We Must Obey God Rather Than Men

We Must Obey God Rather Than Men

(Acts 5:29)

In every generation, the church of Jesus Christ faces the danger of voices that draw people away from the Word of God and toward the words of men. The apostle Peter, standing before the authorities of his day, spoke with unshakable conviction: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This truth is as relevant now as it was in the first century.

In the past two decades, Jeffrey Khoo from Far Eastern Bible College—has been urging believers to follow his teaching as though it were the standard of truth. He promotes KJV Onlyism and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation in a way that goes beyond Scripture, claiming that the King James Version is the only one Bible and that God has preserved His Word only in the so-called “Perfect Text” behind it - The Textus Receptus. He attacks modern translations such as the NIV, pointing out what he sees as “specks” of error—yet he refuses to acknowledge the “logs” of error and human tradition in his own position.

This is deeply troubling for several reasons.

1. He Replaces the Authority of God with the Authority of Man

When a teacher demands that you follow his word as though it were God’s word, he is stepping into a role that belongs to God alone. The Berean believers in Acts 17:11 were commended because they examined the Scriptures daily “to see if these things were so”—even when the apostle Paul preached! How much more should we test the claims of any modern teacher by the Word of God itself, not by his personal opinion or denominational loyalty.

To listen to a man as if he were the voice of God is idolatry. It is to crown him in our hearts as a kind of “god,” which is a grave sin.

2. He Elevates One Translation Above the Word of God Itself

We thank God for the KJV’s rich history and faithful service in past centuries. But the KJV is a translation—a human work—and therefore subject to the same limitations as every other translation. God never promised to preserve a specific translation without flaw. His promise is to preserve His Word in all ages (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8), and He has done so through the many faithful manuscripts and translations available today.

By declaring one translation as “perfect” and condemning all others, Jeffrey Khoo shifts the focus from the living Word of God to a single human-made product. This is not biblical faith—it is traditionalism masquerading as truth.

3. He Divides the Body of Christ

Paul warned against those who cause divisions by teaching contrary to the doctrine we have received (Romans 16:17). Instead of building unity around the gospel of Christ, Jeffrey Khoo has made KJV Onlyism and VPP the litmus test of true faithfulness. The result? Brothers and sisters who love the Lord and hold to His Word are accused, ostracized, and separated simply because they read from a translation other than the KJV.

Christ’s prayer in John 17 was that His people might be one. To fracture the body over human tradition is to work against the prayer of our Lord Himself.

4. He Sees the Speck in Others but Misses the Beam in His Own Eye

Jesus warned in Matthew 7:3–5 about the hypocrisy of judging others for small faults while ignoring our own greater errors. Jeffrey Khoo condemns the NIV for what he perceives as doctrinal compromises or translation flaws—yet he refuses to acknowledge that the KJV, like every translation, contains textual and linguistic limitations. Worse, his doctrine of VPP is not found in Scripture at all, but is an invention of man.

A Pastoral Plea

Beloved in Christ, do not let the voice of man replace the voice of God in your life. Treasure the Word of God in whatever faithful translation you can read and understand. Test every teaching by the Scriptures, not by the personality or claims of any human leader. Love the brethren who may use different translations. Remember: unity in Christ is built on the truth of the gospel, not on allegiance to one version of the Bible.

Let us resolve with Peter and the apostles: “We must obey God rather than men.” And let us keep our eyes fixed on the Author and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus Christ—not on the self-made authorities who would have us follow them as though they were infallible.

Collaboration On Ministry

Different Christian denominations in Singapore can collaborate on ministry despite theological differences by focusing on their shared mission. The key is to identify areas where their core beliefs and goals align, then build practical, cooperative initiatives from there. This approach allows churches to work together for the common good without compromising their distinct identities.

🤝 Establishing a Foundation for Cooperation

Before starting any joint projects, churches should first build relationships and trust. This is a crucial step that helps them move past historical divides and focus on their common purpose.

• Dialogue and Mutual Respect: Church leaders and members from different denominations should meet regularly to discuss their ministries and beliefs in a spirit of humility and open-mindedness. The goal isn't to convert each other but to understand and appreciate each other's traditions and strengths. For instance, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) provides a platform for such dialogue.

• Shared Prayer and Worship: Joint prayer meetings and ecumenical services can powerfully demonstrate unity. While different denominations have unique liturgical styles, coming together to pray and worship highlights their shared belief in Christ. This can be as simple as a combined Good Friday or Easter service.

• Identify Common Ground: It's important to recognize and celebrate the core beliefs they all share, such as the authority of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the call to love their neighbor. Focusing on these commonalities creates a solid basis for collaboration.

📣 Evangelism Ministry

When it comes to evangelism, inter-denominational efforts can be very impactful, especially for large-scale events or targeted outreach.

• Large-Scale Events: Churches can pool their resources for major evangelistic events, like city-wide rallies or conferences. The Celebration of Hope 2019 is an excellent example of this, where various denominations in Singapore came together to proclaim the gospel. Such events allow for a wider reach and demonstrate a powerful, united Christian witness.

• Targeted Outreach: Denominations can cooperate on specific outreach efforts to particular demographics. For example, some churches may have expertise in ministry to foreign workers, while others excel in youth outreach. By sharing resources and volunteers, they can more effectively minister to these specific groups.

• Resource Sharing: Churches can co-develop and share evangelism resources like follow-up materials, training programs, or digital content. This prevents duplication of effort and allows each denomination to contribute its unique strengths. For example, a Presbyterian church could offer its strong theological training, while a Methodist church could provide its expertise in social outreach.

