Satan in the Gospels

Satan in the Gospels: Twisting Scripture and the Call to Handle God’s Word Faithfully

Throughout the Gospels, Satan emerges not only as the adversary of God and humanity but also as a master manipulator of truth. He does not always attack through blatant lies; sometimes, he disguises deception under the appearance of divine authority—using the very words of Scripture. One of the most striking examples of this is found in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.

Satan’s Use of Scripture in the Temptation of Christ

In Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13, we read of Satan’s attempt to derail Jesus at the beginning of His public ministry. After Jesus fasted forty days in the wilderness, Satan tempted Him three times—each challenge designed to distort His mission and relationship with the Father.

1. The Second Temptation – Quoting Psalm 91

In Matthew 4:5–6 (ESV), Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and says:

“If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,’

and

‘On their hands they will bear you up,

lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

— Psalm 91:11–12 (ESV)

Here, Satan quotes directly from Psalm 91, a psalm celebrating God’s protection over those who trust Him. But Satan selectively quotes the text, omitting the phrase “to guard you in all your ways” (Psalm 91:11). This omission subtly changes the meaning. The psalm describes God’s protection in the context of obedient living, not reckless self-destruction. By twisting the intent of the Scripture, Satan attempts to manipulate Jesus into testing God rather than trusting Him.

Jesus responds with Deuteronomy 6:16 (ESV):

“You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”

Christ exposes Satan’s misuse of Scripture by rightly applying the Word within its full context and purpose.

2. Satan’s Strategy: Half-Truths and Misapplication

This moment reveals how the devil operates: he quotes Scripture accurately but applies it deceitfully. His method is not ignorance of the Bible, but abuse of it—ripping verses from their context to serve his own agenda. Satan’s goal is not to glorify God but to undermine faith, distort truth, and redirect worship.

What We Can Learn from This

Knowing Scripture Isn’t Enough

Even Satan can quote the Bible. The difference lies in how it is understood and applied. We must study Scripture with humility and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not for self-justification or personal advantage.

Context Matters

Every verse belongs to a larger story. When we remove Scripture from its context, we risk turning truth into a weapon of deception. Sound interpretation requires reverence for the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Jesus as Our Model

Jesus demonstrates how to confront lies—with Scripture, rightly understood and faithfully applied. He did not engage in argument or emotion but stood firmly on the truth of God’s Word.

Conclusion: The Danger of Abusing Scripture

Satan’s misuse of Scripture is a sobering reminder for the Church today. When we twist the Bible to justify our opinions, divide the body of Christ, or draw people away from the truth, we echo the very strategy of the enemy. The Word of God is not a tool for manipulation but a lamp for guidance, correction, and transformation (Psalm 119:105; 2 Timothy 3:16–17).

Let us, therefore, handle the Scriptures with fear and reverence, always seeking to glorify God rather than ourselves. The Bible’s power lies not in how cleverly it can be quoted, but in how faithfully it is lived.

Reflection and Prayer

Take a moment to reflect:

Do I ever use Scripture to prove a point rather than to pursue truth?

Do my words build unity and faith—or pride and division?

Prayer:

Father, help me to love Your Word as truth and not as a weapon. Guard my heart from pride and from the temptation to twist Your words for my own purposes. Teach me, like Jesus, to rightly divide the Word of truth and to stand firm against every deception. May my study of Scripture always draw me closer to You, the Author of truth. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

 

Remembering Timothy Tow?

 

A Response: “Remembering Servants of God—Rightly”

The call to “remember His faithful servants” (Heb 13:7) is a good and biblical one. God Himself commands His people to honour those who have faithfully taught His Word and lived godly lives before the flock. Indeed, we thank God for those who stood courageously for biblical truth through the centuries—Athanasius against Arianism, the Reformers against Rome, and men of the 20th century who separated from modernism and unbelief to defend the faith once delivered unto the saints.

However, remembering God’s servants must always be done with discernment and truth. Scripture never hides the faults of its heroes: Noah’s drunkenness, David’s adultery, Peter’s denial, Paul’s sharp contention with Barnabas. God’s Word is honest about both faith and failure, because it seeks to glorify not the man, but the God who uses frail vessels.

If we are to remember a man who taught the KJV and Verbal Plenary Preservation, we must also remember that doctrinal purity must be joined with spiritual unity. The Lord Jesus prayed not only that His people would be sanctified by the truth, but also that they “all may be one” (John 17:21). When a servant of God divides and splinters the church or denomination he once helped build, this cannot be brushed aside as though it were a minor footnote. Division, when caused by pride, harshness, or an unyielding spirit toward brethren who hold the same fundamentals of the faith, is not faithfulness—it is failure in love.

Faithfulness to God’s Word includes faithfulness to the spirit of Christ as well as the letter of His truth. One may defend the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, yet deny its transforming power when he refuses peace, forgiveness, or brotherly humility. The Apostle Paul warns, “Though I have all knowledge... and have not charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).

We must therefore honour our spiritual forebears rightly:

• With gratitude for their labour in the Word.

• With humility in recognizing their humanity.

• With discernment to learn from both their strengths and their mistakes.

To “remember” them as Hebrews 13:7 commands means to consider the outcome of their way of life and to imitate their faith, not necessarily their every deed or decision. If a man’s ministry ended in division, let that sober us and drive us to deeper self-examination, lest we repeat the same errors while thinking we are defending truth.

So yes, let us remember God’s servants—but let us remember them in the light of the Word of God, not through the lens of uncritical admiration. The true legacy worth preserving is not any man’s institution or movement, but the faith, love, and humility of Christ that must mark all His servants.

