A Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) perspective

A Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) perspective on the issues of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-onlysim.

1. What is Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)?

Definition:

VPP is the belief that every single word (verbal) of the Bible has been perfectly preserved (plenary means "completely" or "fully") by God in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) through time—without any errors at all.

Our View:

We generally do not hold to VPP in a strict or extreme way. We believe God inspired the original writings of the Bible and that the message of salvation and truth has been faithfully preserved—but not in a word-for-word perfect copy throughout history.

We recognize that copying errors, translation differences, and textual variants exist, but these do not change the core message of God's love, Jesus Christ, or salvation. We trust God’s Word is reliable, but not in a rigid, word-for-word preserved sense like VPP teaches.

We affirm the divine inspiration of Scripture, believing the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. However, we generally do not emphasize perfect textual preservation (VPP). Instead, we trust in God’s providence over the transmission of the biblical texts, acknowledging minor textual variations in manuscripts while affirming the core message remains intact.

"The Bible is inspired, but we rely on scholarly work to understand its transmission. God’s truth isn’t lost in translation or copying."

________________________________

2. What about KJV-onlyism?

Definition:

KJV-onlyism is the belief that the King James Version (KJV) is the only true or correct English Bible translation, and all others are corrupt or inferior.

Our View:

Most BPC do not believe in KJV-onlyism. We respect the KJV for its beauty and historical impact, but we recognize that language evolves, and newer translations (like NIV, NRSV, or ESV) help people today better understand God’s Word.

Our focus is not on one version being the “only” version, but on helping people read, understand, and live by Scripture in a language that speaks to their hearts today.

"The message of Scripture matters most, not the translation. We value clarity and accuracy for today’s readers."

________________________________

We believe that:

• The Bible is God’s Word, and while it’s not preserved in a "photocopy-perfect" way, its message has been faithfully kept.

• The books of the Bible we use are the right ones, chosen with God’s guidance.

• The KJV is a valuable translation, but it’s not the only or “holiest” version. God speaks through His Word, not through one specific translation.

• Emphasis is on the Bible’s transformative power for living out Christian faith, rather than debates over textual perfection.

The need to accept modern translations

The need to accept modern translations like the NIV (New International Version) and ESV (English Standard Version) alongside the KJV (King James Version) arises from a commitment to both accuracy and accessibility.

Here's a biblical and historical explanation of why it is not only acceptable but even wise to accept translations like the NIV (New International Version) and ESV (English Standard Version) alongside the KJV (King James Version), grounded in both Scripture and history:

1. What Kind of Scripture Text Was Circulating During Jesus’ Time?

During Jesus’ earthly ministry, several versions of the Scriptures were in use:

1. Hebrew Scriptures (Masoretic Text prototypes): The Old Testament in Hebrew, particularly in synagogue worship.
2. Greek Septuagint (LXX): A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in the 3rd–2nd centuries BC in Alexandria, widely used in the Hellenistic Jewish world.
3. Targums: Aramaic paraphrases and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible used by Jews who no longer understood Hebrew well.
4. Various textual traditions: At Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), we find evidence of multiple versions of Old Testament texts, including proto-Masoretic, Septuagintal, and Samaritan traditions.

There was not one single uniform text, and certainly not one "authorized version."

2. Did Jesus Criticize Those Texts or Translations?

No. Jesus never criticized the use of different versions of Scripture. In fact, He and the Apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek version, even when it differed slightly from the Hebrew text. For example:

Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 quotes the Septuagint’s "virgin" rather than the Hebrew "young woman."

Psalm 8:2, quoted in Matthew 21:16, follows the Septuagint, not the Hebrew.

This shows that Jesus endorsed the message and authority of Scripture, regardless of exact wording or translation. Jesus criticized hypocrisy and rigid legalism, not the Scriptures or their translations.

3. Was Jesus Silent on Bible Translations? Should We Be?

Yes, Jesus was effectively "silent" in the sense of not condemning or favoring one translation over another.

His concern was not which version people read, but whether they understood and obeyed the Scriptures. He often said:

“Have you not read...?” (e.g., Matthew 12:3, 19:4)

If Jesus did not reject the Septuagint or Aramaic paraphrases, neither should we be dogmatic about one English version. Jesus’ lack of explicit commentary on translation methods does not mean He opposed it. 

4. Why Accept NIV and ESV Alongside KJV?

1. Clarity: NIV and ESV use contemporary English that most readers can understand today. The KJV, while majestic, uses 17th-century English, which is no longer natural to modern readers.
2. Scholarship: ESV and NIV are based on better manuscript discoveries, like the Dead Sea Scrolls and older Greek manuscripts not available in 1611 when the KJV was translated.
3. Faithfulness: Both NIV and ESV were created by teams of faithful evangelical scholars committed to the authority of Scripture.

