Nuther Gd Bk Refutes KJBOism: James D Price

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Forever settled in heaven, Apr 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    keep ur fingers crossed, folks ... more gd stuff a-comin ur way!

    http://www.truth.sg/pricebook.htm

    New Book to dispel the VPP error!

    Author: Rev Dr James Price

    To pre-order, please email Rev Yap Beng Shin 65602410 (O), 97572782 (M).

    Table of Contents

    Preface

    List of Figures

    List of Tables

    List of Charts

    INTRODUCTION: The King James Only Doctrine Is a New Idea

    *

    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Baptists
    *

    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Presbyterians
    *

    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Lutherans
    *

    Original Languages Were Authoritative for the Evangelical Free Church of America
    *

    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Interdenominational Churches
    *

    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Historical Leaders
    *

    Fundamentalism Is Divided over the King James Only Issue
    *

    This Book Discusses the Problems of the King James Only View

    1. Early English Versions Were Incomplete until Wycliffe

    *

    Translating Is an Ancient Tradition
    *

    Bible Translations before Wycliffe Were Incomplete
    *

    Wycliffe Translated the First Complete Bible
    *

    Wycliffe’s Bible Was Opposed

    2. Tyndale Was the First to Translate from Hebrew and Greek

    *

    Tyndale’s First New Testament Was in 1526
    *

    Tyndale Translated the Pentateuch in 1530
    *

    Tyndale Revised the New Testament in 1535
    *

    Tyndale Was Martyred in 1536
    *

    Tyndale Translation Exhibited Literary Excellence

    3. Tyndale’s Translation Was Revised Seven Times

    *

    Coverdale Revised Tyndale’s Bible
    *

    Matthew’s Bible Was a Revision of Tyndale and Coverdale
    *

    The Great Bible Was a Revision of Matthew’s
    *

    Sample of the Great Bible
    *

    The Geneva Bible Was a Revision of Tyndale
    *

    The Bishop’s Bible Was a Revision of the Great Bible
    *

    The Rheims-Douay Bible Was Translated from Latin

    4. The King James Version Was a Revision

    *

    Fifty-Four Translators Participated
    *

    The Qualifications of the Translators
    *

    The Theology of the Translators
    *

    The Character of the Translators
    *

    The Translators Had Fifteen Instructions
    *

    The Translation Was Carefully Edited
    *

    The Translation Exhibits Literary Excellence
    *

    The First Printing Was in 1611

    5. The King James Version Was Revised Several Times

    *

    The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1629
    *

    The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1638
    *

    The KJV Was Unsuccessfully Revised in 1653
    *

    The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1762
    *

    The KJV Was Revised at Oxford in 1769
    *

    Nearly 24,000Changes Were Made

    6. Current Editions of the King James Version Differ

    *

    Known Discrepancies Exist
    *

    Misprints Exist
    *

    Other Inadvertent Oversights Exist
    *

    Many Archaic and Obsolete Words Remain
    *

    Current Editions Differ
    *

    Current Differences Are Recorded

    7. The Biblical Text Was Preserved through Ancient Bibles

    *

    The Texts May Have Been Preserved by Various Means
    *

    The Hebrew Text Was Preserved in Ancient Hebrew Bibles
    *

    The Greek Text Was Preserved in Ancient Greek Bibles
    *

    Various Types of Manuscripts Exist
    *

    The Manuscripts Are Variously Distributed
    *

    Conclusion: Many Witnesses Exist for the Hebrew and Greek Texts

    8. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Ancient Translations

