Bible Timeline

 

Date	Language	Title	Notes
Early 200s bc	Greek	Septuagint	In Alexandria, Genesis—Deuteronomy are translated from Hebrew into Greek for the first time. The rest of the Hebrew Bible is translated later, likely prior to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
2nd century bc–5th century ad	Aramaic	Targums	Interpretive Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are derived from oral worship in the synagogues of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Anatolia.
2nd century ad	Latin	Old Latin or Vetus Latina	Biblical books are translated from Greek into Latin. A variety of such translations of varying quality are made in the next few centuries.
2nd–4th centuries	Syriac		The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are translated into Syriac, with portions based on the Septuagint. The Hebrew Scriptures are translated first, likely by Jewish translators. Multiple translations are produced over the next few centuries; the one used by Syriac churches becomes known as the Peshitta, meaning “simple” or “common.”
Late 3rd century	Coptic		The earliest Coptic translations of biblical books are made into the Sahidic dialect. In the 4th–5th century, translations become more standardized and widespread.
4th century	Latin	Vulgate	The scholar Jerome creates a uniform Latin translation using Hebrew, Greek, and existing Latin texts. This translation becomes standard for the Roman Catholic Church.
4th century	Gothic		Arian bishop Wulfila translates biblical books into Gothic from Greek, including most of the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament.
Early 5th century	Armenian		Mesrob Mashtotz and Sahak Parthev produce the first translation of the Bible into Armenian, based on Greek, Syriac, and perhaps Hebrew.
5th century	Georgian		The Bible is translated into Georgian, possibly by multiple translators working from different source languages.
5th century	Ethiopic		Most biblical books are first translated into Ethiopic.
Late 8th century	Arabic		The earliest known translations of biblical books into Arabic are made. In the 9th century, translations become widespread.
Late 9th century	Old Church Slavonic		Bishop Methodius and his colleagues translate the New Testament and most of the Old Testament, with Apocrypha, from Greek into Old Church Slavonic.
ca. 1000	Old English	West Saxon Gospels	The four Gospels are translated into the West Saxon dialect of Old English.
ca. 1000	Old English	Old English Hexateuch	The first six books of the Old Testament are translated into the West Saxon dialect of Old English.
mid-13th century	Old French	Old French Bible	The entire Bible is translated into French from the Latin Vulgate. This is the oldest known complete biblical translation into a vernacular language of medieval Western Europe. Some books have many added explanations, but most books stick close to the Latin text, with few additions.
14th century	Czech		The whole Bible is translated into Czech.
1350	German	Augsburg Bible	The first surviving complete version of the New Testament in German is translated from the Latin Vulgate.
1382	Middle English	Wycliffe Bible, first version	A Middle English translation is made by Wycliffe, his students, and followers. It is based on the Latin Vulgate. About 10 years later it is revised to use more natural English.
ca. 1415–1440	Hungarian	Hussite Bible	The Bible is translated into Hungarian by Tamás Pécsi and Bálint Újlaki. Only partial manuscripts survive.
1466	German	Mentelin Bible	Johannes Mentelin produces the first complete printed German Bible, using a slightly modernized version of a translation that seems to come from the early 14th century. It is translated from the Latin Vulgate.
1471	Italian	Malermi Bible	Niccolo Malermi publishes the first printed Italian Bible, including the Apocrypha. It is translated from the Latin Vulgate.
1475	Czech		The first printed Czech New Testament is produced by Hussites associated with the University of Prague.
1477	Dutch		The first complete Dutch translation of the Old Testament is printed by Jacob Jacobszoon and Maurice Iemandtszoon of Middelburgh in Delft. It is based on earlier partial translations and corrected to match the Latin Vulgate.
1478	Catalan		Jaime Borrell produces the first published translation of the Bible in Catalan. It is his revision of a translation produced earlier in the century by Bonifacio Ferrer.
1479	Low German		The whole Bible, with Apocrypha, is translated into a Nether-Rhenish dialect of Low German from the Latin Vulgate and printed in Cologne. It is widely used by speakers of the closely-related Dutch.
1488	Czech		The whole Bible is printed in Czech for the first time. It is produced by Hussites associated with the University of Prague, but is also used by Catholics.
1519	Latin		Roman Catholic priest and scholar Erasmus publishes a text of the Greek New Testament accompanied by his own new Latin translation. Both his Greek text and his Latin translation become important sources for 16th-century Bible translators.
1522	German	Luther New Testament	Martin Luther’s translation of the Greek New Testament into contemporary, idiomatic German is published; his Old Testament, translated from Hebrew and Aramaic, appears in portions until the middle of the next decade. The influence of Luther’s translation spreads to neighboring countries embracing the Reformation. Luther includes notes in his Bible against Roman Catholic teachings.
1523	French		Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples’ New Testament, based on Latin texts, is published.
1526	Dutch		The first complete Dutch Bible is printed by Jacob van Liesvelt. The New Testament is translated from Luther’s New Testament translation, and the Old Testament from the Latin Vulgate. The Apocrypha are included as a separate section.
1526	English	Tyndale’s New Testament	William Tyndale produces the first modern English New Testament, translated from the Greek. In 1530, Tyndale adds a translation of the Pentateuch based primarily on Hebrew. He is executed before he can complete the translation and publication of the Old Testament. Tyndale’s translation becomes a foundation for subsequent versions.
1526	Swedish		A Swedish New Testament is published, translated primarily from Erasmus’ Latin translation of the Greek New Testament.
1527	German		Anabaptists Ludwig Hatzer and Hans Denck publish a version of the Prophets from the Hebrew texts, since Luther’s translation of these books had not yet appeared.
1530	French		Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples’ complete translation of the Bible, based on Latin texts, is published. It becomes the basis for many later Catholic French translations of the Bible.
