Dear Rev (Dr) Quek
Suan Yew
Re: Your question posed to me on whether I would reconsider
the doctrine of VPP.
Your reply showed some respect to me as a person saved in
Jesus Christ. I appreciate your courtesy as expected from a church pastor. In view of this,
I believe it is only right for me to spare some thoughts to answer some of your questions posed
to me.
Before answering your inquiry I would like to make a word of
comment regarding your emotional state, that is, you seem to suffer from some lapses
of emotional upheavals within yourself. A sisterly advice is for you to watch your inner
being. Your argumentative nature speaks much of a manic mood that at times you portray
yourself as a violent person in your verbal expressions that if unconsciously, God forbid, you
may express it in action. In your reply to me, you have shown yourself to be thoughtful, an already‐calmed
down person much like the man whom our Lord had cast out the demonic spirits
called ‘legion’(Mk 5:1‐16).
Let me respond to your request of me to “reconsider the
doctrine of VPP” which you further elaborated in these words: “It simply means that we hold in
our hands the perfect Bible (in the original languages)”. I am sorry to give a vehement negative
reply “No!” for the following reasons. I still view
VPP as a heretical view of the Holy Scriptures.
1. First of all, I believe God gave His perfect word to all
His Prophets and Apostles at the time of their writing in the original Hebrew and Greek
languages to the extent of being inerrant, infallible and, thereby, authoritative in all
aspects of life, in this life and for eternity (John 10:35; Luke 21:33; Luke 16:17; Matthew 24:35;
Matthew 5:18; Luke 4:4; Matthew 4:4; Proverbs 30:5). I believe God preserved His
people and the faithful scribes to copy His word (OT and NT), to transmit His word
from generation to generation (Psalm 12:6, 7)1 even until today. We are
privileged to have our vernacular
1 Check other versions of the Bible such as the Chinese CUV,
Indonesian Akitab or German Bibel.
Peter Van Kleeck’s
most sensible understanding and study of Psalm 12:6‐7 concluded, “In summary ... [t]he only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the
English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement
within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a
Greek‐Latin
basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6‐7; and
the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough
to include both interpretations‐‐oppressed
people and God's words" (Peter Van Kleeck, The Translational
and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th and 17th
Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, March 1993).
Also check this website
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm.htm for Doug Kutilek’s article on
“ WHY PSALM 12:6,7 IS NOT A PROMISE OF THE INFALLIBLE PRESERVATION
OF SCRIPTURE.” versions of the Bible because God wants to speak to all
people in their native tongues.
Hence, from the earliest times we have God’s word in Koine
Greek, that is, the LXX (Septuagint) when the OT was only recognized as
authoritative in the Hebrew (in small parts Aramaic and Syriac). At that time, the Hellenistic
Jews who only understood Greek and to a lesser extent their Hebraic tongue, did not claim
that the LXX with the underlying text of the Old Testament was the Perfect Word of
God although Greek was the lingua franca in the ancient world. It was always the
Hebrew Bible that is God‐breathed, the very Word of God. In the same stance, if a
vernacular language of the translated Bible were to be claimed as the Perfect word of
God in ancient times it would have been the Greek Septuagint with the underlying text of
the Old Testament.
2. It was alleged that Alexander the Great [through Ptolemy]
commissioned to have the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek and kept in the famous
library in Alexandria, Egypt. The library being destroyed by fire. But we have not read in
all of history the kind of claim that you, the Faculty and Board of Directors of Far
Eastern Bible College under the leadership of Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo are making. Your claim is
a stranger’s voice in the Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (John 10:5), a
claim that Church History never knew about nor recognized. But you and your cohort are using
the blunt knife of human tautological logic to mislead sincere believers of our
precious faith. This blatant diversion is a preposterous perversion which in every sense
of the word is a HERESY.
3. I will never become a VPP believer because of the
dishonesty in Dr J Khoo’s method of argument. You, as well as Rev Dr S H Tow, have used it
against Rev Tang and Rev Charles Seet as I’ve read in the papers available in the websites.
As you do this, you are guilty of deceiving and misleading Bible‐believing Christians with a new and
strange doctrine Dr J Khoo has concocted a devious method of reasoning. It is
devised for his advantage to win the simple and naïve believers who are truly looking
to God for a genuine firm faith in Jesus Christ, I would term Dr J Khoo’s
factitious logic as a double‐headed
asp argument for the Perfect Bible.
Let me illustrate the argument which Dr J Khoo has concocted
within a period of about
one decade.
