An analysis and refute of Jeffrey Khoo's July 2026 article in Burning Bush

The article could be found at https://www.febc.edu.sg/publications/the_burning_bush

The article titled "Why we believe God has preserved His Word," found on page 70 of Burning Bush, was written by Jeffrey Khoo. After reading his paper, we are now disputing it:

Here's a critique of the article's central arguments.

1. The legal analogy misrepresents how "proper repository" doctrine actually works

The article borrows Simon Greenleaf's principle that ancient documents found in their natural place of custody are presumed authentic absent evidence of fraud. But this doctrine was designed to solve a narrow evidentiary problem: establishing that a "particular physical document" is what it claims to be (e.g., a deed found in a county recorder's office is probably not a forgery). It was never meant to certify that every word of a text transmitted across centuries, in multiple languages, through thousands of hand-copied manuscripts, is "identical to the autograph". The article quietly converts a doctrine about custodial authenticity of an artifact into a doctrine about textual identity across an entire manuscript tradition — those are different questions. A land deed can be "authentic" (genuinely from the claimed source) while still containing scribal errors, later insertions, or damaged sections. Authenticity of provenance and inerrancy of every word are not the same claim, and the legal principle only supports the former.

2. The argument is circular with respect to which text counts as "received"

The whole analogy depends on identifying "the Church" as the proper repository and "continuous ecclesiastical use" as the guarantee of purity. But which text was "continuously received" is precisely what's in dispute — the article itself acknowledges that Erasmus's printed text (which became the basis of the TR) was a 16th-century construction from a small handful of late Byzantine manuscripts, not itself an unbroken chain of custody from the apostles. Meanwhile, manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were also used, copied, and preserved by Christian communities — the article dismisses them as "corrupt" only by presupposing the very conclusion (that the Byzantine/TR tradition is the standard against which other traditions are judged) that the whole argument is supposed to establish. Calling one line of transmission "the Church's repository" and another "aberrant" is not something the legal analogy can decide; it's asserted, then the analogy is invoked to dress up the assertion as evidential reasoning.

3. The Pericope Adulterae example undercuts rather than supports the thesis

The article cites the restoration of John 7:53–8:11 to critical editions (in brackets, with notes flagging doubt) as proof that "the widely received text resists permanent exclusion" under providential care. But this is a misreading of what happened: critical editors reinstated the passage as a matter of "textual conservatism and reader familiarity", not because new manuscript evidence vindicated its originality — the manuscript evidence against it (absence from the earliest and best witnesses, its appearance at different locations in different manuscript families, stylistic differences from the rest of John) remains as strong as it was in 1881, which is exactly why it's still bracketed with a note expressing doubt. Presenting continued scholarly doubt as evidence of providential vindication inverts what the editors themselves say they are doing.

4. The Acts 15:34 case study abandons the article's own evidential framework

This is the clearest self-contradiction in the piece. The author spends pages arguing that textual questions should be settled by principles "recognised in the field of law" — public custody, absence of fraud, weight of transmission — precisely to avoid relying on "fallible human reconstruction." But when it comes to Acts 15:34, a verse "absent from the majority of manuscripts, including most in the Byzantine tradition the article otherwise champions", the argument shifts entirely to faith and narrative plausibility ("Silas reappears in v. 40, so v. 34 must be original to explain it"). That's not legal reasoning about a proper repository; it's exactly the kind of internal-coherence argument textual critics use, deployed to reach the opposite of where the manuscript evidence points. The article doesn't show why the legal-evidence framework yields TR readings generally but is set aside for this one — it simply asserts that "faith" settles cases the evidence doesn't.

5. The Burgon citation is used past what it can bear

Burgon's judgment that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are "the most scandalously corrupt copies extant" is quoted as though it were a neutral or now-vindicated finding. In fact it was a minority position within 19th-century textual scholarship even at the time, contested by contemporaries with equally serious credentials (Westcott, Hort, and later virtually the entire field of textual criticism, of essentially every theological stripe, including many conservative evangelical scholars). Citing Burgon's verdict without noting that it lost the argument on manuscript-critical grounds — not just "modernist" grounds — presents a settled minority view as though it were simply the evidence speaking for itself.

6. "Providence" is unfalsifiable as used here

Throughout, providence is invoked to explain both continuity (the TR was preserved) and controversy (opposing groups "checked" corruption) and even "loss" (autographs are gone, but that's fine because apographs count). Any possible manuscript history — convergence, divergence, gaps, disputes — gets absorbed as evidence of providential care. A theological claim that accommodates every possible outcome equally well isn't functioning as an evidential claim, however much legal vocabulary surrounds it; it's a faith commitment stated in advance, which the article itself half-admits in the concluding sections ("VPP ultimately rests upon theology rather than jurisprudence"). If that's true, the extended legal argumentation earlier isn't actually doing justificatory work — it's rhetorical scaffolding around a conclusion held on other (undisclosed, non-evidential) grounds.

7. The VPP/KJV-Onlyism distinction is less stable than claimed

The article insists VPP locates authority in the Hebrew/Greek text, not the KJV, and treats the KJV as merely a faithful translation. But in practice, the specific readings it defends (Acts 15:34, Pericope Adulterae's originality) are readings distinctive to the TR/Majority tradition that underlies the KJV specifically, defended using the same "the Church received it, so it's authentic" logic that KJV-Only advocates use for the English text itself. The theological move (translation derives authority from fidelity to the preserved original) is coherent in principle, but the article doesn't show independent grounds for identifying the TR as that preserved original other than the same reception-history argument it deploys for the KJV's readings — so the distinction is asserted more clearly than it's actually maintained in practice.

