Prinsep Street Presbyterian Church 28 September 2025 - REFLECTIONS

Be a Light in the Marketplace

The recent death of Charlie Kirk, a young Christian activist, has stirred many emotions and sparked a wide range of opinions—even among believers. Some have called him a martyr; others have raised questions or concerns. As a church, we must be careful not to let differing perspectives about one man distract or divide us. What we can agree on is this: events like these remind us of the urgency of our calling – to preach the Good News of Jesus and to speak truth in love. The world is dark, confused, and often hostile to truth. In such a time, the church cannot afford to shrink back. We are called to be bold, to be salt and light, and to proclaim the Gospel—not only in our churches but in the marketplace and the public arena. 

I touched on this topic some years ago and am revisiting it in this Reflection. We often hear phrases such as: “Keep your faith to yourself,” or “Religion has no place in politics or the marketplace” What is your response to such statements? Perhaps the better question is – what does God say about this? The Bible clearly and comprehensively portrays God as intensely interested and involved in the marketplace, governments, and every aspect of society.

The Old Testament Examples

The story of Joseph deals with the sphere of family and the public arena at the highest level of ruling power – in relation to political, judicial, agricultural, economic affairs. The stories of Nehemiah, Esther and Daniel affirm the same perspective. Daniel spoke boldly about Yahweh and His ways to the kings of his time and worshipped God openly. Nehemiah and Esther too spoke up for God’s people. These 4 individuals who believed in Yahweh were at work in a public arena that was “pagan”.

The Example of Jesus and the Disciples

When Jesus was on earth, He did not keep himself within the confines of the synagogue but walked right into the lives of sinners, prostitutes, healed, taught, and spoke in the marketplace/public arenas. Jesus penetrated and impacted the world and caused an uproar in the community.

Likewise, for us to impact and influence the world for Christ, we must penetrate it. John Stott said, “We are to go as he went, to penetrate human society, to mix with unbelievers and fraternize with sinners. Does not one of the church’s greatest failures lie here? We have disengaged too much. We have become a withdrawn community. We have become aloof instead of alongside.” R.C. Sproul puts it this way – “Jesus’ strategy always involved believers going into the world, to penetrate the marketplace.” 

And this is what the early church did. Look at the lives of the early disciples of Jesus including Stephen, Peter and Paul. They, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke often in the marketplace and public arena and debated and engaged the people openly and fearlessly. 

God’s People in the Marketplace

If the above is God’s view of public life and work at the marketplace, what should the attitude and role of God’s people be? Certainly not one of disengagement but of engagement. How then should we engage in the marketplace? Jesus taught that His followers are salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16). Salt preserves; light dispels darkness. Both salt and light are active, penetrative and transformative – they impact its environment and make a difference. If we are the light of the world, we must, therefore radiate that light and dispel darkness. Jesus anticipated that some believers might choose to limit their light, refuse to shine, hide “under a bowl” and stay ‘safe’ in their anonymity to escape the accountability associated with “going public” with their faith and beliefs. Jesus said, “Let your light shine!” It is not an option for believers to let their surroundings remain in darkness. And Jesus commands believers to take one step further, He wants us to put our light on a lamp stand where everyone can see our light and our light can permeate and penetrate the darkness around us.

I liked how Christopher J. H Wright puts it “If a piece of meat goes rotten, it’s no use blaming the meat. That’s what happens when the bacteria do their natural work. Instead, the question to ask is, where was the salt? If a house gets dark at night, it’s no use blaming the house. That’s what happens when the sun goes down. The question to ask is, where is the light? Likewise, if society becomes more corrupt and dark, it’s no use blaming society. That’s what fallen human nature does when left unchecked and unchallenged. The question to ask is, where are the Christians? Where are the saints who actually live as saints—as God’s different people—in the marketplace?”

Distinctiveness

The distinctiveness of God’s people in the Bible is not merely religious but also ethical (i.e., that we are called to live by different standards). Believers operate from a worldview based on God’s Word which is different from the worldview of the rest of the world. The questions first raised above are important questions we need to address as there is increasing pressure placed on believers to keep their faith and values to themselves and what is worse, made to feel ashamed of what they believe in. The apostle Paul reminds us, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

In an age where Christians are pressured to remain silent, Paul’s words are a call to holy boldness. We are not asked to be quarrelsome, but we are called to be distinct—living and speaking God’s truth with clarity, conviction, and love. What then of the ‘demand’ to keep our faith and values to ourselves and out of the ‘secular or public arena’? My personal view is that every worldview—religious or non-religious—shapes society. To ask Christians to silence their faith while others speak freely is neither rational nor just. Believers are called to bring their God-shaped worldview into the public arena, not to dominate but to contribute, preserve, and shine.