Comparing translations highlights nuances. For example, the KJV’s “charity” (1 Corinthians 13) is more precisely rendered “love” in NIV/ESV, avoiding confusion with modern connotations.

5. Apostolic Principle: Understandable Language

Paul said:

“If you speak in a tongue that people don’t understand, how will they be edified?” (1 Corinthians 14:9)

By principle, Scripture should be understandable to the people. A modern translation serves this mission.

6. Conclusion: We Follow Christ, Not a Translation

Jesus upheld Scripture’s authority while endorsing its accessibility through translation (via the LXX). His silence on translation methods is not a call for rigidity but an invitation to prioritize the Gospel’s clarity and truth. Modern translations like the NIV and ESV, grounded in older manuscripts and clearer language, honor this mission. To reject them would risk perpetuating the very legalism Jesus opposed—elevating tradition over the transformative power of God’s Word (Mark 7:13). We should embrace translations that faithfully convey Scripture’s message to all people.

While the KJV is a historic and beautiful translation, insisting on only one version may elevate a human translation above God’s living Word. Christ did not do this. He used available texts, quoted from translations, and never condemned those who did the same.

Therefore, it is not only biblically consistent but spiritually wise to accept and use faithful modern translations like the NIV and ESV, as long as they faithfully convey God’s truth.

When Jesus was silent on scriptural texts, we should also be silent! 

Didache

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

Khoo Eng Teck, Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy and others in Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore,

Grace and peace in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a fellow servant of Christ, I write with a heavy heart, moved by the concern for the unity of the Church and the purity of the gospel. It has come to my attention that you strongly advocate KJV Onlyism and the belief in a Perfect Textus Receptus, presenting these views as non-negotiable truths and condemning others who use different faithful translations or textual bases. While love for Scripture is commendable, your teaching, by its exclusivity and divisiveness, is not in harmony with the faith once delivered to the saints nor with the spirit of the early Church.

Let us consider the words of the Didache, a document treasured by the earliest Christians and a reflection of apostolic teaching. It exhorts all followers of Christ:

"You shall not cause division, but shall bring peace to those who fight. You shall judge justly. You shall not show favoritism when reproving transgressions." (Didache 4:3)

Or, “thou shalt not desire schism, but shalt set at peace them that contend; thou shalt judge righteously; thou shalt not accept the person of any one to convict him of transgression;”

Your insistence on one translation and one textual tradition as "perfect" above all others has caused division, not peace. By setting up the KJV and TR as divine absolutes, you elevate traditions of men above the unity and mission of Christ. 

Your teaching draws people away from the broader church, rejecting the gift of godly scholarship, mission, and translation work carried out by faithful believers throughout the world—offering no grace, but demanding uniformity.

Worse still, by teaching doctrines not commanded by Christ nor the apostles, you place yourself in grave danger of leading others astray. The Didache warns:

"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and undermines godliness, do not listen to him." (Didache 11:2)

You have replaced the gospel of Christ with a gospel of textual perfectionism. This is not the faith of the apostles, but a modern innovation. The early Church never demanded allegiance to one manuscript line or translation—how could they, when they worshiped in many languages and places?

The apostles never mandated a specific Bible translation or manuscript family. The KJV (1611) and TR (16th century) are products of post-Reformation debates, not apostolic practice. Elevating them as “perfect” contradicts the Didache’s call to cling to the “righteousness handed down.” True shepherds guide flocks toward Christ—not human traditions that “nullify the word of God” (Mark 7:13).

Brother, I appeal to you not as an enemy, but as one who desires your repentance and restoration to the unity of the Church. Return to the simplicity and power of the gospel. Teach the Word of God faithfully, but do not bind the consciences of others where Christ has not bound them.

The KJV-only and "Perfect TR" positions are modern innovations absent from early Christian tradition. By elevating textual preferences over the Gospel’s core message, you risk teaching “another doctrine” that divides the Body of Christ. The apostles prioritized the substance of faith, not textual perfectionism (Acts 15:28–29). Insisting on these doctrines undermines unity and strays from the “way of life” handed down by Christ and His Church.

The Didache repeatedly stresses harmony:

“Thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt confute, concerning some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love beyond thine own soul."(Didache 2:7).

Do not be angry, for anger leads to murder. Do not be jealous, quarrelsome, or hot-tempered, for all these things breed strife.” (Didache 3:2).

“On the Lord’s Day, gather together, break bread, and give thanks, having confessed your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with a neighbor join until they are reconciled.” (Didache 14:1–3).