In sum: the article's persuasive force depends on borrowing the vocabulary of legal evidence (burden of proof, presumption of authenticity, proper repository) while not honoring the actual scope and limits of that doctrine, and it abandons its own evidential standard whenever the manuscript evidence runs against the desired conclusion (as in Acts 15:34). The underlying commitment is explicitly theological and, by the article's own admission, doesn't ultimately rest on the evidentiary reasoning it spends most of its length developing.

PS: Reading a waste paper from the trash can is a waste of time!

Pastejacking/Clipboard Hijacking

Be cautious when visiting the websites of churches and Bible institutions belong to those false teachers.

It is a very active attack vector in the wild right now especially in some false teachers' websites. 

This is not a technical vulnerability that breaks system security. Instead, it is a social engineering attack known as "Clipboard Hijacking or Pastejacking". It doesn't exploit your operating system's code—it exploits your habits and trust.

Here is exactly how the attack works, real-world examples, and how you can defend against it as an IT Admin.

How the Attack Happens

The attack exploits the browser’s JavaScript capability to write text to the user's system clipboard. The typical chain of events is:

1. The Trap: An employee visits a malicious or compromised website. The page shows a fake prompt, such as "Click to verify you are human," "Copy this code to fix a driver error," or "Click to download faster."

2. The Switch: When the user clicks the button, the webpage's JavaScript silently overwrites the system clipboard. Instead of the harmless text they saw on the screen, the clipboard now contains a malicious PowerShell or CMD command.

3. The Social Engineering: The page then displays clear, step-by-step instructions that trick the user into executing the payload, usually:

   * Press `Win + R` to open the "Run" dialog.

   * Press `Ctrl + V` to paste.

   * Press `Enter` to execute.

4. The Compromise: As soon as they press Enter, the malicious script runs. It silently downloads the actual malware (ransomware, infostealers, or backdoors) from the attacker's server and establishes persistence on the machine.

Real-World Examples of This Attack

This is not theoretical. It is heavily used by cybercriminals and state-sponsored APT groups today:

- The "ClickFix" Attack: This is currently the most widespread variant. Attackers fake a CAPTCHA or an error message, prompting the user to "Click to fix." Behind the scenes, it copies the malicious command to the clipboard. It has been widely adopted by multiple ransomware gangs.

- The "FileFix" Variant: Instead of asking users to paste into the Run dialog, attackers now trick them into pasting the command into the File Explorer address bar. The text looks like a legitimate file path but is actually a hidden malicious command padded with spaces and comment symbols (`#`) to hide the payload.

- macOS Variants: This attack is not limited to Windows. Identical techniques are used to trick macOS users into pasting commands into their Terminal.

Defense Strategies for an IT Admin

To protect your organization, you must combine technical controls with heavy user education.

1. User Education (The Absolute Priority)

- Establish a "Check Before You Execute" Rule: Mandate that employees never paste code from a website directly into a Run dialog, Terminal, or PowerShell.

- The Notepad Rule: Train users to always paste unknown text into a plain text editor (like Notepad) first. If they see a very long string of random characters, base64-encoded text, or a PowerShell command instead of the short, friendly phrase they expected, they should delete it immediately.

2. Technical Security Controls

- Enforce Least Privilege: Ensure that employees do not run their daily workstations with local administrator rights. If they accidentally paste and execute a script, it will fail or be severely limited in what it can install, preventing a full compromise.

- Deploy Next-Gen EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response): Modern EDR solutions can monitor for anomalous command-line executions and clipboard modifications. They can terminate the malicious process tree before the ransomware payload is delivered.

- Disable PowerShell Script Execution (where feasible): Use Group Policy to restrict PowerShell to `ConstrainedLanguage` mode or limit it to signed scripts only. Since most Pastejacking attacks use PowerShell, this severely limits the attacker.

- Keep Everything Updated: While this attack doesn't rely on a browser vulnerability, modern browsers (and macOS) have started introducing clipboard-read permissions. Staying updated ensures you have the latest security prompts that warn users when a site tries to access the clipboard.

In short: Our concern is completely valid. This is an active, ongoing threat. The core defense is breaking the automated "copy-paste-execute" chain through rigorous security awareness training and strict system privilege controls. 

Do not copy-paste any text from false teachers' websites. A malicious webpage can use JavaScript to intercept the copy event and silently replace what's actually placed on your clipboard — even if you only selected and copied plain-looking text. You copy "innocent-looking text," but the clipboard actually contains something different, often including hidden characters or an entirely different command. This is a well-known technique (sites like clipboard hijacking demos have shown it for years). The "text" is actually a disguised file download, not real copy-paste.

Pray privately

No one can prevent Far Eastern Bible College students from praying in tongues; they are encouraged to do so in secret. Despite living in the college's dormitories, they are permitted to pray in private at night in other vacant rooms without bothering other students. For the sake of peace, they should pray with mouth closed and pray silently.

Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness

Addressing infighting within fundamentalist communities requires reframing the pursuit of spiritual maturity around virtues that build rather than divide. The pathway forward centers on cultivating character traits that naturally dissolve conflict.