⛑️ Social Work

Social work is a natural area for cooperation because it focuses on practical, tangible help for the community, transcending theological differences.

• Community Service Projects: Churches can collaborate on projects that meet local needs, such as organizing food drives, running soup kitchens, or providing free tuition for underprivileged students. The Methodist Welfare Services (MWS) in Singapore, for example, is a large-scale organization that partners with churches and other community stakeholders to serve the disadvantaged.

• Volunteer and Resource Pooling: Instead of each church running its own small-scale program, they can combine volunteers, funds, and facilities to create a larger, more sustainable social service. This could involve jointly operating a community center or a care facility for the elderly.

• Advocacy and Public Voice: When churches from different backgrounds unite, they can collectively advocate for social justice issues. By speaking with a single, unified voice, they can have a greater impact on public policy and societal attitudes.

🎓 Disciple-Making

While disciple-making is often a deeply personal and church-specific process, cooperation is possible in the educational and resource development aspects.

• Joint Educational Initiatives: Churches can collaborate on training and leadership development programs. This can include running combined theological courses, seminars on specific topics like Christian counseling, or leadership retreats. Singapore Bible College (SBC) is a key inter-denominational seminary in Singapore that serves this purpose by training leaders from various churches, including Anglican and Methodist.

• Mentorship and Coaching: Experienced leaders from one denomination can mentor younger leaders from another. This cross-pollination of ideas and experiences can enrich the faith of all involved and foster a broader understanding of the Christian tradition.

• Resource Development: Denominations can work together to create shared discipleship resources, such as Bible study guides or digital content, that are foundational and theologically non-divisive. They can also share best practices for different disciple-making models, like small groups or one-on-one mentoring, adapting what works best for their local context.

A Theological Thesis on Unity in Christ

 A Theological Thesis on Unity in Christ

The unity of diverse Christian denominations in Christ is a complex and often paradoxical reality, rooted in a shared foundational faith despite significant theological differences. While various denominations possess distinct theological frameworks, they find common ground in the person and work of Jesus Christ, acknowledging him as the Son of God and the central figure of salvation. This unity is not a superficial agreement on every point of doctrine but a deeper, more profound connection forged by a common spiritual lineage and a shared ultimate allegiance. The logic of this unity rests on the belief that Christ himself is the head of the church, and all who are "in Christ" are, by definition, part of his body. This spiritual reality transcends human-made divisions and denominational structures, establishing a fundamental, underlying oneness that exists even amid visible fragmentation.

The Logic of Unity: Christ as the Foundation

The logic of unity among diverse theological backgrounds is centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Every major Christian denomination, regardless of its specific doctrines on sacraments, governance, or eschatology, affirms the core tenets of the Gospel: Jesus' divinity, his virgin birth, his sinless life, his sacrificial death on the cross for the atonement of sins, his bodily resurrection, and his eventual return. This shared confession of faith acts as the gravitational center, pulling believers from different traditions toward a common spiritual identity. The Apostle Paul’s writings, particularly in Ephesians, highlight this unity, stating that there is "one body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:4-6). This is the theological glue that binds believers together, creating a spiritual family that is larger and more encompassing than any single denomination. The unity isn't a human achievement but a divine reality, a gift received through faith in Christ.

The Importance of Unity for Believers

Unity is of paramount importance for believers in Christ because it is a powerful witness to the world. Jesus prayed for this very unity in John 17, stating, "that they may all be one... so that the world may believe that you have sent me." When the world sees Christians from different backgrounds and traditions loving and serving one another, it testifies to the transformative power of the Gospel. It demonstrates that the love of Christ is stronger than human differences and sectarian divisions. Furthermore, unity fosters strength and resilience within the church. A fragmented church is a weakened church, while a united church can more effectively carry out its mission of evangelism, discipleship, and social justice. This unity also reflects the very nature of the Trinity—three persons in one Godhead, a perfect example of diversity in unity.

The Church: Divided or United?

The church is both divided and united. Visibly, it is divided into thousands of denominations, each with its own doctrines, practices, and governance. These divisions are the result of historical schisms, theological disagreements, and cultural differences. However, spiritually, the church is one, as all who believe in Christ are part of the universal body of Christ. This dual reality means that while the church on earth appears fragmented, there is a deeper spiritual reality of unity that exists in the heavenly realms and among all true believers. The goal of Christian life is not to erase all denominational differences but to live in such a way that the spiritual unity of the church is made visible to the world, even amidst our distinct traditions.

The Holy Spirit’s Role in Unity

The Holy Spirit is the active agent of this unity. Paul describes the Holy Spirit as the one who "baptized us into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). The Spirit indwells every believer, knitting them together into a single spiritual organism. The Spirit also produces the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control—which are essential for maintaining harmonious relationships across denominational lines. The Spirit's work is not to homogenize believers into a single, uniform mold but to sanctify them, enabling them to live in love and mutual respect despite their differences. The Spirit is the common thread that runs through the tapestry of Christian faith, weaving together individual believers from different backgrounds into a cohesive whole.

