Formal critique — Kept Pure in All Ages (Jeffrey Khoo, FEBC Press)

Methodology & scope

This critique treats Kept Pure in All Ages as a polemical and apologetic work defending (1) the doctrine FEBC calls Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) — that God has perfectly preserved “every word… to the jot and tittle” — and (2) the practical corollary that the King James Version (KJV), based on the Textus Receptus (TR) and Masoretic Hebrew, is the uniquely authoritative English form for public reading/teaching. I summarize each major chapter/theme, evaluate argumentative method, and identify evidential and theological weaknesses. Primary source: FEBC’s PDF of the book and official VPP statements. (febc.edu.sg)

---

Executive summary (short verdict)

• Weaknesses / Risks: over-extension of preservation claims beyond what manuscript evidence demonstrably supports; selective use of textual-history evidence (favoring TR/Majority/Byzantine lineage while downplaying complexities, internal variant patterns, and the reasons textual critics value early Alexandrian witnesses); theological and practical consequences (exclusivism, ecclesial fracturing) insufficiently addressed. Critics and formal responses make these points and press FEBC for more granular manuscript-level argumentation. (jamesdprice.com)

---

Chapter-by-chapter critique (organized by major themes rather than reproducing every short chapter heading)

Chapter 1 — Thesis & Definitions: VPI → VPP (what FEBC means by preservation)

Summary (what Khoo argues):
Khoo defines preservation verbally and plenarily: God has preserved every word of Scripture (not merely doctrines) through providence in a single textual stream, ultimately manifested in the Hebrew/Greek texts underlying the KJV and thus in the KJV itself for English usage. FEBC links this doctrine to promises like “every jot and tittle” and to the Westminster Confession. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique:

• Exegetical leap: The leap from promise texts (Matt 5:18; Ps 12:6–7) to a historical claim that a single textual family is perfectly preserved in every generation is interpretive and contested. Many scholars argue those texts promise the endurance of God’s “word” or covenant truth rather than guaranteeing identical orthography across manuscripts/copies. FEBC asserts the stronger reading but does not fully engage the major exegetical counter-interpretations found in wider scholarship. This weakens the claim’s universal persuasive force. (See critical responses that press this point.) (jamesdprice.com)

Recommendation:

• Distinguish carefully between promises of preservation in substance/meaning and claims of absolute textual uniformity, and engage the principal exegetical counterarguments with primary-source scholarship.

---

Chapter 2 — Historical/Confessional Evidence (Westminster Confession; Reformation practice)

Summary:
Khoo appeals to confessional language (e.g., WCF 1:8) and to Protestant tradition to show continuity: the Reformers and the Reformation churches believed in a providentially preserved textual standard (as understood by FEBC to corroborate VPP). (febc.edu.sg)

Critique:

• Historical nuance missing: The claim that historical confessions unequivocally endorse VPP as FEBC defines it is overstated. The WCF’s phrase “kept pure in all ages” can be reasonably understood as a claim about the reliability of Scripture as God’s authoritative revelation (substance), not necessarily as a technical assertion that a unique recension (TR) was mechanically preserved word-for-word everywhere. FEBC would strengthen its case by showing direct quotations from Reformers/Confessors endorsing literal-word preservation across manuscript tradition; instead the book often infers such precision from more general confessional language. (febc.edu.sg)

Recommendation:

• Provide more primary-source citations from key Reformers/Patristic authors showing explicit verbal-preservation formulations (not only general appeals). Where none exist, acknowledge difference and explain why VPP is still the best interpretive fit.

---

Chapter 3 — Textual Evidence & The Textus Receptus (TR) vs Critical Texts

Summary:
Khoo argues that the TR/Majority/Byzantine lineage better reflects God’s preserved text, while the modern critical texts (Westcott–Hort / Nestle–Aland / UBS) rely on corrupted Alexandrian witnesses. The book catalogs examples where modern translations omit or marginalize verses present in the KJV text. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — evidential & methodological:

1. Selective evidence and burden of proof: The book frequently cites variant readings favorable to the TR, but it does not provide a systematic manuscript-by-manuscript evaluation of why modern critical readings are inferior in each contested case. Modern textual criticism favors older papyri/codices because antiquity often increases probability of originality. Khoo tends to use majority or ecclesiastical testimony rather than weighing internal/external criteria used by textual critics. Critics (including several papers/personal rebuttals) charge FEBC with insufficient engagement at the granular manuscript level. (jamesdprice.com)