The foundation is developing Christlike virtues—humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance, love, and peace—which form an essential part of maintaining unity within the church.[1] This isn’t peripheral spirituality; it’s core to what faith demands. Simultaneously, believers must identify and eliminate characteristics that create defensiveness and tension within their communities.[1]

The practical work involves honest self-examination. Those prone to anger need to cultivate patience; those struggling with pride and arrogance should pursue humility; those who are insensitive or domineering must develop gentleness; and those intolerant of others’ weaknesses should work on bearing with one another in love.[1] Gentleness specifically—a meekness that avoids combativeness—directly addresses divisiveness by removing a primary obstacle to unity.[2]

Critically, carnality and ego investment drive most dissension and church splits; personal immaturity can transform resolvable disagreements into seemingly irresolvable conflicts.[1] The antidote is recognizing that where the will to unity is strong, even major disagreements can be resolved or managed in ways that prevent division.[2]

Additionally, church unity is strengthened by emphasizing Scripture’s sufficiency and distinguishing between essential and nonessential matters—since unity is frequently disturbed by imposing beliefs and practices that lack scriptural support.[2] Fundamentalists should avoid foolish arguments that produce quarrels and instead embody kindness and teachability rather than quarrelsomeness. (2 Tim 2:22–26)

The remaining biblical passages reinforce this vision: Timothy is urged to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness (1 Tim 6:6–11), while believers are called to flee youthful desires and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace alongside those of pure heart. (2 Tim 2:22–24)

[1] Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 238.
[2] Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, ed. John S. Feinberg, Foundations of Evangelical Theology Series (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 174–175.

What is Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura affirms that Scripture alone, as God’s inspired Word, holds ultimate authority for the church—it is inerrant and sufficient.[1] When the Reformers invoked this principle, they were referring to the biblical text itself as their authoritative standard, though the specific form of that text became a point of historical development.

Which particular textual form—KJV, original languages, autographs, or apographs—the Reformers originally intended? Early Protestants identified the original-language versions as authoritative, appealing to the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and Greek New Testament rather than translations like the Latin Vulgate.[2] In the seventeenth century, Reformed theologians generally assumed the autographs and apographs were essentially equivalent, so both were considered authentic Scripture.[2]

The distinction matters because modern evangelical doctrine has shifted, with contemporary scholars primarily appealing to the autographs as the inspired and inerrant texts, while apographs (existing manuscripts) are viewed as copies of varying accuracy.[2] This represents a refinement rather than a departure from sola Scriptura—the principle itself remains that Scripture alone holds final authority, but modern textual scholarship has clarified which form of the text carries that authority most precisely.

The KJV, being a seventeenth-century English translation, would not have been what the Reformers meant by “Scripture alone”—they looked to the original languages as the authoritative foundation. Today’s application of sola Scriptura typically acknowledges that while translations serve the church, the original-language texts (and ultimately the autographs, insofar as they can be reconstructed) represent the authoritative standard.

[1] Matthew Barrett, “What Is Sola Scriptura?,” Credo: Sola Scriptura (December) (Credo Magazine, 2016), 6:4:22.
[2] Richard Brash, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to How God Preserved the Bible (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2019), 19–20.

Changes in the KJV

The distinction between superficial and substantive changes in the KJV’s textual history is crucial. Between the 1611 edition and the 1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford editions, nearly 24,000 changes occurred, though advocates claim these were merely punctuation, spelling, and printer corrections—yet approximately 1,500 of these changes were significant.[1]

The 1611 edition itself presented considerable typographical chaos. Spelling and punctuation were highly irregular throughout the original printing.[2] The text contained numerous typographical errors—more than modern standards would tolerate—including a striking duplication in Exodus 14:10 where an entire clause repeats itself.[2] Three editions quickly followed, each carrying considerable misprints and spelling variations.[3]

What changed superficially involved presentation and accessibility. The 1611 edition used blackface or fraktur typeface, still common in Europe at that time, featuring a “long s” resembling an ‘f’ that modern readers find difficult to read, along with verb forms ending in -eth and inconsistent spelling.[1] By the 1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford editions, English spelling had been standardized.[1] Additionally, chronological dates based on Archbishop James Ussher’s chronology were introduced in the 1701 edition, and thirty thousand new marginal references were added in versions appearing in the 1760s.[3]

What remained fundamentally fixed was the actual translation text itself—the English rendering of the original languages. Modifications in spelling, punctuation, use of capitals, and similar features were made unobtrusively by editors, particularly T. Paris at Cambridge (1762) and B. Blayney at Oxford (1769), while headlines and marginal references were altered in different editions.[4] The core theological and linguistic substance endured unchanged, making the KJV recognizable across centuries despite its surface modernization.

[1] Ray E. Clendenen and David K. Stabnow, HCSB - Bible Translation: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2013). [See here, here, here, here.]
[2] John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Authorized (English) Version of the Holy Scriptures,” in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1880), 1:562.
[3] Thomas Nelson, The Open Bible: Read and Discover the Bible for Yourself (NKJV) (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2025). [See here, here.]
[4] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 203.

The Evangelicals have "abandoned" the KJV

The evangelical shift away from the KJV reflects a fundamental disagreement about textual authority that crystallized in the 1960s and 1970s. As the KJV-Only movement frames it, manuscript discoveries—particularly those questioning the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV—introduced textual criticism as a destructive force that challenged the authenticity of foundational biblical texts.[1] What evangelicals abandoning the KJV see as scholarly progress, KJV defenders perceive as apostasy.