Our Call Today

In times of confusion and division, let us not turn against one another. Let us not shrink back in fear or disengagement. Instead, let us be known as a people who pray, who love, who speak truth with grace, and who courageously shine the light of Christ wherever God has placed us. Can you imagine the impact if every believer lived unashamedly, shining the light of Christ and preserving what is good in our families, workplaces and societies? So let us stand together, united in our mission to proclaim Christ in word and deed. Let us not be ashamed of the Gospel and boldly shine for Him each and every day of our lives. Above all, let us remain in the posture of prayer, be led by His Spirit and allow Him to transform us into the likeness of Jesus, our Lord.

Eld Lisa Theng

https://www.pspc.org.sg/media/pages/services/english-service/sermon-series-2019/faf0417d47-1758860145/2025-28-sep_eng.pdf

Doomed For Hell

You who said Verbal Plenary Preservation is a subset of WFC 1:8 are doomed.

Notice:

The Confession does not specify which Hebrew or Greek manuscripts embody this preservation.

It does not say that every jot and tittle of every original manuscript was carried forward into one identifiable printed edition (like the TR).

It affirms general preservation across the manuscript tradition, not perfect preservation in a single text-form.

Why Saying “VPP is a Subset of WCF 1:8” is Wrong

When you claimed that VPP is simply a subset of WCF 1:8, you were:

Adding meaning that isn’t there.

WCF 1:8 speaks of general providential preservation in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

VPP adds a specific claim of perfect, word-for-word preservation in one textual tradition.

That is not a “subset,” but an expansion (and distortion).

Committing a category error.

WCF 1:8 deals with the authenticity and sufficiency of the Word of God in its original languages.

VPP is a theory of textual transmission that imposes modern debates (Byzantine vs. Alexandrian) onto the Confession.

You cannot call one the subset of the other when they operate on different levels.

Destroying confessional integrity.

The Westminster divines crafted precise language. To equate VPP with WCF 1:8 is to read into the Confession a doctrine the framers neither taught nor intended.

This misrepresentation undermines both honest confessional subscription and the credibility of the one making the claim.

Why You Are “Doomed”

It means:

You are doomed intellectually: your position collapses under scrutiny because it cannot be squared with the text of WCF 1:8 or the historical theology of the Reformed tradition.

You are doomed theologically: by inserting VPP into WCF 1:8, you shift the doctrine of preservation away from providential preservation in the full Hebrew and Greek tradition, and toward a sectarian, extra-confessional view that the Westminster Assembly never endorsed.

You are doomed historically: no Westminster divine (Whitaker, Owen, Turretin, etc.) ever taught VPP. Their concern was to defend the Hebrew and Greek text over the Latin Vulgate, not to enshrine a perfect TR.

Conclusion

In short, your claim cannot stand — it is built on anachronism, misrepresentation, and doctrinal overreach.

The false teachers have lied to the court, and they have committed contempt; they are sinful and punishable.

New Perspective on Westminster Confession of Faith

The Meaning of Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 and the Error of Restricting It to the Byzantine Text

Introduction

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) stands as one of the most influential doctrinal standards of Reformed Christianity. Among its opening statements, WCF 1:8 addresses the preservation and authority of Holy Scripture. This passage has often been drawn into textual debates, particularly regarding the relative authority of the Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions. Some have sought to claim that WCF 1:8 specifically endorses the Byzantine text as the preserved Word of God. Such a claim, however, goes beyond the intention of the Westminster divines and imposes a narrow interpretation on a statement that was meant to be broader and more general.

This paper will argue that WCF 1:8 teaches the preservation of Scripture in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts generally, without endorsing any single textual tradition such as the Byzantine family. Any attempt to claim otherwise is to add extra meaning foreign to the Confession.

The Text of WCF 1:8

The relevant portion of WCF 1:8 reads:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

Two key points stand out:

1. The language of preservation is applied to the Hebrew and Greek texts as such. The Confession specifies the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.

