Steven:

I notice that we share a respect for the commentary of RASHI. Have you looked at his exegesis of Psalm 12? If so, what do you think of it?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Steven: I notice that we share a respect for the commentary of RASHI. Have you looked at his exegesis of Psalm 12? If so, what do you think of it?

Hi sola. I'll move this question over to the Psalm 12 sticky thread .

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

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

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

The MT, supported by the LXX, Vgt., and Tgm., reads "captured," - James Price

So next we look directly at the Targum. Notice what James Price tells his readers to support Price's Folly. A very direct claim, a very strong assertion, echoed by Combs. (Already proven 100% wrong on the rabbinics.)

Now let us first look at the Targum facts. We have a Targum Jonathan translation of Isaiah directly available online.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_boCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA45
The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uzziel] tr. by Christian William Henry Pauli (1871)

Isaiah 13:15
Every one that shall be found in her shall be slain,
and every one that shall enter into the fortified cities shall be slain by the sword.

Oops.
Not even remotely "captured".

In fact, we have had three meanings given for the Hebrew word nispeh, two used in the Bible, the third shows up as a modern translation creation. Omitting Isaiah 13:15, the verse at issue, let us look at the three.

add, augment (oft in the OT)

perish, consume, destroy (frequent in the OT)

captured (never in the OT)

Clearly if you go from Hebrew to another language, the first is the only one that in the context of Isaiah 13:15 would translate well to:

"every one that shall enter"

ie. "every one that is joined unto them" == (close)
"every one that shall enter"

While despite the confusion of Price's Folly it is virtually an impossibility for a sense of perishing (or captured) to translated to "shall enter".

Notice that this is easy to find in one of the most well-known commentaries. I find it amazing how little John Gill is respected for his Hebraic source understanding by the modernists. His commentaries are often excellent as well, however there we allow YMMV (your mileage may vary). John Gill generally gives far more Hebraic source reference verse-by-verse than any other single source. I understand that the Jewish web-sites don't use John Gill much (after all, he is a Christian writer and they do utilize some informed sources) yet any informed reader would go to him early on the Hebraics. Along with a mikraot gedelot edition, if one is available. And/or a translation that pulls from the mikraot gedelot. So I highly recommend checking John Gill (commentary fully available on the net) on any discussion of the Hebraic interpretations, as part of his overview that will include Syriac and Greek and Latin with a solid representation of ancient sources. Laughably, some "Christian" textual cornfuseniks were recently harumphing how they usually don't check John Gill and John Calvin ! Amazing.

John Gill
The Targum is,
``everyone that enters into the fortified cities,''
flees there for safety and protection.

Unreferenced by James Price ! What did he check ? He does not say. The translation was also supported by Hayim Sheynin, who even checked multiple editions.

Hayim Sheynin
The Targum gives the following translation of "wekhol-ha-nispeh": kol de-ye`ul likerake tsiyara' - i.e. every one who will enter into the fortified city) [I looked both in the traditional d. of Miqra'ot Gedolot and in the scholarly ed. by Alexander Sperber. There is no textual differences.]

Thank you, Professor Sheynin.

Notice that the Targum is apparently also referenced by John Calvin. I say apparently because he may be taking another (unfound-by-us) interpretation and indicating it as from Targum Jonathan and "others". Possibly Nicholas of Lyra, whose Commentary on Isaiah (1327) is not easily available.

John Calvin
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.

The soldiers are "added" (or joined) to the city for defense. Linguistically, this is the case whether they are successful or fail in defense, and if they fail (as they would here) they could perish, be wounded, flee or be captured. They are joined to the city for defense.

We understand that this soldier idea is simply an interpretation. And those who are joined, according to the simple reading of the Bible text, could be many types of people aligned with Babylon. Not necessarily soldiers or military.

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

So how does Price Folly claim the Targum as a support of "captured" against "joined" ?

When you are in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of modern scholars looking to fabricate integrity arguments against the King James Bible, pretty much anything is possible. Truth and accuracy is not the prime concern.

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

Oh, one note of interest. So far, when this was posted on a thread that includes the cornfuseniks, not one of the modern version supporters, anti-pure-KJB, has looked at this mountain of evidence (remember, John Calvin alone totally refutes the accusation) and had the integrity to simply say even:

"James Price erred, he made an incorrect accusation. The evidence does not support the accusation of a 'misread' by the King James Bible translators in Isaiah 13:15."