1534	German	Luther Bible	Martin Luther’s complete translation of the Bible from the original languages is published. It includes the Apocrypha as a separate section.
1535	English	Coverdale Bible	Coverdale combines and publishes Tyndale’s Pentateuch (Gen-Deut) and New Testament, filling in the rest of the Old Testament with his own translation of the Latin and Luther’s German Bible.
1537	English	Matthew Bible	John Rogers produces an edition of the Bible. He uses Tyndale’s translations where possible, including unpublished translations of Old Testament books. He fills in the rest of the Old Testament with Coverdale’s translation. The translation is pseudonymously attributed to Thomas Matthew.
1539	English	The Great Bible	Coverdale revises Matthew’s Bible. It becomes the first authorized English Bible. It is read aloud in Church of England services.
1540	French		Pierre Robert Olivétan’s French translation of the Bible is published after his death. It is the first French Protestant translation and the first French translation from Hebrew and Greek.
1541	Hungarian		János Erdösi produces the first printed Polish New Testament. It is translated from Greek.
1541	Icelandic		An Icelandic translation of the New Testament is published, based primarily on Luther’s version, but also influenced by the Vulgate and by Erasmus’ Latin translation of the Greek New Testament.
1541	Swedish		The first complete Swedish Bible is published and becomes standard. It relies heavily on Luther’s German Bible.
1543	Spanish		The first published Spanish New Testament is produced by Francisco de Enzinas.
1550	Danish		A complete Danish Bible is published, commissioned by King Christian III and translated by a committee. It is influenced by Luther’s Bible and by earlier Danish partial paraphrases of the Vulgate. It becomes the standard Bible translation in Denmark and Norway.
1553	Polish		Lutheran scholar Jan Seklucjan publishes a Polish translation of the New Testament.
1559	Spanish		Casiodoro de Reina’s translation of the Bible into Spanish is published. This is the first complete printed Spanish Bible, and includes the Apocrypha without separating them out into a separate section.
1560	English	The Geneva Bible	The first entire English Bible translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament, and Greek New Testament is created by English people living in John Calvin’s Geneva. Shakespeare and the great Elizabethan poets use this translation.
1563	Polish		Jan Seklucjan publishes the whole Bible in Polish.
1567	Welsh		William Salesby publishes his translation of the New Testament into Welsh.
1571	Basque		Jean Leicarraga’s translation of the New Testament is published.
1582	English	Bishops’ Bible	Bishops of the Church of England create a revision of the Great Bible.
1582	English	Douay-Rheims New Testament	Roman Catholic scholars produce an English translation of the Latin New Testament.
1584	Icelandic		The first complete Icelandic Bible is produced under the direction of Bishop Gudbrandur Thorláksson. It largely incorporates the 1540 Icelandic New Testament, and also relies on Luther’s translation and the Vulgate.
1584	Slovenian		The first complete Slovenian Bible is published in Wittenberg.
1588	Welsh		The first complete Welsh Bible is published. It includes the Apocrypha. William Morgan and associates translated mostly from Hebrew and Greek.
1588	French	The French Geneva Bible	A committee of pastors in Geneva produce a standardized revision of Pierre Robert Olivétan’s 1540 translation. It becomes the dominant French Protestant biblical translation until 1744.
1590	Hungarian		The whole Bible, translated mostly by Gáspár Károlyi, is printed in Polish for the first time. It becomes the standard Bible for Hungarian Protestants.
1602	Spanish	Reina-Valera version	Cipriano de Valera publishes a revision of de Reina’s Spanish Bible translation and places the Apocrypha in a separate section. The Reina-Valera version becomes the standard Protestant Spanish translation.
1609–1610	English	Douay-Rheims Old Testament	Roman Catholic scholars produce an English translation of the Latin Old Testament.
1602	Irish		Nicholas Walsh completes the first Irish New Testament.
1611	English	King James Version (KJV) or Authorized Version	King James I sponsors this version, first published as the “Authorized Version.” It is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible in light of the original languages and other major translations of the previous century. It becomes the first English Bible published without notes that condemn the Roman Catholic Church.
1632	Polish		A revision of Seklucjan’s Polish Bible translation is published and becomes the favored translation among Polish Protestants.
1642	Finnish		The first complete Finnish translation of the Bible is published.
1663	Wampanoag (Massachusetts)	Eliot Indian Bible	John Eliot’s translation of the whole Bible into Wampanoag, a Native American language, is published in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1668	Malay		The first complete New Testament is published in Malay. Portions had been published beginning in 1629.
1679	Romansch		The first complete Bible is published in Romansh, a language spoken in Switzerland.
1688	Romanian	The Bible from Bucharest	The first complete Romanian Bible is published. Both Testaments are translated from Greek by Spatharus (Nicolae) Milescu.
1689	Latvian		The first complete Latvian Bible is published, translated by Ernst Glück and C.B. Witten.
1690	Irish		The first complete Irish Bible is published.
1693	Portuguese	Almeida New Testament	The revised second edition of João Ferreira de Almeida’s New Testament is published in Batavia (now Jakarta, Indonesia). The first edition of 1681 was not widely circulated because of printing errors and most copies were destroyed.
1701	Lithuanian		The first complete Lithuanian New Testament is published. Gospels and epistles arranged for liturgical reading had been published as early as 1591.
1714–1728	Tamil		The first translation of the Bible into Tamil, a language of India, is produced in installments by Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg and Benjamin Schultze.
1715	Estonian		The New Testament is first published in Estonian. Gospels and epistles arranged for liturgical reading had already been published in the 1630s.
1735	Lithuanian		The entire Bible is first published in Lithuanian.
1739	Estonian		The entire Bible is first published in Estonian.
1719–1751	Portuguese		The entire Bible is published in Portuguese in installments.
1766	Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic)		Poul Egede publishes the first translation of the New Testament into Kalaalisut, an indigenous language of Greenland.

