Tongue Speaking

1 Corinthians 14:2

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (Tongue here is not a language!)

1 Corinthians 14:4-5

Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:13-14

For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 

1 Corinthians 14:18

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

1 Corinthians 14:22

Tongues, then, are a sign...

1 Corinthians 14:39-40

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Let's explore the words "tongue" and "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14 in terms of:

• Their Greek terms

• Contextual usage

• Theological implications

• Whether they refer to ecstatic, gibberish-like prayer languages or intelligible languages

---

🔍 Greek Word Study

Word: “Tongue” / “Tongues”

Greek: γλῶσσα (glōssa) — Strong’s G1100

• Occurs in singular: γλῶσσα = tongue

• Occurs in plural: γλῶσσαι = tongues

Semantic Range:

1. The physical tongue (organ)

2. Language or dialect (e.g., "foreign language")

3. Spiritual speech — often debated whether it refers to:

   • Known human languages (Acts 2 usage)

   • Ecstatic speech (incomprehensible to humans without interpretation)

---

📖 Usage in 1 Corinthians 14

Let’s trace the use of "tongue(s)" in this chapter:

1. Verse 2:

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God."

• γλώσσῃ (glōssēi) — singular, dative

• Describes a private or public utterance not understood by others.

• Speaker is not understood — implies unintelligible unless interpreted.

• Suggests a personal prayer or praise directed toward God.

2. Verse 4:

"He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself."

• Again, singular

• Focuses on personal edification

• No clear communication to others unless interpretation is given

• Implies a private, possibly ecstatic or mystical experience

3. Verse 5:

"I would like every one of you to speak in tongues..."

• γλώσσαις — plural

• Paul values the gift, but emphasizes prophecy as superior for corporate edification

• Plural suggests varieties of languages or multiple utterances

4. Verses 6–19:

• Repeated contrast: Tongue(s) vs. Prophecy

• Paul's concern: If there is no interpretation, the speech is unfruitful

• Emphasis on understanding for the sake of the church

“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church... I would rather speak five intelligible words…”

• Paul values the experience personally, but sees limited corporate value without interpretation

---

• No major theological distinction is made between the singular and plural forms in Greek beyond number.

• The plural often emphasizes diversity of expression.

• The singular often emphasizes the personal, individual experience.

---

🗣️ Are They “Ecstatic” or Real Languages?

1. Acts 2 vs. 1 Corinthians 14

• Acts 2 — "tongues" are clearly known languages understood by others (e.g., Parthians, Medes, etc.)

• 1 Corinthians 14 — context suggests unknown to the speaker and others unless interpreted

2. Nature of the “Tongues” in 1 Cor 14

• Incomprehensible to hearers without interpretation

• Paul never calls them nonsense, but insists they must be interpreted

• Likely refers to spiritual utterances, not learned languages

• Some scholars see parallels with Jewish apocalyptic or mystical prayer (e.g., 1 Enoch, Dead Sea Scrolls)

---

🙏 Conclusion: Are They Private Prayer Languages?

Yes — with qualification:

• In 1 Corinthians 14, "tongue(s)" often refers to a spiritual language, possibly unintelligible to both speaker and hearer.

• Paul acknowledges personal spiritual benefit (“edifies himself” – v4), especially in private prayer.

• However, corporate use must involve interpretation, otherwise it creates confusion, not edification (v9, v23).

So, the “tongue” here is a Spirit-enabled language meant for prayer or praise, not understood without divine interpretation.

John MacArthur

John MacArthur is a well-known critic of the modern Charismatic movement, particularly its practice of speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as seen today. His views are clearly outlined in his book “Charismatic Chaos” and more strongly in “Strange Fire.” He argues that the modern practice of "speaking in tongues" is:

1. Not biblical, because he believes the gift of tongues in the New Testament was always known human languages, not ecstatic or unknown utterances.
2. Not necessary, as the foundational signs of the apostolic age have ceased.
3. Dangerous or deceptive, attributing many Charismatic practices to emotionalism, psychological manipulation, or even demonic influence.

A Balanced and Biblical Response to MacArthur’s View

Here’s how a thoughtful response might be formed, grounded in Scripture, church history, and theological clarity:

1. What Did “Tongues” Mean Biblically?

John MacArthur:

Tongues were known languages only, given as a sign to unbelieving Jews (1 Cor 14:21–22, Acts 2).

Response:

It's true that in Acts 2, the tongues were known human languages.

