Doctrinal Significance of John 1:18
How the Critical Text teaches the Gnostic and Arian heresies in John 1:18 AV/Textus Receptus/Byzantine Priority John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is [...]
Doctrinal Significance of Matthew 5:44
AV/Textus Receptus/Byzantine Priority Matthew 5:44 Â But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use [...]
Verse Changes that are Doctrinally Significant – Matthew 5:22
Doctrinal Errors in the Critical Text and Its Translations In this new series, we are going to take a look at the verses in the New Testament that have been changed in the Critical [...]
Our Daily Metzger – Amos or Amon (Mt 1:10)
In our previous post Asa or Asaph, we saw how Metzger had no qualms calling the Holy Ghost a liar when he stated, "the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old [...]
Our Daily Metzger – Asa or Asaph (Mt 1:7,8)
This is the first in a series that will cover some of the more outrageous and foolish claims by Dr. Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary. The series will also show that Restorationist Textual Criticism's [...]
Textual Issue in John 10:29
From Dean Burgon’s Causes of Corruption We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress of accidental depravations of the text: and the study is as instructive as it is interesting. Let me invite [...]
Kruger, White, & Lovecraft Walk Into a Bar
Kruger, White, & Lovecraft Walk Into a Bar At the recent G3 conference in Georgia, Dr. Michael Kruger & Mr. James White had a discussion on the Doctrine of the Canon*. The first part of [...]
The Genuineness of 1 John 5.7 by David Martin 2.7
CHAP. VII. Of the Manuscript of Berlin. 'Tis here no longer that same Mr. Emlyn, who has been silent with regard to the Manuscripts mention'd in the Preface to the Louvain doctors, and that which F. [...]
The Genuineness of 1 John 5.7 by David Martin 2.6
CHAP. VI. A Defence of the Manuscripts of Robert Stephens against certain Manuscripts produced from the Library of the King of France, which are pretended to be the same that Stephens used in his Editions. [...]