Achieving Universal Church Unity

Achieving a visible, universal unity as a church is a continuous and intentional process. It begins with humility, recognizing that no single denomination holds a monopoly on truth. It requires a willingness to listen to and learn from other traditions, appreciating the unique gifts and insights they bring to the broader Christian faith. Ecumenical dialogues and inter-denominational partnerships are practical ways to foster this unity. Most importantly, it requires a focus on the essentials of the Christian faith, while holding non-essentials with an open hand. This means prioritizing the shared confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior over specific doctrines that are not central to salvation. By walking in love, pursuing mutual understanding, and being guided by the Holy Spirit, the universal church can move toward a more visible expression of the unity that Christ has already accomplished.

Division or Unity?

In Luke 12:49-56, Jesus's call for division is a theological and spiritual one, not a call for social discord or a break-up of the church. He was referring to the division between believers and non-believers, and the division within families that would inevitably occur when some members chose to follow him and others did not. This is a crucial distinction. The unity Jesus speaks of elsewhere is the spiritual unity of all believers in him, a unity that transcends worldly divisions and is based on a shared faith.

---

Division in Luke 12:49-56

In Luke 12, Jesus's words are a metaphor for the radical nature of the gospel. He states, "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!" and "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." The "fire" represents the judgment and purification that his coming would bring. The "division" he refers to is the consequence of people's response to him. It's a stark choice: either you are with him or against him. This decision would naturally create a rift between those who accept him and those who reject him, even within the same family. He goes on to say, "From now on, there will be five in one family divided against each other," emphasizing that the choice to follow him is so profound that it would sever even the closest human bonds. This division isn't something Jesus desires for its own sake, but rather an unavoidable outcome of the world's resistance to his truth.

---

Unity in Other Scriptures

In contrast, the unity Jesus advocates for is an internal, spiritual unity of believers. A prime example is his prayer in John 17, where he prays "that they may all be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."

This unity is modeled after the relationship within the Trinity itself. It's a call for the church to be united in purpose, love, and doctrine. This unity is not a worldly peace that avoids conflict, but a profound spiritual bond that exists among those who have been reconciled to God through Christ. The purpose of this unity is to serve as a testimony to the world of the power of the gospel.

---

The Difference in Context and Group

The key difference lies in the context and the groups of people Jesus is addressing.

• Luke 12:49-56: Jesus is speaking to the crowds and his disciples about the implications of his ministry for the world at large. The division he's talking about is the natural consequence of the gospel's impact on a world that is not yet ready to fully embrace it. The groups are believers versus non-believers.

• John 17 and other passages on unity: Jesus is praying specifically for his disciples and all future believers. The unity he desires is an internal reality within the body of Christ. The group is all those who have been redeemed by him. This is an exclusive unity for those within the faith, whereas the division he describes is an inclusive reality that applies to everyone in the world.

In short, the division is an external reality that separates the world, while the unity is an internal reality that binds the church.

Sowing Discord: The Heretical, Antichrist Nature of Church Dividers

In Scripture, the unity of Christ’s body is not an optional extra but the very will of God.  When someone deliberately sows discord—“dividing and splitting the church”—that person is acting contrary to Christ’s heart and teaching.  Such a divider can rightly be called a heretic and even an antichrist because of the devastating theological and relational damage these actions produce.

1. God’s Design Is One Body  

   From the earliest pages of the New Testament, unity is paramount.  Jesus prayed, “that they may all be one … that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21).  Paul echoes this, urging believers “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  There is one body and one Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3-4).  By trampling on this unity, a divider directly opposes the prayer of Christ and the apostolic vision for the church.

2. Division Marks False Teaching  

   John warns that “many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” (2 John 7).  These false teachers are called “antichrists” because they deny the core truth of the Gospel (1 John 2:22).  Division almost always follows error: when foundational doctrines are twisted, relationships fracture.  A heretic in the New Testament context (from the Greek hairesis) is literally someone who makes a choice—often a factional choice—and thus breaks the unity of the body.

3. The Apostle’s Remedy: Separation  

   Paul instructs the Roman believers: “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Romans 16:17).  He goes so far as to say that “in gatherings of the church, God’s people must not tolerate factions” (1 Corinthians 11:19 NLT).  Titus is even more pointed: “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him” (Titus 3:10).

4. Why Division Equals “Antichrist” Activity  

   To be “against Christ” is not only to preach a different Gospel but to undermine the very community He died to create.  Jesus declared, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30).  A divider scatters what Christ came to gather, and in doing so, adopts the posture of the adversary rather than the Savior.

5. Loving the Body Means Defending Its Truth  

   True pastoral love sometimes demands hard boundaries.  John makes this clear: “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God” (2 John 9).  To protect the flock, we must refuse hospitality to those who would disrupt the Gospel’s integrity (2 John 10–11).  Far from unloving, this tough love preserves the spiritual health and witness of the church.

In sum, by fracturing the body of Christ, a divider operates in the spirit of heresy and antichrist—not merely by differing in minor details, but by sabotaging the unity and core truth of the Gospel.  Guarding against such division is therefore both a defense of orthodoxy and an act of love toward our Lord and His people.

Christian Identity and the Unity of the Church‌

Christian Identity and the Unity of the Church‌

1. Who is a Christian?‌

A Christian is someone who confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God, believes in His death for humanity’s sins and His resurrection, and receives Him as Lord and Savior through repentance and faith (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10). This identity transcends denominational, cultural, or ethnic labels—it is defined by a personal relationship with Christ: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). A true Christian follows Christ’s teachings (John 14:15) and demonstrates love as the mark of discipleship (John 13:35).

