Lim Seng Hoo vs Jeffrey Khoo
Perfect KJV-VPP Written Debate

From:
Far Eastern Bible College <febc@pacific.net.sg>
To:
FEBC List (including Churches)
Subject:
A Public Response to an Open Letter
Date:
Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:20:16 +0800
Dear friends,
Attached
please find my public response to Lim Seng Hoo's
open letter against the verbal plenary preservation
of the Scriptures.
You
may freely distribute to those who wish for a
copy or as you see fit.
"The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou
shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation forever." (Ps 12:6-7).
In Christ,
Jeffrey Khoo
Dear brethren in the Lord,
I thank the pastor who forwarded
this public response to me, as Dr Jeffrey Khoo
did not do this himself. I have written
my response in green Arial font against
JK’s black
Times New Roman.
Dear Jeff, as before, I am emailing
to you a copy. Let this be a public written
debate if you will, and in your words, “freely
distribute to those who wish for a copy or as
you see fit!”
What reputable seminary gives only
one side of a view to its students? If its
does, how shall they stand when they are in the
real world outside and presented with the other
case? Rather, a good seminary allows its
students to fully see both sides of any debate,
and even participate in it. Have you the
courage to “freely distribute” this to all FEBC
students and associates?
May the Lord be pleased to use
this debate to unchain the chained and to give
sight to the blinded! May the truth truly
prevail! The Lord shall surely help the
godly and humble, and preserve each and everyone
who trusts in Him (Ps 12:1, 5 and 7).
In our glorious Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Saviour of the world,
Lim Seng Hoo, 25 Aug 2005
Lim Seng Hoo Vs Jeffrey Khoo Perfect
KJV-VPP Written Debate
A Public Response to Mr Lim
Seng Hoo’s Open Letter and Paper
Against the Verbal Plenary Preservation of Scripture
By
Jeffrey Khoo (14 Aug 2005)
With Rejoinder by Lim Seng Hoo
(25 Aug 05)
I
refer to Mr Lim Seng Hoo’s open letter of July
13, 2005, and his so-called “evidential
review”
against the Biblical doctrine of the 100% perfect
preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
It
is my sincere desire that in all things, including
the writing of this response, that our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ be glorified always (Isa
42:8, Jer 9:23-24, 1 Cor 1:17-31), and that I
should be loyal and faithful to Him no matter
what the cost (Mark 8:34, Rev 2:10). For the last
13 years of my teaching ministry at the Far Eastern
Bible College (FEBC), I have been taking the Dean
Burgon oath that the Word of God is perfect without
any mistake. This oath was instituted by FEBC’s
founding principal—the Rev Dr Timothy Tow—and
required of all faculty members at the college’s
annual convocation since the 1970s. I gladly take
this oath and dare not break it by denying that
the Sacred Scriptures I swore by and have in my
hands today are infallible and inerrant, without
any mistake.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
1.
Faith
and evidence run in parallel and are not
contradictory. When John and Peter reached
our Lord’s empty sepulchre, John saw the evidence
of our Lord’s resurrection – the linen clothes
lying and the separately wrapped head napkin –
and he believed! (Jn 20:8).
Reason
and Faith are companions, as illustrated
in that great Divine call, “Come now, and let
us reason together, saith the LORD” (Isa 1:18).
Reason is the prelude to faith, as seen throughout
the Scriptures, for example in 1Sam 12:7, 1Pet
3:15, Matt 7:9, 10, 16, 21:42, Rom 6:1, 1Cor 11:4,
15:35-36, Jam 3:8-12, 1Jn 4:20, etc. However,
at the shoreline where reason can go no more,
they bid their fond farewells, whereupon faith
departs on alone, upon the waters, into the far
horizon, as beholding Him who is invisible!
2.
The
context of Isa 42:8 “I am the LORD: that is my
name: and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to graven images” is Isa 42:6-7,
“I the LORD have called thee in righteousness,
and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee,
and give thee for a covenant of the people, for
a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes,
to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and
them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.”
May
the Lord deliver all from the dark prison house
and the blind eyes of Perfect KJV-VPPism!
3.
When Dean Burgon
penned these words, he referred to the Divine
Autographs and not to the KJV nor to the TR, which
Burgon did not regard as perfect. (See
p13 of “An Evidential Review”
or just see JK’s own notes below on Matt 10:8!)
The
perfect Bible is not only for me, but for every
one who bears the name of Christ. The truth that
Christians today possess an infallible and inerrant
Scripture based on the Biblical doctrines of the
Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP) of Scripture is clearly taught
and explained in the following books and papers
written by the FEBC faculty:
(1)
Timothy
Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, A Theology for Every
Christian: Knowing God and His Word (Singapore:
FEBC Press, 1998).
(2)
Timothy
Tow, “Holy Hatred,” The Burning Bush 4
(1998): 106-113.
(3)
Jeffrey
Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the
Authorised Version and the Doctrine of Providential
Preservation (Singapore: FEBC Press, 2001).
(4)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique
of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,”
The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-24. Republished
together with another review by Thomas Strouse,
in “Reviews of the Book From the Mind of God
to the Mind of Man” by Pensacola Theological
Seminary for distribution in USA.
(5)
Timothy
Tow, “Death in the Pot!,” The Burning Bush
7 (2001): 35-37.
(6)
Prabhudas
Koshy, “Why We Should Regard the Bible as Authoritative,”
Bible Witness, July-September 2001, 8-10.
(7)
Timothy
Tow, God’s Special Providential Care of the Text
of Scripture,” Bible Witness, October-December
2002, 3-4.
(8)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “A Perfect Bible Today!,” Bible Witness,
October-December 2002, 5-6.
(9)
Prabhudas
Koshy, “Jesus’ View of the Holy Scripture: An
Exposition of Matthew 5:17-19,” Bible Witness,
October-December 2002, 12-15.
(10)
Prabhudas
Koshy, “If We Reject the Doctrine of the Perfect
Preservation of the Bible,” Bible Witness,
October-December 2002, 16-17.
(11)
Prabhudas
Koshy, “Faith Guides, Intellectualism Beguiles,”
Bible Witness, October-December 2002, 18-20.
(12)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “A Plea for a Perfect Bible,” The Burning
Bush 9 (2003): 1-15.
(13)
Jeffrey
Khoo, KJV Questions and Answers (Singapore:
Bible Witness Literature Ministry, 2003).
(14)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One
Bible Only? or “Yea Hath God Said?,” The
Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47.
(15)
Quek
Suan Yew, “Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh?,”
The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 48-53.
(16)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “John Owen on the Perfect Bible,” The
Burning Bush 10 (2004): 74-85.
(17)
Prabhudas
Koshy, “Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the
Corrupt Septuagint,” The Burning Bush 10
(2004): 93-95.
(18)
Quek
Suan Yew, “Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?:
Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7,” The Burning Bush
10 (2004): 96-98.
(19)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?:
A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority
of the Holy Scriptures,” The Burning Bush 11
(2005): 3-19.
(20)
Quek
Suan Yew, “Jesus on Perfect Preservation of the
Bible,” Bible Witness, March-April 2005,
3-6.
(21)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “The Canonisation and Preservation of Scripture,”
Bible Witness, March-April 2005, 7-8.
(22)
Timothy
Tow, “‘My Glory Will I Not Give to Another’ (Isaiah
42:8),” The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 67-68.
(23)
Carol
Lee, “A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of
Verbal Plenary Preservation,” The Burning Bush
11 (2005): 69-81.
(24)
Jeffrey
Khoo, “Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism,
and Biblical Preservation,” The Burning Bush
11 (2005): 82-97.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
4.
Here is powerful illustration
of the basic VPP flaw - all 24 articles cited
are from FEBC only! And
none dated before 1998!
If I were to cite 24 articles
to support my side, I would name at least a dozen
reputable seminary sources that hold not to VPP;
indeed have not even heard of “VPP”, which is
also thus clearly a “new doctrine”!
I am sad for FEBC getting into this far extreme
and untenable position.
Despite
my efforts to uphold the reliability of the KJV
and the infallibility and inerrancy of its underlying
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, Mr Lim appears to
do whatever is in his power to oppose and criticise
my defence of the KJV and the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures on which it is based. Many who are
knowledgeable of the VPP of Scripture and what
it truly means are not troubled by Mr Lim’s paper,
but there are some who are disturbed and confused,
and are asking the question: “Mr Lim uses the
KJV, and so do you, so why is he then so dead
against your defence of the KJV? What is the difference
between Mr Lim’s position and yours?” It is a
good question which must be answered.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
5.
The crux of our difference: JK
says a singular set of Hebrew and Greek texts
underlying the KJV was perfectly restored
jot and tittle in 1611, so as to be infallible,
inerrant and exactly identical to the Divine Autographs.
He did not and still cannot prove this and he
is not even perfectly sure which these specific
Hebrew and Greek texts are! He says that
since the Autographs are no longer with us, (he
thinks) he cannot be disproved. He calls
his weak KJV-VPP hypothesis “doctrine” and feels
justified in indiscriminately labelling all who
do not share this view as neo-fundamentalists,
liberals or without faith. I am obliged
to simply call this heresy!
I
think it will clarify if I (1) list the differences
between Mr Lim’s position and my position on the
preservation of Scriptures; (2) respond to Mr
Lim's allegations made against the doctrine of
the VPP of Scripture, and (3) rebut, point-by-point,
his arguments against the present perfection of
Scripture.
The
following letters from Mr Lim and other documents
that I have (and will be prepared to release if
required or necessary) have been used to collate
or summarise Mr Lim's non-VPP position:
(1)
Letter
dated January 2, 2003 to Rev Dr Timothy Tow (copied
to Dr SH Tow and to me).
(2)
Letter
dated February 12, 2003 to me (copied to Rev Dr
Timothy Tow, and Dr SH Tow).
(3)
Letter
dated March 14, 2003 to me.
(4)
Letter
dated March 27, 2003 to me (copied to Rev Dr Timothy
Tow, and Dr SH Tow).
(5)
Letter
dated September 24, 2003 to me with his paper,
“An Evidential Review of the VPP Theory.”
(6)
Open
Letter dated July 13, 2005 to me, “10 Jul 05 Morning
Sermon at Calvary Pandan: Jn 7:24 ‘Judge Righteous
Judgement’—No Basis for Perfect KJB.”
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
6.
I also have JK’s letters besides
his publications. In them, he changed his
mind about the VPP Greek text several times.
First it was Beza 1598. When surprised to learn
that this differed from Scrivener 1881/84 in over
190 places, he said it was Scrivener (a post-engineered
text). When I pointed out that Scrivener
served on the Revised Version Committee
with Westcott and Hort, JK wrote that “Scrivener’s
TR is only extremely close to the VPP text, which
is none other than E F Hill’s “The Reformation
Text”!”
I
then wrote back that “if such a text as Hill’s
“The Reformation Text” existed, there would have
been many copies already published – it would
have been the talk of the Millennium and all Bible
scholars would know it, use it, scrutinize it
and study it, resulting in its infallibility being
clearly known and proven, or otherwise!
But Burgon, living two centuries after the KJV
translation did not know of such a text!
Moreover both he and Dr Hills would have argued
that God would not allow such a text to be hidden
in some monastery or in a bottle, but would ensure
its wide accessible public use in the churches!
Poor Scrivener also who spend great efforts and
years reconstructing the Greek TR underlying the
KJV from Beza, Stephens and other sources!”
And
missionaries like Hudson Taylor and William Chalmers
Burns did not know of this “well-known perfect”
text so that the Chinese Bible (CUV) was not translated
out of it!?