    *

    The Greek Versions Preserved the Text
    *

    Aramaic Versions Preserved the Text
    *

    The Syriac Versions Preserved the Text
    *

    Latin Versions Preserved the Text
    *

    The Coptic Versions Preserved the Text
    *

    Ethiopic Version Preserved the Text
    *

    The Armenian Version Preserved the Text
    *

    The Georgian Version Preserved the Text
    *

    The Waldensian Version Is Wrongly Represented
    *

    Conclusion: The Witness of the Versions Is Secondary

    9. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Patristic Quotations

    *

    Quotations of the Old Testament Preserved the Text
    *

    Quotations of the New Testament Preserved the Text
    *

    Conclusion: The Witness of the Quotations Is Incomplete and Secondary

    10. Some Recognize the Alexandrian Text as the Preserved Text

    *

    Textual Theories Have Early History
    *

    Westcott and Hort Developed a New Theory
    *

    The Westcott and Hort Theory Was Modified Later
    *

    The Reasoned Eclectic Theory Follows Sound Methodology
    *

    Alternative Theories Exist
    *

    Stemmatic Methods Were Developed
    *

    The Thoroughgoing Eclectic Method Was Developed
    *

    Conclusion: The Reasoned Eclectic Method Is Preferred
    *

    Old Testament Textual Criticism Lags Behind
    *

    Opponents Wrongfully Charge the Westcott-Hort Method with Problems

    11. Some Recognize the Majority Text as the Preserved Text

    *

    The Masoretic Text Is the Hebrew Majority Text
    *

    John W. Burgon Preferred the Greek Majority Text
    *

    Burgon Has Several Modern Advocates
    *

    The Lucian Recension Has Historical Support
    *

    Popular Misconceptions of the Majority Text Exist
    *

    Conclusion: The Majority Text Method Is Not Preferred

    12. Some Recognize the Textus Receptus as the Preserved Text

    *

    Some Regard the Bomberg Edition as the Traditional Hebrew Text
    *

    Some Regard the Greek Textus Receptus as the Traditional Text
    *

    Hills Argued the Case for the Textus Receptus
    *

    Hills Had an Underlying KJV Agenda
    *

    Some Regard the Text of the Reformation as Authority
    *

    Conclusion: The Textus Receptus Is Not to Be Preferred

    13. Textual Emendations Were Made in the King James Version

    *

    The Greek and Hebrew Were Authoritative in 1611
    *

    Two Hebrew Texts Were Used
    *

    Other Authorities Were Used
    *

    Emendations Were Made to the Old Testament
    *

    Some Emendations Were Justifiable
    *

    Some Emendations of the Old Testament Were Unjustifiable
    *

    Conclusion: The King James Version Does Not Follow the Traditional Hebrew Text

    14. Modern English Versions Are Evaluated

    *

    The English Revised Version of 1881
    *

    The American Standard Version of 1901
    *

    The Revised Standard Version of 1952
    *

    The Jerusalem Bible of 1966
    *

    The New American Standard Version of 1970
    *

    The New English Bible of 1971
    *

    The New International Version of 1978
    *

    The New King James Version of 1982
    *

    The English Standard Version of 2001
    *

    The Holman Christian Standard Bible of 2002
    *

    Other Modern Versions

    15. Modern Versions Support Orthodox Doctrine

    PART ONE: The Versions Support the Deity of Christ

    *

    Jesus is Called God
    *

    Jesus Christ Received Worship
    *

    Jesus is Called Lord
    *

    Jesus Is the Son
    *

    Other Words Indicate Deity

    PART TWO: The Versions Support the Virgin Birth

    *

    Isaiah 7:14
    *

    Matthew 1:23
    *

    Luke 1:27

    PART THREE: The Versions Support the Blood of Jesus

    PART FOUR: The Versions Support Faith, Justification, Forgiveness, and Sanctification

