You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war

2 Chronicles 16:9 states:

“For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.”

This rebuke was given to King Asa of Judah, who abandoned reliance on God and instead sought human alliances (Syria) to secure his kingdom. The prophet Hanani condemned his lack of faith, warning that his “foolish” choice would lead to perpetual conflict.

Relating This to the Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) in Singapore

The BPC’s history of infighting—over issues like KJV-onlyism, verbal plenary preservation, and the Textus Receptus (TR)—mirrors the “foolish thing” described in this verse. 

“Foolish Thing”: Prioritizing Text Over Heart Commitment

1. The BPC’s rigid insistence on the KJV as the only valid Bible and the “perfect” Textus Receptus (a Greek New Testament text from the 16th century) has often overshadowed the verse’s central call: “hearts fully committed to [God].” By elevating textual debates to doctrinal absolutes, leaders turned secondary issues into hills to die on. For example:
2. Splits occurred over whether modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV) are “corrupt,” despite their reliance on older, more reliable manuscripts.
3. Verbal plenary preservation—the belief that God perfectly preserved every word of Scripture—became a weapon to accuse others of “unbelief” if they questioned the KJV’s supremacy.
4. This mirrors Asa’s folly: trusting human constructs (textual traditions) over the living God, who seeks hearts, not ideological conformity.

“At War”: Self-Inflicted Division

The BPC’s internal wars—congregations fracturing over minor translational nuances or accusations of “compromise”—fulfill Hanani’s warning: “from now on you will be at war.” These conflicts are not persecution from outsiders but self-sabotage. Examples include:

1. KJV-only fundamentalists condemning fellow believers who use modern translations, branding them “apostates.”
2. TR absolutists dismissing scholars who study older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) as “agents of Satan,” despite such research deepening understanding of Scripture.
3. Leadership power struggles masked as “defending truth,” where personal vendettas and doctrinal nitpicking fracture unity.
4. Like Asa, who blamed Syria instead of his own choices, the BPC often blames “liberalism” or “worldliness” for its decline, refusing to acknowledge how its own rigidity and infighting repel seekers and erode witness.

Missing the Heart of God’s Search

The verse emphasizes God’s desire to “strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.” Yet the BPC’s focus on textual perfectionism and boundary-policing risks reducing faith to a checklist of doctrinal battles, not a posture of humility, love, or dependence on God. When preservation of a translation (KJV) or textual theory (TR) becomes the litmus test for faithfulness, the church risks idolizing its own traditions—a “foolish thing” that distracts from Christ’s command to “love one another” (John 13:34).

Conclusion: A Call to Repentance, Not Blame

The BPC’s “wars” are a consequence of misplaced priorities, not external threats. Just as Asa was called to repent and return to reliance on God, the BPC must ask:

1. Have we exalted texts over trust in God’s sovereignty?
2. Have we weaponized preservation to condemn fellow believers, rather than to edify?
3. Have we forgotten that God’s eyes seek hearts, not doctrinal trophies?

The path to healing begins by acknowledging their “foolish thing”—confusing human certainty with divine faithfulness—and returning to the God who strengthens the committed, not the combative.

The Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) in Singapore has legacy issues

The Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) in Singapore has faced significant challenges over the years, primarily rooted in internal divisions, doctrinal disputes, and disagreements over leadership and practice. These issues have led to multiple splits and tensions within the denomination, shaping its reputation and influence in Singapore’s Christian community. 

The BPC emerged in the 1950s as a conservative, fundamentalist branch of Presbyterianism, emphasizing strict adherence to biblical inerrancy, separation from perceived “worldly” influences, and opposition to theological liberalism. However, over time, disagreements arose about how strictly these principles should be applied. For example, debates over ecumenism (cooperation with other Christian groups) and separatism (avoiding ties to denominations deemed “compromised”) caused fractures. Some leaders and congregations felt the church was becoming too isolated, while others insisted on maintaining rigid boundaries to protect doctrinal purity.

Another major issue has been leadership conflicts. Strong personalities within the BPC sometimes clashed over authority, decision-making, and vision for the church. These tensions were not just theological but also personal, leading to painful splits. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, disagreements over the Charismatic movement (such as practices like speaking in tongues) divided congregations, with some embracing these practices and others rejecting them as unbiblical.

A particularly divisive debate centered on Bible translations. A segment of the BPC adopted a “King James Version-only” stance, arguing that modern translations (like the NIV or ESV) were unreliable or theologically compromised. This created friction with members and leaders who saw value in updated translations that used older, more accurate manuscripts. The KJV-only position became a litmus test for orthodoxy in some circles, further fragmenting the church.

