Yes, from your standpoint, wildly conflicting texts are all in the mix for the word of God.
Here we see the deterioration in thinking that was caused by the Westcott-Hort recension and the resultant super-straddle by the segment of the evangelical community that simply can not find the pure word of God. Its out there .. somewhere, NIV, CT, Byzantine, TR .. just paste them together with duct tape to various private conflicting versions full of tons of error.
Bible believers make themselves look like fools, not knowing what is the pure Bible in thousands of places, and yet still claiming that the Bible remains full of errors and is still the plumbline of faith and our source of knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I would have more respect for a textually-duped individual who actually believed, wrongly, that the NA-28, with its Vaticanus-primacy text, is exceedingly close to the autographs, than the super-straddle nonsense. As long as he was willing to state and defend his position.
The fence-straddling game is the most dishonest textual position.
Since James Price takes that position, afaik he does not directly call any textual variant the pure word of God, nor does he call them corrupt. Oil and water are mixed.
The corruption of the text is inherent in his position where thousands of variants are indeterminate.
And as he rejects the TR, clearly James Price considers TR variants as corrupt. The fact that he is vague is the scholastic textual disease caused by the Westcott-Hort recension and evangelicals who simply are confused or deceptive as to the word of God.