However, 1 Corinthians 14 introduces a different kind of tongues, including "speaking mysteries to God" (v.2), "praying in the spirit" (v.14-15), and even a “tongue of angels” (1 Cor 13:1, perhaps hyperbolic, but notable).

Paul allows for tongues that require interpretation (1 Cor 14:5, 27–28), implying they were not immediately recognizable human languages.

Therefore, the NT reflects at least two expressions of tongues:

Human languages (e.g., Acts 2),

Spiritual utterances needing interpretation (e.g., 1 Cor 14).

2. Did the Gift of Tongues Cease?

John MacArthur:

Tongues and other sign gifts ceased with the close of the apostolic age (cessationism).

Response:

1 Corinthians 13:8–10 says tongues will cease, but also that knowledge and prophecy will pass away—when the perfect comes. Many interpret “the perfect” as the return of Christ, not the completion of Scripture.

Early church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen mention ongoing spiritual gifts—including tongues—in the early post-apostolic church.

Church history records continued occurrences of tongues, especially in revival movements (e.g., Moravians, Wesleyans, Pentecostals).

While abuses exist, the existence of counterfeit does not negate the genuine gift (same logic applies to prophecy, healing, etc.).

3. Are Charismatic Tongues Dangerous or Deceptive?

John MacArthur:

Much of modern tongues-speaking is emotionally driven or even demonic.

Response:

Certainly, discernment is needed (1 John 4:1), and there are false experiences.

But Paul doesn’t dismiss tongues because of abuse. He corrects and regulates (1 Cor 14:26–33).

He says: "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor 14:39).

Many sincere believers experience tongues as a private prayer language that edifies them spiritually (1 Cor 14:4, 14–15).

4. A Heart-Level Consideration

Rather than dismissing tongues outright, a more charitable and biblical approach is to:

Test all things by Scripture (1 Thess 5:21).

Allow for diversity in non-essential matters (Rom 14).

Discern by fruit: Are lives changed, Christ exalted, and love produced?

Conclusion: A Gracious Continuationist View

You don’t need to accept every Charismatic excess to believe that the gift of tongues may still be valid today.

The best response to John MacArthur is not to dismiss his concerns (many are valid), but to humbly correct his overreach:

“Yes, let’s be discerning—but let’s not deny what Scripture does not deny. Let’s regulate gifts, not reject them. Let all things be done decently and in order—but also, let all things be done (1 Cor 14:40).”

To make a good one better

The KJV, strictly speaking, is not a translation but a revision. In fact, it is a revision of a revision (Bishop’s Bible) of a revision (Great Bible) of a revision (Matthew’s Bible) of a revision (Coverdale’s Bible) of Tyndale’s translation. “A great deal of praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version.”1

Over the decades and even centuries, the process of review and revision has very likely eliminated gross translation errors from this line of Bibles. That is, if Tyndale made any errors, it would seem that they would have been corrected in the Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, Bishop’s, or King James Bible. How much more, then, should the RV, ASV, RSV, and ESV be perfected—or so one would think. 2

1. B. Metzger, The Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 76-77. D. Daniell points out that 83 percent of the KJV is from Tyndale; The Bible in English: History and Influence (New Haven: Yale, 2003), 152.

2. Ray E. Clendenen and David K. Stabnow, HCSB - Bible Translation: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2013).

Evidences of biblical text

The sincere Bible critic uses the manuscripts, the versions, and the writings of the early church fathers to determine the true wording that is closest to the original manuscripts.

1. The writings of the church fathers: The church fathers were the prominent leaders, theologians, teachers, and scholars during the first few centuries after Christ. They were dedicated Christians who wrote sermons, commentaries, and homilies. They contended for the faith amid the onslaught of false religions. The following are some of the better known names from a group said to number about 200 individuals during the first seven centuries:

  a) A. D. 96–150: Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp

  b) A. D. 150–325: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian and Tatian

  c) A. D. 325 and later: Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome and Augustine

These men quoted freely from the Bible, citing not only all 27 books of the New Testament but also virtually every verse in those books. Geisler and Nix asserted, “Five Fathers alone, from Irenaeus to Eusebius, possess almost 36,000 quotations from the New Testament.”15

Some years ago, Sir David Dalrymple was at a dinner with a group of scholars when the question was asked, “If the whole New Testament were destroyed in the fourth century, would it be possible for it to be put together from the writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries?” Two months later he said to one of the company, “The question aroused my curiosity, and having all existing works of the Fathers from the second and third centuries, I commenced to search. Up to this time I have found all the New Testament except eleven verses.” The testimony of the writings of the church fathers to the authenticity of the text is of significant importance. First, because of their devotion to God and His Word, they were careful in their copying of the Scriptures. Second, because they lived so close to the apostolic days, it is probable that they had access to manuscripts not in existence today. Some may have had access to the originals.