The Writings of the Prophets and Apostles (Autographs) +
KJB+Underlying MT/TR Texts (Apographs) = Perfect Bible
Inspiration: Every Word Preservation A B
Verbal PlenaryPreservation+ = C
In short, the formula is expressed in this equation:
A + B (KJV+MT/TR)
= C (VPP),
given that B consists of the elements of KJB and texts of
MT/TR, and the MT/TR
(Apographs) = Autographs.
In another way of putting it, the formula changes again when
it is expressed in this
format: B (KJV+A) = C (VPP).
Hence, Dr J Khoo has, in fact, three formulae up his sleeves
to argue in his writings and
these are:
1. A + B (KJV + MT/TR) = C (VPP);
2. KJV + A = C (VPP);
and
3. KJV = C (VPP);
The dishonesty and deception of Dr J Khoo’s concoction is
found in “B” where he can argue that the Word of God to be either both (KJB + MT/TR)
or MT/TR, or he may infer to only the KJB.
What he really means is that the KJB is the very Word of
God. But when he is cornered, he would refer to the original languages as the Word of God
and he would shift to “A” declaring that it is the Autographs or Apographs as the very
Word of God.
By doing this he is as slippery as an eel in the mud hole.
One cannot pull him out of his burrow. That’s a possible reason why he avoids public
debates. That is also a reason for him to declare that the VPP is only his personal conviction.
By pretending to be humble, he remains undetected, and none could catch hold of him to
expose his misbehavior. His vacillation from the Autographs to the Apographs to the KJB
is so obvious and so cunning that many church leaders abandon him to self‐destruction.
Dr J Khoo has concocted a term “Virtual Photocopy” of the
Autographs in the Apographs as if he had read or seen the Autographs before. He daringly
declared that we have the exact words of the Prophets and Apostles in our hands. By
saying this repeatedly, many B‐Pers
have been deceived and led astray by his heretical teaching. He has used a theological jargon in Latin to mean “Supernatural” or
“Miraculous Preservation” that happen at the time of the translation of KJV in 1611 about a
century after the Reformation. But none of the KJV‐onlyists in the world would dare to
postulate such a doctrine, but Rev J Khoo declared this heretical view only
in 1992/3.
4. There is a latest twist to the VPP development (in late
2007) of a new formula. The Chinese Bible CUV is now included into the Perfect Bible
myth of VPP in late‐2007.
There is lot of internal conflicts and contradictions in this
inclusion into the VPP ideology. The CUV was translated by a panel of members from many different
Protestant denominations, using the English Revised Version as a basis
and original manuscripts for crosschecking. Work on the CUV began in 1890 and originally,
three versions of the CUV were planned—two classical Chinese versions and a vernacular
Mandarin version. The CUV was completed in 1919, with one amalgamated classical
Chinese translation and one vernacular Mandarin translation.
The original manuscripts referred here is the Westcott and
Hort text which has a shorter version as compared to the family of TR manuscripts. In the
entire corpus of VPP literature, Westcott‐Hort text has always been labeled as corrupt and, removing
God’s Word equivalent to those contained in the two epistles of
apostle Peter.
But how did you and Rev Dr Tow S H include CUV as the
Perfect Bible with its underlying text of the original languages into VPP teaching? By doing
so, VPPists have destroyed themselves. Let me illustrate why I say so by using the
contents of your letter written in reply to me:
You noted my use of the NIV for 2 Timothy 1:24‐26 and
showed me the superiority of KJV. You cited 5 examples in your letter for comparison to show the
major differences between KJV and NIV. I am only taking 4 of them to show that the VPP
ideology is self‐contradictory
and has to be totally rejected immediately. It only creates confusion
among church members in the Church of Jesus Christ.
a. You cited Matthew 18:11 and commented that “the salvific
thrust of Christ’s message is completely lost by the omission of this verse in NIV,”
but when I checked the NIV marginal notes, it states: “The Son of Man came to save what
was lost.” For you to say that it is completely omitted is inaccurate and misleading.
You gave me a very wrong impression of NIV as well as to other people who read your
letter.
Then I checked CUV (和合本) on Matthew 18:11. It has the same omission in the main text but in the margin it has the same verse as in the KJV.2
If you reject NIV and call it a perversion, you must also call the CUV a perversion too in
the light of your comments on NIV.
b. Regarding Luke 9:55‐56, you said, “the
differences (in NIV with KJV) are glaring and obviously self‐explanatory.