“Now the God of peace… make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (Hebrews 13:20–21)

 

An Open Letter

An Open Letter to Church Leaders Who Teach KJV-Only and the “Perfect TR” Doctrine

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I write this not out of anger, but out of a heavy heart. My soul aches to see the body of Christ divided, not over the cross of Christ, but over which English words are most divine. I honor your love for Scripture — I share it deeply. But I cannot stay silent while that love turns into a sword that cuts the Church instead of a balm that heals it.

The Word of God is perfect — yes, wholly inspired, infallible, and sufficient in the original truth God breathed into holy men of old. But when we begin to claim that one translation, one edition, or one text family is the only perfect one, we stop defending the Bible and start dividing the Body.

Brothers, think of this: what if your own family — your sons, your daughters — were torn apart because each believed that only their version of your voice was the true one? Would that not grieve you? Would you not cry out, “You’ve all missed my heart, though you quote my words”? That is what we are doing to our Father in heaven when we make His Word a banner of pride rather than a bridge of love.

I have seen churches split, friendships die, and faiths grow cold — not because men stopped believing the Bible, but because they stopped believing that others could believe the Bible differently and still love the same Lord. And that, dear teachers, is not the fruit of the Spirit.

If the apostles who walked with Christ could honor the Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic — if the Reformers gave their lives to open the Word to every tongue — how can we now narrow the voice of God to one 17th-century English translation? The King James Bible is a treasure, yes — a monument of faith and language. But it was never meant to be a golden calf.

I plead with you: teach the Word, not the version. Exalt the Truth, not the tradition. Let us unite under the living Word, not be chained to any one human rendering of it. The church is weary of wounds. The lost are watching. Christ is not divided.

May the Lord soften our hearts, renew our humility, and remind us that the Bible is not a battlefield but bread for the hungry — not a wall but a window to the glory of God.

With love and grief,
A servant of the same Lord and lover of the same Word

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) was drafted by the Westminster Assembly, a council of theologians (“divines”) and parliamentarians convened by the Long Parliament in 1643 in England. 

1. The People Involved in Drafting the Westminster Confession

The Westminster Assembly included about 121 ministers (the “divines”), 30 lay assessors (from the English Parliament and Scottish commissioners), and several scribes.
Not all attended regularly; the most influential were the theologians.

🔹 Principal English Divines

(Some of the most active and influential)

• William Twisse (prolocutor/chairman)

• Cornelius Burges

• Edward Reynolds

• Thomas Gataker

• Anthony Tuckney

• Edmund Calamy

• Lazarus Seaman

• John Arrowsmith

• Herbert Palmer

• Richard Vines

• Thomas Goodwin

• Philip Nye

• Sidrach Simpson

• Jeremiah Burroughs

• William Bridge

• Stephen Marshall

• Obadiah Sedgwick

🔹 Scottish Commissioners (non-voting but highly influential)

• Alexander Henderson

• Samuel Rutherford

• Robert Baillie

• George Gillespie

2. Their Stand on a “Perfect Bible”

All the Westminster divines held a high view of Scripture — what we’d today call verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy in the original autographs.

Key statement (WCF 1.8):

“The Old Testament in Hebrew ... and the New Testament in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”

That means:

• They believed the original texts (Hebrew and Greek) were inspired and infallible.

• They also believed that God had preserved those texts sufficiently so that the Church had access to them (though through copies and translations).

• They did not claim any one translation (such as the KJV) was itself perfect or inspired.

4. Their View on the King James Version (KJV)

Context:

The KJV (1611) was about 30 years old when the Assembly met (1643–1649). It was already widely used in English churches but not yet universally accepted as the English Bible — the Geneva Bible (1560) was still popular among Puritans.

The Assembly’s Stance:

• They used the KJV frequently in their proceedings.

• They did not elevate it above the Hebrew/Greek originals.

• They did not call it infallible or inspired.

• Their Confession clearly teaches that translations are only the Word of God insofar as they faithfully represent the original languages (WCF 1.8 again):

“... But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God ... they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation ...”

So:

• The divines supported vernacular translations (including the KJV),

• But they denied perfection or inspiration of any single translation.

• Their authority was rooted in the original Hebrew and Greek, not the KJV.

5. Summary Table

Aspect	Westminster Divines’ View
Church affiliation	Mostly Anglican Puritans → Presbyterian majority; some Independents
Perfect Bible?	Only the original autographs are perfect/inspired
Scripture preservation	Providential preservation of authentic texts
KJV view	Revered and useful, but not inspired or infallible; one faithful translation among others
Other translations	Approved in the “vulgar tongue” (vernacular) for edification

---

In short

The Westminster Confession was drafted by learned Puritan divines—mostly former Anglicans turned Presbyterians—who revered the Bible as infallible in its original languages, respected but did not idolize the KJV, and laid the theological foundation for nearly all later Reformed and Presbyterian doctrines of Scripture.

 

The 1611 King James Version (KJV) originally included the Apocrypha

The 1611 King James Version (KJV) originally included the Apocrypha, printed between the Old and New Testaments, as part of the complete Bible.

Why, who removed it, and when this happened?

1. The Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV

When the King James Bible was first published in 1611, it contained:

• The Old Testament (from Hebrew),

• The New Testament (from Greek), and

• The Apocrypha (from Greek/Latin sources).

The Apocrypha included books like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, etc.

The translators included it because:

• It had long been part of the Christian Bible tradition (in the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate).

• The Church of England at that time considered it useful for reading and instruction, but not equal in authority to canonical Scripture.

• The KJV translators themselves said in their preface that the Apocrypha was for example of life and instruction of manners, but not to establish doctrine.

2. When and Why It Was Removed

The Apocrypha began to be removed from Protestant editions of the KJV in the 19th century — mainly due to cost, controversy, and changing theological attitudes.

