The denomination of Bible-Presbyterian Church is divided into 4 groups

The denomination of Bible-Presbyterian Church is divided into 4 groups:

1. Evangelical

2. Charismatic

3. Reformed

4. Fundamentalist

Some Fundamentalists have followed the false teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation. This false teaching divides and causes suffering within the Bible Presbyterian Church that is why we said this false teaching is a heresy. The writer's objective is to see people repent of this heresy. I pray those Fundamentalists who are teaching this heresy could stop attacking the Evangelical, the Charismatic and the Reformed, even live in peace with all men.

It is by emphasizing core Christian beliefs, promoting mutual respect, practicing biblical hospitality, prioritizing love and service, and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this diverse Bible-Presbyterian Church can experience greater unity and thrive in Christ.

May God help us.

The Preface of Scrivener's New Testament in Greek written by himself on Christmas 1880

THE NEW TESTAMENT

IN GREEK

ACCORDING TO THE TEXT FOLLOWED IN

THE AUTHORISED VERSION TOGETHER

WITH THE VARIATIONS ADOPTED IN

THE REVISED VERSION

EDITED BY

F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.

CAMBRIDGE:

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1908

First Edition 1881

Reprinted 1881 (twice), 1883, 1884, 1886, 1890, 1908.

 

PREFACE

THE special design of this volume is to place clearly before the reader the variations from the Greek text represented by the Authorised Version of the New Testament which have been embodied in the Revised Version. One of the Rules laid down for the guidance of the Revisers by a Committee appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury was to the effect “that, when the Text adoped differs from that from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.” As it was found that a literal observance of this direction would often crowd and obscure the margin of the Revised Version, the Revisers judged that its purpose might be better carried out in another manner. They therefore communicated to the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses a full and carefully corrected list of the readings adopted which are at variance with the readings “presumed to underlie the Authorised Version,” in order that they might be published independently in some shape or other. the University Presses have accordingly undertaken to print them in connexion with complete Greek texts of the New Testament. The responsibility of the Revisers does not of course extend beyond the list which they have furnished.

The form here chosen has been thought by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press to be at once the most convenient in itself, and the best fitted for giving a true representation of the Revisers’ work. In their Preface the Revisers explain that it did not fall within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek text. Wherever a variation in the Greek was of such a nature that it could properly affect the English rendering, they had to decide between the competing readings: but in most other cases they refrained from spending time on work not needed for the purposes of an English translation. It was therefore impossible to print a continuous Greek text which should include the readings certified as adopted by the Revisers, without borrowing all the intervening portions from some printed text which had not undergone their revision, and in which, to judge by analogy, they would doubtless have found many readings to disapprove. It is true that all variations in this unrevised part of the text must from the nature of the case be comparatively unimportant: but they include many differences of order and grammatical form expressive of shades and modifications of meaning which no careful reader would neglect in studying the Greek original. The Cambridge Press has therefore judged it best to set the readings actually adopted by the Revisers at the foot of the page, and to keep the continuous text consistent throughout by making it so far as was possible uniformly representative of the Authorised Version. The publication of an edition formed on this plan appeared to be all the more desirable, inasmuch as the Authorised Version was not a translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and no Greek text intended to reporduce in any way the original of the Authorised Version has ever been printed.

In considering what text had the best right to be regarded as “the text presumed to underlie the Authorised Version,” it was necessary to take into account the composite nature of the Authorised Version, as due to successive revisions of Tyndale’s translation. Tyndale himself followed the second and third editions of Erasmus’s Greek text (1519, 1522). In the revisions of his translation previous to 1611 a partial use was made of other texts; of which ultimately the most influential were the various editions of Beza from 1560 to 1598, if indeed his Latin version of 1556 should not be included. Between 1598 and 1611 no important edition appeared; so that Beza’s fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James’s revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach. It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorised Version than any other Greek text; and accordingly it has been adopted by the Cambridge Press as the primary authority. There are however many places in which the Authorised Version is at variance with Beza’s text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. In these cases it is often doubtful how far the revisers of 1611 deliberately preferred a different Greek reading; for their attention was not specially directed to textual variations, and they might not have thorugh it necessary to weed out every rendering inconsistent with Beza’s text, which might linger among the older and unchanged portions of the version. On the other hand some of the readings followed, though discrepant from Beza’s text, may have seemed to be in a manner sanctioned by him as he had spoken favourably of them in his notes; and others may have been adopted on independent grounds. These uncertainties do not however affect the present edition, in which the different elements that actually make up the Greek basis of the Authorised Version have an equal right to find a place. Wherever therefore the Authorised renderings agree with other Greek readings which might naturally be known through printed editions to the revisers of 1611 or their predecessors, Beza’s reading has been displaced from the text in favour of the more truly representative reading, the variation form Beza being indicated *. It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek  original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate. All variations from Beza’s text of 1598, in number about 190, are set down in an appendix at the end of the volume, together with the authorities on which they repsectively rest.

Wherever a Greek reading adopted for the Revised Version differs from the presumed Greek original of the Authorised Version, the reading which it is intended to displace is preinted in the text in a thicker type, with a numerical reference to the reading substituted by the Revisers, which bears the same numeral at the foot of the pages. Alternative readings are given in the margin by the Revisers in places “in which, for the present, it would not” in their judgement “be safe to accept one reading to the absolute exclusion of others,” provided that the differences seemed to be of sufficient interest or importance to deserve notice. These alternative readings, which are more than 400 in number, are distinguished by the notation Marg. or marg. In the Revised Version itself the marginal notes in which a secondary authority is thus given to readings not adopted in the text almost always take the form of statements of evidence, and the amount of evidence in each instance is to a certain extent specified in general terms. No attempt however has in most cases been made to express differences in the nature or the amount of this authority in the record of marginal readings at the foot of the page. For such details the reader will naturally turn to the margin of the Revised Version itself.

The punctuation has proved a source of much anxiety. The Authorised Version as it was originally printed in 1611, rather than as it appears in any later edition, has been taken as a primary guide. Exact reproduction of the English punctuation in the Greek text was however precluded by the differences of grammatical structure between the two languages. It was moreover desirable to punctuate in a manner not inconsistent with the punctuation of the Reivsed Version, wherever this could be done without inconvenience, as punctuation does not strictly belong to textual variation. Where however the difference of punctuation between the two Versions is incompatible with identical punctuation in the Greek, the stops proper for the Authorised Version are given in the text, with a numerical reference, without change of type, to the other method set forth in the foot-notes. Mere changes in punctuation, not consequent on change of reading, are discriminated from the rest by being set withi marks of parenthesis ( ) at the foot of the  page. The notes that thus refer exclusively to stops are about 157.