When
the above were pointed out, Dr Khoo admitted and
conceded that there is “no single purified
text” but indefatigably still insisted on
VPP. But plainly and crucially, this is
a concession completely fatal to the entire VPP
postulate! “No single purified text” equals
“No VPP” text – the two terms are by definition
synonymous! Without a single purified text
that is perfect and pure, jot and tittle exact
to the Autographs, you have no VPP text.
My
ending thoughts:
“Would not this make the “VPP text”, less existent
and/or “more intangible” than the Autographs!
Without a single purified text, would not the
KJV translators have to be inspired in their textual
criticism, in order to have arrived at the perfect
underlying text?”
Below
is the table showing Mr Lim's position and the
20 points of differences between Mr Lim’s position
and mine:
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
7.
I sent JK the very first copy
of “An Evidential Review” on 24 Sep 03, with the
sincere, but now seemingly fruitless, hope that
it would help him correct his position.
Now after 22 months, he finally crafts this, his
main reply, in a table form. He should know
that it is not dignified and scholarly to use
such tables where statements can be misrepresented
as well as easily taken out of context.
Singapore Advertising rules, even, ban such specific
tabular comparisons in sales adverts! This
is one of JK’s weaknesses. I give my response
underneath his points.
A Summary and Comparison of
the Two Positions on the Preservation of Scripture
|
Non-VPP:
Imperfect
Preservation
of Holy Scriptures |
VPP:
Perfect Preservation of
Holy Scriptures |
LSH |
This header from the outset
misleads. It should be Providential
Preservation in all the extant manuscripts,
Versus VPP: Perfect Preservation
only in the KJV Hebrew-Greek texts.
|
1. |
VPP
of Scripture is “theory.”
|
VPP
of Scripture is doctrine (Ps 12:6-7,
Matt 5:18). |
LSH |
By VPP, JK means VPP of
the KJV underlying text, so it would be
more accurate to term this KJV-VPP.
The term Verbal Plenary Preservation is
unheard of in most conservative theological
literature. It is less than “theory”
and even as “hypothesis” is extremely
weak. The KJV Translators themselves,
as well as the Westminster Divines in
their annotation of the Bible, 1645, held
that Ps12:6-7 referred to the saints.
Thus this verse is omitted in Ch I, Sect
VIII of the Westminster Confession of
Faith, which states that “God’s Word,
being immediately inspired” “is kept
pure in all ages”. If so, it
is not purified only in 1611 onwards!
|
2. |
Only
VPI autographs are infallible and inerrant.
Bible perfect only in the past.
Dean Burgon Oath refers not at all to the
apographs, but only autographs.
|
Both
VPI autographs and VPP apographs are infallible
and inerrant. Bible perfect in the past
as well as in the present. Autographs
are fully/entirely preserved in the faithful
and infallible apographs. The infallibility
of the apographs is a reformed doctrine. |
LSH |
Dean Burgon certainly refers only to the Autographs.
(See Part IV of “An Evidential Review”.)
Preservation is not in any one particular
copy such as the post-engineered Scrivener
or other text, but is in reality dispersed
throughout all the extant manuscripts,
as Burgon wrote, “But I would especially
remind my readers of Bentley’s golden
precept, that ‘The real text of the sacred
writers does not now, since the originals
have been so long lost, lie in any MS,
or edition, but is dispersed in them all.’
This truth, which was evident to the powerful
intellect of that great scholar, lies
at the root of all sound Textual Criticism.”
|
3. |
Based
on logic of facts per se. No support
from Bible whatsoever. “Without doubt, Almighty
God could easily have given us a VPP apographs
[sic] as well as made the autographs indestructible,
but the evidence is that He did not!” |
Based
on logic of faith that rests on the
Bible itself (Heb 11:6). This leads to the
correct interpretation of facts or evidences.
The Holy Scriptures (autographs and apographs)
by God’s divine inspiration and special
preservation are incorruptible and indestructible. |
LSH |
The term “stern logic of facts”
is Burgon’s.
Obviously, as already pointed out in Note
1 above, faith and facts are not contradictory
but must go hand in hand (see again Jn
20:8).
Heb 11:8 reads, “By faith Abraham, when
he was called to go out into a place which
he should after receive for an inheritance,
obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither
he went.” Abraham responded to God’s
revelatory call. True Biblical faith
is always based on God’s revelation.
KJV-VPP is based on man’s presuppositions
where God had not spoken. These
grievously mistaken men, such as JK, think
that 1611 is a magical year and the KJV
is specially based on a magical underlying
text that alone is infallible and inerrant.
All other Bibles throughout history are
based on erroneous and corrupt texts.
With respect to support from the Bible, students
of the Bible, including the KJV Translators,
well know that the apostles used variegated
textual sources in their quotations of
the OT. Some examples where they
quoted the LXX rather than the Masoretic,
and this can be proven, includes Heb 1:6
(Deut 32:43), Heb 10:37-38 (Hab 2:3-4)
and 1 Cor 15:55 (Hos 13:14). |
4. |
Facts
say that Bible contains actual discrepancies.
Discrepancies are found in 2 Kings 8:26
/ 2 Chron 22:2, and 2 Sam 8:4 / 1 Chron
18:4. These are scribal errors.
|
Faith
that is based on the Bible alone (Sola
Scriptura) says that the Bible is “perfect”
and “very pure” (Pss 19:7, 119:40). Discrepancies
are only apparent.
There
are no errors at all in 2 Kings
8:26 / 2 Chron 22:2, and 2 Sam 8:4 / 1
Chron 18:4 scribal or otherwise.
“Let God be true, but every man a liar”
(Rom 3:4). |
5. |
God’s
Word has “built-in redundancy.”
|
The
Bible has no redundant words at all. Every
word in the Bible is important (Matt 4:4).
|
6. |
God’s
Word has “built-in checks” (citing out of
context, 2 Cor 13:1, Matt 18:16, Deut 29:15),
ie, Scripture corrects Scripture;
rejects harmonisation of Scripture. |
Scripture
does not correct itself by virtue of its
inerrancy and infallibility. Scripture interprets
Scripture, and harmonises with
Scripture (1 Cor 2:13). |
LSH
4, 5 and 6 |
There is only one Bible essentially, which is
the Divine Autographs, which alone is
perfect and pure. Every jot and
tittle of it must be scrupulously observed
and obeyed. All the other versions
are copies or translations, of which no
two are alike in their current language
or underlying Hebrew and Greek text, and
no single one is thus perfect, infallible
and inerrant!
Almighty God in His Providence
preserved for us many copies of manuscripts,
codices and uncials, and in His Wisdom
gave us this law, “In the mouth of two
or three witnesses shall every word be
established.” (2Cor 13:1, Matt 18:16 Deut
19:15). From this, it could be ensured
that judgement in any trial may be true
and just. The same law also
helps establish if a difficult verse in
any Bible version is a scribal error or
not!
Let me illustrate this
working: In Gal 3:16, Paul carefully distinguished
“seed” from “seeds”, minutiae of utmost
importance! We know safely that
there is no chance of scribal error here
because the Scriptures repeat this several
times in Rom 4:16&18, 9:8, Gen 13:15,
17:8!
For 2Sam 8:4 Vs 1Chr 18:4 however, there is a
conflict with no witness to establish
the true reading. The KJV translators
recognised this and favoured the reading
of 1Chr 18:4 (as corroborated in the LXX
2Sam 8:4, which they had). Having
to exercise their judgment based on the
available Hebrew texts (their mandate
was to translate from the Hebrew and not
from the LXX), they deviated from the
Masoretic 2Sam 8:4, “one thousand seven
hundred horsemen” (as given in the CUV).
Note the italicized “chariots”
indicates a word not in the original (Masoretic).
The KJV translators broke up the one thousand
seven hundred into one thousand, to which
they added the word “chariots”
and left the balance seven hundred as
horsemen, to reduce the discrepancy and
render a more accurate reading for the
public. In doing so, they recognised
and acknowledged the Masoretic scribal
error! Today, in accordance with
Dan 12:4, “knowledge has increased.”
If the KJV translators were to do their
work today, they would have the Hebrew
warrant of the Dead Sea Scrolls to make
the correct rendition of 2 Sam 8:4, as
well as other now resolved scribal errors. |
7. |
“No
single purified text.” Therefore no perfect
Bible today. |
Every
God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek word
is preserved to the jot and tittle
(Matt
5:18, 24:35). Therefore perfect Bible
exists today in all the inspired Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek words (not
text per se) underlying the Reformation
Bibles best represented by the KJV, not
the modern Bible versions which are based
on the corrupt and critical texts
of Westcott-Hort. |
LSH |
JK confuses and is confused.
Sometimes he says text, at other times,
words. This is typical twist and
turn. When he could not identify the perfect
text underlying the KJV, he changed
to words. Does he now agree
with Bentley’s golden rule that preservation
is in all the extant manuscripts and not
in any single text? But when he
talks about W&H, he calls it texts.
|
8. |
“Of
the thousands of extant apographa both OT
and NT, no two are alike, which would mean
… not even a single one is jot and tittle
perfect.” |
Jesus
in AD 27 held the OT apograph in His hands,
and declared that it is jot and tittle perfect
(Matt 5:18). Jesus Christ is true, not any
“textual critic.” |
LSH |
When our Lord preached on the mount, was He holding
any OT apograph in His hands?
Matt 5:1-2 records, “And seeing the multitudes,
he went up into a mountain: and when he
was set, his disciples came unto him:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them.” |
9. |
Cites
for authority, many human authors and commentaries.
|
Cites
for authority the 100% perfect Word of God—our
only supreme and final rule of faith and
life. |
LSH |
JK
is the one that cited
many human authorities such as G I Williamson,
Theodore Letis, E F Hills, Dean Burgon,
Scrivener and Dr O T Spence. I
merely audited to check if these authorities
actually supported KJV-VPPism and found
none of them did: -
Williamson:
“I find the NKJV to be my version of choice
for use in the pulpit and in teaching.”
"And
so, while the true (or perfect) original
text would not be entirely reproduced
in any single copy, yet it would not be
lost or inaccessible because by the majority
testimony of the several copies, error
would always be witnessed against.
The true text would be perfectly preserved
within the body of witnesses."
Letis:
in a scorching review of the Dean Burgon
Society, wrote,
“the irony is a profound one” that “not
only could Dean Burgon not be a committee
member, he could not even be a member
in any way of this society that, nevertheless
uses his name!”
Hills:
“God’s preservation of the New Testament
Text was not miraculous but providential.
On the KJV, “Admittedly this venerable
version is not absolutely perfect, but
it is trustworthy. No Bible-believing
Christian who relies upon it will ever
be led astray.”
Scrivener
sat on the Revision Committee, commissioned
to revise the AV via “the removal of ‘PLAIN
AND CLEAR ERRORS’ whether in the Greek
Text originally adopted by the Translators,
or in the Translation made from the same”.
Dr H T Spence,
son of the late Dr O T Spence, “As to
the multi-English Bible versions debate
(there are now well over 500 English versions
of the Bible), I do not know about the
debate over in Singapore; I do not know
about the "Verbal Plenary Preservation"
theory and what it declares.” |
10. |
Contends
for the “inerrancy of the meaning.”