Your teachings risk fostering pride and division over non-essentials. The early Church resolved disputes through humility and reconciliation (e.g., Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15). By fixating on secondary issues, you disregard the Didache’s call to prioritize peace and communal worship. Christ prayed for unity among believers (John 17:21)—a unity fractured by dogmatic insistence on human traditions like KJV-onlyism.

The Didache opens by contrasting the “Way of Life” (love, humility, and unity) with the “Way of Death” (pride and division). Ask yourself: Does your teaching foster love and reconciliation, or strife and elitism? Repent of divisive doctrines and join the global Church in proclaiming Christ—not textual preferences. As the Didache urges:

“Do not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but guard what you have received.” (Didache 4:13).

May you heed this ancient wisdom, aligning your ministry with the apostolic faith that unites, rather than divides, the Body of Christ.

May you be found a faithful steward of God's mysteries, not a divider of His people.

In the love and truth of Christ,

So and So

The KJV Is Not the Only Bible That Unites the Church

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a translation, not a denomination, sect, or group. It was completed in 1611 by a team of scholars under the authority of King James I of England. The KJV itself does not promote any heresies or false teachings—it is a respected and historically significant English translation of the Bible.

However, certain groups or sects that utilize the KJV have been criticized by mainstream Christianity for teachings perceived as heretical or unorthodox. Below is a list of such groups and their controversial doctrines, along with explanations of why these teachings are contested:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS/Mormonism)

Controversial Teachings:

Belief in additional scriptures (e.g., Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants).

God was once a mortal man who progressed to divinity (the concept of "eternal progression").

Plurality of gods and potential for humans to become gods.

Rejection of the traditional Trinity in favor of a tritheistic view (three separate beings).

Criticism: Mainstream Christianity rejects these teachings as deviations from Nicene orthodoxy, particularly the nature of God, the uniqueness of Christ’s atonement, and the closure of the biblical canon.

2. Oneness Pentecostalism (e.g., United Pentecostal Church International)

Controversial Teachings:

Denial of the Trinity, advocating Modalism (God manifests as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but is not three distinct persons).

Baptismal regeneration (salvation requires baptism in Jesus’ name, often coupled with speaking in tongues).

Criticism: Traditional Christianity condemns the denial of the Trinity as a rejection of the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

3. Jehovah’s Witnesses

Note: They read the KJV in the begining, later they make their own translation. While they primarily use their New World Translation, they occasionally reference the KJV. 

Controversial Teachings:

Denial of Christ’s divinity (viewing Jesus as a created being, not co-eternal with the Father).

Rejection of the Trinity.

Salvation through works (e.g., door-to-door evangelism) alongside faith.

Criticism: These doctrines conflict with core Christian teachings on Christ’s divinity, the Trinity, and salvation by grace alone.

4. King James Only (KJV-Only) Movements

Controversial Teachings:

Assertion that the KJV is the only inspired or valid English Bible, often dismissing modern translations and textual criticism.

Some factions accuse other translations of being "corrupt" or "Satanic."

Criticism: While not a heresy per se, this view is seen as bibliolatry (elevating a translation above the original texts) and risks isolating adherents from broader scholarship.

5. Christian Identity Movement

Controversial Teachings:

Racist interpretations (e.g., claiming Anglo-Saxons are the "true Israelites").

Anti-Semitic and white supremacist ideologies.

Criticism: These groups distort Scripture to justify bigotry, directly opposing the biblical emphasis on unity in Christ (Galatians 3:28).

6. Hyper-Dispensationalist Groups

Controversial Teachings:

Overly rigid division of biblical history into disconnected "dispensations," often denying the applicability of certain Scriptures (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount) to modern Christians.

Some reject water baptism or the Lord’s Supper as obsolete.

Criticism: Mainstream theology rejects such extreme compartmentalization as undermining the coherence of Scripture.

7. Prosperity Gospel Preachers (e.g., some televangelists)

Controversial Teachings:

"Health and wealth" theology, claiming faith guarantees material blessings.

Blaming poverty or sickness on lack of faith.

Criticism: This contradicts biblical teachings on suffering (e.g., Job, Paul’s thorn) and risks reducing God to a transactional figure.

8. Westboro Baptist Church

Controversial Teachings:

Extreme Calvinist predestination twisted into hate speech (e.g., "God hates sinners").

Homophobic and inflammatory rhetoric.

Criticism: Their teachings violate the biblical call to love neighbors (Matthew 22:39) and misrepresent God’s character.

9. Ruckmanism (extreme KJV-Only position taught by Peter Ruckman)

Controversial Teachings:

Claiming The KJV is not only inspired but corrects the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Criticism: This is a radical departure from historic Christian belief in the primacy of the original languages of Scripture.

Conclusion:

Not everyone who prefers or uses the KJV is heretical or in error. Many faithful Christians and churches use the KJV without falling into the above extremes and heresies. Most KJV readers hold orthodox beliefs. Criticism applies only to specific groups.