The paragraphs into which the body of the Greek text is here divided are those of the Revised Version, the numerals relating to chapters and verses being banished to the margin. The marks which indicate the beginning of paragraphs in the Authorised Version do not seem to have been inserted with much care, and cease altogether after Acts xx.36: nor would it have been expedient to create paragraphs in accordance with the traditional chapters. Manifest errors of the press, which often occur in Beza’s New Testament of 1598, have been silently corrected. In all other respects not mentioned already that standard has been closely abided by, save only that, in accordance with modern usage, the recitative ὅτι has not been represtened as part of the speech or quotation which it introduces, and the aspirated forms αὑτοῦ, αὑτῷ, αὑτόν &c. have been discarded. In a very few words (e.g. μαργαρῖται) the more recent an proper accentuation has been followed. Lastly, where Beza has been inconsistent, the form which appeared the better of the two has been retained consistently: as νεφάλιος not νεφάλεος, οὐκέτι not οὐκ έτι, ἐξαυτῆς not ἐξ αὐτῆς, ἱνα τί not ἵνατί but τὰ νῦν not τανῦν, δὶα παντὸς not διαπαντὸς, τοῦτʼ ἔστι not τουτέστι.

ΠΑΣΑΓΡΑΦΗΘΕΟΠΝΕΥΣΤΟΣΚΑΙΩΦΕΛΙΜΟΣ.

F.H.A.S.

Christmas, 1880.

Scrivener, F. H. A. 1881. The New Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

My observation:

Scrivener’s New Testament in Greek, published in 1881, is an attempt to reconstruct the Greek text underlying the King James Version. While it represents a meticulous scholarly effort, it is not a "perfect Bible" or a replica of the original autographs.

Reasons:

Limited Manuscripts: Scrivener relied on a relatively small number of late manuscripts, predominantly from the Byzantine text-type, similar to those used by Erasmus and other editors of the Textus Receptus.

Textual Variations: The Greek text has numerous variants among manuscripts. No single edition can claim to be an exact replica of the original autographs.

Scholarship Evolution: Modern textual criticism, based on a wider array of earlier and more diverse manuscripts, provides a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the New Testament text.

Scrivener’s work is valuable but should be viewed as part of the ongoing scholarly endeavor to understand and preserve the biblical text, not as an error-free reproduction of the original writings. It’s one piece of the larger textual puzzle. 

The preface of F.H.A. Scrivener's New Testament in Greek emphasizes the meticulous effort to reproduce the Greek text underlying the Authorized Version (AV) of 1611 as accurately as possible.

. Scrivener used the Beza edition of 1598 as his primary source, cross-referencing it with other editions to correct discrepancies.

. The goal was to create a Greek text that closely aligns with the AV, acknowledging the complexities and variations in the manuscript tradition.

. In essence, Scrivener's preface highlights the dedication to textual accuracy and the challenges of aligning different manuscript sources to produce a reliable text.

. This commitment to precision underscores the importance of careful scholarship in biblical studies.

My Note:

Scrivener understood that there was no such thing as a perfect TR or Greek Text at the time, thus he worked hard to modify and construct another TR or Greek Text. He aligned his TR or Greek Text with the AV.

My Question:

Did he make a perfect TR or Greek text?

The Answer:

No, he did not.

THE PREFACE OF SCRIVENERS TEXTUS RECEPTUS 1894 BY DR. MAURICE ROBINSON

 SCRIVENERS

TEXTUS RECEPTUS

1894

         Prepared by Dr. Maurice A. Robinson.

 

    THE TEXT OF THIS EDITION

This text first appeared under the editorship of F. H. A. Scrivener as “The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version” (Cambridge: University Press, 1894, rep. ed. 1902). Scrivener’s text has been reprinted in the Greek New Testament published by the Trinitarian Bible Society as “Η Καινη Διαθηκη: The New Testament. The Greek Text underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611” (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977).

The Trinitarian edition (currently in print) reproduces without change Scrivener’s original text of 1894, which Scrivener had artificially constructed from various early printed Greek editions. Scrivener’s purpose was to provide (290 years later!) a Greek text which most closely could be said to underlie the English text of the Authorized Version of 1611—a text which could then be utilized to illustrate clearly the differences between the underlying Greek of the AV 1611 and that of the English Revised Version of 1881. A similar procedure was also performed by R.V.G. Tasker in 1964, when he attempted to reconstruct the underlying Greek text of the New English Bible from its English text, since the translators otherwise had provided no Greek edition of their own.

Because of this, the Scrivener 1894 text should not be considered in any way a product of applied textual criticism and certainly not equivalent to the autograph form of the New Testament text; this was not Scrivener’s intent. Rather, the Scrivener edition merely “fitted” the text which appears in the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611 to readings found in various printed Textus Receptus editions. Primary among these were Theodore Beza’s edition of 1598 and Robert Stephens’ editions of 1550 and 1551, which were known to have been used by King James’ translators. Beza’s editions (nine different ones) were themselves variations upon those of Stephens, and Stephens’ editions (four different ones) were basically edited reproductions of the 1527 and 1535 editions of Erasmus.

Scrivener freely borrowed from the Greek of other early printed Textus Receptus editions to construct his text, especially when the English text of the Authorized Version did not clearly correspond to the Greek found in the primary editions utilized by the Authorized Version translators as mentioned above.

In a few places, the Authorized Version apparently drew from Latin Vulgate readings and its English text fails to conform to ANY early printed Greek text. Scrivener chose in such cases to follow the nearest possible printed Greek text but did NOT attempt to retranslate from the Latin back into the Greek (as Erasmus has been criticized for doing in the Apocalypse). Thus, in Jn 10:16 the Authorized Version follows the Latin Vulgate by reading “one fold” (Latin, unum ovile, requiring μια αυλη as the Greek which should be restored as “underlying” the Authorized Version). Scrivener instead followed the reading of ALL early printed Greek texts, ALL known Greek manuscripts, Fathers, and other early versions, and printed μια ποιμνη, or “one flock”—even though this does not precisely reflect the AV’s underlying Greek text; such was the closest Scrivener could honestly come without having to perform re-translation from Latin into Greek.

Note that there are a number of places where Scrivener’s Greek text appears to reconstruct italicized passages in the Authorized Version (e.g., Mk 8:14, 9:42; Jn 8:6, Ac 1:4; 26:18; 1 Jn 2:23; 3:16; Rev. 16:14; 19:14, 18). Some of these italicized places in fact reflect textual variants known to the Authorized Version translators; other places reflect words supplied by the AV translators where there was insufficient or no Greek manuscript evidence. Many of these passages, however, were not italicized in the original 1611 AV printing, and Scrivener apparently followed that non-italicized format as the basis for his restoration. Many of these italicized passages which were not so marked in the original 1611 printing were added in later revisions by Blayney and others, up through 1769. Most of Scrivener’s reconstructed italicized readings were nevertheless drawn from one or another early printed Greek edition, rather than being a new translation from English into Koine Greek.

This Scrivener edition of the “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text”, even though artificially constructed, yet reflects a general agreement with other early printed Greek texts also called by that name. These include editions such as those of Erasmus 1516, the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514/1522, Colinaeus 1534, Stephens 1546, Beza 1565, and (the one from which we obtain the term “Textus Receptus”) Elzevir 1633. As mentioned above, George Ricker Berry correctly noted that “In the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus” (Berry, “Interlinear,” p.ii).

