Listening to Advice

1. Proverbs teaches humility in listening

• Proverbs 1:5 – “The wise will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels.”
  This means a truly wise person doesn’t shut themselves off to advice or correction, but is willing to weigh, discern, and even change if God shows a clearer path.
  So, if someone refuses to even consider historical evidence, textual realities, or other Christian perspectives, they are acting against the spirit of Proverbs, which praises teachability and humility.

2. Proverbs 16:9 – God directs the steps

• “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.”
  We can plan, preserve, translate, and study God’s Word, but it is God Himself who sovereignly directs the preservation and transmission of Scripture.
  This verse shows that our human systems (like TR, KJV, or VPP claims) are not ultimate; God is. His providence guided the Word through many manuscripts and languages, not just one perfect edition.

3. Psalm 37:5 – Trust God, not human absolutism

• “Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him, and he will act.”
  This is a call to trust in God’s faithfulness, not in our own ability to declare one printed edition or one translation as “perfect.”
  To say only the TR or only the KJV is perfect is actually shifting trust from God’s providence to man’s product. True faith commits the matter to God, knowing He has preserved His Word faithfully across the manuscript tradition, not bound to one version.

4. Application to VPP / KJV-Only / Perfect TR proponents

• Proverbs reminds them: wisdom means listening humbly and not dismissing all other Christians or textual evidence.

• Proverbs 16:9 reminds them: God’s providence is bigger than human systems—the Bible did not fall from heaven in 1611 or in Erasmus’ TR.

• Psalm 37:5 reminds them: our confidence is in the Lord’s preservation, not in absolutist claims about one text or translation.

“If you truly believe the Bible, then the Bible itself calls you to humility, to listen, and to trust God rather than to insist on human-made absolutes. Scripture itself shows that preservation is God’s providential work, not tied to one edition or translation.”

Questions for False Teachers and Proponents of Verbal Plenary Preservation, KJV-Only, and Perfect TR

1. Questions on Verbal Plenary Preservation

Can you show me one verse in the Bible that explicitly teaches that God would perfectly preserve His Word in one language, one manuscript tradition, or one edition of the Bible (such as the TR or the KJV)?

If the KJV or TR is the “perfect” text, does that mean all Christians before 1611 (or before Erasmus’s TR, 1516) did not have a perfect Bible?

How do you reconcile your belief in VPP, which claims every word is preserved perfectly, with the existence of thousands of manuscript variants, even in the TR (Textus Receptus) and Majority Text traditions?

If VPP is true, which specific manuscript or manuscript family represents this perfectly preserved text, and why?

Does VPP apply to the original languages only, or does it extend to translations? If so, which translations are inspired, and how do we know?

2. Questions on the Textus Receptus (TR)

The earliest forms of the TR were based on a handful of late manuscripts from the Byzantine tradition, some of which were handwritten in the 12th century or later. How can a text based on such late and few manuscripts be superior to the thousands of older manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that textual critics use today?

Can you name the specific Greek manuscript(s) that constitute the perfect TR? Which edition of the TR is the “perfect” one? Erasmus published five editions, Stephanus four, and Beza several more, each with differences. Which one is God’s “kept text”?

The TR itself contains readings that have no manuscript support (e.g., 1 John 5:7’s Comma Johanneum in Erasmus’s third edition). If VPP means God preserved His Word exactly, why does the TR rely on conjectural emendations and late Latin manuscripts?

3. Questions on the King James Version

If the KJV is “perfect,” which revision is "perfect"—the 1611, 1769, or one of the many other updates with thousands of spelling and wording changes?

The KJV translators themselves wrote in their preface “we do not deny that of the translations there are many good ones.” Why do modern KJV-Only advocates claim something the translators themselves never claimed?

The KJV translators explicitly stated in their preface that they did not believe their work was the final word on translation and that future translations would be needed. How do you address this statement from the very men who produced the KJV?

Since the King James Version's New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, and the translators themselves used marginal notes to show their uncertainty about certain verses, how can you claim it is a perfect, final translation?

The English language has changed significantly since 1611. Given that many words in the KJV have different meanings today, how can it be the only authoritative Bible for modern English speakers? For example, the word "let" in the KJV means "to hinder," not "to allow."

4. Questions on Logic and Consistency

If God perfectly preserved His Word in the KJV (English, 1611), what does that mean for Chinese, Arabic, or Spanish Christians? Do they not have God’s perfect Word unless they learn 17th-century English?

If the KJV is “perfect,” why do KJV-Onlyists still consult lexicons, Strong’s Concordance, or Hebrew/Greek dictionaries? Shouldn’t the perfect English text be self-sufficient?