The core tension centers on how to handle manuscript evidence. Modern textual critics evaluate readings based on external factors like manuscript age and location, plus internal considerations including historical and literary context.[1] KJV defenders reject these methods as subjective human judgment—what nineteenth-century critic John William Burgon called “excursions into cloud-land.”[1] They view modern textual criticism as having transformed the ancient practice of protecting the biblical text into a vehicle for naturalistic and humanistic belief.[1]

The New Testament experienced the fiercest criticism because of its numerous textual variants and its role in Christian doctrine; when modern texts diverge from the KJV and Textus Receptus, the KJV-Only movement charges these alterations as doctrinally significant corruptions.[1] The revision of 1 Timothy 3:16 exemplifies this conflict—where the KJV reads “God was manifest in the flesh,” modern texts substitute “who,” which KJV defenders claim weakens Christ’s divinity despite scholars’ assurances otherwise.[1]

The contemporary movement’s extreme reactions stem partly from increased pluralism and diversity in modern society, with both KJV-Only advocates and their opponents—nearly all fundamentalist Christians—responding differently to tensions between ecumenicism, pluralism, and traditionalism.[2] The abandonment of the KJV thus represents not merely a translation preference but a clash over whether fidelity to Scripture means preserving a particular textual tradition or engaging critically with manuscript evidence.

[1] Jason A. Hentschel, “The King James Only Movement,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America, ed. Paul C. Gutjahr, Oxford Handbooks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 231–232.
[2] J. Harold Ellens, Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [3 Volumes] (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2013). [See here.]

Tyndale’s legacy

 The distinction between Tyndale’s legacy and KJV authorship reveals how much English Bible culture credits the wrong translator. The memorable phrases embedded in the KJV—including “and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes,” “ask, and it shall be given you,” “with God all things are possible,” “in him we live, and move, and have our being,” and “the patience of Job”—came directly from William Tyndale with only slight modifications, with approximately nine-tenths of the KJV deriving from Tyndale’s Bible.[1]

Tyndale deserves credit for “filthy lucre,” “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” “Am I my brother’s keeper?,” “fell flat on his face,” and “In him we live, and move, and have our being,”[2] all of which the KJV committees retained. Beyond these, the Tyndale foundation extends to phrases that now feel inseparable from English itself: “Be not weary in well doing,” “The salt of the earth,” “The signs of the times,” “A law unto themselves,” “Fight the good fight,” and “With God all things are possible.”[3] “Eat, drink, and be merry,” “clothed, and in his right mind,” and “there fell from his eyes as it had been scales”[1] similarly trace back to Tyndale’s choices.

The cultural irony cuts deeper: many phrases attributed to the King James Bible—like “by the skin of my teeth”—actually formed the minds and hearts of English-speakers through Tyndale’s earlier work, yet the KJV receives the credit because it reached a far larger audience.[2] Eighty percent of Tyndale’s translation entered the King James Version in the portions he had translated, and no one would mistake the KJV for everyday conversation.[3] The 1534 Tyndale edition became the foundation for the entire English Bible tradition, from the KJV through the NRSV.[4] Recognizing Tyndale’s foundational role corrects a persistent historical misattribution—the KJV perfected and popularized what Tyndale had already created.

[1] Stanley E. Porter, How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and Craig A. Evans, Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 162–163.
[2] Jon Sweeney, Verily, Verily: The KJV - 400 Years of Influence and Beauty (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). [See here, here.]
[3] Leland Ryken, Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 39–40.
[4] Alec Gilmore, “Tyndale, William,” in A Concise Dictionary of Bible Origins and Interpretation (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 199.

KJV was never authorised

The notion of the KJV as “authorized” rests on a historical fiction. Although King James proposed at Hampton Court that the translation be approved by bishops, church leaders, the Privy Council, and finally ratified by royal authority, history preserves no record of its ever receiving official approval by Parliament, King, Privy Council, or Convocation.[1] Some have conjectured that authorization records were destroyed in the Whitehall fire of 1616, but scholars remain unconvinced that any authorization ever existed.[1] From its first edition, the KJV carried the print “Appointed to be read in Churches,” language borrowed directly from the Bishops’ Bible that preceded it[1]—a claim of liturgical status rather than formal authorization. Official church recognition in England came only in 1666 when the fifth edition of the Prayer Book adopted the KJV for its scripture.[1]

The irony we identify emerges strikingly in the translators’ own preface. The address from “The Translators to the Reader,” which prefaced the King James Version of 1611, drew its Scripture quotations from the Geneva Bible.[2] This is particularly pointed given that King James disliked the Geneva Bible because its marginal notes suggested that in some circumstances it was lawful to disobey kings[3]—a threat to the divine right doctrine he championed. Yet the translators introducing their work to displace the Geneva Bible ironically borrowed its very words to do so. Even in the KJV’s own preface, it quotes not from itself but from the Geneva Bible.[4] The translators thus embedded their predecessor—the version they were commissioned to supplant—within the foundational text meant to establish the new translation’s authority, creating an unintended textual irony that undercuts the project’s political purpose.

[1] Jack P. Lewis, “Versions, English: Authorized Versions,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:832.
[2] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 554.
[3] Tania Fenwick, “The King James Bible and the Importance of Textual Criticism,” Bible and Spade, ed. Bryant G. Wood (2011). [See here.]
[4] A. Kenneth Curtis, “No Overnight Success,” Christian History Magazine: Celebrating the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible (Worcester, PA: Christian History Institute, 2011), 23.