2. The preservation is general, not tied to one textual family. The Confession states that these texts have been “kept pure in all ages” but does not identify a single stream of manuscripts (Byzantine, Alexandrian, or otherwise) as exclusively representing that providential preservation.

The Meaning of “Kept Pure in All Ages”

The phrase “kept pure” does not mean “kept free from all scribal error,” for the divines themselves were well aware of textual variants, marginal notes, and difficulties in manuscripts. Rather, “kept pure” refers to God’s providential preservation of the Scriptures so that the Word of God has never been lost, corrupted beyond recognition, or rendered unreliable for the church’s faith and practice.

The Confession thus affirms:

• That the inspired text remains available in the original languages.

• That no corruption has occurred which undermines the authority of Scripture.

• That the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek remain the final standard of appeal in matters of controversy.

This definition fits with the Reformed understanding of God’s providence and the reality of manuscript evidence, without restricting preservation to a single textual tradition.

The Error of Restricting WCF 1:8 to the Byzantine Text

Some interpreters claim that the Westminster divines had in mind only the Byzantine text-type when they spoke of God’s preservation of Scripture. This claim is flawed for several reasons:

1. Historical Anachronism. The classification of texts into “Byzantine” and “Alexandrian” families belongs to modern textual criticism, not to the seventeenth century. The Westminster divines did not frame their doctrine in such categories. To import them back into the Confession is anachronistic.

2. Lack of Explicit Mention. The Confession explicitly names “Hebrew” and “Greek,” not any textual family or recension. To assert that “kept pure” means “kept pure only in the Byzantine manuscripts” is to add to the Confession what it does not say.

3. The Principle of Generality. The divines affirmed preservation in broad terms to defend the reliability and authority of Scripture against Roman Catholic claims that Scripture was insufficient without church tradition. Their concern was not to settle intramural debates over textual families, but to affirm the continuing authority of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as opposed to the Latin Vulgate.

4. Consistency with Reformed Theology. The Reformed doctrine of preservation emphasizes the accessibility and reliability of God’s Word, not the perfection of a single textual stream. The Word is preserved across the whole manuscript tradition, with God ensuring that no essential doctrine is lost or corrupted.

The Proper Application of WCF 1:8

To interpret WCF 1:8 rightly:

• One must see its primary contrast: Hebrew and Greek vs. the Latin Vulgate, not Byzantine vs. Alexandrian.

• One must respect its generality: it affirms that Scripture in the original languages is preserved without endorsing one textual tradition as “the” pure text.

• One must avoid imposing later controversies onto the Confession.

Therefore, the right application is to see WCF 1:8 as affirming the sufficiency, authority, and providential preservation of the original-language Scriptures, without claiming exclusive authority for any one textual family.

Conclusion

Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 teaches that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek are the inspired Word of God, and that by God’s providence they have been preserved in all ages. This means that the Scriptures remain reliable, accessible, and authoritative in their original languages. To claim that WCF 1:8 exclusively endorses the Byzantine text tradition is to go beyond the words and intent of the Confession. Such an interpretation imposes an anachronistic and unnecessary restriction upon a statement that was deliberately general.

In refuting these additions, we uphold both the sufficiency of the Confession and the true Reformed doctrine of providential preservation: God has kept His Word pure in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts as a whole, and thus the church may confidently appeal to them in all controversies of religion.

Israel’s Right to Defend Itself Against Hamas: A Just War for Survival

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the world largely rallied around Kyiv, recognizing Ukraine’s sovereign right to resist aggression and defend its people. Yet when Israel faces unprovoked and brutal attacks from Hamas—an organization that openly calls for its destruction—many of the same voices who champion Ukraine’s self-defense suddenly demand that Israel exercise restraint or accept its vulnerability. This double standard is not only unjust, but it undermines the very principle of national sovereignty.

The Nature of the Threat

Hamas is not a legitimate governing authority seeking peace; it is a militant group that thrives on terror. Its strategy is not to negotiate or coexist but to maximize civilian suffering—both Israeli and Palestinian—for political leverage. Hamas deliberately launches rockets from densely populated neighborhoods, stores weapons in schools and hospitals, and uses civilians as human shields. The October attacks on Israeli towns were not accidents of war; they were deliberate massacres, targeting families in their homes.

For any nation, the obligation to protect its people is non-negotiable. To argue that Israel must absorb such attacks without response is to deny it the basic right of self-defense that every sovereign nation possesses.

