"By This All Will Know..." — The True Mark of Discipleship

"By This All Will Know..." — The True Mark of Discipleship

Jesus said in John 13:35 (ESV):

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

This is not a secondary command. It is the defining mark of discipleship according to Jesus Himself. He did not say, “By your theological precision,” nor “By your knowledge of Greek or Hebrew,” nor even “By having the most accurate Bible manuscript.” He said, “if you love one another.”

1. Jesus' Standard of Unity Is Love, Not Version

Many in the modern church, particularly within certain fundamentalist or sectarian circles, have attached their identity not to Christ, but to a particular Bible version—as though allegiance to a manuscript tradition is equivalent to loyalty to Jesus.

But Jesus did not say:

"By this all people will know you are my disciples, if you read the King James Version."

Nor, "If you reject all modern translations."

Nor, "If you possess the original Textus Receptus."

Instead, He centered discipleship in love—because love is the visible manifestation of inward transformation by the Spirit of God. A church that fractures over Bible versions is not showing the world Christ; it is showing the world division over human preferences.

2. The New Testament Picture of Unity

Paul writes in Ephesians 4:4–6 (ESV):

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Let us examine what is listed:

One body (the unified Church),

One Spirit (the Holy Spirit that unites),

One hope (of eternal life),

One Lord (Jesus Christ),

One faith (the gospel message),

One baptism (our entrance into Christ),

One God and Father.

What is not mentioned?

One translation.

One manuscript family.

One English version.

Paul, guided by the Spirit, teaches that the unity of the Church is spiritual and theological, not textual in terms of translation preference. If Paul expected the Gentile and Jewish believers of the early church—who spoke Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew—to be united without one Bible version, how much more should we, with the blessing of many good translations, seek unity across those versions?

3. The Danger of Idolizing a Bible Version

It is right to respect the Bible—in all faithful translations—but it becomes dangerous when a church idolizes a specific version to the point that it breaks fellowship with other believers. That is versionolatry—elevating a human translation to the level of divine authority and using it as a test of orthodoxy.

The Bible is inspired, but no single English translation is perfect or untouchable. The original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are what were divinely inspired. All translations are interpretations to some extent. But the Spirit of God is not bound by English. He has worked through Luther’s German, Tyndale’s English, Reina-Valera’s Spanish, and through countless faithful versions across the centuries.

To claim that God cannot work unless we use one specific version is to limit the sovereignty of God and to erect a false standard of holiness.

4. A Call to the Church: Lay Down Version Wars for the Sake of the Cross

The church must repent of the idea that we can only be unified when we all carry the same Bible version. This is not the unity of the Spirit—it is the uniformity of man.

Let us remember:

Love unites. Pride divides.

The Spirit sanctifies. Versions do not.

The gospel is preached through many tongues and versions—and still saves.

The church must chip away the man-made wall that says we must agree on manuscript families before we can call each other brother or sister. We must stop gatekeeping the kingdom of God based on the cover of someone’s Bible.

Instead, let us:

Welcome all who call on the name of Jesus in truth.

Celebrate the Word of God in every faithful translation.

Recenter on the gospel, not the Greek.

Love one another as Christ has loved us.

5. Call to Unity Beyond Bible Versions

In John 13:35, Jesus declares, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” This command centers on love as the definitive mark of His followers, not doctrinal uniformity on secondary matters like textual traditions or Bible translations. Similarly, in His High Priestly Prayer (John 17:20–23), Jesus emphasizes unity among believers as a reflection of His divine mission. Strikingly, He prioritizes relational harmony—rooted in love—over institutional or textual uniformity. The absence of any mention of a “perfect Bible” in these passages underscores that the church’s witness depends not on textual precision but on embodying Christ’s love.