The BPC’s emphasis on separatism also led to criticism. Its refusal to engage with other Christian groups or participate in broader evangelical initiatives—even those aligned with conservative theology—left some members feeling the church was overly rigid or judgmental. Younger generations, in particular, sometimes struggled with this approach, viewing it as out of touch with the realities of modern society and the need for unity among Christians.

Today, the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore continues to grapple with these legacy issues. Some congregations have dwindled as members left for other churches perceived as more flexible or compassionate, while others remain tightly knit but isolated. The challenges of balancing doctrinal faithfulness with cultural relevance, leadership unity, and intergenerational connection persist, shaping the BPC’s identity and future in Singapore’s diverse religious landscape.

Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabudass Koshy's "Hyper-Text" movement

This new “Hyper-Text” movement is promoting “Perfect TR” and “KJV-only”—promoting extreme textual fundamentalism with a rigid adherence to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and the Textus Receptus (TR), harming the entire Christianity in the end time. 

Explanation of "Hyper-Text"

Hyper-Text:

Jeffrey, Quek and Prabudass are emphasizing an extreme focus on textual perfectionism, claiming that the Bible’s original manuscripts and their preservation in the TR/KJV are flawless or supernaturally perfected. The term “hyper” suggests a more radical stance than mainstream KJV-onlyism, which already asserts the KJV’s superiority over other translations.

Perfect TR:

The Textus Receptus (“Received Text”) is the Greek New Testament compilation used for translating the KJV. These KJV-only advocates view the TR as divinely preserved and error-free. “Perfect TR” implies an absolute, unerring view of this text, rejecting even minor historical criticisms or variations found in older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus).

KJV-only:

A belief that the King James Version is the only legitimate English Bible, often framed as inspired or superior to modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV) and sometimes even to the original Hebrew/Greek texts. Extreme KJV-only groups may claim the KJV corrects errors in older manuscripts.

What “Hyper-Text” Promote?

Absolute Textual Inerrancy: Asserting the KJV and TR are perfect and unchanging, with no scribal errors or translational flaws.

Rejection of Scholarship: Dismissing modern textual criticism, archaeology, or linguistics that challenge the TR/KJV.

Conspiracy Theories: Claiming that newer Bible translations are corrupted by secular agendas or “Satanic” influence.

Elevation of KJV as Advanced Revelation: Some fringe groups (e.g., Ruckmanites, following Peter Ruckman) teach that the KJV supersedes the original Greek/Hebrew texts, a view “Hyper-Text” might amplify.

Comparison to Other Movements

Mainstream KJV-onlyism:

Advocates prefer the KJV but may tolerate other translations. They often defend the TR’s reliability but don’t always claim “perfection.”

Ruckmanism:

Followers of Peter Ruckman argue the KJV is advanced revelation, correcting errors in the Greek/Hebrew. This is a more radical subset of KJV-onlyism.

"Hyper-Text" push further—claiming the TR/KJV is mathematically perfect, or that altering a single word constitutes heresy.

"Hyper-Text" Criticisms and Dangers

Anti-Intellectualism: Rejecting scholarship undermines engagement with history, linguistics, and textual evidence.

Division: Fracture churches by accusing others of “compromise.”

Misplaced Faith: Elevating a translation (KJV) to the level of divine inspiration risks idolatry of the text over its message.

Conspiracy Mentality: Blaming “corrupt elites” for modern translations can fuel paranoia and isolation.

Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew and Prabudass Koshy's "Hyper-Text" is an extremist within KJV-onlyism. They focus on textual purity, not grace theology. 

Conclusion

Their “Hyper-Text” movement is an ultra-conservative fringe within KJV-onlyism, advocating for a perfect, unchanging Bible text (TR/KJV) and rejecting all critical engagement. Many mainstream Reformed theology and even many KJV-only advocates distance themselves from such extremism, prioritizing the Bible’s message over textual perfectionism. Stay clear from "Hyper-Text," it is a highly dangerous movement, and those who follow it will kill everyone who stands in their way; beware.

Christian fundamentalism often conflates human control with divine authority. It thrives on fear—of a changing world, of doubt, of “the other”—and mistakes rigidity for righteousness. Yet for many who escape its grip, there is hope. As one former fundamentalist wrote: “I thought God needed me to defend Him. Now I see He asked me to love others. The difference is everything.” The tragedy is how many are wounded along the way.