2. The Dead Sea Scrolls: In 1947 a Bedouin boy was herding goats near the northern end of the Dead Sea when he discovered these scrolls in a cave. Approximately 350 scrolls in all, the Dead Sea Scrolls are considered one of the greatest archaeological finds of the last century. Written by the Essenes between the first century before and the first century after Christ, the scriptural portions of the scrolls are hundreds of years older than any other previously known manuscripts. Portions of every book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, are contained in the scrolls. Of special interest is the scroll that contains the entire book of Isaiah. This Hebrew Isaiah manuscript is 1,000 years older than any previously discovered text. Even more remarkably, the scrolls confirm the accuracy of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament.

3. The Papyri: Of great interest to Bible scholars are the papyri found in Egyptian graves during the 1900s. Many assert these are the most important gains for New Testament textual criticism since Tischendorf announced the discovery of the Sinaitic Codes. Sir Arthur Chester Beatty (died 1968) acquired the papyri, now housed in the Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland. Others are in the possession of the University of Michigan and private individuals. They contain parts of the Old Testament in Greek, with considerable portions of Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy, as well as parts of Esther, Ezekiel and Daniel. Three manuscripts in the group are of New Testament books. These include portions of 30 leaves of the Gospels and Acts, 86 leaves of the Pauline Epistles and 10 leaves out of the middle section of the book of Revelation. This material is of great importance for it dates from the third century or earlier. The text is of such high quality that it ranks with the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices.

The John Rylands Fragment is a papyrus fragment that measures only 3½ by 2½ inches. Though small, it is the oldest recognized manuscript of any part of the New Testament. It was obtained in 1920, has writing on both sides, and contains portions of the Gospel of John (John 18:31–33; John 18:37; John 18:38). In 1956, Victor Martin, a professor of classical philology at the University of Geneva, published a papyrus codex of the Gospel of John called Papyrus Bodmer II. The manuscript contains John 1:1–14:26. Dated A. D. 200, it is probably the oldest book of the New Testament in substantial condition.

4. Textual criticism conclusions: Although textual critics have discovered variant readings, none of these have altered Christian doctrine. In fact, “Wescott and Hort, Ezra Abbot, Philip Schaff, and A. T. Robertson have carefully evaluated the evidence and have concluded that the New Testament text is over 99 percent pure.”16

15 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969) 357.

16 Geisler and Nix, From God to Us, 180.

Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, Revised & Updated, vol. 1 (Los Angeles, CA: Foursquare Media, 2016), 34–36.

They've clearly formed their view !

In writing articles arguing against Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJV-Onlyism as unbiblical, I've come to the sobering realization that I may now be perceived as an adversary by many of the bible teachers at FEBC. It is my sincere hope that they might thoughtfully reconsider the foundations of their teachings and extend their attention to dissenting voices, such as my own.

We aren't enemies of God's Word; we're wrestling with how best to understand its transmission and translation.

This has not been an easy path. It grieves me to know that my words may be received with suspicion or hostility, but I also believe that silence in the face of theological error is not love—it is complicity. I hope that my concerns are not dismissed merely as attacks, but as a sincere plea for re-examination and humility before God's Word.

I appeal to the teachers and leaders at FEBC, and those who follow in their theological footsteps: consider carefully what they are teaching and defending. Revisit the Scriptures with fresh eyes, and with a willingness to listen not just to their allies, but to voices like mine—those who raise difficult questions not to divide the Church, but to protect its unity in truth.

I do not wish to be their enemy. I long to be someone who can engage in honest dialogue for the sake of Christ and His gospel. I hope they will see me not as a threat, but as a concerned voice asking them to consider what is truly biblical, and what may have been elevated to dogma without scriptural warrant.

May God grant us all grace, clarity, and humility.

Christian Fundamental & Christian funny mental

"Christian funny mental" declares that fundamentalist ideology seems less like devout faith and more like delusional thinking.

It paints fundamentalism as an unintentional self-parody—where adherents are so committed to "biblical truths" that their stance appears detached from reality.

Fundamentalists are irrational or mentally extreme.

Some forms of Christian fundamentalism can come across as anti-intellectual, legalistic, or overly judgmental.

Outsiders (and sometimes even other Christians) may see certain behaviors or beliefs as exaggerated, unbalanced, or even fanatical, hence “funny mental.

