Masoretic Pointing & Cantillation Faults

[FSSL]

BGWilkinson cited Adam Clarke's proposition that the Masoretes (unsaved Jews) practice of adding vowels, punctuation and pronounciation marks to the text inevitably introduced their own commentary on the Hebrew text.

Are there any textual examples where the Masoretes created a significant interpretational problem that would suggest a twist by an unbelieving Jew?

I'm not talking about an error that is obviously a small mistake. I am talking about an obvious intentional prejudice that would establish Adam Clarke's proposition.

 

[praise_yeshua]

While not related to "vowel pointing".

Psalm 39:6 is difficult to reason in the MT. So is the acrostic poem found in Psalm 145 and its entire missing verse in the MT.

Or

Deuteronomy 32:43 and the author of Hebrews 1:6.

or Isaiah 61:1 as used by the beloved Dr. Luke. 4:18

or that prophecy of the piercing of the hands and feet of Christ. You'll not find that one in the MT. Psalm 21:17

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Out of all of them.... I think Isaiah 42:4 might just be a conspiracy. It certainly messes up Romans 15:12.

 

[Steven Avery]

In the General Preface to his commentary, Clarke writes:

"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. .... Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of "pair" for "pear" or "peer" which changes the meaning completely with the simple change of the vowels.

BGWilkinson cited Adam Clarke's proposition that the Masoretes  ... Are there any textual examples where the Masoretes created a significant interpretational problem that would suggest a twist by an unbelieving Jew?

I have never seen one.  And there is an irony that the example given by Clarke involves an English vowel.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

In the General Preface to his commentary, Clarke writes:

"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. .... Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of "pair" for "pear" or "peer" which changes the meaning completely with the simple change of the vowels.

BGWilkinson cited Adam Clarke's proposition that the Masoretes  ... Are there any textual examples where the Masoretes created a significant interpretational problem that would suggest a twist by an unbelieving Jew?

I have never seen one.  And there is an irony that the example given by Clarke involves an English vowel.

Steven

Hey Avery.... why don't you man up and answer my post in this thread?

 

[Steven Avery]

answer my post in this thread?

You threw out, without any documentation and without making any contribution, about five topics. And without saying what is your point.

So here is one:

"or that prophecy of the piercing of the hands and feet of Christ. You'll not find that one in the MT. Psalm 21:17"

Psalms 22:16
For dogs have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

It is a minority reading in the Masoretic Text and well supported in the Hebrew tradition, from DSS to Midrash to Masorah.  If your point is that most of the Masoretic Text mss are corrupt at this point, I say amen! 

Again, I think it is helpful to seek out the history, including the report sourced to Drusius (1550-1616) that Bomberg was pressured to keep the corrupt reading intact. Or the similar report given by Haydock, from Guillaume-François Berthier (1704-1782), that Ben Hayim had seen many uncorrupted mss.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

answer my post in this thread?

You threw out, without any documentation and without making any contribution, about five topics. And without saying what is your point.

So here is one:

Isn't it amazing. You pretend you don't understand what I wrote..... then decide to answer me?

Typical Avery rhetoric.

"or that prophecy of the piercing of the hands and feet of Christ. You'll not find that one in the MT. Psalm 21:17"

Psalms 22:16
For dogs have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

It is a minority reading in the Masoretic Text and well supported in the Hebrew tradition, from DSS to Midrash to Masorah.  If your point is that most of the Masoretic Text mss are corrupt at this point, I say amen! 

Again, I think it is helpful to seek out the history, including the report sourced to Drusius (1550-1616) that Bomberg was pressured to keep the corrupt reading intact. Or the similar report given by Haydock, from Guillaume-François Berthier (1704-1782), that Ben Hayim had seen many uncorrupted mss.

Steven

Well.... well... If the KJV is taken from the MT and you agree that the MT mss are corrupt here....

Then are you promoting the KJV as advanced revelation? That the KJV corrected the underlying texts?

Just what proof do you have that KJV translators followed a minority reading from the MT available to them?

 

[Steven Avery]

Isn't it amazing. You pretend you don't understand what I wrote..... then decide to answer me?

Why play games, you know that is not what I wrote.
I discussed one issue that was at least somewhat decipherable, in the spirit of trying to have a discussion. 
Clearly, that is out of your league.

I definitely agree that the majority of Masoretic mss are corrupt in this one place.  And the Ben Hayim mss is also corrupt in one or two other very significant spots (including Joshua 21:36-37, where there is a margin note). This has been what I have shared for years.

The learned men of the AV drew from numerous Hebrew ms printed editions and additional Hebraic resources.  They were, I believe, providentially guided in making the right choices, and gave us an independent edition of the Received Texts (OT and NT.)  In the context of the NT, this is described quite nicely by Edward Freer Hills.

And I never claimed that they had a "minority reading available to them", so I will not attempt "prove" what I have never asserted.  Plus, I generally do not play "prove it to me" with people not capable of a real discussion.

Here is a simple question for you. 
Do you believe any tangible OT text, in any language, is the pure and perfect word of God?

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

Isn't it amazing. You pretend you don't understand what I wrote..... then decide to answer me?

Why play games, you know that is not what I wrote.
I discussed one issue that was at least somewhat decipherable, in the spirit of trying to have a discussion. 
Clearly, that is out of your league.

Get a grip. I clearly said "Psalm 39:6 is difficult to reason in the MT."

I then followed with several verses that are, in like manner, difficult to reason from the MT. You're being unreasonable.

I definitely agree that the majority of Masoretic mss are corrupt in this one place.  And the Ben Hayim mss is also corrupt in one or two other very significant spots (including Joshua 21:36-37, where there is a margin note). This has been what I have shared for years.

The learned men of the AV drew from numerous Hebrew ms printed editions and additional Hebraic resources.  They were, I believe, providentially guided in making the right choices, and thus gave us an independent edition of the Received Texts (OT and NT.)

Steven

So you do believe that the KJV is advanced revelation? That the translators were providentially guided to the proper Hebrew texts.......

Well, this is real problem for you. I'm sure you're aware there are verses in the KJV OT that have NO Hebrew manuscript witness. NONE. In fact, I listed some in my post.  Since you're eager to discuss this issue, may I..... point you to Deuteronomy 32:43

1.) Paul references Deuteronomy 32:43 in Romans 15:10. The KJV reads

Rom 15:10  And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

Deuteronomy 32:43 reads....

Deu 32:43  Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people:


and Psalm 40:6 or (Psalm 39:6 LXX)

2.) Hebrews 10:5 references Psalm 40:6 in the KJV.

Heb 10:5  Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

yet the KJV does not even come close the actual verse being referenced.

Psa 40:6  Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Do you understand now?

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm sure you're aware there are verses in the KJV OT that have NO Hebrew manuscript witness. NONE.

And I think you are confusing yourself here. Your concern, apparently refers to KJV NT references. 

You don't really make this claim above, do you?

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

Why do you refuse to answer my one simple question:

Do you believe any tangible OT text, in any language, is the pure and perfect word of God?

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

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm sure you're aware there are verses in the KJV OT that have NO Hebrew manuscript witness. NONE.

And I think you are confusing yourself here. Your concern, apparently refers to KJV NT references. 

You don't really make this claim above, do you?

I said exactly what I meant. There are issues with the Hebrew text of the OT. Don't twist what I said. There are clearly references throughout the Scriptures that do not correspond to the MT. You are the one saying that God providentially pointed the KJV to the correct text. It would be natural for you to identify those texts. To exactly what texts do you refer? There are clearly areas where no MT text exists.

Why do you refuse to answer my one simple question:

Do you believe any tangible OT text, in any language, is the pure and perfect word of God?

Now, you're pulling a "trick" out of the old Kenney bag....

I don't seem to remember you asking me that question. Are you lost in your own rhetoric? I will be glad to answer that question!!!!

I believe the texts are perfect across multiple families of available texts. I don't believe the MT or any other Hebrew family of texts are perfect.... without error. Nor do I believe that the LXX or other OLD Greek texts of the OT to be perfect... without error. I do believe that the perfect Word of God for mankind is found in comparing all the mentioned texts to find the accurate representation of God's Word.

How is this ANY different than your belief that KJV translators followed a "minority" reading in Psalms 22:16? You're choosing between one text you believe is wrong and one that is corrupted....


You just can't make this up..... These KJV nuts want to use the same EXACT methods as their adversary....... and then claim they are right because they are ones using them..... 

 

[subllibrm]

I'm sure you're aware there are verses in the KJV OT that have NO Hebrew manuscript witness. NONE.

And I think you are confusing yourself here. Your concern, apparently refers to KJV NT references. 

You don't really make this claim above, do you?

I said exactly what I meant. There are issues with the Hebrew text of the OT. Don't twist what I said. There are clearly references throughout the Scriptures that do not correspond to the MT. You are the one saying that God providentially pointed the KJV to the correct text. It would be natural for you to identify those texts. To exactly what texts do you refer? There are clearly areas where no MT text exists.

Why do you refuse to answer my one simple question:

Do you believe any tangible OT text, in any language, is the pure and perfect word of God?

Now, you're pulling a "trick" out of the old Kenney bag....

I don't seem to remember you asking me that question. Are you lost in your own rhetoric? I will be glad to answer that question!!!!

I believe the texts are perfect across multiple families of available texts. I don't believe the MT or any other Hebrew family of texts are perfect.... without error. Nor do I believe that the LXX or other OLD Greek texts of the OT to be perfect... without error. I do believe that the perfect Word of God for mankind is found in comparing all the mentioned texts to find the accurate representation of God's Word.

How is this ANY different than your belief that KJV translators followed a "minority" reading in Psalms 22:16? You're choosing between one text you believe is wrong and one that is corrupted....


You just can't make this up..... These KJV nuts want to use the same EXACT methods as their adversary....... and then claim they are right because they are ones using them..... 

But the KJV men used the method with providential guidance.