John Calvin isn't a fundamentalist in modern times

John Calvin (1509–1564), the 16th-century Reformer, would not align with modern fundamentalism as it emerged in the 20th century. While Calvin’s theology profoundly influenced Reformed traditions (including Neo-Calvinism), his approach to faith, culture, and Scripture differs sharply from the separatist and reactionary tendencies of fundamentalism. Here’s why:

1. Calvin’s Theology vs. Fundamentalism’s Priorities

Calvin’s Focus:

Systematic Engagement: Calvin emphasized God’s sovereignty over all creation and sought to reform society through education, law, and governance (e.g., his work in Geneva).

Common Grace: He acknowledged God’s grace in restraining sin and enabling non-believers to contribute to human flourishing (e.g., science, art, governance).

Scripture and Reason: Calvin upheld biblical authority but integrated classical learning (philosophy, rhetoric) into theology, rejecting anti-intellectualism.

Fundamentalism’s Focus:

Separation from Culture: Prioritizes withdrawal from "worldly" influences to preserve doctrinal purity.

Biblical Literalism: Insists on strict inerrancy and often rejects scholarly criticism (e.g., rejecting evolution or historical-critical Bible studies).

Eschatological Urgency: Focuses on Christ’s imminent return and individual salvation, with less emphasis on societal transformation.

2. Calvin’s Cultural Vision vs. Fundamentalist Separatism

Calvin:

Advocated for reforming society through institutions (e.g., founding schools, promoting literacy, shaping civil law).

Saw secular vocations as holy callings to serve God’s purposes in the world.

Fundamentalism:

Often avoids cultural engagement, viewing secular institutions as corrupt.

Creates parallel institutions (e.g., churches, schools) to insulate believers from perceived moral decay.

3. Historical Context

Calvin:

Lived during the Protestant Reformation, a time of upheaval aimed at reforming the Church and society.

His theology was progressive for its era, challenging medieval Catholic practices while building new systems.

Fundamentalism:

Emerged in early 20th-century America as a reaction to modernism, liberal theology, and Darwinism.

Defined by the 1910–1915 "The Fundamentals" essays, which defended doctrines like biblical inerrancy and Christ’s virgin birth.

4. Scripture and Scholarship

Calvin:

Interpreted Scripture with careful exegesis but allowed for nuance (e.g., recognizing metaphorical language in Genesis).

Respected scholars like Augustine and engaged with humanist thought.

Fundamentalism:

Often adopts a literalist hermeneutic, resisting dialogue with secular scholarship (e.g., rejecting evolutionary science).

Tends toward proof-texting (isolating verses to defend doctrines) rather than systemic theology.

5. Why the Confusion?

Overlap in Conservatism: Both Calvinism and fundamentalism uphold doctrinal orthodoxy (e.g., Christ’s divinity, substitutionary atonement).

Neo-Calvinism ≠ Fundamentalism: While Neo-Calvinism (Kuyper, Bavinck) builds on Calvin’s ideas, it expands his cultural vision, whereas fundamentalism contracts into separatism.

Conclusion

Calvin was a Reformer, not a fundamentalist. His goal was to renew all of life under Christ’s lordship, not retreat from the world. Fundamentalism, by contrast, arose centuries later as a defensive movement against modernity. While Calvin’s theology influenced later conservative traditions, his holistic, world-engaging vision contrasts sharply with fundamentalism’s insularity.

Following Calvin’s teachings does not make one a fundamentalist. Calvinism, at its core, is about transforming the world through the lens of God’s sovereignty, not fleeing from it. While both traditions uphold biblical authority, fundamentalism’s separatism and literalism conflict with Calvin’s vision of holistic cultural engagement and intellectual rigor.

If you’re drawn to Calvin’s theology, consider exploring Neo-Calvinism or Reformed theology—traditions that actively apply his ideas to modern life without the constraints of fundamentalism.

The Miracle of the Printing Press ?

While the invention of the printing press revolutionized the dissemination of the Bible, standardizing its text and enabling widespread access, it did not recover the original autographs of Scripture. Furthermore, the King James Version (KJV), despite its historical and literary significance, is not the most accurate or accessible English Bible today due to advancements in textual criticism, linguistic evolution, and the discovery of older, more reliable manuscripts.

I. The Printing Press and the Myth of a "Perfect Bible"

Gutenberg’s printing press (c. 1455) ended the era of hand-copied manuscripts, reducing scribal errors and creating textual uniformity. However, printed Bibles like the Textus Receptus (used for the KJV) were based on medieval Byzantine manuscripts, which were copies of copies, not autographs.

The notion of a “perfect Bible” via printing conflates standardization with textual purity. Errors inherited from prior manuscript traditions (e.g., the Comma Johanneum, a later interpolation in 1 John 5:7–8) persisted in printed editions.

