Summary Notes of the Question-and-Answer Session
Lesson 10
Chairman:
Pr Dennis Kwok
Panelists:
Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Rev Dr Quek Suan Yew, Rev Dr Das Koshy
Summary notes by:
Carol Lee
Question 1:
I believe in VPP but I don’t think it is serious enough for me to
leave the church that believes otherwise. Am I wrong? Is believing
in VPP a personal conviction?
Answer: Rev Koshy:
It is
not serious enough for you to leave your church if your conviction
is not contradicted or opposed by your church.
But
if your church does not allow you to defend the truth, then it
becomes very difficult for you to continue in your church.
Is
VPP a serious doctrine? Most certainly. Without preservation, we
would not have God’s inspired words. And anyone can say this or that
is his preferred reading, and not agree with the KJ translators’
choice of Hebrew and Greek texts. It would be a matter of opinions
then.
My
conviction is that if VPP is denied so strongly as unbiblical and a
heresy, you don’t want to stay in that church and be called a
heretic all the time.
Believing in VPP is a personal conviction because it is a doctrinal
truth. It is not a preferred idea or opinion. It is God’s truth.
Rev Quek:
If
you are a church leader, you have to make it known to your fellow
leaders your position because it is a very serious doctrine.
If
you are just an ordinary church member, your leaders may be ignorant
so you must let them know the truth. If they persist in their
position, and you do not leave the church and continue to teach VPP,
you will be undermining the church leadership or sowing seeds of
discord and that is wrong even if your doctrinal position is right.
If you stay and keep quiet about VPP, your conscience will bother
you when your fellow church members (your children included) are
taught that the Bible has mistakes. Your tithes and offerings will
be used to promote that the Bible has mistakes since they do it
willingly and openly and are not ignorant.
Question 2: Is VPP a new
issue that arises in this millennium?
Answer:
Rev Quek:
The
doctrine of preservation is not a new doctrine simply because it is
taught in the Bible. It is as old as the Bible. The issue is new in
the sense that there is a new attack on an old doctrine. And we have
to defend this old doctrine. In our defence, we have to use words,
adjectives (eg: “verbal,” “plenary”) to tighten the doctrine so that
it will not be misunderstood, abused, misapplied, misinterpreted.
For
example, when the doctrine of inspiration was not under attack, we
never used the term “verbal plenary inspiration.” But when the
doctrine of inspiration was attacked, fundamentalists defended it
and extra-biblical terms (“verbal,” “plenary”) were used to ensure
that the attack will have no hold in the hearts and minds of the
flock that God has placed in your care to feed.
It is
not a new doctrine but a new attack on an old doctrine.
Dr
Khoo:
The allegation that it is new
doctrine comes from Bob Jones University and Central Baptist
Theological Seminary. These schools do not believe that God has
preserved His words 100%. They say that the doctrine of preservation
is not based on the scripture. And if we cite Psalm 12:6-7, Matt
5:18, 24:35, they will very conveniently explain away these verses.
They will say they believe in the
doctrine of inspiration and the infallibility of the autographs in
the very beginning when it was first given. And they will say that
now there are small insignificant mistakes in the Bible that will
not affect our salvation. And that this is not important.
They say that VPP is a new doctrine
that came about in1648 when the Westminster Confession of Faith
(WCF) was written. The WCF states that “God by his singular care and
providence has kept his word pure in all ages.” Quoting Matt 5:18.
Those who attack the doctrine of
preservation quote Matt 5:18 but do not believe in it and apply it
only to the commandments of God and not to every jot and tittle of
God’s words. They say it is an exaggeration to apply to every jot
and tittle. The doctrine of preservation is considered a new
doctrine by these so-called “scholars” in certain seminaries in the
United States which do not believe in the preservation of the
scriptures.
We Bible-Presbyterians believe and
subscribe to the WCF. It is very surprising to me that B-Ps (who
uphold the WCF and the Reformed Faith) are agreeing with people that
attack the WCF and say that VPP is a new teaching and are attacking
Scriptures that support the 100% preservation of the Word of God.
Why must we here adopt and accept what they say? I can’t understand.