🧾 Timeline:

• 1611–1700s:
  Most KJV Bibles (especially in England) included the Apocrypha.
  The Geneva Bible and early editions of the KJV followed this tradition.

• 1629 & 1638 (Cambridge editions):
  The Apocrypha continued to appear — though sometimes in separate sections or smaller type.

• 1750s–1800s:
  Growing Puritan and evangelical influence in Britain and America led to increasing opposition to printing the Apocrypha.
  Protestants viewed it as non-inspired or Roman Catholic.

• 1826 – The Key Turning Point:
  The British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) — a major Bible printing organization — decided to stop funding or distributing Bibles that contained the Apocrypha.
  This decision effectively led to the removal of the Apocrypha from nearly all English Protestant editions of the Bible afterward.

  Their reasoning:

  • To reduce printing costs,

  • To focus on canonical Scripture,

  • To avoid controversy with evangelical supporters who opposed the Apocrypha.

After this point, most Protestant KJV editions (especially in the English-speaking world) were printed without the Apocrypha.

3. Today’s Situation

• Catholic and Orthodox Bibles still include these books (as Deuterocanonical).

• Anglican and Lutheran traditions often still read from the Apocrypha in lectionaries, even if not in printed Bibles.

• Most modern Protestant KJV Bibles omit it — though you can still buy 1611 facsimile editions with the Apocrypha included.

4. The Real Takeaway

The Apocrypha was never “removed because of corruption” but rather excluded for doctrinal and practical reasons by later Protestant publishers.
The 1611 translators themselves saw it as valuable but non-canonical — and its inclusion or omission does not affect the core doctrines of Christian faith.

Summary Table:

Event	Year	Description
KJV first published (with Apocrypha)	1611	Included 14 Apocryphal books
Early editions retain it	1600s–1700s	Printed between OT & NT
BFBS decision	1826	Stopped funding Bibles with Apocrypha
Widespread omission	1830s onward	Most Protestant KJVs printed without it

All manuscripts found after 1611

 

 1. The Heart Issue: Pride vs. Discernment

When someone like Jet Fry Cool, Swan You, Prabu-Ass claim “all manuscripts found after 1611 are useless unless they agree with the KJV or Textus Receptus (TR)”, that statement often reflects a misunderstanding of how God preserves His Word and, in some cases, a spirit of pride or fear rather than true discernment.

God did not promise to preserve His Word in one translation or in one set of manuscripts only. He promised to preserve His truth (Psalm 119:89, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35). The KJV is a wonderful translation — faithful, beautiful, and historically important — but it is not itself “the measure” of God’s Word.

When people elevate a translation above the Word itself, it can become a subtle form of idolatry — honoring the vessel more than the divine message it carries.

---

2. Facts about Manuscripts and Preservation

• The Textus Receptus (TR) was based on a handful of Greek manuscripts available to Erasmus in the early 1500s — maybe 6 or 7 total.

• Since then, over 5,800 Greek manuscripts have been discovered — some much older and closer to the original writings.

• Many of these manuscripts confirm and illuminate the biblical text. None of them overthrow the faith.

• Every faithful translation (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, etc.) proclaims the same gospel and upholds the same Christ.

God’s Word has not changed — only our access to evidence of how it has been transmitted through history has increased.

---

3. How to Address and Guide Such Teachers

When engaging them, remember:

“The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil.” — 2 Timothy 2:24

Here’s how you might gently guide them:

1. Affirm their love for Scripture.

   • “I appreciate your desire to defend the purity of God’s Word.”

2. Share facts humbly.

   • Explain how God allowed us to discover more manuscripts over time — and how these confirm the reliability of Scripture.

3. Appeal to humility and church unity.

   • Remind them that the early church did not have the KJV or TR, yet they were saved, sanctified, and used by God.

4. Encourage spiritual balance.

   • Emphasize that faith should rest on Christ, not a translation. (John 5:39–40 — “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me.”)

5. Promote learning, not division.

   • Suggest studying textual history from reputable evangelical scholars who love Jesus and uphold the inspiration of Scripture (e.g., Daniel Wallace, F.F. Bruce).

---

4. A Pastoral Word

The real danger isn’t in loving the KJV — it’s in believing that God can only speak through it. That mindset limits the infinite power of the Spirit and blinds us to how God continues to preserve and clarify His Word through honest scholarship and global translation work.

True faith says:

“Your Word, O Lord, is eternal — it stands firm in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89)
not
“Your Word, O Lord, is limited to one version printed in 1611.”

---

In Summary

Calling those manuscripts “useless” is not only inaccurate — it reflects a need for deeper humility and understanding.
The solution is grace, patient teaching, and biblical literacy. Encourage such teachers to love truth more than tradition and to trust that the same God who inspired Scripture is also able to preserve it faithfully through time.

 

Formal critique — Kept Pure in All Ages (Jeffrey Khoo, FEBC Press)

Methodology & scope

This critique treats Kept Pure in All Ages as a polemical and apologetic work defending (1) the doctrine FEBC calls Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) — that God has perfectly preserved “every word… to the jot and tittle” — and (2) the practical corollary that the King James Version (KJV), based on the Textus Receptus (TR) and Masoretic Hebrew, is the uniquely authoritative English form for public reading/teaching. I summarize each major chapter/theme, evaluate argumentative method, and identify evidential and theological weaknesses. Primary source: FEBC’s PDF of the book and official VPP statements. (febc.edu.sg)

---

Executive summary (short verdict)

• Weaknesses / Risks: over-extension of preservation claims beyond what manuscript evidence demonstrably supports; selective use of textual-history evidence (favoring TR/Majority/Byzantine lineage while downplaying complexities, internal variant patterns, and the reasons textual critics value early Alexandrian witnesses); theological and practical consequences (exclusivism, ecclesial fracturing) insufficiently addressed. Critics and formal responses make these points and press FEBC for more granular manuscript-level argumentation. (jamesdprice.com)