Autographs (original writings) of biblical texts were lost by the 2nd century CE due to material decay (papyrus) and use. The oldest extant manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century CE) are centuries removed from the originals.

Modern textual criticism reconstructs the earliest attainable text using older Alexandrian manuscripts (e.g., Codex Vaticanus), but even these are not autographs. The printing press did not—and could not—recover lost originals.

The press could not "solve" textual corruption because it reproduced existing traditions. Medieval scribes had already introduced variants, harmonizations, and theological interpolations into the manuscript stream. The printing press fossilized these flaws rather than correcting them.

If the press were a divine tool for perfecting Scripture, it would have required access to autographs or error-free manuscripts, which it lacked. Instead, it amplified the textual status quo, including its imperfections.

Today, digitization and databases (e.g., the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method) allow scholars to analyze thousands of variants algorithmically—a "second revolution" surpassing the printing press’s capabilities.

The printing press was a pivotal but inherently limited tool in the quest for a "perfect Bible." It standardized texts and enabled mass literacy but could not overcome the historical gap between existing manuscripts and lost autographs. Its role was technological, not miraculous. True progress in biblical textual accuracy depends on scholarly criticism, archaeological discoveries, and advances in linguistics—not mechanical reproduction. While the press transformed access to Scripture, the pursuit of its original form remains an ongoing, human-driven endeavor.

II. Why the KJV Is Not the Best English Bible Today

The KJV relies on the Textus Receptus (16th century), which was based on late Byzantine manuscripts. Since the 19th century, older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) have revealed Byzantine additions and textual variants. Modern critical texts (e.g., Nestle-Aland) prioritize earlier, more reliable Alexandrian manuscripts.

The KJV includes passages like John 7:53–8:11 (the Pericope Adulterae) and Mark 16:9–20, absent in older manuscripts.

The KJV’s Early Modern English (e.g., “thee,” “thou,” “besom”) obscures meaning for contemporary readers. Words like “prevent” (1 Thess. 4:15, meaning “precede”) have shifted semantically, leading to misunderstandings.

Modern translations (e.g., NRSV, ESV, NIV) benefit from discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and advances in linguistics, archaeology, and comparative literature. Dynamic equivalence translations (e.g., NIV) balance accuracy with readability.

The KJV’s literalness often sacrifices clarity (e.g., “charity” for agapē in 1 Cor. 13, whereas “love” is more precise).

The KJV reflects 17th-century Anglican theology in its translation choices (e.g., “bishop” for episkopos). Modern translations avoid such sectarian language.

III. Counterarguments and Responses

Some argue the KJV is divinely preserved, but this theological stance lacks empirical support. Textual criticism is a scholarly, evidence-based discipline.

While the KJV’s prose is culturally influential, its linguistic beauty does not equate to textual superiority.

Conclusion

The printing press democratized access to the Bible but did not resolve its textual complexities or recover autographs. The KJV, though a landmark achievement, is eclipsed by modern translations that utilize older manuscripts, contemporary language, and rigorous scholarship. To engage meaningfully with Scripture, readers should prioritize translations grounded in the earliest available evidence.

Bibliography:

Metzger, B. M., & Ehrman, B. D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament.

Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1995). The Text of the New Testament.

Norton, D. (2005). A Textual History of the King James Bible.

Comfort, P. W. (2020). New Testament Text and Translation Commentary.

Eisenstein, E. (1980). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change.

Metzger, B. M. (2001). The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions.

Hills, E. F. (1956). The King James Version Defended (for a counterargument on divine preservation).

Strong Words

Words are not always gentle. Sometimes, they must be sharp, like a surgeon’s blade cutting through illusion to reach the truth. When I write with fire, when I rebuke or shake the page with urgency, it is not to harm, but to awaken.

Pain often walks hand-in-hand with growth. A seed cracks open in darkness before it reaches for the light. So too, strong words may bruise the ego, but they aim to shatter complacency—to disrupt the numbness that lets us tolerate our own stagnation. If my language stings, it is because indifference is a far deeper wound.

I write not to condemn, but to call out. To shout when whispers have gone unheard. To shake shoulders when polite taps failed. Comfortable silence is the enemy of progress; it lets suffering fester and dreams gather dust. Yes, truth can hurt, but lies? Lies destroy.

This is not cruelty—it is care in its rawest form. If I did not believe in your strength, your capacity to rise, I would stay quiet. But I see the greatness dormant in you, buried under fear, habit, or denial. So I choose to risk your temporary discomfort to ignite your lasting transformation.

Hurt is never the goal. The goal is to light a match in the dark, even if it briefly burns your eyes. Wake up. Stay awake. Then decide what you’ll do with the clarity that follows.

