How can the Modernist appeal to sola Scriptura when his Scriptura is constantly in a state of flux? Which Scripture is alone the foundation and rule of faith, life, and worship? Is it the NA27 or the NA28?
The doctrine of the Trinity is at stake in this verse. The issue of translational philosophy is at stake. This verse helps demonstrate the detrimental effects that result in adopting non-orthodox views of Scripture.
In this article, I will present a positive defense for the authenticity and, consequently the authority, of the Comma Johanneum by examining the extant MSS evidence, the historical evidence, and the internal evidence.
In this post, I will attempt to demonstrate how White's arguments are not consistent with the historic, Reformed doctrine of Scripture; I will also show how his arguments, which are representative of the evangelical who holds to modern textual criticism, are founded on arbitrary assertions.
Just as God was careful to inspire the original text of Scripture, so was he careful to preserve that text for his people.
The purpose of this article is to provide a very brief overview of the data, and to demonstrate that a proper (i.e., confessional) analysis of that data leads to the indisputable fact that the last twelve verses of Mark are in fact inspired and authoritative.
Since God inspired and preserved the text of Scripture down through the ages, we can know with absolutely certainty that the Scriptures are the very Word of God. Therefore, we may rest assured in the hope of the gospel that has been passed down to us in the Bible.
In the Authorized (King James) Version, the verse is translated: “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.” We can contrast that with the reading of the ESV, which follows the modern critical text: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.” Which is it?