---

Chapter-by-chapter critique (organized by major themes rather than reproducing every short chapter heading)

Chapter 1 — Thesis & Definitions: VPI → VPP (what FEBC means by preservation)

Summary (what Khoo argues):
Khoo defines preservation verbally and plenarily: God has preserved every word of Scripture (not merely doctrines) through providence in a single textual stream, ultimately manifested in the Hebrew/Greek texts underlying the KJV and thus in the KJV itself for English usage. FEBC links this doctrine to promises like “every jot and tittle” and to the Westminster Confession. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique:

• Exegetical leap: The leap from promise texts (Matt 5:18; Ps 12:6–7) to a historical claim that a single textual family is perfectly preserved in every generation is interpretive and contested. Many scholars argue those texts promise the endurance of God’s “word” or covenant truth rather than guaranteeing identical orthography across manuscripts/copies. FEBC asserts the stronger reading but does not fully engage the major exegetical counter-interpretations found in wider scholarship. This weakens the claim’s universal persuasive force. (See critical responses that press this point.) (jamesdprice.com)

Recommendation:

• Distinguish carefully between promises of preservation in substance/meaning and claims of absolute textual uniformity, and engage the principal exegetical counterarguments with primary-source scholarship.

---

Chapter 2 — Historical/Confessional Evidence (Westminster Confession; Reformation practice)

Summary:
Khoo appeals to confessional language (e.g., WCF 1:8) and to Protestant tradition to show continuity: the Reformers and the Reformation churches believed in a providentially preserved textual standard (as understood by FEBC to corroborate VPP). (febc.edu.sg)

Critique:

• Historical nuance missing: The claim that historical confessions unequivocally endorse VPP as FEBC defines it is overstated. The WCF’s phrase “kept pure in all ages” can be reasonably understood as a claim about the reliability of Scripture as God’s authoritative revelation (substance), not necessarily as a technical assertion that a unique recension (TR) was mechanically preserved word-for-word everywhere. FEBC would strengthen its case by showing direct quotations from Reformers/Confessors endorsing literal-word preservation across manuscript tradition; instead the book often infers such precision from more general confessional language. (febc.edu.sg)

Recommendation:

• Provide more primary-source citations from key Reformers/Patristic authors showing explicit verbal-preservation formulations (not only general appeals). Where none exist, acknowledge difference and explain why VPP is still the best interpretive fit.

---

Chapter 3 — Textual Evidence & The Textus Receptus (TR) vs Critical Texts

Summary:
Khoo argues that the TR/Majority/Byzantine lineage better reflects God’s preserved text, while the modern critical texts (Westcott–Hort / Nestle–Aland / UBS) rely on corrupted Alexandrian witnesses. The book catalogs examples where modern translations omit or marginalize verses present in the KJV text. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — evidential & methodological:

1. Selective evidence and burden of proof: The book frequently cites variant readings favorable to the TR, but it does not provide a systematic manuscript-by-manuscript evaluation of why modern critical readings are inferior in each contested case. Modern textual criticism favors older papyri/codices because antiquity often increases probability of originality. Khoo tends to use majority or ecclesiastical testimony rather than weighing internal/external criteria used by textual critics. Critics (including several papers/personal rebuttals) charge FEBC with insufficient engagement at the granular manuscript level. (jamesdprice.com)

2. Majority ≠ original automatically: The Majority (Byzantine) text is numerically strong among later manuscripts but not necessarily closer to the autograph. FEBC sometimes implies that majority = preserved original; that equivalence is debated and requires argumentation showing transmission patterns (e.g., where scribal harmonisation produced Byzantine readings). The book would benefit from engaging standard textual-critical methodology (lectio difficilior, shorter readings, transcriptional vs intrinsic probabilities) and answering why those tools are mistaken. (jamesdprice.com)

3. Handling of internal contradictions & Byzantine internal variants: Even within the Byzantine family there are variants. A robust VPP account must explain how perfect preservation is consistent with observable in-family variance (which Kept Pure tends to downplay). Critics have produced point-by-point rebuttals showing instances in which the TR tradition seems secondary or conflated. (jamesdprice.com)

Recommendation:

• Publish a companion, evidence-heavy manuscript: a chapter or monograph that applies textual-critical criteria item-by-item (with manuscript citations) showing why TR readings are superior in a large, representative sample. Engage leading textual-criticism literature and respond to common criteria rather than dismissing them.

---

Chapter 4 — Translation Theory & KJV Supremacy

Summary:
Khoo defends the KJV as the best English rendering of God’s preserved words; he argues that the KJV’s underlying Hebrew/Greek represent the preserved text and that modern versions rely on corrupt texts and sometimes liberal translation philosophy. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — linguistic & translational:

1. 16th/17th-century scholarship limitations: The KJV translators had access to the best resources available in 1611, but they lacked later manuscript finds (papyri, Sinaiticus/Vaticanus discoveries, improved Hebrew editions). FEBC’s case often underplays the fact that historical scholarship has advanced and that some modern translations incorporate earlier witnesses discovered after 1611. A position that insists on KJV-only usage should explain why later, earlier witnesses do not outweigh the TR’s authority in particular readings. (febc.edu.sg)

2. Translation vs. Text: Even accepting TR priority, translation is not mechanical word-matching. The KJV’s wording and archaic English can obscure or misrepresent nuance to modern readers. FEBC’s strong liturgical preference should be supplemented with pastoral guidelines for study: where to consult modern literal translations for clarity while reserving the KJV in public worship. Otherwise, the stance risks impracticality for younger/second-language congregants. (febc.edu.sg)

Recommendation:

• Distinguish clearly between two claims: (a) the TR represents the preserved original text in many key instances; (b) the KJV is the best public English Bible for a particular ecclesial context. Defend each separately and give pastoral options for multilingual or younger congregations.