6. Paul’s Unity Framework in Ephesians 4:4–6

The apostle Paul reinforces this vision, listing seven pillars of Christian unity: “one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Conspicuously absent is any demand for “one Bible” or textual uniformity. Early Christians lacked a standardized New Testament canon for centuries, relying instead on oral teachings, letters, and diverse manuscripts. Their unity sprang from shared allegiance to Christ, the Spirit’s work, and core tenets of faith—not from uniformity in written texts. Paul’s silence on textual issues suggests that unity transcends preferences over translations, which are tools to convey the gospel, not the gospel itself.

7. The Early Church and the Purpose of Scripture

The New Testament writings were circulated to strengthen faith and correct error (2 Timothy 3:16–17), but their authority derives from their witness to Christ, not textual perfection. Early Christians preserved unity despite using varied Septuagint (Greek) and Hebrew texts, showing that the message of salvation, not textual uniformity, was paramount. The Bible’s purpose is to point to Jesus (John 5:39), guide believers in love (1 Timothy 1:5), and equip them for mission—not to become an idol of perfectionism. Translations serve to make this message accessible across languages and cultures (Acts 2:5–11), reflecting God’s heart for all peoples.

8. Addressing Concerns Over Translations

While no translation is flawless, major doctrines (e.g., Christ’s divinity, salvation by grace) remain intact across reputable versions. The Holy Spirit’s role in illumination (1 Corinthians 2:12–14) ensures that God’s truth transcends linguistic nuances. To insist on a single translation as a prerequisite for unity risks elevating human preferences above the gospel’s substance, fostering division where Christ commands love. The KJV-Only and Verbal Pleanry Preservation movement, for instance, fractures the body over 17th-century English, ironically undermining the very unity Jesus prayed for.

9. A Call to the Bible-Presbyterian Church

The church is summoned to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). This requires “chipping away” at secondary demands—like textual perfectionism—that hinder fellowship. Let us focus on essentials: proclaiming Christ, loving sacrificially, and pursuing justice. When we prioritize unity in the Spirit over uniformity in translations, we honor Jesus’ prayer and Paul’s exhortations. As Augustine wisely said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

10. Conclusion

The church’s unity rests on Christ alone, not on textual precision. Let us lay aside divisive debates over translations and instead “clothe ourselves with love, which binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Colossians 3:14, NLT). Only then will the world recognize us as His disciples.

The world will know—not by our arguments over versions—but by our Christlike love, that we are truly His disciples.

If doctrine divides, how can the Church unite as one?

The tension between doctrine and unity has existed since the earliest days of the Church. 

1. Doctrine Doesn't Have to Divide

While it's true that different interpretations of doctrine have led to divisions, it's also true that doctrine—rightly understood—can be a source of unity. Shared core beliefs (like the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the authority of Scripture) form the foundation of Christian identity across denominations.

2. Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials

A classic principle often attributed to St. Augustine or later Christian thinkers is:

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Not every doctrinal disagreement needs to lead to division. The Church can remain united in the essentials of the faith while allowing diversity in secondary matters.

3. Unity Is a Work of the Spirit

True Christian unity is not merely organizational or intellectual—it's spiritual. Jesus prayed in John 17:21 that His followers “may all be one… so that the world may believe.” That unity comes through the Holy Spirit, transcending denominational lines.

4. Unity Is Relational Before It Is Doctrinal

The early church often disagreed (e.g., Acts 15, Galatians 2), yet the apostles pursued unity through humility, dialogue, and love. Christian unity is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of grace amid it.

5. Pursue Truth and Love Together

Doctrine matters—truth matters. But Paul reminds us that knowledge without love "puffs up," while love "builds up" (1 Cor. 8:1). The goal is not to ignore doctrine but to hold it with humility and charity.

Conclusion:

Doctrine can divide when misused, but when approached humbly, it can help define the faith we hold in common. The Church unites not by ignoring doctrine, but by focusing on Christ, guided by love and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Our Statement

In Bible-Presbyterian Church, the Bible is considered to be inspired by God and is central to worship and teaching. However, the Church acknowledges that the Bible was written by human authors in different times, places, and languages, which means that it is not a single, uniform document. Instead, it is a collection of diverse writings, including history, poetry, law, prophecy, and letters.