With respect,

—A Voice Refusing to Whisper

The stubbornness of Prabud-ass Koshy

He claimed that Jesus and the apostles never quoted the Septuagint (LXX). He contradicts significant textual and historical evidence. 

Denying the Septuagint’s role in the NT is not just "stubborn"—it disregards the lived reality of early Christianity. Jesus and the apostles operated in a world where the LXX was the Bible for millions of Jews and Gentiles. Recognizing this enriches our understanding of how Scripture was transmitted and how the early Church saw itself as the fulfillment of God’s promises. As Augustine noted, God’s truth transcends textual variations—whether in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin.

Augustine mentioned that minor textual variations don't undermine Scripture's authority

Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430) addresses the issue of textual variations in Scripture and their impact on its authority in his work "De Doctrina Christiana" (On Christian Doctrine), specifically in Book II, Chapter 12. Here, he acknowledges the existence of manuscript discrepancies but argues that such variations do not undermine Scripture’s core truths or divine authority. 

________________________________________

1. From De Doctrina Christiana (Book II, Chapter 12):

He wrote that a diversity of interpretations is useful.

https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Augustine%20doctrine.pdf

• Augustine acknowledges that scribal errors or variations exist due to copying mistakes, but he advises readers to prioritize reason and context to resolve ambiguities:

"When, however, a word is ambiguous... we must either consult the original language or compare various translations. If the same ambiguity exists in all of them, we must rely on the context... For the truth of the Scriptures is so divinely supported that even such variations do not hinder the devout reader."

• He emphasizes that minor textual issues do not obscure the Bible’s overarching message or its divine inspiration.

________________________________________

2. In His Letters (e.g., Letter 71 to Jerome):

• Augustine corresponded with Jerome, who was translating the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin (the Vulgate). Augustine defended the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament used by early Christians), despite its differences from the Hebrew text:

"For the very same Spirit that was in the prophets when they spoke was present also in the seventy translators... so that they too could also say something else, just as divinely, as if the prophet himself had said both."

— Letter 71, Section 5

• Here, Augustine argues that even divergent translations can be divinely guided, trusting that God preserves Scripture’s essential truths despite human imperfections.

________________________________________

From Augustine’s View:

1. Tolerance for Minor Variations: Augustine accepted textual diversity as inevitable in a pre-printing-press world but insisted that core doctrines (e.g., Christ’s resurrection, God’s love) remain intact.

2. Divine Providence: He believed God ensured Scripture’s reliability despite human errors, as the Holy Spirit guided both the original authors and later translators.

3. Focus on the Message: For Augustine, Scripture’s authority lay in its ability to inspire faith and love, not in mechanical precision:

"Whoever, therefore, thinks he understands the Scriptures… but does not build up the twin love of God and neighbor has not yet understood them."

— De Doctrina Christiana, Book I, Chapter 36

________________________________________

Why This Matters:

Augustine’s approach reflects a pastoral and theological perspective: Scripture’s authority is rooted in its transformative purpose, not textual perfection. His writings remain foundational for understanding how early Christians navigated textual diversity while maintaining confidence in Scripture’s divine inspiration.

The pursuit of a "perfect Bible"

The pursuit of a "perfect Bible"—often understood as reconstructing the most accurate possible text of the original manuscripts.

Challenges and Limitations

1. The Myth of "Perfection"
• The original autographs are lost, and reconstructing them perfectly is impossible due to gaps in manuscript evidence. The pursuit risks becoming an endless academic exercise.
• Example: Even the oldest manuscripts (e.g., 𝔓52, 2nd c. CE) are fragments, leaving questions about earlier forms.
2. Neglect of the Bible’s Purpose
• Overemphasis on textual perfection can distract from the Bible’s role in shaping faith, ethics, and community. The message risks being overshadowed by debates over minor variants.
• Example: Jesus and Paul quoted the Septuagint (a Greek translation with variations from the Hebrew), prioritizing theological meaning over textual precision.
3. Divisiveness
• Disagreements over textual preferences (e.g., KJV-onlyism vs. modern translations) can fracture communities, implying that faith hinges on textual purity rather than spiritual truth.
4. Cultural and Canonical Diversity
• Different traditions already use varying canons (e.g., Protestant 66 books, Catholic 73, Ethiopian Orthodox 81+). A universally "perfect" Bible is unattainable without resolving these differences.

---

A Balanced Perspective

The pursuit of textual accuracy is valuable but not ultimate. Key principles include:

• Humility: Acknowledge that no manuscript is flawless, yet trust the overall reliability of Scripture.
• Purpose: Prioritize the Bible’s transformative message over hyper-focus on textual minutiae.
• Practical Faith: As Augustine noted, minor variations do not undermine Scripture’s authority, since the Holy Spirit “accommodates” human limitations in transmission.