Not one.

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

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The MT, supported by the LXX, Vgt., and Tgm., reads "captured," - James Price

The Peshitta offers a similar situation, no support whatsoever for "captured" and a translation compatible with coming from the Hebrew understanding of nispeh as 'joined'. (Technically Price did not mention the Peshitta, it is unclear why. While the claim of Wiliam Combs does include the Peshitta, since it is about "ancient versions".)

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

Hayim Sheynin
I have an old ed. of Peshitta (Syriac Bible, United Bible Societies, 1979 aproved by Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch) in the passage Is 13:15 "wekhol-ha-nispeh" is written wa-kul de-nittusaf [i.e. and everyone who is assembled (collected)]. So Peshitta also confirms the parallel to "nimtsa' "

The parallel to nimtsa was mentioned by Kimchi and is Strong's 04672, a word meaning to be found or present.

Clearly "found - assembled - collected" has semantic overlap with "added to" and "augment" and "joined unto" in such a context. And, once again, has no overlap at all with captured. As insisted upon in Price's Folly.

The most one could say is that the support for "joined unto them" (as synonymous to "assembled") is indirect, less forceful than the very direct supports from Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Kimchi. And the good support from the Targum.

However there is absolutely no way to claim this Peshitta text as a support for "captured". Nor is it a support for the more literal and proper attempt to have an alternative to the KJB "joined" .. "perish".

None whatsoever.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

We previously had shown two English translations of the Latin. The situation here is essentially the same as with the Aramaic Peshitta. These represent distinct early version traditions, both directly from the Hebrew (no Greek intervening).

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.

Blueletterbible gives the Latin text as:

omnis qui inventus fuerit occidetur et omnis qui supervenerit cadet in gladio

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Another related question is how and when the "captured" translation arose. This is secondary to the whole issue of the tawdry accusation by Price and Combs, however it is of interest nonetheless, especially to show how translations as well as texts were modified and tampered with in the 1800s.

To start, my research can indicate what seems to be the very first "captured" translations. It definitely looks like the genesis is Gesenius, who apparently modified both the lexicon and the translation.

In German, by Gesenius:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fMcUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA33
Der Prophet Jesaia - Wilhelm Gesenius (1829)

Wer sich treffen lässt, wird durchbohrt,
Wer erhascht wird, fällt durch das Schwert.

Our German experts can supply an exact translation, however erhascht is given as captured by the web freetranslation site.

Thomas Kelly Cheyne (yes the same whiz-kid who switched around the verses in Psalm 12) takes this Gesenius idea to heart in his 1870 translation (later I will plan to show the 1800s translation history) which was quite unusual.

http://www.archive.org/details/thebo...aiah00cheyuoft
The Book of Isaiah, chronologically arranged : an amended version with historical and critical introductions and explanatory notes p. 135 by Thomas Kelly Cheyne (1870)

every one that is surprised shall be thrust through,
and every one that is taken shall fall by the sword

Later in his 1895 edition where Cheyne translated the Paul Haupt text the capitulation to the Gesenius view was complete, Cheyne and the establishment was pretty much all captured by Gesenius and we have :

http://books.google.com/books?id=QUg...AJ&pg=RA1-PA61
The Book of the Prophet Isaiah by Paul Haupt translated by Thomas Kelly Cheyne

Whoever is seized will be thrust through,
whoso is caught will fall by the sword

Since this is rather interesting (in a semi-techie historical way) in showing how changes came forth in the 1800s we will try to give more context shortly. In the meantime we have a short study of the 'captured' genesis, the German genius Gesenius.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

We are mostly putting aside the nonsense of Price & Combs and simply trying to understand the genesis of "captured". In its own right "captured" is an example of an "under the covers" translation shift, virtually unknown, where the translators starting around the 1890s (significant exception : Robert Young) simply followed the "new" text with little thought, comment or insight. Going against the long Reformation Bible history, following their new sources.

Hand-in-hand with the decrepit NT revision text came new ideas of word-meanings out of the German scholarship of the 19th century (an error era rife with the two or three Isaiahs, the huge tetragrammaton blunder, higher criticisms, etc.).