Question 3:
What is wrong with the belief that the Bible is preserved in the
totality of manuscripts (or body of manuscripts) which includes the
Westcott and Hort (W/H) critical texts?
Answer:
Dr Khoo:
The doctrine of VPP tells us that
God has continuously preserved His words. No words are lost. All the
words are kept intact to the jot and tittle and are always in the
hands of God’s people. His people will always receive His inspired
and preserved words. The question is where these preserved words
are.
Some say that the words are in the
body of manuscripts (over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts). This
body of manuscripts can be divided into two streams of manuscripts:
(1) The Preserved Stream: This
consists of the majority of the 5,000 NT manuscripts and is the
Preserved Line of manuscripts.
(ii) The Corrupted Stream: This
consists of a minority of the 5,000 NT manuscripts, represented by
Aleph, A, B, C and D (five manuscripts). W/H hailed these minority
manuscripts in the corrupted stream as the best. Dean Burgon (the
contemporary of W/H) showed by clear study and investigation that
these five minority manuscripts in the Corrupted Stream were
scandalously corrupt. It is very difficult to find two verses in
these manuscripts that can agree with each other. Yet they used
these to “correct” the manuscripts that were received by the church
as God’s preserved words, that were used by the Reformers, and that
were used by the KJ translators.
W/H changed the preserved texts and
cut away 9,970 words, words that the church has been using all the
ages. Egs: the last 12 verses of Mark, the verses in John 7:53 to
8:11 (on the adulterous woman), 1 John 5:7 (on the Trinity). These
are God’s preserved words that the church has received. Can we
accept W/H as part of the preserved texts? If we say yes, it means
that we have been using the wrong Bible all along!
W/H are unbelievers who do not
believe in the inerrancy of scriptures. They were friends of Darwin
and Freud, and were secret worshippers of Mary. They considered the
first three chapters of Genesis to be myths and not history.
So, we cannot include the W/H texts
as among the preserved manuscripts because they are different from
the majority of the preserved texts.
Rev Quek:
Believing that the preserved words
of God are in the body of manuscripts is an untenable position. If
we believe in the doctrine of preservation, then we must have the
words of God with us. If words are lost and we do not have them,
then we cannot say we believe in the doctrine of preservation.
If we say the preserved words are
somewhere in the body of manuscripts and start to use Higher
Criticism to find these words, how do we know that what we find are
really the words of God since we do not know what are the words of
God in the first place? When we see two verses are different, how do
we decide which is the word of God and which is not?
Be very careful of this deadly
approach. We are not talking about a book of man, but The Book of
God. The Bible can transform a child of darkness into a child of
light, The Book that affects the eternity and the souls of people.
If we say the Bible has mistakes, it will shatter our people’s
faith!
We do not play God. God is so
powerful. Is He not able to preserve His own words? We must be aware
of the deadly, diabolical proposal. It is subtle and laced with
doctrinal arsenic. We must not swallow it. If we swallow it, we will
die a slow death.
Question 4:
Would it be difficult for Christians who are using a Bible
translation that is based on the corrupt/minority texts to subscribe
to the doctrine of VPP?
Answer:
Rev Koshy:
They will never come to a
conclusive decision whether they have God’s Word completely in their
hands. These scholars don’t agree on one text. They will keep
wondering which text is the correct text. For example, our Kenyan
brethren use the Kalenjin Bible which is based on the W/H text. When
I preached from the KJ Bible, they realized that something is amiss.
They can believe in the VPP if they are willing to look into the KJB
and then translate from the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying it in
time to come.
I do not think that if you use a
translation that is based on the W/H text, you cannot believe in
VPP. Anybody can believe.
Rev Quek:
The issue of preservation and the
issue of translation are different issues.
The preservation issue is an issue
about the Hebrew and Greek words preserved by God regardless of your
language or translation of the Bible. You can believe in the Hebrew
and Greek texts underlying the KJ Bible even if you do not have a
Bible in your own language.
As for the choice of a Bible
translation, it is about choosing the most faithful, most accurate
translation. In using the word “most,” it means that I must have
something to compare with. That is: most faithful, most accurate
compared to what? Compared to the Hebrew and Greek words!
