Is This a NEW New King James? - By David W. Daniels

[bibleprotector]

The KJV has changed. Your ship is imaginary.

The text/version/readings and translation have not changed in the sense that you imply "change".

So... Plutarch wrote in Koine. You must believe that he wrote in biblical Greek. You wouldn't recognize a Koine Greek word from a Classical Greek word. Why do you jump into this as if you know?

God wrote the Bible, man wrote many other things. Why do you want to confuse the two? God's use of language is not the same as man's use. And we have a perfect translation in English, unlike your human translation view of "Koine" NT Greek. That's a double "humanising" affect onto the divine Scripture.

Why do you no longer use the words "thee" and "thou" when you converse on forums? Are you denying God? Are you a modernist?

You are using a different terminology. If modern means being changed to present conditions, that is one thing, which is why in normal speech we do not use "thee" and "thou". But when it means substituting human reasoning for Biblical reasoning, then you are in a different thing: and that is what you are doing, you are modernist in that sense.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

1) American English is NOT dumbing down. It is going through normal language changes.

Correct. Our language, just as with all languages, is changing. Our translations should change with it.

"Whom" is no being replaced by "Who" and "builded" has been replaced by "built."

I agree it is time to get rid of the "who/whom" dichotomy, but the plurals of certain English words ending in "t" vice "ed" actually had a reason. If you check a KJV you will see that both "built" and "builded" are used. In early Modern English there was an attempt to distinguish between a simple past tense (builded) and an aorist past tense (built). Just as the endings "est" and "eth" indicated second and third person respectively.

"Thee" is now "You." These are not the result of dumbing down.

It is the result of language drift, and it is, to some extent, a "dumbing down" of late Modern English even though it has become the standard. The pronouns, of course, gave additional information regarding case and number. Subjects were different from direct objects and singulars were different from plurals. Unfortunately English no longer makes that distinction and it has been lost on most people. As has most of the spelling and grammar changes in current English.

An example is "Ye Olde Hatte Shoppe." Most current Modern English speakers do not realize the initial "Y" in "Ye" was, at that time, the English equivalent of a Theta and was pronounced as "The" not as "ye."

We see that quite often in the original (1611) edition of the KJV. There will be an "e" with a subscript "y" (for those who do not know what a subscript is, the "y" was written directly below the "e") which was the word "the" (definate article) not the pronoun "ye" (second-person, plural, personal pronoun, nominative case).

So, yes, the English language has changed and, as it now conveys less information in translation than previously, it could be said that the language itself has "dumbed down" but that is not the fault of translators. That is, as you say, a function of dropping literacy rates.

When I was in high school (1961), in order to graduate, I needed 4 years of English (I took 5, two different English classes my senior year) and at least one foreign language (my school offered Latin, Greek, Spanish, and German - I took Latin and German).

But today college freshmen are taking remedial English! That is the result of the dumbing down, not just of our language, but of our entire culture and social order.

 

[bgwilkinson]

1) American English is NOT dumbing down. It is going through normal language changes.

Correct. Our language, just as with all languages, is changing. Our translations should change with it.

"Whom" is no being replaced by "Who" and "builded" has been replaced by "built."

I agree it is time to get rid of the "who/whom" dichotomy, but the plurals of certain English words ending in "t" vice "ed" actually had a reason. If you check a KJV you will see that both "built" and "builded" are used. In early Modern English there was an attempt to distinguish between a simple past tense (builded) and an aorist past tense (built). Just as the endings "est" and "eth" indicated second and third person respectively."

"Thee" is now "You." These are not the result of dumbing down.

It is the result of language drift, and it is, to some extent, a "dumbing down" of late Modern English even though it has become the standard. The pronouns, of course, gave additional information regarding case and number. Subjects were different from direct objects and singulars were different from plurals. Unfortunately English no longer makes that distinction and it has been lost on most people. As has most of the spelling and grammar changes in current English.

An example is "Ye Olde Hatte Shoppe." Most current Modern English speakers do not realize the initial "Y" in "Ye" was, at that time, the English equivalent of a Theta and was pronounced as "The" not as "ye."