2. The Gospel: The Foundation of Unity‌

While denominations like Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Brethren, and Methodists differ in worship styles, church governance, or secondary doctrines, the Gospel unites them in four essential truths:

The Core Narrative of Salvation‌ – All affirm Christ’s divinity and humanity, His atoning death, and bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

The Authority of Scripture‌ – Despite interpretive differences, all uphold the Bible as the final rule of faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sacramental Unity‌ – Baptism and Communion (though practiced differently) point to the same grace of Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6).

The Great Commission‌ – All share the mandate to preach the Gospel and serve the world (Matthew 28:19-20).

3. Pathways to Practical Unity‌

Focus on Essentials‌ – Agree on foundational doctrines (e.g., salvation by grace) while allowing liberty in secondary matters (Romans 14:1-6).

Collaborative Mission‌ – Partner in prayer, evangelism, and social justice, reflecting the "one body, many parts" principle (1 Corinthians 12:12).

Honor Diverse Traditions‌ – Appreciate each tradition’s strengths (e.g., Anglican liturgy, Baptist believer’s baptism, Methodist social holiness).

Conclusion‌

Christ did not found denominations—He founded the Church (Colossians 1:18). When believers humbly center on the Gospel, they fulfill Christ’s prayer: "That they may all be one… so that the world may believe" (John 17:21). True unity isn’t uniformity, but a shared allegiance to Jesus above all.

Benny Hinn Is My Uncle, but Prosperity Preaching Isn’t for Me

Almost 15 years ago, on a shoreline outside of Athens, Greece, I stood confident in my relationship with the Lord and my ministry trajectory. I was traveling the world on a private Gulfstream jet doing “gospel” ministry and enjoying every luxury money could buy. After a comfortable flight and my favorite meal (lasagna) made by our personal chef, we prepared for a ministry trip by resting at The Grand Resort: Lagonissi. Boasting my very own ocean-view villa, complete with private pool and over 2,000 square feet of living space, I perched on the rocks above the water’s edge and rejoiced in the life I was living. After all, I was serving Jesus Christ and living the abundant life he promised.

Little did I know that this coastline was part of the Aegean Sea—the same body of water the apostle Paul sailed while spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. There was just one problem: We weren’t preaching the same gospel as Paul.

Lavish Lifestyle

Growing up in the Hinn family empire was like belonging to some hybrid of the royal family and the mafia. Our lifestyle was lavish, our loyalty was enforced, and our version of the gospel was big business. Though Jesus Christ was still a part of our gospel, he was more of a magic genie than the King of Kings. Rubbing him the right way—by giving money and having enough faith—would unlock your spiritual inheritance. God’s goal was not his glory but our gain. His grace was not to set us free from sin but to make us rich. The abundant life he offered wasn’t eternal, it was now. We lived the prosperity gospel.

My father pastored a small church in Vancouver, British Columbia. During my teenage years, he would travel nearly twice a month with my uncle, Benny Hinn. Prosperity theology paid amazingly well. We lived in a 10,000-square-foot mansion guarded by a private gate, drove two Mercedes Benz vehicles, vacationed in exotic destinations, and shopped at the most expensive stores. On top of that, we bought a $2 million ocean-view home in Dana Point, California, where another Benz joined the fleet. We were abundantly blessed.

Throughout those years we faced countless criticisms from both inside and outside the church. Dateline NBC, The Fifth Estate (a Canadian news program), and other shows did investigative work. Well-known ministry leaders took to the airwaves warning people about our teachings, and local pastors told their congregations to steer clear of pulpits filled by a “Hinn.” At the time, I believed we were being persecuted like Jesus and Paul, and that our critics were just jealous of our blessings.

Within the family, we didn’t tolerate criticism. One day I asked my father if we could go heal my friend from school who had lost her hair due to cancer. He replied that we should pray for her at home rather than going to heal her. I thought to myself, Shouldn’t we be doing what the apostles did if we have the same gift? At that point, I didn’t question our ability to heal, but doubts began to stir about our motives. We only did healings in the crusades, where music created the atmosphere, money changed hands, and people approached us with the “right” amount of faith.

Other doubts would surface. What about unsuccessful healing attempts? I learned that it was the sick person’s fault for doubting God. Why would we speak in tongues without interpretation? “Don’t quench the Spirit,” I was told. “He can do what he wants.” Why did many of our prophecies contradict the Bible? “Don’t put God in a box.” Despite the questions, I trusted my family because we were so successful. Tens of thousands of people followed us, millions packed stadiums annually to hear my uncle. We healed the sick, performed miracles, rubbed elbows with celebrities, and got incredibly wealthy. God must be on our side!

Before going to college, I took a year off and joined Benny’s ministry as a “catcher” (someone who catches the people who are “slain in the spirit”) and personal assistant. This was a rite of passage in my family, as nearly every nephew worked for him at some point. It was a show of loyalty and gratitude. That year was a whirlwind tour of luxury: $25,000-a-night royal suites in Dubai, seaside resorts in Greece, tours of the Swiss Alps, villas on Lake Como in Italy, basking on the golden coast of Australia, shopping sprees at Harrods in London, and numerous trips to Israel, Hawaii, and everywhere in between. The pay was great, we flew on our own private Gulfstream, and I got to buy custom suits. All I had to do was catch people and look spiritual!

A Life-Changing Verse

After graduating college and returning home, I met my wife, Christyne. I had no idea that God would use her in bringing about my salvation. In fact, my family and I were nervous because she didn’t speak in tongues. We set out to fix that problem by having her attend one of Benny’s crusades, but nothing happened. Next, she attended a service at my home church in Vancouver, but that didn’t work either. Finally, she received some coaching at a youth conference, but she couldn’t manage more than a few mumbled syllables. I truly thought I could never marry her unless something changed.