The KJV Is Not the "Only Bible" That Unites the Church. Unity is rooted in shared orthodoxy, not translation. The universal church is united by core doctrines such as the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture—truths affirmed across faithful translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV). No single translation is inherently superior for fostering unity.

The church’s unity rests on the substance of Scripture—the gospel of Jesus Christ—not the style of a translation. When reading the KJV, celebrate its beauty and history, but remain anchored in the orthodoxy it shares with all faithful Bible versions. As Augustine wisely said: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” 

By focusing on Christ and loving one another, believers transcend translation debates and embody the unity Jesus prayed for (John 17:21).

King James Only movement

The King James Version has a number of devotees who believe that it is a superiorly authentic translation in the English language, or, more broadly, that the King James Version is to be preferred over all other English translations of Scripture. I oppose this view, arguing that while the King James is an important translation in Protestant history, it is not to be elevated to such status, as new manuscript discoveries and scholarship have challenged that view.

"By This All Will Know..." — The True Mark of Discipleship

"By This All Will Know..." — The True Mark of Discipleship

Jesus said in John 13:35 (ESV):

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

This is not a secondary command. It is the defining mark of discipleship according to Jesus Himself. He did not say, “By your theological precision,” nor “By your knowledge of Greek or Hebrew,” nor even “By having the most accurate Bible manuscript.” He said, “if you love one another.”

1. Jesus' Standard of Unity Is Love, Not Version

Many in the modern church, particularly within certain fundamentalist or sectarian circles, have attached their identity not to Christ, but to a particular Bible version—as though allegiance to a manuscript tradition is equivalent to loyalty to Jesus.

But Jesus did not say:

"By this all people will know you are my disciples, if you read the King James Version."

Nor, "If you reject all modern translations."

Nor, "If you possess the original Textus Receptus."

Instead, He centered discipleship in love—because love is the visible manifestation of inward transformation by the Spirit of God. A church that fractures over Bible versions is not showing the world Christ; it is showing the world division over human preferences.

2. The New Testament Picture of Unity

Paul writes in Ephesians 4:4–6 (ESV):

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Let us examine what is listed:

One body (the unified Church),

One Spirit (the Holy Spirit that unites),

One hope (of eternal life),

One Lord (Jesus Christ),

One faith (the gospel message),

One baptism (our entrance into Christ),

One God and Father.

What is not mentioned?

One translation.

One manuscript family.

One English version.

Paul, guided by the Spirit, teaches that the unity of the Church is spiritual and theological, not textual in terms of translation preference. If Paul expected the Gentile and Jewish believers of the early church—who spoke Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew—to be united without one Bible version, how much more should we, with the blessing of many good translations, seek unity across those versions?

3. The Danger of Idolizing a Bible Version

It is right to respect the Bible—in all faithful translations—but it becomes dangerous when a church idolizes a specific version to the point that it breaks fellowship with other believers. That is versionolatry—elevating a human translation to the level of divine authority and using it as a test of orthodoxy.

The Bible is inspired, but no single English translation is perfect or untouchable. The original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are what were divinely inspired. All translations are interpretations to some extent. But the Spirit of God is not bound by English. He has worked through Luther’s German, Tyndale’s English, Reina-Valera’s Spanish, and through countless faithful versions across the centuries.

To claim that God cannot work unless we use one specific version is to limit the sovereignty of God and to erect a false standard of holiness.

4. A Call to the Church: Lay Down Version Wars for the Sake of the Cross

The church must repent of the idea that we can only be unified when we all carry the same Bible version. This is not the unity of the Spirit—it is the uniformity of man.

Let us remember:

Love unites. Pride divides.

The Spirit sanctifies. Versions do not.

The gospel is preached through many tongues and versions—and still saves.

The church must chip away the man-made wall that says we must agree on manuscript families before we can call each other brother or sister. We must stop gatekeeping the kingdom of God based on the cover of someone’s Bible.

Instead, let us:

Welcome all who call on the name of Jesus in truth.

Celebrate the Word of God in every faithful translation.

Recenter on the gospel, not the Greek.

Love one another as Christ has loved us.

5. Call to Unity Beyond Bible Versions

In John 13:35, Jesus declares, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” This command centers on love as the definitive mark of His followers, not doctrinal uniformity on secondary matters like textual traditions or Bible translations. Similarly, in His High Priestly Prayer (John 17:20–23), Jesus emphasizes unity among believers as a reflection of His divine mission. Strikingly, He prioritizes relational harmony—rooted in love—over institutional or textual uniformity. The absence of any mention of a “perfect Bible” in these passages underscores that the church’s witness depends not on textual precision but on embodying Christ’s love.