The Bible-Presbyterian Church does not claim that any single translation of the Bible is perfect or without error. Instead, it recognizes a variety of translations as being authorized for use, each offering different insights and perspectives. Some of these translations include the King James Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Revised English Bible, among others.

The term "TR" usually refers to the Textus Receptus, a Greek text of the New Testament that has been the basis for several translations, including the King James Version. While the Textus Receptus has historical significance, it is not considered "perfect" in the sense of being without error or beyond improvement. Scholars continue to study ancient manuscripts to gain a better understanding of the original texts.

We encourages engaging with the Bible through study and interpretation, guided by the Holy Spirit, to understand its meaning and relevance for our lives today.

Bible Preservation

The question of whether we have a "perfect" text of Scripture, such as the Textus Receptus (TR), and whether God has preserved His Word "on paper," touches on theology, history, and the nature of divine revelation. Let’s address this step by step, emphasizing why Christians can trust Scripture and why all translations—when faithfully rendered—invite us into the living, eternal Word of God.

 

1. What is the "Perfect TR"? Why Some Argue for It

The Textus Receptus (Latin for "Received Text") refers to a Greek New Testament compilation used as the basis for many early Protestant translations, including the King James Version (KJV). Some argue it represents a "perfect" preservation of the original biblical text. However, modern textual criticism reveals that the TR is based on later medieval manuscripts (Byzantine text-type) and contains minor scribal additions or variations not found in older, earlier manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These older manuscripts, discovered centuries after the TR’s creation, have refined our understanding of the New Testament text. Thus, while the TR is valuable, it is not "perfect" in the sense of being identical to the original autographs (first writings).

Key point: No single manuscript or textual tradition (e.g., TR, Alexandrian, Byzantine) is flawless, but God’s sovereign oversight ensures the message of Scripture remains intact across all traditions.

 

2. The Word of God is "Living and Active" (Hebrews 4:12)

Scripture’s divine authority does not depend on human perfection in transmission. The Bible itself declares:

 

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isaiah 40:8).

 

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

 

God’s Word is "living" because it is empowered by the Holy Spirit to transform lives (John 6:63). Even with minor textual variations (e.g., spelling differences, word order), the core truths—about God, salvation, and Christ—remain consistent across all reliable translations.

 

3. Does God Preserve His Word "On Paper"?

Yes, but not through a single manuscript or translation. Preservation is seen in:

 

Providential Care: God oversaw the copying and transmission process across millennia. While human errors occurred (e.g., scribal mistakes), no essential doctrine is compromised.

 

Textual Criticism: Scholars compare thousands of manuscripts to reconstruct the original text with remarkable accuracy. Over 99% of the New Testament text is confirmed with certainty; the remaining uncertainties (e.g., Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11) do not affect core theology.

 

Multiplicity of Witnesses: The Bible’s survival through persecution, censorship, and time testifies to divine preservation.

 

Example: The resurrection of Jesus is attested in every major manuscript tradition, translation, and church creed. No variation undermines it.

 

4. Why Read the Bible in Any Translation?

God’s Word transcends language barriers. Translations are tools to make Scripture accessible:

 

Formal Equivalence (e.g., ESV, NASB): Prioritizes word-for-word accuracy.

 

Dynamic Equivalence (e.g., NIV, NLT): Focuses on thought-for-thought clarity.

 

Paraphrase (e.g., The Message): Captures the Bible’s spirit in modern idioms.

 

All faithful translations convey the gospel, God’s character, and His will. The Holy Spirit uses even imperfect human efforts to reveal truth (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

 

5. Addressing Concerns About "Errors"

Minor textual variations (e.g., "love for God" vs. "love for Christ" in John 21:15–17) do not alter Scripture’s infallible message. The Bible’s inerrancy applies to the original writings (autographs), not later copies. Yet, its infallibility (trustworthiness for salvation and teaching) remains intact in all reliable translations.