It reflects how some people perceive extreme or rigid expressions of faith — as lacking love, grace, or reason.

Introduction to Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC)

Founded in 1962 by the late Timothy Tow in Singapore, Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) is an independent, conservative, Reformed theological institution. Its primary mission is to train pastors, missionaries, and Christian workers grounded in a staunchly fundamentalist and separatist interpretation of the Bible. FEBC adheres rigorously to the following core distinctives:

1. Biblical Inerrancy & Sufficiency: A strong commitment to the absolute authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture.

2. Reformed Theology: Emphasis on the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) and covenantal theology.

3. Ecclesiastical Separation: A commitment to separation from perceived apostasy, modernism, ecumenism, and worldliness, often leading to a position of separation not just from liberal churches but also from many evangelical groups deemed insufficiently pure.

4. King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Only / TR-Only): Perhaps its most defining and controversial stance, FEBC holds that the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text underlying the King James Version is the preserved, inerrant Word of God in the original languages, and that the KJV is the only accurate and acceptable English translation for preaching, teaching, and memorization. They reject modern critical Greek texts (like Nestle-Aland/UBS) and modern Bible translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) as corrupted.

5. Presbyterian Polity: Governed according to Presbyterian principles.

FEBC positions itself as a defender of "historic fundamentalism" and the "historic Christian faith" against perceived modern compromises.

Perceived Weaknesses and Controversial/Contested Positions:

FEBC's distinctives, while deeply held by its leadership and supporters, are the source of significant criticism and are considered weaknesses or false teachings by mainstream evangelical scholarship, other Reformed institutions, and many Christian denominations:

1. King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Only / TR-Only):

o   The Controversy: This is FEBC's most contentious doctrine. Mainstream biblical scholarship (evangelical, Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox) overwhelmingly rejects the idea that the Textus Receptus is superior to modern critical texts or that the KJV is the only acceptable English translation.

o   Criticisms:

§  Textual Basis: The TR is a late medieval/renaissance compilation based on a relatively small number of manuscripts, some of which contained errors later corrected by older and more numerous manuscript discoveries. Modern critical texts incorporate far more and older manuscript evidence.

§  Translation Imperfections: While a monumental achievement for its time, the KJV contains archaic language difficult for modern readers, known translation errors based on later textual discoveries, and passages where its rendering is less accurate than modern translations based on superior texts.

§  Lack of Scriptural Support: There is no biblical mandate that God would preserve His Word exclusively in one specific Greek text family or one specific English translation.

§  Divisiveness: This stance unnecessarily divides Christians and often leads to accusations of heresy against those using other faithful translations. FEBC frequently labels modern translations as "perversions."

o   Perceived as False: Critics argue FEBC elevates a specific historical text and translation to a level of inspiration and inerrancy that belongs only to the original autographs (which we no longer possess). This is seen as bibliolatry (worship of the KJV itself) or adding an extra-biblical requirement for orthodoxy by many outside the KJV-Only movement.

2. Extreme Ecclesiastical Separation (Secondary Separation):

o   The Controversy: While biblical separation from false teaching is a scriptural principle (2 Cor 6:14-18), FEBC often practices "secondary separation." This means separating not only from groups deemed apostate (e.g., liberal mainline denominations) but also from conservative evangelical groups, institutions, or individuals who associate with or are insufficiently critical of those deemed apostate, even if they otherwise hold sound doctrine.

o   Criticisms:

§  Undue Suspicion & Division: This can foster a spirit of suspicion, judgmentalism, and unnecessary division within the broader body of Christ. It can lead to isolation and a lack of fruitful cooperation with other gospel-preaching ministries.

§  "Guilt by Association": Criticized for condemning individuals or groups based on perceived associations rather than solely on their own stated doctrine and practice.

§  Impracticality & Inconsistency: Strict application can become practically impossible and is often applied inconsistently.

o   Perceived as Weakness: This stance is seen as a significant weakness hindering fellowship, cooperation in missions and evangelism, and creating a fortress mentality. While separation from clear heresy is essential, FEBC's application is viewed by many as overly rigid and schismatic.

3. Accreditation & Academic Isolation:

o   Weakness: FEBC is not accredited by mainstream theological accrediting bodies. While they argue this preserves their independence from perceived compromise, it means:

§  Degrees may not be recognized or transferable to other institutions.

§  Lack of external quality assurance checks common in accredited institutions.

§  Potential limitation of academic opportunities for graduates.

§  Reinforces theological isolation.