    PART FIVE: The Versions Support the

    Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    *

    He Really Died
    *

    He Was Buried
    *

    He Arose from the Dead
    *

    He Appeared to His Disciples
    *

    His Was a Physical Body

    PART SIX: The Versions Support the Second Coming of Christ

    PART SEVEN: The Versions Support Salvation by Grace through Faith

    PART EIGHT: Criticism of the Versions Is Faulty

    *

    Modern Versions Allegedly Contain Errors
    *

    Modern Versions Allegedly Correct the Word of God
    *

    A Balanced View Is Necessary
    *

    Modern Versions Help a Person Understand the KJV
    *

    Conclusion: Modern Versions Support Orthodox Doctrine

    16. Textual Uncertainty Is Insignificant

    *

    The Large Number of Variants Is Insignificant in the Big Picture
    *

    The Many Differences Are Insignificant in the Big Picture
    *

    Uncertainty Exists in the Exegesis of the English Bible
    *

    Uncertainty Exists in the Meaning of Words
    *

    Uncertainty Exists in Interpretation
    *

    Uncertainty Is the Occasion for Faith not Doubt

    17. Conclusion: Use Versions with Discernment

    Appendix A: Changes in the AV Since 1611

    Appendix B: Catalogue of Variants in Current Editions of the AV

    Appendix C: Examples of Late, Secondary Byzantine Readings

    Appendix D: An Evaluation of Burgon’s Test of Antiquity

    *

    The Overall Witness of the Ancient Versions Is Inadequate
    *

    The Citations of the Church Fathers Are Insufficient
    *

    The Combined Witness of Versions and Fathers Is Inadequate

    Appendix E: An Evaluation of Hodges’ Majority Text Theory

    *

    The Model Is Unrealistic
    *

    The Proof Is Trivial
    *

    The Theory Is Inadequate
    *

    The Byzantine Text Is a Late Enhanced Branch
    *

    The Majority Theory Has Limitations

    Appendix F: A Mathematical Analysis of Hodges' Statistical Model

    Appendix G: The Greek Text of the Authorized Version

    Appendix H: Partial List of Differences Between The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text

    Appendix I: Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version

    Appendix J: Differences Between the NA-27 Text and the R-P Byzantine Text

    Glossary of Terms

    Bibliography

    Index of Persons and Topics
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,364
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Unfortunately he didn't give us the title of the book!
     
  3. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I second the notion by Doc Cass give us the title. Although it does indeed look like an interesting read.
     
  4. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    me too! [​IMG]

    or maybe, if the book hasn't gone to print yet, Dr Price might welcome our suggestions for a title! :eek:
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    This book by Dr. Price is not yet in print, but it is supposed to be in print hopefully by the summer, and it is supposed to be available then at amazon.com
     
  6. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I learn that Dr. Price is not a TR man. :rolleyes:
     
  7. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well since his Doctorate is authentic I highly doubt it.
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,364
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Seeing as Dr. James Price's area of expertise is the Hebrew Old Testament I would have thought that would be self evident.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I am told that the title of Dr. Price's new book will be the following: KJV ONLYISM - A NEW SECT.
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,008
    Likes Received:
    147
    Well since his Doctorate is authentic I highly doubt it. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, come now. For the record I admire Dr. Price greatly. I took Hebrew from him, and he is a member of a supporting church. But I don't think his doctorate being authentic has a thing to do with what he or anyone else believes about the TR. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    325
    How many Evangelical and Reformed Hebrew Scholars hold to a TR preference ?
     
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,008
    Likes Received:
    147
    For TR advocates, we could start with Edward F. Hills, who was a graduate of Yale for his undergrad, Westminster for his grad and then the Th. D. from Harvard. He was a genuine textual critic (unlike the vast majority writing on both sides today) who did substantive work in the Caesarean text. Hills was solidly on the side of the TR.

    Unless you prefer to distinguish between the TR and the Byzantine/Majority, you can add Byzanine/Majority advocates like Zane Hodges, Wilber Pickering, Harry Sturz, Maurice Robertson and many others. Personally, I consider the TR to be a form of the Byzantine/Majority, so I claim these guys. (I am TR/Byzantine/Majority preferred.)
     
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,008
    Likes Received:
    147
    For a Reformed scholar who is pro-TR, see Gordon H. Clark, Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism. [​IMG]
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. Was that the table of contents, or the book?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...