THE PERFECT BIBLE OR THE PERFECT VERSION?

THE PERFECT BIBLE OR THE PERFECT VERSION?

(Shifting from the original B-P position)

The perfect Bible is acceptable in the Christian Church. We must have a perfect Bible. Our Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. This is seen in the original copies of the Old and New Testament, written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) which is known as the Autographs. This has always been the Bible-Presbyterian position since it's founding in 1950. The founding father of the B-P Church, Rev Timothy Tow, has taught us in the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) this wonderful truth.

"Men talk of "mistakes of Scripture." I thank God that I have never met any. Mistakes of translation there may be, for translators are men. But mistakes of the original word there never can be, for the God who spoke it is infallible, and so is every word he speaks, and in that confidence we find delight"

C. H. Spurgeon

Only the original copies of the OT and NT are the inspired Word of God. Throughout the centuries, God has, in His infinite wisdom kept for us the Word of God. The preservation of the Bible is an amazing truth. We have the Bible in our hands today. Bible translators have done an amazing job in producing for us the Word of God in its entirety. We have in our hands the perfect Word of God. We believe we have the perfect Bible, but not the perfect version!

A Perfect Version?

There seems to be a shift today in the B-P Church (certain B-P Church) that says that the perfect Bible has reference to the King James Version (KJV). Proponents of this view say that God has preserved for the English-speaking world, a perfect Bible in the KJV. Thus it is the perfect Bible to them. This version is like the original autographs, because they say that the Greek text, which was used for the English translation into KJV, is the "inspired" one. They have even gone as far as to say that every Bible translation must use the Greek text which produced the KJV. So if any Bible today that does not use this Greek text in the translations, these Bibles are considered corrupt versions/Bibles and they speak of another Jesus.

A Strange Teaching

This is a strange teaching. For more than 50 years the B-P Church has understood that the original Hebrew and Greek texts were the inspired Word of God. FEBC championed this truth. The founding father of the B-P Church taught his students this doctrine. Today everything has changed and we are told that the autographs have been preserved (in a photo-copied manner) for us in the Greek text which underlines the KJV. Where did this strange idea come from? Have the founding father and FEBC change their doctrine? It looks like it.

A Plea from B-P Pastors

In October 2002, five B-P pastors: the late Rev (Dr) Burt Subramaniam, Rev Anthony Tan, Rev Tan Choon Seng, Rev Yap Beng Shin and myself met up with Rev Timothy Tow and Mrs Tow. Five of us pastors shared with Rev Tow our concern that FEBC was heading towards an extreme view (KJV-Only view). We asked him to stop certain people from advocating this view, and we expressed our fear to him that the B-P church is heading towards another split if nothing is being done to nip this problem in the bud.

We were trained in FEBC. We have the highest respect for the principal, Rev Tow. We love FEBC. It was the college that gave us the fundamentals of the Christian faith. We do not wish to see the college take an extreme view and we do not wish to see another split in the B-P church.

We grew up with the Bible-Presbyterian Church. I was with Galilee BPC since 1960. Having been in the Synod of the BPC we have seen many problems and splits in our denomination and we do not wish to see another one taking place over a strange and unbiblical teaching.

We have done our part to express our feelings and to warn of an impending split, which may occur if nothing is done by the founding father of the B-P movement and the principal of FEBC over this extreme belief. We are seeing the effect of this strange teaching today.

God's Word with Us Today

Throughout the centuries, godly men have given the Christian church the Bible in their own language (German, English etc). Even before the KJV came into existence in 1611, there were many Bibles (translations) done for the common people to read. Don't tell me those people in the days of Luther and Tyndale never had the Bible until the KJV was printed? It is absurd.

Today, many Bible translators are doing their best to produce for the church a readable Bible in the language of the common people. Many newer manuscripts have been discovered since the days of Erasmus who used the Greek text which underlines the KJV.

Language change! The KJV of 1611 can never be understood today therefore the KJV went through several changes to update the language. Its language is too difficult for the common people to appreciate and understand even in today's context. I have a problem understanding it too. I have used the KJV all my Christian life.

The literal, word for word translation of the KJV also has its setback. The meaning cannot be easily understood (see Ruth 2: 3; 3: 16). It becomes a burden to read the Bible instead. I am not suggesting that we replace the KJV for the B-P church or for our own church. There are many good Bible versions/translations other than the KJV only. It is not wrong for any Christian to consult these versions to get a clear translation or meaning. Reading the Bible must be a joy, not a burden.

There are many good Bible versions today, like the New King James Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV) etc. Why deprive God's people from reading the Bible if they don't like the KJV or if they do not understand it?

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in the days of the dark ages refused to let their church members read the Bible in other languages except in the Latin (Vulgate Bible). This is similar with what is happening in Christendom today with KJV-Only proponents.