---

Conclusion

There is "good" in pursuing a more accurate Bible if it deepens understanding and trust in Scripture. However, this pursuit must be tempered with the recognition that the Bible’s authority lies not in textual perfection but in its enduring power to convey divine truth, inspire faith, and guide communities. The goal is not an unattainable "perfect" text but a faithful engagement with the Word as it has been preserved and proclaimed through history.

When the Bible was canonized, the Church did not seek a "perfect" Bible

The formation of the biblical canon was a gradual process, shaped by theological, historical, and communal factors.

1. Canonization Timeline

• Old Testament (Hebrew Bible):
  The Jewish canon was largely settled by the end of the 1st century CE, traditionally linked to the Council of Jamnia (Yavne), though modern scholars debate its formal role. The tripartite structure (Torah, Prophets, Writings) was affirmed, with most books accepted by the 2nd century BCE.
• New Testament:
  The canon evolved over centuries. Key milestones include:
• 367 CE: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Easter letter listing the 27 NT books.
• 393–397 CE: Councils of Hippo and Carthage ratifying the NT canon as recognized today.

2. Manuscripts Available at the Time

• Old Testament:
• Hebrew Texts: Pre-Masoretic manuscripts (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, 3rd c. BCE–1st c. CE), which show textual diversity.
• Greek Septuagint: A 3rd–2nd c. BCE translation widely used by Hellenistic Jews and early Christians.
• New Testament:
• Early Papyri: Fragments like 𝔓52 (John, ~125 CE) and codices like 𝔓45, 𝔓46, 𝔓66 (2nd–3rd c. CE).
• Uncial Codices: Complete 4th-century manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) containing most NT books.

3. Pursuit of a "Perfect" Bible?

• Canon vs. Textual Perfection:
  The focus was on authoritative content, not textual uniformity. Early communities prioritized apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and liturgical use over resolving minor textual variations.
• Textual Diversity:
  Manuscripts exhibited variations (e.g., spelling, phrasing), but these were tolerated as long as theological coherence remained. The concept of a "perfect" text is modern; ancient compilers relied on available copies without systematic comparison.
• Heresies as Catalyst:
  Challenges like Marcion’s truncated canon (2nd c.) and Gnostic writings spurred efforts to define orthodoxy, emphasizing canon over textual precision.

Why This Matters Today

The canonization process sought to unify communities around a shared scriptural foundation, prioritizing theological consistency over textual perfection. Manuscripts of the era were diverse but functionally authoritative, reflecting the practical realities of ancient book production and transmission.

The ancient approach reminds us that the Bible’s authority lies in its theological message, not in an idealized, error-free text. Modern textual criticism (using ancient manuscripts to reconstruct early readings) is a later development, born of Enlightenment-era ideals of precision—a lens the ancients wouldn’t recognize.

In short, the canonizers sought to unify the Church around which books conveyed God’s truth, trusting that the Holy Spirit guided the community despite the messy realities of human copying.

Early Christians Were Not Seeking "Perfect Scriptures"

First-century Jews used various Hebrew texts and the LXX, early Christians weren't looking for "perfect" scriptures. Most early Christians were Greek-speaking, so LXX was primary. But Hebrew-speaking Jewish Christians might have referenced Hebrew texts. However, direct evidence is scarce. The NT authors mostly quote LXX. The NT itself shows flexibility in interpretation. Their concept of scripture wasn't about textual perfection but about its role in pointing to Christ. They reinterpreted existing texts rather than seeking a flawless manuscript.

First-century Jews did not use the MT as we know it today, but they used Hebrew manuscripts that were proto-Masoretic (similar to the MT) alongside other textual traditions (e.g., proto-Samaritan, DSS variants).

The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was widely used by Hellenistic Jews (Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora) and early Christians. Below is evidence of its use, drawn from historical sources, textual comparisons, and manuscript discoveries:  Evidence for Early Christian Use of the Septuagint

---

1. Historical Evidence for Hellenistic Jewish Use

• Letter of Aristeas (2nd century BCE):
  This pseudepigraphal work claims the Septuagint was commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) for the Library of Alexandria. While legendary in parts, it reflects the Jewish tradition of the LXX’s origin and its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews.
• Key quote: "The laws of the Jews... were translated from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek language."
• Philo of Alexandria (1st century CE):
  A Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo praised the LXX as divinely inspired and described an annual festival on the island of Pharos (near Alexandria) celebrating its translation.
• Key quote: "They [the translators] became possessed, and, under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter." (Life of Moses 2.37).
• Synagogue Use:
  Inscriptions and writings (e.g., the Theodotus Inscription in Jerusalem) confirm Greek-speaking synagogues used the LXX for public reading and study.