---

Rachel Klippenstein, “Translations of the Bible, Timeline of,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

Why the NIV (New International Version) is better than the KJV (King James Version) ?

Here's a comparison of the NIV (New International Version) and KJV (King James Version) based on historical/textual accuracy, theological clarity, and readability, with concrete reasons and evidence:

1. Historical & Textual Foundation (Accuracy):

Reason: The NIV utilizes significantly older and more diverse manuscript evidence than the KJV.

Proof:

Manuscript Base: The KJV relied primarily on the "Textus Receptus" (Received Text) Greek New Testament, based on a handful of late medieval manuscripts (primarily 12th-15th century). The NIV uses modern critical editions (UBS/Nestle-Aland) built on thousands of manuscripts, including vastly older and more reliable ones discovered after 1611 (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century; Codex Vaticanus, 4th century; Papyri like P66 & P75, ~200 AD). Older manuscripts are generally closer to the originals and less prone to accumulated copying errors.

Dead Sea Scrolls (OT): For the Old Testament, the KJV relied on the Masoretic Text (MT) as it existed in the 16th/17th century. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC - 1st century AD) provided manuscripts over 1000 years older than the previously known MT. While largely confirming the MT's reliability, the Scrolls helped resolve ambiguities and minor textual variants. Modern translations like the NIV incorporate insights from these Scrolls; the KJV translators had no access to them.

Omissions/Additions: Passages present in the KJV but absent from the earliest manuscripts (and thus footnoted or omitted in the NIV) include:

John 7:53-8:11 (The Pericope Adulterae) - Missing from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.

Mark 16:9-20 (The Longer Ending) - Absent from key early manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; a shorter ending exists in others.

1 John 5:7-8 (The Comma Johanneum) - A later addition supporting the Trinity doctrine, not found in any credible Greek manuscript before the late Middle Ages. The NIV correctly omits it; the KJV includes it based on late, unreliable sources.

Evidence: Critical apparatuses in the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testaments and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) for the OT meticulously document manuscript evidence for every variant, showing the basis for modern textual decisions. Scholarly works like Bruce Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" explain these choices.

2. Theological Clarity (Precision & Understanding):

Reason: The NIV prioritizes conveying the intended theological meaning clearly in modern language, avoiding archaic terms whose meanings have shifted significantly, while remaining faithful to the original intent.

Proof:

Archaic Language & Meaning Shifts: KJV words often meant something different in 1611 or are now obscure:

"Charity" (1 Cor 13 - KJV) vs. "Love" (NIV): "Charity" now implies primarily alms-giving, whereas the Greek agape denotes selfless, sacrificial love. NIV captures the theological concept accurately.

"Prevent" (1 Thess. 4:15 - KJV) vs. "Precede" or "Come Before" (NIV): "Prevent" meant "to go before" in 1611; today it means "to stop." NIV prevents theological confusion.

"Conversation" (Phil. 3:20 - KJV) vs. "Citizenship" (NIV): "Conversation" meant "conduct" or "way of life" in 1611; today it means talk. NIV accurately conveys the theological concept of heavenly citizenship.

"Suffer" (Matt 19:14 - KJV) vs. "Permit" or "Let" (NIV): "Suffer" meant "allow"; today it means "endure pain." NIV avoids a jarring misreading.

Gender Language (Where Appropriate): The NIV (2011) carefully uses inclusive language for people when the original text clearly intends a mixed group (e.g., "brothers and sisters" for Greek adelphoi meaning a congregation, instead of KJV's "brethren" which can sound exclusively male to modern ears). This clarifies the intended scope of passages without altering theological meaning about individuals (e.g., God/Jesus remain masculine). The KJV's consistently masculine language for groups can obscure the inclusivity intended in many passages.

Idiom Translation: The NIV translates Hebrew/Greek idioms into their natural English equivalents, conveying the theological point clearly. The KJV often translates idioms literally, creating obscurity or oddity (e.g., "gird up the loins of your mind" - 1 Peter 1:13 KJV vs. "with minds that are alert and fully sober" - NIV).

Evidence: Comparing translations using interlinear Bibles or Greek/Hebrew lexicons (like BDAG for Greek, HALOT for Hebrew) shows how NIV word choices align with modern understanding of the original terms' meanings. Theological commentaries often highlight how archaic KJV language can lead to misinterpretations.

3. Readability (Comprehension & Accessibility):

Reason: The NIV uses contemporary English grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure, making it vastly easier for the average modern reader to understand on first reading compared to the KJV's Early Modern English.

Proof:

Vocabulary: The KJV uses countless words now obsolete, archaic, or with changed meanings (e.g., "wist," "wherefore," "besom," "wot," "amerce," "froward," "suffer" [allow], "prevent" [precede], "quick" [living]). The NIV uses standard modern vocabulary.

Grammar & Syntax: KJV employs grammatical structures uncommon today (e.g., "-eth" verb endings: "sayeth"; "thou/thee/thy" vs. "you/your"; verb-subject inversion: "said he"). The NIV uses standard modern grammar.

Sentence Structure: KJV sentences are often much longer and more complex than modern writing conventions. The NIV breaks down complex thoughts into clearer, more manageable sentences.

Quantitative Analysis: Standard readability metrics (like Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) consistently show the NIV (approx. 7th-8th grade level) requires significantly less reading skill than the KJV (approx. 12th grade level and higher due to archaic vocabulary and syntax). This makes the NIV accessible to a much wider audience, including children, ESL readers, and those with lower reading levels.

Evidence: Side-by-side comparison of any passage (e.g., Romans 8, Psalm 23) demonstrates the immediate comprehension advantage of the NIV. Formal readability studies confirm the grade level differences. The widespread use of the NIV in churches, schools, and personal study globally attests to its comprehensibility.

Important Considerations & Balance:

KJV's Strengths: The KJV is a monumental literary achievement and profoundly shaped the English language and religious history. Its traditional language is cherished by many for its beauty and familiarity. It remains valuable for literary and historical study.

Translation Philosophy: The KJV is essentially a "Formal Equivalence" (word-for-word) translation of its source texts. The NIV uses a "Dynamic Equivalence" (thought-for-thought) philosophy, prioritizing meaning over literal wording. This contributes to its readability but sometimes leads to debate about specific renderings. (The NIV committee called it "idiomatic").

Scholarly Basis: Both translations were produced by large committees of respected scholars. The NIV (over 100 scholars from diverse denominations) benefited from centuries of additional textual discovery, linguistic research, and translation theory developed since 1611.

"Better" is Contextual: For deep literary appreciation or connection to historical tradition, the KJV may be preferred. For clear comprehension of meaning by a modern audience, based on the best available textual evidence, the NIV has significant advantages.