The history of KJV

King James I, having ascended from Scotland to the English throne, convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 where Puritan leaders proposed a new Bible translation. The king, motivated by theological concerns and a strong aversion to the Geneva Bible’s political commentary, approved the project.[1] James particularly objected to the Geneva Bible’s marginal notes because they challenged the doctrine of divine right that he championed.[2]

The translation effort involved six panels of 48 to 54 scholars stationed at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, who functioned as revisers rather than creating an entirely new work.[3] Their primary directive—Rule 1—required them to follow the Bishops’ Bible closely, altering it only where the original languages demanded change, and to maintain continuity with established English renderings.[2] Additional rules instructed them to consult Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, and Geneva translations where those versions aligned better with the Hebrew and Greek texts.[2]

The translators drew heavily on earlier work, particularly Tyndale’s translation, which appears in roughly 83 percent of the KJV, including iconic phrases like “In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”[4] For the Old Testament, scholars deeply versed in Hebrew and Jewish exegetical tradition—including Lancelot Andrewes and John Rainolds—incorporated Jewish interpretive insights, relying substantially on the medieval exegete David Kimchi.[4] Work began in 1607 and concluded within two years and nine months, with the first edition appearing in 1611.[5]

The King James Version became the most popular and widely accepted English Bible for over 370 years.[5] Its enduring influence stems from what one scholar termed its “inimitable style and rhythm”—a beauty and simplicity that preserved the character of the original languages while establishing the KJV as a cornerstone of English literature itself.[4]

[1] Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1883), 312–313.
[2] Ben Witherington III, The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 131–132.
[3] John R. Kohlenberger III, “King James Version,” in The Concise Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021). [See here.]
[4] Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Bible, English Versions of the,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). [See here, here, here.]
[5] Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, CA: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983), 43.

An Appeal for Peace and Grace

An Appeal for Peace and Grace: To the Brethren of the Bible-Presbyterian Church

To the leadership, pastors, and congregations of the Bible-Presbyterian Church,

We have a rich heritage of holding fast to the Christian faith. Our roots were established in a sincere desire to honor God, to stand firm against modernism, and to treat the Scriptures with the utmost reverence. That dedication to truth is commendable. However, over the years, the very zeal meant to protect the church has too often become a sword that divides it.

I write this appeal out of a deep hope that the BP church might lay down its arms against its own brethren, and step into a season characterized by the grace, peace, and unity of Christ.

The Bible and the Bounds of Perfection

The King James Version of 1611 is a monumental achievement, a masterpiece of English literature, and a faithful, historically vital translation of God’s Word. Millions have come to know Christ through its pages.

However, we must candidly acknowledge that the KJV 1611 is a translation made by brilliant, yet fallible, human scholars. It is imperfect. Elevating a single English translation to a status of absolute, divine perfection—and making it a litmus test for orthodoxy—has caused profound and unnecessary heartbreak. When faithful Christians are labeled "unfaithful, misled, enemy" simply for acknowledging the historical and textual realities of translation, the focus shifts from the living Word of Christ to a battle over ink and paper. I pray that we will find the freedom to cherish the KJV without demanding it be perfect, and without making it a wall that separates us from other faithful believers.

Theology Should Humble, Not Harden

Reformed theology and the doctrines of grace—often summarized in the TULIP acronym—were meant to emphasize God's sovereignty and humble the human heart. Yet, somewhere along the way, hardcore Calvinism has too often been weaponized.

When TULIP is used as a rigid system to categorize who is truly "in" and who is "out," it breeds intellectual pride rather than spiritual humility. Theology is meant to lead us to worship, not to the courtroom. I appeal to all of us to soften our grip on the strict, unyielding enforcement of these theological frameworks. Let grace be broader than a five-point system, and let our theological rigor be matched only by our gentleness toward those who understand the mysteries of God’s election differently.

Letting Go of the Combative Spirit

The defining tragedy of the modern BP church has been its tendency to splinter. The instinct to "go to war" over perceived lukewarmness, secondary doctrinal disagreements, or variations in ecclesiastical practice has left a trail of fractured congregations and wounded believers.

Separation is sometimes necessary, but a culture of perpetual separation is a spiritual sickness. When a church’s identity becomes rooted in what it fights against rather than who it loves, the light of the Gospel is dimmed.

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." — John 13:35

I pray earnestly that all the Bible-Presbyterian church will let go of this combative spirit. May we no longer view neighboring churches, or even different factions within our own denomination, with suspicion or hostility.

May the future of the BP church be one where swords are beaten into plowshares. May we be known not for the battles we have fought, the schisms we have endured, or the theological lines we have drawn in the sand, but for the profound, unifying, and peace-making love of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

The relationship between common grace and Bible translation

The relationship between common grace and Bible translation hinges on a fundamental theological question: whether human cultural work—including the linguistic labor of translation—reflects divine enablement or human responsibility before God.

Common grace represents God’s benevolent action extended universally, enabling sinful humans to develop knowledge and cultural achievements[1]. Within this framework, Bible translation appears as a divinely-supported human endeavor. Translation serves as an initial step in fulfilling the Great Commission and constitutes a form of teaching itself[2]. More specifically, the Holy Spirit’s work—which empowered Peter to communicate across linguistic barriers at Pentecost—continues blessing God’s word even when transmitted through translation[2].

However, we reveal a conceptual tension worth noting. Some theologians propose reframing common grace as a “theology of cultural wisdom” to avoid misleading connotations inherent in the grace terminology[3]. The distinction matters: wisdom development—what humans create from creation’s order—represents work for which they remain accountable to God[3], rather than primarily a divine accomplishment. Applied to translation, this suggests translators bear genuine responsibility for their linguistic choices, not merely as conduits of grace but as stewards of meaning.

Since translations are rarely perfect and meaning is nearly always lost in the process, believing scholars must continually return to original languages to improve translations over time[2]. This ongoing refinement reflects both the limitations inherent in human linguistic work and the legitimate expectation that translators exercise careful stewardship. Rather than viewing translation as passively receiving common grace, the relationship might be better understood as human craftspeople laboring within a divinely-sustained order, accountable for fidelity to the source text while acknowledging that perfect equivalence remains impossible.