Hypocrisy on the World Stage

When Ukraine arms itself against Russian missiles and tanks, the world applauds. Sanctions are imposed on Moscow, weapons are sent to Kyiv, and countries affirm that standing firm against aggression is a moral duty. Yet when Israel does the same against Hamas’s rockets, tunnels, and kidnappings, countries like China, along with several others, suddenly become “mediators” preaching restraint.

Why? The reasons are often political rather than principled. Some nations see Israel as an extension of Western influence in the Middle East, and so criticizing Israel becomes a way of opposing the United States. Others align with the Palestinian cause for geopolitical or economic gain, ignoring Hamas’s role in perpetuating the suffering of its own people.

But cloaking these political calculations in the language of “humanitarian concern” is deeply misleading. True humanitarianism requires recognizing who initiated violence and who seeks to end it. Condemning Israel while turning a blind eye to Hamas’s crimes is not neutrality—it is enabling terrorism.

The Moral Imperative of Defense

Israel’s military response is not an act of vengeance; it is a necessity for survival. Without decisive action, Hamas will only grow bolder, repeating its atrocities and holding both Israelis and Palestinians hostage to endless cycles of bloodshed.

To demand that Israel stand down while its civilians face rocket fire is to demand that Israel abandon its most basic duty as a state: to protect its people. No responsible government would accept such a demand. Just as Ukraine is justified in repelling Russian forces to preserve its independence, Israel is justified in dismantling Hamas to ensure its security.

Conclusion

A consistent principle must apply to all nations: the right to self-defense is universal. Selectively applying it erodes international law and emboldens aggressors. If Ukraine has the right to defend itself from Russian invasion, then Israel has the right—indeed, the obligation—to defend itself from Hamas.

Countries that deny Israel this right are not champions of peace; they are bystanders enabling violence. True peace will come not from pressuring Israel to yield, but from confronting and dismantling the forces—like Hamas—that thrive on war.

Who Holds the Truth?

 Beloved in Christ,

The Bible is the Word of God, and in it we find absolute truth. Jesus Himself prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). But we must confess with humility: while God’s Word is perfect, our understanding is not.

The Gospels give us a beautiful lesson in this. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each present Christ from a different angle. None is false, but none is exhaustive. Together they give us the fuller picture of Jesus. This reminds us that we see in part (1 Corinthians 13:12), and we must hold our convictions with humility.

Too often, Christians fall into the trap of thinking, “Only my tradition, my college, my translation, my theology is right—and all others are wrong.” But Paul warns us, “If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2).

Some hold fiercely to KJV Only. Others insist on being strictly Reformed, or Pentecostal, or Baptist, or another camp. But friends, salvation is not found in a translation or a system—it is found in Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6).

So how do we see ourselves? Not as the masters of truth, but as its servants. Not as the sole keepers of knowledge, but as humble witnesses pointing to Christ. “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6).

Let us not withdraw into pride or insist, “We alone are right.” Let us hold fast to the Word, contend for the faith, but do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). For in the end, truth is not a possession to boast about—it is a Person, Jesus Christ, and He is Lord of all.

Amen.

THE DREAM OF A PERFECT TEXT

 THE DREAM OF A PERFECT TEXT

The Protestants had not held a doctrine of uniform biblical inerrancy. For Luther “inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details.” Luther recognized mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel. [1] Where minor errors occur, as when Matt 27:9 mistakenly cites Jeremiah instead of Zechariah, Luther responds: “Such points do not bother me particularly.”[2] Similarly, in his commentaries Calvin is not bothered by errors in the text where they are unrelated to matters of faith and salvation.[3] He acknowledges minor errors without anxiety, as in the contradictions among the gospels: “It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences.” [4]

 

Calvin and Luther also accepted the traditional doctrine of accommodation, which holds that God simplified his biblical discourse in order for it to be understandable to uneducated people.[5] Regarding the cosmology of Gen 1– 3, Calvin commented, “Moses is by no means to be blamed, if he, considering the office of schoolmaster as imposed upon him, insists on the rudiments suitable to children.”[6] As Paul Helm explains, “It is an accommodation because Calvin believes that such a statement is not strictly true.”[7] A comparable flexibility occurs, as Brian Gerrish observes, in those “interesting places where Calvin speaks not of the fallibility of the text, but of its historical relativity,” including directives in the New Testament that are no longer relevant in Calvin’s time, such as “Christian communism, the regulation of usury, and Paul’s directives on masculine hairstyle.” [8]

For the Reformers, the Bible’s inerrancy is where it needs to be: on matters of faith and doctrine and on historical events basic to the history of salvation.