The English Bible has a 500-year
history. While we say that the KJ Bible is the most faithful, most
accurate translation, we are not saying that the Chinese Bible, the
Kiswahili Bible, and every other Bible have mistakes. Every
translation must be measured against other translations in their own
language to see which is the most faithful and accurate translation
that they have. To make this measurement they must believe in the
doctrine of VPP. The preserved texts underlying the KJ Bible are the
texts preserved by God’s singular care throughout the ages and
finally identified for us by the KJ translators.
When the English Bible first came
about by Tyndale, it was not a complete Bible. But people know that
there are 66 books in the Bible. The English Bible took 500 years to
develop to its present state.
Any Christian reading any
translation can believe in VPP.
Dr Khoo:
If a Christian truly understands
VPP, he will not use the W/H text or translations that are from the
W/H texts because he can recognize that the text has many words left
out. He will want all the words of God.
Rev Koshy:
In the church that has only the
Kalenjin Bible, the members should seek help from their pastor and
teacher to help them understand the differences. They can still
believe in VPP.
Dr Khoo:
Jonathan Langat, a Kalenjin, did
his thesis for his MDiv degree on updating the Kalenjin Bible based
on the preserved texts. This helps his people to have all of God’s
words in their own language. Work has been done in this area.
Question 5:
There are differences within the preserved texts. How do we know
which is correct?
Answer:
Dr Khoo:
Based on the Logic of Faith,
E.F.Hills in his book “The King James Bible Defended” starts with
the promises of Christ that His words will be kept intact, that is,
no words will be lost. This will lead us to the majority manuscripts
and then to the printed text, the Textus Receptus (the Greek words
underlying the KJ Bible). The identification is based on the Logic
of Faith which is based on God’s promises.
Rev Koshy:
We can’t go back to check every
manuscript, every word. God has already used His servants to
identify the right words all through the centuries. Godly men have
to come together to study and to give us the texts.
We need not look at all the manuscripts and come up with God’s Word.
God has already preserved His words for us. Just apply the Logic of
Faith.
Dr Khoo:
Which edition of TR? We do not talk
in terms of which text or edition of the TR is being preserved.
Rather, preservation is the preservation of the WORDS of God: the
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the Reformation Bibles.
(The 16th Century Reformation is a
great and miraculous event of God. Philip Schaff says that the
Reformation is next to the Pentecost. Through it, the true church is
separated from the false church. There was a return to the study of
the biblical languages. The printing press was invented at that time
which allowed for the production of the printed texts.)
The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS)
has also identified the preserved words of God as the Hebrew and
Greek words underlying the KJ Bible: the Ben Chayim (not Stuttgart)
text and the Scrivener’s text (which is a combination of Beza’s
1598, 5th edition and the Stephenus’ last 2 editions). According to
TBS, the words underlying the KJ Bible are the definitive reading.
We do not need to change any words today. Our Hebrew and Greek
Bibles are fixed.
From these Hebrew and Greek words,
translations are to be made into the languages of the world so that
people can know all the words of God. For us English Bible users, we
use the KJ Bible as it is most faithfully and accurately translated.
Question 6:
Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not found in the Majority Texts but in
the Latin Vulgate?
Answer:
Dr Khoo:
1 John 5:7 teaches the doctrine of
the Trinity. This clear proof text is found in the TR and the Latin
Vulgate. It is not that we do not have Greek evidences. We have
Greek manuscript evidence of the presence of 1 John 5:7.
There is also internal evidence as
we study the grammar. If we remove 1 John 5:7, the grammar will not
fit. Both external and internal evidences point to the accuracy of 1
John 5:7. Theologically, it is a most wonderful verse. The verse
that glorifies God must be right. God’s word will never demote
Christ.
Question 7:
Some say that the text underlying the KJ Bible is a virtual text
because it came into being only after the KJ Bible has been
completed. It is considered “reverse engineering.”
Answer:
Dr Khoo:
Jesus says He will preserve all His
words. We just believe that all His words will be preserved. If God
is the One who preserves, then we believe that the infallible and
inerrant Hebrew and Greek words underlying the Reformation Bibles
best represented by the KJ Bible are the preserved words of God.