4. Specific Theological Distinctives:

o   Criticism of Other Reformed Views: FEBC strongly criticizes other Reformed theologians and institutions (even conservative ones like Westminster Theological Seminary historically) over issues like textual criticism, versions, and degrees of separation, sometimes portraying them as compromised.

o   Dispensationalist Leaning: While Reformed, FEBC (particularly under Tow) held some dispensationalist views regarding Israel and the church, which is atypical for classic covenant theology and sometimes creates tension within its own stated Reformed framework.

Conclusion:

Far Eastern Bible College is a significant institution within a specific niche of conservative, separatist, KJV-Only Reformed fundamentalism. Its strengths lie in its unwavering commitment to biblical authority and training preachers from that perspective. However, its most prominent weaknesses and the positions considered false by the vast majority of Christian scholarship and denominations are its dogmatic KJV-Only/TR-Only stance and its practice of extreme ecclesiastical separation (secondary separation). These positions are the primary sources of controversy and criticism directed towards the college, seen as creating unnecessary division, elevating a translation/text to an unwarranted status, and hindering broader gospel cooperation. Its lack of accreditation further contributes to its academic isolation.

About FEBC

Far Eastern Bible College: An Overview and Associated Criticisms

The Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) is a Reformed, fundamentalist, and separatist Bible-Presbyterian theological institution located in Singapore. Established in 1962 by Timothy Tow, it is one of the oldest Bible colleges in the country. FEBC subscribes to the Reformed system of theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and aims to train individuals for Christian ministry, adhering to a strict interpretation of biblical inerrancy and preservation. Its mottoes are "Holding forth the Word of Life" (Philippians 2:16) and "Holding fast the Faithful Word" (Titus 1:9).

FEBC is known for its strong emphasis on what it terms "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures. This doctrine asserts that God has providentially preserved every single word of the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible throughout history, down to the "jot and tittle." FEBC maintains that these perfectly preserved words are found in the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority manuscripts, which underlie the Reformation Bibles, best represented by the King James Version (KJV).

Weaknesses and Criticisms

While FEBC presents itself as a staunch defender of biblical truth, its specific theological positions, particularly regarding biblical preservation and the King James Version, have led to significant criticism and controversy within broader evangelical and fundamentalist circles.

1. Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and "King James Onlyism":

o   The Core Issue: FEBC's most notable and controversial doctrine is its unique interpretation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). While most conservative evangelicals affirm Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) of the original biblical manuscripts (autographs), FEBC extends this to argue for a perfect, word-for-word preservation of the copies (apographs) throughout history. They contend that the Textus Receptus (TR), the Greek text underlying the KJV, is the perfectly preserved text.

o   Criticism: Critics argue that this VPP doctrine goes beyond historical Reformed confessions and is a relatively new theological construct. It is often associated with "King James Onlyism," a position that asserts the KJV is the only true or authoritative English translation of the Bible. Many scholars and theologians disagree with this, pointing to the existence of numerous ancient manuscripts and textual variations, and arguing that while God has preserved His Word, He has not guaranteed a perfect, error-free transmission in every single copy or translation. Opponents suggest that FEBC's stance effectively elevates the KJV (or its underlying texts) to the status of a "new inspiration" or implies a miraculous restoration of texts by the KJV translators, which the KJV translators themselves did not claim.

o   Impact: This dogmatic adherence to VPP and the KJV has led to accusations of sectarianism and has caused divisions within Bible-Presbyterian churches, including a significant legal dispute between FEBC and Life Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore over doctrinal deviation.

2. Separatist Stance:

o   FEBC explicitly takes a separatist stance against what it perceives as liberalism, modernism, neo-orthodoxy, charismatism, ecumenism, neo-evangelicalism, and "all kinds of false isms of the day." While fundamentalism often involves separation from perceived error, FEBC's rigorous application of this principle can lead to isolation from broader Christian movements and a narrow definition of orthodoxy, potentially hindering collaborative efforts and wider theological discourse.

3. Academic Accreditation Concerns (Implied):

o   While not explicitly stated as a "falsehood," the strong emphasis on its unique VPP doctrine and its separatist nature might affect its recognition or accreditation by broader academic or theological bodies. Institutions with highly specific and exclusive doctrinal stances sometimes face challenges in gaining widespread academic acceptance, which could be seen as a practical "weakness" for students seeking to transfer credits or pursue further studies elsewhere.

In summary, while Far Eastern Bible College is committed to its interpretation of biblical authority and seeks to train ministers, its distinct and controversial doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation and its associated "King James Only" leanings are the primary points of criticism, leading to theological disputes and internal church divisions.