 

6. Practical Encouragement: Read the Bible!

Focus on the Central Message: The Bible’s unity points to Christ (Luke 24:27). Whether you read the KJV, NIV, or another translation, the gospel shines through.

 

Trust God’s Faithfulness: If God can use a donkey to speak truth (Numbers 22:28), He can use any translation to transform hearts.

 

Seek the Spirit’s Guidance: "The Helper, the Holy Spirit, will teach you all things" (John 14:26).

 

Conclusion

We don’t have a "perfect" manuscript or translation, but we have a perfectly faithful God who preserves His Word’s integrity. The Bible’s power lies not in ink and paper but in its divine Author, who ensures its message endures "forever settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Read it, study it, and let the living Word draw you closer to Christ—no matter the translation.

Start today: Open the Bible in your language. Let its eternal truths renew your mind (Romans 12:2) and lead you to the One who is "the Word made flesh" (John 1:14).

 

Do We Have a Perfect Bible?

Perfect? No. Reliable? Yes.

No single "perfect" manuscript exists — all have variants.

But due to thousands of manuscripts, textual criticism reconstructs the NT with ~99% confidence.

Modern critical editions (like Nestle-Aland and UBS) reflect the best scholarly consensus on the original texts.

A Call to Unity and Humility: An Exhortation to Bible Teachers - Pastor So

To Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy and others in Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore.

As those entrusted with teaching God’s Word, we bear a sacred responsibility to steward truth with wisdom, grace, and reverence. Yet I write to you today with urgency, compelled by Scripture and the Spirit, to address a growing fracture among us: quarrels over words, translations, and secondary doctrines that have divided the body of Christ. Let us heed Paul’s warning:

---

1. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved… correctly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NIV)

Before we demand perfection in others, we must first be “approved workers” before God. Approval comes not from rigid adherence to a single translation (e.g., KJV-onlyism) or textual theory (e.g., “Perfect TR”), but from humility, integrity, and faithfulness to the gospel. Quarreling over words (2 Timothy 2:14) distracts from our mission and ruins those who listen. Are we building up the church or tearing it down?

---

2. “Avoid foolish controversies” (Titus 3:9, NIV)

Debates over textual variants, translation philosophies, or speculative genealogies (Titus 3:9) are “unprofitable and useless.” While textual criticism has its place, elevating it to a test of orthodoxy breeds pride and division. The Word of God is alive and active (Hebrews 4:12)—whether in NIV, ESV, NASB, or other faithful translations. To insist that only one version is “God’s preserved Word” risks idolizing human methods over God’s sovereign power to speak through His living Word.

---

3. “See to it… that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart” (Hebrews 3:12, NIV)

Brothers and sisters, when we divide churches over secondary issues like translation preferences, we risk hardening hearts and driving people away from the “living God.” The New Covenant is not about ink on paper but God’s law written on hearts (Hebrews 8:10). Let us major on what unites us: Christ’s redeeming blood, the Spirit’s work, and the call to holiness.

---

4. “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished…?” (Hebrews 10:29, NIV)

To attack fellow believers over translation choices—treating modern versions as “unholy” or “corrupt”—is to insult the Spirit of grace who dwells in all God’s children. Such behavior mirrors the Pharisees’ legalism, not Christ’s compassion. Remember: God judges His people first (Hebrews 10:30). Let us tremble at the thought of harming His flock.

---

5. “Not many of you should become teachers… we will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1, NIV)

Teachers, your platform is not a throne but a cross. When you grumble against those who read NIV (James 5:9), swear by “Dean Burgon Oath” (James 5:12), or demand a “perfect Bible” (1 Peter 1:25), you usurp God’s role as Judge (James 4:12). We all stumble (James 3:2). Instead of policing others, examine your own heart: Is it marked by “bitter envy and selfish ambition” (James 3:14) or “wisdom from heaven” (James 3:17)?

