KJV's Preface: The Translators to the Reader

When the KJV was first released in 1611, it came with a preface titled The Translators to the Reader. (Click Here)

Based on the KJV Translators' own Preface ("THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER"), they explicitly and vigorously refute the core tenets of KJV-Onlyism. Their words demonstrate profound humility, a respect for prior translations, an expectation of future revisions, and a belief that multiple translations are beneficial – the exact opposite of KJV-Only doctrine.

Here's a breakdown of their beliefs and how their words refute KJV-Onlyism, point by point:

Deep Respect & Reliance on Previous Translations:

What they said: They repeatedly praise and acknowledge their debt to earlier English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer/Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops'). They call them "good" and "godly," stating they "built upon" their foundations. They specifically mention using "the same materials" (previous translations) and "that which helped the advantage" in them.

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism typically denigrates or rejects all other English translations as corrupt or inferior. The Translators explicitly valued and used these earlier works, seeing them as legitimate and helpful. They did not believe their translation invalidated or replaced all others.

Humility & Acknowledgement of Imperfection:

What they said: They readily admit their work isn't perfect or final. Key quotes:

"We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one."

"For perfection is under the sun... We cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself... yet he useth divers words."

"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." (Emphasis on meanest meaning "most humble" or "simplest").

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind... that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church..."

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism claims the KJV is uniquely perfect, flawless, or the only valid English Word of God. The Translators explicitly stated their goal was improvement, not perfection; they affirmed God's word was present even in the simplest prior translations; and they condemned the idea of condemning those earlier works. They saw themselves as part of an ongoing process, not the endpoint.

Anticipation & Endorsement of Future Revision:

What they said: They directly state that if their work seems faulty, it should be corrected:

"If we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." (This shows their process was revision based on multiple sources).

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism forbids any revision or correction of the KJV, viewing it as sacrosanct. The Translators not only expected but invited future generations to improve upon their work, just as they had improved upon their predecessors. They saw translation as an ongoing, collaborative effort needing revision, not a frozen, untouchable artifact.

Belief in the Value of Multiple Translations:

What they said: They use a powerful analogy:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded... For they that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

They also compare translations to a water channel: if one becomes muddy, having another source is good.

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism insists that only the KJV is valid and all others are harmful. The Translators argued the opposite: multiple translations (and even marginal notes indicating textual variations) are profitable and necessary for understanding. They valued diversity and comparison, not singularity and captivity to one version.

The Translators' Core Belief About Their Work:

They saw the KJV not as the only or final English Bible, but as the best current culmination of a long tradition of English Bible translation. They aimed to produce a "principal good one" out of the "many good ones" that came before, explicitly for the use of the Church of England. They believed it was a faithful rendering using the best available sources and scholarship of their day, undertaken with reverence and care. Crucially, they believed the Word of God was authentically present in earlier English translations and anticipated that future translations would, and should, build upon and improve their own work.

Refuting KJV-Onlyism Using the Translators' Own Words:

The KJV Preface is perhaps the strongest internal evidence against KJV-Onlyism. To claim the KJV is the only valid English Bible is to directly contradict the explicit statements of the men who created it:

They revered prior translations that KJV-Onlyism rejects.

They declared God's Word was present in those "lesser" translations.

They admitted their own work wasn't perfect and expected future revision.

They explicitly endorsed the value of multiple translations as essential for understanding, condemning the idea of being "captivated to one."

They saw themselves as part of an ongoing tradition, not the final word.

Conclusion:

The KJV Translators would be utterly dismayed by KJV-Onlyism. Their Preface reveals a profound humility, a deep respect for the work of others, an expectation of progress, and a belief in the necessity of multiple translations to illuminate the meaning of Scripture. KJV-Onlyism, by insisting on the exclusive perfection and finality of their translation, fundamentally misrepresents the Translators' own stated beliefs and intentions as clearly laid out in "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER." They saw the KJV as a significant step in a continuous process, not the end of the road.

The King James Only Controversy Trevin Wax | August 7, 2007

The article is written by Trevin Wax, published by The Gospel Coalition, it can be retrieved at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-nourishing-quiet-time/

Occasionally, someone will ask me what I think about the King James Only controversy raging in some of the fundamentalist circles of independent Baptist life. Having grown up around many KJV-Onlyers, I can only express sadness that the conservative independent Baptists continue to separate from each other over unimportant matters.

The fundamentalist movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress.

Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal.

So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others.

KJV Only Arguments

1. The King James Version is based on the “Majority Text” over against the modern versions that are based on the corrupt “Alexandrian Texts.”

