Once the fastest growing denomination in Singapore, the Bible-Presbyterian Church is now wracked by infighting that threatens to divide and destroy the conservative mainline evangelical group.
At the heart of this division is what is known as the "textual debate" or "King James Version-only controversy", which has divided B-P churches along two lines.
One camp says that only the Authorised King James Version one of the earliest English translations of the Bible is acceptable. They say that this is because only the KJV is based on the majority of existing Greek manuscripts; the other, modern English translations are not. This position is known as Verbal Plenary Preservation or VPP. Many scholars however disagree with this doctrine with strong reasoning.
Rev Tan, who is the pastor of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church, called the KJV-Only controversy the curse of the B-P movement in Singapore.
In an emotion-laden letter to his congregation entitled A Very Sad State of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore Today dated January 2009 which was uploaded on his church website, he described how some young lecturers in Far Eastern Bible College the first B-P seminary began to aggressively propagate the VPP teaching some six years ago.
Teaching that all other English translations of the Bible, including the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV and others, are corrupt versions, the VPP proponents went to the point of condemning anyone or any church that uses a version other than the KJV, even going to the extreme to say that other Bible versions present a different Jesus from the KJV, he said. The militancy of this fundamentalist section of the B-P denomination has led to church splits in three congregations locally and more regionally, name calling, and an ongoing public court battle between FEBC and Life B-P Church.
This VPP teaching has been a curse in the B-P Church, he wrote. Once upon a time, we were all united and growing strong together as a denomination. Today it is a laughing stock to the Christian community in Singapore.
Rev Tan went on to clarify that a large majority of B-P Pastors do not uphold the VPP doctrine but in fact strongly oppose it and noted that [v]ery few B-P Pastors and B-P Churches are for this teaching, and listed six congregations that are pro-VPP and at least 23 congregations that are against the teaching. He added that the controversy has led to confusion over what B-P churches believe and expressed his wish that pro-VPP churches would distinguish themselves from the other, more mainstream congregations.
In response to the doctrinal assault led by VPP proponents, Rev Tan and four other B-P pastors met up with B-P founding pastor Rev Timothy Tow and his wife in October 2002 and shared with him their concern that FEBC was heading toward an extreme view and urged him to stop certain people from advocating the doctrine so as to avert a split, according to a letter dated June 2005 also posted online. Rev Tan noted that Rev Tow appears to have subscribed to the VPP view. The pastor's serious concern for the matter is evident in how he listed false teachings in particular VPP as the first item in his exhortation to church members on the 33rd anniversary of Grace B-P Church.
Be warned of this teaching and do not let it enter into Grace Church because it will create enormous trouble and disunity, he solemnly charged them.
Another B-P pastor for whom the textual debate is of grave concern is the Rev Dr Jack Sin of Maranatha B-P Church, who wrote an undated article A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity and Charity in the Textual Debate in which he clarified his church's stand on the issue VPI and encouraged all B-P leaders and believers to avoid such divisive matters and focus on evangelism and the mentoring of God's people.
About the KJV-Only Controversy
VPP proponents say that the KJV is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible because it is based on the Textus Receptus (TR), a series of Greek translations compiled and edited in 1516 by Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus, which they believe is a perfect representation of the Majority or Byzantine text-type which comprise the great majority of existing Greek manuscripts and which by applying the majority rule they believe is a perfect duplicate of the original Greek autographs penned by the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Simply put, the TR on which only the KJV is based best represents the Majority text-type which by virtue of it being the majority is the exact copy, without error, of the original Greek autographs, which means they believe that the TR is equal to the original, infallible and inerrant autographs.
Opponents however dispute the VPP line of reasoning at both junctures. Firstly, they highlight that the majority rule is not necessarily accurate in judging which text-type Byzantine or Alexandrian (on which all other modern English translations are based) is the original. This is for two reasons: the majority rule fails to take into account the age and geographical location of the existing manuscripts.
VPP opponents emphasise that Alexandrian text-type manuscripts dating much earlier than the more proliferate Byzantine text-type have been uncovered in the early 20th Century. The age difference is not small, with Alexandrian text-type manuscripts dating from the second to the fourth centuries while Byzantine text-type manuscripts date only from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries.
Moreover, textual scholars need to take into account cultural-geographical differences. More of the existing Greek manuscripts were found in the Byzantine text-type than Alexandrian text-type but this is only because the Eastern Church had Greek as its primary language while the Western Church was Latin-speaking. To be sure, even Greek manuscripts found in the West appear to have originated from the East. Therefore, if the majority method were to be fairly applied, it would have to take into account the number of existing Latin manuscripts, but if this were the case the balance would be tilted in favour of the Alexandrian text-type.
This is why scholars have suggested another method that considers all factors including majority, age, location, difficulty of the reading, and which variant best explains the origin of the other variants. This method, which draws from all available manuscript sources, is known as the Eclectic Text or Critical Text. All modern English translations are based on the Eclectic Text.
They argue also that the TR, on which the KJV is based, is not an accurate representation of the Majority text-type, with hundreds of differences between the two due to hastiness in translation work and lack of comprehensive manuscript sources.
The position taken by most scholars is as follows: while the Majority text method does result in the most likely original reading in most instances, it should not be employed universally or exclusively. There are many other important factors in determining which variant is most likely to be original.
Even though it is impossible to reconstruct the original autographs to the last detail, scholars emphasise that most of the variations between existing Byzantine and Alexandrian text-type manuscripts involve differences in word order and other variants that do not appear as translatable differences in English versions, according to the Institute for New Testament Textual Research.
Moreover, the preface to the KJV states that the TR, Alexandrian text-type and Byzantine text-type are 85 percent identical (that is, of the variations that occur in any manuscript, only 15 percent actually differ between these three).
Edmond Chua
edmond@christianpost.com