist anyone studying for technical purposes. So I add it here, he is commenting on the Judaica Press translation of Rashi and how Rashi comments on the Hebrew text.

Professor Hayim Sheynin
This case once more time demonstrate the correct and down the earth interpretation of Rashi. Only the cited translation of Rashi's passage is not precise in that there is no word "capitulates" there but "is captured" or "is taken," or "is conquered" (tillaked). The phrase "when the city is taken" (and one like me would add by an enemy) is added by Rashi for logical explanation. It is missing both in Hebrew text and in the Targum.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

"There is no support for this reading in any ... ancient version, or rabbinic tradition." - William Combs

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.

So Combs was 100% wrong on the first "rabbinic tradition" - Rashi, supporting the KJB "joined to". Even using a similar Old French word. Oh, and Combs has offered no ancient version or rabbinic tradition supporting "captured" whatsoever. So we continue.

The next rabbinical tradition is Ibn Ezra, and this is available to us for consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_ibn_Ezra
Rabbi Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra ... was born in Tudela, Islamic Spain(1089), and died c.1164 (apparently in London)... He was one of the most distinguished Jewish men of letters and writers of the Middle Ages. Ibn Ezra excelled in philosophy, astronomy/astrology, medicine, poetry, linguistics, and exegesis; he was called The Wise, The Great and The Admirable Doctor.

Ibn Ezra gives us a Commentary on Isaiah, and he makes a short notation on our verse. Granted we have to receive it through a translation, however it is clear enough.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JU1hoxF5wmIC&pg=PA67
The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - translated by Michael Friedländer, 1873

He will be pierced. He will find no mercy. נספה That is joined. Participle Niphal.

So here we have it again ! When we look at the rabbinics the facts actually support the King James Bible verse and work fully against the strained translation of Price and Combs. Even putting aside the fact that they made the accusation ! So why did they claim the opposite ? Ignorance ? Stupidity ? Deception ? Laziness ? Spiritual principalities ? Can you tell with such a crew ?

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Next we go the next major "rabbinic tradition", David Kimchi. Kimchi even specialized on grammar and vocabulary, so he gives us a bit more about the verse, even indicating that there is a translation alternative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kimhi

David Kimhi (Hebrew: דוד קמחי‎, also Kimchi or Qimchi) (1160 – 1235), also known by the Hebrew acronym as the RaDaK (רד"ק), was a medieval rabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian. Born in Narbonne, Provence, he was the son of Rabbi Joseph Kimhi and the brother of Rabbi Moses Kimhi, both biblical commentators and grammarians.

David Kimhi is best known today for his commentaries on the books of the Prophets. He also wrote commentaries on the books of Genesis, Psalms, and Chronicles. His work focuses on the language, nikkud (vocalization), rabbinic tradition of the reading, grammar, and literal meaning of the words. ...

Kimhi was also a noted grammarian. His book, Michlol (מכלול), draws heavily on the earlier works of Rabbi Judah ben David Hayyuj and Rabbi Jonah ibn Janah. He also composed a dictionary of the Hebrew language called Sefer Hashorashim (Book of Roots) (ספר השורשים).

David Kimchi (Radak) also looked at this verse. His information is a bit less available to the layman, however a Jewish scholar and Hebraist (Professor Hayim Sheynin) very graciously supplied a translation and a spot of commentary. I will include his full paragraph on Kimchi and Isaiah 13:15, which he gave after discussing the Rashi interpretation (that is above).

Hayim Sheynin
already in the Middle Ages there were other interpretations of "wekhol-ha-nispeh." Thus David Kimchi, a very respected grammarian and commentator, after accepting Rashi's interpretation and noticing parallelism of "nimtsa' " and "nispeh" brings in his commentary a dissenting opinion: And there are [commentators] who understand "wekhol-ha-nispeh" as "we-yesh nispeh belo' mishpat", i.e. Prov. 13:23 (and there is that is swept away for lack of justice). The meaning "swept away, perish, die" is one of legitimate meanings of this word. However it is not going well in the context of Is 13.15.

Thus David Kimchi (translation by Hayim Sheynin) weighs in on this in a manner similar to John Calvin's "feeble interpretation" comment much later (very possibly Calvin was understandably following the Rashi/Kimchi tradition). David Kimchi mentions an alternative to "joined". Yet Kimchi (like Calvin and in agreement with the usage given in the Rashi commentary) prefers "joined" and considers the alternative "not going well" in Isaiah 13:15. Note that at this time the "captured" translation idea was so far off the radar that it is unmentioned by Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Kimchi . The alternative that Kimchi mentions is the "consumed" or "perished" idea ("swept away, perish, die"). As also mentioned unfavorably later by Calvin and ignored by Matthew Henry and given little note by other commentators. Meanwhile the dubious "captured" gives no indication of even considered as a translation alternative through all these centuries.

Thus we now have three solid supports for "joined" in the rabbinic tradition.
Zero for "captured".

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

no support for this reading in any ... ancient version, or rabbinic tradition - William Combs

So the fact is that we can check the three major rabbinic tradition writers.