---

Chapter 5 — Polemics Against Textual Criticism & Modern Versions

Summary:
Khoo strongly criticizes modern textual-criticism methods and many modern English translations (NIV, RSV, etc.) as theologically dangerous or compromised because of their reliance on the “critical text.” FEBC issues warnings about theological drift enabled by some translations. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — tone and engagement:

1. Ad hominem tendencies & rhetorical excesses: Some FEBC language, as critics note, can feel polemical and dismissive (e.g., labeling modern scholarship “corrupt” wholesale). That tone hardens opposition and reduces the possibility of scholarly conversation. Critics have responded at length pointing out that a wholesale rejection, rather than situational critique, is both unnecessary and counterproductive. (jamesdprice.com)

2. Failure to discriminate among modern versions & scholars: Not all modern translations are alike; many are careful, conservative, and based on rigorous scholarship. FEBC would be more persuasive by distinguishing versions and scholars that genuinely err from those that are responsible. A blanket condemnation undermines credibility with neutral observers.

Recommendation:

• Adopt a calibrated critique that: (a) names specific problematic translations/readings (with data); (b) singles out particular methodological errors in named scholarly works; and (c) leaves room to commend responsible modern scholarship when warranted.

---

Chapter 6 — Pastoral & Ecclesial Implications (the KJV-only practice)

Summary:
Khoo urges churches to adopt KJV-only public reading, preaching, and teaching in English. He sees this as a faithful application of VPP and spiritual safeguarding for congregations. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — ecclesial risk & ecumenical consequences:

1. Risk of divisiveness: Historical and contemporary reactions show that strict KJV-only stances can produce schisms and alienation from other evangelicals who would not accept VPP/KJV-only premises. Evidence from debates and church splits in the Singapore B-P context demonstrates this risk. FEBC should more fully wrestle with how hard-line positions affect broader Christian fellowship. (truth.sg)

2. Pastoral trade-offs: Exclusivity may be pastorally insensitive to non-native English speakers, younger readers, or those who benefit from clarity in modern idiom. FEBC should offer pastoral strategies (e.g., teaching KJV while using modern literal translations in study aids) rather than an absolutist practice. (febc.edu.sg)

Recommendation:

• Provide pastoral guidelines that balance reverence for KJV and sensitivity to pastoral realities. Also articulate ecclesial policies for interchurch cooperation with bodies that use other approved translations.

---

Chapter 7 — Responses to Critics (FEBC’s replies)

Summary:
FEBC responds to critics in appendices and articles, defending VPP and attacking certain polemical opponents. FEBC insists critics misunderstand VPP or conflate VPP with “KJV-onlyism” in its strongest forms. (febc.edu.sg)

Critique — substantive engagement lacking:

• Many critics (e.g., academic papers, denominational responses, and point-by-point critiques) call for more sustained engagement with the manuscript evidence and with technical textual-criticism methodology. FEBC often replies at a high level (reasserting axioms) rather than performing the laborious task of detailed rebuttal on contested textual points. The debate therefore sometimes becomes doctrinal/polemical rather than evidentiary. Representative rebuttals (e.g., James D. Price) press these evidential points. (jamesdprice.com)

Recommendation:

• Publish a vigorous, evidence-rich rejoinder that addresses the pivotal manuscript-level criticisms in such a way that neutral scholars can evaluate the claims.

---

Overall theological assessment

• Theological caution is needed: asserting that God preserved exact words in one modern edition (effectively equating TR/KJV with the autograph) moves beyond commitments commonly held by many historic Reformed and evangelical theologians, who affirmed Scripture’s preservation but did not claim that every extant form or edition represents a mechanical, word-for-word preservation identical to the autographs. FEBC would buttress its theological legitimacy by acknowledging that textual transmission is complex and explaining why VPP still wins despite that complexity. (febc.edu.sg)

---

Practical suggestions for FEBC (how to sharpen the book/position)

1. Publish a technical apparatus volume comparing TR vs critical-text readings in a systematic sample (with manuscript references and internal/external probability analysis). This would meet critics on their own terrain.

2. Temper rhetoric where possible and classify modern translations more finely (commend what is solid; rebut what is unreliable). This will reduce unnecessary alienation.

3. Clarify VPP’s scope (orthography, spelling, marginalia, punctuation, accent marks) so critics and pastors know exactly what the doctrine claims.

4. Pastoral guidelines for churches in multilingual, multi-generation contexts: how to use KJV for liturgy while using modern literal translations for study aids.

5. Historical-theological appendix showing exactly which Reformers/Patristic authors support VPP in the exact sense FEBC advances — or, if none do, explain why VPP is nonetheless consistent with the Reformers’ intent.

---

Representative sources & further reading (selected)

• Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages (FEBC Press). Primary text & FEBC VPP material. (febc.edu.sg)

• FEBC’s pages defending VPP and responding to critics (“Responses to Articles Against VPP”, “Truth or Lies”, etc.). (febc.edu.sg)

• James D. Price — Response to Jeffrey Khoo (detailed PDF rebuttal addressing manuscript and preservation claims). (jamesdprice.com)

• Representative critiques and chapter-by-chapter blog responses in the Singapore B-P context (examples: my blog's critiques). These illustrate common denominational and pastoral objections and the conflict dynamics in the local church context. (singaporebpc.blogspot.com)

• Overview article: “Verbal Plenary Preservation” (Wikipedia) — useful for overviewing positions and major proponents/opponents in recent debate (use cautiously; follow its sources). (Wikipedia)

---

Short concluding evaluation

Kept Pure in All Ages is a forceful statement of a particular conservative-Reformed position that places verbal preservation at the heart of biblical confidence and practical KJV use at the center of congregational life. However, its most significant academic vulnerability is evidential: a persuasive, enduring defense of VPP requires methodical manuscript-level argumentation showing why TR/Byzantine readings are superior across disputed loci, together with more careful engagement with exegetical alternatives to the scriptural proofs cited. The book would gain influence (and reduce needless polarization) by producing that granular scholarship, softening rhetorical absolutism, and offering pastoral accommodations that preserve both reverence for Scripture and charitable unity within the wider church.

Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) and “KJV-Onlyism”

What FEBC Teaches: Summary of Their Position

To critique well, we need a clear picture of what FEBC actually teaches. Based on their publications:

• FEBC affirms Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) — that the original autographs (the first manuscripts) of Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were fully inspired, infallible, inerrant. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

• They go further to teach Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) — that not only were the originals inspired, but that God has perfectly preserved “each and every word … to the last jot and tittle” in every age, so that the words underlying certain manuscripts (especially those “Traditional/Byzantine/Majority” manuscripts; and in the Reformation tradition Textus Receptus / Masoretic Text underlying the KJV) are the infallible, inerrant words of God today. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

• FEBC holds that the King James Version is the best, most faithful English translation, and that in public reading, preaching, and teaching of English Scripture they employ it alone. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

• They deny, or strongly criticize, textual critical scholarship using modern “critical texts” (Alexandrian manuscripts, Westcott‐Hort, etc.), claiming them “corrupted” and that they underlie many modern translations which, to FEBC, compromise or omit God’s preserved words. (www2.febc.edu.sg)

So FEBC’s teaching is that God has preserved the inspired words (not just doctrines or ideas) perfectly to this day, in the Hebrew/Greek texts underlying the KJV, and that the KJV is uniquely faithful among English translations.

---

Challenges, Objections, and Areas of Critique

There are several serious objections and difficulties. They point out where the teaching needs to be sharpened, defended, or perhaps modified.

1. Manuscript Evidence & Textual Variants

   • Textual variation is real: Scholars have shown that the Greek and Hebrew manuscript traditions have many, many variants—some minor, some more substantial. Even among the Trad/Byzantine/Majority family, there are differences. That means that claiming every word preserved perfectly in a single family or line means dealing with variant readings within that family.

   • Earliest manuscripts: Some of the earliest and arguably best manuscripts (e.g. some Alexandrian ones) differ from later Majority texts. Modern critical editions put weight on early manuscripts because of their antiquity, not necessarily majority. The question is: how does one argue that the Majority/Byzantine/Traditional manuscripts (or those underlying KJV) are more reliable in certain respects? FEBC asserts the others are “corrupted,” but the burden is to show which readings are corrupt and why the Tradition/Byzantine readings should be preferred in each case.

2. What Does It Mean to “Preserve Words”?

   • The doctrine of VPP as taught by FEBC is very strong: every word, every syllable, every letter, every jot and tittle. But in practice, translation requires choices: spelling, punctuation, choice of alternative readings, dealing with differences in manuscripts. Even KJV has textual footnotes, variant readings in apparatus (in more recent editions or scholarly editions of the underlying texts), though FEBC may argue those are secondary or editorial.

   • There’s a question: does “verbal preservation” mean that in the manuscripts we have exactly the same as the autographs (which are lost), or that we have the substance/sense/paradigm so reliably that no doctrinal or essential meaning is lost even if some minor wording differs? FEBC seems to lean toward a more absolute version, which raises the issue of how to handle known variants.

3. On KJV-Onlyism and the Translation

   • While FEBC says they use the KJV “alone” for English public reading/preaching/teaching, critics will point out issues with the KJV: archaic language, translation decisions made in 17th-century context, occasional mis‐understandings of Hebrew or Greek then current, limitations of the manuscript base known in 1611 (they didn’t have the discoveries of many papyri and early codices afterwards).

   • KJV translation being “best” in English is a value judgment: it depends on one’s criteria (faithfulness, clarity, style, readability). Some modern translations argue for “essentially literal” but also incorporate better manuscript evidence, more recent discoveries, refined scholarship.

4. Doctrinal / Theological & Ecclesial Risks

   • Potential for exclusivity: If one teaches that only FEBC’s view is truly faithful preservation, there is a risk (real or perceived) of dividing the body of Christ, marginalizing those who use other faithful translations, or branding them as “corrupted” or “less than” in their faith. FEBC claims they do not believe that those using modern versions are condemned, etc. But some of their language is strong about “many modern versions” being based on “corrupted texts.” (febc.edu.sg)

   • Difficulty in dialogues: Because many scholars and denominations do not accept VPP, such a strong position can become a stumbling block in ecumenical conversation or in shared ministry contexts.

5. Scriptural Proofs & Interpretation

   • FEBC cites passages like Matt 5:18, etc., to support VPP. But critics argue these passages refer to God’s Word in more general or metaphorical terms, not necessarily guaranteeing that every exact text word in every copy, translation, or tradition is preserved. For example, the “jot or tittle” saying: is it about the Law of Moses, or more broadly the Law (Torah), or prophetic pronouncements, etc.? The interpretation is debated.

   • Also, the absence of explicit biblical texts that say “these manuscripts are preserved word for word forever” or “this translation is the only preserved English version” means FEBC’s doctrine is somewhat inferred rather than explicitly stated in Scripture. This in itself is not fatal, but it leaves room for dissent.

6. Historical Evidence and Church Practice

   • Historically, Christians have used many translations and manuscript families; the Majority/Byzantine tradition was not uniformly predominant in every geographic area (e.g., many early Christian writings, church fathers, church in Egypt etc. had texts that lean Alexandrian).