All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English-language Authorized (or King James) Version of 1611, since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed little from its Textus Receptus predecessors. These same Greek TR editions all generally reflect the “Byzantine” (otherwise called the “Majority” or “Traditional”) Textform which predominated throughout the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts.

The user should note that the Scrivener 1894 TR edition does NOT agree with modern critical editions such as that published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle-Aland editions. Those editions follow a predominantly “Alexandrian” Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine Textform which generally underlies all TR editions. Note, however, that 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions IS identical.

One should also recognize that NO printed Receptus Greek text edition agrees 100% with the aggregate Byzantine manuscript tradition (Majority/Traditional Text), nor with the Greek text presumed to underlie the Authorized Version. However, all printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between those Receptus forms and the majority of all manuscripts.

The significant differences between the modern critical texts, the Authorized Version, and the Byzantine (Majority) Textform are most clearly presented in the NU-text and M-text footnotes appended to editions of the “New King James Version,” published by Thomas Nelson Co.

No verse or verse number found in the Authorized Version is lacking in the Scrivener 1894 TR edition.

My Obeservation:

Dr. Maurice Robinson wrote in the preface, she clearly states that Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) is not a "perfect" Bible. While it represents a rigorous effort to reconstruct the Greek text underlying the King James Version, it is not a flawless replica of the original autographs. This edition, like all others, is based on a limited set of late manuscripts and reflects the complexities and variations inherent in the biblical text's transmission over centuries.

No single manuscript or edition can claim to be error-free or a perfect representation of the original writings. Modern textual criticism, which considers a wider range of earlier and more diverse manuscripts, provides a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the New Testament text. The beauty and reliability of Scripture lie in the collective witness of numerous manuscripts, not in the perfection of any one edition.

In the context of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), this clarification is crucial. VPP proponents often claim that the TR is a perfect, divinely preserved text. However, recognizing Scrivener's intent and the limitations of the 1894 text challenges this assertion. It underscores that the TR, including Scrivener’s edition, should not be considered infallible or perfectly preserved. This perspective encourages a more balanced and historically informed understanding of biblical texts, rather than a rigid belief in the perfection of a single manuscript tradition. The emphasis should be on the reliable transmission of the biblical message through a diverse manuscript tradition.

Don’t Fall For It!

 

How to choose a Bible?

 

Letter to all the Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Asia

Dear Esteemed Leaders of the Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Asia,

We stand at a crucial juncture in our shared journey of faith. In a world that increasingly needs the transformative power of the Gospel, our unity and cooperation are more important than ever. It is essential to foster a spirit of collaboration and mutual respect among Evangelicals, Charismatics, Reformed, and Fundamentalist groups within our denomination.

Each of these traditions brings unique perspectives and strengths to the body of Christ. By embracing this diversity, we enrich our collective witness and deepen our understanding of God's Word. Let’s celebrate our differences as complementary facets of our shared faith.

The Apostle Paul reminds us in Ephesians 4:3 to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." We must strive to live out this calling by focusing on the core truths that unite us: the divinity of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the mission to spread the Gospel.

Open and respectful dialogue is crucial. By engaging in conversations that seek to understand rather than to convince, we can bridge gaps and build stronger relationships. Let us create spaces for these dialogues, where every voice is heard and valued.

Working together on common goals, such as community outreach and social justice projects, can strengthen our bonds and showcase the love of Christ to the world. Let’s find ways to collaborate across our different traditions, combining our resources and efforts for greater impact.

Encourage each group to preach the Word boldly, allowing for the expression of their unique theological insights. This freedom not only respects our diversity but also enriches the spiritual lives of our congregations.

Let us continually seek God's guidance through prayer, asking for wisdom and humility in our leadership. By placing Christ at the center of our efforts, we ensure that our actions and decisions reflect His love and grace.

In doing so, we honor the prayer of Jesus in John 17:21, that all believers may be one. United, we can more effectively proclaim the Gospel of salvation to the ends of the earth, fulfilling the Great Commission.

Let’s come together, not despite our differences, but because of them, working hand in hand to build a stronger, more united church for the glory of God.

In Christ’s love and service,

Rev. So and So

Pastor of a Bible-Presbyterian Church

Second letter to Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabudas Koshy and their Students in FEBC

To all lecturers and students in FEBC:

As leaders and shepherds of the faith, your guidance shapes the spiritual journey of many. It's vital to foster unity and peace within the body of Christ. Here are a few points to consider:

Embrace Unity in Diversity

Our faith is enriched by the diverse perspectives within the Christian community, including Evangelical and Charismatic traditions. Rather than attacking these perspectives, let's seek to understand and appreciate the unique contributions they bring to the broader church.

Promote Constructive Dialogue

Encourage open and respectful conversations, especially with those who hold differing views. These discussions can lead to greater understanding and mutual respect, rather than division.

Avoid Personal Attacks

Differences in interpretation and practice are natural, but personal attacks against those who disagree can harm the unity of the church. Focus on addressing ideas and doctrines, not individuals.

Live in Peace

Romans 12:18 reminds us, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Strive to be peacemakers, promoting harmony within the church and fostering a spirit of reconciliation.

Teach with Humility

Approach your teachings with humility, acknowledging that none of us have a perfect understanding. Be open to learning from others and accepting that different perspectives can coexist within the faith.

Prioritize Core Doctrines

Emphasize the essential truths of Christianity that unite us—faith in Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the call to love and serve others. These core beliefs should guide our interactions and unify our efforts.

Your role as leaders is pivotal in shaping the spiritual climate of our community. By promoting unity, respect, and peace, you can help build a stronger, more cohesive church that reflects the love and grace of Christ. Let us work together towards this noble goal.

In Christ's love and service.

Rev. So and So

First Letter To Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabudas Koshy and the students in FEBC

To Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabudas Koshy, and your students in Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC):

We appeal to you with both respect and urgency to reconsider your teachings on Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) for the sake of our shared faith and the unity of the church. The insistence on a perfect underlying Greek text for the KJV is creating unnecessary divisions and detracting from the core mission of spreading the Gospel.

Unity Over Division

The unity of the church is paramount. Our differences in textual interpretation should not overshadow our common mission to love and serve one another. Let's focus on the shared truths that bind us together.

Historical and Textual Evidence

Modern scholarship and textual criticism have shown that no single manuscript tradition is without error. The diversity of manuscripts enriches our understanding of the Bible rather than detracting from it. Embracing this evidence can strengthen our faith rather than weaken it.

Constructive Dialogue

We invite you to engage in open, respectful dialogue with scholars like Rev. Dr. Quek Swee Hwa and leaders like Rev. Dr. David Wong, Rev. Dr. Bob Phee, who hold different views. By sharing insights and understanding each other's perspectives, we can work towards a more inclusive and united church.

Education and Understanding

Let's commit to educating our congregations on the complexities of biblical transmission and the reliability of modern translations. This approach fosters a more informed and nuanced faith community.