“Whether we have all the original jots and
tittles or not, every key meanings [sic]
and salvation doctrines [sic] are [sic]
entirely preserved!” |
Contends
for the inerrancy of the words. Meaning
comes from words (how can there be meaning
without words?). Every word to the jot and
tittle is therefore preserved (Matt 5:18),
not just “salvation doctrines.” Every spiritual,
historical, geographical, and scientific
word is preserved. |
LSH |
The KJV Translators’ Preface to the Reader,
“It hath pleased God in his Divine Providence
here and there to scatter words and sentences
of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not
in doctrinal points that concern salvation,
(for in such it hath been vouched that
the Scriptures are plain) but in matters
of less moment, that fearfulness would
better beseem us than confidence, and
if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty
with S. Augustine: It is better to
make doubt of those things which are secret,
than to strive about those things that
are uncertain.” |
11. |
Misrepresents
by stating that “VPPism requires an inspired
KJV textual criticism;” “VPPism requires
… English as the singly blessed language
of the Gospel;” the KJV is “absolutely perfect;”
“it is KJV fundamentalism gone extreme.”
Creates a false dichotomy, “May we be Christians
first, theologians second.” |
Absolute
perfection lies only in the Hebrew, Aramaic,
Greek Scriptures on which the KJV is based
(2 Tim 3:16). The KJV is the best, most
faithful, most accurate, most trustworthy,
most beautiful Bible in the English language.
Its “perfection,” “infallibility,” or “inerrancy”
is only in the derived sense (as
far as it accurately and faithfully reflects
the original). The KJV is not directly,
doubly or separately inspired (rejects
Ruckmanism which is “KJV fundamentalism
gone extreme”). |
LSH |
My representations are factual. JK has a
mastery of “twist and turn” / “bait and
switch” tactics.
Here for example, he starts with the words, “Absolute
perfection”, and then switches to the
beauty of the KJV English. Finally,
he admits (as all the facts would anyhow
show) that “the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek
Scriptures on which the KJV is based”
is not actually perfect, infallible and
inerrant, except only in the
“derived” sense! (But by now
such an admission would usually be lost
to the reader!) Allow me then to
make clear: if it is “derived”, it simply
means not direct; not actual; not jot
and tittle exact! And the words
“as far as it accurately and faithfully
reflects the original” can only mean there
are places where it does not faithfully
do so! |
12. |
Understands
providential preservation in terms of general
providence—non-miraculous. |
Understands
providential preservation in terms of special
providence—supernatural and miraculous
(involving God’s personal supervision and
direct intervention). “By His singular
care and providence, kept pure in all
ages” (WCF, I:8). Biblical preservation
is God’s work, not man’s. |
LSH |
Ch 1 Sect VIII of the WCF: "The Old Testament
in Hebrew (which was the native language
of the people of God of old) and the New
Testament in Greek (which at the time
of the writing of it was most generally
known to the nations) being immediately
inspired by God, and by His singular care
and providence kept pure in all ages,
are therefore authentical; so as in all
controversies of religion the Church is
finally to appeal to them."
Although Hills coined the
term, “special providence”, with
respect to events in 1611, he could offer
no scriptural basis for this. In
any case, Hills conceded that preservation
of God’s Word was providential rather
than miraculous. The WCF affirms
that God used the vernacular of people,
and preservation is by His providence,
i.e. providential and not miraculous.
After criticizing Peter Ruckman for upholding
a miraculous translation, JK now himself
says that the specific KJV underlying
Hebrew and Greek text is miraculously
preserved! |
13. |
Perfect
preservation is a “new doctrine.” |
Perfect
preservation is as old as the Bible (Ps
12:6-7). “It stands perfectly written” (Greek
perfect tense of gegraptai). |
14. |
Psalm
12:6-7 means preservation of the people
of God, not the words of God. |
Psalm
12:6-7 means preservation of the words
of God according to Hebrew grammar and exegesis
(GKC, 440). |
LSH
13 & 14 |
Please refer to my Note 1, or for more, to
“An Evidential Review”
Appendix
B (An answer to: “Did God Promise to Preserve
His Words?: Interpreting
Psalm 12:6-7” by Rev Quek Suan Yew, The
Burning Bush, July 2004). Clearly,
Ps 12:6-7 refers to the preservation of
the godly. |
15. |
Falsely
accuses VPP holders of saying, “the Bible
was not kept pure in all ages, but only
restored pure from 1611 onwards.” |
“The
purity of God’s words has been faithfully
maintained in the Traditional/Byzantine/
Majority/Received Text, and fully represented
in the Textus Receptus that underlies
the KJV.” |
LSH |
The term “Textus Receptus” was really only first
used in 1633 by the Elzivers, some 22
years after the 1611 KJV was published.
It should be noted that Tyndale and Luther, translated
the NT from Erasmus 4th Edition,
which was not identical with the text
used for the KJV. |
16. |
The
perfect Bible is found only in heaven, kept
in the Ark of His testament (Rev 11:19),
not on earth! |
The
perfect Bible is not only found in heaven
but also on earth (Ps 119:89, Matt
4:4). “Thy will be done in earth, as it
is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). |
17. |
The
words of God will not be forever
preserved. God’s words will pass
away when the earth passes away.
|
God’s
words are permanently, perpetually and perfectly
preserved, and will never pass away. God
will keep and fulfil every jot and tittle
of His words both in heaven and on earth
(Matt 5:18), and His words shall never pass
away (Matt 24:35), “forever settled,” (Ps
119:89), and “endureth for ever” (1 Pet
1:25). |
LSH
16 & 17. |
Thanks for the verse JK! Ps 119:89 “For
ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”
(JK, did you add to Holy Scripture the words,
“but also on earth”?)
16 is another sad distortion by JK!
Rather, I affirmed with the WCF that God’s
Word is “kept pure in all ages” and with
Burgon on Bentley’s golden precept.
Complete
preservation
thus is
in
all
the
extant
manuscripts,
including
those
underlying
the
KJV. A
good
critical
apparatus
offers
an
easy-to-use
broad
overview
of
what’s
in
these
extant
manuscripts. For this, we have to
thank the pioneering textual scholars
like Burgon, Scrivener and others.
On 17, it is manifest that
when this earth passes away, all material
apographs therein shall also pass away.
In heaven, God’s Word shall be inscribed
in our hearts! Do angels carry copies
of Bibles? One thing for sure, there
will be no versions debate in heaven!
|
18. |
Accuses
VPP proponents of teaching an “insidious
heresy.” |
Believing
that God’s inspired Canon and words are
100% preserved in the original language
Scriptures, the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek words
underlying the KJV is not heresy,
but the truth (cf 2 Cor 13:8). |
LSH |
2 Cor 13:8 states, “For we can do nothing against
the truth, but for the truth.” If
only JK would submit to the power of truth
as seen in the clear evidential facts.
We have already seen the ruinous divisive
effects when KJV-VPP was introduced in
FEBC, Life BPC and other churches.
KJV-VPPism originated with
Benjamin G. Wilkinson, (1872 – 1968),
Dean of Theology at the Seventh Day
Adventist Washington Missionary College,
today known as Columbia Union College,
7600 Flower Avenue, Tomoka Park, MD 20912.
The SDA is a cult that holds to limited
Verbal Inspiration. Their defence of the
KJV is due to their fears that clearer
translations would make their practice
of Gentile Saturday worship (Act 13:42)
and soul sleep (Heb 9:27) indefensible.
Otis Fuller, founder of the Dean Burgon
Society, relied extensively on Wilkinson’s
works, but concealed his identity, describing
him as “all but unknown in the world of
scholarship”, and “taught for many years
in a small and obscure Eastern college.”
Wilkinson’s books, as well
as the books of Mrs Gail A Riplinger,
an avid KJV-Ruckmanist, are sold on a
DBS website “The Bible for Today.”
What does this say of their biblical separation?
Dr Thomas Strouse, a leading
KJV-VPP proponent, in his “Biblical Defense
for the Verbal, Plenary Preservation of
God's Word” wrote: “My Sheep Hear My
Voice”. Christ not only teaches that
He will preserve the words of the Father,
but also that believers will hear His
voice (Jn. 10:26). Where is the voice
of the Lord Jesus Christ? HIS VOICE IS
HIS WORDS. The Lord has given believers
the means by which to verify the "received
words." Believers, indwelt with the
Holy Spirit, "hear" and know
which words are Christ's "received
words." Furthermore, according to
Jn 10:5, believers "know not the
voice of strangers." Consequently,
believers not only recognize a "received
text," but believers also reject
the voice of strangers ("rejected
text"). This is why Christians have
maintained that the textus receptus
is the voice of the Lord and
that the variants in the modern versions
are the voice of strangers.
The above would mean that
our Chinese brethren follow the voice
of strangers and are lost. It is
disquieting that Dr Strouse’s works are
oft quoted and published in “The Burning
Bush”.
Vine’s Expository Dictionary: Hairesis (αιρεσις),
“denotes (a) a choosing, choice; then,
that which is chosen, and hence, an opinion,
especially a self-willed opinion, which
is substituted for submission to the
power of truth, and leads to division
and the formation of sects, Gal 5:20
(“parties”); such erroneous opinions are
frequently the outcome of personal preference
or the prospect of advantage; see 2 Pet
2:1, where “destructive” (R.V.) signifies
leading to ruin.” |
19. |
It
is godly and scholarly to believe that the
Bible is no longer perfect today. VPP defenders
are divisive and unscholarly men.
|
It
glorifies God and edifies the saints to
believe that the Bible today is totally
infallible and inerrant, pure and perfect
in every way (Isa 42:8). Believes in Biblical
separation from unbelief and compromise. |
20. |
Unable
to say, “I have a 100% perfect Bible today.”
|
Can
confidently say, “I have a 100% perfect
Bible today that is absolutely infallible
and inerrant.” |
LSH
19 & 20 |
Another sad twist and turn. Can one glorify
God by telling lies? If we would
stand for the truth, let the Holy Spirit
convict us on this: - the ends
never justify the means, but are
oft of the same feather. If we stand
truthfully for the Truth, the Lord Himself
shall stand with us! If we have
to use untruthful means, we can already
be sure that our ends are untrue.
As clearly stated already,
I uphold the Verbal Plenary Inspiration
and thus the perfection of the Autographs
and its consequent witness in all the
extant manuscripts that God has preserved
for us to this day, some surviving 2,000
years.
JK contends not for the Perfect Bible but extravagantly
for a 100% Perfect KJB in its specific
underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, despite
his being hard-pressed to clearly identify
these! |
I am
not alone in defending the VPP of Scripture. Hear
from no less a stalwart of the fundamentalist
faith than the Rev Dr Ian Paisley who, in his
book My Plea for the Old Sword (KJV),
wrote:
Divine
Revelation plus Divine Inspiration plus Divine
Preservation equals the Divine Bible. These all,
without exception, cover the whole field of every
Word of God. There is no such thing as verbal
Revelation without verbal Inspiration and there
is no such thing as verbal Inspiration without
verbal Preservation. In all cases it is
not partial but plenary i.e. full, complete,
perfect. …
The
Divine Revelation, put into writing the verbally
Infallible Scriptures through Divine Inspiration,
must have Divine Preservation in order to be available
to all generations. The verbal Inspiration of
the Scriptures demands the verbal Preservation
of the Scriptures. Those who would deny the need
for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as
being really committed to verbal Inspiration.
If there is no preserved Word of God today then
the work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration
has perished.
In
such a case any Bible is as good as any other.
Hence the multiplication and continuing changes
of perverted English versions of the Bible on
the market today.
Those
who believe in a partial preservation are not
much better. To say that God has preserved most
of the Original Scriptures but not them all, robs
us of every Word of God. Therefore we cannot live
[by His every word, Matt 4:4]. This is but another
way to pen-knife God’s every Word.
Those
who do not believe that God preserved His Word
are really going down the path of final rejection
of that Book of which the Lord Jesus Christ said,
‘The Word of God cannot be broken.’ Thank God,
no potency can disintegrate this Rock.
Dr Paisley
went on to defend the VPP of Scripture and the
KJV from Psalm 12:6-7:
Surely
here we have the Doctrine of Divine Preservation
divinely revealed. The preserved Scriptures cannot
be lost or caused in any way to perish. As of
the God who uttered them, so we can say, ‘Thou
remainest!’
It
is interesting to note that the new Bibles vary
the words of Psalm 12:6-7 and so eliminate the
testimony of that verse to the Divine Preservation
of the Scriptures. They insist that the ‘them’
of verse seven is not a reference to God’s words
but to God’s people …and destroy the text’s testimony
to the Preservation of God’s Word.
God’s
providential preservation of His own Word ensured
that the true Scriptures were not hidden away
in the library of the Antichrist nor in a monastery
of ‘Greek Catholic’ idolatry at the time when
Tyndale prepared his Bible. Faithful and true
copies of the originals were at hand for the Divine
Bombshell (Tyndale’s translation of God’s Holy
Word into English) which would smash the Roman
Antichrist. He translated into English the Preserved
Word of God, not the Perverted Word of God.
A
return to the Apostolic Gospel comes as a result
of Tyndale’s work. A return to the Apostate Gospel
comes as a result of the translation of Rome’s
long hidden, perverted text and other such perverted
texts in the Modern Perversions of the Scriptures.
The
Authorised Version translated into English the
Preserved Word of God and so preserved for the
English speaking peoples of the World, the Word
of the Living God, the only infallible Rule of
Faith and Practice.
Can
Mr Lim say Amen to Paisley?
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
8.
Would Rev Paisley kindly confirm
if he really believes that the Hebrew and Greek
underlying the KJV are 100% perfectly preserved
texts? If so, why refer to Tyndale, which
is based on Erasmus 4th edition, a
slightly different text than the KJV’s?
Now, let me respond to Mr Lim’s
open letter of July 13, 2005 point-by-point.
Mr
Lim’s Skewed Version of My Sermon
Mr Lim
started by presenting a skewed version of my sermon:
“I refer [to] your sermon last Sunday morning,
which was diverted to promote your pet but unfounded
‘doctrine’ of KJV Perfectionism in its underlying
Hebrew and Greek apographs (copies). Your two
points on the assigned Scripture text are that
1) ‘judge not according to appearance’ means not
by dress, good looks, and a good singing voice,
etc, and 2) ‘but judge righteous judgement’ means
to hold to ‘Verbal Plenary Preservation’ (VPP)
of the KJV underlying texts.” He then went on
to present his “true exegesis” of the text.
My
Refutation
First,
let me say that the topic I preached on—“Judge
Righteous Judgement” (John 7:14-24)—was not a
topic I chose, but was one assigned to me. I indeed
preached a two-point sermon based on the assigned
theme, but Mr Lim’s skewed phrasing and slanted
summary of what I preached do not accurately reflect
my position on the VPP of Scripture, nor the tenor
of my sermon. My two points in answer to the question,
“How may we judge righteous judgement?,” were
(1) Do not Judge According to Outward Appearance
(John 7:24), but (2) Judge According to the Word
of God (John 7:16-17). I did not spend every minute
of my sermon talking about my “pet doctrine” as
alleged. I applied my sermon to a variety of issues
in life. I spoke against the Hollywood philosophy
that a good-looking outward appearance is the
secret to success and happiness in life. I warned
of how we as Christians are also prone to form
impressions just by looking at a person’s external
appearance, and thereby make wrong judgements.
I cited Samuel as an example of one who made a
mistake in looking for the “tall, dark and handsome”
man among Jesse’s children to be Israel’s new
king (1 Sam 16). I read to the congregation 1
Sam 16:7, “But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look
not on his countenance, or on the height of his
stature, because I have refused him: for the LORD
seeth not as a man seeth; for man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the
heart.” I also cited 2 Cor 11:14-15 where Paul
warned against Satan who presents himself handsome
and charming, not ugly and terrifying, in his
efforts to seduce and deceive the unwary and ignorant,
“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed
into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great
thing if his ministers also be transformed as
the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall
be according to their works.” (I expect Satan
and his minions to be very unhappy with my sermon;
but believers? Surely not!)
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
9.
I did not skew the facts of JK’s
sermon. As I had pointed out, the Jews sought
to kill our Lord Jesus, not because of His physical
looks that He did not look like Saul or some movie
star but because they had judged Him superficially
as having broken Moses law, by healing on the
Sabbath and by saying that God was His Father
(Jn 5:16, 18, 7:1, 19). He tells them (in
the Greek present imperative), “Stop judging superficially”,
and His conjunctive (in the aorist imperative),
“but judge righteous judgement”, directs urgent
attention to the specific example of His case.
The Jews had evaluated superficially and unrighteously.
None of them kept the law (Jn 7:19), whereas Christ
did not break the law. Healing on the Sabbath
is as legitimate as circumcision on the Sabbath
(Jn 7:23), and Jesus is in truth the Son of God!
They discarded Jesus as not being the Christ because
He was from Galilee and not from Bethlehem (Jn
7:42) and carelessly concluded that He was thus
worthy of death for blasphemy.
Since
JK raised this, I have to also respond albeit
sadly: Satan is always pleased with half-truths
and lies, and more particularly when preached
from conservative church pulpits.
In my
second point, I pointed out that the only way
believers can make righteous judgements today
is by basing their judgements on the Word of God.
I then went on to point out that if we are to
make righteous/truthful judgements, we can only
do so if we have a Perfect Standard, and this
Perfect Standard cannot be man and his philosophy,
but God and His Theology—His Word! I went on to
ask the question: “Do we have a Perfect Written
Standard in the Word of God today?” And the answer
is an unequivocal "yes" based on God’s
unfailing promise of the infallible preservation
of His words as taught in Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18,
Matt 24:35, 1 Pet 1:24-25 and many other Scripture
verses. The authority of the Scriptures is bound
to its perfection, is it not? If the Scriptures
that we have today are not totally infallible
and inerrant, how then can the Scriptures be our
only, final, and supreme rule of faith and practice?
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
10.
This is already well covered in
my response notes to JK’s 20-point Table above.
In another
letter to Dr SH Tow, Mr Lim's senior pastor, and
the elders of Calvary Pandan BPC dated July 30,
2005, Mr Lim accused me of disturbing the peace
of the Church, “As for disturbance of the peace,
it was Dr Jeffrey Khoo’s sermon on 10 Jul … that
really disturbed the peace and harmony of our
Church. After the sermon, many were disgruntled
and disturbed. I being just one of them.” Is this
true? Were “many” indeed “disgruntled and disturbed?”
If so, precisely how many? What was the percentage
of members who felt that my sermon was erroneous
and unedifying?
There
was in fact no confusion or chaos in Calvary Pandan
BPC after my sermon. I have not received any protest
from members of Calvary Pandan except for Mr Lim’s
open letter of unjust accusations against me which
he personally distributed and mass emailed to
his church members and others. This he did without
the approval of his pastors or the Board of Elders.
Was Mr Lim’s conduct ethically acceptable given
his membership vows?
Now,
if the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin when the
truth is preached, do we then conclude that it
is disturbing the peace and harmony of the church?
Must every believer “feel good” before a sermon
can be considered “edifying?” The B-P Church has
always preached the unpopular but Biblical doctrine
of separation, has it not? If such an “unpleasant”
sermon is preached, and some members of the church
are “disgruntled and disturbed,” should we then
conclude that the preacher is divisive and unedifying?
If we allow this, will we not create an ecumenical
pulpit that will only seek to tickle the ears
of the hearers? Is this not what Paul warned against
in 2 Tim 4:2-3, “Preach the word; be instant in
season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort
with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears; and they shall
turn away their ears from the truth.” May the
Lord continue to preserve the faithful pulpit
ministry of Calvary Pandan BPC and all Bible-believing
and Bible-defending BPCs.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
11.
Did the Holy Spirit bear convicting
testimony with JK’s sermon? JK’s Bible position
therein is not the Bible position enshrined in
the Calvary Pandan BPC’s Constitution. This,
together with my valid open letter to JK of 13
Jul 05 would be left to Calvary BPC’s BOE to take
up.
Mr
Lim’s Confusion over the VPP of Scripture in Relation
to Translations
Mr Lim
wrote, “The same verses [i.e. Ps 12:6-7, Matt
5:18, 24:35, 1 Pet 1:24-25] that you cited are
also found in all the other Bible versions such
as the Chinese United Version (CUV), the Indonesian
Akitab [sic], The [sic] Thai Bible, NASV, NIV,
NKJV, etc. Anyone reading these in those versions,
if interpreting as you do, would conclude that
it is their version that is ‘VPP,’ rather than
the KJV.”
My
Clarification
Mr Lim
claimed that he has read “carefully” all my papers
on the VPP of Scripture, but I doubt that he has
from what he has stated above. It must be underscored
that VPP refers to God’s special providential
preservation of every jot and tittle of His God-breathed
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words, and not
the translated words whether English, Chinese,
Indonesian, or Thai. It is important to understand
that the inspiration and preservation of Scriptures
in light of Scripture itself (and accurately stated
in the Westminster Confession) concerns the Scriptures
in the “original languages” or the Hebrew Old
Testament and the Greek New Testament, not
any version or translation, ancient or modern.
Versions and translations can be improved on (eg,
The Defined King James Bible published
by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement
on the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV), but
not the original language Scriptures which God
has promised to keep pure, perfect, infallible,
inerrant, and authentical.
Do note
that the NASV and NIV render Ps 12:6-7 quite differently
from the KJV. They may have the same verses but
they do not have the same words. Ps 12:6-7 in
the KJV reads:
The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou
shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve
them from this generation for ever.
But
the NIV reads quite differently, especially verse
7:
And
the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver
refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.
O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect
us from such people forever.
The
NASV also reads rather differently:
The
words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried
in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
Thou, O LORD, will keep them; Thou wilt
preserve him from this generation forever.
Which
of the above translated words accurately translate
the verbally and plenarily preserved words of
the Hebrew Scripture? I urge you to read Rev Dr
Quek Suan Yew’s article, “Did God Promise to Preserve
His Words?: Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7” for insights
and answers.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
12.
JK again twists and turns to confuse.
The truth is that all the various translations
listed are based on different Hebrew and Greek
texts, and yet these all contain most, if not
all of JK’s “proof verses”. Thus if readers
of those translations regard these verses in the
same way as JK does, would they not conclude that
is it their version that is VPP-based!
As for Ps 12:6-7, the KJV translators
also held “them” to be the people, and in the
margin states, “them from: Hebrew, him & c.:
that is, every one of them & c. This
is even clearer in the 1611 version than in the
1769 version on which our current KJV is based.
Is it a wonder that the Westminster Divines also
regarded “them” as referring to the saints?
If we
do not have a perfect written standard in a verbally
and plenarily preserved original language Scripture
today, there will be no way to prove which translation
or version is correct; as anything goes. The NIV
or NASV could be just as good as, if not better
than, the KJV. Who is to say that the good old
KJV is reliable and the many new and modern versions
unreliable? Your judgement would be as good as
mine. Man becomes the final authority, not the
Scriptures. Please realise that the doctrine of
the VPP of Scripture is the solid bedrock for
the defence of the KJV. The moment we throw out
the VPP of Scripture, we surrender our only sure
defence of the KJV against the modern versions
or perversions of the Bible. The devil knows this,
and it is no wonder he is doing all he can to
tear this doctrine down!
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
13.
JK’s primary concern is the KJV,
even to the extent of its glorification, rather
than truth and the glory of God. What if
the KJV is actually not perfect? Do we need
to exaggerate in order to defend? The best
KJV defence is credibility based on truthful facts.
Mr
Lim’s Misinterpretation of Matt 5:18 and Matt
24:35
Mr Lim
commented, “When the earth passes away, would
not all that it contains including all material
apographs also pass away? In these verses therefore,
our Lord was not referring to apographs, but rather
as the context clearly shows, to the absolute
and inviolable claims of God and of the Son upon
us, for Jesus spake ‘as one having authority,
and not as the scribes.’ (Mt 7:28).”
My
Refutation
According
to Mr Lim, Matt 5:18 means that all the words
in the “material apographs” would pass away when
the earth passes away. Mr Lim’s interpretation
of Matt 5:18 contradicts Matt 24:35 which clearly
says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my
words shall not pass away” (Luke 21:33, Mark 13:31).
Having created a contradiction in Scripture, he
then attempted a “harmonisation” by spiritualising
the term “words” in Matt 24:35 to mean the “claims”
of God. I submit to you that the Scriptures must
be understood literally, “words” mean precisely
“words,” not just “claims” or “doctrines,” or
“truths.” Now, I do not dispute that the claims
of God are inviolable, but how can we have God’s
claims without God’s words?
Mr Lim
is wrong to dismiss the apographs of the Scriptures,
denying their infallibility and inerrancy. Please
know that the reformers never thought of the infallibility
of the Scriptures in terms of the non-existent
autographs but the present and extant apographs.
Francis Turretin (1623-87)—pastor-theologian of
the Church and Academy of Geneva—wrote:
By
original texts, we do not mean the autographs
written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets
and of the apostles, which certainly do not now
exist. We mean their apographs which are
so called because they set forth to us the word
of God in the very words of those who
wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy
Spirit.
In the
final analysis, whether the “material” apographs
(or for that matter the “material” autographs
which we no longer have) will pass away or not
is immaterial and not the point. What we do know
for sure in light of Jesus’ promise in Matt 5:18
and 24:35 is that every one of the inspired words
of the Holy Scriptures in the autographs and the
apographs will never pass away.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
14.
In Matt 5:18-19, clearly our Lord
is not teaching a 100% perfectly restored KJV
underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, but warning
against breaking the least of God’s commandments.
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall
be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
In Matt 24:35 “Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,”
our Lord warns of the judgement that would come
upon the world imminently and suddenly.
Mr
Lim’s Misinterpretation of Ps 119:140
Mr Lim
questioned, “Was the psalmist’s love of God’s
Word due to the purity of the apographs? And this
Psalm, being written before the completion of
Scripture canon, if VPP pureness (completeness,
perfect to every jot and tittle) is meant, should
have been the last book of the Bible. Is not the
purity here rather the purifying effect of God’s
Word?”
My
Refutation
It is
absurd for Mr Lim to suggest that I take the psalmist
to mean that Ps 119 is the last book of the Bible
just because he wrote, “Thy word is very pure.”
The psalmist was referring to the nature or quality
of the Word, that it is pristine, pure and perfect
in every aspect. This is also the case with Ps
19:7, “The law of the LORD is perfect.” The words
“pure” and “perfect” are adjectives, describing
the nature of God’s Word and not simply
the effect of the Word.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
15.
Let me cite more completely what
I wrote.
“Was the psalmist’s love of God’s
Word due to the purity of the apographs?
And this Psalm, being written before the completion
of Scripture canon, if VPP pureness (completeness,
perfect to every jot and tittle) is meant, should
have been the last book of the Bible. Is
not the purity here rather the purifying effect
of God’s Word, as illustrated through the
entire Psalm as well as say in Ps 19:7-9, “The
law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise
the simple. The statutes of the LORD are
right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of
the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear
of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments
of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.”
And in Heb 4:12, “For the word of God is quick,
and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul
and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and
is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart.”
Mr
Lim’s Misrepresentation of the VPP of Scripture
Mr Lim
misrepresents the VPP of Scripture when he wrote,
“For the KJV to have an identical apograph text
to the Divine Autographs (Originals), in jot and
tittle terms, would necessitate a second inspiration
either in the copying process, the textual editing
process or the translation process.”
My
Refutation
If Mr
Lim knows basic theology and has indeed read my
papers carefully, he would not wrong me by accusing
me of advocating a “second inspiration” of the
Scriptures. I did not confuse inspiration with
preservation. Inspiration speaks of God’s miraculous
one-time work of “breathing out” the original
inspired words in the autographs in the days of
the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16). Preservation,
on the other hand, refers to God’s supernatural
and continuous work of keeping pure the very same
original inspired words in all ages so that in
every generation God’s people will always have
every iota of His words (Matt 5:18).
The
processes and dynamics involved in God’s work
of inspiration and preservation are inscrutable
and inexplicable. “O the depth of the riches both
of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable
are his judgements, and his ways past finding
out!” (Rom 11:33). I do not pretend to know everything
about how God inspired His words, or how He preserved
them. I simply believe Him—my Lord and my God—who
is all-powerful to keep His words, His truths
and His promises. I just take Him at His Word
with simple, childlike faith, period. Bottom line
is: “God says it, that settles it, I believe it.”
The logic of faith is precisely this: “The Bible
says it, that settles it, we believe it.”
Mr Lim
believes in the partial or imperfect preservation
of Scripture. But the problem with his view is
that there is not a single verse in the Bible
which says God’s Word is imperfectly preserved,
or we do not have a 100% perfect Bible in our
possession today. What we do find however is that
there are many verses in the Bible which teach
the perfect, permanent, and perpetual preservation
of God’s inspired original language words (Ps
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35, 1 Pet 1:23-25). Please
see George Skariah’s doctoral dissertation on
the perfect preservation of the Holy Scriptures
which offers a most Christ-honouring and faith-building
exegesis and exposition of no less than 50 Biblical
verses/passages that prove this doctrine
(not “theory” or “heresy” as Mr Lim would have
us believe).
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
16.
On double inspiration or miraculous
preservation, please see my response to point
12 in JK’s Table above and also my Response Note
6 above.
JK
confuses by using “Perfect Bible” and “Perfect
KJB”, interchangeably. He contends for the
latter while I for the former. I must thus
deny that the KJV is 100% perfect, as this would
otherwise make the Original
Inspired Autographs from which it manifestly does
differ, imperfect!!
(JK
would true to his form probably argue, “Show me
the Autographs!” but that would be a desperate
grasp at a straw when one is already drowned deep
in high waters.)
Mr
Lim’s Dubious Affirmation
After
arguing against the VPP of Scripture, Mr Lim says,
“This does not mean that God’s Word is not preserved
for us! They are in the providential sense!”
My
Critique
I had
used the term “providential preservation” in my
book Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the
Authorised Version and the Doctrine of Providential
Preservation. Mr Lim uses the same word, but
appears to understand it differently. In these
days of deception, it is not enough just to know
what is said, it is equally if not more important
to know what is meant by what is said.
There
is a recent book entitled God’s Word in Our
Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us. The book
title makes it appear that the writers believe
and support the doctrine of the 100% preservation
of the words of Scripture, but the contents of
the book prove otherwise. Read my review of this
book, “Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism,
and Biblical Preservation” in the latest issue
of The Burning Bush.
In my critique, I exposed why and how BJU and
other pro-Westcott/Hort advocates do not believe
that God will and is able to preserve perfectly
all of His words to the last iota, that all of
His inspired words will always remain available
and accessible to His people all the time until
the end of time. Mr Lim’s arguments against the
KJV and VPP of Scripture are déjà vu, and not
new to me. I have not only answered them in my
above critique, but in two other earlier ones
as well.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
17.
See my response to point 2 and
12 in JK’s Table above. Burgon’s view, which
I share, is that preservation is throughout the
ages in all the extant manuscripts, versions and
the citations by the Church fathers.
JK’s
view is that perfect preservation actually occurred
in 1611. Otherwise, he should say that Tyndale
or Coverdale or even Luther or some other is based
on the perfect VPP Hebrew and Greek text.
Thus his expression, “Will always remain available
and accessible to His people all the time until
the end of time”, really means “all the time from
1611 until the end of time!”
Mr
Lim’s Quotation of Dean Burgon
Mr Lim
quoted Burgon to argue that there is no such thing
as VPP. He wrote, “Dean Burgon expresses it thus,
‘But I would especially remind my readers of Bentley’s
golden precept, that ‘The real text of the sacred
writers does not now, since the originals have
been so long lost, lie in any MS, or edition,
but is dispersed in them all.’”
My
Explanation
We are
thankful to the Lord for Dean Burgon for a number
of reasons: (1) Burgon was a defender of the Byzantine
or Majority Text which he called the Traditional
Text over against the Alexandrian or Minority
Text of Westcott and Hort which he viewed as the
Corrupted Text and rightly so. (2) Burgon was
a strong defender for the KJV and spoke against
any revision of it. Although Burgon defended the
KJV in no uncertain terms, there was a weakness
in his defence of it. It is unfortunate that Burgon
did not defend the Textus Receptus—the Greek Text
underlying the KJV—as strongly as he did the KJV.
That is the reason why he spoke in terms of the
“dispersed” rather than the “received” text.
Why
did Burgon have such a relatively low view of
the Textus Receptus? Dr E F Hills—a friend and
classmate of Dr McIntire at Westminster, a ThD
graduate of Harvard, and a Presbyterian defender
of the Textus Receptus—made an astute observation.
He noted that Burgon was biased against the Textus
Receptus because of his extreme Anglicanism which
believes in the doctrine of apostolic succession.
Dr Hills rightly commented that Burgon’s mistaken
Anglican view of apostolic succession and emphasis
on the NT quotations of the Bishops or Church
Fathers failed him
when
he came to deal with the printed Greek New Testament
text. For from Reformation times down to his own
day the printed Greek New Testament text which
had been favored by the bishops of the Anglican
Church was the Textus Receptus, and the Textus
Receptus had not been prepared by bishops but
by Erasmus, who was an independent scholar. Still
worse, from Burgon’s standpoint, was the fact
that the particular form of the Textus Receptus
used in the Church of England was the third edition
of Stephanus, who was a Calvinist. For these reasons,
therefore, Burgon and Scrivener looked askance
at the Textus Receptus and declined to defend
it except in so far as it agreed with the Traditional
Text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament
manuscripts.
Dr Hills went on to say that
Burgon’s approach to identifying the preserved
text is “illogical.” Hills wrote:
If
we believe in the providential preservation of
the New Testament text, then we must defend the
Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text
found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts.
For the Textus Receptus is the only form in which
this Traditional Text has circulated in print.
To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to
give the impression that God’s providential preservation
of the New Testament text ceased with the invention
of printing. It is to suppose that God, having
preserved a pure New Testament text all during
the manuscript period, unaccountably left this
pure text hiding in the manuscripts and allowed
an inferior text to issue from the printing press
and circulate among His people for more than 450
years. Much, then, as we admire Burgon for his
general orthodoxy and for his defense of the Traditional
New Testament Text, we cannot follow him in his
high Anglican emphasis or in his disregard for
the Textus Receptus.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
18.
Thanks JK for confirming that
Burgon does not share your perfect TR view.
Say, why then do you take the Dean Burgon oath
this last 13 years? Or why call it the Dean Burgon
oath?
As
for JK’s quotation of Hills, I would remind that
Hills contradicts JK’s Pt 12 of Table that “preservation
is supernatural and miraculous and is God’s work,
not men’s!” Clearly, Almighty God used men
in the process of transmission, and exercised
singular providential care in the process of preservation
through His raising up ready scribes.
Furthermore on Hills’ claim that “Erasmus was
influenced by this common faith and probably shared
it, and God used it providentially to guide Erasmus
in his editorial labours on the Textus Receptus.”
Note Hill’s tentative language “probably”
etc. But if there is such a thing as being
“guided by the common faith” and if Erasmus was
thus guided, for which of his editions was he
thus guided? If he had been guided only
in his fifth attempt, why not in earlier attempts?
If in all his attempts, why keep making changes?
What if he had attempted a sixth edition!
And for all this “guiding by the common faith”,
Erasmus still is not the final identified KJV-VPP
text!
As
for Dr Carl McIntire, who is no longer with us,
Dr Ralph Colas, Secretary General of the ACCC,
when asked by me about VPP, replied by taking
out from his coat pocket the ACCC Constitution,
then 62 years old, and saying, “In 62 years, we
have not changed this, and do not see the need
now to change either.” He then added,
referring to KJV-VPP being unproven, that “we
should not write in anything that we cannot prove.”
Mr
Lim’s Endorsement of Textual Criticism
Mr Lim
without qualification said, “Textual criticism
is not a dirty word or a needless science.”
My
Response
Textual
criticism is not really a science. Subjectivity
and speculation are part and parcel of textual
criticism. Under pro-Westcott/Hort lecturers and
professors in my Bible college and seminary days,
I had studied textual criticism and even practised
it. Has it been an edifying exercise for me? Not
a bit! In fact, it left me with more questions
than answers and filled me with pride because
it made me think I had the intellect or intelligence
to judge which part of Scripture is God’s word
and which part is not. The principle of faith
and doctrine is totally left out in the so-called
“science” of textual criticism, and I found that
to be very disturbing and dangerous to my faith
in God’s Word.
The
subjectivity and speculation involved in textual
criticism made A E Houseman to comment that “A
textual critic engaged upon his business is not
at all like Newton investigating the motions of
the planets: he is much more like a dog hunting
for fleas.”
Georg Luck of Johns Hopkins University rightly
said, “our critical texts are no better than our
textual critics.”
If I
were to build my faith in God’s Word based on
textual criticism, I would be building my house
on sand and not on rock. Instead of subjective,
speculative and rationalistic textual criticism,
we should employ the Biblical principle of the
VPP of Scripture to help us identify where God’s
words are. Based on Biblical doctrine of the VPP
of Scripture (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35 etc),
I believe I am building my house upon a rock-solid
foundation. Thus, I refuse to hear the voice of
textual critics, but the voice of my Lord Himself
in His forever infallible and inerrant Word, “Therefore
whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which
built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended,
and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded
upon a rock” (Matt 7:24-25).
Dr Timothy
Tow rightly used the Biblical principle of the
glory of God to argue that the Bible today is
perfect without any mistake because of God’s perfect
preservation of His words.
Does it glorify God to say that the Bible is imperfectly
preserved based on the so-called “logic of facts,”
or to simply believe what the Bible so clearly
says about itself, that the Bible is perfectly
preserved based on the logic of faith (Heb
11:3, 6)?
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
19.
See my note in Pt 2 of JK’s Table.
Burgon and Scrivener were advocates of sound Textual
Criticism, and praised each other as
facile princeps
in textual criticism.
Without them both, where would the KJV be
today? How would we have known that the
KJV underlying text was more reliable and to be
preferred to W&H? How would we have
known that W&H did harm to the Greek texts
of the NT, whether advertently or inadvertently?
Mr
Lim’s Textual Problems
Mr Lim
wrote, “As for clear evidence of textual problems
in the KJV underlying texts, I here cite two (we
both know of more, yet only one is needed to disprove
the ‘Perfect KJV-VPP’ case).”
My
Defence of the Hebrew and Greek Texts Underlying
KJV
Mr Lim
believes that there is “clear evidence of textual
problems” in the underlying texts of the KJV.
His “evidence” is “clear” only to him and all
sceptics who consider apparent problems as actual
problems due to their cynical approach toward
the Scriptures. A faith-based, Christ-exalting,
Biblical preservationist approach to textual identification
does not see them as “problems,” “discrepancies,”
or “mistakes” at all for they are not.
Mr
Lim on 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chron 18:4
Mr Lim
accuses me of using “a ‘spiritualising,’ non-literal,
and liberal interpretation of God’s Word” in my
attempt to harmonise or reconcile the apparent
discrepancy in 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chron 18:4.
My
Rebuttal
Harmonising
the Scriptures is far from spiritualising the
Scriptures. Contrary to what Mr Lim thinks, the
harmonisation of Scriptures takes the Scriptures
literally, 700 means 700, 7,000 means 7,000 in
2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chron 18:4 respectively. Mr Lim
dismisses my attempt at harmonisation by pontificating,
“The obvious difficulty is that there are no groups.”
But Matthew Henry, the renowned puritan commentator
himself, did not think such a harmonisation improbable.
In his commentary on 2 Sam 8:4, he wrote, “The
horsemen are here said to be 700, but 1 Chron.
Xviii.4. seven thousand. If they divided their
horse by ten in a company, as it is probable
they did, the captains and companies were
700, but the horsemen were 7000.”
But
Mr Lim dismisses such faithful attempts at defending
the inerrancy of the Scripture with demeaning
and conceited words which I do not care to repeat.
His solution actually creates more problems because
it looks like he agrees with the Westcott and
Hort textual critical view that (1) older manuscripts
are better, that (2) the old and traditional textual
readings must be replaced by new and recently
discovered ones, and the Ruckmanite view that
(3) translations or versions can be more inspired
than, and can thus be used to correct, the original
language text.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
20.
See my response to Points 4 -
6 of Table. JK misses the primary point:
The KJV English says “1000 chariots and 700 horsemen”
whereas the Masoretic reads “1700 horsemen”.
Clearly, at least, one of them must be wrong!
By citing Matthew Henry and majoring
on the secondary (700 versus 7,000 horsemen),
JK contends for the KJV English, to the detriment
of his own VPP hypothesis. If so, the Masoretic
(Hebrew underlying the KJV) must be wrong!
He has shot himself
and VPP fatally, has he not?!
And with all due respect to Matthew
Henry, he missed the italics in the chariots
of 2Sam 8:4, indicating not in the original Masoretic
text. Had he observed this detail, he would
probably not have speculated thus. He also
failed to notice that all the other numerals are
in concurrence –twenty thousand footmen
and horses David reserved for one hundred chariots
and his slaying of twenty two thousand men
(Syrians). If therefore “they did probably
divide their 7,000 horses by ten unto 700 captains”,
they should also have done the same of the 20,000
footmen, to make it read 2,000 footmen, and so
on. This is what I meant by there are no
groups. At the most, there was only
one group, which made the whole proposition
untenable. The Hebrew word for captains
is also quite different from the word for horsemen.
We should interpret God’s Word literally, should
we not? If our Lord meant group, He would
tell us clearly “group (of ten)”. If He
meant basket of five loaves and two fishes, He
says, “basket.”
Mr
Lim on Matt 10:8
Following
Burgon, Mr Lim doubts the reading of Matt 10:8
in the Textus Receptus concerning Jesus’ commission
to His disciples to “raise the dead.”
My
Rebuttal
Although we admire Burgon’s
stout defence of the KJV, and his powerful offence
against Westcott and Hort and their Revised Version,
we do not agree with his relatively low view of
the Textus Receptus. Unlike Mr Lim, we do not
follow Burgon blindly. The reason why Burgon held
to such a disparaging view of the Textus Receptus
is already explained above. Burgon as noted by
Hills was coloured by his Anglican bias, and hence
became clouded in his understanding of God’s special
preservation of the Scriptures in the days of
the Protestant Reformation.
I thus agree
with Hills that Burgon’s approach to identifying
the preserved text is “illogical.” Unlike Burgon,
Hills supported the authenticity of Matt 10:8
because he believed that it has been “placed in
the Textus Receptus by the direction of God’s
special providence.”
Calvin in his commentary on Matt 10:8 took for
granted the authenticity of Matt 10:8, and had
no problem affirming that the Lord “is quite deliberate
in telling them to raise the dead.”
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
21.
Here is JK relying on men; Hills
and Calvin (Calvin incidentally held that Ps 12:6-7
refers to the saints) rather than God’s Word to
argue a point. Burgon did not do this but
carefully checked the Scripture manuscripts and
found, “Eusebius,
Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, Juveneus, omit the
words. P.E. Pusey found them in no Syriac
copy. But the conclusive evidence is supplied
by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20
of which contains this clause.”
Since
JK cites Matthew Henry, Hills and Calvin, this
is perfect place to show how all three regarded
the problematic Ps 22:16, where the KJV has “they
pierced my hands and my feet” whereas the Hebrew
Masoretic has “like a lion my hands and my feet”:
-
a.
Matthew Henry:
“He is here crucified. The very manner of his
death is described, though never in use among
the Jews: They pierced my hands and my feet (v.
16),
which were nailed to the accursed tree, and the
whole body left so to hang, the effect of which
must needs be the most exquisite pain and torture.
There is no one passage in all the Old Testament
which the Jews have so industriously corrupted
as this, because it is such an eminent prediction
of the death of Christ and was so exactly fulfilled.”
b.
E
F Hills
in The KJV Defended, pg223, wrote: “And in Ps
22:16 the KJV reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac,
and the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and
my feet. The Hebrew text, on the other hand,
reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading
which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes,
was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the
prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ.”
c.
John
Calvin:
“They have pierced my hands and my feet. The original
word, which we have translated they have pierced,
is yrak, caari, which literally rendered is, like
a lion. As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day,
without exception, have this reading, I would
have had great hesitation in departing from a
reading which they all support, were it not that
the scope of the discourse compels me to do so,
and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing
that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted
by the Jews.”
What does this say for the perfection of the Masoretic
text underlying the KJV? Does it surprise
if the Masoretic rabbis of the 10th
C AD would undermine a prophetic reference to
our Lord’s crucifixion, which is at the very heart
of God’s salvation plan? Despite such problems
in the underlying Hebrew-Greek texts, Calvin;
MH, the Westminster Divines, Trinitarian Bible
Society and Williamson taught the sufficiency
of the scriptures including the “Perseverance
of the Saints”. They had full assurance
that God’s elect are saved and shall reach heaven.
Mr
Lim’s Puzzling Appeal
Mr Lim
wrote, “Stop alleging that we say that the Bible
contains errors!”
My
Questions
If Mr
Lim does not say that the Bible contains errors,
then why does he keep on arguing for errors in
the Bible (in 2 Sam 8:4, 2 Chron 22:2 and many
other places) when there are no such errors to
begin with? If Mr Lim does not believe there are
any errors in the Bible, then why does he say
that the Bible has “built-in redundancy?” Why
is he on this crusade against those who believe
the Bible is without any error? Why are his words
contradicting his beliefs and practices?
Furthermore,
if Mr Lim does truly believe he has a perfect,
infallible, and inerrant Bible in his possession
today, can he kindly produce it? With his denial
of VPP, I do not think Mr Lim can produce such
a Bible. He does not have it. I submit to you
that Mr Lim’s Bible that contains no mistakes
is simply non-existent, invisible and intangible.
True
Biblical preservationists can confidently say
they possess an existing, visible and tangible
100% perfect Bible today without any mistake because
of God’s infallible promise to preserve His inerrant
Word throughout the ages to the last jot and tittle
(Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18).
Dr Hills
correctly observed that those who deny the VPP
or special providential preservation of Scripture
will not be able to affirm a perfect or an infallible
and inerrant Bible today. Hills gave a very pertinent
warning against those who ignore or reject the
doctrine of the special providential preservation
of Scripture:
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
22.
JK is puzzled between the Perfect
Bible and the Perfect KJV. He holds to the
Perfect KJV whereas I hold to the Perfect Autograph
Bible and its preserved manuscript witnesses.
If
we ignore the providential preservation of the
Scriptures and defend the New Testament text in
the same way that we defend the texts of other
ancient books, then we are following the logic
of unbelief.
For the special, providential preservation of
the holy Scriptures is a fact and an important
fact. Hence when we ignore this fact and deal
with the text of the New Testament as we would
with the text of other books, we are behaving
as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that
the providential preservation of the Scriptures
is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not
an important fact, not important enough to be
considered when dealing with the New Testament
text. But if the providential preservation of
the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible
inspiration of the original Scriptures important?
If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His
special providence, why would He have infallibly
inspired them in the first place? And if the Scriptures
are not infallibly inspired, how do we know that
the Gospel message is true? And if the Gospel
message is not true, how do we know that Jesus
is the Son of God?
It
is a dangerous error therefore to ignore the special,
providential preservation of the holy Scriptures
and to seek to defend the New Testament text in
the same way in which we would defend the texts
of other ancient books. For the logic of this
unbelieving attitude is likely to lay hold upon
us and cast us down into a bottomless pit of uncertainty.
...
The
Bible teaches us that faith is the foundation
of reason. Through faith we understand (Heb. 11:3).
By faith we lay hold on God as He reveals Himself
in the holy Scriptures and make Him the starting
point of all our thinking. ...
Like
the Protestant Reformers therefore we must take
God as the starting point of all our thinking.
We must begin with God. Very few Christians, however,
do this consistently. For example, even when a
group of conservative Christian scholars meet
for the purpose of defending the Textus Receptus
and the King James Version, you will find that
some of them want to do this in a rationalistic,
naturalistic way. Instead of beginning with God,
they wish to begin with facts viewed apart from
God, with details concerning the New Testament
manuscripts which must be regarded as true (so
they think) no matter whether God exists or not.
...
Conservative
scholars ... say that they believe in the special,
providential preservation of the New Testament
text. Most of them really don’t though, because,
as soon as they say this, they immediately reduce
this special providential preservation to the
vanishing point in order to make room for the
naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort. As
we have seen, some say that the providential preservation
of the New Testament means merely that the same
“substance of doctrine” is found in all the New
Testament documents. Others say that it means
that the true reading is always present in at
least one of the thousands of extant New Testament
manuscripts. And still other scholars say that
to them the special, providential preservation
of the Scriptures means that the true New Testament
text was providentially discovered in the mid-19th
century by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott
and Hort after having been lost for 1,500 years.
If
you adopt one of these false views of the providential
preservation of Scriptures, then you are logically
on your way toward the denial of the infallible
inspiration of the Scriptures.
For if God has preserved the Scriptures so carelessly,
why would he have infallibly inspired them in
the first place? It is not sufficient therefore
merely to say that you believe in the doctrine
of the special, providential preservation of holy
Scriptures. You must really believe this
doctrine and allow it to guide your thinking.
You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and
proceed according to the logic of faith.
This will lead you to the Traditional text, the
Textus Receptus, and the King James Version.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
23.
Logic of faith does not mean “blind
faith” or worst, “misplaced faith” where God has
not called or revealed. True faith is based on
what God has revealed, and made clear in the circumstances
and facts surrounding us. All of Hill’s
guiding by the common faith was to result in Erasmus
having to prepare 5 editions, Stephanus 4 editions
and Beza 10 editions. So where does it all
lead to? A perfectly restored 100% perfect
Greek text underlying the KJV? Which one?
Whose faith, yours, mine, his or hers? How
do you prove it is this or that particular one
text?
Mr
Lim’s Undermining of the KJV
Although
Mr Lim says he affirms wholeheartedly with Dean
Burgon that “The Bible is none other than the
voice of Himhat sitteth upon the throne. Every
book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of
it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every
letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most
High …,” he concludes that “The King James Version
is however not so.”
My
Defence of the KJV
It must
be clarified that any “perfection,” “infallibility”
or “inerrancy” that is attributed to the KJV (and
for that matter all other faithful and accurate
translations of the Bible) must be understood
not in the direct but derived sense. Dr
Timothy Tow illustrates this point well, “The
original text may be likened to ginseng, and its
translation ginseng tea.”
Nevertheless,
I do not think Dean Burgon would take kindly to
Mr Lim’s disparaging remarks against the KJV.
Hear the Dean’s unreserved defence of the KJV:
Our
Authorised Version is the one religious link which
at present binds together ... millions of English-speaking
men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it
reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred
a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing
certain words more accurately,—here and there
translating a tense with greater precision,—getting
rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently
assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorised Version,
however, judiciously executed, will ever occupy
the place of public esteem which is actually enjoyed
by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest
literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We
shall in fact never have another ‘Authorised Version.’
… As something intended to supercede our present
English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that
the project of a rival Translation is not to be
entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate
it entirely.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
24.
JK is skilled at taking statements
out of context. The rival Translation
that Burgon here deprecated was clearly the
RV effort, which was based on German prejudices
of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, et al, and
with Hort on the RV team. Burgon also clearly
was not against revision per se, which was his
own dream endeavour.
“Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood
that we do not, by any means, claim perfection
for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant
notions on this subject. Again and again
we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page
107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction.
We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably
better text than that which either Lachmann, or
Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely
preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ of the Revisionists.
And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus
will have to be revised on entirely different
‘principles’ from those which are just now in
fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the
German prejudices of the last fifty years; and
address themselves, instead, to the stern logic
of facts.”
“I
am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’; I am simply
stating the fact of its existence. That
it is without authority to bind, nay, that it
calls for skilful revision in every part, is freely
admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely
identical with the true Traditional Text.”
Moreover
Burgon’s most important work was “A Textual
Commentary Upon the Holy Gospels, Largely from
the Use of Materials, and Mainly on the Text,
Left by the Late John William Burgon Part
I, St. Matthew, Division 1 I-XIV”, a comprehensive
revision of the TR, with copious notes.
Mr Lim
claims to “hold the KJV as reliable, trustworthy,
venerable and beloved,” yet he spares no effort
to attack those who defend the KJV and its underlying
Hebrew and Greek texts. If Mr Lim is truly supportive
of the KJV, he should be spending his time and
energy doing all he can to defend the KJV and
FEBC against the attacks made by pro-Westcott/Hort
anti-preservationists of the BJU mould. Sadly,
Mr Lim does the opposite. Instead of defending
his own, he does all he can to support the enemy
camp and undermine the KJV and VPP Scripture held
by his pastors and FEBC.
Mr
Lim’s Attack on the KJV
Mr Lim
says “there are mistakes in the English of the
KJV due to translation errors.”
My
Defence of the KJV
Please
note that I do not hold to Ruckman’s view that
the KJV is “doubly inspired” or “separately inspired”
for there is no such teaching in the Scriptures.
Many find it very convenient to hit below the
belt by misrepresenting FEBC’s view of the KJV.
This only goes to show that their arguments are
so weak that they need to resort to such underhand
blows just to get the upper hand.
Mr Lim
believes “there are mistakes in the English of
the KJV due to translation errors.” I for one
do not believe there are mistakes in the English
of the KJV. David Marshall—Singapore’s first chief
minister—who had for his English textbook the
King James Bible would have dismissed any puerile
criticism of the English of the KJV. The KJV was
written in an age when the English language was
at its zenith, and we today can learn much good
and high English from the KJV.
Mr Lim
is quick to criticise the KJV for its “translational
errors,” but I would rather not be so conceited
and trigger-happy to criticise the KJV translation
of the Holy Scriptures. Please know that the King
James translators were extremely careful in their
translation of God’s Word, and they have used
at least one correct word, and at least one correct
rule of grammar in their rendering of the inspired
and preserved original language Scriptures. That
is why “We uphold the Authorised (King James)
Version to be the Word of God—the best, most faithful,
most accurate, most beautiful translation of the
Bible in the English language, and do employ it
alone as our primary scriptural text in the public
reading, preaching, and teaching of the Bible”
(Article 4.2.1.2 of the FEBC Constitution which
was unanimously passed by her Board of Directors
on December 29, 2003). We agree with the Dean
Burgon Society that “we can without apology hold
up the Authorised Version of 1611 and say ‘This
is the Word of God!’ while at the same time realising
that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying
original language Texts for complete clarity,
and also compare Scripture with Scripture” (“Articles
of Faith,” Section II.A).
Dr Hills
had wisely advised, “We must be very cautious
therefore about finding errors in the text of
the King James Version, and the same holds true
also in the realm of translation. Whenever the
renderings of the King James Version are called
in question, it is usually the accuser that finds
himself in the wrong.”
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
25.
Showing factually a few errors
in the KJV does not mean that one attacks the
KJV. It is God’s Word and Truth that one
must defend. JK equates the exposing of
the falsity of his Perfect KJV-VPP hypothesis
as an attack on the KJV Bible! He forgets
the divisive effects of VPP on the Church that
our Lord Jesus Christ purchased with His own blood.
Truth hurts, and this truth I know is too painful
for JK to admit or bear, and he feels hurt and
personally affronted. But I do not even
wish to attack him as he and his friends had done
to me. I just pray the Lord would open their
eyes and hearts and grant them repentance to the
acknowledgement of the truth. We need not
exaggerate to the extent of incredulity to make
the KJV more loved.
26.
JK has often protested that he
had been misunderstood as saying that the KJV
English translation was perfect. He had
clarified that he did not mean the English but
rather the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the
KJV that is perfect.
“Passover” translated as “Easter”
in Act 12:4 is a clear example of a translational
error (as further witnessed by comparing Act 12:3
and Mk 14:1)! About 24,000 various corrections
had been made to the 1611 KJV. This leaves
still various remaining discrepancies in grammar,
spelling, capitalization, and printing to be corrected
in our 1769 KJV, as noted by Scrivener (Yes,
Scrivener!) Dr James D Price, General
Editor of the NKJV, gives us some of these: -
Grammar
Scrivener listed a number of examples
of grammatical irregularities:
(1) The following illustrate irregular
verb forms:
Ex. 9:31—“the flax and barley was smitten”
2 Sam. 17:29—“The people is hungry, and
weary, and thirsty”
2 Chr. 1:12—“wisdom and knowledge is granted”
Mark 9:3—“no fuller...can white them.”
Luke 1:19—“Gabriel, that stand”
John 11:57—“if any man knew where he were”
Acts 1:15—“the number of names together were...”
Acts 6:7—“a great company...were obedient”
Acts 23:15—“or ever he come near”
1 John 5:15—“if we know that he hear us”
Rev. 18:17—“so great riches is come”
(2) The following illustrate antiquated
singular forms that were usually corrected to
plurals by the revisers, but evidently overlooked
in these places:
Judg. 14:12, 13—“thirty change of garments”
1 Kings 10:17—“three pound of gold”
Ezra 2:69—“five thousand pound of silver”
Neh. 7:71—“two hundred pound of silver”
Neh. 7:72—“two thousand pound of silver”
Luke 9:28—“an eight days”
(3) The following illustrate the
irregular use of an adjective for an adverb:
2 Chr. 2:9—“wonderful great”
2 Pet. 2:6—“live ungodly”
(4) The following illustrate the
irregular use of double superlatives:
Mark 10:44—“chiefest” (see also
1 Sam. 2:29; 9:22; 21:7; 2 Chr. 32:33; Song 5:10;
2Cor. 11:5; 12:11)
Acts 26:5—“most straitest”
(5) The following illustrates the
irregular suppression of the sign of the genitive
(of):
Rev. 18:12—“all manner vessels” (twice)
Spelling
The revisers usually corrected
the archaic spelling of words. Scrivener listed
numerous examples of words not corrected due to
oversight:
Reference
Archaic Spelling
Usually Corrected to
Gen. 8:11
pluckt
plucked
Gen. 18:7
fetchtd
fetched
Ex. 17:7
Tentation
Temptation
Ex. 33:22
clift
cleft
Judg. 6:31
whilst
while
2 Sam. 7:13, etc.
stablish
establish
2 Chr. 2:16
flotes
floats
Ezra 9:3, etc.
astonied
astonished
Job 41:18
neesings
sneezings
Psa. 68:13
lien
lain
Ezek. 21; 29
whiles
while
Ezek. 35:6
sith
since
Ezek. 40:31,
etc. utter
outer
Luke 9:62
plough
plow
Mr
Lim’s Malicious Accusation
Mr Lim
accused me of being “divisive, and self promoting
… Brethren are falsely attacked, and the unity
of our churches affected.”
My
Reply
Mr Lim’s
charge against me is both unjust and unjustifiable.
His words against me are malicious. His senior
pastor graciously gave him a chance to retract
his statements but he refused. When publicly disciplined
by his senior pastor and his pastor, instead of
showing remorse he threatened them with a lawsuit.
I believe Mr Lim owes his pastors and me an apology.
Bottom
Line
The
Bible is the Christian’s sole and supreme authority
of faith and practice. My faith in the present
perfection of Scripture is based on the Biblical
doctrine of God’s infallible preservation of His
forever inerrant Word as taught in Ps 12:6-7,
Matt 5:18, and many other passages in the Bible.
What
is Mr Lim’s faith based on? On which book, chapter,
and verse does Mr Lim base his doctrine of the
non-VPP, imperfect, and partial preservation of
Scripture? Is Mr Lim asking us to trust him and
his scholarly judgement that there is no such
thing as a perfect Bible today? I rather trust
in my infallible and inerrant Lord and Saviour
who has promised to preserve His infallible and
inerrant words. I trust no man but the Lord Jesus
Christ who “died for our sins according to the
scriptures; and … was buried, and … rose again
the third day according to the scriptures” (1
Cor 15:3-4).
It is
never safe to trust in fallible men and their
errant-prone commentaries, especially when their
beliefs and judgements go against the clear teachings
of the infallible and inerrant Word of God. We
follow men and their comments only if and when
they follow and agree with Christ and His words
(1 Cor 11:1). I place my complete trust in Christ
and Him alone, and I trust only the Bible—His
Word—which I believe is not only perfect in the
past (in the inerrant God-breathed Hebrew and
Greek words of the autographs) but also perfect
today (in the infallibly preserved Hebrew and
Greek words of the apographs underlying the Reformation
Bibles best represented by the KJV).
I appreciate
the faithful and courageous words of Dr Paisley
who believes that
this
English Authorised Version is unsurpassably pre-eminent
over and above all other English translations,
… I cry out ‘There is none like that, give it
me,’ and in so doing I nail the Satanic lie
that the Authorised Version is outdated, outmoded,
mistranslated, a relic of the past and only defended
by stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists.
…
I
believe this Book will always be the unsurpassable
pre-eminent English version of the Holy Bible
and no other can every take its place. To seek
to dislodge this Book from its rightful pre-eminent
place is the act of the enemy, and what is attempted
to put in
its place is an intruder—an imposter—a pretender—a
usurper.
Lim Seng Hoo’s response:
27.
Just because I disproved JK’s
hypothesis does not make me malicious. In
debate, one ought never to personally attack one’s
opponent, which otherwise indicates that one has
no constructive rejoinder left and has lost the
debate. It is sad for JK that he has consistently
attacked those that hold not his view. He
calls them “neo-fundamentalist”, “malicious’,
“Satanic” etc. See for example his table
on p 21 of KJV: Q&A, or examples in this very
document.
28.
The Church issue would be left
to the BOE of Calvary BPC to take up.
29.
JK’s colleague Rev Dr Quek S Y
contradicts, in an email to me on 20 Jul 05, “If
there is in the future one that is better than
the KJV then we will replace the KJV. KJV
is not our sacred cow.”
Dear
friends, it is not enough just to believe and
defend the VPI of Scripture, we must also believe
and defend the VPP of Scripture with all our faith
and with all our might with God’s help. If we
do not, the Biblical foundation of our Christian
faith will be swept away by the destructive forces
of unbelief and apostasy. “If the foundations
be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps
11:3). Absolutely nothing! We would have no good
news to preach to a lost world so in need of Jesus
Christ our Lord and Saviour if He is not absolutely
truthful in His promises, and if His words are
not forever infallible and inerrant. We would
also be exposed to the dangers of liberalism,
postmodernism, ecumenism, neo-evangelicalism,
and new heresies like open-theism and neo-deism.
Faith
is the key to spiritual understanding. We believe
in order to see. “So then faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 11:17). “But
without faith it is impossible to please him:
for he that cometh to God must believe that he
is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently
seek him” (Heb 11:6). Do not trust in the weak
words of fallible men; but in the very powerful
and ever perfect words of the Holy Scriptures,
infallible and inerrant, 100% inspired and 100%
preserved by its almighty Author—the Lord Jesus
Christ—who is “the same yesterday, today and for
ever” (Heb 13:8). We have an immutable God who
has given to us an indestructible Word.
“He
who hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt 11:15).
Lim Seng Hoo’s Concluding Remarks
30.
A crucial problem of KJV Only
– VPP, is that some of its proponents promote
the English as perfect and regard the Hebrew and
Greek as subservient, whereas other proponents
regard the underlying Hebrew-Greek as supreme
even if the English had errors. Both claims
are, in Burgon’s words, extravagant; and each
camp supply the irrefutable evidence against the
other!
JK at times seems unsure which
of the above two camps he falls into. He
says he is of the second, but you get the feeling
he sometimes wishes idealistically for both –
a perfect KJV English plus perfect underlying
Hebrew-Greek texts! This makes his claims
all the more confusing and difficult to follow,
except for the discerning ones (ahem).
Not only is the term VPP unheard
of in conservative theological seminaries and
literature, what JK means by VPP of Scripture
is a Perfect KJV-VPP, which is a 100% Perfect
KJV underlying Hebrew and Greek text to the exclusion
of all other texts and manuscript evidence.
Thus, all sound textual criticism must stop at
1611. Archaeological expeditions should
also stop, lest they inadvertently turn out some
new or very old evidence against their postulate.
JK should realise that these precious manuscripts
were the preserved Bibles of believers of yesteryears.
31.
JK shied away from my invitation
to publicly debate. His mentor, Dr D A Waite,
fared badly in a similar debate against Dr James
White. In reality, “An Evidential Review
of the VPP Theory” was already a compilation of
several debates in letter between us, and the
verdict is already out in the minds and hearts
of the many that have read this.
Now after 22 months, JK has written
these 19 pages. My reply has added about
10 pages. Let this together with “An Evidential
Review” be the public written debates. In
JK’s own words, please “freely distribute to
those who wish for a copy or as you see fit”!
32. In “An
Evidential Review”,
all four areas investigated: a) the detailed examination
of the VPP theoretical basis: its arguments, assumptions
and rhetoric, b) literature research to determine
the true views of key authorities put forward
by VPP proponents, c) The inability of the proponents
to convincingly identify the “VPP text” itself,
and d) the last VPP defence that the “Dean Burgon
Oath” refers to a Perfect Apographa Bible, were
found to be null for the VPP hypothesis.
Therefore the conclusion was unanimous against
the Perfect KJV-VPP theory.
This
conclusion is re-echoed. Common sense
tells us that KJV-VPP is unreasonable. Factual
investigation manifestly shows it is false.
Finally, Faith in Almighty God is greater
than to allow our salvation to turn precariously
upon the perfection of the specific KJV texts.
In
conclusion, our faith ought not thus to rest on
the perfection of any one Bible version per se,
translated by fallible men, but in the Divine
Author of the Word. It suffices that God
hath given us His Word and we have it in a reliable,
trustworthy English translation. He has
promised to come in His Third Person to indwell
us and teach us all truth. As we study
His Word prayerfully and apply it to our lives
daily, we know that whenever we meet with difficulties,
we can simply wait upon Him. He shall never
fail us, and will clear all things in His sovereign
time.
All praise to the Triune God, Father,
Son and Holy Spirit! Amen.
These
footnotes as referenced are JK’s (black) and
LSH’s (green)
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels,
Volume I, 1896, by Dean John William Burgon,
edited by Edward Miller, M.A posthumously
after the Dean’s death. Re-published,
Dean Burgon Society. Page 26.
The Revision Revised – A Refutation of Westcott
and Hort’s False Greek Text and Theory, 1881,
by Dean John William Burgon. Re-published
by the Dean Burgon Society. Page 21.
Should
We Still Use the KJV Today? A review article
by G. I. Williamson, extracted from Ordained
Servant vol. 6, no. 4 (October 1997).
The
Westminster Confession of Faith for study
classes, 1964, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co. Page 16.
The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and
the Claims of the Anabaptists, by Theodore
Letis, published by the Institute for Reformation
Biblical Studies, 1992. Page 41 – 50.
The King James Version Defended by Dr Edward
F. Hill’s, Fourth Edition 1984, reprinted
1996, The Christian Research Press, Page 224
and 230.
The Revision Revised, Pages 37, 231 and 502,
and Page 3.
Email to Rev Dr Peter Ng, Pastor of Jesus
Saves Missions on 20 Jul 05.
The
Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis
of King-James-Version-Onlyism plus The Great
Which Bible? Fraud. Both by Doug Kutilek.
Ian R K Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword:
the English Authorised Version (KJV), (Belfast:
Ambassador, 1997), 102-3, emphasis mine.
Quek Suan Yew, “Did God Promise to Preserve
His Words?: Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7,” The
Burning Bush (2004): 96-98.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1992), 1:106; see also my paper, “Sola Autographa
or Sola Apographa? A Case for the Present
Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures,”
The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
George Skariah, “The Biblical Doctrine of
the Perfect Preservation of the Holy Scriptures,”
unpublished Doctor of Theology dissertation,
Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore, 2005.
Jeffrey Khoo, “Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism,
and Biblical Preservation,” The Burning Bush
11 (2005): 82-97.
Jeffrey Khoo, “Bob Jones University and the
KJV: A Critique of From the Mind of God to
the Mind of Man,” The Burning Bush 7 (2001):
1-34, and “The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism:
One Bible Only? or “Yea Hath God Said?,” The
Burning Bush (2004):2-47.
Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended
(Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984),
192.
The King James Defended, page 197.
A E Houseman, “The Application of Thought
to Textual Criticism,” in Selected Prose,
ed J Carter (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1961), 131-2.
Quoted by David Alan Black, ed, Rethinking
New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2002), 50.
Timothy Tow, “My Glory Will I Not Give to
Another,” The Burning Bush 11 (July 2005):
67-68.
The Revision Revised, pages 231 and 246.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible
(Wilmington: Sovereign Grace, 1972), 1:798,
emphasis mine.
Hills, The King James Version Defended, 200.
David W Torrance and Thomas F Torrance, eds,
Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: A Harmony
of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, trans
A W Morrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972),
1:292.
The Revision Revised. Page 107 &
108 and their footnotes.
Edward F Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des
Moines: Christian Research Press, 1977), 216-20,
emphasis mine.
Cited in Jeffrey Khoo, KJV: Questions and
Answers (Singapore: Bible Witness Literature,
2003), 8
John William Burgon, Revision Revised (Collingswood:
Dean Burgon Society, 2d printing, 2000), 113-114,
emphasis mine.
The Revision Revised, footnote on page 21.
The Traditional Text, Vol I, page 15.
Hills, Believing Bible Study, 83.
Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword, 10-11,
emphasis mine.
|