   • The reforms of Puritan and Reformation theologians often affirmed preservation, but the concept of “exact wording and identical to autograph everywhere in every copy” was not always spelled out so strongly in the way VPP does. Some argue FEBC is pushing an interpretation that, while having historical support, is more exacting than many historical theologians held.

7. Practicality / Recognition vs Criticism

   • FEBC rejects much of modern textual criticism (at least some aspects of it), calling it “humanistic” or speculative. But textual criticism has in many cases provided very useful tools in assessing variants, approximating earlier texts, etc. Dismissing all textual criticism may limit ability to engage with broader scholarship, new manuscript finds, or to respond to new challenges.

   • Also, how does FEBC’s position handle the multiplicity of copies, editions of the KJV, changes in spelling, printers’ errors, etc.? If one is committed to “every syllable,” does that extend to spelling variants or printer’s conventions of the 17th/18th centuries?

---

Possible Ways FEBC Might Strengthen Their Position / Address Critiques

1. Better engagement with manuscript evidence

   • A more detailed comparison of known textual variants, especially among Traditional/Byzantine manuscripts, to show that the readings FEBC prefers are more likely to be original in specific cases — not only by appeal to the “majority” or by appealing to tradition, but by reasoned argument (internal evidence, earliest attestation, etc.).

   • Addressing counterexamples: where a Majority reading seems less likely, or where early manuscripts differ.

2. Clarified definitions of “words preserved”

   • Define whether “every word” includes orthographic/spelling variants, punctuation, etc.

   • Be clear about what type of “word” preservation: are they speaking of “textual substance” (i.e. meaning-bearing words) or absolutely every textual detail (letterforms, spelling, accent marks, etc.)?

3. Recognizing scholarly contribution

   • Rather than rejecting all textual criticism, FEBC could distinguish between what they see as reliable, faithful textual scholarship vs. what they see as ideological or speculative.

   • This would help them engage with broader scholarship without conceding their key beliefs.

4. Pastoral sensitivity

   • Be attentive to how the doctrine is taught so as not to alienate or unnecessarily offend those who are sincere Christians but use other translations. Emphasize that faith and salvation are not tied to use of a particular version. FEBC does affirm this, but perception sometimes differs from intent.

   • Provide resources to help people use modern translations alongside KJV for study, perhaps showing where variants exist, how to compare.

5. Historical theology scholarship

   • It would help to survey more comprehensively what historical theologians (Church Fathers, Reformers, Puritans) said about preservation, to see how exactly their views map onto VPP as FEBC defines it. This can bolster the claim that VPP is “old as the Bible itself” (a claim FEBC sometimes makes). (www2.febc.edu.sg)

---

Conclusion: 

FEBC’s position brings challenges: handling real textual variants, engaging with manuscript data, defining precisely what “verbal preservation” means in practice versus in theory, and maintaining unity with other Christians who have somewhat different but also sincere convictions about translations and texts.

I would encourage them to:

• Continue doing careful manuscript-level scholarship and publish more of those comparisons.

• Be transparent about where there is disagreement among the manuscripts believed to be in the “preserved” text, and how to handle them.

• Emphasize that VPP is about God’s faithfulness, not about excluding or condemning fellow believers using other translations.

• Avoid overstating certainty in places where evidence is ambiguous.

Ultimately, doctrines like VPP are significant and deserve careful teaching; but with significant claims come significant burdens of proof. FEBC’s teaching is a serious attempt to meet that, but there are places where critics seem to have legitimate questions.

Modern-Era Bible Translation Controversies (19th–21st Century)

Throughout church history, there have been several figures who caused controversy or division over Bible translation or versions, often due to differences in language, theology, or textual sources.

Period	Person/Group	Translation	Source Texts	Division/Controversy
4th c.	Jerome	Latin Vulgate	Hebrew/Greek	Disputed by Latin Christians
14th c.	John Wycliffe	English Bible	Latin Vulgate	Condemned by Catholic Church
16th c.	William Tyndale	English NT	Hebrew/Greek	Executed for heresy
16th c.	Martin Luther	German Bible	Hebrew/Greek	Divided Catholic & Protestant
16th c.	Douay–Rheims Translators	English Bible	Latin Vulgate	Catholic–Protestant divide
20th c.	KJV-Only Advocates	King James Version	Textus Receptus	Split among Protestants

Modern-Era Bible Translation Controversies (19th–21st Century)

1. Westcott and Hort Controversy (Late 1800s)

• Figures:

  • Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901)

  • Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892)

• Issue:
  They produced a new Greek New Testament (1881) based on older manuscripts (notably Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus), which differed from the traditional Textus Receptus that underpinned the King James Version (KJV).

• Division:
  Many conservative Protestants accused Westcott and Hort of corrupting the text, claiming their “critical text” removed verses and weakened key doctrines (e.g., the deity of Christ).

• Impact:
  Their work became the foundation for most modern translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.), creating a lasting split between “Textus Receptus defenders” and “Critical Text supporters.”

---

2. King James Only Movement (20th Century–Present)

• Key Figures:

  • Benjamin G. Wilkinson – wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930)

  • David Otis Fuller – editor of Which Bible? (1970)

  • Peter S. Ruckman – most vocal advocate; taught that the KJV itself was inspired and inerrant

• Issue:
  The belief that the King James Version (1611) is the only divinely preserved English Bible.

  • Modern versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, etc.) are viewed as corrupted due to their use of the Westcott–Hort Greek text.

• Division:
  Churches split over whether to accept modern translations.
  “KJV-only” churches often separate from other evangelical denominations.