 

 

Defending God's Word Faithfully: A Response to "Why KJV is the Best English Translation"

The article "Why KJV is the Best English Translation of the Bible" can be found at https://gethsemanebpc.com/pastoral/kjv-best-english/

The article "Why KJV is the Best English Translation of the Bible" presents a passionate case for the exclusive use of the King James Version (KJV), rooted in a specific view of biblical preservation (Verbal Plenary Preservation - VPP) and the superiority of the Textus Receptus (TR). While I share the author's deep reverence for Scripture as God's inspired Word and the vital importance of having reliable translations, I must respectfully offer a different perspective grounded in historical reality, textual scholarship, and a broader understanding of God's faithfulness in preserving His message.

1. Matthew 4:4 and the Nature of Preservation

The article rightly emphasizes Jesus' declaration that we live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4, KJV). However, using this verse to demand that every single word must be perfectly preserved in one specific manuscript lineage or translation throughout history is an interpretation, not an explicit command of the text itself.

God's Faithfulness vs. Human Mechanisms: We absolutely affirm God's promise to preserve His Word (Isa 40:8; Matt 5:18; 24:35). The question is how He accomplishes this. VPP posits a specific, miraculous mechanism of word-for-word replication in a single manuscript stream (leading to the TR/KJV). The biblical texts speak of God preserving His message and truth faithfully for His Church, not specifying the exact method of textual transmission.

The Reality of Transmission: God's providence worked through the faithful, yet fallible, work of thousands of scribes copying manuscripts over centuries. This process inevitably resulted in minor variations (spellings, word order, occasional omissions/additions) – a reality evident in the thousands of manuscripts we possess. God's faithfulness is seen in the remarkable overall stability of the text across this vast manuscript evidence, not in the absence of any textual variants. The core message of sin, salvation, and redemption in Christ remains crystal clear across all reliable textual traditions and translations. No essential doctrine hinges on a disputed variant.

The Translation Question: The article asks, "how will we know God’s Word unless He has preserved it … and then we have it accurately and faithfully translated … into English?" This is crucial. We do have God's Word faithfully preserved in the original language manuscripts (though requiring careful scholarship to reconstruct the earliest text). The task of translation is then to accurately convey that meaning into another language. The KJV is one such translation, but not the only possible faithful one.

2. The Textus Receptus (TR) and Manuscript Evidence

The article champions the TR as the "pure," "providentially preserved," "infallible and inerrant" text, contrasting it sharply with modern critical texts based on older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The TR's Origin: The TR was compiled in the 16th century by Erasmus and others, primarily using the small number of relatively late (mostly 12th-century) Byzantine manuscripts available to them at the time. It was a monumental work for its era but was not based on the oldest available evidence.

Older Manuscript Discoveries: Since the 16th century, archaeologists and scholars have discovered thousands of older manuscripts (some dating to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries), including the Alexandrian family (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) and others. These older manuscripts are closer chronologically to the original autographs. To dismiss them wholesale as "scandalously corrupt" ignores their age and requires assuming widespread, early corruption of the text – a claim unsupported by historical evidence and contrary to God's promise of preservation.

Textual Criticism is Faithful Stewardship: Modern textual criticism isn't an attack on Scripture; it's the careful, reverent process of comparing "all" available manuscripts (including Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western families) to discern the most likely original reading. This process affirms the overwhelming reliability of the New Testament text. The differences between the TR and modern critical texts are minor and well-documented; they do not affect core Christian doctrines. The KJV translators themselves lacked access to this wealth of earlier evidence; they would likely have welcomed it.

3. The KJV Translators and Translation Philosophy

The article rightly praises the learning and piety of the KJV translators. They were indeed remarkable men dedicated to a monumental task. However, the argument for their unique, unrepeatable superiority is overstated.

Human Excellence, Not Divine Perfection: While highly skilled, they were fallible humans working within the linguistic and textual limitations of their time. Their own preface to the KJV explicitly states they did not claim perfection and anticipated future revisions as language and knowledge grew. Modern translators also include deeply devout, highly skilled scholars with access to far more resources (including those older manuscripts).