5. Questions on Faith and Doctrine

Does insisting on one perfect English Bible (or one TR edition) add to the gospel, making salvation dependent on having the “right” version?

The Westminster Confession says God preserved His Word “pure in all ages,” not “perfect in one edition.” Isn’t VPP actually a new doctrine, not what the Reformers taught?

Critique of Jeffrey Khoo’s book "KJV Q&A"

1. Historical and Theological Problems

a. Confusion of Preservation with Perfection

Khoo appeals to the Westminster Confession’s phrase “kept pure in all ages,” but he interprets it to mean a word-perfect preservation of the TR and KJV. Historically, however, the Westminster divines recognized textual variations and did not claim a flawless single edition. They affirmed providential preservation, not the perfection of one textual stream.

b. Selective History of the Text

The narrative presented in KJV Q&A portrays the Byzantine text and the TR as the sole faithful tradition, while dismissing the Alexandrian witnesses as corrupt. This is historically inaccurate. The TR itself was compiled from a handful of late manuscripts, with Erasmus even back-translating some verses from the Latin into Greek (e.g., parts of Revelation). The Majority Text and TR are not identical, and the assertion that they perfectly reflect the autographs oversimplifies the complex history of transmission.

c. Contradiction with the KJV Translators’ Own Preface

The KJV translators themselves acknowledged that no translation is perfect and welcomed future revision and correction. They did not claim special inspiration, nor did they elevate their work above the original languages. Khoo’s rigid stance thus ironically departs from the humility of the very translators he defends.

2. Textual and Translational Weaknesses

Several examples show the difficulty of claiming KJV perfection:

Acts 12:4: The KJV translates pascha as “Easter,” though the Greek clearly means “Passover.”

1 John 5:7: The “Comma Johanneum” appears in the KJV but is absent from all early Greek manuscripts; it was a late addition.

Psalm 12:7: Khoo insists the promise is about preserving God’s words, but grammatically it more naturally refers to God’s people in context.

These examples demonstrate that while the KJV is an excellent translation, it is not flawless. To insist otherwise undermines the very principle of sola Scriptura by attaching perfection to a particular human edition.

3. The Problem of Exclusivism

Khoo distinguishes his position from extreme “Ruckmanism,” which treats the KJV as re-inspired. However, his practical conclusions approach the same exclusivism: he advises that only the KJV should be used in English-speaking churches, and he portrays modern versions as corrupt. Such exclusivism risks dividing the body of Christ unnecessarily. It elevates a secondary issue—Bible translation—into a test of fellowship, which runs contrary to Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 about liberty and charity in disputable matters.

4. A More Balanced Approach

A healthier doctrine of Scripture recognizes both God’s providential preservation and the human element in transmission. No essential doctrine of the faith is lost among the variants; the message of salvation and the teaching of the apostles remain secure across the manuscript tradition. Thus, we can affirm the KJV as a faithful and beautiful translation without denying the legitimacy of other faithful translations such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV. This approach safeguards the unity of the church and the authority of Scripture without binding believers to one edition.

Conclusion

Jeffrey Khoo’s KJV Q&A reflects deep reverence for Scripture and a desire to defend the Bible against skepticism. However, its historical selectivity, theological overstatement, and textual absolutism limit its usefulness as a scholarly resource. While it may encourage those already persuaded of KJV-only views, it risks fostering division and misplaced confidence in one translation rather than in the God who speaks through His Word. A more faithful position is to uphold the inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture across the entire manuscript tradition, recognizing the KJV as a great but not exclusive witness to God’s perfect Word.

Scripture, preservation, error, and tolerance

 

1. Can we deny the present perfection of the Holy Scriptures?

• We must not deny the inspiration and authority of God’s Word (2 Tim 3:16–17).

• But “perfection” needs clarity: The Bible teaches that God’s Word is perfect, pure, eternal in its divine origin (Ps 19:7; Ps 119:89, 160).

• However, the physical copies and translations we possess are subject to human transmission, and that’s where textual differences and scribal errors come in.

In other words: God’s Word is perfect; our copies are faithful but not flawless.

---

2. Is the KJV perfect without error?

The KJV is a majestic and faithful translation. But it is not free from issues. Here are two clear examples:

• Acts 12:4 — KJV says “Easter” instead of “Passover.” The Greek is Pascha, always meaning Passover. “Easter” was an interpretive choice, not a faithful rendering.