This “reverse engineering” kind of
talk is too technical for the lay person. We have God’s infallible
and inerrant words. And we have the most accurate English
translation of these words. We do not have to invent or create
words. We have the God-breathed words and they are kept pure by God.
Our logic must not work backwards:
so many “errors,” manuscripts, “mistakes,” therefore the Bible has
mistakes. Instead, we must begin with God’s Word. No where in the
Bible does it say that God’s Word will be imperfectly preserved or
lost. Dr George Skariah has exegeted more than 50 passages of God’s
Word that teaches us of God’s preservation of His words. Begin with
God’s Word and it will lead us to the right conclusion.
Question 8:
The KJV TR is the closest to the original is the original B-P stand.
Have we shifted away from the B-P stand? How can “closest” mean
exact?
Answer:
Dr Khoo:
Does “closest” mean there are
mistakes? No where in the B-P church history did we say that the
Bible has mistakes.
If “closest” means that our Bible
is not infallible and not inerrant, then it is a wrong
understanding.
We have to go back to the Bible.
Psalm 19:7: “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”
“Closest” does not mean there are
mistakes. “Closest” simply means although we do not have the
autographs (tables of stone, the papyrus, the parchment), we have
the same words, ie. the exact words although not the same tables of
stone. The tables of stones are no more but we have the exact words.
No autographs but we have the apographs. The B-P Church never held
to the position that the Bible has errors
Rev Quek:
Even if some say “closest” means
mistakes, and we say “closest” does not mean mistakes, are we not
playing a semantic game?
Sometimes we cannot cling on to
tradition and use it as the basis for our beliefs as if tradition is
engraved in stone and we cannot let it go. If tradition is wrong, we
must change and not continue to hold to it. If tradition is right,
then keep it.
When I first joined the B-P Church,
no pastor, elder or deacon told me that the Bible has mistakes. Even
today, our Basic Bible Knowledge class notes never said that the
Bible has mistakes. No one dares to put it into our BBK notes that
the Bible has mistakes because they can’t defend their position.
If there were mistakes, can they
list these mistakes? Does it mean that if these mistakes are
corrected, we will have a perfect Bible?
So far, those who reject VPP have
misinterpreted our position again and again to give themselves a bit
of credibility.
They have not written any paper to
defend their position. They made statements of what they do not
believe, but never on what they believe. This is because they cannot
demonstrate from Scriptures (not even from logic) to defend their
position. Positional statements should state what one believes, not
what one does not believe.
Question 9:
Is the TR as old as the Bible? Or has the TR existed since the first
century or for the last 400 years only?
Answer:
Rev Quek:
We must not confuse the actual
possession of the TR with the identification of the TR.
Eg: The first century Christians
already possessed the 27 New Testament books, but these were
identified for us only in the 4th century.
Similarly, the TR was already in
existence but not identified till later.
Why were they not identified
earlier?
My suggested answer is that God
knew that earlier there was no printing press. Only after the
invention of the printing press, God used His people (through King
James’s sanction) to identify for us His preserved words and from
them they gave us the KJ translation.
God’s providential hand is at work:
Paul went west and not east. The printing press was invented. The KJ
team was a team of gifted translators, never to be repeated. English
is today’s international language. The British Empire spreading her
influence all over the world with the English language is no
accident.
Today, so-called scholars (of less
than kindergarten standard compared to the KJ translators) want to
decide what should be in the Bible and what should be out. Who are
they? Are they advocating sacerdotalism, that they are people with
secret knowledge? This is absolutely subjective. How can we believe
them?
But if God has preserved His words,
and we have His preserved words, we have to stop using the deadly
method of textual criticism to criticize God’s Holy and Perfect
Word. We must just accept God’s words.
Dr Khoo:
It is not human identification but
divine identification.Preservation is by God’s singular care. How?
God is a God of history. He works through history. In the days of
the Reformation, God gave us the printed text, with all His words
intact. Matthew 4:4: “But he answered and said, It is written, Man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God.”
Do our words today go back to the
day of Moses? To the New Testament time? Yes, the Hebrew and Greek
words underlying the KJ Bible go back to Moses and to the New
Testament time. And this is based on God’s promise. I take God at
His word, by faith. Hebrews 11:6: “But without faith it is
impossible to please him…”
“It is written.” It was written.
