Bible Witness, Vol. 5, Issue 2 (March-April 2005)

Bible Witness, Vol. 5, Issue 2 (March-April 2005), published by Gethsemane Bible-Presbyterian Church, Singapore. The issue is devoted to the preservation of Scripture and takes a strong King James Only / Textus Receptus position. Here are the significant theological problems:

1. Conflation of Preservation with a Specific Text/Translation

The most serious error runs throughout the issue. Jeffrey Khoo's article slides from the legitimate doctrine that God preserves His Word to the specific claim that this preservation was "restored" in the Reformation through the Textus Receptus and that the KJV "accurately reflects the original Scriptures." This conflates two distinct questions: Has God preserved His Word? (a biblical doctrine) and Which manuscript tradition is superior? (a text-critical question). Scripture promises preservation; it nowhere promises preservation in one specific manuscript family or translation. The Westminster Confession (1.8), which this Presbyterian publication should honor, affirms preservation "in all ages" without mandating the TR or KJV.

2. Misuse of Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35

Quek Suan Yew's exegesis of these passages exceeds what the texts actually claim. Matthew 5:17-18 is primarily about Jesus fulfilling the Law and Prophets — its primary referent is Jesus' mission, not a doctrine of textual transmission. Matthew 24:35 is a statement of Christ's authority and the reliability of His prophetic word. Neither passage, exegetically, makes claims about manuscript transmission fidelity or specific textual traditions. The article reads a developed preservation doctrine into these texts rather than out of them.

3. The Autograph/Apograph Argument is Overstated

Vincent Chia's article makes a valid point — that God's people have always used copies, not originals — but then overreaches. The argument that 2 Timothy 3:16's present tense ("is given") proves the copies are equally inspired conflates preservation with inspiration. Inspiration is a property of the original act of God breathing out Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16); preservation is God's providential keeping of those words accessible. Confusing these two distinct doctrines has serious implications, as it could be used to claim any specific copy or translation is inspired.

4. False Dilemma in "Biblical Scepticism or Textual Criticism?"

Vincent Chia's article presents a stark false dilemma: either accept perfect preservation (defined as the TR/KJV position) or you are a "sceptic" aligned with Satan. This is rhetorically manipulative and theologically unfair. Evangelical textual scholars who work on manuscripts — including many who hold a high view of Scripture's inerrancy and inspiration — are lumped together with apostates and unbelievers. Faithful scholars like B.B. Warfield, Wayne Grudem, and D.A. Carson hold robust views of inerrancy while engaging in responsible textual criticism. The article does not distinguish between destructive higher criticism and legitimate lower (textual) criticism, which the church has always employed.

5. Psalm 12:6-7 Misapplied

Several articles cite Psalm 12:6-7 as a preservation promise. However, the Hebrew of verse 7 most naturally reads "You will keep them [the poor/needy of v.5] from this generation forever," not "You will preserve Your words." Most Hebrew scholars and major translations (ESV, NIV, NASB) reflect this reading. Building a doctrine of textual preservation on this verse is exegetically shaky.

6. Psalm 119:89 Overstated

George Skariah's article is more careful than some others, but still overreads Psalm 119:89. The verse declares God's word is eternally settled in heaven — meaning it is unchangeable in its divine character. The article rightly critiques the view that this means preservation only in heaven, but then moves to assert it guarantees a perfect earthly textual tradition without adequate exegetical warrant.

What the Issue Gets Right

To be fair: the articles correctly affirm verbal plenary inspiration, the eternal authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and the importance of God's Word for salvation and sanctification. The concern about rationalism undermining confidence in Scripture is legitimate. The Gethsemane Care Ministry section is admirable gospel work.

Summary Judgment

The central false teaching is a KJV-Only / perfect preservation doctrine that goes beyond Scripture's own claims, is built on several exegetical overreaches, and condemns as faithless any Christian who engages in textual criticism — a discipline the church has practiced since Origen and Jerome. The doctrine of preservation is biblical; the specific form taught here is not.