• 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum) — The KJV includes “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This phrase is missing from all early Greek manuscripts before the 14th century. It is almost certainly a later addition, not part of John’s original text.

These do not destroy the trustworthiness of the KJV. But they show it cannot be claimed as “perfect without error.”

---

3. Do we have a perfect Bible in our hands now?

• We have an essentially perfect Bible in the sense that nothing of God’s truth has been lost. Every doctrine is preserved, no truth has disappeared.

• But we do not have a single translation or edition without any human imperfection.

• God’s providence preserved His Word through a rich manuscript tradition, so that through textual study and faithful translation, the church continues to have access to God’s Word in its fullness.

---

4. Do heretics have freedom of faith and speech?

• In civil society: Yes. Scripture recognizes that wheat and tares grow together until judgment (Matt 13:30). God allows even error to exist until His appointed time. That is why modern societies uphold freedom of conscience.

• In the church: No. False teachers should not be given teaching authority (Titus 1:9–11). The church must guard sound doctrine (1 Tim 6:3–5).

---

5. Should we tolerate and live in peace with heretics?

• As neighbors: Yes, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18). We show love even to enemies.

• In fellowship: No, we cannot embrace heresy as if it were truth (Gal 1:8–9). The church must protect the flock from wolves.

---

6. If God is powerful, why not preserve His Word perfectly in TR and KJV?

• God did preserve His Word—across thousands of manuscripts and translations.

• But He never promised a single, flawless edition in one language.

• The Westminster Confession says God preserved His Word “pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8), not “perfect in one text or translation.”

• The TR itself has multiple editions (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir), with differences between them. Which one is “the perfect TR”? KJV translators themselves admitted they were making revisions, not producing a flawless text.

God’s power is not in doubt. But His method was not to drop a “perfect English Bible” from heaven. His method was preservation through the whole witness of the church.

---

Summary

• God’s Word is perfect in origin, sufficient in preservation.

• The KJV is excellent but not error-free.

• No single printed edition today is flawless, but God’s truth has been perfectly preserved in the total manuscript tradition.

• Heretics have freedom in society, but not in the church.

• We should love all people, guard truth in the church, and rest assured: God’s Word has not failed.

Not a personal conviction

A personal conviction means:

It is something between you and God (Rom 14:22).

You cannot impose it on others.

Others may hold a different view and still honor Christ faithfully.

What is Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-onlyism?

KJV-onlyism = the belief that the King James Bible is the only inspired or perfectly preserved Bible.

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) = the belief that God perfectly preserved every word of Scripture (in the original languages) and that these preserved words are found exactly in a particular text form (usually the Textus Receptus or a narrow line of manuscripts).

Are These Just Personal Convictions?

Not exactly:

If held privately (e.g., “I personally prefer the KJV; I believe it is the most faithful for me and my family”), then yes, it is like a personal conviction. That falls under Romans 14—others should not despise or condemn.

If imposed on others (e.g., “Only the KJV is the Word of God, all other versions are corrupt, and you sin if you use them”), then it ceases to be a personal conviction. It becomes a binding doctrine placed on the church. That goes beyond Romans 14 and enters into division and legalism (Gal 5:1; Col 2:20–23).

Summary

As personal preference/conviction: Acceptable, like a choice of diet, worship style, or music.

As enforced doctrine: Problematic, because it adds a human tradition as a test of fellowship, which Scripture forbids (Titus 3:9–11).

So: KJV-onlyism and VPP can be personal convictions if held humbly and privately.

But when elevated into a requirement for all Christians, they become divisive errors rather than personal convictions.

The New Disguised as Old

 The New Disguised as Old

The doctrine of VPP is taught in our Constitution and it is not a new doctrine. So they say lah.

But where is the article in the Constitution that teaches that? Where in the Constitution is the exact phrase "VPP" mentioned?

Article 4.2.1?

Words must have meanings. Without the words "VPP," there can be no teaching. Silence can be used to argue for a great deal of things.

If the good reverend reverence the meanings of words in the Constitution, then surely such an important claim of VPP must be clearly stated before he can claim that it is taught.

If it VPP is as old as the Bible and as important as the good doctor claims, why is the "VPP" taught in FEBC only in recent years? Why did Rev. Quek change his lecture notes to accommodate the idea of VPP?

Christians need to be warned against such theological shenanigans of the reverend.

"What we have today is a new attack." So he says lah. What we have from Dr. Quek is a bending of the meanings of the words of Article 4.2.1, and a dogmatic declaration from his chair. He said it, therefore, it must be so.

