Why the Doctrine of Inerrancy Demands the Defense of the Received Text

Introduction On this blog, I have highlighted many of the doctrinal errors underpinning the modern critical text, as well as set forth positively the historical orthodox position on the Holy Scriptures. I have been critical of the doctrine of inerrancy as articulated by modern scholars and compared it to the historical doctrine of providential preservation,Continue reading “Why the Doctrine of Inerrancy Demands the Defense of the Received Text”

The Weakness of Evidence-Based Textual Criticism & The Received Text

Introduction If I could identify the most significant disconnect between those that advocate for modern critical methods and those that advocate for the Received Text, it’s the difference in how evidence is handled. From a modern critical perspective, it is baffling that the manuscript evidence they produce for or against a reading is rejected. FromContinue reading “The Weakness of Evidence-Based Textual Criticism & The Received Text”

The Consequences of Rejecting Material Preservation

Introduction Since the late 20th century, the doctrine of Scripture has been reformulated to say several things, most explicitly in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement articulates several things about the doctrine and nature of Scripture :  The original manuscripts (autographs) of the New Testament were without error The Scriptures as weContinue reading “The Consequences of Rejecting Material Preservation”

Providential Preservation and the Modern Critical Texts

Introduction There are many cases that I have seen where somebody who advocates for the modern critical text uses the theological language, “Providential Preservation.” This is typically due to the person not understanding the current state of modern textual criticism. There have been many developments that have been adopted in the mainstream of textual scholarshipContinue reading “Providential Preservation and the Modern Critical Texts”

The Modern Critical Text(s) and Inerrancy

Introduction In the new year, I have written a handful of articles demonstrating why the modern critical text should not be used.  It was conceived in 1881 by rule-breaking (Link) The reconstruction effort is not  justified (Link) It is a new text that does not stand in the “classic mainstream” of Tyndale, and therefore theContinue reading “The Modern Critical Text(s) and Inerrancy”

Are Christians Justified in Adopting the Modern Critical Text?

Introduction In my latest series of articles, I have questioned the validity of the “revision” effort of the 1800’s, which has evolved into a full blown reconstruction effort. Since then, scholars have produced Greek text after Greek text, applied methodology after methodology, all to no avail. Those that align with the axioms of modern textualContinue reading “Are Christians Justified in Adopting the Modern Critical Text?”

Is the Reconstructionist Effort Justified?

Introduction  It has been about 140 years since the reconstruction efforts began on the text of the New Testament, if we use 1881, the year Westcott and Hort’s new Greek text was published as a starting point. The Traditional Text of Scripture had been well under attack before that point, but this was the firstContinue reading “Is the Reconstructionist Effort Justified?”

Reconstructionists, The Burden of Proof is On You

Introduction A common refrain in the text-criticism discussion is the appeal to “the burden of proof.” The burden of proof is on those who advocate for the traditional text to demonstrate that the readings within the text are original. This appeal is a simple misdirect that should not fool any sound thinking Christian. In makingContinue reading “Reconstructionists, The Burden of Proof is On You”

Going Back to the Start

Introduction There are approximately 450 Bible translations in English, each one unique. The most popular of these include the NIV, KJV, NLT, ESV, NKJV, NASB, and CSB. All of these utilize different translation methodologies, and all of these are either revisions from earlier translations, or follow the translational choices of previous translations. Among conservatives, theContinue reading “Going Back to the Start”

So You’re a Presuppositionalist? Prove it.

Introduction Presuppositional Apologetics has been critically acclaimed as the “only Biblical defense of the faith” by many who advocate for the method. Yet there is a critical inconsistency in the vast majority of those who champion Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til, especially when it comes to the text of Holy Scriptures. Bahnsen provides aContinue reading “So You’re a Presuppositionalist? Prove it.”