Focus on Core Doctrines

Remember, the essential truths of Christianity remain constant across different translations. By prioritizing these core doctrines, we can avoid unnecessary conflicts and build a stronger, more united church.

Prayer and Reflection

Finally, we ask you to join us in prayer and reflection, seeking God’s wisdom and guidance as we navigate these challenges together.

Let us strive for harmony and understanding, ensuring that our teachings build up the church rather than divide it. Together, we can uphold the transformative power of the Gospel and work towards a more united Christian community. Your commitment to this cause is crucial.

In Christ’s love and service,

Rev. So and So

My thesis: The Fallacy of Verbal Plenary Preservation in the Textus Receptus

The Fallacy of Verbal Plenary Preservation in the Textus Receptus: Addressing Misguided Doctrines and Their Divisive Impact

Introduction

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), particularly as it pertains to the Textus Receptus (TR) and the King James Version (KJV), asserts that the Greek text underlying the KJV is a perfect replica of the original autographs. This belief is not only historically and textually unfounded but also highly divisive within the Bible-Presbyterian Church. This thesis aims to refute the notion of a "perfect Bible" underlying the KJV by examining the evidence of the 5800+ manuscripts and highlighting the limited basis of the TR. The ultimate goal is to expose the harm caused by such teachings, which fracture church unity. 

Historical Context and Compilation of the TR

The TR was compiled by Erasmus in the early 16th century, primarily using a handful of late Greek manuscripts. Erasmus had access to around 6-8 manuscripts dating from the 12th to 15th centuries and compile them to be one Greek Text called TR. These were primarily Byzantine texts, lacking the geographical and chronological diversity that modern textual critics value. The speed at which Erasmus was pressured to produce his text led to several errors, including instances where he back-translated from the Latin Vulgate to fill gaps.

After this, there are a few edition to TR, this proven Erasmus' TR was not perfect. Here are the notable editions of the Textus Receptus (TR) after Erasmus:

1. Simon de Colines (1534): Published an edition of the Greek New Testament.
2. Robert Estienne (Stephanus) (1546, 1549, 1550): Known for his editions, including the Editio Regia in 1551.
3. Theodore Beza (1565, 1582, 1598): Produced several editions, refining and expanding upon previous work.
4. Elzevir Brothers (1624, 1633, 1641): Their 1633 edition is particularly famous for the phrase "Textum Receptum, Nunc ab Omnibus Recogitum, Approbatum, & Editum," meaning "Received text, now collected, approved, and published by all."
5. Scrivener (1894): Produced a critical edition of the Textus Receptus.

These editions contributed to the development and dissemination of the TR, influencing translations such as the King James Version (KJV). Each edition aimed to refine and improve upon the previous ones, reflecting the evolving understanding of biblical texts at the time.

Manuscript Evidence

Since the 16th century, numerous earlier and more diverse manuscripts have been discovered, providing a broader and more accurate picture of the New Testament text. These include:

1. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century): Among the oldest and most complete manuscripts, offering significant insights into the early text.
2. Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 (2nd-3rd centuries): Early papyri that predate the manuscripts Erasmus used by several centuries.
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Providing Hebrew texts that align more closely with earlier forms of the Old Testament than those used by Erasmus.

These manuscripts highlight textual variations that, while generally minor, reflect the natural process of transmission over centuries. No manuscript is without error, and each contributes to our understanding of the original texts.

The Myth of the Perfect Bible

The claim that the TR, and by extension the KJV, represents a perfect and error-free Bible is untenable. This position disregards the wealth of manuscript evidence that shows textual variations and evolution. The perfection attributed to the TR is a sentiment rather than a scholarly conclusion, playing on the desire for absolute certainty in Scripture.

Harmful Impact on Church Unity

Promoting the KJV as the only valid English translation and the TR as a perfect text creates unnecessary divisions within the Church. Such doctrines foster an environment of exclusion and suspicion, undermining the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21, "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me". The insistence on a singular "perfect" text discourages the use of other valuable translations that can enhance understanding and spiritual growth.

Responsible Biblical Scholarship

Modern translations, like the New International Version (NIV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and others, use the best available manuscript evidence. These translations incorporate a wider range of manuscripts, including earlier and more geographically diverse texts, providing a more accurate reflection of the original writings.

Conclusion

The pursuit of a "perfect Bible" underlying the KJV and the promotion of the TR as such are misguided and divisive. The overwhelming manuscript evidence refutes the notion of a flawless text, instead showing a rich tapestry of transmission that, while varied, faithfully preserves the core message of the Scriptures. It is crucial for the Church to move beyond these sentiments and embrace a more nuanced understanding of biblical preservation. Doing so will foster unity and allow believers to focus on the transformative power of God's Word rather than on unfounded claims of textual perfection.

In summary, we must reject doctrines that elevate sentiment over scholarly evidence and prioritize unity over division. We urge Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabudas Koshy, and the students they teach to refrain from undermining church unity by teaching the VPP. Since the core message of the Gospel remains intact and powerful, regardless of minor textual variations. Let's unite in this truth and work towards a more inclusive and understanding Christian community.

Jesus says, "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18 reassures us that the Church’s foundation is secure. It isn't dependent on having a "perfect" Bible text. Despite variations in manuscripts and translations, the core truths and transformative power of Scripture remain intact. God's Word, in its essence and message, is indestructible and continues to guide, inspire, and sustain the Church. This resilience is a testament to the divine preservation of His truth, even amidst human limitations

The promise in Matthew 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it," is a powerful assurance from Jesus Christ himself. This promise is not contingent on a perfect Bible. Here's why:   

Divine Protection: The promise is ultimately about the divine protection and preservation of the Church. It's a spiritual promise, not a textual one.

Imperfect Vessels: The Church is made up of imperfect people. Despite the imperfections of its members and the imperfections inherent in any human translation of the Bible, the Church remains under God's divine protection.

The Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit is the ultimate guide and interpreter of Scripture. He guides believers into all truth, even when there may be textual uncertainties.

Core Message: While there may be minor variations in manuscripts, the core message of salvation through Jesus Christ remains clear and unchanged.

Living Word: Jesus Christ himself is the living Word. The Bible is a written record of His revelation, but it's not a substitute for the living Christ.

While the Bible is an invaluable tool for understanding God's Word, it's not the sole foundation of the Church. The Church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and His promise to protect His Church stands firm, regardless of the imperfections of human translations.

Jesus assures that His church will prevail, regardless of the challenges or imperfections it faces. This assurance of resilience doesn’t hinge on a flawless Bible or human perfection. The core message is that the power and sovereignty of God will sustain the church, preserving its mission and truth despite any human limitations in scripture’s interpretation, translation, or textual history.

Though the Bible has been passed down with variations across manuscripts, scholars generally agree that the essential truths and teachings have been reliably preserved. These texts, guided by the Holy Spirit and centuries of careful study, continue to convey the heart of God’s message. The church’s strength lies not in the perfection of any one text, but in the promise that God's truth endures and His purposes will not be thwarted.