Response: Most of the Byzantine texts used by the King James translators come from the 11th and 12th centuries. We have since discovered many older and more reliable manuscripts, which are closer to the original writings of the Bible authors. By comparing the earlier manuscripts to the later ones, we can see how the flourishes and additions of scribes can corrupt a text over time, leading us to believe that many of the “Alexandrian manuscripts” are closer to the originals and the majority of Byzantine texts altered. If the controversy were truly a textual issue, one wonders why the Greek scholars in the KJV camp have not come up with a modern English translation based on the texts they deem “inspired.” The textual issue is actually a smokescreen which hides the true reason for rejecting modern versions: any update of the KJV is considered tampering with God’s Word.

2. The modern translations attack the deity of Christ by removing references to his lordship.

Response: The Byzantine texts have the additional “Lord” and “Christ” added to the name of Jesus in many places where the older, more reliable texts do not. These are most surely the results of ambitious scribes, seeking to show reverence to the Savior or simply making mistakes in copying manuscripts. There are many examples where the deity of Christ is made clearer in modern translations than in the KJV. (Jude 4, Phil. 2:6-7, Acts 16:7, 1 Peter 3:14-15, John 14:14)

3. Heretics, occultists and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions.

Response: This is an all-out attack on the character of faithful believers who have sought to use their linguistic skills in offering an accurate translation of the Scriptures. The biblical linguist B.F. Westcott is consistently attacked, due to negligence in confusing him with the spiritualist W.W. Westcott. If there is anyone whose salvation should be questioned due to their “fruit,” it would be some of the extremist KJV Only advocates, whose polemic, vicious rhetoric is not becoming of a believer in Christ.

4. The modern translations delete verses from the Bible.

Response: Based on the older and more reliable manuscripts, the modern translations have simply sought to reflect what was contained in the original manuscripts. It is just as serious to add to Scripture, as it is to take away from Scripture. The starting-point for KJV Only advocates is that the KJV is the standard to which all other translations must bow, which is also the position they seek to prove. Thus, they employ circular reasoning that will not allow them to see any other position as possibly correct.

5. The 1611 Authorized Version is the preserved Word of God in English.

Response: No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original.

6. The modern translations promote a “works-salvation.”

Response: Virtually all of today’s cults (excepting the Jehovah’s Witnesses) prefer the King James version over the rest, including the Mormons, who also preach a “works-salvation.” Of course, this does not negate the worth of the King James version, but we could use this argument if we were to employ the same tactics of the KJV Only crowd. Compare Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (KJV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. (ESV) If we were to use the KJV Only logic, we could assume on the basis of this verse that the King James translators were conspiring to take us back to the chains of Catholicism, while the ESV translators are translating faithfully God’s Word. Of course, this would be a ridiculous assumption, but it is the kind of reasoning that KJV Only advocates employ. Even John R. Rice, the founder of the (now KJV-Only) Sword of the Lord admitted in Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible that the KJV renders Revelation 22:14 incorrectly and that the ASV is more accurate here.

7. The newer versions include footnotes which offer different renderings of certain words or verses. These footnotes confuse the reader and undermine the doctrine of inspiration.

Response: The 1611 King James Version also included thousands of footnotes which offered different readings for different verses. We should be grateful for today’s translators, who in the spirit of the King James tradition, have been intellectually honest when rendering exceptionally difficult verses about the limits to their knowledge.

Conclusion

Like with anyone who expounds a conspiracy theory, it is usually fruitless to try to reason with the KJV Only crowd. One should seek to prod these brothers and sisters to a correct understanding with love and patience, realizing that most efforts will be spurned and may turn out in vain.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

The purpose of this blog

The purpose of this blog refuting doctrines like KJV-Onlyism, Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), or "Perfect TR" (Textus Receptus) is not inherently unChristian or quarrelsome—if our motivation, method, and message align with biblical principles. 

1. The Purpose of this Blog

To Uphold Truth: Scripture commands guarding sound doctrine (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Titus 1:9) and correcting error gently (2 Tim. 2:24–26). False teachings can distort the gospel, breed pride, and fracture unity (e.g., elevating a translation over Christ).

To Protect the Vulnerable: Many are misled by claims that salvation hinges on a specific Bible version or that other Christians are "apostate" for using modern translations. A blog can offer clarity, historical context, and scriptural rebuttals.

To Promote Humility: Refuting dogmatic claims (e.g., "KJV is perfect") counters the "holier-than-thou" attitude some observed. It reminds us that God’s truth transcends human traditions (Mark 7:8–9).

2. Is It "Just Personal Views"?

No—if grounded in Scripture, history, and sound hermeneutics. For example:

KJV-Onlyism ignores textual scholarship (e.g., older manuscripts discovered since 1611).

VPP/TR doctrines often rely on circular logic (e.g., "God preserved His Word perfectly in the TR—because the TR says so").

A faithful blog cites evidence: manuscript history, translation principles, and biblical warnings against adding to God’s Word (Rev. 22:18). 