[1] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 24–25.
[2] John Frame, “Bible Translation,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018). [See here, here, here.]
[3] William A. Dyrness, The Facts on the Ground: A Wisdom Theology of Culture (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 26–27.

One of our viewer comments

The authorized King James Bible of 1611 is a good translation, better than most newer translations out there, but as with all things made by men, imperfect. Accepting the imperfection in things and people is the first step of wisdom.

Also, the KJV Bible was more of a political document during the time of its publishing, King James the First had to come up with something to subdue the Catholic vs Protestant religious strife that was inherited from the preceding Tudor dynasty. And a rival Protestant Bible against the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.

Anyway, the BP church has always been a combative one, it was this combative spirit which led it to splinter off from the mainline Presbyterian denomination. If you extend the timeline further back it was the anti-Catholic, anti-Arminianism (BP churches are hardcore proponents of Calvinism and TULIP).

Note that I am neither praising nor denouncing this combative spirit, that's the way it is, it is hardcoded in the BP church DNA. I expect BP churches to 'go to war' with other BP churches in future because of some perceived 'heresy' or lukewarmness.

My reply: 

Your observation about the KJV’s dual nature—literary achievement alongside political utility—aligns well with the historical record. James I commissioned the translation partly to bridge theological divisions within his kingdom, but the effort also served his political interests in consolidating power during a period of religious and political fragmentation.[1] He specifically wanted to control the translation process and eliminate the politically problematic annotations found in competing versions.[1] Your point about imperfection is apt: the KJV drew heavily from prior English translations and was substantially dependent on William Tyndale’s work[1], making it a collaborative revision rather than an entirely fresh rendering.

Regarding the Bible Presbyterian Church’s combative character, we confirm this pattern. The BPC emerged from the modernist-fundamentalist controversy when separatist leaders broke from the Presbyterian Church-U.S.A., and internal doctrinal and ecclesiastical disagreements quickly led to further fragmentation.[2] The denomination’s defining characteristic was a separatist stance demanding distance from perceived apostasy and those in fellowship with it—a posture that ultimately isolated the BPC and hindered its evangelistic reach.[2] This reflects a broader fundamentalist tension: by the 1930s, some fundamentalists elevated separatism from mainline denominations into a principle of faith itself.[3]

Your observation that this combative orientation is “hardcoded” into the movement’s DNA is historically defensible. The BPC’s formation, theological commitments (including strict Calvinism), and ecclesiology all reinforced boundaries and conflict rather than bridge-building—a pattern distinct from earlier Presbyterian traditions and reflecting the particular pressures of early twentieth-century Protestant fragmentation.

[1] J. Harold Ellens, Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [3 Volumes] (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2013). [See here, here, here, here.]
[2] Daniel G. Reid et al., “Bible,” in Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990). [See here, here.]
[3] George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 7.

Reasons why we do not like the Fundamentalists

The Tragedy of Secondary Separation: A Theological Critique of Fundamentalism's Obsession with Bible Translation

By a Reformed Theologian

Introduction

Christian fundamentalism emerged in the early twentieth century as a movement committed to defending essential doctrines of the Christian faith against theological liberalism. Its original concerns—the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the authority of Scripture, the virgin birth, and salvation by grace through faith—were both understandable and necessary.

However, some sectors of modern fundamentalism have gradually shifted their energy from defending the gospel to policing secondary and tertiary issues. One of the most visible examples is the elevation of Bible translation preferences into tests of orthodoxy. While not every fundamentalist shares this tendency, it has become influential in certain circles, particularly those associated with King James Onlyism or Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP).

This paper argues that such an approach represents a theological misplacement of priorities. It weakens Christian unity, misunderstands the nature of biblical authority, and often replaces the centrality of Christ with debates over textual tradition.

The Problem Is Not Conviction but Proportion

Christians should have convictions about Bible translation.

One believer may prefer the King James Version.

Another may prefer the New King James Version.

Another may use the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Bible.

These preferences are legitimate subjects of scholarly discussion.

The problem arises when a preferred translation becomes the measure of another Christian's faithfulness.

Instead of asking,

"Does this church faithfully preach Christ crucified?"

the question becomes,

"Which English Bible do you use?"

Such a shift reveals a change in theological priorities.

Scripture Never Makes Bible Translation a Test of Fellowship

The New Testament consistently identifies the essentials of Christian fellowship as faith in Christ, the gospel, and holy living.

Paul writes in Ephesians 4 that believers are united by:

one Lord,

one faith,

one baptism,

one God and Father of all.

He never mentions one authorized manuscript tradition or one inspired translation.

Likewise, Romans 14 teaches believers not to divide over disputable matters. While Bible translation is an important issue, it does not occupy the same doctrinal category as the Trinity, justification, or the resurrection.

When Christians separate primarily over translation preferences, they risk making human judgments more restrictive than Scripture itself.

Bibliology Can Eclipse Christology

One of the unfortunate tendencies within some fundamentalist circles is that bibliology becomes the controlling doctrine.

Conversations revolve around:

the Textus Receptus,

the Masoretic Text,

manuscript families,

textual criticism,

preservation theories,

Bible versions.

These are worthwhile academic subjects.

Yet the New Testament directs far greater attention toward Christ Himself.

Jesus declared,

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." (John 5:39)

The Scriptures exist to reveal Christ.

When debates about translations overshadow the proclamation of Christ, the means begins to replace the end.