Rashi
Ibn Ezra
Kimchi

And each one directly and clearly supports the King James Bible reading "joined unto them" and gives absolutely no mention and no support to the James Price/William Combs "captured" supposed correct reading. The alternative Kimchi does mention -- "consume/perish" -- is considered inferior.

It is a good time to stop and summarize what we have found so far.

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

INTEGRITY ACCUSATIONS - JAMES PRICE and WILLIAM COMBS

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

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

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

First known appearance of these accusations.
William Combs in his 1996 paper on "errors" in the King James Bible (!).
The source for William Combs given as James Price, and his accusations published in his 2006 book.

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

SUMMARY OF TRUTH

1) Such an idea of a "misreading" of the text is extremely unlikely in any circumstances due to the very high level of language expertise of the translators and the review system passing the text among the other committees and the to the final editors. And on top of that, the continuing review system in the revisions of 1629 and 1638.

So if it is to be claimed that one verse out of tens of thousands was subject to a misread, and tens of thousands of other verses accurately read, the evidence must be overwhelming for serious consideration.

2) Yet in fact the very same word "nispeh" translated as "joined" (unto them) is used many times in the NT in a similar manner, such as "augment" or "add", especially in Isaiah. Already destroying the main potential evidence of a misread. There is nothing unusual about the actual translation with the supposed "misread" word "joined" well within the translational semantic range of "nispeh".

3) All the English Bibles before the King James Bible had translated essentially the same way. Now the "misread" has to also be an accident at least from Coverdale that was unnoticed in multiple other versions, including the Hebrew experts at Geneva. And then the King James Bible translators, on this one verse, had to "misread" in exactly the same way. So the conspiracy theory of "misreading" has to expanded over a century and throughout Europe.

4) Martin Luther (and likely other Reformation Bibles in other languages, which have not been checked) had to "misread" the Bible text in exactly the same way ! The conspiracy theory of "mass misreading fuzziness" must now extend to another country and language in Europe, subject to independent translation.

5) John Calvin's Commentary specifically expresses this as the right translation, against one other "feeble" alternative (which is the other translation of this word nispeh, so there can be no "misread" involved). Writing before the King James Bible translation. Since John Calvin was not "misreading" and he came to the same conclusion as the King James Bible translators, even the vast conspiracy theory is now shot.

6) Similarly the later excellent commentators, post-1611, such as Matthew Henry and John Gill and John Barnes, also confirm this as a fine and accurate translation. And as with Calvin "joined" is compared (e.g by Barnes) to an inferior translation of the same word. So again there can be no "misread" involved. Note: these men often offered translations differing from the King James Bible. So again the vast conspiracy theory of 1-4 is shot.

7) Similarly Noah Webster and Robert Lewis Dabney and the literal translation of Robert Young clearly support "joined unto them" by either using the same word or a comparable expression.

8) The commentators who support "joined" even extend into the age of the mid-1800s and the German textual critics, and Joseph Addison Alexander shows himself and Hitzig supporting the "joined" translation.

9) The earliest support for "captured" in all these sources is around 1860 by Franz Delitzsch and Thomas Kelly Cheyne. (Without any accusation of a "misreading" in the historical translation.) And so far there is not a single support found for this supposed "correct" translation before 250 years after the King James Bible was supposedly "misread". "Captured", as far as we have found so far, simply did not exist as a translation until about 1850, in Jewish or Christian Bible circles.

10) All three top rabbinics write upon this verse, Rashi, Kimchi and Ibn Ezra. All three use a word similar to "joined" as their translation of the verse, Rashi gives three of the verses in the NT that support the translation "joined" as in support #2 above. While David Kimchi also cannot be "misreading" the word as he considers inferior the other potential translation of the word nispeh .

Note that any commentator comparing joined to a "consume" or "destroy" translation, like Kimchi and Calvin, cannot possibly be "misreading" the word since "consume" or "destroy" or "perish" is the actual other usage of this word nispeh, and is not a meaning of the word that was supposedly "misread" nispach. Albert Barnes even writes "the true sense is given in our translation" (the AV).

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

We will next look briefly at the ancient versions. The Peshitta, Targum, and the Greek OT. Also we will look a bit more at the grammar/translational change in the late 1800s, discussed above, and the one-dimensional approach of the modernists who are oblivious to the historic translation of Isaiah 13:15.

Yet let us stop and consider. The accusations of Price and Combs are now about 10-fold shredded. How did James Price come up with such a deception simply to accuse the KJB ? Why did William Combs check .. nothing ? Why did the "peer review" fall asleep ? How did this folly arise ?

Remember this was listed as the "indisputable error" #1 in the "Masoretic Text emendations" supposedly without any support whatsoever by James Price. One that was a "misread".

The accusation is totally fallacious, ludicrous. And nobody finds .. anything. So far, there is actually no early support for the James Price "correct" translation in the rabbinic writings or the Reformation age.

THE NEED FOR CORRECTION

When many of the problems above were pointed out to James Price privately, he acknowledged .. nothing. Perhaps that will change.