Gesenius is considered a rationalist, a pragmatic philologist. Joseph Addison Alexander, while respecting his scholarship, refers to"

"his (Gesenius) fundamental error, that there can be no prophetic foresight".

We can consider Gesenius as intellectually honest as can be for one with the fundamental spiritual difficulty of a rejection of the supernatural prophetic aspect of the Bible text.

Gesenius for "captured" in the 19th century is clearly the key (again putting aside the bogus representations of Price & Combs). And the next two posts will look at this closer. First the history leading up to his changeover. The original year was likely earlier than 1829 since in 1821 Gesenius wrote on Isaiah and his Hebrew technical writing work began as early as 1810 with English translation as early as 1824. However we see no notice of this "captured" from others until about 1840 (although there could be mention in the German literature). Let us first review the history, then we will look at the Gesenius explanation.

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

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

Where did Gesenius come up with the "captured" idea ? We can see that it clearly was not in any of the major commentators in the century and more leading up to his writing, and it is rare in the years after. We now skip over ahead to the 1700s, we have shown above there is absolutely no mention of "captured" in Reformation scholarship, we want to focus on the change period.

http://www.msbcoc.com/mhc/MHC23013.asp
Matthew Henry (1712)
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.

http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/vi...=013&verse=015
John Gill (1765)
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"

http://books.google.com/books?id=p_IoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA81
Robert Lowth (1815)
Every one, that is overtaken, shall be thrust through :
And all that are collected in a body shall fall by the sword.
http://books.google.com/books?id=p_IoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA252
Every' one that is overtaken *
That is, none shall escape from the slaughter : neither they who flee singly, dispersed, and in confusion ; nor they who endeavour to make their retreat in a more regular manner, by forming compact bodies ; they shall all be equally cut off by the sword of the enemy.

Note: this translation is also in the edition with Lowth, Blayney and Newcome. (Referenced by Spurgeon in his commentary list.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=dSZdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
A Literal Translation of the Prophets, from Isaiah to Malachi (1836)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/webster.ii.Isa.13.html
Noah Webster Bible (1833)
Every one that is found shall be thrust through;
and every one that is joined to them shall fall by the sword.

This next article is very helpful, almost a historic review. One that de facto acknowledges Gesenius as having formed a new view, one accepted by Ewald.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C41wAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA256
The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah By Joseph Addison Alexander (1846)

The flight of the strangers from Babylon is not without reason, for every one found (there) shall be stabbed (or thrust through), and every one joined (or joining himself to the Babylonians) shall fall by the sword. All interpreters agree that a general massacre is here described ....

Alexander goes on to mention interpretations by Junius, Kimchi, Hitzig, Lowth, Umbreit, Michaelis, Henderson, Knobel, Ewald & Gesenius. (Rashi and Calvin and Gill are major omissions).

Alexander considers (if it is given that "thrust through" and "fall by the sword" are referring to the same people) that there are two major understandings. (A bit oversimplified, but reasonable for now.)

One is Kimchi applying to the foreigners included with the Babylonians - (matching "joined unto them" - the only direct discussion of Kimchi available far on this verse is the one we shared from Hayim Sheynin).

The second is the Ewald (he first to popularize the form Jahve for the Tetragram) and Gesenius "captured" view, with Ewald following Gesenius. The 1840 German edition of Ewald is in Google "Die Propheten des Alten Bundes" along with the 1869 English translation (no commentary involved).

every one who lets himself be found shall be pierced through,
and every one taken falls by the sword; (The prophet Isaiah p. 156)

Now we continue with our 1800s survey.

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.'

http://books.google.com/books?id=JIkfAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40
The Holy Bible, in the Authorized Version - Christopher Wordsworth, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1869)

Notation that the first part of the verse found == "caught in a net".
No note on "joined unto them".

This is a nice rundown of the history. Gesenius made the changeover, it made little headway other than Ewald (1840) and then Cheyne (1870) with the strange "every one that is surprised - every one that is taken". Yet when the new versions started coming out with the revision, anything from Gesenius --> BDB was simply accepted without examination. The fact that this matches no other verse in the OT for nispeh and was totally non-existent as a translation until the 1800s made no difference to most (having noted the significant exception of Robert Young). With a man like James Price being the OT editor of the NKJV (amazing) this ultra-dubious translation not only made it to the NKJV, "captured" became the springboard-highlight for a backfire-attack against the pure word of God, the King James Bible.