And it will always remain written. The Greek word is in the perfect
tense. It remains perfectly written.
If God can preserve my salvation,
He can preserve His words.
Kept pure? Never disappear? Yes, He
is all powerful. Hebrews 11:6: “…he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him.” He has preserved His words for us. We are to
diligently seek Him through His preserved words. And He will reward
us. This is a matter of faith otherwise it will not please Him.
MORE ARTICLES ON THE DEFENSE OF THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
OF VERBAL PLENARY PRESERVATION OF THE BIBLE
(You will need Adobe Acrobat to read some of these articles)
· A 21st
Century Reformation Movement for the Verbal and Plenary Preservation
of the Holy Scriptures (Jeffrey Khoo)
· A Book Review of D. A. Waite's "Defending the King James Bible"
(Dennis Kwok)
· A CHILD OF GOD LOOKS AT THE DOCTRINE OF VERBAL PLENARY PRESERVATION
(Carol Lee)
· A CRITIQUE OF GOD'S WORD IN OUR HANDS: THE BIBLE PRESERVED FOR US
(Thomas M Strouse)
· A HISTORY OF MY DEFENCE OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
(Edward F
Hills)
· A More Sure Word
(Stephen Khoo)
· A PERFECT BIBLE TODAY!
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· A PLEA FOR A PERFECT BIBLE
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· A Public Response to Mr Lim Seng Hoo’s Open Letter and Paper Against
the Verbal Plenary Preservation of Scripture
(Jeffrey
Khoo)
· A Review of Jack Sin’s Article, "A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity
and Clarity in the Textual Debate"
(Biak Lawm Thang)
· A SCRIBAL ERROR IN 2 CHRONICLES 22:2? NO!
(Robert J Sargent)
· A Serious Warning to the Church Today
(Wang Ming Tao)
· A STANDARD RAISED
(Timothy Tow)
· Are the Last Twelve Verses of Mark Really Mark’s?
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· BEARING TRUE WITNESS
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· BOB JONES UNIVERSITY AND THE KJV: A CRITIQUE OF FROM THE MIND OF
GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM, AND BIBLICAL PRESERVATION
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· BRUCE METZGER AND THE CURSE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· CAN VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION DO WITHOUT VERBAL PLENARY
PRESERVATION?: THE ACHILLES’ HEEL OF PRINCETON BIBLIOLOGY
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· CANON, TEXTS, AND WORDS: LOST AND FOUND OR PRESERVED AND
IDENTIFIED?
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· CLARIFICATION OF CONFESSION
(Brutus Balan)
· CONTENDING IN TRUTH, AND TRUTH AFFIRMS THE VPP OF SCRIPTURE
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· Corrections to the New Testament of the Chinese Union Version in
Light of the Preserved Text by James Sun
(PDF 718 KB)
· DEATH IN THE POT!
(Timothy Tow)
· DID GOD PROMISE TO PRESERVE HIS WORDS?: INTERPRETING PSALM 12:6-7
(Quek Suan Yew)
· DID GOD WRITE ONLY ONE BIBLE?
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES RELY ON THE CORRUPT SEPTUAGINT?
(Prabhudas Koshy)
· EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH
(Timothy Tow)
· Exceeding Great and Precious Promises
(Prabhudas Koshy)
· Faith Guides, Intellectualism Beguiles
(Prabhudas Koshy)
· GOD’S PROMISE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD (PS 12:5-7)
(Shin Yeong Gil)
· GOD’S PURITY OR MAN’S PERVERSITY—WHICH?
(Denis Gibson)
· GOD'S SPECIAL PROVIDENTIAL CARE OF THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE
(Timothy Tow)
· GOD'S WORD ASSAILED BY THE FATHER OF LIES
(S H Tow)
· GOD’S WORD FOR THE END TIME
(S H Tow)
· God’s Word is Perfect and Pure, Sure and True (Psalm 19:7-10)
(George Skariah)
· God’s Word is Settled For Ever (Psalm 119:89)
(George Skariah)
· God’s Word: The Incorruptible Seed (1 Peter 1:23-25)
(Ephrem Chiracho Ouchula)
· GOSPEL STRATEGY FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM
(S H Tow)
· HIS WORD ABOVE HIS NAME
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· HOLY HATRED (Timothy
Tow)
· If We Reject the Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of the Bible
(Prabhudas Koshy)
· INSPIRATION, PRESERVATION, AND TRANSLATIONS: IN SEARCH OF THE
BIBLICAL IDENTITY OF THE BIBLE-PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
(Jeffrey
Khoo)
· INSPIRED TEXTUAL CRITICISM?
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· IS THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE A DOCTRINE WORTH DYING FOR?
(Michael Koech)
· Jesus on Perfect Preservation of the Bible
(Quek Suan Yew)
· Jesus’ View of the Holy
Scripture : An Exposition of Matthew 5:17-19
(Prabhudas Koshy)
Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8 (A Preliminary Examination of the
Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma)
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· JOHN OWEN ON THE PERFECT BIBLE
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· JUDGES 18:30: MOSES OR MANASSEH?
(Quek Suan Yew)
· Kicking against the Pricks: The SCCC Contradicts the ICCC on VPP
(Jeffrey
Khoo)
· LESSONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF VERBAL PLENARY PRESERVATION
(Truth B-P Church)
· Lost Words in Our Bible?
(Jeffrey
Khoo)
· MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS
(Paul Ferguson)
·
MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· MISTAKES IN THE BIBLE?
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· MODERN DENIAL OF PRESERVATION
(Lawrence E Bray)
· MULTIVERSIONS ONLYISM
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· MY GLORY WILL I NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER (ISAIAH 42:8)
(Timothy Tow)
· My Reply to James D Price’s Review of "A Plea for a Perfect Bible"
(Jeffrey
Khoo)
· NIV CLAIMS EXAMINED: A CLOSE LOOK AT TODAY’S BESTSELLER
(S H Tow)
· NIV TURNS “LAND OF SINIM” INTO “REGION OF ASWAN” BY A TWIST OF THE
BALL-PEN! (Timothy
Tow)
· NO PERFECTLY PRESERVED WORD OF GOD TODAY?
(Tan Kian Sing)
· NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· OUT VPP GNAT, IN ASM CAMEL
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· PERFECT BIBLE NOT PERFECT VERSION
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· PRAISE GOD, BEREAN B-P CHURCH HAS A PERFECT BIBLE TODAY!
(Tan Kian Sing)
· Reformation into the Twenty-First Century
(Timothy Tow)
· REVISIONISM ANCIENT AND MODERN
(S H Tow)
· “SET FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE GOSPEL”
(S H Tow)
· SOLA AUTOGRAPHA OR SOLA APOGRAPHA?: A CASE FOR THE
PRESENT PERFECTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· THE BATTLE FOR THE KING JAMES BIBLE IN THE BIBLE-PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
(S H Tow)
· The Biblical Defence for the Verbal, Plenary Preservation of God’s
Word
(Thomas M Strouse)
· The Biblical Doctrine of the Verbal, Plenary Inspiration of God’s
Word
(Jack
Sin)
· The Canonisation and Preservation of Scripture
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· THE DEAN BURGON OATH
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· THE EMERGENCE OF NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM: ONE BIBLE ONLY? OR "YEA
HATH GOD SAID?"
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· THE INSIDE STORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
· THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES (ICCC) AND THE KING
JAMES BIBLE
(Jeffrey Khoo)
· THE NUMBERS IN EZRA 2 AND NEHEMIAH 7: A SOLUTION IN FAVOUR OF THE
INERRANCY OF THE VERBALLY AND PLENARILY PRESERVED TEXT (Nelson
Were)
·
THREE HEAVEN AND EARTH MOVING STATEMENTS FROM GOD’S MOUTH SETTLE THE
QUESTION WHETHER HIS WORDS ARE PRESERVED (Timothy Tow)
· TO DRAW A SNAKE AND ADD LEGS
· TO MAGNIFY HIS PERFECT WORD (Gia-Hien Nguyen)
· TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY, VERBAL PLENARY PRESERVATION, AND THE
TEXTS UNDERLYING
THE AUTHORISED VERSION
|