 

[Steven Avery]

I said exactly what I meant. There are issues with the Hebrew text of the OT. Don't twist what I said. There are clearly references throughout the Scriptures that do not correspond to the MT. You are the one saying that God providentially pointed the KJV to the correct text. It would be natural for you to identify those texts. To exactly what texts do you refer? There are clearly areas where no MT text exists.

What you said before is different.  Anyway, the Holy Spirit was not constrained to reference quote the OT in slavish literalism. Often the references are midrashic, interpretive, adding information for the believer.

I believe the texts are perfect across multiple families of available texts. I don't believe the MT or any other Hebrew family of texts are perfect.... without error. Nor do I believe that the LXX or other OLD Greek texts of the OT to be perfect... without error. I do believe that the perfect Word of God for mankind is found in comparing all the mentioned texts to find the accurate representation of God's Word. How is this ANY different than your belief that KJV translators followed a "minority" reading in Psalms 22:16? You're choosing between one text you believe is wrong and one that is corrupted....

Apples and oranges.  We are wasting time and going around the mulberry bush because you weak on logic and pushing non-analogies.  You don't have a pure Bible, OT and NT.  This makes your flail about.

Steven Avery

 

[praise_yeshua]

What you said before is different.  Anyway, the Holy Spirit was not constrained to reference quote the OT in slavish literalism. Often the references are midrashic, interpretive, adding information for the believer.[/color]

Wow. Youve got a big problem here. There are very many examples of the OT being quoted word for word in the NT. Word for Word. Far more  times than they don't. In fact, these men doing the quoting were the very ones living by the "jot and tittle".... not some nut in the 21st century getting all worked up over one English translation among dozens....

You can't keep your own standards straight to save your lie.....

 

[praise_yeshua]

Apples and oranges.  We are wasting time and going around the mulberry bush because you weak on logic and pushing non-analogies.  You don't have a pure Bible, OT and NT.  This makes your flail about.

Steven Avery

Explain how these are "apples and oranges". You have already admitted that there are minority readings in the KJV OT. Minority readings that came from different texts. You've combined these different texts into a finished work you believe is pure and the Word of God. Why can't I do the same?

Are you falling back to the old KJVO trick of "I'm right and you're wrong"????

 

[Steven Avery]

. You have already admitted that there are minority readings in the KJV OT. Minority readings that came from different texts. You've combined these different texts into a finished work you believe is pure and the Word of God.

There are a few. You can add qere-ketiv issues. And if Greek is your standard for the NT, there are many more there.

Honestly, I really do not see that you are even making an argument, although I have notice that your are skilled at rabbit trails and mulberry bushes.

If you want to try make an argument, do it syllogism-style, so at least there is something tangible with which to work.

Say .. the Bible editions are not inspired and preserved scripture for this reason:
  a) ...
  b) ...

Then I will be able to respond to point.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

. You have already admitted that there are minority readings in the KJV OT. Minority readings that came from different texts. You've combined these different texts into a finished work you believe is pure and the Word of God.

There are a few. You can add qere-ketiv issues. And if Greek is your standard for the NT, there are many more there.

Honestly, I really do not see that you are even making an argument, although I have notice that your are skilled at rabbit trails and mulberry bushes.

If you want to try make an argument, do it syllogism-style, so at least there is something tangible with which to work.

Say .. the Bible editions are not inspired and preserved scripture for this reason:
  a) ...
  b) ...

Then I will be able to respond to point.

Steven

Go away Avery...... I've wasted enough believing your might be reasonable. There's a reason you and Kenney are so isolated in the KJVO community. Even they can't stand you anymore......

 

[subllibrm]

. You have already admitted that there are minority readings in the KJV OT. Minority readings that came from different texts. You've combined these different texts into a finished work you believe is pure and the Word of God.

There are a few. You can add qere-ketiv issues. And if Greek is your standard for the NT, there are many more there.

Honestly, I really do not see that you are even making an argument, although I have notice that your are skilled at rabbit trails and mulberry bushes.

If you want to try make an argument, do it syllogism-style, so at least there is something tangible with which to work.

Say .. the Bible editions are not inspired and preserved scripture for this reason:
  a) ...
  b) ...

Then I will be able to respond to point.

Steven

Why would anyone say that? No one here believes that.

 

[Steven Avery]

Why would anyone say that? No one here believes that.

Then share with us which particular editions are the inspired and preserved scripture.

And please do not give us the type of nonsense that says that radically different editions are both inspired and presreved scripture at the same time.

Thanks!

Steven

 

[subllibrm]

Why would anyone say that? No one here believes that.

Then share with us which particular editions are the inspired and preserved scripture.

And please do not give us the type of nonsense that says that radically different editions are both inspired and presreved scripture at the same time.

Thanks!

Steven

Why must it be one? The KJV isn't even just one edition.

Also, you don't have the exact TR used by the KJV translators so why is that not an issue?

Where is the preserved text that the KJV was derived from?

 

[FSSL]

And please do not give us the type of nonsense that says that radically different editions are both inspired and presreved scripture at the same time.

Then what is an acceptable percentage of differences?