Fundamentalism Sometimes Creates Unnecessary Division

Historically, the church has separated over doctrines essential to the gospel.

Examples include:

denial of Christ's deity,

denial of the Trinity,

denial of justification by faith,

denial of the resurrection.

These are legitimate reasons for ecclesiastical separation.

Yet some fundamentalist groups separate because another church uses:

the ESV,

the NIV,

the NASB,

or even the NKJV.

Such divisions are difficult to justify from Scripture.

A faithful pastor preaching the gospel from the NASB is often treated with greater suspicion than a preacher using the preferred translation but exhibiting little theological depth or pastoral charity.

This inversion of priorities is unhealthy.

Polemics Become a Way of Life

Another concern is the culture of continual controversy.

Some ministries define themselves primarily by identifying error in other Christians.

Their conferences, books, websites, and sermons frequently emphasize:

exposing compromise,

naming opponents,

warning against "apostasy,"

criticizing Bible versions.

While the church certainly requires discernment, discernment without charity easily becomes suspicion.

The Apostle Paul instructed Timothy that:

"The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness."

The goal of correction is restoration—not perpetual conflict.

Preservation Does Not Require Perfection of One Translation

Many fundamentalists argue that belief in divine preservation requires belief in one perfectly preserved textual tradition.

Historically, however, the Protestant Reformers affirmed God's preservation of Scripture without insisting upon one flawless printed edition.

They acknowledged textual variants while maintaining confidence that God's Word had been faithfully preserved.

This distinction is important.

One may affirm:

verbal inspiration,

divine preservation,

biblical authority,

without asserting that one English translation is uniquely perfect.

The authority belongs primarily to the inspired Scriptures in their original languages, faithfully represented through careful translation.

Charity Is Also a Fundamental Doctrine

Ironically, some who strongly defend biblical inerrancy appear less interested in biblical charity.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 that knowledge without love becomes empty.

A Christian may possess extensive knowledge of Greek manuscripts while simultaneously violating the spirit of Christian fellowship.

Orthodoxy and charity are not enemies.

The New Testament commands both.

Truth without love becomes harsh.

Love without truth becomes sentimental.

Christian maturity requires both.

The Gospel Must Remain Central

The greatest weakness of some forms of modern fundamentalism is that secondary matters gradually become central matters.

Christ did not commission His apostles to preach:

one English Bible,

one manuscript family,

one printing tradition.

He commissioned them to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name to all nations.

The early church was united not by identical manuscripts but by their common confession:

"Jesus Christ is Lord."

That confession remains the foundation of Christian unity today.

Conclusion

This critique is not directed toward every fundamentalist. Many fundamentalists are godly, faithful pastors and missionaries who love Christ, preach the gospel, and shepherd their congregations with humility.

Rather, it addresses a recurring tendency within parts of the movement to elevate secondary issues—especially Bible translation preferences—to the level of essential doctrines. When debates over the King James Version, the Textus Receptus, or Verbal Plenary Preservation become the primary basis for judging the faithfulness of other Christians, theological priorities have shifted.

The church should certainly defend the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture. Yet it must do so while maintaining proportion, humility, and charity. The New Testament consistently places the gospel, the person and work of Christ, and the unity of believers at the center of the church's life.

A mature theological vision therefore asks first, not, "Which translation do you use?" but, "Do you faithfully proclaim Christ crucified, risen, and reigning?" If that question ceases to be primary, the church risks defending the Bible in ways that obscure the Bible's own central message: the saving grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Relocating the primary locus of certainty

Question: If someone reject the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and relocated it with preservation of the bible, Verbal Plenary Prreservation, what happen next?

From a theological perspective, this is an interesting observation because it concerns where certainty (or infallibility) is ultimately located.

If someone rejects the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints but strongly embraces Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Bible, several theological consequences may follow. Not every person will follow this path, but there is a discernible pattern.

1. The focus shifts from God's preservation of people to God's preservation of a text

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints teaches that God preserves His redeemed people until the end (John 10:27–29; Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5).

VPP, especially in its strongest form, teaches that God has preserved every inspired word perfectly in a particular textual tradition (often the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, and sometimes specifically the King James Version in English).

When perseverance is rejected, theological certainty may migrate from:

God preserving His people

to

God preserving a perfect textual form.

The object of confidence becomes the certainty of the biblical text rather than the certainty of the believer's salvation.

2. Assurance becomes more objective than personal

In Reformed theology:

Christ keeps believers.

The Holy Spirit seals believers.

Assurance rests on God's covenant faithfulness.

When perseverance is denied, assurance often becomes conditional.

At the same time, an emphasis on VPP provides another objective certainty:

"At least we know exactly what God's words are."

Thus one certainty replaces another.

3. Bibliology becomes the center of theology

Every theological system has a controlling doctrine.

For classic Calvinism, the center is often God's sovereign grace.

For many VPP advocates, bibliology becomes highly central.

Discussion increasingly revolves around:

Which manuscript?

Which Bible?

Which edition?

Which printed text?

These questions can become more prominent than doctrines such as justification, union with Christ, sanctification, or perseverance.

4. Ecclesiology often becomes narrower

Historically, strong VPP positions sometimes produce a narrower definition of orthodoxy.

Instead of asking:

Does this church faithfully preach Christ?

the question may become:

Which Bible does this church use?

This can lead to separation based primarily on textual position rather than on the core doctrines of the gospel.

5. Theological consistency becomes difficult

Within Reformed theology there is a logical connection:

God preserves His revelation.

God preserves His church.

God preserves His saints.