What would be nice would be for Price and Combs to simply acknowledge the truth. No more digging in, circling horses, making pretense. The whole James Price idea was fatally flawed, and their evidentiary machine was deficient.

The accusations of a "misreading" and "emendation" and "indisputable error" should be retracted 100%.

And, if James Price and William Combs realize the import of this debacle to their pretension of scholarship, and yet want to maintain their book and paper available -- they would announce a full published review of every similar such claim, in an adjunct paper, placed on the Internet. Where they would carefully check auxiliary evidences carefully like we are doing here, and publish the results. . And where necessary (and it will be often necessary) similar accusations when unsupported should be withdrawn. To give one simple example. If the King James Bible is shown to be consistent with the rabbinics on a verse, any claim of an "emendation" or "following the LXX" would be withdrawn with public correction.

Can we expect such an integrity path from James Price and William Combs ? And if not, can any of their writings be remotely trusted for accuracy ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Will Kinney]

Thanks Steven. Very good and thorough study. Thanks for all the research and the direct quotes. It is truly amazing that people like freesundayschoollessons (Barry) just cannot see the obvious nor think straight anymore once they have rejected any bible as being the pure words of God.

May the Lord preserve us and increase our faith and understanding of His pure words as found only in the King James Holy Bible.

Will K

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Thanks Steven. Very good and thorough study.

Most welcome. Did you notice the latest complaint ! Too thorough .

Lord Jesus, let 'too thorough' continue to be the accusation that comes forth from the enemies of your pure word.

On the other forum, Will shared some additional evidences which are helpful here.

The Spanish Reina Valera 1909 also agrees with the King James reading: “y cualquiera que a ellos SE JUNTARE, caerá a cuchillo.”

The Italian Diodati of 1649 agrees with the KJB reading - “Chiunque sarà trovato sarà trafitto, e chiunque si SARA AGGUIUNTO con loro caderà per la spada.”

The French Martin Bible 1744 also reads like the KJB saying: “et quiconque s'y sera joint, tombera par l'épée.”

The Portuguese João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada also agrees with sense found in the KJB with: “Todo o que for achado será traspassado; e todo o que for apanhado, cairá ã espada.”

We are now in the range of 15-20 evidences that disprove that "joined unto them" was some sort of "misreading" rather than simply the understanding of the word nispeh in Isaiah 13:15, consistent with other NT verses. Any one of these evidences alone is close to proof against the misread canard. (e.g. the Calvin commentary is definitely a full refutation by itself, the Geneva Bible similarly so, the Albert Barnes and Kimchi commentaries too). When you put two or three of them together, definitely time for the accusers (with some sense) to close shop and move on, preferably with consideration, and acknowledgment and an apology. Here we are closer to 20 proof-evidences joined unto the basic truth of the unlikeliness of the canard to begin with.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Thanks for all the research and the direct quotes.

Welcome. When working on a 'best case' example, and this is called the 'indisputable error' in an anti-KJB article, I want to develop the response as a 'test case' response. One that can be understood, to expose the pattern of confusion and deception common in the anti-KJB attack world. So I was very pleased to come up with so much. Plus I end up learning about many side-aspects myself, such as the commentary on Isaiah, the various folks who have written, how Hebrew translation ideas shifted in subtle manners in the same period that brought forth decrepit 'Revision'. There are issues remaining to be explored. Not the refutation of Price's Folly, the 'misread' canard, that humpty-dumpty is so busted that all the king's men and horses have nothing they can do except harumph. However, there are lots of other aspects that the verse and the challenge brought forth that might make for invigorating discussion here in the days ahead.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

May the Lord preserve us and increase our faith and understanding of His pure words as found only in the King James Holy Bible.

Amen.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

With all these evidences, I want to emphasize a point. ....

We don't need the extra evidences .. to shred Price's Folly.

This 'misread' idea should have been tabled the moment James Price saw nispeh used as add and augment in other verses. By then it was already very, very dubious, ready to be put to sleep.

Yet even if James Price wanted to keep the accusation alive, just one simple, strong evidence, like the John Calvin commentary, or the earlier English Bibles like the Geneva, or the Albert Barnes commentary, totally destroys the accusation. And are trivially easy to find. With any one of Calvin or Barnes or Kimchi, the word, the variation in translation, is explained, it is shown to be a discussion of the exact word, there is no 'misread' possible. The whole thing is over. James Price can move on to other endeavors, hopefully more fruitful and edifying.

The only disadvantage of having 20 evidences is that you may ferget that one is more than sufficient.

Or the opponents may nit-pick about one of the 20 evidences, when most any one, or two or three of them together, provide a full and clear refutation.

So we are continuing, not looking for "more evidences" (although they will be presented when found, such as the Diodati and the other translations above) but more a wipe-up action and, most importantly, the learning experience.

I wonder if there is one of those logical constructs about arguments whose problem is the overwhelming weight of the evidences can make you a smidgen top-heavy. A nice 'problem' to have, yet that is what we are dealing with on the 'misread' canard.

Shalom,
Steven