The Bible has come under attack by liberal scholars using three main weapons: historical criticism, textual criticism, and Darwinism. The acceptance by evangelical scholars of the liberal paradigm assumptions has led to an erosion of belief in inerrancy and undermines the case for Christianity.
The original reading of Mark 1:2 is not “in Isaiah the prophet”, which is an error that evangelical scholars who accept Griesbach’s canons unsuccessfully try to dodge. The reading “in the prophets” is found in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts and the earliest and best material, including the writings of Irenaeus.
While CMI does excellent work in battling Darwinism, in the areas of historical criticism and textual criticism they readily defer to evangelical scholars such as James Patrick Holding, passing along liberal paradigm assumptions which undermine the credibility of the Bible and the doctrine of inerrancy.
It is safe to assume that the various functionaries of Creation Ministries International (CMI) feel a great deal of frustration over the fact that their well reasoned arguments for young-earth creationism are not accepted by professing Christians who are supposed to view the Bible as the very word of God. Perhaps they are even more frustrated when such Christians do not even reject CMI’s arguments but ignore them completely, as if CMI were just whistling in the wind. If so, they can understand our frustration at CMI’s refusal to consider the facts …
Attacking the trustworthiness of the word of God remains in the forefront of Satan’s devices, and this is not surprising. While Christianity is at its heart about reconciliation with God through His Son Jesus Christ (e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:19), all the objective knowledge we have about Jesus Christ, about the Triune God, about sin and salvation and Godliness and eternal life comes from the Bible, so our view of its reliability is crucial.
Although the absence of the Comma Johanneum in almost all Greek manuscripts strongly indicates it was not in the autograph, the Greek grammar indicates that it might indeed be part of the original autograph
Every saying of a prophet recorded in a book of the Bible was first said and then written. Therefore, it is perfectly correct to describe any quote of any saying by any prophet as “as was spoken by the prophet.”
We have previously posted some rather pointed rebuttals of the claims of a certain Nick Peters, along with various scholars he champions, regarding the inerrancy of the Bible and, predictably, it was not well received by some.
The evidence of the early versions, the Patristic writings, the attitude of early Christians towards altering the New Testament text, and Augustine’s testimony is consistent with, and in most cases points to, the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae as part of the original Gospel of John.
The earliest New Testament manuscripts available to us are corrupt and clearly not the best. Scholars have ignored the key issue of provenance. Virtually all the earliest papyri we have came out of a garbage dump, discarded by the Christians at Oxyrhynchus, because they thought them too corrupt to keep.
The Three-Headed Monster The historical era misnamed The Enlightenment, which began in the seventeenth century, was characterized by the exaltation of human reason as the means to determine truth, with the concomitant denigration of the concept of divine revelation. In particular, the credibility of the Bible came under sustained attack by Enlightenment scholars and philosophers who sought to portray the Bible not as the word of God, but as the product of mere human …
The dominant view among evangelicals seems to be that this Cainan does not belong in the genealogy, and is a scribal error introduced into Luke, probably accidentally reinserted from the legitimate Cainan in Luke 3:37.