 

The Dream of a Perfect Text: Findings and Conclusion

 

The Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin approached the authority of Scripture with a nuanced understanding. Unlike later traditions that insisted on a rigid doctrine of biblical inerrancy in every detail, both Luther and Calvin distinguished between the essential truths of the Gospel and peripheral matters of history, science, or culture.

 

For Luther, divine inspiration did not guarantee freedom from every textual mistake. He acknowledged inconsistencies such as Matthew 27:9’s mistaken citation of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah, but he dismissed them as inconsequential since they did not touch on salvation. His focus was always on the central message of Scripture—the proclamation of Christ and the heart of the Gospel.

 

Similarly, Calvin was not disturbed by textual difficulties or contradictions. He openly admitted that the Evangelists were not always precise in matters such as time sequences, yet he regarded this as irrelevant to the truth of faith. Calvin also applied the doctrine of accommodation, affirming that God, in communicating through human language, simplified His message so that ordinary people could understand it. For example, Calvin interpreted the cosmology of Genesis 1–3 not as a scientific account but as elementary teaching suitable for learners. Furthermore, he acknowledged the historical relativity of certain biblical commands, such as communal living, regulations on usury, and cultural prescriptions about hairstyles, which were no longer binding in his own time.

 

In summary, both Luther and Calvin located biblical inerrancy where it mattered most: in matters of faith, doctrine, and the central events of salvation history. They were willing to accept textual imperfections and cultural limitations without anxiety, because they were confident that the Word of God remained trustworthy and sufficient for revealing Christ and guiding believers in the essentials of the Christian faith.

---

[1] Roland H. Bainton, “The Bible in the Reformation,” in The West from the Reformation to the Present Day , vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Bible , ed. Stanley L. Greenslade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 12.

 

[2] Ibid., 13.

[3] See Brian A. Gerrish, “The Word of God and the Words of Scripture: Luther and Calvin on Biblical Authority,” in The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 62– 63.

 

[4] John Calvin, Commentaires sur le Nouveau Testament. Tome premier: Sur la concordance ou harmonie composée de trois évangélistes (Paris, Meyrueis, 1854), 319 (at Luke 8:19): “On sçait bien que les Evangélistes ne se sont pas guères arrestez à observer l’ordre des temps.” Cited in William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 121– 22.

 

[5] See generally, Stephen D. Benin, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993).

 

[6] John Calvin, Genesis , trans. John King (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847; repr. 1984), 141 (at Gen 3:1); see similarly at Gen 1:5– 6, 14– 16, 22, 31; 2:8, 10; 3:23.

 

[7] Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 394.

 

[8] Gerrish, Brian A. “The Word of God and the Words of Scripture: Luther and Calvin on Biblical Authority.” Pages 51– 68 in The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

 

Is the KJV the only authorized English Bible in the 21st Century?

1. Is the KJV the only authorized English Bible in the 21st Century?

No. The King James Version (KJV) is not the only authorized English Bible today. Since the 20th century, numerous English translations have been produced (e.g., NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV), and many Christian denominations use them freely. The KJV remains widely respected and used, but it no longer holds exclusive status across the English-speaking Christian world.

2. The “Authorized” in “Authorized Version” — Authorized by whom?

The KJV is called the “Authorized Version” (AV) because it was commissioned by King James I of England in 1604 and completed in 1611. It was authorized for public reading in the churches of England, essentially serving as the standard English Bible for the Church of England. The authorization came from the crown, not from divine mandate.

3. Does the Church of England uphold its authority now?

Not exclusively. The Church of England still uses the KJV in certain traditional liturgical settings (e.g., some cathedrals, royal services, or ceremonial occasions), but it does not require it as the sole translation. Modern translations such as the NRSV, ESV, and NIV are commonly used in Anglican worship and study.

Conclusion

The KJV was once the “authorized” English Bible, but that authorization was historical and tied to the English crown and Church of England in the 17th century. Today, no single Bible translation holds exclusive “authorized” status for all English-speaking Christians. The authority of the KJV now rests on its literary heritage, historical significance, and the conviction of certain groups (like some conservative Protestants) that it uniquely preserves God’s Word in English—not on an ongoing ecclesiastical decree.