No "Perfect" Bible, why?

While having so many manuscripts (about 5800) is a remarkable testament to the reliability of the New Testament, it doesn't guarantee a "perfect" Bible in the sense of an error-free, infallible text. Here's why:

Scribal Errors: Even the most careful scribes could make mistakes during copying, such as accidental omissions, additions, or substitutions of words. These minor variations accumulate over time and across different manuscripts.   

Translation Challenges: Translating ancient Greek into modern languages introduces further complexities. Different translators may have varying interpretations of the original text, leading to slight differences in meaning or emphasis.   

Manuscript Variations: While the vast majority of manuscripts agree on the core message of the New Testament, there are some minor differences in wording or order. Textual critics carefully analyze these variations to determine the most likely original reading.   

However, these variations are relatively minor and do not affect the central message or doctrines of the Bible. The abundance of manuscripts allows scholars to cross-reference and compare different versions, increasing our confidence in the accuracy of the text.   

Ultimately, the "perfection" of the Bible lies not in its textual infallibility but in its divine inspiration and transformative power. It offers guidance, hope, and eternal life to all who believe.

To claim that the Textus Receptus (TR) is perfect without error is to misunderstand the history and complexity of biblical manuscript transmission. The TR, while important, was compiled from a limited number (about 8) of Greek manuscripts available in the 16th century. Subsequent discoveries have shown that no single manuscript tradition is without variations or errors.

Such a rigid stance can create unnecessary division and ignores the rich, diverse manuscript evidence that enhances our understanding of the New Testament. It's crucial to recognize that the reliability of Scripture lies not in the perfection of any one text, but in the collective witness of numerous manuscripts. The focus should be on the core message and transformative power of God's Word, rather than on an unrealistic claim of textual perfection. True unity and faith are built on the essence of the Scriptures, not on an inflexible adherence to one textual tradition. Let's strive for a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the Bible that embraces its historical and textual richness.

Since Erasmus’ time, numerous earlier and more geographically diverse manuscripts have been discovered, such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which date back to the 4th century. These manuscripts provide a more comprehensive picture of the original New Testament texts. Modern critical editions, like the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, utilize these discoveries to offer a more accurate reconstruction of the original writings.

The TR played a significant role in the history of biblical translation, but it represents just a part of the complex tapestry of manuscript evidence available today. Recognizing this helps us appreciate the importance of ongoing scholarly work in refining our understanding of the biblical text. 

Are you searching for a church?

Reformed Churches

Theology: Rooted in Calvinism, emphasizing God's sovereignty, predestination, and covenant theology. Worship Style: Structured, liturgical, often following a set order of service. Scripture: High regard for biblical inerrancy, balanced with historical and grammatical context. Cultural Engagement: Thoughtful engagement with contemporary culture, applying Reformed theology to modern issues. Education: Strong emphasis on theological education and historical confessions.

Fundamental Churches

Theology: Emphasize literal interpretation of the Bible, focusing on fundamental doctrines like the virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, and the second coming. Worship Style: Simple and straightforward, often avoiding elaborate liturgies. Scripture: Advocates for biblical inerrancy, often with a strict literal interpretation. Cultural Engagement: Typically separatist, avoiding cultural influences seen as compromising their beliefs. Education: Less emphasis on formal theological education, focusing more on personal piety and practical ministry.

Charismatic Churches

Theology: Emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts (like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing), and personal encounters with God. Worship Style: Informal, expressive, and often spontaneous with contemporary music. Scripture: Uphold biblical inerrancy but emphasize experiential aspects of faith. Cultural Engagement: Actively engage with culture, often focusing on outreach and social justice. Education: Varied, with some emphasis on practical training and personal spiritual development.

Evangelical Churches

Theology: Emphasize the authority of Scripture, personal conversion, and the importance of evangelism and social action. Worship Style: Contemporary and informal, incorporating modern music and technology. Scripture: Uphold the inerrancy of the Bible, with flexibility in interpretation methods. Cultural Engagement: Actively engage with contemporary culture and societal issues. Education: Value theological education, balanced with practical ministry training.

Key Differences:

Theology: Reformed focuses on Calvinism and covenant theology, Fundamentalism on literalism and separation, Charismatics on the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts, Evangelicals on personal conversion and societal impact.

Worship Style: Reformed is liturgical, Fundamentalist is simple, Charismatic is expressive, Evangelical is contemporary.

Scriptural Approach: Reformed balances inerrancy with context, Fundamentalists lean towards literalism, Charismatics emphasize experience, Evangelicals are flexible.

Cultural Engagement: Reformed engage thoughtfully, Fundamentalists are separatist, Charismatics and Evangelicals actively engage.

Each tradition brings unique strengths and perspectives to the Christian faith. The choice among them often depends on personal beliefs, worship preferences, and desired community involvement. 

A Call for Unity

Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) and some Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore have been at the center of controversy primarily due to their promotion of the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). This doctrine asserts that the text of Scripture has been perfectly preserved without error in the original languages, specifically in the Hebrew and Greek texts (TR) underlying the King James Version (KJV). This belief has led to significant disputes within the Bible Presbyterian Church, with some accusing the college of deviating from traditional biblical teachings.

The controversy around VPP has caused divisions, as it implies that the KJV is the only accurate English translation, which can be seen as an extreme and exclusionary stance. Critics argue that this doctrine is not supported by historical and textual evidence, and it can lead to unnecessary divisions within the Christian community.

It's important for institutions to engage in open dialogue and scholarly debate to ensure that their teachings align with a balanced and well-supported understanding of Scripture. 

To those who advocate for Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), here’s some thoughtful advice:

1. Appreciate the Diversity of Manuscripts

Acknowledge the richness and diversity of manuscript traditions. Recognize that the multiplicity of manuscripts, including those from the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western traditions, collectively preserves the integrity of the biblical text.

2. Embrace Scholarly Insights

Stay open to the advancements in textual criticism and biblical scholarship. These fields have made significant progress in understanding the transmission of the biblical text, providing valuable insights that can enrich your faith and understanding.

3. Focus on the Core Message

Remember that the core message of the Bible remains consistent across different translations. The transformative power of the gospel and the teachings of Jesus are not diminished by minor textual variations.

4. Foster Unity

Promote unity within the Christian community. Avoid letting debates over textual issues create division. Focus on the shared beliefs and values that unite believers.

5. Engage in Constructive Dialogue

Engage in respectful and constructive dialogue with those who hold different views. Listen to their perspectives and share your insights with humility and grace.

6. Study Historical Context

Deepen your understanding of the historical context of biblical manuscripts and translations. Knowing the background and development of these texts can provide a more comprehensive view of God’s preservation of His Word.

7. Encourage Continuous Learning

Encourage continuous learning and exploration of the Scriptures. Stay curious and open to new discoveries that can enhance your appreciation of the Bible.

By adopting these approaches, VPP proponents can maintain their convictions while also appreciating the broader context and contributions of biblical scholarship. This balance can lead to a richer and more nuanced understanding of God’s Word

To those opposing Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), here’s some advice for engaging in constructive dialogue and promoting a balanced understanding of Scripture:

1. Stay Informed and Grounded

Understand VPP: Familiarize yourself with the arguments and nuances of VPP. Knowing the details helps you engage more effectively.

Biblical Scholarship: Stay updated with the latest in textual criticism and manuscript discoveries. This knowledge strengthens your position.

2. Promote Unity and Respect

Respectful Dialogue: Approach conversations with humility and respect. Avoid confrontational language and seek to understand the perspectives of VPP proponents.

Common Ground: Emphasize shared beliefs and values. Focus on the core tenets of Christianity that unite believers.

3. Highlight Historical and Textual Evidence

Manuscript Diversity: Present the evidence of diverse manuscript traditions and how they collectively preserve the biblical text.

Scholarly Consensus: Reference credible biblical scholars who demonstrate the reliability of modern textual criticism and translations.

4. Emphasize the Core Message of Scripture

Unity in Diversity: Highlight that the core message of the Bible remains consistent across different translations. Focus on the spiritual truths and teachings that unify believers.

Faith and Practice: Stress that our faith does not hinge on the exact wording of a specific translation but on the transformative power of the gospel and our relationship with Jesus Christ.

5. Encourage Continuous Learning

Educational Opportunities: Offer educational sessions or workshops on biblical translation and manuscript evidence. Equip your community with the knowledge to understand and respond to VPP critically.

Open-Mindedness: Encourage an open-minded approach to learning and understanding different perspectives.

6. Pray for Wisdom and Guidance

Seek Divine Help: Regularly pray for wisdom, discernment, and guidance in addressing these issues. Ask for the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts of those involved, fostering understanding and unity.

By adopting these approaches, opponents of VPP can engage in meaningful and respectful dialogue, promote a balanced understanding of Scripture, and foster unity within the Christian community. How does this approach resonate with your experience?

A Call for Unity in the Bible-Presbyterian Church of Singapore

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

In these times of division, it’s essential that we remember our shared foundation: our faith in Jesus Christ and our commitment to His teachings. Our different interpretations and practices should not overshadow the common mission that unites us.

Let us emphasize the core tenets of our faith—the divinity of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the call to love and serve one another. These principles should be the bedrock of our unity.

Our diversity in practices and interpretations can be a source of strength. By respecting and learning from each other’s perspectives, we can grow in our collective understanding of God’s Word.

Let us commit to open, respectful dialogue. It’s through honest and humble conversations that we can address our differences and find common ground.

As we seek to resolve our differences, let us continually turn to God in prayer. May He grant us the wisdom and humility to navigate these challenges and foster a spirit of unity.

By engaging in joint missions, community service projects, and shared worship experiences. These collaborative efforts can help bridge gaps and build stronger bonds within our community.

By focusing on what unites us and approaching our differences with grace and understanding, we can move forward as a unified body, stronger and more capable of fulfilling our mission. Let’s strive for unity in Christ, for the glory of God and the edification of His Church.

In Christ's love and service,

Rev. So and So

P.S. It’s about looking past our differences and finding strength in our shared faith. United, we can achieve so much more for God's kingdom.

Why we reject The Textus Receptus (TR)

The Textus Receptus (TR), which served as the primary Greek text for the New Testament of the King James Version (KJV), has some significant limitations that modern scholars recognize. Here are key reasons why the TR is not considered a perfect representation of the original New Testament text:

1. Limited Manuscript Sources

The TR was based on a small number of late Byzantine Greek manuscripts available to Erasmus when he compiled it in the early 16th century. Erasmus primarily relied on six to eight Greek manuscripts from the 12th to 15th centuries, which do not represent the earliest or most diverse witnesses of the New Testament text.

Today, scholars have access to thousands of Greek manuscripts, including much earlier papyri from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which were unavailable to Erasmus. These older manuscripts often differ from the later Byzantine manuscripts, revealing variations and sometimes shorter or different readings.

2. Rushed Compilation and Printing Errors

Erasmus produced the first edition of the TR under significant time pressure. It was printed quickly in 1516, and Erasmus later acknowledged that he hadn’t been able to fully review it for errors. This haste led to typographical and transcription errors that were carried over in later editions.

Even after Erasmus’ initial compilation, later editors like Stephanus and Beza made their own edits to the TR, sometimes introducing new errors or speculative changes to the text without access to a broader manuscript base.

3. Influence of the Latin Vulgate

Erasmus sometimes relied on the Latin Vulgate when Greek manuscript readings were missing or unclear. For example, certain passages in the TR (like the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7–8) are based on Latin sources rather than Greek manuscripts, since Erasmus lacked any Greek manuscripts containing this phrase. Under pressure to include this passage, he eventually added it in a later edition based on a single Greek manuscript likely translated from Latin.

This Latin influence means the TR sometimes reflects Latin readings not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, reducing its accuracy as a purely Greek New Testament text.

4. Byzantine Text-Only Focus

The TR is almost exclusively a Byzantine text-type, which became the standard Greek text in the Eastern Orthodox Church during the Middle Ages. However, older manuscript discoveries (like the Alexandrian texts in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) have shown that the Byzantine text is not always the most accurate reflection of the original writings.

Textual criticism suggests that the Alexandrian text-type, generally shorter and more succinct, often represents the earliest form of the text, while the Byzantine text contains expansions and harmonizations. Since the TR is solely based on the Byzantine text, it sometimes includes readings that are considered secondary or later developments in the manuscript tradition.

5. Later Additions and Harmonizations

The TR includes several later additions that do not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts. For example:

The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20): This passage is present in the TR but absent from the earliest manuscripts.

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11): This story of the woman caught in adultery is also a later addition and not found in the oldest manuscripts of John.

These passages are now recognized by most scholars as later additions to the New Testament text, likely added to harmonize or expand the narrative. The inclusion of these passages in the TR reflects its reliance on later manuscripts rather than the earliest available evidence.

6. Modern Advances in Textual Criticism

Textual criticism has advanced significantly since Erasmus' time. Today, scholars use comprehensive techniques to evaluate manuscripts, considering factors like scribal habits, regional text types, and textual families. This process allows a more accurate reconstruction of the earliest text, moving beyond the constraints of the TR’s small manuscript base and limited methodology.

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBS5), which incorporate thousands of manuscripts, represent a more refined and reliable Greek text based on advanced textual criticism.

7. Influence on Translations and Theological Issues

The TR has influenced traditional translations like the KJV, but its differences from the earliest manuscripts mean it contains interpretative and theological variants that may not align with the original text. This can affect theological understanding and interpretation, especially when the TR includes readings that diverge from early manuscript evidence.

For example, variants in the TR, like those in Matthew 6:13 ("For thine is the kingdom...") and Acts 8:37 (Philip's confession of faith), are not found in the earliest manuscripts and may reflect later liturgical additions.

In summary, the Textus Receptus represents a valuable step in the history of biblical scholarship but is limited by its reliance on late Byzantine manuscripts, Latin influences, and lack of access to the earliest Greek manuscripts. We pray for a more accurate and scholarly reconstruction of the New Testament text based on a comprehensive array of early evidence. 

Verbal Plenary Preservation is a deception.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matthew 24:24)

Matthew 24:24 warns of false Christs and false prophets who will try to deceive even the elect, if possible. Some proponents of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) may unintentionally lead people astray by insisting on a doctrine that claims absolute perfection of a specific text, the Textus Receptus, often underlying the KJV. Such a stance can create unnecessary divisions and distract from the core message of the Gospel.

This insistence on a "perfect" Bible can sow discord and confusion within the church, echoing the warning in Matthew 24:24 about deception. Instead of focusing on the supposed perfection of a single manuscript tradition, it's more productive to recognize the robust and reliable nature of the broader manuscript evidence that collectively preserves God's Word.

Unity and the core truths of Christianity should be our focus, rather than divisive claims that risk misleading believers. Important to keep our eyes on the bigger picture, don’t you think?

We reject the Textus Receptus (TR) and its subsequent editions until further notice due to the incorrect teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation and attacks by its proponents.

English Standard Version (ESV)

English Standard Version (ESV) is highly regarded Bible translation, the ESV often receives praise for the following reasons:

1. Balance of Accuracy and Readability:

Accuracy: The ESV is known for its literal and accurate translation of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It aims to preserve the original meaning and structure of the text.

Readability: While maintaining accuracy, the ESV is also highly readable, making it suitable for both scholarly study and personal devotion.

2. Strong Textual Basis:

The ESV is based on a strong textual foundation, utilizing the latest scholarly insights and textual criticism. It aims to provide a reliable and accurate representation of the original text.

3. Clear and Consistent Language:

The ESV employs clear and consistent language, avoiding unnecessary complexity and archaic terms. This makes it easier to understand and apply the biblical message.

4. Preserves Literary Style:

While prioritizing accuracy, the ESV also strives to preserve the literary style and poetic beauty of the original text. This enhances the reading experience and helps to convey the full impact of the biblical message.

5. Wide Acceptance and Use:

The ESV is widely used and respected by scholars, pastors, and lay people alike. It is often considered a reliable and authoritative translation, making it a popular choice for both personal and academic use.

Conclusion:

While the NIV and KJV are also valuable translations, the ESV's balance of accuracy, readability, and literary style often makes it a preferred choice for many readers. It is often beneficial to consult multiple translations to gain a deeper understanding of the biblical text.

Rejecting both the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus (TR)

The reason why some may reject both the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus (TR).

While both the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Textus Receptus (TR) have been influential in the history of Bible translation, they have also been subject to criticism.

Westcott-Hort Greek Text

Emphasis on Alexandrian Text-Type: Westcott and Hort prioritized the Alexandrian text-type, represented by manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, over the majority text-type. Critics argue that this preference was subjective and led to the neglect of valuable textual evidence.

Questionable Methodology: Some scholars criticize Westcott and Hort's methodology, particularly their reliance on internal evidence and genealogical relationships between manuscripts. They argue that this approach was flawed and led to inaccurate conclusions.

Alleged Liberal Theological Bias: Some critics claim that Westcott and Hort's theological views influenced their textual choices. They argue that the Alexandrian text-type, which they favored, aligns more closely with liberal theological interpretations.

Textus Receptus (TR)

Limited Manuscript Base: The TR was based on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts. This limited base raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the text.

Scribal Errors and Corruptions: Due to the process of manuscript copying over centuries, the TR is susceptible to scribal errors and corruptions that may have accumulated over time.

Lack of Critical Apparatus: The TR lacks a critical apparatus, which would have provided information about variant readings and textual uncertainties. This makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the text.

It's important to note that modern Bible translations, such as the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New International Version (NIV), are based on more extensive textual evidence and scholarly analysis than either the Westcott-Hort text or the TR. These translations have benefited from advancements in textual criticism and a wider range of manuscript evidence.

Some readers may prefer to use a translation that reflects the latest scholarly findings. Recent scholarly findings in Bible translation continue to shape our understanding of the biblical text. Here are some of the key areas of ongoing research and discovery:

Textual Criticism:

• New Manuscript Discoveries: While major discoveries have slowed, ongoing research and analysis of existing manuscripts continue to refine our understanding of the original text.

• Digital Tools and Technologies: Advanced digital tools are revolutionizing textual criticism, allowing for more precise analysis of manuscripts and their variations.

Language Studies:

• Semantic and Syntactic Analysis: Deeper analysis of the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) continues to shed light on the nuances of meaning and grammar.

• Cultural and Historical Context: Research into the cultural, historical, and social contexts of the biblical world helps to illuminate the meaning of the text.   

Translation Philosophy and Methodology:

• Balancing Accuracy and Readability: Translators continue to grapple with the tension between literal accuracy and dynamic equivalence, seeking to produce translations that are both faithful to the original text and accessible to modern readers.

• Inclusive Language: Many translations are incorporating more inclusive language to reflect contemporary sensibilities and avoid gender-specific language that may not accurately represent the original text.

Interdisciplinary Approaches:

• Archaeology and Biblical Studies: Archaeological discoveries continue to provide valuable insights into the biblical world, helping to contextualize the biblical narrative.   

• Literary and Historical Criticism: These disciplines offer new perspectives on the literary and historical aspects of the Bible, leading to fresh interpretations of the text.

It's important to note that while there are ongoing advancements in Bible translation, the core message of the Bible remains unchanged. These scholarly findings primarily help us to better understand the historical and cultural context of the biblical text, which can enrich our interpretation and application of its teachings.

We hope that the finest translation may be obtained by referring to all the manuscripts and early Bible translations:

Fact: We have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, making it one of the most well-attested ancient texts.

Here are some New Testament manuscripts and early translations:

 

Greek New Testament Manuscripts (Grouped by Century)

2nd Century (100–199 AD)

• Papyrus Manuscripts: Earliest and often fragmentary manuscripts, mostly on papyrus.

o 𝔓52 (Papyrus 52): Earliest known fragment, part of John (18:31–33, 37–38), dating to around 125–150 AD.

o 𝔓66: Nearly complete Gospel of John, dating to about 150–200 AD.

o 𝔓46: Contains most of the Pauline Epistles, dating to around 175–225 AD.

o 𝔓75: Contains large portions of Luke and John, dated to around 175–225 AD.

3rd Century (200–299 AD)

• Papyrus Manuscripts:

o 𝔓45: Portions of all four Gospels and Acts, dated around 250 AD.

o 𝔓47: Contains part of Revelation, dated to the 3rd century.

o 𝔓72: Contains 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, dated to the 3rd or 4th century.

4th Century (300–399 AD)

• Uncial Codices: Large manuscripts, mainly on parchment, written in uncial script.

o Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ or 01): Nearly complete Bible, including the New Testament, dated around 330–360 AD.

o Codex Vaticanus (B or 03): Nearly complete New Testament, dated to the 4th century.

o Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C or 04): A palimpsest with portions of the New Testament, dated to the 4th or 5th century.

5th Century (400–499 AD)

• Uncial Codices:

o Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02): Nearly complete New Testament, dated to the 5th century.

o Codex Bezae (D or 05): Contains Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, dated to the 5th century.

o Codex Washingtonianus (W or 032): Contains the Gospels, dated to the late 4th or early 5th century.

6th Century (500–599 AD)

• Uncial Codices:

o Codex Claromontanus (D or 06): Contains Pauline Epistles in Greek and Latin, dated to the 6th century.

o Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus (N or 022): Purple-dyed manuscript with the Gospels, dated to the 6th century.

7th to 10th Centuries (600–999 AD)

• Uncial Codices: Fewer uncials are produced; minuscule writing becomes more popular.

o Codex Basilensis (E or 07), Codex Laudianus (E or 08), Codex Sangallensis (Δ or 037).

9th to 15th Centuries (Minuscule Period)

• Minuscule Manuscripts: Written in cursive, many thousands of these exist.

o Examples: Minuscule 1 (10th century), Minuscule 33 (9th century, "Queen of the Cursives").

Lectionaries (From 8th Century Onward)

• Lectionaries: Arranged by liturgical use, passages for specific days, from the 8th century onward.

o Examples: ℓ32 (10th century), ℓ185 (12th century).

________________________________________

Early Translations of the New Testament (Grouped by Century)

2nd Century

• Old Latin (Vetus Latina): The earliest Latin translations, from around the late 2nd century.

• Syriac Translations:

o Old Syriac (Diatessaron): Likely a harmony of the four Gospels by Tatian, around 170 AD.

o Peshitta: Standard Syriac version, emerging in the 2nd century and finalized later.

3rd Century

• Coptic Translations: In Egypt, there were several Coptic dialects:

o Sahidic: Southern Egyptian dialect, one of the earliest Coptic translations.

o Bohairic: Northern Egyptian dialect, translation completed later but based on early texts.

4th Century

• Gothic Translation: Made by Bishop Ulfilas, the Gothic Bible (4th century) represents the earliest translation into a Germanic language.

• Armenian Translation: Began in the early 5th century but initiated by missionaries in the 4th century.

5th Century

• Latin Vulgate: St. Jerome’s Latin translation, completed around 405 AD, became the standard in the Western Church.

• Georgian Translation: Created in the early 5th century, derived from Greek and Armenian sources.

• Ethiopic (Ge'ez) Translation: Created in the 5th or 6th century, based on both Greek and Syriac texts.

6th Century

• Old Church Slavonic: Developed by Saints Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century for Slavic-speaking peoples but based on manuscripts that possibly had roots in the 6th century.

Translating the Bible from various manuscripts and early translations is a meticulous process that involves several steps to ensure accuracy and faithfulness to the original texts. Here’s a broad overview of how this is done:

1. Gathering Manuscripts

Scholars collect as many available manuscripts as possible, ranging from early papyrus fragments to later medieval codices. These manuscripts include significant texts from the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western traditions, among others.

2. Textual Criticism

Textual critics analyze these manuscripts to identify variations and determine which readings are most likely original. This involves comparing the texts and considering factors such as the age of the manuscript, the geographical distribution of the readings, and the quality of the scribes.

3. Creating a Critical Text

Based on textual criticism, scholars compile a critical text of the New Testament. This text represents the most accurate reconstruction of the original writings based on the evidence from various manuscripts. 

4. Translation Committee

A diverse committee of scholars, fluent in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), is assembled. This team includes experts in linguistics, theology, and biblical studies to ensure a balanced and comprehensive translation.

5. Translation Philosophy

The committee decides on a translation philosophy—word-for-word (formal equivalence) or thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence). Word-for-word translations (like the NASB) aim for literal accuracy, while thought-for-thought translations (like the NLT) aim for readability and capturing the intended meaning.

6. Drafting and Revising

Translators draft the initial version, often working in small teams. They cross-reference early translations like the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac Peshitta, as well as consulting commentaries and linguistic studies. Multiple drafts are reviewed and revised to ensure clarity, accuracy, and faithfulness to the text.

7. Review and Feedback

The draft undergoes extensive review, both internally within the translation committee and externally by other scholars and language experts. Feedback is incorporated to refine and improve the translation.

8. Finalizing the Text

Once the translation committee agrees on the final version, it is proofread and typeset. The final text is prepared for publication, including any necessary footnotes, cross-references, and study aids.

9. Continuous Updates

Even after publication, translations are periodically reviewed and updated to reflect new manuscript discoveries and advances in linguistic understanding. This ensures that the translation remains accurate and relevant.

By following these steps, translators can produce a Bible that faithfully represents the original texts while being accessible and meaningful for contemporary readers. This process honors the integrity and depth of the Scriptures, ensuring that their transformative message continues to reach people across generations. It’s a remarkable journey of scholarship and faith.

There haven't been any major breakthroughs or groundbreaking discoveries in Bible translation in 2024. 

Organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators continue to work tirelessly to translate the Bible into languages spoken by millions of people around the world.   

While there may not be a single "latest Bible translation finding" in 2024, the collective efforts of scholars and translators are gradually improving our understanding of the biblical text and making it accessible to more people worldwide.

To stay updated on the latest developments in Bible translation, you may want to follow organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators or consult with biblical scholars.

It's important to note that Bible translation is a complex and ongoing process.

These are the reasons why we reject Verbal Plenary Preservation:

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) asserts that God supernaturally preserved the original autographs of the Bible and that these original writings have been perfectly transmitted through subsequent copies to the present day.

While many Christians hold to this belief, there are several reasons why some reject VPP:

Lack of Explicit Biblical Support: Critics argue that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of VPP. While it affirms the inspiration and authority of Scripture, it does not explicitly claim that every word of the original autographs has been perfectly preserved.

Textual Criticism: Modern textual criticism, which involves the study of ancient manuscripts, demonstrates that the transmission of biblical texts was not error-free. Scribal errors, intentional alterations, and accidental omissions occurred throughout the copying process.

Historical and Cultural Context: The biblical texts were written in ancient languages and cultures, and their meaning can be influenced by various factors, including historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. This can lead to differing interpretations and translations.

Different Textual Traditions: Different textual traditions, such as the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western, have emerged over time, reflecting variations in the transmission of the biblical text. These variations highlight the complexities of textual transmission.

Theological Implications: Some argue that VPP can lead to a rigid and inflexible approach to Scripture interpretation, hindering critical thinking and open dialogue.

It's important to note that while VPP is a common belief among some Christians, it is not a universally accepted doctrine. Many Christians hold to a more nuanced view of biblical authority, recognizing the complexities of textual transmission and the importance of careful interpretation.

Stay current with the latest manuscript discoveries and advancements in textual criticism. These resources can provide a more accurate and comprehensive foundation for translation.

Reject VPP and kick it's false teachers.