"Verbal Equivalence" vs. "Dynamic Equivalence": The article strongly favors "verbal equivalence" (word-for-word) as the "only" acceptable method, criticizing "dynamic equivalence" (thought-for-thought). While formal equivalence (like the KJV and ESV, NASB) has strengths, all translation involves interpretation. Languages don't map perfectly word-for-word. Sometimes a more dynamic approach (like the NIV, NLT, CSB) can convey the meaning more accurately and clearly to a modern audience. The KJV itself occasionally uses dynamic renderings. Both philosophies, when done faithfully and transparently, aim to accurately convey God's Word. Accusing modern translations of "adding to" or "subtracting from" God's Word (Rev 22:18-19) based on differing translation philosophy or textual choices is a serious charge requiring specific evidence, not blanket condemnation.

Team Technique: The KJV's collaborative process was excellent. Modern translation committees (like those for the ESV, NIV, CSB, NRSV) also involve extensive peer review and collaboration by teams of international scholars across denominations.

4. Theology and Modern Versions

The article claims modern versions, using critical texts, undermine key doctrines (Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, Blood Atonement) and are based on the "diabolical" work of Westcott and Hort.

Doctrinal Fidelity: This claim is demonstrably false. All major modern evangelical translations (ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, NLT) unequivocally affirm the Virgin Birth, the full Deity and sinless humanity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement through His blood, and His bodily resurrection. Passages central to these doctrines (e.g., John 1:1, 14; Luke 1:34-35; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Heb 9:12-14; 1 John 1:7; 1 Cor 15:3-4) are clearly present. Differences in wording (e.g., some debated passages like 1 John 5:7-8 or the ending of Mark) do not negate these core truths, which are taught throughout Scripture.

Westcott and Hort: Portraying these 19th-century scholars as "diabolical" is uncharitable and inaccurate. While their theories can be debated, they were devout Anglican scholars seeking the most accurate text based on the evidence available to them. Their work, refined by over a century of subsequent scholarship and manuscript discoveries, forms the basis for modern critical texts because they sought to utilize the oldest evidence. Their personal theology, while perhaps more broad than some evangelicals prefer, does not negate the scholarly value of their textual work.

5. The "No Reliable Alternative" Claim and Readability

The article dismisses modern versions as unsafe due to "diluted and adulterated doctrines" and suggests concerns about KJV's archaic language are a smokescreen.

Doctrinal Clarity: As stated above, major modern translations faithfully teach core Christian doctrine. The proliferation of versions often serves different purposes: formal equivalence (ESV, NASB), balanced approach (NIV, CSB), or functional equivalence for clarity (NLT). This allows believers to choose based on study needs or reading level.

The Readability Imperative: The claim that KJV's archaic language (e.g., "thee/thou," "prevent," "suffer," "conversation," "charity") is easily understood is simply not true for most modern English speakers, especially new believers or those without a strong literary background. Obscure language can hinder understanding, which is the very purpose of Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17). Faithful translation requires conveying God's message clearly to the target audience. Modern translations aim to do this without sacrificing accuracy.

Conclusion: Defending the Message, Not Just One Medium

The KJV is a magnificent historical landmark, a literary treasure, and a translation God has used mightily for centuries. Its translators deserve our respect. However, the arguments for its exclusive supremacy based on the perfection of the TR and VPP are not supported by the full scope of historical and textual evidence or by the Bible's own teaching on preservation.

We defend God's Word best by affirming:

1.  Divine Inspiration: The original autographs were breathed out by God, inerrant and authoritative (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21).

2.  Providential Preservation: God has faithfully preserved His Word sufficiently through the ages in the manuscript tradition, ensuring the Church has always had access to the life-giving message of the Gospel. This preservation is seen in the overall stability of the text across thousands of manuscripts, not in the perfection of one specific line.

3.  The Task of Scholarship: Textual criticism is a God-honoring discipline that seeks, using all available evidence, to recover the text closest to the originals. Modern critical texts represent the best efforts of faithful scholars to do this.

4.  The Goal of Translation: To accurately and clearly convey the meaning of God's inspired Word into the language of the people. Multiple faithful translations, based on the best available texts and using sound principles (both formal and functional equivalence), can achieve this goal for different audiences today.

Our faith rests ultimately in the God who spoke and who preserves His truth. We have His Word reliably in many faithful English translations, including the KJV, but not exclusively so. Let us focus on proclaiming the unchanging Gospel message found within them all, trusting in the Holy Spirit to illuminate hearts through His Word, however it is faithfully rendered.

Defending God’s Word: Without Idolizing One Translation or Textform

In every generation, Christians are called to defend the authority, reliability, and sufficiency of God’s Word. As a theologian, I share that deep commitment. Scripture is the foundation of our faith, the revelation of God’s will, and the guide for Christian life and doctrine. However, in our zeal to defend Scripture, we must be careful not to go beyond what Scripture itself teaches—or to elevate human traditions and historical artifacts to a level of divine perfection.