Then one day she pointed to a verse I had never seen: 1 Corinthians 12:30 (“Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”). I was shaken to the core. There it was plain as day—not everybody has to speak in tongues. Soon, the domino effect began. Other longstanding beliefs were failing the biblical test. No longer did I believe that God’s purpose was to make me happy, healthy, and wealthy. Instead, I saw that he wanted me to live for him regardless of what I could get from him.

While struggling to strike out into ministry, I received a call from a pastor-friend who was planting a church in California, offering me a part-time youth pastor position. It seemed like a perfect place to learn and grow, so Christyne and I packed up and took a step of faith as newlyweds.

Soon after joining the staff, God put the final crack in my false belief system, and the truth came bursting forth like a wave of grace. One of my first preaching assignments was John 5:1–17—the healing at Bethesda. As I studied for the sermon, my pastor-friend gave me a trusted commentary. Then the Holy Spirit took over. The passage showed that Jesus healed one man out of a multitude, the man didn’t know who Jesus was, and the man was healed instantly!

This left three treasured beliefs in tatters. Isn’t it always God’s will to heal? No, Jesus only healed one man out of a multitude. Doesn’t God only heal people if they have enough faith? No, this crippled man didn’t even know who Jesus was (let alone have faith in him). Doesn’t healing require an anointed healer, special music, and an offering collection? No, Jesus healed instantly with a mere command. I wept bitterly over my participation in greedy ministry manipulation and my life of false teaching and beliefs, and I thanked God for his mercy and grace through Jesus Christ. My eyes were completely opened.

I am thankful that my wife was willing to question my insistence on speaking in tongues and that my pastor loved me enough to disciple me out of prosperity gospel confusion. I’ve seen how God uses evangelism and discipleship to transform lost souls into found saints. A Christian’s greatest ability is availability. When God’s people are willing to take a step of faith and speak the truth in love, lives are transformed and God is glorified. You never know who he might save through your faithfulness.

Costi Hinn is executive pastor at Mission Bible Church in Orange County, California.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2017/09/benny-hinn-costi-uncle-prosperity-preaching-testimony/

English Bible Translations Family Tree

 

Digital tool here: timeline

https://crossbible.com/timeline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GXowCfGMCs

Response to a Divisive Jeffrey Khoo

 1. The Danger of False Teachings and Division

Scripture is clear that spreading false doctrine is spiritually destructive. Paul warns in Galatians 1:6-9:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all... But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"

Jeffrey Khoo’s insistence on doctrines like "Perfect TR" or "KJV-Onlyism" (when elevated above biblical unity) risks creating unnecessary divisions. While textual debates have their place, Romans 16:17 instructs:

"I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."

2. The Sin of Schism in the Church

Christ’s prayer in John 17:20-23 emphasizes unity among believers as a testimony to the world. Deliberately splitting churches over secondary issues contradicts this. 1 Corinthians 1:10 admonishes:

"I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought."

If Jeffrey Khoo’s teachings cause strife rather than edification (Ephesians 4:3), he should heed Titus 3:10-11:

"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them, for such people are warped and sinful."

3. A Call to Repentance and Restoration

Jeffrey Khoo’s actions should be confronted with grace and truth (Matthew 18:15-17). 2 Timothy 2:24-25 reminds us:

"The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth."

True shepherds build up the flock (Acts 20:28), not fracture it for personal agendas. Let us pray for humility and correction, trusting in God’s Word as the ultimate authority.

J. Gresham Machen and KJV

“A version like the King James Version is not a substitute for the Greek New Testament. It is only a translation, and all translations are defective.”

— J. Gresham Machen, “The Importance of the Greek New Testament,” The Bible Today, October 1937

“If the Bible is to be read, it must be read in a language that people can understand.”

— Machen, “Christianity and Culture”

J. Gresham Machen, a prominent Presbyterian theologian, held a strong view on the importance of the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. He did not, however, promote a "King James Version (KJV) only" position.

Machen believed that the Bible is a supernatural revelation from God to man, an account of an event that is found nowhere else. He argued that the original authors of the biblical books were supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit, which preserved them from error. This means that the original writings, or "autographs," were "the very Word of God, completely true in what it says regarding matters of fact and completely authoritative in its commands."

When it came to translation, Machen made a clear distinction between the inspired original texts and any subsequent translation. He was well aware that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. In his talk, "Is the Bible the Word of God?", Machen directly addressed the idea of an inspired translation. He stated, "we believers in the plenary inspiration of the Bible do not hold that the Authorized Version or any other form of the English Bible is inspired." He went on to clarify, "The Authorized Version is a translation from the Hebrew and the Greek. It is a marvelously good translation, but it is not a perfect translation. There are errors in it. The translators were not supernaturally preserved from making mistakes. It is not inspired."

Machen's emphasis was on the importance of the original languages. He believed that to truly know what the Bible says, one must be able to read it in its original languages. He is quoted as saying, "If you are to tell what the Bible does say, you must be able to read the Bible for yourself. And you cannot read the Bible for yourself unless you know the languages in which it was written… In his mysterious wisdom [God] gave his [Word] to us in Hebrew and Greek. Hence, if we want to know the scriptures, to the study of Greek and Hebrew we must go."