3. Is It UnChristian or Quarrelsome?

This blog can be—if done sinfully. But biblical correction is not quarrelsome by default. Consider:

Jesus and Paul refuted error (Matt. 23; Gal. 1:6–9; 2 Tim. 2:17–18)—yet with love for truth and people.

Danger signs to avoid:

Pride: Mocking opponents, boasting in knowledge (1 Cor. 8:1). 

Division: Attacking people, not ideas (Proverbs 11:9). We do our utmost not to attack personally.

Neglecting love: Failing to grieve the harm false teachings cause (Phil. 1:15–18).

Godly refutation:

Grounded in "truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).

Aims to restore, not destroy (Gal. 6:1).

Prioritizes the gospel over secondary issues (1 Cor. 15:3–4).

4. Should we Stop for the Sake of "Unity and Peace"?

No—but recalibrate our approach:

True unity is founded on truth (Eph. 4:13). Forced silence enables false teachings to spread, harming more people (Acts 20:29–30).

Peace ≠ absence of conflict: Godly confrontation brings lasting peace (Heb. 12:11). Avoiding hard truths creates superficial unity (Jer. 6:14).

Practical wisdom:

Focus on essentials: Does this teaching undermine the gospel, or is it a secondary disagreement?

Check our heart: Write to rescue, not to "win." Pray for those we disagree with (Matt. 5:44).

Elevate Christ: Point readers to Jesus—not just textual debates.

5. When to Continue—and When to Step Back

Continue if:

Our goal is to protect the spiritually vulnerable.

We offer grace-filled alternatives (e.g., explaining reliable modern translations).

We see fruit (readers freed from legalism, pursuing Christ-centered faith).

Pause/reflect if:

Anger or pride drives us (James 1:19–20).

Comments become toxic or divisive.

It consumes time meant for worship, service, or loving others.

Final Thought

A blog refuting error is Christian if it mirrors Christ: truth without compromise, grace without compromise. As J.C. Ryle said, "There is no such thing as peace at any price." Continue—but let every word pass through the filters of truth, humility, and love (Col. 4:6). The goal isn’t to "defeat" opponents but to liberate captives and glorify Christ.

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

— 2 Timothy 2:15

A Response to "Knowing For Sure I Am Saved" in Light of Congregational Concerns

FEBC released an essay on their website titled "KNOWING FOR SURE I AM SAVED," it can be retrieved at https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/church_weekly/knowing-for-sure-i-am-saved/ to which a response is provided below.

Samuel and Brothers and Sisters,

Thank you for the sermon on "Knowing For Sure I Am Saved." It thoughtfully addressed the vital biblical themes of assurance, the dangers of false confidence, and the grounding of our certainty in God's Word and work. The emphasis on self-examination (2 Pet. 1:10) and the warning against the Pharisees' self-righteousness (Matt. 23) were particularly crucial.

However, with deep concern and a heavy heart, I must observe that the lived reality within our congregation seems tragically disconnected from the very marks of true salvation and assurance you so rightly described. The sermon calls us to examine the evidence of God's work in our lives as a ground for assurance. When we look at our collective behavior through the lens of Scripture, we see red flags that demand urgent, humble repentance, lest we fall into the very category of those with "false assurance" you warned about.

Where is the Evidence of God's Work?

You stated: "To be a Christian is to be God’s workmanship... where there is true salvation, true life, there will be signs of life... When we see such signs... we can be assured that God is at work." Let us honestly examine these signs in light of the concerns raised:

Pride, Division, and a "Holier-Than-Thou" Spirit: You warned powerfully against the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. Yet, the reported attitudes – feeling like "the most faithful Christians on earth," seeing ourselves as "better than others," possessing the "perfect Bible" (KJV-onlyism), attacking other denominations, splitting churches, and chasing out pastors – exemplify the very Phariseeism Christ condemned (Luke 18:9-14). This pride directly contradicts the humility Scripture associates with true faith (Micah 6:8, Phil. 2:3). How can assurance coexist with a spirit that actively destroys the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-13, 3:3)?

Lack of Love & Compassion: True salvation, rooted in God's love (Rom. 5:5), inevitably produces love for others, especially the poor and marginalized (1 John 3:17-18, James 2:14-17). The reported absence of "real love for the poor" and the focus on doctrinal battles over practical Christ-like service is a glaring contradiction. Does this evidence "God’s workmanship" or a heart hardened by self-focus?

Unloving Correction & Pastoral Ego: The desire among BPC pastors to "punish those who disagreed," coupled with an unwillingness to admit fault or ego, stands in stark opposition to the Biblical model of leadership (Mark 10:42-45, 1 Pet. 5:1-5). True shepherds correct gently (Gal. 6:1), mourn over sin (including their own), and seek restoration, not domination. Where is the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:22-23) – in these actions and attitudes?