---

6. “Be doers of the Word” (James 1:22, NIV)

The church needs fewer critics and more doers. A “perfect law” (James 1:25) is not about flawless manuscripts but the transformative power of obedience. Does your teaching produce “peacemakers who sow in peace” (James 3:18) or factions that split churches (James 4:1)? Stop judging fellow believers (James 4:11) and start loving them (1 Peter 2:17).

---

7. “Respect everyone… fear God” (1 Peter 2:17, NIV)

God’s Word endures forever (1 Peter 1:25), but our interpretations are finite. Approach difficult texts (2 Peter 3:16) with humility, not dogmatism. Teach “the very words of God” (1 Peter 4:11), not personal biases. Lead as examples (1 Peter 5:3), not lords. And flee the spirit of the “false teachers” (2 Peter 2:1) who peddle division as piety.

---

A Final Plea

Beloved, the world watches as we bicker over footnotes while orphans go unfed and souls perish. Let us repent of pride, lay down our swords, and unite around the gospel. Modern translations are tools, not idols. The “perfect” Bible is the one that transforms sinners into saints—and that work belongs to the Spirit, not our polemics.

May we heed James’ warning: “Don’t grumble… The Judge is standing at the door!” (James 5:9). Let us stand before Him not as Pharisees clutching our preferred texts, but as servants who loved His sheep, preached His grace, and left the rest to Him.

For the sake of the Bride,

An Ordained Pastor So And So

 

---

Scripture quotations taken from the NIV.

 

The Hexapla vs Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJVonlyism

The Hexapla (Greek for "sixfold") was a monumental scholarly work compiled by Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD). It was one of the most ambitious textual projects in early Christian history, designed to compare different versions of the Old Testament. Its importance lies in several key areas:

1. Purpose: Resolving Textual Discrepancies

   - Early Christians (who mostly used the Greek Septuagint/LXX) debated with Jews (who used the Hebrew Masoretic text) over scriptural accuracy.

   - Origen noticed differences between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek LXX, leading to disputes over prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 7:14’s "virgin" vs. "young woman").

   - The Hexapla was created to compare multiple versions side-by-side, helping scholars determine the most reliable readings.

2. Structure: A Comparative Bible in Six Columns

   The Hexapla arranged the Old Testament in six parallel columns:

   1. Hebrew Text (original consonantal Hebrew)  

   2. Hebrew Transliterated into Greek Letters (for Greek-speaking readers)  

   3. Aquila’s Greek Translation (ultra-literal Jewish version, 2nd century AD)  

   4. Symmachus’ Greek Translation (more readable Jewish-Greek version, 2nd century AD)  

   5. Septuagint (LXX) (the standard Greek OT, with Origen’s editorial marks)  

   6. Theodotion’s Greek Translation (a revised LXX-like Jewish version, 2nd century AD)  

   - Later, Origen reportedly added three more columns (Quinta, Sexta, Septima) for other Greek versions, making some sections Tetrapla (4-column) or Octapla (8-column).

3. Key Contributions and Importance

A. Textual Criticism & Preservation

   - The Hexapla was the first major comparative Bible, predating modern critical editions by over a millennium.

   - Origen marked differences between the LXX and Hebrew with symbols (e.g., asterisks [※] for LXX additions, obeli [÷] for Hebrew omissions).

   - This helped scholars track variations, influencing later translations like Jerome’s Vulgate.

B. Bridge Between Jewish & Christian Scholarship

   - Since Jews had largely abandoned the LXX (due to its Christian use), Origen’s inclusion of Jewish Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) preserved alternative translations.

   - It became a key resource for Christian-Jewish debates over Messianic prophecies.

C. Influence on Later Bible Translations

   - Jerome used the Hexapla for his Latin Vulgate, especially for the Psalms (leading to the Gallican Psalter).

   - Early Syriac and Coptic translations also referenced it.

   - Modern critical editions (e.g., Göttingen Septuagint) still rely on Hexaplaric readings.

D. Insights into Lost Texts

   - Some columns (e.g., Aquila, Symmachus) survive only through the Hexapla’s fragments.