Conclusion:

Based on historical/textual evidence (access to vastly older and more numerous manuscripts), theological clarity (avoiding misleading archaic terms and clearly conveying intended meaning in modern language), and readability (using contemporary vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure verified by readability metrics), the NIV (2011) provides a more accurate, understandable, and accessible translation of the Bible for the modern reader than the KJV. Its foundations reflect advancements in biblical scholarship over the last 400 years.

While the KJV was a monumental translation for its time, the NIV reflects over 400 more years of manuscript discoveries, linguistic scholarship, and translation theory. Its strength lies in its fidelity to the original text, theological clarity, and accessibility to today’s readers—making it a superior choice for study, teaching, and evangelism in the 21st century.

KJV's Preface: The Translators to the Reader

When the KJV was first released in 1611, it came with a preface titled The Translators to the Reader. (Click Here)

Based on the KJV Translators' own Preface ("THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER"), they explicitly and vigorously refute the core tenets of KJV-Onlyism. Their words demonstrate profound humility, a respect for prior translations, an expectation of future revisions, and a belief that multiple translations are beneficial – the exact opposite of KJV-Only doctrine.

Here's a breakdown of their beliefs and how their words refute KJV-Onlyism, point by point:

Deep Respect & Reliance on Previous Translations:

What they said: They repeatedly praise and acknowledge their debt to earlier English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer/Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops'). They call them "good" and "godly," stating they "built upon" their foundations. They specifically mention using "the same materials" (previous translations) and "that which helped the advantage" in them.

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism typically denigrates or rejects all other English translations as corrupt or inferior. The Translators explicitly valued and used these earlier works, seeing them as legitimate and helpful. They did not believe their translation invalidated or replaced all others.

Humility & Acknowledgement of Imperfection:

What they said: They readily admit their work isn't perfect or final. Key quotes:

"We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one."

"For perfection is under the sun... We cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself... yet he useth divers words."

"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." (Emphasis on meanest meaning "most humble" or "simplest").

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind... that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church..."

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism claims the KJV is uniquely perfect, flawless, or the only valid English Word of God. The Translators explicitly stated their goal was improvement, not perfection; they affirmed God's word was present even in the simplest prior translations; and they condemned the idea of condemning those earlier works. They saw themselves as part of an ongoing process, not the endpoint.

Anticipation & Endorsement of Future Revision:

What they said: They directly state that if their work seems faulty, it should be corrected:

"If we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." (This shows their process was revision based on multiple sources).

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism forbids any revision or correction of the KJV, viewing it as sacrosanct. The Translators not only expected but invited future generations to improve upon their work, just as they had improved upon their predecessors. They saw translation as an ongoing, collaborative effort needing revision, not a frozen, untouchable artifact.

Belief in the Value of Multiple Translations:

What they said: They use a powerful analogy:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded... For they that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

They also compare translations to a water channel: if one becomes muddy, having another source is good.

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism insists that only the KJV is valid and all others are harmful. The Translators argued the opposite: multiple translations (and even marginal notes indicating textual variations) are profitable and necessary for understanding. They valued diversity and comparison, not singularity and captivity to one version.

The Translators' Core Belief About Their Work:

They saw the KJV not as the only or final English Bible, but as the best current culmination of a long tradition of English Bible translation. They aimed to produce a "principal good one" out of the "many good ones" that came before, explicitly for the use of the Church of England. They believed it was a faithful rendering using the best available sources and scholarship of their day, undertaken with reverence and care. Crucially, they believed the Word of God was authentically present in earlier English translations and anticipated that future translations would, and should, build upon and improve their own work.

Refuting KJV-Onlyism Using the Translators' Own Words:

The KJV Preface is perhaps the strongest internal evidence against KJV-Onlyism. To claim the KJV is the only valid English Bible is to directly contradict the explicit statements of the men who created it:

They revered prior translations that KJV-Onlyism rejects.

They declared God's Word was present in those "lesser" translations.

They admitted their own work wasn't perfect and expected future revision.

They explicitly endorsed the value of multiple translations as essential for understanding, condemning the idea of being "captivated to one."

They saw themselves as part of an ongoing tradition, not the final word.

Conclusion:

The KJV Translators would be utterly dismayed by KJV-Onlyism. Their Preface reveals a profound humility, a deep respect for the work of others, an expectation of progress, and a belief in the necessity of multiple translations to illuminate the meaning of Scripture. KJV-Onlyism, by insisting on the exclusive perfection and finality of their translation, fundamentally misrepresents the Translators' own stated beliefs and intentions as clearly laid out in "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER." They saw the KJV as a significant step in a continuous process, not the end of the road.

The King James Only Controversy Trevin Wax | August 7, 2007

The article is written by Trevin Wax, published by The Gospel Coalition, it can be retrieved at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-nourishing-quiet-time/

Occasionally, someone will ask me what I think about the King James Only controversy raging in some of the fundamentalist circles of independent Baptist life. Having grown up around many KJV-Onlyers, I can only express sadness that the conservative independent Baptists continue to separate from each other over unimportant matters.

The fundamentalist movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress.

Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal.

So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others.

KJV Only Arguments

1. The King James Version is based on the “Majority Text” over against the modern versions that are based on the corrupt “Alexandrian Texts.”

Response: Most of the Byzantine texts used by the King James translators come from the 11th and 12th centuries. We have since discovered many older and more reliable manuscripts, which are closer to the original writings of the Bible authors. By comparing the earlier manuscripts to the later ones, we can see how the flourishes and additions of scribes can corrupt a text over time, leading us to believe that many of the “Alexandrian manuscripts” are closer to the originals and the majority of Byzantine texts altered. If the controversy were truly a textual issue, one wonders why the Greek scholars in the KJV camp have not come up with a modern English translation based on the texts they deem “inspired.” The textual issue is actually a smokescreen which hides the true reason for rejecting modern versions: any update of the KJV is considered tampering with God’s Word.