Summary of Machen’s View on Bible Translation:

He did not support KJV-onlyism.

He saw the KJV as a valuable but imperfect translation.

He called for fidelity to the original Hebrew and Greek.

He encouraged translation into modern, understandable language.

He opposed liberal distortions, not newer translations per se.

In conclusion, Machen’s legacy in Bible translation reflects his high view of Scripture, commitment to accuracy, and pastoral concern for accessibility—not a rigid loyalty to the King James Version.

Fragments of Truth - (IMPORTANT)

 

Is the KJV Bible PERFECT?

 

What we Realize Now‌

What we Realize Now‌

We see us searching for the "purest Bible," debating ancient manuscripts like Alexandrian or Byzantine texts. But the Westminster Confession never promised a perfect Bible—and it never told us to worship the KJV alone. God’s truth is found in Christ, not in our arguments. We’ve forgotten Jesus’ own words: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6). The Spirit guides us into truth—not our scholarly battles.

What Breaks Our Heart‌s

The Church is splitting over small disagreements—like whether speaking in tongues is a "real language" or a heavenly prayer (1 Corinthians 14:2). Paul taught that spiritual gifts should unite us, yet we’ve turned them into tests of faith. We fight over minor issues while the world drowns in pain. Leaders quarrel, believers walk away, and the Gospel—the only hope for sinners—gets lost in the noise.

What We’ve Discovered‌

True unity isn’t about agreeing on every detail. We’ve seen it shine in quiet moments:

A Catholic nun praying with a Baptist pastor over a sick child.

African villagers singing the same hope I heard in a Korean seminary.

Even on the cross, Jesus saved two thieves who’d never debated theology. They simply turned to Him (Luke 23:43). That’s the power of the Gospel.

What We’ll Do Next‌

No more shouting. No more "us vs. them."

We’ll focus on Christ’s invitation‌—not our arguments.

When asked "What church?" We’ll say: "Just a follower of Jesus."‌ (Acts 11:26)

W’ll take God’s Word to the streets‌?

— Tomorrow, we are reading Mark 6 with refugees outside a mosque?

— We won’t debate Bible versions. We’ll ask: "What is Jesus saying to us here?"

The world doesn’t need perfect scholars. It needs imperfect Christians who love like He did.

Let us build bridges—not walls. The harvest is waiting.

The reliability of modern Bible translations

The reliability of modern Bible translations like the ‌NIV‌, ‌KJV‌, and ‌ESV‌ as the Word of God hinges on their translation philosophy, manuscript fidelity, and scholarly rigor—though all reflect human mediation in rendering ancient texts. Here’s a clear assessment:

1. ‌Translation Approaches & Fidelity‌

NIV (New International Version)‌:

Pursues a "balanced" approach between formal equivalence (word-for-word) and dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought)‌. Its 2011 revision updated language for modern clarity while maintaining accuracy through peer-reviewed scholarship‌. Some critics note occasional interpretive liberties in gender language or idioms‌.

ESV (English Standard Version)‌:

Prioritizes "essentially literal" translation, closely mirroring Hebrew/Greek syntax and vocabulary‌. It revises the Revised Standard Version (1971) to preserve theological precision, though its formal style can sacrifice readability‌.

KJV (King James Version)‌:

Based on the Textus Receptus (Byzantine manuscript tradition), its 1611 translation is celebrated for literary beauty but uses archaic language‌. Modern revisions like ‌NKJV‌ (1982) retain its structure while updating vocabulary‌.

2. ‌Manuscript Foundations‌

NIV/ESV‌: Primarily rely on ‌Alexandrian manuscripts‌ (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus), considered older but less numerous. Critical editions like Nestle-Aland guide their textual decisions‌.

KJV/NKJV‌: Depend on ‌Byzantine manuscripts‌, representing the majority of later manuscripts but criticized for possible scribal harmonizations‌.

3. ‌Are They Reliable as God’s Word?‌

Yes. All three aim to faithfully convey original meaning, using rigorous textual criticism to address variants‌. No major doctrine hinges solely on disputed passages.

However, ‌no translation is perfect‌:

NIV’s thought-for-thought method may simplify complex terms‌.

ESV’s literalism can obscure idioms (e.g., Hebrew metaphors)‌.

KJV relies on manuscripts with minor later additions (e.g., Mark 16:9–20)‌.

Conclusion

The ‌NIV‌, ‌ESV‌, and ‌KJV/NKJV‌ are ‌reliable‌ for conveying God’s Word when their translation philosophies and manuscript choices are understood. For study, comparing multiple versions (e.g., ESV for precision, NIV for clarity) mitigates individual limitations‌. Their shared commitment to original languages and scholarly collaboration affirms their trustworthiness, despite inevitable human mediation in transmission‌.

Reconstructing the Original Biblical Text

Scientific and Scholarly Methods for Reconstructing the Original Biblical Text

The quest to recover the autograph (original text) of the Bible faces challenges due to textual variants across the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western manuscript traditions. However, advancements in technology and interdisciplinary scholarship offer robust solutions in 2025 and beyond:

1. Comparative Textual Criticism

Stemmatic Analysis: Build a "family tree" of manuscripts to trace errors and identify the earliest recoverable archetype. Tools like the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) statistically weigh variants to prioritize readings closest to the original.

Cross-Tradition Collation: Digitally align parallel passages from Alexandrian (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus), Byzantine (Majority Text), and Western traditions to isolate scribal additions or omissions.