   - It provides clues about pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts, since the Dead Sea Scrolls later confirmed some LXX readings over the Masoretic text.

4. Limitations & Challenges

   - No complete copy survives—only fragments in later writings (e.g., Eusebius, Jerome) and palimpsests.

   - Origen’s editorial marks sometimes corrupted the LXX by forcing it to align with the Hebrew.

   - The sheer size (likely 50+ volumes) made copying impractical, leading to its eventual disappearance.

5. Legacy

   - The Hexapla was a pioneering work of biblical scholarship, setting the stage for textual criticism.

   - It remains a crucial resource for understanding the transmission of the Old Testament in antiquity.

   - Modern scholars still study its remnants to reconstruct early Bible versions.

Observations:

The Hexapla, compiled by Origen in the 3rd century, serves as a critical tool for understanding the textual history of the Old Testament. By juxtaposing six versions (Hebrew text, Greek transliteration, Septuagint, and translations by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), it highlights textual variations and the early church’s acknowledgment of discrepancies. This comparative work undermines claims of a singular, “perfect” biblical text, as it demonstrates that early Christians actively engaged with multiple textual traditions. Here’s how this contrasts with Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV Onlyism:

1. The Hexapla reflects a commitment to textual criticism, not an assumption of flawless preservation.
2. The Hexapla’s documented variations challenge VPP’s claim of perfect textual continuity. If God providentially preserved every word, the need for Origen’s comparative analysis—or the existence of divergent traditions like the LXX and MT—becomes difficult to reconcile.
3. Origen’s inclusion of non-MT texts undermines the idea that one tradition (e.g., the MT/Textus Receptus) is exclusively “perfect.”
4. The Hexapla’s use of diverse sources—including those rejected by KJV Onlyists (e.g., LXX)—shows the early church valued multiple textual streams. KJV Onlyism’s reliance on the MT/Textus Receptus ignores the textual pluriformity evident in early Christianity.

Conclusion

Hexapla’s Legacy: It illustrates the early church’s recognition of textual complexity, contradicting claims of a static, “perfect” Bible. Variants were not seen as threats but as subjects for study.

VPP’s Challenge: If every word were perfectly preserved, the Hexapla’s meticulous comparisons would be unnecessary. The existence of divergent traditions (LXX vs. MT) weakens VPP’s premise.

KJV Onlyism’s Anachronism: The Hexapla predates the MT’s standardization (9th century CE) and the Textus Receptus (16th century CE). Its inclusion of pre-MT texts (e.g., LXX) invalidates KJV Onlyism’s exclusive reliance on later textual traditions.

In essence, the Hexapla supports a dynamic view of textual transmission, where preservation involves ongoing engagement with variants—a stark contrast to VPP’s static perfection or KJV Onlyism’s dogmatic exclusivity.

Origen’s bible

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254), one of the most influential early Christian theologians and biblical scholars, primarily used the Septuagint (LXX) for the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament manuscripts available in his time. Here’s a breakdown of the biblical texts he used:

1. Old Testament: The Septuagint (LXX)

   - Origen relied heavily on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which was the standard version used by Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians.

   - He recognized discrepancies between the Hebrew Masoretic text (used by rabbinic Jews) and the Greek LXX, which led him to compile the Hexapla—a massive six-column comparative Bible that included:

     1. Hebrew text  

     2. Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters  

     3. Aquila’s Greek translation (a very literal Jewish translation)  

     4. Symmachus’ Greek translation (a more literary Jewish-Greek version)  

     5. The Septuagint (LXX)  

     6. Theodotion’s Greek revision (another Jewish recension)  

   - Origen’s goal was to provide a tool for textual criticism and better exegesis.

2. New Testament: Early Greek Manuscripts

   - For the New Testament, Origen used early Greek manuscripts circulating in the 3rd century. These were uncial manuscripts (written in all capital letters) preceding later codices like Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus.

