Mark Ward Proves That Defending Inerrancy Means Nothing

Many Christians believe that it is fundamental to defend the modern doctrine of Inerrancy. This would be true, if the doctrine of Inerrancy actually set forth anything meaningful. According to Mark Ward, Inerrancy means that “The Bible speaks truly in everything it affirms” (Ward. Bibliology for Beginners. 29.) Inerrancy is the doctrine that affirms theContinue reading “Mark Ward Proves That Defending Inerrancy Means Nothing”

The Defense of the TR is Not the Same as the Vulgate

Introduction Recently, Dr. Peter Gurry posted an article called “Cardinal Bellarmine, Trent’s Major Apologist, On Important Variants” on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. The article is a continued effort to conflate the TR with the Vulgate. Gurry ends the article with this conclusion: “One last observation about Bellarmine’s discussion. I notice a similarity, mutatis mutandis, betweenContinue reading “The Defense of the TR is Not the Same as the Vulgate”

Review: The King James Version Discussion – Chapter 7

Introduction Chapter 7, entitled “Fourteen Theses,” makes up over 25% of the page count in this work, so I will try my best to handle each thesis in as little words as possible. As I commented in a previous article, this chapter would have likely been sufficient as the sum of the whole book toContinue reading “Review: The King James Version Discussion – Chapter 7”

Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 5

Introduction The fifth chapter of The King James Version Debate might as well be titled, “Erasmian Myths as Presented by Bruce Metzger.” Carson does what most Critical Text scholars do, frame the TR in light of Erasmus, even though Erasmus’ editions were not used by the translators of the KJV, and then attempt to discreditContinue reading “Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 5”

Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 3

Introduction Similar to the second chapter, the third is mostly just information condensed from Metzger. Carson begins the chapter by presenting an accurate picture, even today, of Modern Textual Criticism. “The aim of the textual critic is to ascertain, as precisely as possible, what reading of any particular passage is closest to the original, orContinue reading “Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 3”

Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 2

Introduction This next chapter titled, “Kinds of Errors in New Testament Manuscripts” is a summary of the various types of scribal errors that can be observed in extant manuscripts, so this article will likely be short. Carson employs this chapter to give his reader context to the actual decision making process that is practiced byContinue reading “Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 2”

Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 1

Introduction In the first chapter of The King James Version Debate, we see a combination of helpful terminology and data points combined with Modern Critical Text Theory. Carson opens up this chapter by highlighting the importance of the printing press to frame the narrative of transmission via hand copying. “The invention of the printing pressContinue reading “Review: The King James Version Debate – Chapter 1”

Book Review: The King James Version Debate – Preface

Introduction Recently I was asked what I thought of DA Carson’s The King James Version Debate in a comment on my blog. I have not read it, so I thought I would purchase a copy and do a chapter by chapter review like I did for Mark Ward’s Authorized. The reason I initially did notContinue reading “Book Review: The King James Version Debate – Preface”

There is No “Alexandrian” Text Family

Introduction One of the greatest challenges to overcome when discussing textual criticism with the average Christian is breaking through the wall of misconceptions regarding the topic. My personal theory is that if those in the Modern Critical Text had more information, they likely would not support the ongoing efforts of textual scholars. One of theContinue reading “There is No “Alexandrian” Text Family”

No, The KJV Translators Would Not Be Okay With the ESV

Framing the Argument One of the most common pieces of misinformation is the belief that the KJV translators would be okay with the form of our modern bibles. I see this claim made all the time on the internet, so I figured I’d address it here. The argument is first framed in terms of “KJVContinue reading “No, The KJV Translators Would Not Be Okay With the ESV”