Do not Judge Others

KJV-Only proponents tend to be judgmental of others who do not use the KJV only. One of their methods is name-calling (neo-fundamental, neo-evangelical, liars etc.). They think they are the only ones with the truth (KJV Bible only). They can be merciless when it comes to dealing with those who do not take their view. Their obsession with the KJV Only will drive them to talk and write about this subject all year round. It seems that the KJV is to be defended even with their life.

This is strange that one should give his/her whole heart to a version. My greatest fear for such people is that they will become a KJV-Only cult.

The In-Fighting Must Stop

The B-P church can't go on like this. The in-fighting must stop. As it is, we have already split so many times from within. Now comes this strange idea. When will we ever be united again? When will we come together as we were in the heydays of the 70s, when the B-P Church was the fastest growing denomination in Singapore.

The name-calling must stop. The judgmental attitude must give way to brotherly love. John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Heaven is not compartmentalized. There is no section for the KJV-Only people or the B-Ps only. You will find a Baptist there, and a Christian who uses a NKJV or a NASB etc.

"And be at peace among yourselves" (I Thess. 5: 13)

Rev Tan Eng Boo

(June 2005)

Please show me your perfect NT manuscript and your perfect Bible translation

The Myth of the "Perfect" Manuscript

To be direct: No, there is no single "perfect" New Testament manuscript. Every single hand-copied manuscript we possess (out of the 5,800+ Greek fragments and codices) contains some form of variation—whether it’s a simple spelling error, a skipped line, or a deliberate theological clarification by a scribe.

The "Big Three" Heavyweights

While none are "perfect" (flawless), these are the closest we get to the "best" or most complete early witnesses:

Manuscript	Date (Approx.)	Why it matters
Codex Sinaiticus	mid-4th Century	The oldest complete New Testament. It was found in a monastery at Mt. Sinai.
Codex Vaticanus	mid-4th Century	Extremely accurate and highly regarded by scholars for its purity of text.
Codex Alexandrinus	5th Century	A massive volume that represents a slightly later text-type (Byzantine) in the Gospels.

The Reality: We don't have the "Autographs" (the original letters written by Paul or the Gospel authors). What we have is a "wealth of error"—so many copies that by comparing them, scholars can reconstruct the original text with about 99% certainty.

Is there a "Perfect" Bible Translation?

In the world of linguistics, "perfect" is a tricky word. A translation is always a balance of trade-offs.

• Formal Equivalence (Word-for-Word): Translations like the NASB or ESV stay close to the Greek structure but can feel "clunky" in English.

• Dynamic Equivalence (Thought-for-Thought): Translations like the NIV or NLT are highly readable but involve more interpretation by the translators.

The Verdict: There is no perfect translation because Greek and English don't map onto each other 1:1. The "best" translation is often the one you actually read, supplemented by a second one from a different philosophy to see the range of meaning.

KJV and Textual Preservation

Lets be honest about how the Bible came to us.

Because the biblical autographs no longer exist, because the text was transmitted through centuries of hand-copying by many scribes, and because all English Bibles—including the KJV—are translations from those copies, it is impossible for the King James Version to be 100% identical with the original autographs. Therefore, the claim that the KJV is the only true Bible is historically, textually, and theologically indefensible.

Now let’s build that case carefully.

First, the nature of the autographs.

The autographs were the original documents written by Moses, the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles. Scripture itself never promises that these physical documents would be preserved forever. No church father ever claimed to possess them. No manuscript tradition claims to be an autograph. They disappeared very early, likely through normal wear, persecution, and time. What God preserved was not parchment, but the text through copying. Preservation happened providentially, not miraculously frozen in a single manuscript or language.

Second, scribal transmission across centuries.

From the first century onward, Scripture was copied by hand. Faithful scribes, yes—but human scribes nonetheless. We know this because we can see the results: spelling differences, word order changes, harmonizations, marginal notes later entering the text, accidental omissions, and occasional deliberate clarifications. This is not an attack on Scripture; it is the raw data of manuscript evidence. If copying were perfectly identical every time, textual criticism would not exist—and neither would manuscript families like Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western. The very existence of variants proves that no single later copy can be equated with the autograph.

Third, the Greek and Hebrew texts behind the KJV.

The Old Testament of the KJV relies on the Masoretic Text tradition available in the early 17th century. Valuable, yes—but not exhaustive. We now possess older witnesses like the Dead Sea Scrolls, which sometimes confirm the Masoretic Text and sometimes preserve earlier readings. The New Testament of the KJV is based largely on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus, a printed Greek text compiled from a small number of late medieval manuscripts. Erasmus himself admitted its limitations and revised it multiple times. To claim that this particular stage of the Greek text is uniquely perfect requires a doctrine of preservation that Scripture never states and history explicitly contradicts.

Fourth, translation is interpretation.