The Price/Combs accusation would be ludicrous and malicious even if "captured" was a solid, long-lasting alternative translation -- simply because "joined unto them" is clearly a major historic, well-supported translational understanding of nispeh -- however in this case the Price/Combs bogus accusation nonsense has opened up a more general fuller understanding of translation analysis.

Next we will look at the closest we can find of the Gesenius logic, also an astute comment by Hayim Sheynin. Our goal is no longer to emphasize Price/Combs (for now) simply to learn from the word-translation issue.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The above was the essential history from 1700 to 1900. Addison mentions some others, but not with "captured", some of them would be interesting to read, as well as checking Hengstenberg for possible input.

Adding the names below we are reviewing, in pretty much chronological order, we have: (with the asterik giving no indication of "captured")

Matthew Henry *
John Gill *
Robert Lowth *
Noah Webster *
Wilhelm Gesenius
Ferdinand Hitzig *
Heinrich Ewald
Joseph Addison Alexander (neutral)
Albert Barnes *
Wordsworth & Scrivener *
Thomas Kelly Cheyne
Charles Ellicott
Conrad Van Orelli *
William Kelley
Robert Young *

Ellicott's 1884 commentary, with the "joined unto them" text, says:

"better, every one that is caught" The first clause of the verse refers to those that are in the city at the time of its capture, the second to those who are taken as they endeavour to escape.

Young's Literal translation (1862) mentioned above:

Every one who is found is thrust through,
And every one who is added falleth by sword.

Thye Prophecies of Isaiah - Conrad Von Orelli (1889) - translated by Banks
"whoever remains in the city,
or is surprised outside,
falls without mercy under the blows of the cruel foe."

An Exposition Of Isaiah - William Kelley (1890)
Every one that is found shall be thrust through;
and every one that is taken shall fall by the sword.

The details of Hitzig (mentioned by Alexander) are in this German. Anybody who wants to work with this is welcome.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Xs6h5DbGawC&pg=PA160
Der Prophet Jesaja, übers. und ausgelegt von Ferdinand Hitzig (1833)

Delitzsch should be included, the Keil & Delitzsch commentaries were published in German starting in 1861. in English we have the 1884 edition from Clark.

http://www.archive.org/details/isaia...ecie01deliuoft
Biblical commentary on the prophecies of Isaiah (1884) p. 302
Delitzsch
Every one that is found is pierced through,
and every one that is caught falls by the sword

By "every one that is found"; we understand those that are taken in the city by the invading conquerors ; and by "every one that is caught" those that are overtaken in their flight (sdphdh, abripere, ch. vii. 20). All are put to the sword. The third and fourth disasters are plunder and ravage.

Here with the reference to Isaiah 7:20 you get a hint to the new thinking. We will return to that with the Gesenius lexicon.

And the "captured" movement is more properly from 1840:
Gesenius --> Ewald --> Delitzsch--> Cheyne --> BDB

Capturing the modern-versions in a translation error.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And the "captured" movement is more properly from 1840:
Gesenius --> Ewald --> Delitzsch--> Cheyne --> BDB

Correction above -- starting point - 1829, possibly a bit earlier.

Now let us look at the commentary where Franz Delitzsch says:

"every one that is caught" those that are overtaken in their flight (saphah, abripere, ch. vii. 20)

First, we look at the related verse mentioned, and it is hard to find anything close to "caught". (We will check other translations later.)

Isaiah 7:20
In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired,
namely, by them beyond the river,
by the king of Assyria,
the head, and the hair of the feet:
and it shall also consume the beard.

Remember, John Calvin had already told us to be wary of mistranslating this word saphah (which is our nispeh, under Hebrew vagaries). (Post #5)

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...89&postcount=5
John Calvin Commentary

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.

Nicely done by John Calvin.

So Delitzsch (following Gesenius) is coming forth with yet another (new) meaning. Yet at the time of Calvin (and in ancient times and up to the 1800s) it seems that nobody even conjectured "caught" or "captured".