6. Paul’s Unity Framework in Ephesians 4:4–6

The apostle Paul reinforces this vision, listing seven pillars of Christian unity: “one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Conspicuously absent is any demand for “one Bible” or textual uniformity. Early Christians lacked a standardized New Testament canon for centuries, relying instead on oral teachings, letters, and diverse manuscripts. Their unity sprang from shared allegiance to Christ, the Spirit’s work, and core tenets of faith—not from uniformity in written texts. Paul’s silence on textual issues suggests that unity transcends preferences over translations, which are tools to convey the gospel, not the gospel itself.

7. The Early Church and the Purpose of Scripture

The New Testament writings were circulated to strengthen faith and correct error (2 Timothy 3:16–17), but their authority derives from their witness to Christ, not textual perfection. Early Christians preserved unity despite using varied Septuagint (Greek) and Hebrew texts, showing that the message of salvation, not textual uniformity, was paramount. The Bible’s purpose is to point to Jesus (John 5:39), guide believers in love (1 Timothy 1:5), and equip them for mission—not to become an idol of perfectionism. Translations serve to make this message accessible across languages and cultures (Acts 2:5–11), reflecting God’s heart for all peoples.

8. Addressing Concerns Over Translations

While no translation is flawless, major doctrines (e.g., Christ’s divinity, salvation by grace) remain intact across reputable versions. The Holy Spirit’s role in illumination (1 Corinthians 2:12–14) ensures that God’s truth transcends linguistic nuances. To insist on a single translation as a prerequisite for unity risks elevating human preferences above the gospel’s substance, fostering division where Christ commands love. The KJV-Only and Verbal Pleanry Preservation movement, for instance, fractures the body over 17th-century English, ironically undermining the very unity Jesus prayed for.

9. A Call to the Bible-Presbyterian Church

The church is summoned to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). This requires “chipping away” at secondary demands—like textual perfectionism—that hinder fellowship. Let us focus on essentials: proclaiming Christ, loving sacrificially, and pursuing justice. When we prioritize unity in the Spirit over uniformity in translations, we honor Jesus’ prayer and Paul’s exhortations. As Augustine wisely said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

10. Conclusion

The church’s unity rests on Christ alone, not on textual precision. Let us lay aside divisive debates over translations and instead “clothe ourselves with love, which binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Colossians 3:14, NLT). Only then will the world recognize us as His disciples.

The world will know—not by our arguments over versions—but by our Christlike love, that we are truly His disciples.

If doctrine divides, how can the Church unite as one?

The tension between doctrine and unity has existed since the earliest days of the Church. 

1. Doctrine Doesn't Have to Divide

While it's true that different interpretations of doctrine have led to divisions, it's also true that doctrine—rightly understood—can be a source of unity. Shared core beliefs (like the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the authority of Scripture) form the foundation of Christian identity across denominations.

2. Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials

A classic principle often attributed to St. Augustine or later Christian thinkers is:

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Not every doctrinal disagreement needs to lead to division. The Church can remain united in the essentials of the faith while allowing diversity in secondary matters.

3. Unity Is a Work of the Spirit

True Christian unity is not merely organizational or intellectual—it's spiritual. Jesus prayed in John 17:21 that His followers “may all be one… so that the world may believe.” That unity comes through the Holy Spirit, transcending denominational lines.

4. Unity Is Relational Before It Is Doctrinal

The early church often disagreed (e.g., Acts 15, Galatians 2), yet the apostles pursued unity through humility, dialogue, and love. Christian unity is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of grace amid it.

5. Pursue Truth and Love Together

Doctrine matters—truth matters. But Paul reminds us that knowledge without love "puffs up," while love "builds up" (1 Cor. 8:1). The goal is not to ignore doctrine but to hold it with humility and charity.

Conclusion:

Doctrine can divide when misused, but when approached humbly, it can help define the faith we hold in common. The Church unites not by ignoring doctrine, but by focusing on Christ, guided by love and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Our Statement

In Bible-Presbyterian Church, the Bible is considered to be inspired by God and is central to worship and teaching. However, the Church acknowledges that the Bible was written by human authors in different times, places, and languages, which means that it is not a single, uniform document. Instead, it is a collection of diverse writings, including history, poetry, law, prophecy, and letters.

The Bible-Presbyterian Church does not claim that any single translation of the Bible is perfect or without error. Instead, it recognizes a variety of translations as being authorized for use, each offering different insights and perspectives. Some of these translations include the King James Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Revised English Bible, among others.

The term "TR" usually refers to the Textus Receptus, a Greek text of the New Testament that has been the basis for several translations, including the King James Version. While the Textus Receptus has historical significance, it is not considered "perfect" in the sense of being without error or beyond improvement. Scholars continue to study ancient manuscripts to gain a better understanding of the original texts.