   - He quoted extensively from the Gospels, Pauline epistles, and other NT books, showing that the canon he used was largely similar to what we have today, though debates on some books (e.g., Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter) were still ongoing.

3. Origen’s Influence on the Biblical Text

   - Origen’s textual work (especially the Hexapla) influenced later scholars like Jerome, who used it for his Latin Vulgate translation.

   - Some of his biblical commentaries and homilies preserve early textual variants that help modern scholars reconstruct the history of the Bible.

Conclusion

Origen primarily used the Septuagint (LXX) for the Old Testament and early Greek New Testament manuscripts. His Hexapla was a groundbreaking work in biblical textual criticism, bridging Hebrew and Greek traditions. While he didn’t use a single "Bible" as we think of it today, his scholarship shaped how later Christians understood scripture.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) does not advocate for the exclusive use of one Bible translation

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) does not advocate for the exclusive use of one Bible translation (such as the KJV) but instead emphasizes the authority of Scripture in its original languages and the legitimacy of faithful translations. Below is the proof from the text itself, along with historical context:

________________________________________

1. Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8

"The Old Testament in Hebrew [...] and the New Testament in Greek [...] being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God [...] therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [common] language of every nation unto which they come [...]"

Key Points:

• Original languages (Hebrew/Greek) are the ultimate authority.

• Translations are necessary for those who do not know Hebrew or Greek.

• No specific translation is endorsed (including the KJV). The focus is on faithful rendering into the common language.

________________________________________

2. Westminster Confession 1.10

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined [...] can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

Key Points:

• Authority resides in the content of Scripture (God’s Word), not in a specific translation.

• The KJV is not mentioned as the exclusive or "inspired" translation.

________________________________________

3. Historical Context

• The KJV (1611) predated the Westminster Assembly (1643–1653), but the Confession never names it as the sole acceptable translation.

• The Westminster Divines often quoted the Geneva Bible (a predecessor to the KJV) in their writings, demonstrating their openness to multiple translations.

• The Confession’s focus on original languages and the need for vernacular translations inherently rejects KJV-Onlyism, which arose much later (19th–20th centuries).

________________________________________

4. Proof Against KJV-Onlyism

The Confession explicitly:

1. Prioritizes Hebrew/Greek originals over any translation.

2. Mandates translations into every language, rejecting exclusivity.

3. Avoids elevating any post-apostolic tradition (including the KJV) to the level of inspired Scripture.

________________________________________

Reformed Tradition’s View

Reformed churches historically use multiple translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV) as long as they accurately reflect the original texts. The KJV is respected but not dogmatically elevated.

Example:

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) officially affirm the Westminster Standards while using modern translations.

________________________________________

Conclusion

The Westminster Confession does not support KJV-Onlyism. Its insistence on the authority of the original languages and the necessity of vernacular translations aligns with the Reformed principle of sola Scriptura—not sola KJV. Any claim that the Confession endorses KJV exclusivity is a modern revisionist error.

For further study:

• The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary by A.A. Hodge.

• The Making of the 1611 KJV by Gordon Campbell (historical context).

• PCA and OPC position papers on Bible translations.

John Calvin’s use of the Septuagint (LXX) in Institutes of the Christian Religion

John Calvin’s use of the Septuagint (LXX) in Institutes of the Christian Religion reflects his engagement with ancient translations, though he prioritized the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). Below are key instances where Calvin explicitly or implicitly references the Septuagint, along with evidence of his broader reliance on it for scriptural interpretation:

---

1. Institutes 1.13.16 (Trinitarian Doctrine)

Reference: Calvin discusses the Trinity and cites Psalm 110:1 (Dominus dixit ad Dominum meum).

• LXX (Psalm 109:1): "Εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου" ("The Lord said to my Lord").
• MT (Psalm 110:1): "נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי" ("The declaration of Yahweh to my Lord").
  Analysis: Calvin uses the LXX’s Κύριος (Lord) for both divine names, aligning with the New Testament (Matthew 22:44) and early Christian Trinitarian arguments. While he acknowledges the Hebrew, the LXX framing reflects his doctrinal emphasis.