---

2. New Testament Evidence for Early Christian Use

The New Testament authors frequently quote the Old Testament from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Examples include:

A. Matthew 1:23 (quoting Isaiah 7:14)

• Hebrew (Masoretic Text): "A young woman [almah] shall conceive."
• Septuagint (LXX): "A virgin [parthenos] shall conceive."
• Matthew’s Greek: Uses parthenos (virgin), aligning with the LXX to support Jesus’ virgin birth.

B. Acts 7:14 (quoting Genesis 46:27)

• Hebrew (MT): "70 persons" went to Egypt.
• LXX: "75 persons."
• Acts 7:14: Follows the LXX’s "75 souls."

C. Hebrews 10:5-7 (quoting Psalm 40:6-8)

• Hebrew (MT): "You have given me an open ear."
• LXX: "You have prepared a body for me."
• Hebrews: Quotes the LXX’s "body" to connect Christ’s incarnation to the psalm.

D. Romans 3:10-18 (quoting Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah)

Paul stitches together multiple LXX passages (e.g., Psalm 14:1-3 LXX) to argue universal human sinfulness. The wording matches the LXX, not the Hebrew.

---

3. Early Christian Writings

• Justin Martyr (2nd century CE):
  Defended Christianity by arguing that Jewish leaders altered the Hebrew text to obscure messianic prophecies, while Christians relied on the LXX (Dialogue with Trypho 68–73).
• Origen’s Hexapla (3rd century CE):
  A six-column Bible comparing Hebrew, LXX, and other Greek translations, showing the LXX’s primacy in early Christian scholarship.
• Church Fathers:
  Augustine and others regarded the LXX as authoritative. Augustine even argued it was superior to the Hebrew text (City of God 18.43).

---

4. Manuscript Evidence

• Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE–1st century CE):
  Greek fragments of the LXX (e.g., Leviticus and Deuteronomy) found at Qumran show its use among Hellenistic Jews.
• Early Christian Codices:
  The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century CE) include the LXX as their Old Testament, proving its adoption by the early Church.
• Jewish Greek Papyri:
  Papyrus fragments of the LXX (e.g., Rylands Papyrus 458, 2nd century BCE Deuteronomy) confirm its circulation in Egypt.

---

5. Jewish Rejection of the LXX Post-70 CE

After Christianity adopted the LXX, Jewish communities distanced themselves from it:

• Aquila’s Greek Translation (2nd century CE): A literal Hebrew-to-Greek translation replacing the LXX in synagogues.
• Rabbinic Criticism: The Talmud (Megillah 9a) acknowledges the LXX’s origins but critiques its Hellenistic influence.

---

6. Limited Use of Hebrew (Proto-MT) Texts

While most early Christians used the LXX, Hebrew-speaking Jewish Christians may have referenced Hebrew manuscripts (proto-MT or DSS-like texts):

• Matthew’s Gospel: Occasionally reflects Hebrew traditions. For example, Matthew 2:15 interprets Hosea 11:1 ("Out of Egypt I called my son") christologically. The Hebrew text refers to Israel’s Exodus, but Matthew recontextualizes it for Jesus, suggesting familiarity with Hebrew interpretive methods.
• Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): Show textual plurality (proto-MT, proto-Samaritan, LXX-aligned). Early Jewish Christians might have engaged with these diverse Hebrew traditions.

---

7. Early Christians Were Not Seeking "Perfect Scriptures"

The idea of a "perfect" or standardized Bible was foreign to the first-century Church. Key evidence includes:

A. Flexible Interpretation

• Christological Reinterpretation: Early Christians read the OT through the lens of Jesus’ life and resurrection, often prioritizing theological meaning over literal textual accuracy.
• Example: Galatians 3:16 uses the singular "seed" (σπέρμα, sperma) in Genesis 12:7 to argue for Christ as the fulfillment of Abraham’s promise, a move dependent on the LXX’s Greek phrasing.

B. Oral Tradition and Apostolic Authority

• 2 Thessalonians 2:15: Paul urges believers to hold to traditions taught "by word of mouth or by letter," elevating oral teaching alongside written texts.
• 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: Paul transmits the Last Supper narrative orally, not citing written Gospels.

C. Diversity of Early Christian Writings

• Fluid Canon: First-century Christians used texts later excluded from the NT (e.g., Didache, Shepherd of Hermas). The NT canon was not finalized until the 4th century.
• Codex Sinaiticus (4th century CE) includes Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas, showing ongoing flexibility.