2. The modern translations attack the deity of Christ by removing references to his lordship.

Response: The Byzantine texts have the additional “Lord” and “Christ” added to the name of Jesus in many places where the older, more reliable texts do not. These are most surely the results of ambitious scribes, seeking to show reverence to the Savior or simply making mistakes in copying manuscripts. There are many examples where the deity of Christ is made clearer in modern translations than in the KJV. (Jude 4, Phil. 2:6-7, Acts 16:7, 1 Peter 3:14-15, John 14:14)

3. Heretics, occultists and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions.

Response: This is an all-out attack on the character of faithful believers who have sought to use their linguistic skills in offering an accurate translation of the Scriptures. The biblical linguist B.F. Westcott is consistently attacked, due to negligence in confusing him with the spiritualist W.W. Westcott. If there is anyone whose salvation should be questioned due to their “fruit,” it would be some of the extremist KJV Only advocates, whose polemic, vicious rhetoric is not becoming of a believer in Christ.

4. The modern translations delete verses from the Bible.

Response: Based on the older and more reliable manuscripts, the modern translations have simply sought to reflect what was contained in the original manuscripts. It is just as serious to add to Scripture, as it is to take away from Scripture. The starting-point for KJV Only advocates is that the KJV is the standard to which all other translations must bow, which is also the position they seek to prove. Thus, they employ circular reasoning that will not allow them to see any other position as possibly correct.

5. The 1611 Authorized Version is the preserved Word of God in English.

Response: No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original.

6. The modern translations promote a “works-salvation.”

Response: Virtually all of today’s cults (excepting the Jehovah’s Witnesses) prefer the King James version over the rest, including the Mormons, who also preach a “works-salvation.” Of course, this does not negate the worth of the King James version, but we could use this argument if we were to employ the same tactics of the KJV Only crowd. Compare Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (KJV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. (ESV) If we were to use the KJV Only logic, we could assume on the basis of this verse that the King James translators were conspiring to take us back to the chains of Catholicism, while the ESV translators are translating faithfully God’s Word. Of course, this would be a ridiculous assumption, but it is the kind of reasoning that KJV Only advocates employ. Even John R. Rice, the founder of the (now KJV-Only) Sword of the Lord admitted in Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible that the KJV renders Revelation 22:14 incorrectly and that the ASV is more accurate here.

7. The newer versions include footnotes which offer different renderings of certain words or verses. These footnotes confuse the reader and undermine the doctrine of inspiration.

Response: The 1611 King James Version also included thousands of footnotes which offered different readings for different verses. We should be grateful for today’s translators, who in the spirit of the King James tradition, have been intellectually honest when rendering exceptionally difficult verses about the limits to their knowledge.

Conclusion

Like with anyone who expounds a conspiracy theory, it is usually fruitless to try to reason with the KJV Only crowd. One should seek to prod these brothers and sisters to a correct understanding with love and patience, realizing that most efforts will be spurned and may turn out in vain.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

The purpose of this blog

The purpose of this blog refuting doctrines like KJV-Onlyism, Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), or "Perfect TR" (Textus Receptus) is not inherently unChristian or quarrelsome—if our motivation, method, and message align with biblical principles. 

1. The Purpose of this Blog

To Uphold Truth: Scripture commands guarding sound doctrine (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Titus 1:9) and correcting error gently (2 Tim. 2:24–26). False teachings can distort the gospel, breed pride, and fracture unity (e.g., elevating a translation over Christ).

To Protect the Vulnerable: Many are misled by claims that salvation hinges on a specific Bible version or that other Christians are "apostate" for using modern translations. A blog can offer clarity, historical context, and scriptural rebuttals.

To Promote Humility: Refuting dogmatic claims (e.g., "KJV is perfect") counters the "holier-than-thou" attitude some observed. It reminds us that God’s truth transcends human traditions (Mark 7:8–9).

2. Is It "Just Personal Views"?

No—if grounded in Scripture, history, and sound hermeneutics. For example:

KJV-Onlyism ignores textual scholarship (e.g., older manuscripts discovered since 1611).

VPP/TR doctrines often rely on circular logic (e.g., "God preserved His Word perfectly in the TR—because the TR says so").

A faithful blog cites evidence: manuscript history, translation principles, and biblical warnings against adding to God’s Word (Rev. 22:18). 

3. Is It UnChristian or Quarrelsome?

This blog can be—if done sinfully. But biblical correction is not quarrelsome by default. Consider:

Jesus and Paul refuted error (Matt. 23; Gal. 1:6–9; 2 Tim. 2:17–18)—yet with love for truth and people.

Danger signs to avoid:

Pride: Mocking opponents, boasting in knowledge (1 Cor. 8:1). 

Division: Attacking people, not ideas (Proverbs 11:9). We do our utmost not to attack personally.

Neglecting love: Failing to grieve the harm false teachings cause (Phil. 1:15–18).

Godly refutation:

Grounded in "truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).

Aims to restore, not destroy (Gal. 6:1).

Prioritizes the gospel over secondary issues (1 Cor. 15:3–4).

4. Should we Stop for the Sake of "Unity and Peace"?

No—but recalibrate our approach:

True unity is founded on truth (Eph. 4:13). Forced silence enables false teachings to spread, harming more people (Acts 20:29–30).

Peace ≠ absence of conflict: Godly confrontation brings lasting peace (Heb. 12:11). Avoiding hard truths creates superficial unity (Jer. 6:14).

Practical wisdom:

Focus on essentials: Does this teaching undermine the gospel, or is it a secondary disagreement?

Check our heart: Write to rescue, not to "win." Pray for those we disagree with (Matt. 5:44).

Elevate Christ: Point readers to Jesus—not just textual debates.

5. When to Continue—and When to Step Back

Continue if:

Our goal is to protect the spiritually vulnerable.

We offer grace-filled alternatives (e.g., explaining reliable modern translations).

We see fruit (readers freed from legalism, pursuing Christ-centered faith).

Pause/reflect if:

Anger or pride drives us (James 1:19–20).

Comments become toxic or divisive.

It consumes time meant for worship, service, or loving others.

Final Thought

A blog refuting error is Christian if it mirrors Christ: truth without compromise, grace without compromise. As J.C. Ryle said, "There is no such thing as peace at any price." Continue—but let every word pass through the filters of truth, humility, and love (Col. 4:6). The goal isn’t to "defeat" opponents but to liberate captives and glorify Christ.

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

— 2 Timothy 2:15

A Response to "Knowing For Sure I Am Saved" in Light of Congregational Concerns

FEBC released an essay on their website titled "KNOWING FOR SURE I AM SAVED," it can be retrieved at https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/church_weekly/knowing-for-sure-i-am-saved/ to which a response is provided below.