(Note: "abripere" from Delitzsch is placed at bottom, to not interrupt the basics.)

Here is our nispeh in Isaiah, including Isaiah 7:20.
http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/Lexi...=4&version=kjv

So, you might wonder how the meaning of consume, perish, destroy (which was the major alternative to "joined" in historic commentaries - as explained by John Calvin and others) morphs into "captured" ?

Yep, that is a good question. In post #12 we showed nispeh as "add, augment, join" in a number of verses.
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=12

And you can easily find a number of verses similar to Isaiah 7:20 for the consume or perish meaning. Here are four in Genesis.

Genesis 18:23
And Abraham drew near, and said,
Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Genesis 18:24
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city:
wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the
fifty righteous that are therein?

Genesis 19:15
And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot,
saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters,
which are here;
lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Genesis 19:17
And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad,
that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee,
neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain,
lest thou be consumed.

Yet, no captured ... nothing even close. And Hebrew has at least one other word that clearly means "captured" in many different forms and usages.

http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/Lexi...17&version=kjv
shabah

Isaiah 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me;
because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

http://www.drmikebagwell.org/index.html
Isaiah 61:1-3 - Mike Bagwell
"Shabah" is a Hebrew noun that means the ones who have been "led away." People who have been "taken."

So we will stop here for now in this puzzle, trying to get the drift of the Delitzsch. He tells us that captured is like the usage in Isaiah 7:20, yet that doesn't seem to fit at all.

Next we will check other translations of Isaiah 7:20 and the genius Gesenius, maybe we can unravel this a bit. In the meantime feel free to share from your language background, or just by thinking (apparently a rare commodity in modern textual studies). I do these studies simply by common sense and reasonably careful analysis, with minimal or less language background. Yet it is amazingly simple to find these huge problems in modernist translational conjectural modifications to our pure Bible.

(What I really enjoy is looking at the earlier commentators, the ones who really expressed a heart of devotion for the scriptures, and thereby their thoughts and ideas were with understanding).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

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

ABRIPERE - (from Delitzsch above)

Delitzsch adds the Latin abripere (abscond, retrieve, take away, carry away -- so it can be close). I dunno where he gets it from, or the supposed relevance. If you have an idea, share away. At most, if we found the word, it would indicate an understanding by Jerome, not our direct Hebrew translation, yet where is the word ?

Isaiah 7:20 (Latin Vulgate)
in die illa radet Dominus in novacula conducta in his qui trans Flumen sunt in rege Assyriorum caput et pilos pedum et barbam universam

Douay OT
In that day the Lord shall shave with a razor that is hired
by them that are beyond the river,
by the king of the Assyrians,
the head and the hairs of the feet,
and the whole beard.

Isaiah 13:15
omnis qui inventus fuerit occidetur et omnis qui supervenerit cadet in gladio

Douay
Every one that shall be found, shall be slain:
and every one that shall come to their aid,
shall fall by the sword.

And if anyone shall come to our aid to explain the Delitzsch abripere reference, no swords, your assistance is appreciated. My conjecture, Delitzsch just placed that in for his Latin readers, how he would translate "caught". Not that it is actually in the text of either verse. If you have another idea, share away, s'il vous plait.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now we realize this is a tad complex for a public forum (what in the world is he talking about !?) .. however there really is a point or three. Allow me to summarize to date.

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

Price/Combs, the dynamic duo, belligerently attacked the King James Bible "joined unto them" as a "misreading", an "indisputable error" .. with the correct word supposedly being "captured". They claimed that this was because there were two words similar, and the other similar word nispach was "joined". (To push this idea they also made totally false assertions about the historic evidence in the rabbinics and ancient versions.)

Overall they missed or suppressed many simple facts.

1) The word in consideration nispeh has two distinct NT usages.

a) consume, perish, destroy
b) add, augment, join

Any argument that the word must have only has one of those meanings in a particular tense is ultra-dubious - (that was part of the implied underlying technical error of the accusation).

