Prabu-Ass Kosi betrayed Eramus

Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536), the Renaissance scholar who compiled the first published Greek New Testament (1516), did not promote a "perfect" Greek Textus Receptus (TR). His work was groundbreaking but pragmatic, and he openly acknowledged its limitations. Here’s a breakdown of his approach and legacy:

---

1. Erasmus’s Goals and Methods

• Primary Aim: To create a critical Greek New Testament to improve upon the Latin Vulgate, which he criticized for inaccuracies.
• Sources: He used a small handful of Greek manuscripts available to him (mostly 12th–15th century Byzantine texts), along with the Latin Vulgate. Notably, he improvised in places (e.g., retranslating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation, as his Greek manuscript lacked them).
• Revisions: Erasmus updated his text in later editions (1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), incorporating feedback and new manuscripts. For example, his 3rd edition (1522) included the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8) under pressure from critics, despite its absence in most Greek manuscripts.

---

2. Erasmus’s View of "Perfection"

• Scholarly Humility: Erasmus recognized the provisional nature of his work. In his annotations, he discussed textual variants and uncertainties, showing he did not consider his edition flawless.
• Criticism of the Church: His goal was to reform medieval Catholic practices, not to enshrine a "perfect" text. He even wrote, "No one is prohibited from emending [my work]."
• No TR "Advocacy": The term Textus Receptus ("Received Text") was coined in 1633 (by the Elzevir publishers) to market later Greek NT editions. Erasmus died long before this label emerged and never claimed his text was divinely preserved or final.

---

3. The TR’s Evolution After Erasmus

Later editors like Robert Estienne (Stephanus) and Theodore Beza refined Erasmus’s work, incorporating older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Bezae) and expanding textual notes. By the 1630s, the Elzevir editions standardized the TR, which became the basis for the KJV New Testament (1611). However, the TR itself was a moving target, revised over 150 years.

---

4. Key Misconceptions

• KJV-Only Claims: Modern KJV-only advocates (19th/20th century) often retroject the idea of a "perfect TR" onto Erasmus, but this contradicts his own writings.
• Erasmus vs. TR Idealism: Erasmus sought to make Scripture accessible and accurate for reform, not to create an unchanging text. He would have rejected later polemics about TR "perfection," as he prioritized scholarship over dogma.

---

Conclusion: Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was a scholarly tool, not a declaration of textual perfection. His work was foundational for the TR tradition, but he openly revised it and admitted its flaws. The notion of a "perfect TR" is a later theological construct, alien to Erasmus’s humanist, reform-minded ethos.

By propagating VPP and teaching in the church that TR is kept pure and perfect, Prabu-Ass Kosi betrayed Eramus. The Filipino counterpart was intimidated by this Keling man from Keling, who forced them to join VPP and assembled a team of enslaved Filipino pastors. The Filipino had to submit to him in order to get funding from the mother church. Dare him, to do this on the Chinese counterpart. 

Quek Suan Yew betrayed Dr. John Sung

John Sung (1901–1944), a prominent Chinese evangelist and revivalist, held a conservative and pragmatic view of Bible translations, shaped by his theological convictions and evangelistic focus. Key aspects of his perspective include:

Emphasis on Vernacular Accessibility: Sung prioritized making the Bible accessible to ordinary people in their native language. He ministered during a time when the Chinese Union Version (CUV, completed in 1919) became the standard Protestant Bible in China. He likely supported this translation as it allowed widespread understanding and use among Chinese believers, aligning with his evangelistic goals.

John Sung advocated for Bible translations that were both theologically rigorous and linguistically accessible, supporting the Chinese Union Version as a vital tool for evangelism and discipleship in early 20th-century China. His views reflected a blend of conservative doctrine, practical missiology, and a commitment to empowering lay believers through Scripture.

in 2010s Quek SY attacked and chased out the Mandarin speaking pastor and members who are using CUV in his church. What a betrayal! I should ask Quek SY, "Loved thou God?"

Timothy Tow betrayed Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.

Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. (1895–1977), a prominent theologian, philosopher, and president of Wheaton College, was a conservative evangelical scholar who engaged deeply with questions of biblical authority, inerrancy, and the nature of Scripture. His stance on the "perfect Bible" reflects a nuanced commitment to the inerrancy of the original autographs, combined with a cautious openness to textual criticism and modern scholarship. Here’s an overview of his position:

---

1. Affirmation of Biblical Inerrancy

Buswell firmly upheld the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, aligning with the Princeton Theological Seminary tradition (e.g., B.B. Warfield). He taught that the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture were free from error in all they affirmed, whether theological, historical, or scientific. This view was rooted in his belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, with God as its ultimate author.

• Key Quote:

"The Bible, as originally given, is in all its parts the Word of God written, and therefore in all its parts is free from error" (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 1962).

---

2. Distinction Between Autographs and Copies

Like Warfield, Buswell distinguished between the inerrancy of the original manuscripts and the reality of minor textual variations in copies. He acknowledged that scribal errors and variants exist in surviving manuscripts but argued these do not undermine the Bible’s overall reliability or doctrinal clarity.

• His View:
  Textual criticism is a legitimate tool to approximate the original text, and no doctrine hinges on disputed passages.

---

3. Rejection of KJV-Onlyism

Buswell did not support KJV-Onlyism or the idea that the Textus Receptus (TR) was a "perfect" text. He recognized the value of modern textual criticism and newer translations based on older, more reliable manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus).

• Example:
  He endorsed the Revised Standard Version (RSV) despite criticism from some fundamentalists, arguing that modern translations could improve accuracy.

---

4. Engagement with Textual Criticism

Buswell accepted the findings of textual scholarship while maintaining confidence in Scripture’s preservation. He believed God’s providence ensured the essential integrity of the biblical text across history, even as scholars worked to resolve minor uncertainties.

• Key Point:
  He saw no conflict between rigorous scholarship and a high view of Scripture’s authority.

---

5. Opposition to Hyper-Fundamentalism

Buswell critiqued hyper-fundamentalist trends that rejected all critical scholarship or elevated traditional interpretations (e.g., KJV-Onlyism) over evidence-based study. He argued that such approaches risked undermining the credibility of biblical inerrancy by conflating human traditions with divine truth.

---

6. Emphasis on Practical Authority

For Buswell, the Bible’s perfection was not an abstract doctrine but a foundation for Christian life and practice. He stressed that Scripture’s authority and sufficiency guide believers in faith, ethics, and worship.

---

Comparison to Contemporaries

• B.B. Warfield: Buswell shared Warwell’s focus on the inerrancy of the autographs but was more willing to engage with modern scholarship.
• Cornelius Van Til: Both affirmed inerrancy, but Buswell avoided Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics, favoring evidentialist approaches.
• KJV-Only Advocates: Buswell explicitly rejected their claims, viewing them as anti-intellectual and theologically misguided.

---

Key Works Reflecting His Views

1. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (1962): Outlines his inerrancy stance.
2. The Bible Today (1940s–1950s): Addresses textual criticism and translation issues.
3. Articles in Christianity Today and The Evangelical Quarterly: Defend biblical authority against both liberal and fundamentalist extremes.

---

Conclusion

Dr. Buswell’s stand on the "perfect Bible" can be summarized as:

1. Inerrancy of the original autographs: The Bible is God’s errorless Word in its original form.
2. Openness to textual criticism: Variants in copies do not negate Scripture’s authority.
3. Rejection of KJV-Onlyism: Modern translations and scholarship are valid tools.
4. Balanced conservatism: A commitment to both biblical authority and intellectual integrity.

His approach sought to uphold the Bible’s divine inspiration while engaging constructively with scholarly advances—a stance that remains influential in evangelical theology today.

 

The Westminster Confession of Faith does not promote VPP and "KJV-Onlyism."

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) does not promote the perfection of the Textus Receptus (TR), a specific translation like the KJV, or "KJV-Onlyism." Instead, it affirms the perfection of the Bible in its original manuscripts (autographs) and the authority of Scripture as God’s Word. Here’s a breakdown:

---

1. The Confession’s View of Biblical Perfection

• Original Autographs: The Westminster Confession (WCF) teaches that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were "immediately inspired by God" and "kept pure in all ages" by His providence (WCF 1.8). This affirms the perfection (inerrancy/infallibility) of the Bible in its original languages.
• No Mention of the TR or KJV: The WCF does not reference the Textus Receptus (TR) or the King James Version (KJV) by name. The TR was the standard Greek New Testament text of the Reformation era, and the KJV (published in 1611) was widely used, but the Confession’s focus is on the theological principle of Scripture’s divine origin, not textual or translational debates.

---

2. Translations and the Role of the Church

• Translations as Necessary: The WCF acknowledges that Scripture must be translated into the "vulgar [common] language" of people (WCF 1.8). It affirms the value of translations but insists they must be faithful to the original languages.
• No Exclusive Translation: The Confession does not endorse the KJV (or any translation) as uniquely perfect or binding. It states that if a translation’s meaning is disputed, the issue must be settled by "the original Hebrew and Greek" (WCF 1.8), not by elevating one translation over others.

---

3. Rejection of "KJV-Onlyism"

• KJV-Onlyism Is Modern: The "KJV-Only" movement (which claims the KJV is uniquely inspired or superior to all other translations) arose in the 19th–20th centuries, long after the WCF. The Confession’s authors could not have anticipated this debate.
• The WCF’s Principles Contradict KJV-Onlyism:
• The Confession prioritizes the original languages, not a translation.
• It allows for revisions of translations as scholarship advances (WCF 1.8).
• It rejects the idea that any translation is "kept pure" in the same way as the original autographs.

---

4. The TR in Historical Context

• TR as the Era’s Standard Text: The TR was the Greek New Testament text used by Reformed theologians in the 17th century, including the Westminster divines. However, the WCF does not declare the TR itself "perfect." Instead, it assumes the TR (and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament) as the best available witnesses to the original autographs.
• Modern Scholarship: If alive today, the Westminster divines would likely approve of using older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) and critical editions (e.g., NA28) to refine our understanding of the original text, as the Confession’s logic prioritizes the original languages over any printed text.

---

5. Key Quotes from the Westminster Confession

• WCF 1.8:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew [...] and the New Testament in Greek [...] being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."
(Note: "Authentical" here means "authoritative," not "perfectly preserved in every copy.")

• WCF 1.10:

"The Supreme Judge [...] can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
(Emphasis on Scripture’s authority, not a specific translation.)

---

Conclusion

The Westminster Confession promotes:

1. The perfection of the Bible in its original manuscripts (Hebrew/Greek).
2. The authority of Scripture over tradition or human authority.
3. The necessity of faithful translations into common languages.

It does not:

• Declare the Textus Receptus perfect.
• Elevate the KJV (or any translation) as exclusively authoritative.
• Support "KJV-Onlyism," which is a later, extra-confessional movement.

The WCF’s framework allows for textual criticism and updated translations, provided they align with the original languages. Its focus is on Scripture’s divine inspiration and sufficiency, not defending specific textual traditions or translations.

May the true Church of God lives in peace.

B. B. Warfield and Verbal Plenary Preservation

If B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) were alive today, it is highly unlikely he would argue for the "perfection" of the Textus Receptus (TR) or endorse a "KJV-Only" position. Here’s why:

1. Warfield’s Commitment to Textual Criticism

Warfield was a staunch advocate of textual criticism—the scholarly study of biblical manuscripts to reconstruct the original text. He recognized that the Textus Receptus (the Greek New Testament text underlying the KJV) was based on late medieval manuscripts and contained errors. He praised advancements in textual scholarship, such as the discovery of older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus), which revealed earlier and more reliable readings. Warfield would likely support modern critical editions (e.g., NA28, UBS5) over the TR, as they reflect older and more diverse manuscript evidence.

2. Warfield’s View of Inerrancy

Warfield defended biblical inerrancy, but he restricted this to the original autographs (the first manuscripts penned by biblical authors). He did not extend inerrancy to later copies, translations, or printed editions like the TR or KJV. For Warfield, the goal of textual criticism was to approximate the original text as closely as possible, which modern scholarship achieves better than the TR.

3. Warfield’s Stance on Bible Translations

Appreciation for the KJV: Warfield respected the KJV as a monumental achievement for its time, but he did not view it as uniquely inspired or final. He supported revisions of the KJV (e.g., the Revised Version of 1881) to incorporate newer manuscript discoveries.

Openness to Modern Translations: Warfield would likely endorse contemporary translations (e.g., ESV, NASB) based on critical Greek texts, as they align with his commitment to accuracy and scholarly rigor.

4. Opposition to "KJV-Only" Ideology

The "KJV-Only" movement (which asserts the KJV’s superiority or exclusive legitimacy) emerged largely after Warfield’s death and is rooted in anti-critical fundamentalism. Warfield, however, was a critical scholar who valued academic engagement. He would reject the KJV-Only position as:

1. Theologically unsound: Elevating a translation to "perfection" contradicts his distinction between the original inerrant autographs and fallible copies/translations.
2. Historically naive: The KJV relies on the TR, which Warfield knew was imperfect and outdated compared to older manuscripts available today.
3. Anti-intellectual: Warfield saw textual criticism as a means to honor Scripture’s integrity, not undermine it.

5. Warfield’s Modern Analogue

Warfield’s closest modern counterparts are scholars like D. A. Carson or Michael Kruger, who affirm inerrancy while embracing textual criticism and modern translations. He would likely align with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), which upholds the original manuscripts’ authority without idolizing any translation.

Conclusion

B. B. Warfield would not endorse the perfection of the Textus Receptus or a KJV-Only stance. Instead, he would champion:

1. The use of critical Greek/Hebrew texts to approximate the original autographs.
2. Modern translations that reflect advances in textual scholarship.
3. A distinction between the inerrancy of the originals and the fallibility of all copies and translations.

His approach balances reverence for Scripture’s divine inspiration with intellectual humility—a stance incompatible with KJV-Onlyism’s rigid traditionalism.

John Calvin and the Presbyterian Church

John Calvin (1509–1564), a central figure in the Protestant Reformation, articulated a robust and influential theology of Scripture that shaped Reformed Christianity. His definition of the Bible emphasized its divine authority, inspiration, and sufficiency, grounded in his theological framework.

Calvin taught that the Bible is the "Word of God," authored by the Holy Spirit through human writers. He described Scripture as "dictated by the Holy Spirit" (Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.4), though he acknowledged the human authors' distinct styles and contexts.

He taught that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and godly living (Institutes 1.6.1). No additional revelations or traditions are required beyond what Scripture provides.

He stressed that proper understanding depends on the illumination of the Holy Spirit, not just intellectual effort (2.2.20–21).

Original Manuscripts: 

While Calvin did not use the modern term "inerrancy," he held that the original Scriptures, as God-breathed, were free from error in their teachings. He acknowledged apparent contradictions or challenging passages but attributed these to human interpretive limitations, not divine error.

He recognized the Bible’s human dimensions (e.g., cultural idioms, authorial styles) but maintained that God’s message remained pure and undistorted.

Calvin’s view of Scripture laid the groundwork for Reformed orthodoxy and influenced later Protestant movements, including Puritanism and evangelicalism. His emphasis on divine authority, the Spirit’s role, and biblical sufficiency remains central to Reformed theology today.

Calvin defined the Bible as the inspired, authoritative, and self-authenticating Word of God, sufficient to guide believers in faith and practice, with its truth confirmed by the Holy Spirit. His teachings sought to restore Scripture as the foundation of Christian life, free from ecclesiastical corruption.

Conclusion:

Presbyterianism is a subset of Calvinism, defined by both theology (Calvin’s teachings) and structure (elder governance). Thus:

1. Churches that agree with Calvin and adopt his polity should call themselves Presbyterian.

2. Churches that disagree with Calvin (in doctrine or governance) should not use the label, as it would misrepresent their identity.

John Calvin's teachings on the Bible should be upheld by all Presbyterian churches, and dissident Bible instructors like Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, and Prabudas Koshy should be avoided. 

Charles Spurgeon and the Perfect Bible

Charles Spurgeon, the renowned 19th-century Baptist preacher, held a high view of Scripture and believed in the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible. He often referred to the Bible as perfect in the sense that it is the infallible Word of God, without error in its original manuscripts, and entirely sufficient for faith and practice. Spurgeon's sermons and writings frequently emphasized the trustworthiness and perfection of Scripture in its divine origin and purpose.

However, it is important to clarify that Spurgeon did not advocate for the perfection of specific Bible translations in the same way some modern proponents of the King James Version (KJV) might. He used the KJV himself, as it was the dominant English translation of his time, but he also acknowledged the value of other translations and the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Spurgeon's focus was on the divine perfection of the Bible's message and its authority, rather than on the perfection of any particular translation.

Spurgeon promoted the idea of a perfect Bible in terms of its divine inspiration and authority, but he did not necessarily argue for the textual or translational perfection of any specific version.

A prayer for Bible-Presbyterian Church

O Lord, our God, Father of mercy and truth, we come before you with heavy hearts, burdened for the state of the Bible-Presbyterian Church. We lift up to you our brothers and sisters who are being led astray by false teachings, particularly the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation.

We humbly ask, O Lord, that you would shine the light of your truth upon this church. Expose the errors that are being propagated and remove those who are causing division and confusion. We pray that you would grant discernment to your people, that they may recognize and reject these false teachings, and cling to the pure and unadulterated Word of God.

We understand, Lord, that the hearts of those who err are often entangled with their families and congregations. Therefore, we earnestly implore you to intervene in their lives. Touch their hearts, open their eyes to the truth, and grant them repentance. We pray that you would protect their families from the harmful effects of these false teachings and bring healing and restoration where there is division.

We ask, O Lord, that you would strengthen the faithful pastors and elders who are standing firm on your Word. Grant them courage and wisdom to shepherd your flock through this difficult time. Provide them with the resources and support they need to combat these errors and to nurture the spiritual growth of your people.

We pray for the congregations affected by these false teachers. We ask that you would comfort those who are troubled, strengthen those who are weak, and guide those who are seeking the truth. May your Holy Spirit work powerfully among them, bringing unity, peace, and a renewed commitment to your Word.

Father, we know that you are able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to your power that is at work within us. We 1  trust in your sovereignty and your unfailing love. We place the Bible-Presbyterian Church into your hands, knowing that you are the ultimate Shepherd and that you will guide your flock according to your perfect will.   

In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, we pray. Amen.

Expanded Warning and Call for Divine Intervention

Beloved in Christ,

The Scriptures command us not only to rebuke error but to plead with God for His justice, mercy, and restoration in the midst of corruption. To those who persist in promoting Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) as a tool for manipulation and pride within the Bible-Presbyterian Church, we issue this solemn warning: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Galatians 6:7). If repentance is refused, the Lord Himself will act to purify His church.

I. A Warning to the False Teachers: The Lord Will Not Be Silent

1. God Resists the Proud

To the arrogant who claim exclusive ownership of truth while trampling Christ’s flock: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). Your titles, influence, and alliances with complicit elders and deacons are but dust in the wind before the God who “brings down the mighty from their thrones” (Luke 1:52). If you harden your hearts, He will strip you of the very treasures you idolize—your positions, your platforms, and the human accolades that feed your vanity. “The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled” (Isaiah 2:11).

2. Judgment on Those Who Corrupt the Church

To those who exploit Scripture to trap young pastors and divide Christ’s body: “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!” (Jeremiah 23:1). The Lord sees your secret sins—the lust for control, the rage against dissenters, the moral compromise veiled by doctrinal rigidity. If you do not repent, He will remove your lampstand (Revelation 2:5), dismantle your alliances, and expose your hypocrisy. “Nothing is covered that will not be revealed” (Matthew 10:26).

3. A Prayer for God’s Intervention

Let us pray:

Lord of Hosts, You are holy and just. We cry out for Your intervention in the Bible-Presbyterian Church. Tear down every stronghold of pride that exalts itself against Your truth. Humble the unrepentant by removing what they cherish most—their power, their platforms, and the human supports enabling their corruption. Silence the voices that distort Your Word, and let their schemes crumble like Jericho’s walls. Yet even in judgment, spare the innocent. Raise up leaders among them who fear You, who will “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3) and shepherd the flock with integrity. Break the chains of fear that bind young pastors to these deceivers. Restore unity, Lord, not by human compromise, but by Your Spirit’s conviction. Let the blood of Christ purify Your church, and may Your name alone be glorified. Amen.

II. A Call to Hope: God Will Raise Up Truth-Bearers

1. The Promise of Reformation

Even in darkness, God preserves a remnant (Romans 11:5). Pray earnestly that He will raise up elders, deacons, and pastors within the Bible-Presbyterian Church who will reject VPP’s folly and proclaim, “Let God be true, though every one were a liar” (Romans 3:4). These leaders will not seek glory for themselves but will point to the sufficiency of Christ and the reliability of His Spirit-illumined Word.

2. Repentance or Ruin

To the false teachers: There is still time. “Seek the Lord while He may be found” (Isaiah 55:6). Lay down your pride, confess your sins, and restore those you’ve harmed. If you refuse, know this: The God who struck down Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) and expelled the money-changers (John 2:15) will not tolerate your defiance forever.

3. To the Faithful: Stand Firm

Church of Christ, do not fear. “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment” (2 Peter 2:9). Cling to the gospel, guard your hearts, and pray for revival. The gates of hell will not prevail (Matthew 16:18).

Conclusion

The battle belongs to the Lord. Let us trust Him to defend His church, judge sin, and raise up shepherds after His own heart. “For the Lord loves justice; He will not forsake His saints” (Psalm 37:28). May His kingdom come, His will be done—in the Bible-Presbyterian Church, and in all the earth.

Maranatha. Come, Lord Jesus.

Pastor Reverend So

A Call to Discernment: Refuting the False Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation and Its Unrighteous Advocates

A Call to Discernment: Refuting the False Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation and Its Unrighteous Advocates

Introduction

Beloved in Christ,

The apostle Paul warned, “I know that after my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). Today, we face such a threat in the form of some teachers promoting Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)—a doctrine claiming that every word of Scripture has been perfectly preserved in a specific text or translation, without error. This teaching, though framed as zeal for God’s Word, is a dangerous distortion that breeds division, pride, and distrust. Worse, its chief advocate exemplifies the very sins Scripture condemns: lust for power, pride, and slander against those who dissent. Let us test this teaching (1 John 4:1) and rebuke its ungodly promoters.

---

I. The Theological Error of Verbal Plenary Preservation

1. VPP Distorts Biblical Teaching on Preservation
While Scripture affirms God’s faithfulness to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7; Isaiah 40:8), it never guarantees the absolute perfection of every copy or translation. Jesus and the apostles used copies of the Old Testament (e.g., the Septuagint), yet they treated them as authoritative (Luke 4:17-21; Acts 8:28-35). The New Testament itself circulated in manuscripts with minor variations, yet the early church never despaired. God’s providence ensures that the message of Scripture remains intact, even through human frailty (2 Corinthians 4:7). To demand a “perfect” physical Bible today ignores God’s sovereign method of working through fallible means.

2. VPP Undermines Faith in God’s Sovereignty
The VPP advocate claims, “Without a perfect Bible, God is untrustworthy.” This logic is both unbiblical and irrational. Did believers before the printing press lack a trustworthy God? Were the martyrs who died with fragments of Scripture less assured of His promises? No! We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). To tie God’s trustworthiness to a perfect text in hand is idolatry—elevating human certainty above divine faithfulness.

3. VPP Divides the Body of Christ
By insisting on one “perfect” text or translation, VPP sows discord. Paul rebuked those who caused divisions over secondary matters (Romans 16:17). Yet this teacher brands dissenters as “unbelievers,” fracturing the church over a personal interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Such behavior grieves the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3).

---

II. The Unrighteous Character of the VPP Advocate

1. Pride and Lust for Power
These teachers’ insistence on VPP is not born of love for truth, but of a desire to “gain popularity” and “retain power.” Jesus condemned leaders who “shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces” to control them (Matthew 23:13). By claiming exclusive access to a “perfect Bible,” this teacher positions himself as a gatekeeper, exploiting the flock for influence. Such pride is an abomination to God (Proverbs 16:5).

2. Moral Hypocrisy
While attacking others’ orthodoxy, this teacher lives in lust and pride—sins that disqualify one from leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-7). How can one claim to defend God’s Word while defying His commands (1 John 2:4)? His venom toward critics (Matthew 5:22) reveals a heart far from Christ’s humility.

3. Vain Glory and Manipulation
By trapping young pastors into loyalty, this teacher seeks “vain glory” (Galatians 5:26). He weaponizes doubt, insisting that without his teaching, the church cannot trust God. This is spiritual abuse. True shepherds point others to Christ, not themselves (John 3:30).

---

III. A Call to Repentance and Unity

1. Reject False Teaching
VPP is a “human precept” (Colossians 2:8), not biblical doctrine. The church has always trusted God’s providence, not perfectionism. Let us return to the historic confession: The Scriptures are “sufficient” for salvation and godliness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), even as we humbly acknowledge textual complexities.

2. Rebuke Sinful Leadership
We urge these teachers to repent publicly. If he refuses, the church must act (Matthew 18:15-17). Leaders who cause division and live in sin must be removed (Titus 3:10-11).

3. Restore Unity in Christ
Let us focus on the gospel, not secondary disputes (Philippians 2:1-2). Our faith rests not in a perfect text, but in a perfect Savior (Hebrews 12:2).

---

Conclusion
Beloved, do not be shaken. God’s Word stands forever—not because of human perfectionism, but because He is faithful. Let us reject the pride of VPP and cling to Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). May we walk in humility, love, and unity, guarding against wolves who peddle strife for their own gain.

Soli Deo Gloria.

 

Punishment for Teachers of False Doctrines

The New Testament emphasizes severe consequences for those who spread false teachings:

Divine Judgment:

Eternal Condemnation: False teachers face destruction and eternal punishment (2 Peter 2:1–3; Jude 13).

Accursed Status: Paul declares that even angels preaching a distorted gospel are "under God’s curse" (Galatians 1:8–9).

Church Discipline:

Excommunication: Churches are instructed to reject false teachers (2 John 1:10–11) and "have nothing to do with them" (Titus 3:10–11).

Public Rebuke: Leaders promoting error must be corrected openly to deter others (1 Timothy 5:20).

Consequences of Confusing Church Members

False teachings jeopardize both individuals and the church:

Spiritual Harm: Followers may be led into immorality, heresy, or apostasy (2 Peter 2:18–22; 1 Timothy 4:1).

Division and Discord: False doctrines breed quarrels, envy, and factions (1 Timothy 6:3–5; Romans 16:17–18).

Divine Discipline on the Church: Christ warns churches tolerating falsehood to repent or face judgment (Revelation 2:14–16, 20–23).

Traits of False Prophets in the New Testament

Key characteristics include:

1. Deceptive Appearance: They mimic righteousness but harbor corruption (Matthew 7:15–20; 2 Corinthians 11:13–15).
2. Immorality and Greed: They exploit others for gain and indulge in sensuality (2 Peter 2:14–15; Jude 4, 16).
3. Denial of Core Truths: They reject Christ’s authority or distort His teachings (2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1–3).
4. Pride and Divisiveness: Arrogant, self-serving, and prone to causing strife (Jude 8–10; Romans 16:17–18).
5. Empty Spirituality: They appear godly but lack transformative power (2 Timothy 3:5; Colossians 2:8).

The New Testament condemns false teachers to eternal judgment and urges churches to discipline them. Their teachings risk spiritual ruin and division, while their traits—greed, deceit, immorality, and doctrinal corruption—serve as warnings to believers. Vigilance and adherence to apostolic truth are paramount (Acts 20:28–31).

1 John 5:7–8 (the Comma Johanneum)

Let’s examine 1 John 5:7–8 (the Comma Johanneum) in detail, focusing on its presence (or absence) in Greek manuscripts, its historical development, and implications for biblical textual criticism. This passage is one of the most debated textual variants in the New Testament, and understanding it is crucial for students of Scripture.

1. The Text in Question

Textus Receptus (TR) / King James Version (KJV):

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one."

(1 John 5:7–8, emphasis added)

Modern Critical Texts (NA28/UBS5) / Translations (ESV, NIV):

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree."

(1 John 5:7–8, ESV)

The bolded Trinitarian formula ("in heaven...") is absent in modern critical editions and most modern translations.

2. Manuscript Evidence

Greek Manuscripts:

No early Greek manuscripts (1st–10th century) include the Comma Johanneum.

Key Absences:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century).

Codex Vaticanus (4th century).

Codex Alexandrinus (5th century).

All early papyri (e.g., 𝔓⁹, 3rd century).

Later Greek Manuscripts:

The Comma appears in fewer than 10 Greek manuscripts, all dated after the 10th century.

Most of these are marginal notes or corrections influenced by the Latin Vulgate.

Latin Tradition:

The Comma first appears in Latin manuscripts in the 4th–5th centuries (e.g., Speculum attributed to Priscillian).

It was included in the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s 4th-century translation) and became standard in the Western church.

No Greek Father (e.g., Athanasius, Chrysostom) cites the Comma, but Latin Fathers (e.g., Cyprian, 3rd century) allude to similar Trinitarian language without quoting the verse directly.

3. How Did the Comma Enter the TR?

Erasmus’s Greek New Testament (1516):

Erasmus initially omitted the Comma because he could not find it in any Greek manuscript.

Under pressure from critics who accused him of undermining the Trinity, he promised to include it if a Greek manuscript with the Comma was produced.

A 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus, c. 1520) containing the Comma was hastily created (likely retro-translated from Latin). Erasmus included it in his 3rd edition (1522).

TR and KJV:

The Comma became part of the TR tradition and was included in the KJV (1611).

4. Key Reasons Scholars Reject the Comma

Textual Criticism:

The Comma is absent from over 99% of Greek manuscripts and all early witnesses.

Its presence in Latin, but not Greek, tradition suggests it was a later theological insertion to reinforce Trinitarian doctrine during debates (e.g., Arian controversies).

Linguistic Style:

The Comma’s language and syntax differ from John’s style. The abrupt shift from "Spirit, water, blood" (earthly witnesses) to heavenly witnesses disrupts the flow.

Church Fathers:

Early defenders of the Trinity (e.g., Athanasius, Augustine) never cited the Comma in their arguments, despite its obvious relevance.

5. Theological Implications

The Trinity is Unharmed:

The doctrine of the Trinity is firmly supported by other clear passages (e.g., Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1–14).

The Comma’s absence does not weaken orthodox Trinitarianism.

Providential Preservation:

God’s Word has been preserved in the consensus of Scripture, not in isolated verses. The Comma’s late addition highlights human attempts to "clarify" divine truth, but the core message remains intact.

6. Practical Takeaways for Students

Textual Criticism Matters:

The Comma Johanneum illustrates why textual criticism is essential. It helps us discern later additions and recover the earliest text.

Avoid Dogmatism on Minor Variants:

While the Comma is almost certainly not original, it does not affect essential Christian doctrine.

Trust Scripture’s Reliability:

Over 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts ensure that no major doctrine hinges on a disputed text.

Use Modern Translations:

Translations like the ESV, NIV, and NASB rely on older manuscripts and omit the Comma, reflecting the best scholarship.

Conclusion

The Comma Johanneum is a fascinating case study in textual transmission. While it was likely added to bolster Trinitarian theology, its absence from the earliest Greek manuscripts reminds us to approach Scripture with humility, trusting that God’s truth is preserved through the vast witness of the biblical tradition—not through isolated, later additions.

Further Reading:

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (for a critical perspective).

D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism.

Key Takeaways

The TR is not "perfect": It reflects late medieval manuscripts with scribal additions and harmonizations.

No doctrinal compromise: Core Christian teachings (e.g., Trinity, divinity of Christ) remain intact across all manuscript traditions.

Modern critical texts (e.g., NA28, UBS5) rely on older, more diverse manuscripts (Alexandrian text-type) and are closer to the original autographs.

SINS OF THE TONGUE (1)

1. The "Sins of the Tongue" in Lying About a "Perfect" Greek TR Underlying the KJV

The Textus Receptus (TR) is the Greek New Testament compilation used for the KJV (1611). Claims that it is "perfect" or uniquely inspired are problematic for several reasons:

Historical Reality: The TR is based on late medieval manuscripts (primarily Byzantine text-type) and contains scribal errors, harmonizations, and additions (e.g., the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7–8, which lacks early manuscript support).

Misrepresentation: Asserting the TR’s perfection ignores advances in textual criticism, such as the discovery of older, more reliable manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus).

Sins of the Tongue (Proverbs 6:16–19; Ephesians 4:25):

Deception: Misleading others about the TR’s flaws violates biblical commands to "speak truthfully" (Zechariah 8:16).

Pride/Arrogance: Elevating human traditions (e.g., KJV-Onlyism) over honest scholarship risks idolizing a translation (Colossians 2:8).

Division: Promoting divisive claims (e.g., "all other Bibles are corrupt") sows discord in the body of Christ (Romans 16:17).

2. What Should a Person Do If Their Pastor Lies About KJV-Onlyism?

Biblical Steps (Matthew 18:15–17):

Private Correction: Humbly and respectfully share concerns with the pastor, citing evidence (e.g., modern textual criticism, manuscript discoveries).

Seek Mediation: If unresolved, involve mature, knowledgeable church leaders to evaluate the claims.

Public Accountability: If the pastor persists in false teaching, the church must address it to protect the flock (Titus 1:9–11).

Prayer and Discernment: Pray for wisdom (James 1:5) and consider whether to remain in a church that rejects biblical scholarship.

Key Resources to Share:

1. D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism.
2. James White’s The King James Only Controversy.
3. Scholarly consensus on the reliability of modern critical texts (e.g., NA28, UBS5).

3. Consequences of Lying About Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is the claim that God miraculously preserved every word of Scripture in a specific line of manuscripts (e.g., the TR). This is distinct from the orthodox doctrine of inerrancy (original autographs were without error).

Consequences of Misrepresenting VPP:

Theological Harm:

Undermines trust in Scripture when adherents discover textual variants (e.g., Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11).

Elevates tradition over biblical truth (Mark 7:8–9).

Spiritual Consequences:

Leaders who "bear false witness" (Exodus 20:16) risk judgment (James 3:1).

Misled congregants may doubt God’s faithfulness or abandon faith entirely.

Ecclesiastical Division:

Splits churches over secondary issues, contrary to Christian unity (Ephesians 4:3).

4. A Biblical Path Forward

Affirm Scripture’s Sufficiency: All mainstream translations (KJV, ESV, NIV, etc.) faithfully convey God’s Word for salvation and discipleship.

Embrace Humility: Acknowledge that no translation or manuscript is "perfect," but God’s truth is preserved in the textual tradition (Proverbs 30:5).

Prioritize Love and Truth: Correct error graciously (2 Timothy 2:24–25) while upholding the Bible’s authority.

Conclusion

Sin of Lying About the TR: Misrepresenting its flaws violates truth and harms the church.

Responding to Pastoral Error: Follow Matthew 18, grounded in love and evidence.

Consequences of False VPP Claims: Erodes trust, divides believers, and dishonors God.

The goal is not to idolize a translation or manuscript but to trust in God’s providential care over His Word, which remains "living and active" (Hebrews 4:12) in every faithful translation.

Q&A about the Bible

1. Is there a "perfect" Bible in 2025?

No, for several reasons:

No Original Manuscripts Survive: The "autographs" (original writings) of Scripture are lost; we rely on copies. While modern critical editions (e.g., NA28/UBS5 for the NT) reconstruct the earliest attainable text, no physical Bible today is "perfect" in the sense of matching the autographs exactly.

1. Translation Limitations: All translations involve interpretation. For example:
2. Formal equivalence (ESV, NASB) prioritizes literalness but may sacrifice readability.
3. Dynamic equivalence (NIV, NLT) prioritizes clarity but may lose nuance.
4. Optimal equivalence (CSB) seeks balance but still involves choices.
5. Textual Variants: Even the best manuscripts contain minor discrepancies (e.g., spelling differences), though none affect core doctrines.

Yes, in a theological sense:

Evangelical scholars (like D.A. Carson) affirm the Bible’s doctrinal sufficiency: Current translations faithfully convey God’s message for salvation and Christian living. In this sense, the Bible is "perfect" as God’s authoritative Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

2. What Are the "Purest" Bible Manuscripts?

Scholars generally agree the oldest and most reliable manuscripts belong to the Alexandrian text-type, prized for their age and textual fidelity:

New Testament:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century): Contains nearly the entire NT.

Codex Vaticanus (4th century): Highly regarded for its accuracy.

Early papyri (e.g., 𝔓⁶⁶, 𝔓⁷⁵, 2nd–3rd century) support the Alexandrian tradition.

Old Testament:

The Masoretic Text (MT, 10th century AD) is the standard Hebrew text.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BC–1st century AD) confirm the MT’s reliability, with minor variations.

Critique of "Purity": No manuscript is flawless, but the Alexandrian text is considered closest to the originals. The Byzantine text-type (basis for the KJV) is later and includes harmonizations.

3. Which English Bible Is "Best"?

The "best" translation depends on the purpose:

For Study:

ESV (formal equivalence), NASB (most literal), or NRSV (academic, inclusive language).

For Readability:

NIV (balanced), CSB (clarity), or NLT (simplified).

For Liturgy/Preaching:

KJV (traditional), NKJV (modernized KJV), or ESV.

D.A. Carson’s View: He contributed to the NIV and emphasizes clarity while maintaining accuracy. No single translation is "best," but modern critical editions (e.g., NIV, ESV) are preferable to the KJV for textual reliability.

4. Fallacies of Bible Translation

Common misunderstandings include:

1. The "Perfect Translation" Fallacy: Assuming a translation can fully replicate the original’s nuances. All translations involve trade-offs (e.g., Greek terms like agape lack exact English equivalents).
2. The "Literal = Accurate" Fallacy: Overvaluing word-for-word translation. For example, Hebrew idioms (e.g., "kidneys" for "heart") require dynamic equivalence to make sense.
3. The "Older = Better" Fallacy: Equating manuscript age with superiority. While older manuscripts are generally preferred, later copies sometimes preserve earlier readings.
4. The "KJV-Only" Fallacy: Claiming the KJV is uniquely inspired. This ignores advances in textual criticism (e.g., older manuscripts like Sinaiticus were unknown in 1611).
5. The "Agenda-Driven" Fallacy: Accusing translations of bias without evidence (e.g., claims about the NIV "watering down" gender terms). Most translators prioritize fidelity over ideology.

Conclusion

No "Perfect" Bible in 2025: While no translation or manuscript is flawless, modern critical texts (e.g., NA28/UBS5) and translations (e.g., ESV, NIV) are exceptionally reliable.

Purest Manuscripts: Alexandrian texts (e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) for the NT; Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT.

Best English Bible: Choose based on purpose—study, readability, or tradition.

Avoid Fallacies: Recognize the limitations of translation and the importance of scholarship.

In short, the Bible’s authority lies not in textual perfection but in its divine inspiration and transformative power, preserved through God’s providence despite human limitations.

D.A. Carson's views on Bible versions, textual criticism, and the Word of God

D.A. Carson, a respected evangelical theologian and New Testament scholar, holds nuanced views on Bible versions, textual criticism, and the nature of Scripture, shaped by his commitment to both academic rigor and evangelical orthodoxy. 

1. Bible Translations

Translation Philosophy: Carson advocates for a balanced approach, recognizing the value of both formal equivalence (word-for-word, e.g., ESV) and dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought, e.g., NIV). He contributed to the NIV translation, emphasizing clarity and accessibility while maintaining fidelity to the original texts.

Purpose-Driven Translations: He argues that different translations serve different purposes—formal equivalence for detailed study, dynamic equivalence for readability and broader audience engagement. He critiques rigid adherence to a single translation method, stressing the need for transparency about translation choices.

2. Textual Criticism

Affirmation of Reliability: Carson affirms the reliability of the New Testament text, noting that the vast majority of textual variants are minor and do not affect core Christian doctrines. He emphasizes that textual criticism is a tool to recover the original text, not a threat to scriptural authority.

Engagement with Disputed Passages: He addresses passages like the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) and the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20), arguing that textual criticism responsibly identifies later additions while maintaining confidence in the canonical text’s overall integrity. He supports modern critical texts (e.g., NA/UBS editions) over the Textus Receptus, critiquing the King James Only movement as historically untenable.

3. The Word of God

Authority and Inerrancy: Carson upholds the inerrancy of Scripture in its original manuscripts, distinguishing between the autographs (inerrant) and copies (reliable but containing minor errors). He maintains that current translations sufficiently convey God’s Word for doctrine and practice.

Dual Authorship: He emphasizes the Bible’s dual authorship—both human and divine—requiring careful historical-grammatical exegesis while affirming its divine authority. Scripture’s inspiration means it is fully trustworthy for teaching, rebuke, and training (2 Tim. 3:16).

Hermeneutics and Application: Carson stresses the importance of contextual interpretation and the role of the Holy Spirit in applying Scripture. He warns against subjective readings, advocating for a hermeneutic that respects the Bible’s historical particularity and theological unity.

4. Critique of Misconceptions

Anti-KJV-Only Stance: Carson critiques the King James Only movement, arguing it ignores advances in textual criticism and manuscript discoveries (e.g., older manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus).

Rejection of Skepticism: While acknowledging textual complexities, he rejects skepticism about the New Testament’s reliability, pointing to the wealth of manuscript evidence and scholarly consensus on key readings.

Summary

Carson’s approach integrates scholarly rigor with evangelical conviction: he champions textual criticism as a means to refine our understanding of Scripture, supports diverse translation methodologies for effective communication, and unwaveringly affirms the Bible’s status as the inspired, authoritative Word of God. His work bridges academic scholarship and pastoral concern, ensuring that the Bible remains both intellectually credible and spiritually transformative.

To Theologians: A Plea for Honesty—Why the Quest for a "Perfect Bible" Divides the Church

Theologians and scholars,

I write not to condemn, but to ask questions that many in the pews are too afraid to voice. Your work shapes minds, steers institutions, and defines what “truth” means for countless believers. But a troubling pattern has emerged: the rise of doctrines like Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)—the belief that every word of Scripture has been perfectly preserved in specific modern translations—and the fractures it creates in the Body of Christ.

This compels me to ask: What drives the pursuit of a “perfect Bible”?

Is it truly for the edification of the church, as you claim? Or does it mask a deeper hunger—for control, for institutional power, or even self-gratification through intellectual supremacy? When you insist that only one translation or textual tradition is “divinely preserved,” are you elevating God’s glory… or your own authority?

Let’s be clear: the desire to honor Scripture is noble. But when the doctrine of VPP becomes a litmus test for faithfulness, it breeds division, not discipleship. Congregations split over which Bible is “inerrant.” Brothers and sisters accuse one another of heresy for reading a different translation. The message of Christ—a call to unity in love (John 17:21)—is drowned out by debates over vowels and scribal traditions.

Why teach a doctrine that prioritizes textual perfection over spiritual fruit?

History shows us that the church has thrived for centuries without consensus on every textual variant. Early Christians spread the Gospel using copies of copies, trusting the Holy Spirit to work through imperfect human hands. Yet today, VPP is weaponized to alienate those who dare to ask questions. Critics of this teaching are labeled “compromisers,” while doubters are shamed into silence. Is this how we steward the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18)?

And to what end? The fruit of this doctrine is undeniable: broken relationships, dwindling congregations, and a generation of believers who equate faith with rigid certainty. When people reject VPP, it’s not because they’ve abandoned Scripture—it’s because they see the dissonance between a God “rich in mercy” (Ephesians 2:4) and a theology that leaves no room for grace in the face of mystery.

So I ask you, theologians: Are you being honest about why you teach this?

Is it to protect tradition at the cost of truth? To satisfy academic pride? Or have you, too, fallen into the trap of conflating human interpretation with divine mandate? The classroom of a Bible college is not a courtroom; it’s a nursery where fragile faith is nurtured. When you present VPP as non-negotiable dogma, are you equipping students to shepherd souls… or to police boundaries?

Consider the cost.

Every time you dismiss a skeptic, you alienate a seeker. Every time you prioritize textual purity over communal unity, you scatter the flock Christ died to gather. The world watches as the church fractures over disputes that mean nothing to the single mother seeking hope, the addict craving redemption, or the doubter longing for a faith that makes room for questions.

To those who teach: Think twice. The God who inspired Scripture also entrusted it to fallible humans. If the incarnation teaches us anything, it’s that divinity works through the ordinary, the messy, and the imperfect. Why, then, insist on a doctrine that demands the opposite?

Let us return to the heart of the matter: Scripture exists to point us to Christ, not to ourselves. If our teachings divide His body, perhaps it’s time to lay down our swords of certainty and pick up the towel of service (John 13:14).

The church doesn’t need a “perfect Bible”—it needs theologians humble enough to admit they don’t have all the answers.

—A Voice from the Pew