D. No Concept of "Inerrancy"

• Early Christians viewed Scripture as useful (2 Timothy 3:16) but subordinate to the Holy Spirit and community discernment (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

---

8. Contrast with Later Developments

• Masoretic Standardization: After the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), rabbinic Judaism began standardizing Hebrew texts, culminating in the MT.
• Christian Canonization: The Church later formalized the NT canon in response to heresies (e.g., Marcionism) and disputes, shifting toward a "closed" Bible.

---

Conclusion

1. First-century Christians primarily used the LXX, with limited engagement of Hebrew traditions (proto-MT/DSS).
2. They prioritized Christological interpretation and apostolic authority over textual perfection.
3. The concept of "perfect Scripture" (inerrancy, closed canon) emerged later, driven by theological and historical needs.

The early Church’s vitality lay in its living witness to Jesus, not in a fixed, flawless text—a perspective radically different from later Jewish and Christian textual rigidities.

SIN OF THE TONGUE (II)

The Heresy of Verbal Plenary Preservation and the Betrayal of Christ’s Body

Key Verse: "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips." (Romans 3:13, ESV)

A Fire of Hell in the Church

The tongue, set ablaze by hell itself (James 3:6), now spews two poisons in God’s house: the idolatrous lie of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and the viperous attacks on Charismatic believers. These sins fracture Christ’s Body, mock the Spirit’s work, and trample the gospel of unity. Let the sword of God’s Word pierce this rebellion!

I. The Heresy of Verbal Plenary Preservation: Idolatry Masquerading as Piety

1. The Rotten Foundation

VPP peddlers declare, “Only our translation is pure!”—a doctrine forged in the pits of pride, not Scripture. They idolize ink and paper, equating fallible human translations (e.g., KJV) with God’s inspired autographs. This is blasphemy, elevating tradition above the God who breathed out His Word (2 Timothy 3:16).

2. Biblical Thunder Against VPP

Christ Himself quoted the Septuagint—a Greek translation—yet these modern Pharisees scream “Corruption!” at other versions, calling God a liar.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). God preserves His truth, not your pet translation. VPP is a golden calf—a heretical idol that divides the church and mocks the Spirit’s guardianship of Scripture.

3. Reap What You Sow

Division: By damning all but their “holy” text, VPP zealots splinter Christ’s flock. “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). No—but you are!

Betrayal: To claim God failed to preserve His Word except in your translation is to spit on His sovereignty. You betray Christ’s promise to build His church (Matthew 16:18).

Judgment: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces” (Matthew 23:13). Repent or face the same wrath.

II. The Viper’s Tongue: Attacking Charismatic Christians

1. The Spirit’s Gifts vs. Sectarian Snakes

Charismatics are branded “demonic,” “deceived,” or “heretics” for seeking the Spirit’s gifts—tongues, prophecy, healing. But who are you to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19)? The same religious spirit that accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul (Matthew 12:24) now drips from your lips!

2. Biblical Fury Against Slander

“Do not speak evil against one another, brothers” (James 4:11). Yet you tear apart Christ’s Body, mocking His work in Charismatics. You are not “defenders of truth”—you are slanderers, guilty of murderous speech (Matthew 5:21-22).

The Spirit distributes gifts “as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11). Who gave you authority to dictate His methods? Your elitist tongue brands you a rebel against heaven.

3. Consequences of Contempt

Quenching the Spirit: Your mockery grieves the One who anoints prophets and empowers saints (Ephesians 4:30).

Scandal to the World: “By this all people will know you are My disciples, if you have love” (John 13:35). Your venom drives souls to hell.

Judgment: “Every careless word will be judged” (Matthew 12:36). Will you stand when God weighs your curses against His children?

Conclusion: Repent or Perish

To the VPP idolaters and Charismatic-baiters: God’s patience is not indifference. Tear down your altars to dead translations! Swallow your viperous tongues! Cease your war against the Spirit’s work!

A Call to Lament:

For VPP Zealots: Throw your “perfect” translation into the fire. Cling to Christ, not paper. Study textual criticism—or be silent.

For Sectarian Attackers: Kneel before Charismatics and beg forgiveness. Pray for the gifts you fear. “The greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Prayer of Brokenness:

Lord, break our pride. Forgive our idolatry and hatred. Baptize us in fire—not to divide, but to purify. Unite Your church, or cut us down where we stand. Amen.

Final Warning:

“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue, he deceives his heart, and his religion is worthless” (James 1:26). Bridle yours—or face the God whose Word is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29).