---

2. Institutes 2.6.4 (Atonement and Isaiah 53)

Reference: Calvin quotes Isaiah 53:5 to explain Christ’s substitutionary suffering.

• LXX: "τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν" ("by his bruises we were healed").
• MT: "וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא־לָנוּ" ("and by his wounds we are healed").
  Analysis: Calvin’s phrasing mirrors the LXX’s passive "ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν" (we were healed), aligning with his emphasis on Christ’s vicarious atonement. He likely drew from the LXX here, as it sharpens the theological focus on Christ’s role.

---

3. Institutes 1.8.1 (Authority of Scripture)

Reference: Calvin cites Psalm 119:105 ("Your word is a lamp to my feet").

• LXX (Psalm 118:105): "Λύχνος τοῖς ποσί μου ὁ νόμος σου" ("Your law is a lamp to my feet").
• MT: "נֵר־לְרַגְלִי דְבָרֶךָ" ("Your word is a lamp to my foot").
  Analysis: Calvin uses "lamp" (λύχνος) and "law" (νόμος) from the LXX, blending it with the MT’s "דבר" (word). This synthesis shows his familiarity with both texts.

---

4. Institutes 3.4.27 (Mercy Over Sacrifice)

Reference: Calvin quotes Hosea 6:6 ("I desire mercy, not sacrifice").

• LXX: "ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν" ("mercy I desire, not sacrifice").
• MT: "כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא־זָבַח" ("for I desire steadfast love, not sacrifice").
  Analysis: Calvin’s wording aligns with the LXX’s "ἔλεος" (mercy), which Jesus also cites in Matthew 9:13. This reflects his reliance on the LXX for Christocentric interpretations.

---

5. Institutes 1.5.12 (Creation’s Testimony)

Reference: Calvin paraphrases Psalm 19:1 ("The heavens declare the glory of God").

• LXX (Psalm 18:2): "Οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται δόξαν Θεοῦ" ("The heavens declare the glory of God").
• MT: "הַשָּׁמַיִם מְסַפְּרִים כְּבוֹד־אֵל" ("The heavens declare the glory of God").
  Analysis: The LXX’s "διηγοῦνται" (declare) matches Calvin’s emphasis on creation’s proclamation, showing his use of the LXX for theological emphasis.

---

6. Institutes 2.10.23 (Law and Gospel)

Reference: Calvin discusses Deuteronomy 30:11–14 ("The word is near you").

• LXX: "ἐγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν" ("the word is near you").
• MT: "כִּי־קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד" ("the word is very near to you").
  Analysis: Paul quotes the LXX in Romans 10:8, and Calvin follows this tradition, using the LXX to connect Old Testament law with New Covenant grace.

---

Broader Evidence of Calvin’s Use of the Septuagint

1. Textual Criticism: Calvin frequently compares Hebrew and Greek readings in his commentaries (e.g., Genesis, Psalms), acknowledging the LXX’s value for resolving ambiguities.

2. Apocryphal Citations: Though rejecting the Apocrypha’s canonicity, Calvin quotes books like Wisdom and Sirach (e.g., Institutes 1.5.5), which were part of the LXX.

3. Christological Typology: Calvin relies on the LXX’s messianic phrasing (e.g., "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 LXX) to defend Christ’s virgin birth, even if he prioritizes Hebrew elsewhere.

---

Conclusion

Calvin respected the Septuagint as a bridge between Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament, using it to:

• Support doctrinal arguments (e.g., Trinity, atonement).
• Align with apostolic citations (e.g., Paul’s use of LXX).
• Clarify ambiguous Hebrew passages.

While he prioritized the MT, the LXX informed his exegesis, demonstrating his commitment to a multilingual, textually informed theology. For deeper analysis, consult:

• T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries.
• Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin.
• David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context.