Samuel and Brothers and Sisters,

Thank you for the sermon on "Knowing For Sure I Am Saved." It thoughtfully addressed the vital biblical themes of assurance, the dangers of false confidence, and the grounding of our certainty in God's Word and work. The emphasis on self-examination (2 Pet. 1:10) and the warning against the Pharisees' self-righteousness (Matt. 23) were particularly crucial.

However, with deep concern and a heavy heart, I must observe that the lived reality within our congregation seems tragically disconnected from the very marks of true salvation and assurance you so rightly described. The sermon calls us to examine the evidence of God's work in our lives as a ground for assurance. When we look at our collective behavior through the lens of Scripture, we see red flags that demand urgent, humble repentance, lest we fall into the very category of those with "false assurance" you warned about.

Where is the Evidence of God's Work?

You stated: "To be a Christian is to be God’s workmanship... where there is true salvation, true life, there will be signs of life... When we see such signs... we can be assured that God is at work." Let us honestly examine these signs in light of the concerns raised:

Pride, Division, and a "Holier-Than-Thou" Spirit: You warned powerfully against the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. Yet, the reported attitudes – feeling like "the most faithful Christians on earth," seeing ourselves as "better than others," possessing the "perfect Bible" (KJV-onlyism), attacking other denominations, splitting churches, and chasing out pastors – exemplify the very Phariseeism Christ condemned (Luke 18:9-14). This pride directly contradicts the humility Scripture associates with true faith (Micah 6:8, Phil. 2:3). How can assurance coexist with a spirit that actively destroys the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-13, 3:3)?

Lack of Love & Compassion: True salvation, rooted in God's love (Rom. 5:5), inevitably produces love for others, especially the poor and marginalized (1 John 3:17-18, James 2:14-17). The reported absence of "real love for the poor" and the focus on doctrinal battles over practical Christ-like service is a glaring contradiction. Does this evidence "God’s workmanship" or a heart hardened by self-focus?

Unloving Correction & Pastoral Ego: The desire among BPC pastors to "punish those who disagreed," coupled with an unwillingness to admit fault or ego, stands in stark opposition to the Biblical model of leadership (Mark 10:42-45, 1 Pet. 5:1-5). True shepherds correct gently (Gal. 6:1), mourn over sin (including their own), and seek restoration, not domination. Where is the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:22-23) – in these actions and attitudes?

Misapplication of "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS): The sermon rightly distinguishes assurance from salvation and warns against presumption. Yet, the reported behavior suggests OSAS has been twisted into a license for unloving, divisive, and prideful conduct. If we are truly secure in Christ, shouldn't that security produce profound gratitude, humility, and a desire for unity and love, not a fortress of superiority and condemnation? Assurance that doesn't lead to increasing Christ-likeness and love is suspect (1 John 4:20-21).

Assurance Leading to Complacency, Not Consecration?

You concluded powerfully: "true assurance of salvation is such as to lead us, not to complacency, but to greater obedience and consecration... the more zealous we are to live for the Lord... the more we desire... worship."

Does the described behavior – the lack of love, the pride, the division, the harshness – reflect "greater obedience and consecration"? Or does it reflect a dangerous complacency, rooted in a false assurance that says "We have the truth (doctrine/Perfect Bible), therefore we are okay," regardless of how we treat others or reflect Christ's character? This looks like the very complacency and presumption your sermon warned against.

A Call to Align Our Lives with Our Doctrine

Samuel, your sermon provides the perfect foundation for addressing these deep concerns. You called us to ground our assurance in God's Word and God's Work evident in our lives. The behaviors described raise serious questions about the nature of that "work" evident in our congregation.

Let us urgently take to heart the call to "examine ourselves" (2 Cor. 13:5). Not just for intellectual assent to doctrine, but for the undeniable fruit of the Spirit and the radical love of Christ. Let us repent of pride, division, lovelessness, and harshness. Let us seek the humility and servanthood of Christ. Let our assurance manifest not in attacking others, but in serving them; not in splitting churches, but in building up the Body; not in neglecting the poor, but in loving them as Christ loves us.

True assurance, grounded in Christ alone and evidenced by His Spirit at work within us, will lead us together towards greater holiness, unity, and love – not further into the isolation of self-righteousness. May we have the courage to confront these contradictions and seek the genuine assurance that produces the undeniable fruit of a life transformed by grace.

In sorrowful love and hope for repentance and renewal,

A Concerned TLBPC Member

PS. What's the point?  Knowing for certain you are saved?  You continue to divide the church and families, as well as attack pastors who use the NIV, ESV, and other translations.

A Plea for Return to Sound Doctrine

Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy and others,

Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I write this letter not with a spirit of condemnation, but with a heavy heart and deep concern, compelled by love for the truth of God and for the well-being of His Church. It is with profound sorrow that I observe the doctrines you are actively promoting – namely, the concepts of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), the exclusive authority of the King James Version (KJV-Onlyism), and the belief in a "Perfect" Textus Receptus (TR).

These teachings have become a source of significant division and confusion within the Body of Christ. More alarmingly, they appear to have led you, and those who follow your instruction, away from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ and the sound doctrine delivered to us. My concern compels me to bring before you the sobering words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy:

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain." (1 Timothy 6:3-5, ESV)

Paul then concludes his letter with a final, urgent charge:

"O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge,' for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." (1 Timothy 6:20-21, ESV)

I urge you to hear these words afresh and examine your teachings in their light:

1.  "Different Doctrine" & "Not Agreeing with Sound Words": The doctrines of VPP, KJV-Onlyism, and a "Perfect" TR elevate specific textual theories and a single translation far beyond their historical and textual warrant, effectively creating a new standard of authority alongside or even above the original autographs as God intended them. This is a "different doctrine" concerning Scripture itself. It does not ultimately agree with the "sound words" of Christ and the apostles, who pointed to the substance of revelation, not the exclusive perfection of one manuscript tradition or translation centuries removed. The focus has shifted from Christ and the gospel message to intricate, divisive arguments about textual minutiae and translation superiority.