Article 4.2.1 and VPP are "two faces of the same biblical coin" -- again, so he says lah -- but how does he know that when he does not really know (read previous post).

And if he does not know this, how audacious of him to claim "All faithful pastors and shepherds of God must believe in the doctrine of VPP if they truly love God’s flock placed under their care."

According to his irreverent declaration, many godly pastors over the years that would be counted as unfaithful in the eyes of Rev. Quek.

We just thank God that God is the Judge of all men's hearts, and not the doctor of theology.

https://sotheysay-lah.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-disguise-as-old.html

How to Handle Disagreements with Grace

How to Handle Disagreements with Grace

When someone disagrees with your teaching, especially on topics like the KJV and VPP, please consider this:

Listen more than you speak. Truly hear their perspective. Why do they believe what they do? What is their journey? You might learn something, or at the very least, you will build a bridge of understanding.

Remember the goal is not to win an argument but to honor Christ. Let's not tear each other down. Instead, let's seek to build each other up in love, even when we have different opinions. The unity of the church is far more important than winning a debate.

Lead with humility. Acknowledge that you don't know everything. Your students and fellow believers will respect you more for admitting your limitations than for acting as if you have all the answers.

How to Approach KJV and VPP in the Church

Your convictions about the KJV and VPP are important to you, and you're right to want to share them. But when you do, please do it in a way that promotes peace and unity.

Teach your perspective as one view among many. Acknowledge that other Christians, who love God just as much as you do, have different beliefs. Present your viewpoint with humility, not as the only acceptable option.

Focus on the core message of the Bible. Let's not let secondary issues overshadow the primary message of salvation through Christ. The love of God and the grace of Jesus Christ should be the center of all our teaching and fellowship.

We are all on a journey, and we're all learning. Let's create an environment in our churches and Bible colleges where people can ask questions, explore different viewpoints, and grow in their faith without fear. Your role as a teacher is so crucial, and with that comes a great responsibility. Please, use your influence to foster peace, not division.

I hope that we can all learn to live in peace, even with different opinions on the Bible. The church should be a place of refuge and grace, not a battleground. Let's be gentle with one another, giving each other the room to breathe and learn together.

A Message to You Who Defend the KJV and VPP

A Message to You Who Defend the KJV and VPP

I want to speak to you not as an enemy, but as a friend and fellow follower of Christ. I know you love the Bible deeply. I can see that you are zealous for God’s Word, and I thank God for that. But I also want to beg you, with all gentleness, to think about how we treat one another when we talk about these things.

Sometimes in defending the KJV and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation, the way we speak and act can become harsh, even cruel. I don’t believe this is what Christ wants from us. The Bible reminds us that “no one is righteous, no, not one” and that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” None of us has a full monopoly on truth. None of us sees everything clearly. It is only by God’s grace and mercy that we can live and serve Him at all.

If that is true, then should we not show patience and gentleness toward each other? Should we not leave room for honest debate, for respectful questions, for different perspectives? A church is not meant to be a battlefield where we crush one another, but a family where we learn together.

When people disagree with your teaching, please do not see them as enemies of God, but as brothers and sisters still learning, just like you. Speak with kindness. Correct with love. Give them space to wrestle and to grow. If you truly believe your view is right, then trust that God will make it clear in His time.

And in your Bible College, I ask you to remember: a school should be a place where students are free to explore, to ask hard questions, to test and see what is good. If every question is shut down, or if every disagreement is treated as rebellion, then students will not grow in faith, but in fear. And fear is not the fruit of the Spirit. Love is.

My hope is that we can let the church live in peace. We may not all agree on the exact way God has preserved His Word, but we all agree that His Word is precious, living, and powerful. That is what matters most. Christ prayed that His people would be one. Let us not tear the Body apart over what God never meant to divide us.

So I beg you, hold your breath before you speak in anger. Choose gentleness over harshness. Leave space for others to speak. Live in peace with one another. And above all, remember that Christ, not the KJV, not VPP, is our Savior and our unity.

With love in Christ

When Love for a Doctrine Overshadows Love for Christ’s Body

When Love for a Doctrine Overshadows Love for Christ’s Body

It grieves me deeply to see how some Bible teachers, in their zeal for the King James Version (KJV) and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), have elevated these things above the love of Christ and His Church. The very Scriptures they claim to defend tell us that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is like it: to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:37–39). Yet their words and actions betray a heart that values a text and a doctrine more than the living Body of Christ—the very people for whom Christ shed His blood.