Textual Wars

Textual Wars

In response to the schismatic Protestants, the Council of Trent issued the following decree in 1546 concerning the authoritative version of Scripture: This holy Council … ordains and declares that the old Vulgate edition, which has been approved for use in the Church for so many centuries, is to be taken as authentic in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and that no one should dare or presume to reject it under any circumstances whatsoever. [1]

 

The decree was carefully worded to avoid the complicated issue of textual corruptions in the Vulgate and to avoid denigrating the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament.[2] The Council’s position was that the Vulgate had been the customary Bible of the Roman Catholic Church for roughly a thousand years and by long usage was held to be reliable in matters of faith and doctrine. Because it was the traditional text— and thereby linked with church tradition and authority— it had earned its status as the authoritative text. The decree essentially raised the Vulgate’s de facto status to de jure . The main purpose of the decree was to assert the authority of the traditional Scripture— and, by extension, the traditional authority of the Roman Catholic Church— against the Protestants and their bevy of vernacular translations.

John Calvin wrote in “Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote” (1547), he concludes his treatise with the damning conclusion: “The sum is, that the spirit of Trent wished, by this decree, that Scripture should only signify to us whatever dreaming monks might choose.” The textual wars had begun.

Parallels Between FEBC and the Roman Catholic Church

The core argument is that both the FEBC and the Roman Catholic Church prioritize a specific, long-standing translation for its de facto (in practice) use and then elevate its status to de jure (by law or official decree).

In essence, this comparison highlights a similar pattern: an institution facing a challenge to its authority elevates a specific, traditional translation to a position of special authority, linking its defense to the preservation of its own heritage and doctrinal purity.

---

[1] Trans. Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible: Including a Translation of Foscarini’s Letter on the Motion of the Earth (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), 182. The decree, issued on April 8, 1546, reads: “Insuper eadem sacrosancta synodus … statuit et declarant, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probate est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat.”

[2] See Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent , vol. 2, The First Sessions at Trent, 1545– 47 , trans. Ernest Graf (London: Nelson, 1961), 75– 98.

 

You Can't Ask That! (By the liberals)

Many Christians read and study the King James Version of the Bible. Some believe it is the best and most accurate translation there is. Why? Can I read a different translation? What about paraphrases such as The Message? 

Jonathan Brooks

Thou shalt comprehend thine manuscript as paramount as is achievable, and scrutinize the periphery in any manner thusly deemed appropriate. Translation: You can read whichever translation makes it easier for you to comprehend God’s word. Many Christians hold on to one translation even though they find themselves struggling for understanding. I believe the Bible is meant to be read and understood, so it is important that the individual reader finds a version he or she can read and understand. I also believe that the Bible was not written to us; it was written for us, meaning it was written to an ancient audience, and it is our responsibility to understand that but still use it in our modern culture. It is already difficult to understand some passages because of the cultural differences of our time. Reading paraphrases such as The Message and others can be helpful. Translators such as Eugene H. Peterson have gone through serious care to bring an ancient language to a modern audience. I would advise you to have as many translations as possible; this will help you gain different understandings of what the original writers were trying to convey. 

Sean Gladding 

The way some people talk about the KJV, one could almost imagine that God should have chosen English for the original version. Its enduring popularity and revered status are quite remarkable given the awkwardness of the way it reads four centuries since it was translated. It was written in order to be read aloud in the liturgy of corporate worship, and the beauty of its poetry still moves us, much as Shakespeare can. To state that it is the most accurate translation of scripture is to deny 400 years of the expansion of our understanding of both the Hebrew and Greek languages and the cultures out of which the Bible grew. Every translation is already an interpretation, as we choose which words to use from a range of possibilities. To pretend it is not is to be disingenuous. For instance, the translators of the KJV use “prince” for fourteen different Hebrew words. Coincidence? Or because the one paying for their services was King James? The impetus for this third English translation appears to have been the desire to reinforce the established institutional structure of the Church of England, which also no doubt shaped the language used. When people ask me, “What translation of the Bible should I buy?” I invariably answer, “One you will actually read.” This has meant that I often recommend The Message version, as it is so accessible for our culture. For me, the question is not which Bible to read, but how to read it. My conviction is that it is to be read in community with others, aloud and often—and then embody what we believe God is saying.