We encourages engaging with the Bible through study and interpretation, guided by the Holy Spirit, to understand its meaning and relevance for our lives today.

Bible Preservation

The question of whether we have a "perfect" text of Scripture, such as the Textus Receptus (TR), and whether God has preserved His Word "on paper," touches on theology, history, and the nature of divine revelation. Let’s address this step by step, emphasizing why Christians can trust Scripture and why all translations—when faithfully rendered—invite us into the living, eternal Word of God.

 

1. What is the "Perfect TR"? Why Some Argue for It

The Textus Receptus (Latin for "Received Text") refers to a Greek New Testament compilation used as the basis for many early Protestant translations, including the King James Version (KJV). Some argue it represents a "perfect" preservation of the original biblical text. However, modern textual criticism reveals that the TR is based on later medieval manuscripts (Byzantine text-type) and contains minor scribal additions or variations not found in older, earlier manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These older manuscripts, discovered centuries after the TR’s creation, have refined our understanding of the New Testament text. Thus, while the TR is valuable, it is not "perfect" in the sense of being identical to the original autographs (first writings).

Key point: No single manuscript or textual tradition (e.g., TR, Alexandrian, Byzantine) is flawless, but God’s sovereign oversight ensures the message of Scripture remains intact across all traditions.

 

2. The Word of God is "Living and Active" (Hebrews 4:12)

Scripture’s divine authority does not depend on human perfection in transmission. The Bible itself declares:

 

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isaiah 40:8).

 

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

 

God’s Word is "living" because it is empowered by the Holy Spirit to transform lives (John 6:63). Even with minor textual variations (e.g., spelling differences, word order), the core truths—about God, salvation, and Christ—remain consistent across all reliable translations.

 

3. Does God Preserve His Word "On Paper"?

Yes, but not through a single manuscript or translation. Preservation is seen in:

 

Providential Care: God oversaw the copying and transmission process across millennia. While human errors occurred (e.g., scribal mistakes), no essential doctrine is compromised.

 

Textual Criticism: Scholars compare thousands of manuscripts to reconstruct the original text with remarkable accuracy. Over 99% of the New Testament text is confirmed with certainty; the remaining uncertainties (e.g., Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11) do not affect core theology.

 

Multiplicity of Witnesses: The Bible’s survival through persecution, censorship, and time testifies to divine preservation.

 

Example: The resurrection of Jesus is attested in every major manuscript tradition, translation, and church creed. No variation undermines it.

 

4. Why Read the Bible in Any Translation?

God’s Word transcends language barriers. Translations are tools to make Scripture accessible:

 

Formal Equivalence (e.g., ESV, NASB): Prioritizes word-for-word accuracy.

 

Dynamic Equivalence (e.g., NIV, NLT): Focuses on thought-for-thought clarity.

 

Paraphrase (e.g., The Message): Captures the Bible’s spirit in modern idioms.

 

All faithful translations convey the gospel, God’s character, and His will. The Holy Spirit uses even imperfect human efforts to reveal truth (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

 

5. Addressing Concerns About "Errors"

Minor textual variations (e.g., "love for God" vs. "love for Christ" in John 21:15–17) do not alter Scripture’s infallible message. The Bible’s inerrancy applies to the original writings (autographs), not later copies. Yet, its infallibility (trustworthiness for salvation and teaching) remains intact in all reliable translations.

 

6. Practical Encouragement: Read the Bible!

Focus on the Central Message: The Bible’s unity points to Christ (Luke 24:27). Whether you read the KJV, NIV, or another translation, the gospel shines through.

 

Trust God’s Faithfulness: If God can use a donkey to speak truth (Numbers 22:28), He can use any translation to transform hearts.

 

Seek the Spirit’s Guidance: "The Helper, the Holy Spirit, will teach you all things" (John 14:26).

 

Conclusion

We don’t have a "perfect" manuscript or translation, but we have a perfectly faithful God who preserves His Word’s integrity. The Bible’s power lies not in ink and paper but in its divine Author, who ensures its message endures "forever settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Read it, study it, and let the living Word draw you closer to Christ—no matter the translation.

Start today: Open the Bible in your language. Let its eternal truths renew your mind (Romans 12:2) and lead you to the One who is "the Word made flesh" (John 1:14).

 

Do We Have a Perfect Bible?

Perfect? No. Reliable? Yes.

No single "perfect" manuscript exists — all have variants.

But due to thousands of manuscripts, textual criticism reconstructs the NT with ~99% confidence.

Modern critical editions (like Nestle-Aland and UBS) reflect the best scholarly consensus on the original texts.