The entire meaning is lost with all the words missing.” As for Chinese CUV, its margin stated that ancient mss
maintained verse 55 but omitted
（ 注 ： 有 古 卷 在 此 有 ： 人 子 来 ， 为 要 拯 救 失 丧 的 人 。 "
）
verse 56.3 As much as VPP is critical of NIV, the same must
also be applied to the CUV Bible. In accepting CUV Bible into the fold of VPP‘s
definition as the Perfect Word of God, VPP must be rejected because it annihilates itself by
its internal contradiction.
VPP ideology has become a laughing stock because its
advocates take shots at others and they boomeranged back at them.
c. The comments also applies to Acts 8:37, you commented
that it “is completely omitted in the NIV. But the KJV has it as, “And Philip said,
If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” The key answer of Philip to the Ethiopian
Eunuch’s question on what hinders him to be baptized is lost in the NIV.” NIV has not exactly omitted verse 37 but in the margin stated: “Philip said, ‘If you believe with
all your heart, you may, “The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God.’” CUV also has the same comments in the margin about verse 37. 4 Rev Quek, you
may be able to throw a smoke screen at the English reader of the Bible but you cannot bluff Chinese readers who read the CUV.
d. As for your comments on Luke 2:33 the NIV reads, “’The
child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him,’ the KJV is true to the
Greek text which shows clearly that Joseph was not Christ’s father. The NIV by
making Joseph the father of Christ undermines the deity of Christ. “ Your comments
against NIV should also be applied to CUV because it has the same meaning as in the
NIV—“’The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about Jesus” except for
“him” in KJV but “Jesus” in CUV .
e. Rev Quek SY, if you are honest and truthful, your
criticism against the NIV must be also be applied to the CUV (being recently declared by the VPP
cohort as the Perfect Word of God.) It is because the NIV and CUV translations are
primarily based on the Westcott‐Hort
Greek Text and the Eclectic Text. Does it mean that the Westcott‐Hort Greek Text of the NT is now adopted by VPP as the Perfect
Bible? Until early 2007, Westcott‐Hort
Greek Text was declared as corrupt. As declared in FEBC literature the Westcott‐Hort
Greek Text was the work of two liberal Anglicans, Mary‐worshipers,
人 子 来 不 是 要 灭 人 的 性 命 （ 注 ： "
性 命 "
或 作 "
灵 魂 "
。 下 同 ） ， 是 要 救
人 的 性 命 。 "
说 着 就 往 别 的 村 庄 去 了 （ 注 ： 有 古 卷 只 有 55 节 首 句 ， 56 节 末
句 ） 。
（ 注 ： 有 古 卷 在 此 有 ： 腓 利 说 ： "
你 若 是 一 心 相 信 ， 就 可 以 。 "
他 回 答说 ： "
我 信 耶 稣 基 督 是 神 的 儿 子 。 "
） 孩 子 的 父 母 因 这 论 耶 稣 的 话 就 希 奇.
members of some ghosts club and friends of evolutionists who
attacked the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
5. You also asked me this question: “Please tell me which
one is “true to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles?” . .
the KJV of NIV?”
My reply: You are both confused and self‐contradicting in identifying which
Greek text or version of the Bible is the very Word of God. How can you
ask any person the question when you have two sets of formulae to determine the
very Word of God:
a) KJV + underlying
MT/TR = The very Word of God, infallible, inerrant, 100% inspired and 100% preserved in 2002/3;
b) CUV + underlying text of Westcott‐Hort text (English RV of 1881) =
The very Word of God, infallible, inerrant, 100% inspired and 100%
preserved in late‐
2007.
In examining the contents of the recent letter you have
written to me, I feel deeply grieved and, at the same time, I pity you greatly and your cohort of
VPPists in Calvary Pandan B‐P
Church and those newly formed VPP churches. They have been
erroneously misled by the writings and teachings of Far Eastern Bible College spearheaded by Dr J Khoo
together with you and the rest of the Faculty members and Board of Directors.
I have taken great pains to demonstrate to you that those
formulae you are using in reasoning and belief are self‐conflicting
and confusing that inevitable lead to heresy (2 Peter 3:16).
In the formation of sound theology there should never be any
contradiction. As a system, Biblical doctrines must be sound and consistent and, if
necessary practical, based on true historical facts that can be understood by the layperson as
well as experts. They must also be easily applied in daily Christian living.
I am sorry to say that VPP ideology is a human invention
that is not sustainable at the very start.
I can never be a VPP believer, but on the contrary out
rightly reject it as a HERESY!
Yours
Ms Tang Poh Geok, PHD
Lecturer in Law and Psychology
4 Feb 2008
above article can be retrieved at:
https://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/tpgCritique_qsy2.pdf