Misapplication of "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS): The sermon rightly distinguishes assurance from salvation and warns against presumption. Yet, the reported behavior suggests OSAS has been twisted into a license for unloving, divisive, and prideful conduct. If we are truly secure in Christ, shouldn't that security produce profound gratitude, humility, and a desire for unity and love, not a fortress of superiority and condemnation? Assurance that doesn't lead to increasing Christ-likeness and love is suspect (1 John 4:20-21).

Assurance Leading to Complacency, Not Consecration?

You concluded powerfully: "true assurance of salvation is such as to lead us, not to complacency, but to greater obedience and consecration... the more zealous we are to live for the Lord... the more we desire... worship."

Does the described behavior – the lack of love, the pride, the division, the harshness – reflect "greater obedience and consecration"? Or does it reflect a dangerous complacency, rooted in a false assurance that says "We have the truth (doctrine/Perfect Bible), therefore we are okay," regardless of how we treat others or reflect Christ's character? This looks like the very complacency and presumption your sermon warned against.

A Call to Align Our Lives with Our Doctrine

Samuel, your sermon provides the perfect foundation for addressing these deep concerns. You called us to ground our assurance in God's Word and God's Work evident in our lives. The behaviors described raise serious questions about the nature of that "work" evident in our congregation.

Let us urgently take to heart the call to "examine ourselves" (2 Cor. 13:5). Not just for intellectual assent to doctrine, but for the undeniable fruit of the Spirit and the radical love of Christ. Let us repent of pride, division, lovelessness, and harshness. Let us seek the humility and servanthood of Christ. Let our assurance manifest not in attacking others, but in serving them; not in splitting churches, but in building up the Body; not in neglecting the poor, but in loving them as Christ loves us.

True assurance, grounded in Christ alone and evidenced by His Spirit at work within us, will lead us together towards greater holiness, unity, and love – not further into the isolation of self-righteousness. May we have the courage to confront these contradictions and seek the genuine assurance that produces the undeniable fruit of a life transformed by grace.

In sorrowful love and hope for repentance and renewal,

A Concerned TLBPC Member

PS. What's the point?  Knowing for certain you are saved?  You continue to divide the church and families, as well as attack pastors who use the NIV, ESV, and other translations.

A Plea for Return to Sound Doctrine

Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy and others,

Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I write this letter not with a spirit of condemnation, but with a heavy heart and deep concern, compelled by love for the truth of God and for the well-being of His Church. It is with profound sorrow that I observe the doctrines you are actively promoting – namely, the concepts of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), the exclusive authority of the King James Version (KJV-Onlyism), and the belief in a "Perfect" Textus Receptus (TR).

These teachings have become a source of significant division and confusion within the Body of Christ. More alarmingly, they appear to have led you, and those who follow your instruction, away from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ and the sound doctrine delivered to us. My concern compels me to bring before you the sobering words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy:

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain." (1 Timothy 6:3-5, ESV)

Paul then concludes his letter with a final, urgent charge:

"O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge,' for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." (1 Timothy 6:20-21, ESV)

I urge you to hear these words afresh and examine your teachings in their light:

1.  "Different Doctrine" & "Not Agreeing with Sound Words": The doctrines of VPP, KJV-Onlyism, and a "Perfect" TR elevate specific textual theories and a single translation far beyond their historical and textual warrant, effectively creating a new standard of authority alongside or even above the original autographs as God intended them. This is a "different doctrine" concerning Scripture itself. It does not ultimately agree with the "sound words" of Christ and the apostles, who pointed to the substance of revelation, not the exclusive perfection of one manuscript tradition or translation centuries removed. The focus has shifted from Christ and the gospel message to intricate, divisive arguments about textual minutiae and translation superiority.

2.  "Puffed Up with Conceit," "Unhealthy Craving for Controversy," "Quarrels about Words": Do we not see these very fruits manifesting? The insistence on these doctrines often breeds intellectual pride ("we alone possess the true text/translation"), fosters an "unhealthy craving" to debate textual variants and translation choices above proclaiming the gospel, and generates endless "quarrels about words." The vitriol directed towards fellow believers who use other faithful translations, or hold to mainstream textual criticism, is palpable and deeply damaging to the unity of the Spirit.

3.  "Envy, Dissension, Slander, Evil Suspicions, Constant Friction": These are the undeniable results. Look around at the division sown within churches and between believers over these issues. Witness the slander hurled at godly scholars, pastors, and translators who disagree. See the "evil suspicions" cast upon the motives and salvation of those using the ESV, NASB, NIV, or other translations. The "constant friction" generated consumes immense energy that should be devoted to worship, discipleship, and mission.

4.  "Depraved in Mind and Deprived of the Truth": Paul is describing the state of those consumed by such controversies. When the defense of a specific text or translation becomes the primary mark of orthodoxy, displacing core gospel truths and Christlike love, it indicates a mind distracted from the central truths of the faith and deprived of its liberating power.