2.  "Puffed Up with Conceit," "Unhealthy Craving for Controversy," "Quarrels about Words": Do we not see these very fruits manifesting? The insistence on these doctrines often breeds intellectual pride ("we alone possess the true text/translation"), fosters an "unhealthy craving" to debate textual variants and translation choices above proclaiming the gospel, and generates endless "quarrels about words." The vitriol directed towards fellow believers who use other faithful translations, or hold to mainstream textual criticism, is palpable and deeply damaging to the unity of the Spirit.

3.  "Envy, Dissension, Slander, Evil Suspicions, Constant Friction": These are the undeniable results. Look around at the division sown within churches and between believers over these issues. Witness the slander hurled at godly scholars, pastors, and translators who disagree. See the "evil suspicions" cast upon the motives and salvation of those using the ESV, NASB, NIV, or other translations. The "constant friction" generated consumes immense energy that should be devoted to worship, discipleship, and mission.

4.  "Depraved in Mind and Deprived of the Truth": Paul is describing the state of those consumed by such controversies. When the defense of a specific text or translation becomes the primary mark of orthodoxy, displacing core gospel truths and Christlike love, it indicates a mind distracted from the central truths of the faith and deprived of its liberating power.

5.  "Avoid Irreverent Babble... Falsely Called 'Knowledge'": Paul explicitly warns Timothy against the kind of speculative, divisive arguments that masquerade as profound spiritual insight ("knowledge"). The intricate, often historically anachronistic, arguments used to defend VPP, KJV-Onlyism, and a "Perfect" TR against the overwhelming evidence of textual scholarship fit this description of "irreverent babble."

6.  "Some Have Swerved from the Faith": This is the most solemn warning of all. Paul states unequivocally that by clinging to and promoting such false "knowledge," some have departed from the faith itself. This doesn't necessarily mean a complete denial of core salvation doctrines (though it can lead there), but a fundamental deviation in understanding the nature of Scripture, the work of the Holy Spirit in its transmission, and the unity of the Church. Prioritizing textual and translational perfectionism above the clear gospel message and the fruit of the Spirit is a dangerous swerving.

Therefore, I appeal to you in the name of Christ:

Repent of elevating these man-made constructs (VPP, KJV-Onlyism, Perfect TR) to the level of divine doctrine. They are not found in Scripture and cause immense harm.

Repent of the division, pride, slander, and uncharitable judgment these teachings foster.

Return to the true "deposit entrusted" – the apostolic faith centered on Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, and the gospel message faithfully preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence God has sovereignly overseen, not in one idealized stream.

Embrace the rich heritage of the Church, which has used and benefited from multiple faithful translations throughout history, trusting the Holy Spirit to speak through His Word.

Focus your teaching on the "sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness," not on divisive battles over texts and translations.

Guard the true deposit. Avoid the babble that leads to swerving. The faith once delivered, the gospel of grace, and the unity of Christ's body are at stake. May the Spirit grant you humility, discernment, and a renewed love for the truth that sets free and unites.

With a prayerful heart for your restoration and the peace of the Church,

A Concerned Brother in Christ

Textual history and manuscript transmission over time

The textual history, manuscript transmission, and the evolution of the canon and versions of Scripture over time. Let’s explore this era by era:

---

1. During Jesus and the Apostles' Time (1st Century AD)

Old Testament:

• Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) – The Scriptures Jesus and the Apostles quoted were mostly in Hebrew, but…

• Septuagint (LXX) – A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, widely used in the Hellenized Jewish world (especially in the diaspora). Most OT quotations in the NT are closer to the LXX than the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

• No New Testament yet – It was being written during this time (approx. 45–95 AD).

Conclusion:
There was no single “perfect Bible”—different communities used Hebrew or Greek OT texts. Minor textual variations existed, but the focus was on preserving doctrine, not on word-perfect preservation.

---

2. 300–500 AD (Post-Nicene / Patristic Era)

Old Testament:

• Septuagint (LXX) – Still dominant in the Greek-speaking East.

• Old Latin translations – Used in the West.

• Hebrew texts – Used by Jews, but some early Christians consulted them (e.g., Jerome).

New Testament:

• Most NT books were widely accepted by this time.

• Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Alexandrinus (A) – major manuscripts from the 4th–5th century.

• Vulgate – Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (c. 405 AD). This became the standard Bible in the West.

Issues:

• Textual variation among manuscripts.

• Debates on canon (e.g., Revelation, James).

• No concept of a word-perfect Bible. The focus was more on doctrine, orthodoxy, and faithfulness.

---

3. Around 1000 AD (Medieval Period)

Western Church (Latin):

• Vulgate – Still dominant. Hand-copied by monks.

• Variants existed, and multiple versions of the Latin Vulgate were circulating.

Eastern Church (Greek):

• Byzantine Text-type – Became the dominant Greek NT text.

• Old Testament largely from the LXX.

Issues:

• Scribes made minor additions, glosses, or harmonizations.

• Some began to believe in a “pure” Latin text (especially among scholastics), but still, the idea of a perfect word-for-word text was not formalized.

---

4. Reformation Era (1500s–1600s)

Textual Bibles:

• Erasmus’ Greek NT (1516) – Based on a few late Byzantine manuscripts (basis of the Textus Receptus).

• Luther’s German Bible (1522–1534).

• Tyndale’s English NT (1526).

• King James Bible (1611) – Based on the Textus Receptus.

Old Testament:

• Based mostly on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT).

• The LXX still influenced some translations.

Issues:

• Reformers emphasized Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) but didn't claim a "perfect" manuscript.

• Variants in the Greek NT were recognized.

• Catholic vs. Protestant canon differences arose.

• No major claim that the KJV or TR was the “perfect” Bible—this belief developed later, especially in KJV-only movements.

---

5. 21st Century (Modern Era)

Manuscripts:

• Over 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts, 10,000 Latin, and many in Syriac, Coptic, etc.

• Modern textual criticism uses earliest manuscripts (like P52, P66, Codex Sinaiticus) to reconstruct the original.

• Popular translations: ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, etc.

• Majority of scholars rely on critical texts (e.g., Nestle-Aland 28th Edition, UBS5), not the Textus Receptus.

Issues:

• Some groups (e.g., KJV-onlyists, VPP proponents) claim that a specific edition (like the KJV or the Textus Receptus) is the “perfect” Bible.

• Most scholars reject this, recognizing that no manuscript or version is word-perfect, but that the message and doctrines are faithfully preserved.

---

🔍 Summary Table

Era	OT Texts Used	NT Texts Used	"Perfect Bible" Claim?
1st Century	Hebrew, Septuagint	Letters & Gospels being written	❌ No
300–500 AD	LXX, Latin, Hebrew	Codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus)	❌ No
~1000 AD	Vulgate (West), LXX (East)	Byzantine manuscripts	❌ No
Reformation	Masoretic Text, TR	Textus Receptus, early vernacular	❌ Mostly No (debated)
21st Century	Critical texts, modern MT	UBS/Nestle-Aland, various versions	✅ In some circles (KJV-only)

---

❗Was There Ever a "Perfect Bible"?

Short answer: No.

• The idea of a word-perfect preserved Bible is a modern invention, not supported by early church history or biblical manuscripts.

• The church has always operated with variations, translations, and copyist differences, trusting the Spirit-guided community to maintain the truth of the message, not the perfection of form.

---

Conclusion

The concept of a single, physically "perfect" Bible existing unchanged through history doesn't align with the evidence. What we have is a remarkably well-preserved and transmitted collection of texts. While minor variations exist in the manuscript tradition (overwhelmingly insignificant to core teachings), modern critical scholarship allows us to reconstruct texts of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament that are extremely close to what was originally written. The "perfection" claimed by many believers lies in the message and authority of the scriptures as understood within their faith tradition, not in the flawless physical preservation of every letter through every copy over two millennia.

When that which is perfect is come

1 Corinthians 13:10 is often debated, especially among those arguing for or against the continuation of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. Jeffrey Khoo wants to say that tongues stopped when the TR or KJV was completed; let us examine if he is correct or wrong.

1 Corinthians 13:10 (KJV)

📖 1 Corinthians 13:10 (KJV)

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

---

🧠 Key Greek Word: τὸ τέλειον (to teleion)

• Greek Root: τέλειος (teleios)

• Meaning: complete, mature, full-grown, perfect in function or purpose.

It does not imply a “perfect text” or “perfect book” unless the context clearly supports that.

It never means "flawless" in a textual sense. Paul uses this term elsewhere for spiritual maturity (1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13) and God's perfected purpose (Rom. 12:2).

---

🔍 Context: 1 Corinthians 13:8–12

"Prophecies shall fail, tongues shall cease, knowledge shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

Then Paul compares it to:

• Childhood vs. maturity

• Seeing dimly in a mirror vs. face to face

• Knowing in part vs. knowing fully

This is not talking about textual transmission or Bible manuscripts.

Conclusion: The "partial" (spiritual gifts) are temporary tools for the church age. The "complete" is the eschatological fulfillment when believers see Christ directly.

---

📌 Interpretation of “the Perfect” (τὸ τέλειον)

There are three major views:

---

✅ 1. The Coming of Christ / Full Eschatological Maturity (Most likely view)

• "Perfect" = the return of Christ, when we will see Him “face to face” (v.12).

• Supports: "Then shall I know even as I am known" — a level of knowledge impossible before glorification.

• Fits the rest of Paul's eschatology (e.g., Philippians 3:12, 1 John 3:2)

• This view is held by most church fathers, Reformers, and contemporary scholars.

---

🚫 2. The Completion of the Bible / Canon (TR or KJV)

• Some claim “perfect” refers to the completed Bible, especially among KJV-only or TR advocates.

• This interpretation originated in the 1800s, long after Paul wrote the epistle.

• Paul’s audience had no concept of a New Testament canon.

• “Perfect” here is neuter in Greek (to teleion), not “he” or “scripture” (which is feminine in Greek: γραφή graphē).

• There is no biblical or grammatical basis to say this refers to the Textus Receptus, KJV, or any manuscript tradition.

---

🟡 3. Spiritual Maturity of the Church (partial cessationist view)

• Some say the "perfect" refers to the maturity of the church — perhaps at the end of the apostolic era.

• While more reasonable than #2, it still struggles with the phrase “face to face” and “know fully.”

• Church maturity now is still partial; Paul seems to be pointing to an ultimate, future state.

---

❌ Misuse: Stopping Tongues Because "Perfect" = Bible

• Some cessationists argue that tongues ceased when the Bible was completed.

• But:

  • The text never says tongues stop when Scripture is complete

  • Tongues are listed as spiritual gifts alongside teaching, prophecy, and healing (1 Cor 12)

  • No verse in the NT says the Bible replaces the Spirit’s gifts

  • The grammar in 1 Cor 13:8–10 suggests tongues will cease when the perfect comes, i.e., when Christ returns

---

Why It Can't Refer to a "Perfect Bible"

Historical Anachronism: The NT canon wasn’t finalized until the 4th century. Paul couldn’t reference the KJV (1611) or TR (16th century).

Theological Inconsistency:

If "complete" = a Bible, why do faith and hope still remain (v. 13)? We won’t need them in eternity (Rev. 21:4).

The "face to face" (v. 12) language echoes Christ’s return (1 John 3:2; Rev. 22:4).

Early Church Interpretation: Church fathers (e.g., Chrysostom, Augustine) unanimously linked this to Christ’s second coming.

✅ Conclusion: What Is “the Perfect”?

τὸ τέλειον (to teleion) refers to the state of spiritual completion at Christ’s return—not a Bible translation. Paul’s point is profound: Spiritual gifts are temporary, but love is eternal because it reflects God’s nature (1 John 4:8). When Jesus returns, our partial understanding will dissolve into the fullness of knowing Him (Phil. 3:12).

“The perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 refers to the coming of the Lord or our final glorification — not to:

• The King James Version

• The Textus Receptus

• The completed Bible

The idea that tongues ceased because the TR or KJV was completed is foreign to the context, language, and theology of the passage.

"The imperfect will give way to the perfect at the Parousia [Christ's return]."

—Anthony Thiselton, NIGTC Commentary on 1 Corinthians (p. 1,061).