A Call to Unity and Humility: An Exhortation to Bible Teachers - Pastor So

To Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy and others in Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore,

As those entrusted with teaching God’s Word, we bear a sacred responsibility to steward truth with wisdom, grace, and reverence. Yet I write to you today with urgency, compelled by Scripture and the Spirit, to address a growing fracture among us: quarrels over words, translations, and secondary doctrines that have divided the body of Christ. Let us heed Paul’s warning:

---

1. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved… correctly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NIV)

Before we demand perfection in others, we must first be “approved workers” before God. Approval comes not from rigid adherence to a single translation (e.g., KJV-onlyism) or textual theory (e.g., “Perfect TR”), but from humility, integrity, and faithfulness to the gospel. Quarreling over words (2 Timothy 2:14) distracts from our mission and ruins those who listen. Are we building up the church or tearing it down?

---

2. “Avoid foolish controversies” (Titus 3:9, NIV)

Debates over textual variants, translation philosophies, or speculative genealogies (Titus 3:9) are “unprofitable and useless.” While textual criticism has its place, elevating it to a test of orthodoxy breeds pride and division. The Word of God is alive and active (Hebrews 4:12)—whether in NIV, ESV, NASB, or other faithful translations. To insist that only one version is “God’s preserved Word” risks idolizing human methods over God’s sovereign power to speak through His living Word.

---

3. “See to it… that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart” (Hebrews 3:12, NIV)

Brothers and sisters, when we divide churches over secondary issues like translation preferences, we risk hardening hearts and driving people away from the “living God.” The New Covenant is not about ink on paper but God’s law written on hearts (Hebrews 8:10). Let us major on what unites us: Christ’s redeeming blood, the Spirit’s work, and the call to holiness.

---

4. “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished…?” (Hebrews 10:29, NIV)

To attack fellow believers over translation choices—treating modern versions as “unholy” or “corrupt”—is to insult the Spirit of grace who dwells in all God’s children. Such behavior mirrors the Pharisees’ legalism, not Christ’s compassion. Remember: God judges His people first (Hebrews 10:30). Let us tremble at the thought of harming His flock.

---

5. “Not many of you should become teachers… we will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1, NIV)

Teachers, your platform is not a throne but a cross. When you grumble against those who read NIV (James 5:9), swear by “Dean Burgon Oath” (James 5:12), or demand a “perfect Bible” (1 Peter 1:25), you usurp God’s role as Judge (James 4:12). We all stumble (James 3:2). Instead of policing others, examine your own heart: Is it marked by “bitter envy and selfish ambition” (James 3:14) or “wisdom from heaven” (James 3:17)?

---

6. “Be doers of the Word” (James 1:22, NIV)

The church needs fewer critics and more doers. A “perfect law” (James 1:25) is not about flawless manuscripts but the transformative power of obedience. Does your teaching produce “peacemakers who sow in peace” (James 3:18) or factions that split churches (James 4:1)? Stop judging fellow believers (James 4:11) and start loving them (1 Peter 2:17).

---

7. “Respect everyone… fear God” (1 Peter 2:17, NIV)

God’s Word endures forever (1 Peter 1:25), but our interpretations are finite. Approach difficult texts (2 Peter 3:16) with humility, not dogmatism. Teach “the very words of God” (1 Peter 4:11), not personal biases. Lead as examples (1 Peter 5:3), not lords. And flee the spirit of the “false teachers” (2 Peter 2:1) who peddle division as piety.

---

A Final Plea

Beloved, the world watches as we bicker over footnotes while orphans go unfed and souls perish. Let us repent of pride, lay down our swords, and unite around the gospel. Modern translations are tools, not idols. The “perfect” Bible is the one that transforms sinners into saints—and that work belongs to the Spirit, not our polemics.

May we heed James’ warning: “Don’t grumble… The Judge is standing at the door!” (James 5:9). Let us stand before Him not as Pharisees clutching our preferred texts, but as servants who loved His sheep, preached His grace, and left the rest to Him.

For the sake of the Bride,

An Ordained Pastor So And So

 

---

Scripture quotations taken from the NIV.

 

The Hexapla vs Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJVonlyism

The Hexapla (Greek for "sixfold") was a monumental scholarly work compiled by Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD). It was one of the most ambitious textual projects in early Christian history, designed to compare different versions of the Old Testament. Its importance lies in several key areas:

1. Purpose: Resolving Textual Discrepancies

   - Early Christians (who mostly used the Greek Septuagint/LXX) debated with Jews (who used the Hebrew Masoretic text) over scriptural accuracy.

   - Origen noticed differences between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek LXX, leading to disputes over prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 7:14’s "virgin" vs. "young woman").

   - The Hexapla was created to compare multiple versions side-by-side, helping scholars determine the most reliable readings.

2. Structure: A Comparative Bible in Six Columns

   The Hexapla arranged the Old Testament in six parallel columns:

   1. Hebrew Text (original consonantal Hebrew)  

   2. Hebrew Transliterated into Greek Letters (for Greek-speaking readers)  

   3. Aquila’s Greek Translation (ultra-literal Jewish version, 2nd century AD)  

   4. Symmachus’ Greek Translation (more readable Jewish-Greek version, 2nd century AD)  

   5. Septuagint (LXX) (the standard Greek OT, with Origen’s editorial marks)  

   6. Theodotion’s Greek Translation (a revised LXX-like Jewish version, 2nd century AD)  

   - Later, Origen reportedly added three more columns (Quinta, Sexta, Septima) for other Greek versions, making some sections Tetrapla (4-column) or Octapla (8-column).

3. Key Contributions and Importance

A. Textual Criticism & Preservation

   - The Hexapla was the first major comparative Bible, predating modern critical editions by over a millennium.

   - Origen marked differences between the LXX and Hebrew with symbols (e.g., asterisks [※] for LXX additions, obeli [÷] for Hebrew omissions).

   - This helped scholars track variations, influencing later translations like Jerome’s Vulgate.

B. Bridge Between Jewish & Christian Scholarship

   - Since Jews had largely abandoned the LXX (due to its Christian use), Origen’s inclusion of Jewish Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) preserved alternative translations.

   - It became a key resource for Christian-Jewish debates over Messianic prophecies.

C. Influence on Later Bible Translations

   - Jerome used the Hexapla for his Latin Vulgate, especially for the Psalms (leading to the Gallican Psalter).

   - Early Syriac and Coptic translations also referenced it.

   - Modern critical editions (e.g., Göttingen Septuagint) still rely on Hexaplaric readings.

D. Insights into Lost Texts

   - Some columns (e.g., Aquila, Symmachus) survive only through the Hexapla’s fragments.

   - It provides clues about pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts, since the Dead Sea Scrolls later confirmed some LXX readings over the Masoretic text.

4. Limitations & Challenges

   - No complete copy survives—only fragments in later writings (e.g., Eusebius, Jerome) and palimpsests.

   - Origen’s editorial marks sometimes corrupted the LXX by forcing it to align with the Hebrew.

   - The sheer size (likely 50+ volumes) made copying impractical, leading to its eventual disappearance.

5. Legacy

   - The Hexapla was a pioneering work of biblical scholarship, setting the stage for textual criticism.

   - It remains a crucial resource for understanding the transmission of the Old Testament in antiquity.

   - Modern scholars still study its remnants to reconstruct early Bible versions.

Observations:

The Hexapla, compiled by Origen in the 3rd century, serves as a critical tool for understanding the textual history of the Old Testament. By juxtaposing six versions (Hebrew text, Greek transliteration, Septuagint, and translations by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), it highlights textual variations and the early church’s acknowledgment of discrepancies. This comparative work undermines claims of a singular, “perfect” biblical text, as it demonstrates that early Christians actively engaged with multiple textual traditions. Here’s how this contrasts with Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV Onlyism:

1. The Hexapla reflects a commitment to textual criticism, not an assumption of flawless preservation.
2. The Hexapla’s documented variations challenge VPP’s claim of perfect textual continuity. If God providentially preserved every word, the need for Origen’s comparative analysis—or the existence of divergent traditions like the LXX and MT—becomes difficult to reconcile.
3. Origen’s inclusion of non-MT texts undermines the idea that one tradition (e.g., the MT/Textus Receptus) is exclusively “perfect.”
4. The Hexapla’s use of diverse sources—including those rejected by KJV Onlyists (e.g., LXX)—shows the early church valued multiple textual streams. KJV Onlyism’s reliance on the MT/Textus Receptus ignores the textual pluriformity evident in early Christianity.

Conclusion

Hexapla’s Legacy: It illustrates the early church’s recognition of textual complexity, contradicting claims of a static, “perfect” Bible. Variants were not seen as threats but as subjects for study.

VPP’s Challenge: If every word were perfectly preserved, the Hexapla’s meticulous comparisons would be unnecessary. The existence of divergent traditions (LXX vs. MT) weakens VPP’s premise.

KJV Onlyism’s Anachronism: The Hexapla predates the MT’s standardization (9th century CE) and the Textus Receptus (16th century CE). Its inclusion of pre-MT texts (e.g., LXX) invalidates KJV Onlyism’s exclusive reliance on later textual traditions.

In essence, the Hexapla supports a dynamic view of textual transmission, where preservation involves ongoing engagement with variants—a stark contrast to VPP’s static perfection or KJV Onlyism’s dogmatic exclusivity.