The KJV is not the Bible in its original form; it is an English translation produced in 1611 by a committee of scholars working within the linguistic, textual, and theological constraints of their time. Translation always involves choices. English words do not map one-to-one with Hebrew and Greek. Grammar, idiom, tense, and nuance must be interpreted. This is true for the KJV just as it is for every modern translation. To say the KJV is perfect English is one claim; to say it is identical to the autograph is a category mistake. A translation, by definition, cannot be the original.

Fifth, the theological problem with KJV-Onlyism.

The KJV-Only position quietly shifts authority from God’s inspired Word to a particular English edition produced in a specific historical moment. That move creates several contradictions. It implies that the church lacked a perfect Bible until 1611. It implies that non-English-speaking Christians never had full access to God’s Word. It implies that preservation is tied to one language, despite Scripture being written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. None of this aligns with biblical theology or church history.

Sixth, preservation does not require perfection in one translation.

The biblical doctrine of preservation teaches that God has faithfully preserved His Word across the total manuscript tradition, not locked it into one textual form or translation. The message of Scripture—its doctrines, gospel, commands, and promises—has not been lost. No cardinal doctrine depends on a disputed textual variant. That is the miracle: despite human copying and translation, the Word of God remains clear, sufficient, and authoritative. Preservation is robust, not brittle.

Seventh, honoring the KJV without idolizing it.

The King James Version is a monumental achievement. It shaped English Christianity, theology, hymnody, and preaching for centuries. It is reverent, literarily rich, and often remarkably accurate. Rejecting KJV-Onlyism does not mean rejecting the KJV. It means refusing to make it something it never claimed to be. The translators themselves explicitly denied perfection and welcomed future revisions. Ironically, KJV-Onlyism contradicts the theology of the KJV translators.

Conclusion.

The claim that the King James Version is the only true Bible collapses under the weight of history, manuscript evidence, translation theory, and theology. It confuses preservation with uniformity, inspiration with translation, and reverence with rigidity. A high view of Scripture does not require denying reality; it requires trusting that God works through real history, real languages, and real people. The authority of Scripture rests in the God who gave it, not in one English rendering of it.

That position does not weaken Scripture. It actually honors it.

Why "House of Prayer" and not "House of the Bible"?

The phrase "My house shall be called a house of prayer" comes from Isaiah 56:7 and was famously quoted by Jesus in Matthew 21:13 when he cleared the Temple.

1. Why "House of Prayer" and not "House of the Bible"?

The most practical reason is historical: The Bible as we know it didn't exist yet. During the time of the Prophets and Jesus, "scripture" consisted of scrolls kept in chests.

The goal of the Temple wasn't just to study a text, but to facilitate a living encounter with God.

Prayer is the act of relational communion. A "house of the Bible" suggests a library or a classroom; a "house of prayer" suggests a throne room where the King meets His people.

2. Prayer in the Temple, Synagogue, and Early Church

Throughout biblical history, the physical space for God’s people was defined by the act of calling upon His name.

The Temple (The Sacrificial Era)

In the Old Testament, the Temple was the "footstool" of God. While sacrifices were central, they were always accompanied by prayer.

Example: At the dedication of the First Temple, King Solomon offered a massive prayer (1 Kings 8), asking God to hear the people whenever they prayed toward that place.

The Incense: The burning of incense on the Golden Altar was a physical representation of the prayers of the saints rising to heaven (Psalm 141:2).

The Synagogue (The Exile & Diaspora)

When the Temple was destroyed and Jews were in exile, the Synagogue emerged. Since they couldn't offer animal sacrifices, prayer became the "sacrifice of the lips."

Example: In the New Testament, we see Jesus and Paul entering synagogues not just to read the scrolls (Luke 4:16), but to participate in the proseuche (the Greek word for prayer/prayer-house).

The Early Church (The Apostolic Era)

The first Christians transitioned from the Temple to "house churches." Their gatherings were defined by four pillars.

Acts 2:42: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers."

Example: In Acts 12, when Peter was imprisoned, the "house of Mary" became a house of prayer where the church gathered for earnest intercession.

3. The Shift to "Idolatry" in Church History

The early Roman Catholic Church going beyond these biblical precedents. From a critical or Reformation-era perspective, the argument is that as the Church became institutionalized, it shifted from direct prayer to God to mediated prayer through objects and icons.

Here are three ways critics argue the early/medieval Church moved into "idolatry":

Practice	Biblical Precedent	The "Departure" (Critique)
Veneration of Icons	Use of Cherubim in the Tabernacle (strictly as decor).	The Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) sanctioned the bowing before and kissing of images/icons.
The Cult of Relics	Elisha’s bones bringing a man to life (2 Kings 13:21).	The belief that physical pieces of saints (bones, hair) held intrinsic power, leading to the "adoration" of objects.
Prayer to Saints	Asking living brothers/sisters to pray for you (James 5:16).	Praying to deceased believers as "intercessors," which critics argue violates 1 Timothy 2:5 (Christ as the sole mediator).