5.  "Avoid Irreverent Babble... Falsely Called 'Knowledge'": Paul explicitly warns Timothy against the kind of speculative, divisive arguments that masquerade as profound spiritual insight ("knowledge"). The intricate, often historically anachronistic, arguments used to defend VPP, KJV-Onlyism, and a "Perfect" TR against the overwhelming evidence of textual scholarship fit this description of "irreverent babble."

6.  "Some Have Swerved from the Faith": This is the most solemn warning of all. Paul states unequivocally that by clinging to and promoting such false "knowledge," some have departed from the faith itself. This doesn't necessarily mean a complete denial of core salvation doctrines (though it can lead there), but a fundamental deviation in understanding the nature of Scripture, the work of the Holy Spirit in its transmission, and the unity of the Church. Prioritizing textual and translational perfectionism above the clear gospel message and the fruit of the Spirit is a dangerous swerving.

Therefore, I appeal to you in the name of Christ:

Repent of elevating these man-made constructs (VPP, KJV-Onlyism, Perfect TR) to the level of divine doctrine. They are not found in Scripture and cause immense harm.

Repent of the division, pride, slander, and uncharitable judgment these teachings foster.

Return to the true "deposit entrusted" – the apostolic faith centered on Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, and the gospel message faithfully preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence God has sovereignly overseen, not in one idealized stream.

Embrace the rich heritage of the Church, which has used and benefited from multiple faithful translations throughout history, trusting the Holy Spirit to speak through His Word.

Focus your teaching on the "sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness," not on divisive battles over texts and translations.

Guard the true deposit. Avoid the babble that leads to swerving. The faith once delivered, the gospel of grace, and the unity of Christ's body are at stake. May the Spirit grant you humility, discernment, and a renewed love for the truth that sets free and unites.

With a prayerful heart for your restoration and the peace of the Church,

A Concerned Brother in Christ

Textual history and manuscript transmission over time

The textual history, manuscript transmission, and the evolution of the canon and versions of Scripture over time. Let’s explore this era by era:

---

1. During Jesus and the Apostles' Time (1st Century AD)

Old Testament:

• Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) – The Scriptures Jesus and the Apostles quoted were mostly in Hebrew, but…

• Septuagint (LXX) – A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, widely used in the Hellenized Jewish world (especially in the diaspora). Most OT quotations in the NT are closer to the LXX than the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

• No New Testament yet – It was being written during this time (approx. 45–95 AD).

Conclusion:
There was no single “perfect Bible”—different communities used Hebrew or Greek OT texts. Minor textual variations existed, but the focus was on preserving doctrine, not on word-perfect preservation.

---

2. 300–500 AD (Post-Nicene / Patristic Era)

Old Testament:

• Septuagint (LXX) – Still dominant in the Greek-speaking East.

• Old Latin translations – Used in the West.

• Hebrew texts – Used by Jews, but some early Christians consulted them (e.g., Jerome).

New Testament:

• Most NT books were widely accepted by this time.

• Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Alexandrinus (A) – major manuscripts from the 4th–5th century.

• Vulgate – Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (c. 405 AD). This became the standard Bible in the West.

Issues:

• Textual variation among manuscripts.

• Debates on canon (e.g., Revelation, James).

• No concept of a word-perfect Bible. The focus was more on doctrine, orthodoxy, and faithfulness.

---

3. Around 1000 AD (Medieval Period)

Western Church (Latin):

• Vulgate – Still dominant. Hand-copied by monks.

• Variants existed, and multiple versions of the Latin Vulgate were circulating.

Eastern Church (Greek):

• Byzantine Text-type – Became the dominant Greek NT text.

• Old Testament largely from the LXX.

Issues:

• Scribes made minor additions, glosses, or harmonizations.

• Some began to believe in a “pure” Latin text (especially among scholastics), but still, the idea of a perfect word-for-word text was not formalized.

---

4. Reformation Era (1500s–1600s)

Textual Bibles:

• Erasmus’ Greek NT (1516) – Based on a few late Byzantine manuscripts (basis of the Textus Receptus).

• Luther’s German Bible (1522–1534).

• Tyndale’s English NT (1526).

• King James Bible (1611) – Based on the Textus Receptus.

Old Testament:

• Based mostly on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT).

• The LXX still influenced some translations.

Issues:

• Reformers emphasized Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) but didn't claim a "perfect" manuscript.

• Variants in the Greek NT were recognized.

• Catholic vs. Protestant canon differences arose.

• No major claim that the KJV or TR was the “perfect” Bible—this belief developed later, especially in KJV-only movements.

---

5. 21st Century (Modern Era)

Manuscripts:

• Over 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts, 10,000 Latin, and many in Syriac, Coptic, etc.

• Modern textual criticism uses earliest manuscripts (like P52, P66, Codex Sinaiticus) to reconstruct the original.

• Popular translations: ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, etc.

• Majority of scholars rely on critical texts (e.g., Nestle-Aland 28th Edition, UBS5), not the Textus Receptus.

Issues:

• Some groups (e.g., KJV-onlyists, VPP proponents) claim that a specific edition (like the KJV or the Textus Receptus) is the “perfect” Bible.

• Most scholars reject this, recognizing that no manuscript or version is word-perfect, but that the message and doctrines are faithfully preserved.

---

🔍 Summary Table

Era	OT Texts Used	NT Texts Used	"Perfect Bible" Claim?
1st Century	Hebrew, Septuagint	Letters & Gospels being written	❌ No
300–500 AD	LXX, Latin, Hebrew	Codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus)	❌ No
~1000 AD	Vulgate (West), LXX (East)	Byzantine manuscripts	❌ No
Reformation	Masoretic Text, TR	Textus Receptus, early vernacular	❌ Mostly No (debated)
21st Century	Critical texts, modern MT	UBS/Nestle-Aland, various versions	✅ In some circles (KJV-only)

---

❗Was There Ever a "Perfect Bible"?

Short answer: No.

• The idea of a word-perfect preserved Bible is a modern invention, not supported by early church history or biblical manuscripts.

• The church has always operated with variations, translations, and copyist differences, trusting the Spirit-guided community to maintain the truth of the message, not the perfection of form.

---

Conclusion

The concept of a single, physically "perfect" Bible existing unchanged through history doesn't align with the evidence. What we have is a remarkably well-preserved and transmitted collection of texts. While minor variations exist in the manuscript tradition (overwhelmingly insignificant to core teachings), modern critical scholarship allows us to reconstruct texts of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament that are extremely close to what was originally written. The "perfection" claimed by many believers lies in the message and authority of the scriptures as understood within their faith tradition, not in the flawless physical preservation of every letter through every copy over two millennia.

When that which is perfect is come

1 Corinthians 13:10 is often debated, especially among those arguing for or against the continuation of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. Jeffrey Khoo wants to say that tongues stopped when the TR or KJV was completed; let us examine if he is correct or wrong.

1 Corinthians 13:10 (KJV)

📖 1 Corinthians 13:10 (KJV)

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

---

🧠 Key Greek Word: τὸ τέλειον (to teleion)

• Greek Root: τέλειος (teleios)

• Meaning: complete, mature, full-grown, perfect in function or purpose.

It does not imply a “perfect text” or “perfect book” unless the context clearly supports that.

It never means "flawless" in a textual sense. Paul uses this term elsewhere for spiritual maturity (1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13) and God's perfected purpose (Rom. 12:2).

---

🔍 Context: 1 Corinthians 13:8–12

"Prophecies shall fail, tongues shall cease, knowledge shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

Then Paul compares it to:

• Childhood vs. maturity

• Seeing dimly in a mirror vs. face to face

• Knowing in part vs. knowing fully

This is not talking about textual transmission or Bible manuscripts.

Conclusion: The "partial" (spiritual gifts) are temporary tools for the church age. The "complete" is the eschatological fulfillment when believers see Christ directly.

---

📌 Interpretation of “the Perfect” (τὸ τέλειον)

There are three major views:

---

✅ 1. The Coming of Christ / Full Eschatological Maturity (Most likely view)

• "Perfect" = the return of Christ, when we will see Him “face to face” (v.12).

• Supports: "Then shall I know even as I am known" — a level of knowledge impossible before glorification.

• Fits the rest of Paul's eschatology (e.g., Philippians 3:12, 1 John 3:2)

• This view is held by most church fathers, Reformers, and contemporary scholars.

---

🚫 2. The Completion of the Bible / Canon (TR or KJV)

• Some claim “perfect” refers to the completed Bible, especially among KJV-only or TR advocates.

• This interpretation originated in the 1800s, long after Paul wrote the epistle.

• Paul’s audience had no concept of a New Testament canon.

• “Perfect” here is neuter in Greek (to teleion), not “he” or “scripture” (which is feminine in Greek: γραφή graphē).

• There is no biblical or grammatical basis to say this refers to the Textus Receptus, KJV, or any manuscript tradition.

---

🟡 3. Spiritual Maturity of the Church (partial cessationist view)

• Some say the "perfect" refers to the maturity of the church — perhaps at the end of the apostolic era.

• While more reasonable than #2, it still struggles with the phrase “face to face” and “know fully.”

• Church maturity now is still partial; Paul seems to be pointing to an ultimate, future state.

---

❌ Misuse: Stopping Tongues Because "Perfect" = Bible

• Some cessationists argue that tongues ceased when the Bible was completed.

• But:

  • The text never says tongues stop when Scripture is complete

  • Tongues are listed as spiritual gifts alongside teaching, prophecy, and healing (1 Cor 12)

  • No verse in the NT says the Bible replaces the Spirit’s gifts

  • The grammar in 1 Cor 13:8–10 suggests tongues will cease when the perfect comes, i.e., when Christ returns

---

Why It Can't Refer to a "Perfect Bible"

Historical Anachronism: The NT canon wasn’t finalized until the 4th century. Paul couldn’t reference the KJV (1611) or TR (16th century).

Theological Inconsistency:

If "complete" = a Bible, why do faith and hope still remain (v. 13)? We won’t need them in eternity (Rev. 21:4).

The "face to face" (v. 12) language echoes Christ’s return (1 John 3:2; Rev. 22:4).

Early Church Interpretation: Church fathers (e.g., Chrysostom, Augustine) unanimously linked this to Christ’s second coming.

✅ Conclusion: What Is “the Perfect”?

τὸ τέλειον (to teleion) refers to the state of spiritual completion at Christ’s return—not a Bible translation. Paul’s point is profound: Spiritual gifts are temporary, but love is eternal because it reflects God’s nature (1 John 4:8). When Jesus returns, our partial understanding will dissolve into the fullness of knowing Him (Phil. 3:12).

“The perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 refers to the coming of the Lord or our final glorification — not to:

• The King James Version

• The Textus Receptus

• The completed Bible

The idea that tongues ceased because the TR or KJV was completed is foreign to the context, language, and theology of the passage.

"The imperfect will give way to the perfect at the Parousia [Christ's return]."

—Anthony Thiselton, NIGTC Commentary on 1 Corinthians (p. 1,061).

Psalm 12:6-7 שָׁמַר (shamar)

In Psalm 12:6–7, we encounter a rich Hebrew expression that has caused much theological debate. Let’s examine the Hebrew word translated "keep" in verse 7.

---

📜 Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV):

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

---

📌 Hebrew Text:

Psalm 12:7 in Hebrew (Masoretic Text):

אַתָּה יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם, תִּצְּרֵנּוּ מִן־הַדּוֹר זֻלָּה לְעוֹלָם

---

🧠 Word Study: “Keep” — תִּשְׁמְרֵם (tishmerem)

🔤 Root: שָׁמַר (shamar)

• Strong's Concordance: H8104

• Part of Speech: Verb (Qal imperfect, 2ms + 3mp suffix)

• Form: "You will keep them"

💡 Basic Meaning of שָׁמַר (shamar):

• To keep, guard, watch over, preserve, protect

• Often used of careful guarding, like a shepherd watches his flock, or like keeping commandments.

---

🎯 In Context: Who or What is Being Kept?

This is where interpretation differs. The pronoun "them" (תִּשְׁמְרֵם) must refer to something, and scholars have proposed two main possibilities:

– It most naturally means:

• God will guard or preserve either:

  • His people (the poor/needy/righteous)

  • Or metaphorically, His words/promises

• 📚 Grammatically:

• The noun "words" (אמרות imrot) is feminine plural

• The suffix -ם (-em) in תִּשְׁמְרֵם is masculine plural

So, some argue this does not grammatically match the feminine “words,” suggesting it more likely refers to the people (like the "needy" and "oppressed" from earlier verses). But Hebrew syntax is sometimes flexible, so a minority still maintain it could refer to “words.”

But based on the pattern of usage:

• Shamar in Davidic Psalms often refers to God protecting His people (cf. Psalm 121:7).

• Psalm 121:7

  “The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul.”

  • Hebrew: יִשְׁמָרְךָ (yishmarekha)

  • A very strong usage — preservation from danger and evil.

• There's no clear case where shamar is used to mean “preserve Scripture in perfect textual form.”

---

✅ Summary of "Keep" — שָׁמַר (shamar)

• Hebrew word: תִּשְׁמְרֵם (tishmerem)

• Root meaning: to guard, protect, preserve, or watch over carefully

• Used for: God's guarding of His people, His covenant, or His commandments

• In this context: God is guarding His His people (the poor and needy) from wicked oppressors

---

🧭 Theological Implication:

Psalm 12:7 is not a prooftext for the doctrine of a perfectly preserved Bible text (as some advocates of Verbal Plenary Preservation argue). The most natural reading in context is that God will guard and protect the righteous from a corrupt generation, not the preservation of manuscripts.

✅ Conclusion

The Hebrew word "keep" in Psalm 12:7 — תִּשְׁמְרֵם from שָׁמַר — conveys active protection, guarding, or preserving, most often applied to people, not text. The context of Psalm 12 fits this usage well: God promises to watch over the righteous in a corrupt world.

This does not support the idea of a perfectly preserved text or manuscript — it is a promise of God's protection of His people, consistent with the rest of Scripture.

"The same God who refines His words like silver (v.6) shields His people with those very promises."

The list of שָׁמַר (shamar) in the Book of Psalm:

Ps 12:7

You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.

Ps 16:1

Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge.

Ps 17:4

With regard to the works of man, by the word of your lips I have avoided the ways of the violent.

Ps 17:8

Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings,

Ps 18:21

For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God.

Ps 18:23

I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from my guilt.

Ps 19:11

Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

Ps 25:20

Oh, guard my soul, and deliver me! Let me not be put to shame, for I take refuge in you.

Ps 31:6

I hate those who pay regard to worthless idols, but I trust in the Lord.

Ps 34:20

He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.

Ps 37:28

For the Lord loves justice; he will not forsake his saints. They are preserved forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off.

Ps 37:34

Wait for the Lord and keep his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the land; you will look on when the wicked are cut off.

Ps 37:37

Mark the blameless and behold the upright, for there is a future for the man of peace.

Ps 39:1

I said, “I will guard my ways, that I may not sin with my tongue; I will guard my mouth with a muzzle, so long as the wicked are in my presence.”

Ps 41:2

the Lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.

Ps 56:6

They stir up strife, they lurk; they watch my steps, as they have waited for my life.

Ps 59:title

To the choirmaster: according to Do Not Destroy. A Miktam of David, when Saul sent men to watch his house in order to kill him.

Ps 59:9

O my Strength, I will watch for you, for you, O God, are my fortress.

Ps 63:6

when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night;

Ps 71:10

For my enemies speak concerning me; those who watch for my life consult together

Ps 75:8

For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup with foaming wine, well mixed, and he pours out from it, and all the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs.

Ps 77:4

You hold my eyelids open; I am so troubled that I cannot speak.

Ps 78:10

They did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to his law.

Ps 78:56

Yet they tested and rebelled against the Most High God and did not keep his testimonies,

Ps 86:2

Preserve my life, for I am godly; save your servant, who trusts in you—you are my God.

Ps 89:28

My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him.

Ps 89:31

if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments,

Ps 90:4

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

Ps 91:11

For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

Ps 97:10

O you who love the Lord, hate evil! He preserves the lives of his saints; he delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

Ps 99:7

In the pillar of the cloud he spoke to them; they kept his testimonies and the statute that he gave them.

Ps 103:18

to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

Ps 105:45

that they might keep his statutes and observe his laws. Praise the Lord!

Ps 106:3

Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!

Ps 107:43

Whoever is wise, let him attend to these things; let them consider the steadfast love of the Lord.

Ps 116:6

The Lord preserves the simple; when I was brought low, he saved me.

Ps 119:4

You have commanded your precepts to be kept diligently.

Ps 119:5

Oh that my ways may be steadfast in keeping your statutes!

Ps 119:8

I will keep your statutes; do not utterly forsake me!

Ps 119:9

How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.

Ps 119:17

Deal bountifully with your servant, that I may live and keep your word.

Ps 119:34

Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.

Ps 119:44

I will keep your law continually, forever and ever,

Ps 119:55

I remember your name in the night, O Lord, and keep your law.

Ps 119:57

The Lord is my portion; I promise to keep your words.

Ps 119:60

I hasten and do not delay to keep your commandments.

Ps 119:63

I am a companion of all who fear you, of those who keep your precepts.

Ps 119:67

Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word.

Ps 119:88

In your steadfast love give me life, that I may keep the testimonies of your mouth.

Ps 119:101

I hold back my feet from every evil way, in order to keep your word.

Ps 119:106

I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules.

Ps 119:134

Redeem me from man’s oppression, that I may keep your precepts.

Ps 119:136

My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.

Ps 119:146

I call to you; save me, that I may observe your testimonies.

Ps 119:148

My eyes are awake before the watches of the night, that I may meditate on your promise.

Ps 119:158

I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep your commands.

Ps 119:167

My soul keeps your testimonies; I love them exceedingly.

Ps 119:168

I keep your precepts and testimonies, for all my ways are before you.

Ps 121:3

He will not let your foot be moved; he who keeps you will not slumber.

Ps 121:4

Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.

Ps 121:5

The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade on your right hand.

Ps 121:7

The Lord will keep you from all evil; he will keep your life.

Ps 121:8

The Lord will keep your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forevermore.

Ps 127:1

Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.

Ps 130:3

If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?

Ps 130:6

my soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen for the morning, more than watchmen for the morning.

Ps 132:12

If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies that I shall teach them, their sons also forever shall sit on your throne.”

Ps 140:4

Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men, who have planned to trip up my feet.

Ps 141:3

Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips!

Ps 141:9

Keep me from the trap that they have laid for me and from the snares of evildoers!

Ps 145:20

The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy.

Ps 146:6

who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever;

Ps 146:9

The Lord watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.