 

Phil Jackson

The King James Bible uses a linguistic style that no one currently identifies with, yet because of the elegant sound of the words, some folks believe that this is the way we have to talk when speaking to God. There’s a lot of information out there about why the King James translation is not necessarily an accurate version of the Bible, and even more information from those who say it is the only version that should be read. So which is it? If you cannot understand the Word of God, it means nothing. The purest way to read the Bible and to find its deep meaning is to read it in Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic, but this is unrealistic for most of us, just trying to read English. So if you are going to spend time seeking truth from God’s Word, find a version that is in a language that you are able to comprehend and to read easily, and go for it! God is bigger than whatever version you choose, and yet He desires us to know Him though His word. Whether it’s a paraphrase or the King James version, we must grow in our understanding of God, and that is best done when we are experiencing Him through His word. 

• • • • • • 

Scriptural reference(s): 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 4:12 

Suggested additional sources: • How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart • Eat This Book by Eugene Peterson • Manna and Mercy by Daniel Erlander • The Epic of Eden by Sandra Richter • Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today by N. T. Wright • How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart 

Questions for further discussion/thought: 

1. Can you think of a time when you heard someone incorrectly and it ruined the relationship? 

2. How important is it that you truly understand God’s commands? 

3. If you have read different translations, what was your experience in doing so? 

4. What has been your experience of reading the Bible with other people? 

5. How has that shaped the way you read the Bible today? 

6. Why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Is one better or worse than the other? 

7. Why do you think some churches use more than one translation, or even non-literal interpretations of the Bible? 

Source cited: • The Holy Bible

You Can't Ask That! : 50 Taboo Questions about the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity, edited by Christian Piatt, Chalice Press, 2020. 

English Bible Versions: A Tercentenary Memorial of the King James Version

Barker, Henry. English Bible Versions: A Tercentenary Memorial of the King James Version . New York: New York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society, 1911. 

Printed after Barker’s death by the New York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society in honor of the third century of the King James Version, this Bible handbook was intended to provide a comprehensive survey of biblical texts and translations for introductory students. “The same and not the same,” Barker concludes about similarities and differences among the biblical versions he examined, including the Old Testament Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, various English versions, the Douay Version, the King James Version and its subsequent printings, and even the American Standard Edition (269). In the course of this sweeping overview of the history of translating the Bible, Barker traces the history of the King James Version. He begins with its inception at the Hampton Court Conference and the support of King James for one “uniform” translation. He discusses the organization of the translation committees, the qualifications of the translators, and the rules they were to follow. Finally, he explains the acceptance of the title “Authorized Version” and the triumph of the King James Version over other English versions within less than 50 years, and briefly— but exhaustively— demonstrates its significant influence within English culture and religion. He writes: “It has been remarked that: ‘English literature has been formed largely on the Bible of 1611. Our great works, whether in prose or verse, bear the plain stamp of its language. No master of style has neglected its charms’ ” (178). Barker justifies the need for continued revisions of the King James Version because of its many defects (such as Greek tenses that were “misconceived, misinterpreted, and confused”) and because of the discovery of biblical manuscripts since the 1611 edition (190– 91). He explains that as “good as it is,” the King James Version “might be made better” (193). Barker thus expresses qualified admiration for the King James Version. He claims that through God’s providence, the 1611 edition was created at a time when “the English language was at its best” (177). Yet he also recognizes the need for continued revisions of Bible translations. Barker includes several useful tables and appendices, although much of his information is now dated. (The King James Bible and the World It Made, edited by David Lyle Jeffrey, Baylor University Press, 2011.)

From the passage above, Barker’s perspective on Bible translation and the King James Version (KJV) can be summarized like this:

Qualified admiration for the KJV:

He praises the King James Version as a product of God’s providence, written when the English language was at its finest. He also highlights its cultural and literary influence, noting that English literature bears the mark of its language.

Not KJV-only:

While he recognizes the greatness of the KJV, Barker is clear that it is not perfect. He points out its defects, such as mistranslations of Greek tenses, and stresses that new manuscript discoveries since 1611 show the need for revision. He explicitly says the KJV, “as good as it is, might be made better.”

Translation as an ongoing process:

He frames Bible translation as something that should continue, not be fixed in one version. His conclusion—“the same and not the same”—reflects the paradox of continuity and change across translations.

So, Barker saw the King James Version as a remarkable and providential work, but not as the final or only acceptable translation. He valued ongoing revision and improvement, rejecting what we’d call a “KJV-only” stance.