The "Golden Calf" Parallel

The critique is often that the Church, like the Israelites at Sinai, wanted something tangible to look at. Instead of the invisible God reached through prayer, the "House of Prayer" became filled with statues, relics, and ornate "sacramentals" that many felt obscured the simplicity of the Gospel.

It is a fascinating irony to explore. While many Protestant traditions—particularly those within the "KJV-Only" movement—pride themselves on having stripped away the "idols" of Roman Catholicism (statues, beads, and relics), critics argue they have simply replaced wooden icons with paper ones.

This is often referred to as Bibliolatry: the act of worshiping the Bible itself rather than the God who inspired it.

1. What is Bibliolatry?

Bibliolatry occurs when the Bible is no longer treated as a map to lead you to God, but as the destination itself.

In a "House of Prayer," the focus is on a living conversation with a present Spirit. In a "House of Bibliolatry," the focus shifts to the mechanical mastery of a text. If the text becomes the object of veneration, the "Letter" begins to kill the "Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

2. KJV-Onlyism as a "Protestant Icon"

The KJV-Only movement (the belief that the 1611 King James Version is the only perfect, inspired Word of God for English speakers) can mirror the very "idolatry" they often condemn in the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholic Practice (Traditional Critique)	KJV-Only Parallel (Bibliolatry)
Veneration of Relics: Believing a physical object (like a bone) has divine power.	Veneration of the 1611 Text: Believing the 17th-century ink and paper hold "advanced revelation" beyond the original Greek/Hebrew.
Sacred Language: The belief that Latin is the "holy" language of the Mass.	Sacred Language: The belief that "Early Modern English" (Thees/Thous) is the specific dialect of God.
Intermediation: Needing a priest or icon to access God.	Textual Intermediation: Placing a specific translation between the believer and the original meaning of the text.
Infallibility: The Pope is considered "ex cathedra" infallible.	Translational Infallibility: The 1611 translators are treated as having been "re-inspired," effectively making them equal to the Apostles.

3. The "House of the Bible" vs. The "House of Prayer"

If a church becomes a "House of the Bible" (in a Bibliolatrous sense), the following shifts occur:

Prayer becomes secondary to Pedantry: Instead of "calling upon the name of the Lord," the service becomes an academic or legalistic exercise in "rightly dividing" a specific version of the Word.

The Bible becomes a Talisman: People carry the KJV not just to read it, but as a symbol of spiritual safety or "correctness," much like a traveler might have carried a saint's medallion in the Middle Ages.

The "Closed System": In a House of Prayer, God can speak, move, and surprise. In Bibliolatry, God is "trapped" within the pages of a 400-year-old translation; He is not allowed to say anything that wasn't captured by King James’s scholars.

The Key Distinction: Idolatry is essentially taking a good thing (a statue of a saint, or a beautiful translation of the Bible) and making it the ultimate thing. 

4. The Biblical Warning

Jesus actually confronted the first "Bibliolaters"—the Pharisees—with this exact problem in John 5:39-40:

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

He was essentially saying: "You’ve turned the 'House of Prayer' into a 'House of the Text,' and you’re missing the Person the text is talking about."

5. The Conclusion

In conclusion, the designation of God’s dwelling as a "House of Prayer" rather than a "House of the Bible" serves as a profound guardrail against the human tendency toward idolatry. Whether that idolatry takes the form of physical icons in a cathedral or a specific English translation in a pew, the root issue remains the same: the substitution of the Medium for the Message.

Key Synthesis of the Research

The Relational Priority: Scripture was always intended to be the invitation to a conversation, not the conversation itself. When the "House of Prayer" becomes a "House of the Book," the living voice of God is often muffled by the rustling of pages and the rigid boundaries of human linguistics.

The Universal Trap of Idolatry: The early Roman Catholic transition toward relics and icons was an attempt to make the divine tangible.

The KJV-Only movement’s elevation of a 1611 text to "re-inspired" status is a mirrored attempt to make the divine containable.

Both paths risk creating a "paper" or "wooden" mediator that replaces the direct, spiritual communion Jesus established.

The Bibliolatry Paradox: To worship the Bible is actually to disobey it. Since the Bible points relentlessly toward the Person of Christ and the necessity of Spirit-led prayer, focusing on the ink and paper at the expense of the "House of Prayer" creates a theological "golden calf" out of the very tool meant to destroy idols.

Final Thought

The "House of Prayer" is a space defined by presence, while a "House of the Bible" (in the context of Bibliolatry) is defined by precedent. True worship, as modeled by the early church, uses the scriptures as a lamp to find the way into the throne room, but it doesn't stop at the doorway to worship the lamp.