Thus the commentators throughout the centuries generally looked at the two meanings and were quite aware of the distinction within the NT text. And to a man, until the mid-1800s, the commentators preferred the "joined" or "collected" or "added" type of meaning. These commentators included Rashi, Kimchi, Calvin, Gill, Barnes -- thus including the crème de la crème of Hebraic commentators. The commentators rejected the (a) meaning and consciously and deliberately embraced the (b) meaning, even giving similar verses using the word to match (especially Rashi did this, almost a millennium back, while John Calvin is especially helpful in describing the overall considerations. In fact, the level of commentator insight and explanation is quite helpful and appreciated, almost astounding especially considering the weird accusation).

Thus any idea that they all "misread" the same word in some vast multi-century word-blindness (à la James Price vis-à-vis the Geneva Bible and the Coverdale and even leaving the translator Robert Young in the lurch) is a theory so ludicrous that it is hard to decide whether laughter or derision is the appropriate response. Since the commentators were talking about the two meanings of the word nispeh, and the verses where nispeh is used -- to claim that all these commentators mixed nispeh with another word nispach is the height and depth of insipidity.

The technical info about the two main understandings, and any offshoots and interpretations of each, are quite fascinating, covered fairly well in the quotes, discussion and urls on the thread and a bit beyond the scope of the summary.

2) The commentators and versions throughout the centuries are generally in close harmony with the King James Bible reading, until the mid-19th century, when a translational change began and we see the split between "joined" and "captured" (both words have similar alternate words in translations). All as discussed above.

3) "captured" had no support whatsoever until the 19th century, not in the rabbinics, not in ancient versions, not in commentaries, not in the Reformation Bible, not in commentators. That is "0 - zilch - nada" historic support for "captured" until the 19th century.

4) The underlying errors of Price/Combs were magnified by their false claims, discussed up-thread, that "captured" had the rabbinic and ancient version support. The details of this charade are quite interesting.

5) And it is worth emphasizing that this was an "integrity" and "competence" accusation -- not just a claim that "captured" was superior (false claims of that nature against the King James Bible are commonplace) -- we have a very special accusation that the King James Bible translators in a careful, multiple review committee structure, with world-class Hebraists, misread this one word out of thousands. Much like the laughable 'one 400-year misprint' (the world's longest typo) claim for the gnat. Such a claim, made in arrogance and ignorance against men far the language superiors of Price and Combs, is rather amazing.

The main conceptual difference is that this one is the handiwork only of James Price (NKJV-OT editor and active in anti-pure-KJB writing) only, funneled over to anti-pure-KJB writer William Combs. Thus James Price was wedded to the accusation blunder, as came forth clearly in our correspondence in 2007. Other than Combs and internet modern version drones nobody else has carried the banner of this ludicrous accusation (afawk Wallace, White, Glenny, Sproul, Kutilek et al have passed this by). The gnat, by comparison, has had a rather long and undistinguished "run of the lemmings". And is still today the fav ignorant integrity accusation of one Daniel Wallace.

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

Now, once the fantasy of the textual dynamic duo is discarded - other issues remain.

1) How did the "captured" translation arise -- what is its support ?

2) What is the history of the modern version translation changeover ?

3) Which is the superior translation.

After all, as King James Bible defenders, since this was called an "indisputable error" by the opponents -- even if the silly "misread" accusation is discarded, what in the world are they talking about ? Is "captured" really sensible, accurate, consistent, and superior by any sensible scholarship ?

Now keep in mind -- #3 has a subjective component. You can never "prove" anything to a Bible skeptic. (The really hard-core pure Bible skeptics will even hold the "misread" accusation as their own even against the Everest-mountain of evidence.)

Overall - I strongly believe that anybody who searches out the facts (including #1 and #2) with sincerity will agree that "joined unto them" is correct while "captured" is simply a strange and strained attempt. In fact, the logic behind it looks like a case of the logical fallacy of "special pleading". Where the desire first comes forth for the alternate "new" translation and then a convoluted method of getting there is attempted to be justified. However you can weigh in on this as well, especially when Delitzsch and Gesenius (the two who are the theoretical base of "captured") are complete.

And this is where we are now, looking at the "captured" proponents. We saw that Delitzsch is mired in quicksand, so next we will try to see if he is extracted by Gesenius. Or did Wilhelm Gesenius lead Franz Delitzsch into the quicksand ditch ? To be followed into the ditch by the blob of modernist lemmings, moving without thought or insight, all captured by the inferior and inaccurate translation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery