Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) and “KJV-Onlyism”

What FEBC Teaches: Summary of Their Position

To critique well, we need a clear picture of what FEBC actually teaches. Based on their publications:

• FEBC affirms Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) — that the original autographs (the first manuscripts) of Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were fully inspired, infallible, inerrant. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

• They go further to teach Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) — that not only were the originals inspired, but that God has perfectly preserved “each and every word … to the last jot and tittle” in every age, so that the words underlying certain manuscripts (especially those “Traditional/Byzantine/Majority” manuscripts; and in the Reformation tradition Textus Receptus / Masoretic Text underlying the KJV) are the infallible, inerrant words of God today. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

• FEBC holds that the King James Version is the best, most faithful English translation, and that in public reading, preaching, and teaching of English Scripture they employ it alone. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

• They deny, or strongly criticize, textual critical scholarship using modern “critical texts” (Alexandrian manuscripts, Westcott‐Hort, etc.), claiming them “corrupted” and that they underlie many modern translations which, to FEBC, compromise or omit God’s preserved words. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

So FEBC’s teaching is that God has preserved the inspired words (not just doctrines or ideas) perfectly to this day, in the Hebrew/Greek texts underlying the KJV, and that the KJV is uniquely faithful among English translations.

---

Challenges, Objections, and Areas of Critique

There are several serious objections and difficulties. They point out where the teaching needs to be sharpened, defended, or perhaps modified.

1. Manuscript Evidence & Textual Variants

   • Textual variation is real: Scholars have shown that the Greek and Hebrew manuscript traditions have many, many variants—some minor, some more substantial. Even among the Trad/Byzantine/Majority family, there are differences. That means that claiming every word preserved perfectly in a single family or line means dealing with variant readings within that family.

   • Earliest manuscripts: Some of the earliest and arguably best manuscripts (e.g. some Alexandrian ones) differ from later Majority texts. Modern critical editions put weight on early manuscripts because of their antiquity, not necessarily majority. The question is: how does one argue that the Majority/Byzantine/Traditional manuscripts (or those underlying KJV) are more reliable in certain respects? FEBC asserts the others are “corrupted,” but the burden is to show which readings are corrupt and why the Tradition/Byzantine readings should be preferred in each case.

2. What Does It Mean to “Preserve Words”?

   • The doctrine of VPP as taught by FEBC is very strong: every word, every syllable, every letter, every jot and tittle. But in practice, translation requires choices: spelling, punctuation, choice of alternative readings, dealing with differences in manuscripts. Even KJV has textual footnotes, variant readings in apparatus (in more recent editions or scholarly editions of the underlying texts), though FEBC may argue those are secondary or editorial.

   • There’s a question: does “verbal preservation” mean that in the manuscripts we have exactly the same as the autographs (which are lost), or that we have the substance/sense/paradigm so reliably that no doctrinal or essential meaning is lost even if some minor wording differs? FEBC seems to lean toward a more absolute version, which raises the issue of how to handle known variants.

3. On KJV-Onlyism and the Translation

   • While FEBC says they use the KJV “alone” for English public reading/preaching/teaching, critics will point out issues with the KJV: archaic language, translation decisions made in 17th-century context, occasional mis‐understandings of Hebrew or Greek then current, limitations of the manuscript base known in 1611 (they didn’t have the discoveries of many papyri and early codices afterwards).

   • KJV translation being “best” in English is a value judgment: it depends on one’s criteria (faithfulness, clarity, style, readability). Some modern translations argue for “essentially literal” but also incorporate better manuscript evidence, more recent discoveries, refined scholarship.

4. Doctrinal / Theological & Ecclesial Risks

   • Potential for exclusivity: If one teaches that only FEBC’s view is truly faithful preservation, there is a risk (real or perceived) of dividing the body of Christ, marginalizing those who use other faithful translations, or branding them as “corrupted” or “less than” in their faith. FEBC claims they do not believe that those using modern versions are condemned, etc. But some of their language is strong about “many modern versions” being based on “corrupted texts.” (febc.edu.sg)

   • Difficulty in dialogues: Because many scholars and denominations do not accept VPP, such a strong position can become a stumbling block in ecumenical conversation or in shared ministry contexts.

5. Scriptural Proofs & Interpretation

   • FEBC cites passages like Matt 5:18, etc., to support VPP. But critics argue these passages refer to God’s Word in more general or metaphorical terms, not necessarily guaranteeing that every exact text word in every copy, translation, or tradition is preserved. For example, the “jot or tittle” saying: is it about the Law of Moses, or more broadly the Law (Torah), or prophetic pronouncements, etc.? The interpretation is debated.

   • Also, the absence of explicit biblical texts that say “these manuscripts are preserved word for word forever” or “this translation is the only preserved English version” means FEBC’s doctrine is somewhat inferred rather than explicitly stated in Scripture. This in itself is not fatal, but it leaves room for dissent.

6. Historical Evidence and Church Practice

   • Historically, Christians have used many translations and manuscript families; the Majority/Byzantine tradition was not uniformly predominant in every geographic area (e.g., many early Christian writings, church fathers, church in Egypt etc. had texts that lean Alexandrian).

   • The reforms of Puritan and Reformation theologians often affirmed preservation, but the concept of “exact wording and identical to autograph everywhere in every copy” was not always spelled out so strongly in the way VPP does. Some argue FEBC is pushing an interpretation that, while having historical support, is more exacting than many historical theologians held.

7. Practicality / Recognition vs Criticism

   • FEBC rejects much of modern textual criticism (at least some aspects of it), calling it “humanistic” or speculative. But textual criticism has in many cases provided very useful tools in assessing variants, approximating earlier texts, etc. Dismissing all textual criticism may limit ability to engage with broader scholarship, new manuscript finds, or to respond to new challenges.

   • Also, how does FEBC’s position handle the multiplicity of copies, editions of the KJV, changes in spelling, printers’ errors, etc.? If one is committed to “every syllable,” does that extend to spelling variants or printer’s conventions of the 17th/18th centuries?

---

Possible Ways FEBC Might Strengthen Their Position / Address Critiques

1. Better engagement with manuscript evidence

   • A more detailed comparison of known textual variants, especially among Traditional/Byzantine manuscripts, to show that the readings FEBC prefers are more likely to be original in specific cases — not only by appeal to the “majority” or by appealing to tradition, but by reasoned argument (internal evidence, earliest attestation, etc.).

   • Addressing counterexamples: where a Majority reading seems less likely, or where early manuscripts differ.

2. Clarified definitions of “words preserved”

   • Define whether “every word” includes orthographic/spelling variants, punctuation, etc.

   • Be clear about what type of “word” preservation: are they speaking of “textual substance” (i.e. meaning-bearing words) or absolutely every textual detail (letterforms, spelling, accent marks, etc.)?

3. Recognizing scholarly contribution

   • Rather than rejecting all textual criticism, FEBC could distinguish between what they see as reliable, faithful textual scholarship vs. what they see as ideological or speculative.

   • This would help them engage with broader scholarship without conceding their key beliefs.

4. Pastoral sensitivity

   • Be attentive to how the doctrine is taught so as not to alienate or unnecessarily offend those who are sincere Christians but use other translations. Emphasize that faith and salvation are not tied to use of a particular version. FEBC does affirm this, but perception sometimes differs from intent.

   • Provide resources to help people use modern translations alongside KJV for study, perhaps showing where variants exist, how to compare.

5. Historical theology scholarship

   • It would help to survey more comprehensively what historical theologians (Church Fathers, Reformers, Puritans) said about preservation, to see how exactly their views map onto VPP as FEBC defines it. This can bolster the claim that VPP is “old as the Bible itself” (a claim FEBC sometimes makes). (www2.febc.edu.sg)

---

Conclusion: 

FEBC’s position brings challenges: handling real textual variants, engaging with manuscript data, defining precisely what “verbal preservation” means in practice versus in theory, and maintaining unity with other Christians who have somewhat different but also sincere convictions about translations and texts.

I would encourage them to:

• Continue doing careful manuscript-level scholarship and publish more of those comparisons.

• Be transparent about where there is disagreement among the manuscripts believed to be in the “preserved” text, and how to handle them.

• Emphasize that VPP is about God’s faithfulness, not about excluding or condemning fellow believers using other translations.

• Avoid overstating certainty in places where evidence is ambiguous.

Ultimately, doctrines like VPP are significant and deserve careful teaching; but with significant claims come significant burdens of proof. FEBC’s teaching is a serious attempt to meet that, but there are places where critics seem to have legitimate questions.