• Impact:
  Still active today in parts of Independent Baptist and Fundamentalist circles.

---

3. New International Version (NIV) Debate (1978–present)

• Figures:

  • No single person, but led by a committee of evangelical scholars.

• Issue:
  The NIV aimed for readability and dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought translation). Critics claimed it sacrificed doctrinal precision and literal accuracy.

• Division:

  • Conservatives accused it of being too “liberal” or “soft” on key terms (e.g., "virgin," "blood," "hell").

  • In 2011, the NIV Inclusive Language Edition caused fresh backlash for using gender-neutral terms (“people” instead of “men”).

• Impact:
  Sparked division among evangelicals — some embracing it for clarity, others rejecting it as compromising biblical integrity.

---

4. New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1950–present)

• Figures:

  • Produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (anonymous translators).

• Issue:
  The translation alters key texts to fit Jehovah’s Witness theology (e.g., “the Word was a god” in John 1:1).

• Division:

  • Universally rejected by mainstream Christianity as doctrinally biased.

  • Deepened division between Jehovah’s Witnesses and orthodox Christian denominations.

---

5. The Message Bible (1993–2002)

• Figure:

  • Eugene H. Peterson

• Issue:
  A paraphrase, not a direct translation — uses very loose, contemporary language.

• Division:

  • Some appreciate its readability and accessibility.

  • Others condemn it for distorting the text and undermining reverence for Scripture.

• Impact:
  Sparked debate on whether paraphrases are legitimate “Bibles” or merely commentaries.

---

6. Passion Translation Controversy (2010s–present)

• Figure:

  • Brian Simmons (former missionary, founder of Stairway Ministries)

• Issue:
  Claims of “new revelation” guiding his translation. Critics say the Passion Translation adds words and meanings not in the original Greek or Hebrew.

• Division:

  • Popular in charismatic circles.

  • Strongly criticized by scholars across denominations for being inaccurate and theologically manipulative.

• Impact:
  Significant rift between charismatic and academic branches of the modern church.

Which New Testament books were canonical

How the early Church decided which books belong in the New Testament, and why the canon eventually settled at 27 books?

1. The Starting Point — No "Bible" Yet

In the 1st century, Christians had:

• The Hebrew Scriptures (their “Old Testament,” usually in Greek form — the Septuagint).

• The teachings of Jesus and the letters of apostles circulating among churches.

But there was no single New Testament collection yet. Each community might have:

• A Gospel or two (e.g., Matthew, Luke).

• Some of Paul’s letters.

• Maybe Revelation or another apostolic text.

In short: The early Church had Scripture, but not a finished New Testament.

2. The Criteria for a Book to Be "Scripture"

As the writings circulated, the Church began distinguishing which were truly inspired and apostolic.
By the 2nd century, church leaders (like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen) were using three main criteria:

Criterion	Meaning	Example
Apostolic origin	Written by an apostle or their close companion	e.g., Mark (Peter’s companion), Luke (Paul’s companion)
Orthodox teaching	Consistent with the “rule of faith” — the core apostolic teaching about Jesus	Gnostic gospels were rejected for this reason
Widespread usage	Read and accepted in churches across the Christian world (not just one region)	e.g., Paul’s letters used everywhere

If a writing met these, it was regarded as Scripture.

3. 1st–2nd Century: The Core Forms

• Paul’s letters were the earliest and most widely circulated (by ~60–70 CE).

  • By ~100 CE, collections of Paul’s letters were already being copied and read in churches.

• The four Gospels quickly became the standard accounts of Jesus.

  • Irenaeus (c. 180 CE) famously said there are “four and only four Gospels,” like the four winds.

• Other early Christian writings (like the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, 1 Clement) were read in some churches but not considered on the same level.

By the end of the 2nd century:
The core canon was emerging — Four Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation (though Revelation was debated).

4. 3rd–4th Century: Sorting & Confirming

Some books were disputed or regional:

Generally Accepted Early	Debated or Local	Rejected
Four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation	Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude	Gnostic gospels, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Peter, Acts of Paul

Church fathers like Origen (early 200s) and Eusebius (early 300s) made lists distinguishing “recognized” vs. “disputed” books.

5. 4th Century: Official Recognition

After Christianity was legalized (313 CE), bishops wanted a clear, authoritative list of Scriptures for teaching and worship.

Key Moments:

• Eusebius (c. 325 CE) — Lists 22 “acknowledged” books and several “disputed but known.”

• Athanasius’ Easter Letter (367 CE) — The first known list with exactly the 27 books of today’s New Testament.

• Councils of Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 & 419 CE) — Western Church formally confirmed the 27-book canon.

• This same list was later reaffirmed by the Catholic Church (Council of Trent, 1546) and used by Protestant Reformers as well.

By the late 4th century → the New Testament canon was effectively settled.

6. Did They Claim a “Perfect” Bible?

• Early Christians believed the Scriptures were divinely inspired, but they did not claim a perfect manuscript (many copies existed, with small variations).

• The Church’s focus was on which writings were inspired, not on creating a “perfect text.”

• The idea of an inerrant or flawless manuscript came much later — medieval and modern concepts.

Summary: Formation of the New Testament Canon

Stage	Time Period	Key Developments
1st century	Apostolic writings produced	Gospels, letters, Revelation written
2nd century	Writings circulated	Four Gospels, Paul’s letters recognized
3rd century	Lists and debates	Some books disputed (Hebrews, Revelation, etc.)
4th century	Canon finalized	27 books recognized (Athanasius, Carthage)
5th century onward	Universal acceptance	Same NT used across Christendom

---

Key Idea:

The early Church didn’t start with a Bible; it grew around living apostolic teaching.
Over time, it recognized which writings truly expressed that apostolic faith — and that process produced the New Testament.