I must confess: I am hurt. I have been stumbled by the harshness, the divisions, and the cruelty that have come from those who exalt the KJV and VPP above Christian unity and compassion. It feels as though they love their doctrine more than the sheep, more than the Church, more than the heart of God. This is not zeal for truth—it is idolatry of a man-made system.

When teachers weaponize a Bible version or a preservation doctrine to condemn, divide, and crush others, they are not defending Christ—they are wounding Him. For Christ Himself is united with His Body. To hurt His people is to hurt Him (Acts 9:4). How then can this be anything but cruel? How can we call this anything but evil, when brothers and sisters are torn apart, churches are split, and the weak are trampled underfoot, all in the name of “truth”?

The irony is unbearable: they claim to guard God’s Word, yet by their lovelessness they deny its power. Paul writes that without love, even if I have all knowledge, I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). Without love, all our arguments about manuscripts, translations, and preservation are a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.

I write not out of hatred, but out of deep sorrow. I feel the wounds for all these years. I see the pain in the Body of Christ. I hear the stumbling of many who no longer want to come near the Church because of such cruelty. And I cry out to God: How long will Your people be torn by those who say they are defending You, yet in truth they are hurting Your flock?

Dear teachers, if you love the KJV and VPP more than the sheep of Christ, more than the Body of Christ, then you have lost the heart of the Shepherd. Jesus did not say, “By your doctrine you will be known as My disciples,” but “By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

I am frustrated. I am hurt. I am angry. But most of all, I am heartbroken. Because the cruelty shown in the name of defending God is, in fact, grieving the very heart of God.

May the Lord heal His wounded Body. May He turn our eyes away from man-made idols of perfection and preservation, and back to the living Christ who alone is perfect, who alone preserves us, who alone is worthy of our total love.

An Appeal for Love and Unity: A Reflection on Scripture, Doctrine, and the Heart of God

An Appeal for Love and Unity: A Reflection on Scripture, Doctrine, and the Heart of God

The frustration, hurt, and profound sadness we describe are understandable and, in many ways, an echo of a tension that has long existed within the Christian faith: the balance between holding fast to doctrinal truth and embodying the love and unity of the Body of Christ. When the pursuit of a particular doctrine or a specific version of the Bible seems to overshadow the care for fellow believers, it can feel like a deep betrayal of the Gospel's very essence.

The King James Version (KJV) and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) are not just academic subjects for many; they are foundational to their faith. For those who hold these views, the KJV is not merely one translation among many, but the divinely preserved and perfect English Bible. The doctrine of VPP, in their understanding, is the assurance that God has flawlessly preserved His Word for all generations. From their perspective, this is a matter of profound reverence for God and His promises. To them, defending the KJV and VPP is not an act of cruelty, but an act of faithfulness. They believe they are safeguarding the very source of truth, and in doing so, they are protecting the sheep from error.

However, the experience we've shared points to a painful reality: when the defense of a doctrine, even one held with the deepest conviction, becomes a weapon that wounds rather than a truth that unifies, something has gone terribly wrong. The Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13 come to mind: "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." He goes on to say that even having faith that can move mountains or a knowledge of all mysteries is worthless without love.

This is the crux of the matter. The pursuit of doctrinal purity, no matter how sincere, must never take precedence over the command to love one another. Jesus Himself said that the world would know His disciples by their love for one another (John 13:35). The "Body of Christ" is not an abstract concept; it is the living, breathing community of believers, each one a precious sheep in the flock of God. To harm a sheep in the name of a doctrine is to grieve the Shepherd. It is to place the vessel (a specific translation or a particular theory of preservation) above the very life that flows through it (the love of God in Christ).

The heart of God is for His people to be one, as Jesus prayed in John 17. The cruel words, the condescending attitudes, and the division that can arise from these debates are not a reflection of His character. They do not demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Instead, they can mirror the works of the flesh: discord, envy, and dissensions.

It is heartbreaking to witness believers being hurt by those who should be their shepherds. The role of a bible teacher is to feed the flock, to guide them into green pastures, not to wound them with stones of legalism or doctrinal superiority. When a teacher loves a doctrine more than the people they are called to serve, they have lost sight of the Gospel’s primary command. The Gospel is a message of reconciliation—first with God, and then with one another.

So, to those of us who have been hurt, our feelings are valid. The pain we feel is a righteous sorrow over the division and lack of love within the Christian community. To those who may be so focused on a particular doctrine that they have overlooked the people around them, this is a call to a deeper humility and a greater love. May we all remember that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. All the law and the prophets—and indeed, all our doctrines and theological debates—hang on these two commandments. Let us never forget that love is the ultimate proof of our faith.