These are all expressions of God's covenant faithfulness.

If someone affirms:

perfect preservation of Scripture,

but denies:

God's preservation of believers,

critics may ask:

Why would God perfectly preserve every word of Scripture but not infallibly preserve those whom Christ redeemed?

That is an internal theological tension, though proponents may respond differently depending on their broader doctrinal commitments.

6. A different understanding of divine preservation emerges

The New Testament repeatedly speaks of God's preserving work toward His people:

"No one will snatch them out of my hand." (John 10)

"He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion." (Philippians 1:6)

"Kept by the power of God." (1 Peter 1:5)

Scripture also teaches God's faithfulness in preserving His Word (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35), but it does not explicitly formulate that preservation in the same detailed way that some modern VPP systems do.

Thus, if preservation of the biblical text becomes more prominent than preservation of God's people, some theologians would argue that the emphasis has shifted from the Bible's primary redemptive message to questions about textual certainty.

Is this necessarily inconsistent?

Not necessarily.

A person could consistently hold:

rejection of perseverance (for example, as an Arminian or Free Will Baptist),

and belief in a strong doctrine of biblical preservation.

Those doctrines are not formally contradictory.

However, from a Reformed systematic theology, there is an irony: God's preserving grace toward His people is denied, while an exceptionally strong doctrine of preserving every word of Scripture is affirmed. Since both are understood as acts of God's covenant faithfulness, many Reformed theologians would see this as creating an imbalance in the theological system.

In summary, the likely effect is not simply exchanging one doctrine for another, but relocating the primary locus of certainty. Instead of finding ultimate assurance in God's unfailing preservation of His redeemed people, certainty is increasingly grounded in the conviction that God has perfectly preserved the biblical text. Whether that shift is viewed as appropriate depends on one's broader theological framework.

FEBC has cancelled the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints ?

Some proponents of the King James Version-only position (often called "KJV-onlyism") like FEBC may believe that Christians who use modern Bible translations have compromised their faith.

There are several issues to separate:

1. Does using another Bible version mean someone has "lost their faith"?

From a mainstream Christian perspective, no. Most Christian traditions—including many evangelical, Reformed, Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and Catholic churches—accept multiple faithful translations of the Bible. They argue that:

The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts are inspired by God.

Translations vary in wording because languages differ, not necessarily because translators reject God's Word.

A Christian's faith is demonstrated by trusting Christ and following Him, not by exclusively using one English translation.

Someone may prefer the KJV for its literary beauty or translation philosophy without believing other translations are illegitimate.

2. How does perseverance fit into this?

If a KJV-only advocate says, "People who leave the KJV have lost their faith and therefore were never truly saved," they are usually reasoning from a doctrine like the perseverance of the saints.

In that framework:

True believers persevere in the truth until the end.

If someone permanently abandons what they consider essential truth, they conclude that person was never genuinely converted.

However, this creates another question:

Is exclusive use of the KJV an essential doctrine of Christianity?

Most Christians would answer no. They would distinguish between:

Essential doctrines: the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection, salvation by grace through faith.

Secondary doctrines: Bible translation preference, church governance, worship style, and similar issues.

If KJV exclusivity is not an essential doctrine, then changing from the KJV to another faithful translation would not be evidence that someone has failed to persevere in saving faith.

3. How would a KJV-only proponent respond?

A strong KJV-only advocate might argue:

God has perfectly preserved His Word in the KJV.

Modern translations corrupt key doctrines.

Therefore, abandoning the KJV is abandoning God's preserved Word.

Someone who does so may show spiritual decline or even reveal they were never truly converted.

Not all KJV advocates go this far. Many simply prefer the KJV and do not question the salvation of Christians who read other translations.

4. How would others respond?

Christians who reject KJV-onlyism would typically say:

Perseverance concerns remaining faithful to Christ, not remaining loyal to one English translation.

A believer can faithfully read translations such as the New King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, or New International Version while fully affirming biblical authority.

The doctrine of perseverance cannot be used to prove that every disagreement over Bible translation indicates apostasy.

Conclusion

The claim that "those who use other Bible versions have lost their faith and are not persevering to the end" is a theological assertion held by some KJV-only proponents, not a conclusion that follows directly from Scripture or one accepted across Christianity. Whether someone is persevering in the faith is generally understood to be about continuing to trust and follow Jesus Christ, rather than about exclusive allegiance to a particular English Bible translation.

FEBC's status in 2026

From a Reformed theological perspective: If someone abandons core Reformed doctrines (such as the doctrines of grace or covenant theology) but still affirms the essential Christian beliefs (such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation through Christ), they would generally be regarded as a Christian who is no longer Reformed, not necessarily as someone outside the Christian faith.

If someone departs from Christianity altogether: Many Reformed theologians would distinguish between someone who temporarily falls away and someone who permanently repudiates the faith. Views differ:

Those who hold to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints would say that a true believer will ultimately persevere in faith. A permanent, final apostasy would be taken as evidence that the person was never truly regenerate.

Others, especially outside the Reformed tradition, may believe a genuine believer can later abandon the faith and forfeit salvation.

"Fundamentalist" is not the same as "Reformed." Christian fundamentalism is a movement emphasizing biblical inerrancy and separation from perceived error. Many fundamentalists are not Reformed, and many Reformed Christians are not fundamentalists. So departing from Reformed theology does not necessarily say anything about whether someone remains a fundamentalist, and vice versa.

After all these years of observation, FEBC began as an independent fundamentalist college and is currently departing from the reformed faith. FEBC is not a Calvinist or Reformed institution any more.