This article is written to affirm the trustworthiness of the Bible while addressing a growing concern: the claims of those who promote Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), KJV-onlyism, and the idea of a "Perfect Textus Receptus (TR)." While these views are often motivated by a desire to honor God’s Word, I believe they ultimately do more harm than good, and confuse the doctrine of Scripture with man-made theories about translations and textual history.

1. What Does It Mean to Defend God’s Word?

To defend God’s Word is not to claim that any one translation or edition of the Bible is flawless or divinely preserved to the letter. Rather, it is to affirm that:

God has spoken through human authors (Hebrews 1:1–2);

The Bible, as originally given, is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16);

The message of the gospel and the truth of God’s revelation has been faithfully preserved throughout history;

God’s Word is sufficient, clear, and authoritative for salvation and godly living.

This is the historic, orthodox position of the Church, held by countless faithful believers long before the rise of the KJV-only movement or the idea of a “perfect TR.”

2. Why I Reject Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration teaches that all the words of Scripture were inspired by God—this I affirm wholeheartedly. But Verbal Plenary Preservation, as some define it today, asserts that God has preserved every single word of the original autographs without variation, and that such preservation can be found in a specific printed text (the TR) and translation (the KJV).

This claim is not only historically and textually unsupported—it is theologically unsound.

Why?

Scripture never teaches that one printed edition of a text would be preserved perfectly. It speaks of the preservation of God’s Word (meaning His truth, message, and promises), not of one manuscript family or translation.

Manuscript evidence is complex and rich, with thousands of Greek manuscripts, none of which are completely identical. God’s providence has preserved His Word through this diversity, not through a frozen, flawless form.

VPP elevates human tradition—especially post-Reformation editorial decisions—into dogma. This risks confusing the authority of Scripture with the authority of a 16th–17th century editing process.

3. Why I’m Not a KJV-Only Advocate

The King James Version (KJV) is a monumental translation. It has shaped the English-speaking church for centuries and continues to be cherished for its literary beauty and theological depth. I respect it. But I do not idolize it.

KJV-onlyism teaches that the KJV is the only valid English Bible and that all other translations are corrupt or inferior. This view is flawed for several reasons:

1. God’s Word is not bound to one language or version. The early church read the Scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and later in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. No generation insisted on a single translation as “the only” preserved Word of God.
2. The KJV itself has undergone many revisions. The version most people use today is not the original 1611 edition.
3. Many faithful translations exist today—ESV, NASB, CSB, NKJV, NIV—produced with scholarship, reverence, and accuracy. To claim that God only blesses one version is to misrepresent both history and God’s providence.

4. The Problem with a "Perfect TR"

The Textus Receptus (TR) was the Greek text used during the time of the Reformation. It was based on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts and edited by scholars like Erasmus and Stephanus. It played an important role in history, but it is not perfect or identical to the original autographs.

1. There are known errors in early TR editions, including back-translations from the Latin Vulgate.
2. Later TR editions disagree among themselves—raising the question: which TR is perfect?
3. Modern textual criticism (based on thousands more manuscripts than were available in the 16th century) allows us to approach the original text with greater accuracy than ever before.

To claim that the TR is perfect is to ignore the historical and textual reality of how the Bible was transmitted and preserved.

5. What Do We Trust, Then?

We trust that God, in His providence, has preserved His Word faithfully. Not perfectly in one edition, but reliably through a wealth of manuscript witnesses, ancient versions, and faithful translations.

Our confidence is not in any one human product of translation or editing, but in the God who speaks.

Yes, we must be discerning about translations. Yes, we must reject those that twist doctrine or downplay divine truth. But we must also avoid the opposite error: turning a good translation into an idol, or insisting that one form of the text is the only form God can use.

Conclusion: Let the Bible Be the Bible

To defend God’s Word is not to defend a particular version or text-type, but to affirm the living, powerful, life-giving message of Scripture. Let us not fall into the trap of building walls where God has given freedom. Let us not elevate human editorial choices above God’s providential care.

God’s Word is eternal (Isaiah 40:8), sharper than any sword (Hebrews 4:12), and trustworthy (Psalm 19:7). That truth does not depend on one version, one manuscript, or one tradition—it depends on the faithfulness of the God who speaks and the Spirit who opens our hearts to hear.

Let us hold fast to Scripture, not as a museum piece, but as the living voice of our Lord. And let us defend it—not with narrow dogma—but with truth, humility, and grace.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” —Isaiah 40:8