2. Advanced Material Analysis

Multispectral Imaging: Reveal erased or faded ink layers (e.g., palimpsests) to recover earlier text states. The Dead Sea Scrolls’ Enoch model combines radiocarbon dating and paleography to date fragments within ±25 years.

Ink and Papyrus Forensics: Analyze chemical composition to verify provenance and detect forgeries (e.g., suspiciously modern inks in "ancient" manuscripts).

3. AI-Assisted Reconstruction

Machine Learning Models: Train algorithms on thousands of manuscript images to predict original wording. For example, NLP models can flag statistically anomalous variants (e.g., singular readings) likely introduced by scribes.

Contextual Gap-Filling: AI like GPT-4 (with curated biblical training data) can suggest plausible reconstructions for lacunae (gaps) based on linguistic patterns in undisputed passages.

4. Ethical and Theological Safeguards

Transparency Protocols: Publish all digital reconstructions with variant annotations, allowing scholars to audit AI-generated proposals.

Interfaith Collaboration: Engage Jewish, Christian, and secular academies to mitigate doctrinal biases in textual decisions.

While the autographs remain physically lost, a convergence of textual criticism, material science, and AI offers an empirically grounded path to approximate the original scriptures. Future efforts must prioritize open-access databases (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library) and global scholarly cooperation to refine these methods further.

Here are key ‌ongoing international collaborations‌ working to reconstruct original biblical texts through digitization, textual criticism, and shared resources:

1. Sinai Palimpsests Project (St. Catherine’s Monastery, Egypt)‌

• ‌Partners‌: Library of Congress (USA), University of California Los Angeles (USA), Early Manuscripts Electronic Library (EMEL), Greek Orthodox Church.

• ‌Focus‌: Spectral imaging of ‌6th–11th century palimpsests‌ (erased/reused manuscripts) at St. Catherine’s Monastery. Over 160 manuscripts digitized, revealing lost texts in Syriac, Georgian, and Christian Palestinian Aramaic.

• ‌Tech‌: Multispectral imaging recovers obscured layers; data open-access via the Library of Congress.

2. Codex Sinaiticus Online Project‌

• ‌Partners‌: British Library (UK), Leipzig University Library (Germany), National Library of Russia, St. Catherine’s Monastery.

• ‌Focus‌: Full digitization of the 4th-century Greek ‌Codex Sinaiticus‌—the oldest complete New Testament.

• ‌Output‌: High-resolution scans + transcriptions published at codexsinaiticus.org.

3. The International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP)‌

• ‌Partners‌: University of Birmingham (UK), INTF (Germany), Duke University (USA), Münster University (Germany).

• ‌Focus‌: Collating ~5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts for a comprehensive critical edition.

• ‌Tools‌: AI-assisted textual variant analysis; data integrated into the NT.VMR (New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room).

4. Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library‌

• ‌Partners‌: Israel Antiquities Authority, Google (USA), Heidelberg Academy (Germany).

• ‌Focus‌: Digitizing all 25,000+ ‌Dead Sea Scrolls‌ fragments (~1,000 manuscripts) at 1210 dpi resolution.

• ‌Access‌: Free public database: www.deadseascrolls.org.il.

5. Digital Gəʿəz (Ethiopic Manuscript Archives)‌

• ‌Partners‌: Hill Museum & Manuscript Library (USA), EOTC (Ethiopia), Universität Hamburg (Germany).

• ‌Focus‌: Preserving 200,000+ pages of Ethiopic biblical manuscripts, including rare ‌Jubilees‌ and ‌1 Enoch‌ texts.

• ‌Platform‌: Manuscripts accessible via vHMML Reading Room.

6. China-LAC Digital Silk Road (2025 Initiative)‌

• ‌Partners‌: Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage, National Libraries of Chile/Mexico/Brazil.

• ‌Focus‌: Sharing digitization standards for ancient texts; joint training in spectral imaging/AI analysis.

• ‌Goal‌: Cross-continental digital archives integrating Silk Road manuscripts with global collections.

These projects leverage ‌open-data protocols‌, ‌machine learning‌, and ‌global academic networks‌ to reconstruct the earliest biblical texts. Collaborative platforms like the NT.VMR and Digital Dead Sea Scrolls exemplify how shared digital infrastructure accelerates textual recovery.

No single manuscript is perfect

Based on Bart Ehrman's arguments in Misquoting Jesus, the claim that ‌no single manuscript tradition (Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western) is perfect‌ stems from the realities of how the New Testament texts were transmitted for over 1,400 years—entirely by hand. Ehrman details how this process inevitably introduced variations due to human error and intentional changes. Here's a breakdown of why each major text type has imperfections:

The Alexandrian Text-Type:‌

Characteristics:‌ Generally considered the oldest surviving text-type by scholars, often shorter and more stylistically "rough." Associated with centers like Alexandria, Egypt.

Imperfections:‌ While often valued for its antiquity, it is ‌not free from scribal errors or alterations‌. Scribes copying Alexandrian texts still made accidental mistakes (misspellings, omissions due to similar words/lines, additions). Furthermore, some scribes within this tradition might make intentional "corrections" to grammar, perceived theological ambiguities, or harmonizations with parallel passages, believing they were restoring the original meaning or improving clarity. Ehrman argues that the perceived "roughness" itself can sometimes be the result of earlier scribal errors preserved in this lineage. No surviving Alexandrian manuscript is identical to another in all details, demonstrating inherent variation.

