1. Historical and Theological Problems
a. Confusion of Preservation with Perfection
Khoo appeals to the Westminster Confession’s phrase “kept pure in all ages,” but he interprets it to mean a word-perfect preservation of the TR and KJV. Historically, however, the Westminster divines recognized textual variations and did not claim a flawless single edition. They affirmed providential preservation, not the perfection of one textual stream.
b. Selective History of the Text
The narrative presented in KJV Q&A portrays the Byzantine text and the TR as the sole faithful tradition, while dismissing the Alexandrian witnesses as corrupt. This is historically inaccurate. The TR itself was compiled from a handful of late manuscripts, with Erasmus even back-translating some verses from the Latin into Greek (e.g., parts of Revelation). The Majority Text and TR are not identical, and the assertion that they perfectly reflect the autographs oversimplifies the complex history of transmission.
c. Contradiction with the KJV Translators’ Own Preface
The KJV translators themselves acknowledged that no translation is perfect and welcomed future revision and correction. They did not claim special inspiration, nor did they elevate their work above the original languages. Khoo’s rigid stance thus ironically departs from the humility of the very translators he defends.
2. Textual and Translational Weaknesses
Several examples show the difficulty of claiming KJV perfection:
Acts 12:4: The KJV translates pascha as “Easter,” though the Greek clearly means “Passover.”
1 John 5:7: The “Comma Johanneum” appears in the KJV but is absent from all early Greek manuscripts; it was a late addition.
Psalm 12:7: Khoo insists the promise is about preserving God’s words, but grammatically it more naturally refers to God’s people in context.
These examples demonstrate that while the KJV is an excellent translation, it is not flawless. To insist otherwise undermines the very principle of sola Scriptura by attaching perfection to a particular human edition.
3. The Problem of Exclusivism
Khoo distinguishes his position from extreme “Ruckmanism,” which treats the KJV as re-inspired. However, his practical conclusions approach the same exclusivism: he advises that only the KJV should be used in English-speaking churches, and he portrays modern versions as corrupt. Such exclusivism risks dividing the body of Christ unnecessarily. It elevates a secondary issue—Bible translation—into a test of fellowship, which runs contrary to Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 about liberty and charity in disputable matters.
4. A More Balanced Approach
A healthier doctrine of Scripture recognizes both God’s providential preservation and the human element in transmission. No essential doctrine of the faith is lost among the variants; the message of salvation and the teaching of the apostles remain secure across the manuscript tradition. Thus, we can affirm the KJV as a faithful and beautiful translation without denying the legitimacy of other faithful translations such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV. This approach safeguards the unity of the church and the authority of Scripture without binding believers to one edition.
Conclusion
Jeffrey Khoo’s KJV Q&A reflects deep reverence for Scripture and a desire to defend the Bible against skepticism. However, its historical selectivity, theological overstatement, and textual absolutism limit its usefulness as a scholarly resource. While it may encourage those already persuaded of KJV-only views, it risks fostering division and misplaced confidence in one translation rather than in the God who speaks through His Word. A more faithful position is to uphold the inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture across the entire manuscript tradition, recognizing the KJV as a great but not exclusive witness to God’s perfect Word.
No comments:
Post a Comment