We see that quite often in the original (1611) edition of the KJV. There will be an "e" with a subscript "y" (for those who do not know what a subscript is, the "y" was written directly below the "e") which was the word "the" (definate article) not the pronoun "ye" (second-person, plural, personal pronoun, nominative case).

So, yes, the English language has changed and, as it now conveys less information in translation than previously, it could be said that the language itself has "dumbed down" but that is not the fault of translators. That is, as you say, a function of dropping literacy rates.

When I was in high school (1961), in order to graduate, I needed 4 years of English (I took 5, two different English classes my senior year) and at least one foreign language (my school offered Latin, Greek, Spanish, and German - I took Latin and German).

But today college freshmen are taking remedial English! That is the result of the dumbing down, not just of our language, but of our entire culture and social order.

Interresting.

Yes, the common English used in the 16th century is not the same English in common use today.

Most today do not realize that the additional information is there and even fewer can decode it successfully.

This is a good case for fresh translations that reflect current common English usage and can communicate God's Word to those who are not proficient in the Queens English.

God's Word should be available to those who are relatively uneducated. The new translations help in achieving this goal. As one becomes more educated Hebrew, Greek and Latin can then be learned.

Miles Smith wrote several sentences in defense of new translations. Seems it was a common complaint in the 16th century.

 

[Ransom]

Miles Smith wrote several sentences in defense of new translations. Seems it was a common complaint in the 16th century.

There was also a secondary issue in the 16th century. The English Reformation was still relatively recent, and there was still resistance among the clergy to making the Bible accessible to the laity. Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bible were all meant to make the Scriptures understandable for ordinary people; in fact, many people learned to read just so they could read the Great Bible on their own.

The reign of Mary I set the Reformation back a number of years, but it was English Protestants in exile that produced the Geneva Bible in 1560. It was immediately popular with the laity, but not at all with the clergy - partly for its controversial explanatory notes, which the Archbishop of Canterbury found to be anti-monarchial and anti-clerical, but also because of its use of ordinary language in place of traditional ecclesiastical terminology.

The Bishops' Bible was an attempt to "correct" this and get control of the Scriptures back in the hands of the clergy. It was a step backward, being a revision of the Great Bible, updating the language only where required by the original languages.  It wasn't as good as the Geneva, so it was obsolete even by the time it came off the press.  Its main influence is as the direct forerunner of the KJV - which was still a bishops' Bible. The Geneva remained the people's Bible for many years - until it was effectively legislated out of print.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Miles Smith wrote several sentences in defense of new translations. Seems it was a common complaint in the 16th century.

There was also a secondary issue in the 16th century. The English Reformation was still relatively recent, and there was still resistance among the clergy to making the Bible accessible to the laity. Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bible were all meant to make the Scriptures understandable for ordinary people; in fact, many people learned to read just so they could read the Great Bible on their own.

The reign of Mary I set the Reformation back a number of years, but it was English Protestants in exile that produced the Geneva Bible in 1560. It was immediately popular with the laity, but not at all with the clergy - partly for its controversial explanatory notes, which the Archbishop of Canterbury found to be anti-monarchial and anti-clerical, but also because of its use of ordinary language in place of traditional ecclesiastical terminology.

The Bishops' Bible was an attempt to "correct" this and get control of the Scriptures back in the hands of the clergy. It was a step backward, being a revision of the Great Bible, updating the language only where required by the original languages.  It wasn't as good as the Geneva, so it was obsolete even by the time it came off the press.  Its main influence is as the direct forerunner of the KJV - which was still a bishops' Bible. The Geneva remained the people's Bible for many years - until it was effectively legislated out of print.

Many religious professionals did not see a need for the English Bible, as their main language was not English but Latin. Their Bible was the Latin Vulgate which had been the Bible of the Western Church since Jerome made it.

Erasmus was not primarily producing a Greek text but rather an updated and corrected Latin translation. Robert Estienne also made a new Latin version as well as a collated critical Greek text.

Mary Tudor, a life long Catholic, wanted to restore Catholicism so that she would be a legitimate heir to the throne of England.

The marriage of her mother Catherine of Argon to Henry viii was declared invalid when Henry viii became the head of the Church of England. He wanted to marry his mistress Anne Boleyn so he had to rid himself of Catherine.

Since the marriage to Catherine of Argon was declared invalid by the Church of England, Mary became an illegitimate child. This bothered her all her life. She has a very interesting story. Very sad.

Her murders of dissenters turned England into a Protestant country as a massive backlash against the Catholics pushed them out of England.

 

[Steven Avery]

the plurals of certain English words ending in "t" vice "ed" actually had a reason. If you check a KJV you will see that both "built" and "builded" are used. .

AV defenders have pointed out the distinction, as on the earlier FFF board a while back. Some of the posters who are contra the purity of the AV get a tad adversarial.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

.. yes. they found a distinction in a distinction without a difference.

Even the grammarian Crystal, when certain KJVOs bothered the man, noted it was nothing more than an irregular verb replacing the regular one. He summarized by saying...

"The grammar of the two forms substantially overlaps, and I've found nothing to suggest a semantic contrast."

That's all... perhaps some stylistic or iambic metering issue. There is absolutely no discernable difference in meaning-- nor should there be.

 

[logos1560]

the plurals of certain English words ending in "t" vice "ed" actually had a reason.

If you check a KJV you will see that both "built" and "builded" are used.

The endings of certain English words in the KJV do not always match the endings in the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Did later editors of KJV editions know the supposed reason since they sometimes changed the "t" ending?

As early as 1660, there was at least one editor or printer who changed many of the uses of "builded" in the KJV to "built" and some of those changes were in agreement with those uses already in the early 1560 Geneva Bible.  Perhaps some of the 1611 edition's use of "builded" were merely kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible for no apparent reason besides following its useage.

Genesis 4:17 [buylt--1560 Geneva; building--1602 Bishops] [see Exod. 1:11, Josh. 19:50, Jud. 1:26]
built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (2002, 2012 KJVER) (EB) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) [NKJV]
builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 10:11 [see Gen. 33:17, 13:18; Exod. 1:11]
built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) [NKJV]
builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 12:7 [see Gen. 13:18, 22:9, 35:7] [builded--1602 Bishops]
there built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (2006 PENG) [NKJV]
there builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 13:18 [buylded--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [see Gen. 12:7]
builded (1785 Wilson) (1811 Hewlett)
built (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 22:9 [buylded--1560 Geneva; built--1602 Bishops]
builded (1785 Wilson) (1811 Hewlett)
built (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 35:7 [buylt--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops]
builded (1811 Hewlett)
built (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Numbers 32:38 [built--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [see Num. 32:37]
rebuilt (1853 Boothroyd)
built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (2002, 2010 KJVER) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) [NKJV]
builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 8:27 [buylt--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [see 2 Chron. 6:18--built--KJV; buylt--Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [see also 1 Kings 8:20, 9:3, 10]
have built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (EB) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1853 Boothroyd) [NKJV]
have builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 8:43 [buylt--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [see 2 Chron. 6:38]
have built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (EB) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1853 Boothroyd) [NKJV]
have builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 15:22 [Baasha had buylt--1560 Geneva; Baasa had builded--1602 Bishops] [see 1 Kings 15:17--built]
Baasha had built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (2002, 2010 KJVER) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB)
Baasha had builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 15:22 [Asa buylt--1560 Geneva; Asa built--1602 Bishops]
Asa builded (1785 Wilson) (1811 Hewlett)
Asa built (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 15:23 [he buylt--1560 Geneva; he builded--1602 Bishops]
he builded (1785 Wilson) (1811 Hewlett)
he built (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

2 Kings 23:13 [had buylt--1560 Geneva; had builded--1602 Bishops]
had built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (EB) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1853 Boothroyd) [NKJV]
had builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 4:13 [be buylt--1560 Geneva; be builded--1602 Bishops] [is built--NKJV]
be rebuilt (1853 Boothroyd)
be built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
be builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 4:21 [buylt--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [built--NKJV]
rebuilt (1853 Boothroyd)
built [2005, 2001 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Nehemiah 3:1 [buylt--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [see Neh. 3:13, 14]
build [1648 Cambridge]
built (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1728, 1746, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1772, 1774, 1777 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1677, 1683, 1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1706, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1715, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1843 AFBS) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB) [NKJV]
builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1760, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Nehemiah 3:2 [buylded--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops; built--NKJV]
built the men [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB)
builded the men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

.. yes. they found a distinction in a distinction without a difference.Even the grammarian Crystal, when certain KJVOs bothered the man, noted it was nothing more than an irregular verb replacing the regular one. He summarized by saying..."The grammar of the two forms substantially overlaps, and I've found nothing to suggest a semantic contrast." That's all... perhaps some stylistic or iambic metering issue. There is absolutely no discernable difference in meaning-- nor should there be.

Talk about cherry-picking a conversation.  A few days after he posted that article, and some more communication, David Crystal wrote:

"In your first example, there is a three-way tense distinction - hath builded, is builded vs built - so if there is an aspectual distinction there (and I agree with you that there could well be) the effect of this would somehow have to be separated out."
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92509-burnt-burned-built-builded-grammarian-david-crystal-explains-distinction-8.html#post1913853

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Talk about cherry-picking a conversation.

Since the entire discussion started with these passages, tell us the difference in meaning between...

1 Kings 8.27 (builded) and 2 Chron 6.18 (built)
Same historical situation.
Same Hebrew words in the same Hebrew construction being translated by two different committees (1st Westminster; 1st Cambridge)

We simply have a stylistic difference because two different committees were involved.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Miles said they weren't tied to a uniformity of phrasing. They would use whatever word they well pleased.

¶ Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to
an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had
done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places, (for there be some words that be not of the same sense every where) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by ‘purpose’, never to call it ‘intent’; if one where ‘journeying’, never ‘travelling’; if one where ‘think’, never ‘suppose’; if one where ‘pain’, never ‘ache’; if one where ‘joy’, never ‘gladness’, &c. thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader.

 

[FSSL]

Exactly. They told us their approach, but the KJVO imagines his own reality.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Talk about cherry-picking a conversation.

Since the entire discussion started with these passages, tell us the difference in meaning between...

1 Kings 8.27 (builded) and 2 Chron 6.18 (built)
Same historical situation.
Same Hebrew words in the same Hebrew construction being translated by two different committees (1st Westminster; 1st Cambridge) We simply have a stylistic difference because two different committees were involved.

One is an interrogatory. one an imperative.

1 Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth?
behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee;
how much less this house that I have builded?

2 Chronicles 6:18
But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth?
behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee;
how much less this house which I have built!

We had gone over with you the aspectual distinction on this thread:

built..
As bibleprotector pointed out, these are all direct altars and houses that are built. And a covert. Specific structures are built, that he (usually Solomon) had built. The emphasis, the focus, is on what is built, not on the building process.

builded
Had builded emphasizes the action and process and the agent of building.

Looks good !
And I would say we nailed it .

builded
DC - the duration of an action or the process of acting is being emphasized
SA - emphasizes the action and process and the agent of building.

The question puts the emphasis on the process, the imperative puts the emphasis on the result, the structures.

Now, there is more on the threads, such as: 

David Crystal response

No, don't mind at all. But remember this (SA-the blog post #2) was a quick response to an email query, and I haven't gone into individual instances in the way you have. It's perfectly possible that a deeper analysis of instances, and looking at the context, will reveal points of interest, including the aspectual angle. That's a more specialized task - for someone who has this as a primary research interest.

We're not talking about people being consciously aware of the contrast they are making. Native speakers would have learned the distinction unconsciously, just as today people use burned and burnt in different ways without realizing it. The question is: is there evidence to support a contrast of this kind.

The aspectual system was still developing towards the modern system in the 16th century, and it is certainly possible that the burned/burnt type of contrast was present then. I don't know of anybody who has looked at it in this way, though. What they would have to do is the sort of thing you do in your message.

(Next: Professor Crystal is giving the response above, from my two examples, I will repeat the full text here.)

It's complicated, though. In your first example, there is a three-way tense distinction - hath builded, is builded vs built - so if there is an aspectual distinction there (and I agree with you that there could well be) the effect of this would somehow have to be separated out. Your second example avoids this problem, as the two tenses are parallel, but your analysis introduces points of interpretation (the process is central, leading to the other actions ... the altar is more the object of what occurs) which might be debated). The amount of context examined could affect the interpretation. You say, for example, that we lead in with the initial action of Noah, but if we take 8.18 into account, where he came forth from the ark, then one might argue that the sequence of events started there and he built the altar after they get came to the place, as you put it.

FSSL, you did not follow the threads in 2010-2012, so I expect the same in 2014. 

Steven Avery
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/showthread.php?t=92509&page=8&p=1914467&viewfull=1#post1914467

 

[FSSL]

It is difficult to follow stuff that is made up.

A question mark contra exclamation point does not make a difference in meaning. It doesn't place emphasis on structures contra process.

The emphasis in BOTH passages is on the immensity of God. He built the temple in both passages. There is no emphasis on the PROCESS of building it. It is all about WHO built it and the insufficiency of it to contain the Builder.

 

[Steven Avery]

It is difficult to follow stuff that is made up. A question mark contra exclamation point does not make a difference in meaning. It doesn't place emphasis on structures contra process. The emphasis in BOTH passages is on the immensity of God. He built the temple in both passages. There is no emphasis on the PROCESS of building it. It is all about WHO built it and the insufficiency of it to contain the Builder.

Look, I know you don't understand, or you have to pretend you don't understand. You have tried this before. It is not unusual for you to look at a discussion through your doctrinal and exegetical glasses, rather than what the text simply says.

Let's move on, I simply wanted another poster who did recognize that there is a distinction (who may or may not agree with the distinction on these two verses) to know the contra view of their being no such distinction.  And going somewhat bananas on that claim in the earlier run. For today, you have filled that need nicely, by again refusing to acknowledge the words as distinct in meaning. And by pointing to the earlier discussion. The one you selectively tried to quote to mislead, which gives much more background. including the fuller reflections of David Crystal, see the quotes I placed above, where the discussion still was on our two verses.

(Hopefully that forum can continue to stay up, and we will have an opportunity to save a few of the more salient moments.)

Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

I have a good friend, Jim Price, who was on the translation committee.

However, he was translating and promoting a text that he sees as corrupt.

Why?

 

[FSSL]

... For today, you have filled that need nicely, by again refusing to acknowledge the words as distinct in meaning.

And you were very helpful by not providing the difference in meaning.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have a good friend, Jim Price, who was on the translation committee.

However, he was translating and promoting a text that he sees as corrupt.

Why?

Steve, please cite that to which you are referring.

How are you using the word corrupt?

 

[Steven Avery]

James Price has specifically said he is not a TR advocate. David Cloud inquired.

Dr. James Price. In April of 1996 he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:

"I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 [Nestles] and UBS [United Bible Societies] provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred. I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]" (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996).

It is obvious that Dr. Price holds the standard eclectic text position that was popularized by Westcott and Hort in the late 1800s and that he is committed to modern textual criticism. By his own testimony, he has no love for or commitment to the Received Text.

Granted, you have the standard word-parsing attempt, to be able to play multiple sides and not actually identify the pure word of God. Common stuff.

 

[bgwilkinson]

James Price has specifically said he is not a TR advocate. David Cloud inquired.

Dr. James Price. In April of 1996 he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:

"I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 [Nestles] and UBS [United Bible Societies] provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred. I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]" (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996).

It is obvious that Dr. Price holds the standard eclectic text position that was popularized by Westcott and Hort in the late 1800s and that he is committed to modern textual criticism. By his own testimony, he has no love for or commitment to the Received Text.

Granted, you have the standard word-parsing attempt, to be able to play multiple sides and not actually identify the pure word of God. Common stuff.

I stand with Jim Price as you have quoted above. That would also express my view.

Are you indicating that you can and will identify the exact text that is the pure word of God?

How are you using the word corrupt?