The Byzantine Text-Type (Majority Text):‌

Characteristics:‌ Became the dominant text-type in the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire from around the 5th century onwards. Characterized by greater smoothness, grammatical consistency, and harmonization between parallel Gospel accounts. Forms the basis of the Textus Receptus used for the KJV.

Imperfections:‌ Its primary flaw, according to textual critics like Ehrman, is that it often represents a later, ‌heavily edited and smoothed-over form of the text‌. Scribes within this tradition frequently:

Harmonized‌ accounts (e.g., making different Gospel stories tell the same event with exactly the same words).

Resolved perceived difficulties‌ or ambiguities in the text by choosing the clearer or more theologically "orthodox" reading.

Conflated readings‌ (combining variant readings from different earlier manuscripts into one longer text).

While consistent and readable, these characteristics often reflect scribal choices made centuries after the originals, obscuring earlier, potentially more authentic (and sometimes more difficult) readings found in older Alexandrian or Western witnesses. Its "perfection" is largely a result of standardization and conflation, not fidelity to the very earliest texts.

The Western Text-Type:‌

Characteristics:‌ Associated with early centers like Rome, Gaul, and North Africa. Known for being paraphrastic, expansive, and prone to significant additions and interpretive glosses. Often found in early Latin and Syriac translations and some Greek manuscripts.

Imperfections:‌ This text-type is frequently cited by Ehrman and textual critics as containing the ‌most dramatic and extensive intentional alterations‌. Scribes in this tradition felt greater freedom to:

Add explanatory details‌ or dialogue not present in other traditions, often to clarify a story's meaning or enhance its drama.

Introduce harmonizations and paraphrases‌ on a larger scale.

Include ‌significant additions‌ (e.g., the famous longer ending of Mark or the story of the woman taken in adultery in John, which are largely absent from the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts).

These changes, while sometimes theologically motivated or aimed at edification, represent substantial departures from what we determine to be the earliest recoverable text forms. They illustrate the fluidity of the text in certain locales and the active role scribes played in shaping its content.

Why Ehrman Rejects "Perfection" in Any Tradition

Human Agency: Scribal errors and edits permeate all traditions. For example:

Accidental: Nomina sacra abbreviations (e.g., "ⲓ̅ⲥ̅" for "Jesus") led to omissions.

Intentional: Anti-Judaic edits (e.g., accentuating Jewish "blindness" in John) or suppression of women’s roles (e.g., downplaying Junia as an apostle in Romans 16:7) 11.

No "Original" Manuscript Survives: Reconstruction relies on comparing flawed copies. Even early papyri (e.g., 𝔓66) contain errors 19.

Theological Bias: "Proto-orthodox" scribes altered texts to enforce uniformity against rivals like Gnostics 911.

Why No Tradition is "Perfect":‌

Accidental Errors:‌ All traditions suffered from inevitable copying mistakes like misspellings, skipped lines (haplography), repeated lines (dittography), mishearing (if dictated), or misreading similar-looking letters. These errors compounded over generations.

Intentional Changes:‌ Scribes across all traditions sometimes altered the text deliberately. Motivations included:

Correcting perceived grammatical or historical errors.

Harmonizing discrepancies between accounts (especially Gospels).

Clarifying ambiguous statements.

Updating language or place names.

Making the text theologically "clearer," "more orthodox," or doctrinally stronger based on the scribe's own beliefs or controversies of their time.

Adding material believed to be authentically apostolic or edifying (especially prominent in the Western text).

Lack of Originals:‌ Some people works backwards from thousands of later manuscripts. No surviving manuscript, regardless of text-type, is an original autograph. Each is a copy (or a copy of a copy...) made centuries later, already potentially containing layers of accumulated variations from earlier copying stages.

Diversity of Witnesses:‌ The sheer number of variants (hundreds of thousands) found across all manuscript traditions demonstrates that no single stream of transmission perfectly preserved the original wording in every instance. Differences exist within each tradition and between the traditions.

Ehrman shows by comparison:

All textual traditions experience "survival bias": most surviving codices are from the post-4th century institutionalized church, and early diversity was systematically filtered out

Modifications are patterned: 75% of the variations occurred in the first 300 years of transmission, coinciding with the process of institutionalization of the Church.

Reconstruction of the "original text" is essentially a game of probability: the current 28th edition of the Greek text of Nestle-Aland contains more than 300 doubtful annotations.

Conclusion:‌

Ehrman's point in Misquoting Jesus is not that the New Testament's message is entirely lost, but that the ‌process of manual transmission over centuries inherently introduced variations and alterations.‌ None of the major manuscript families (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western) escaped this process unscathed. The Alexandrian text is valuable for its antiquity but contains its own errors; the Byzantine text is smooth and standardized but often reflects later editorial choices; the Western text is paraphrastic and expansive, containing significant interpretive additions. Textual criticism is thus necessary to sift through these imperfect manuscripts and variants to reconstruct the most likely original text where possible. The absence of a single "perfect" manuscript tradition underscores the human dimension involved in preserving these sacred texts.

Ehrman’s work exposes the New Testament as a human-curated document shaped by historical contingencies—not a perfectly preserved artifact. While the Alexandrian text is favored by critics for antiquity, and the Byzantine for ecclesiastical continuity, all traditions bear scribal fingerprints. This reality invites humility: the New Testament’s authority derives not from textual inerrancy but from its enduring theological and historical resonance 1711.

"The Bible is a very human book... with human opinions and biases." — Bart Ehrman