2. Majority ≠ original automatically: The Majority (Byzantine) text is numerically strong among later manuscripts but not necessarily closer to the autograph. FEBC sometimes implies that majority = preserved original; that equivalence is debated and requires argumentation showing transmission patterns (e.g., where scribal harmonisation produced Byzantine readings). The book would benefit from engaging standard textual-critical methodology (lectio difficilior, shorter readings, transcriptional vs intrinsic probabilities) and answering why those tools are mistaken. (jamesdprice.com)

3. Handling of internal contradictions & Byzantine internal variants: Even within the Byzantine family there are variants. A robust VPP account must explain how perfect preservation is consistent with observable in-family variance (which Kept Pure tends to downplay). Critics have produced point-by-point rebuttals showing instances in which the TR tradition seems secondary or conflated. (jamesdprice.com)

Recommendation:

• Publish a companion, evidence-heavy manuscript: a chapter or monograph that applies textual-critical criteria item-by-item (with manuscript citations) showing why TR readings are superior in a large, representative sample. Engage leading textual-criticism literature and respond to common criteria rather than dismissing them.

---

Chapter 4 — Translation Theory & KJV Supremacy

Summary:
Khoo defends the KJV as the best English rendering of God’s preserved words; he argues that the KJV’s underlying Hebrew/Greek represent the preserved text and that modern versions rely on corrupt texts and sometimes liberal translation philosophy. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — linguistic & translational:

1. 16th/17th-century scholarship limitations: The KJV translators had access to the best resources available in 1611, but they lacked later manuscript finds (papyri, Sinaiticus/Vaticanus discoveries, improved Hebrew editions). FEBC’s case often underplays the fact that historical scholarship has advanced and that some modern translations incorporate earlier witnesses discovered after 1611. A position that insists on KJV-only usage should explain why later, earlier witnesses do not outweigh the TR’s authority in particular readings. (febc.edu.sg)

2. Translation vs. Text: Even accepting TR priority, translation is not mechanical word-matching. The KJV’s wording and archaic English can obscure or misrepresent nuance to modern readers. FEBC’s strong liturgical preference should be supplemented with pastoral guidelines for study: where to consult modern literal translations for clarity while reserving the KJV in public worship. Otherwise, the stance risks impracticality for younger/second-language congregants. (febc.edu.sg)

Recommendation:

• Distinguish clearly between two claims: (a) the TR represents the preserved original text in many key instances; (b) the KJV is the best public English Bible for a particular ecclesial context. Defend each separately and give pastoral options for multilingual or younger congregations.

---

Chapter 5 — Polemics Against Textual Criticism & Modern Versions

Summary:
Khoo strongly criticizes modern textual-criticism methods and many modern English translations (NIV, RSV, etc.) as theologically dangerous or compromised because of their reliance on the “critical text.” FEBC issues warnings about theological drift enabled by some translations. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — tone and engagement:

1. Ad hominem tendencies & rhetorical excesses: Some FEBC language, as critics note, can feel polemical and dismissive (e.g., labeling modern scholarship “corrupt” wholesale). That tone hardens opposition and reduces the possibility of scholarly conversation. Critics have responded at length pointing out that a wholesale rejection, rather than situational critique, is both unnecessary and counterproductive. (jamesdprice.com)

2. Failure to discriminate among modern versions & scholars: Not all modern translations are alike; many are careful, conservative, and based on rigorous scholarship. FEBC would be more persuasive by distinguishing versions and scholars that genuinely err from those that are responsible. A blanket condemnation undermines credibility with neutral observers.

Recommendation:

• Adopt a calibrated critique that: (a) names specific problematic translations/readings (with data); (b) singles out particular methodological errors in named scholarly works; and (c) leaves room to commend responsible modern scholarship when warranted.

---

Chapter 6 — Pastoral & Ecclesial Implications (the KJV-only practice)

Summary:
Khoo urges churches to adopt KJV-only public reading, preaching, and teaching in English. He sees this as a faithful application of VPP and spiritual safeguarding for congregations. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — ecclesial risk & ecumenical consequences:

1. Risk of divisiveness: Historical and contemporary reactions show that strict KJV-only stances can produce schisms and alienation from other evangelicals who would not accept VPP/KJV-only premises. Evidence from debates and church splits in the Singapore B-P context demonstrates this risk. FEBC should more fully wrestle with how hard-line positions affect broader Christian fellowship. (truth.sg)

2. Pastoral trade-offs: Exclusivity may be pastorally insensitive to non-native English speakers, younger readers, or those who benefit from clarity in modern idiom. FEBC should offer pastoral strategies (e.g., teaching KJV while using modern literal translations in study aids) rather than an absolutist practice. (febc.edu.sg)

Recommendation:

• Provide pastoral guidelines that balance reverence for KJV and sensitivity to pastoral realities. Also articulate ecclesial policies for interchurch cooperation with bodies that use other approved translations.

---

Chapter 7 — Responses to Critics (FEBC’s replies)

Summary:
FEBC responds to critics in appendices and articles, defending VPP and attacking certain polemical opponents. FEBC insists critics misunderstand VPP or conflate VPP with “KJV-onlyism” in its strongest forms. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — substantive engagement lacking:

• Many critics (e.g., academic papers, denominational responses, and point-by-point critiques) call for more sustained engagement with the manuscript evidence and with technical textual-criticism methodology. FEBC often replies at a high level (reasserting axioms) rather than performing the laborious task of detailed rebuttal on contested textual points. The debate therefore sometimes becomes doctrinal/polemical rather than evidentiary. Representative rebuttals (e.g., James D. Price) press these evidential points. (jamesdprice.com)

Recommendation:

• Publish a vigorous, evidence-rich rejoinder that addresses the pivotal manuscript-level criticisms in such a way that neutral scholars can evaluate the claims.

---

Overall theological assessment

• Theological caution is needed: asserting that God preserved exact words in one modern edition (effectively equating TR/KJV with the autograph) moves beyond commitments commonly held by many historic Reformed and evangelical theologians, who affirmed Scripture’s preservation but did not claim that every extant form or edition represents a mechanical, word-for-word preservation identical to the autographs. FEBC would buttress its theological legitimacy by acknowledging that textual transmission is complex and explaining why VPP still wins despite that complexity. (febc.edu.sg)

---

Practical suggestions for FEBC (how to sharpen the book/position)

1. Publish a technical apparatus volume comparing TR vs critical-text readings in a systematic sample (with manuscript references and internal/external probability analysis). This would meet critics on their own terrain.

2. Temper rhetoric where possible and classify modern translations more finely (commend what is solid; rebut what is unreliable). This will reduce unnecessary alienation.

3. Clarify VPP’s scope (orthography, spelling, marginalia, punctuation, accent marks) so critics and pastors know exactly what the doctrine claims.

4. Pastoral guidelines for churches in multilingual, multi-generation contexts: how to use KJV for liturgy while using modern literal translations for study aids.

5. Historical-theological appendix showing exactly which Reformers/Patristic authors support VPP in the exact sense FEBC advances — or, if none do, explain why VPP is nonetheless consistent with the Reformers’ intent.

---

Representative sources & further reading (selected)

• Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages (FEBC Press). Primary text & FEBC VPP material. (febc.edu.sg)

• FEBC’s pages defending VPP and responding to critics (“Responses to Articles Against VPP”, “Truth or Lies”, etc.). (febc.edu.sg)

• James D. Price — Response to Jeffrey Khoo (detailed PDF rebuttal addressing manuscript and preservation claims). (jamesdprice.com)

• Representative critiques and chapter-by-chapter blog responses in the Singapore B-P context (examples: my blog's critiques). These illustrate common denominational and pastoral objections and the conflict dynamics in the local church context. (singaporebpc.blogspot.com)

• Overview article: “Verbal Plenary Preservation” (Wikipedia) — useful for overviewing positions and major proponents/opponents in recent debate (use cautiously; follow its sources). (Wikipedia)

---

Short concluding evaluation

Kept Pure in All Ages is a forceful statement of a particular conservative-Reformed position that places verbal preservation at the heart of biblical confidence and practical KJV use at the center of congregational life. However, its most significant academic vulnerability is evidential: a persuasive, enduring defense of VPP requires methodical manuscript-level argumentation showing why TR/Byzantine readings are superior across disputed loci, together with more careful engagement with exegetical alternatives to the scriptural proofs cited. The book would gain influence (and reduce needless polarization) by producing that granular scholarship, softening rhetorical absolutism, and offering pastoral accommodations that preserve both reverence for Scripture and charitable unity within the wider church.