What a shame

True Life BPC and Life BPC are two churches,

Both are twin brothers in Christ.

Believing in the same Lord, Jesus Christ.

Using the same KJV Bible,

Using the same premises,

Having same roots in Bible Presbyterian legacy,

Both call themselves "Reformed Churches".

Using same languages, mainly English and Mandarin...

One nationality, mainly Chinese Singaporean.

Even after given all these criteria and privileges.

Both BPC cannot see eyes to eyes, cannot be united, but hate one another.

Conclusion.

BPC are using KJV Bible all these years, proven one thing, KJV cannot unite believers. Even you have a perfect Bible, that also cannot unite all the BPC! Because some of you are lustful and carnal, do not understand the Gospel truth. All you like to do is quarreling and criticizing others!

What for pleading a perfect Bible? That Bible cannot help you to see your own weaknesses! What good did you see in KJV?

What a shame!

Septuagint

The Septuagint or LXX (from the Latin: septuāgintā literally "seventy"; sometimes called the Greek Old Testament) is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures from the original Hebrew.^[1] It is estimated that the first five books of the Old Testament, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, were translated in the mid-3rd century BCE and the remaining texts were translated in the 2nd century BCE.^[2] Considered the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is quoted a number of times in the New Testament,^[3][4]particularly in the Pauline epistles,^[5] by the Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek Church Fathers.

Pre-Christian Jews Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text.^[14][52] Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time.

The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts^[54] since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity).

In 2006 the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) - a non-profit, learned society formed to promote international research in and study of the Septuagint and related texts ^[80] - declared February 8 "International Septuagint Day",^[81] a day to promote the discipline on campuses and in communities.^[81] The Organization also publishes the "Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies" (JSCS).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

At Jesus' time, Jesus did not reject Septuagint, he did not say it is a corrupt text.

At Paul's time, Paul did not reject Septuagint, he did not say it is a corrupt text.

At 2018, BPC rejects NIV and says it is a corrupt text.

BPC likes to quarrel with people

Life BPC and True Life BPC and BPC like to quarrel with people:

Regarding Bible Version, we can only use KJV, if not, you are not saved. Because KJV is translated from the perfect underlying Greek and Hebrew Texts, the TR. Other Bible Versions are all corrupted.

Regarding Tongue-Speaking, you are demon possessed, if you speaking in an unknown tongue. Tongue Speaking is ended after the Bible is written.

Regarding demon possessed, you cannot cast out a demon in Exorcism.

Regarding wine drinking, you cannot drink any wine.

Regarding other denominations, they are not faithful, only BPC is faithfully protecting the truth.

BPC can quarrel with anyone, hate one another, fight one another, rebuke one another, curse one another, sue one another in court...They are quarrelsome. They are blind, they did not see this problem!

BPC: War is Business. Quarrel is another Business.

They like to say "Peace upon you", and then they hide a knife behind their back, and then slaughter you softly and tenderly when they are provoked by you. Are you serious?

Isaiah 22:13

Isaiah does not absolutely condemn the use of flesh or the drinking of wine, but he condemns the luxury and wantonness by which men are hardened in such a manner that they obstinately set aside God’s threatenings, and treat as false all that the prophets tell them.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 125.

Isaiah 25:6

Of liquids purified.1 Some render the Hebrew word שמרים, (shĕmārīm,) dregs, but inaccurately, for it means “old wines,” such as the French call, vins de garde, “wines that have been long kept,” and that are preferable to ordinary wines, especially in an eastern country, where they carry their age better. He calls them liquids which contain no dregs or sediment.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 196.

Isaiah 56:12

Nor does he merely reprove them for drinking wine and strong drink, which in itself is not sinful, but for that mental drunkenness and brutality by which men haughtily and insolently despise the word of God. In other passages drunkenness and the abuse of wine are condemned; but here the Prophet exclaims against the madness and insolence with which pastors exalted themselves against God, and trampled under foot all threatenings, warnings, reproofs, and, in short, all religion. Yet there can be no doubt that he reproves the gross and shameful wickedness of burying reflection, as if on purpose, by excess of wine and feasting, that no shame or fear, no reverence for God or men, might disturb their repose; as ungodly persons do all they can to stupify themselves by unlawful pleasures, that they may more daringly, and with less reserve, abandon themselves to wickedness.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 4 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 191.

Isaiah 24:9

9. They shall not drink wine with a song. To drink wine is not in itself evil, because God has appointed it for the use of man; but here the Prophet describes the banquets of drunkards, which were full of licentiousness, songs, and insolence.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 172.

1 Timothy 3:8

The prohibition against indulging “in much wine” forbids the love of alcohol. The requirements resemble the demand of 3:3 for the overseer. Total abstinence today from alcohol would guard the deacon from the clutches of intoxicants. It would provide a credible witness to a society that needs help in combating alcoholism.

Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, vol. 34, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 116.

1 Timothy 5:23

5:23 One of the problems of the false teachers involved the practice of asceticism concerning foods (4:3). Perhaps Timothy had been influenced by this practice, and Paul now advised him about it. Paul gave fatherly directives to Timothy in urging him to take some wine to help his digestion. Contaminated water may have aggravated Timothy’s problems, and both Jews and Greeks had used wine for medicinal purposes. Paul did not intend to lead Timothy into slavery to alcohol. His advice resembles the directive, “Take a tonic for your stomach.”

Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, vol. 34, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 158.

Numbers 28:3–8

28:3–8 Each morning after daybreak and each evening before sunset, a one-year-old lamb was prepared and sacrificed along with one-tenth ephah (about two liters) of finely ground flour and one-fourth hin (about one liter) of olive oil. This offering was one of those originally decreed on Mount Sinai (Exod 20:24; 29:38–43) for the purpose of consecration of the Tent of Meeting and the community that met God there. The more detailed cereal offerings of Num 15:1–21, which have the future life in the land in view, are presumed in this section. The addition of one-fourth hin of strong drink (šēkār, “beer, strong fermented or distilled drink,” or more specifically yayin, “wine” in Exod 29:40) completes the collection of agricultural products that combined to produce a savory smell when consumed by fire. Šēkār derives from the Akkadian šikāru, the common word in Mesopotamia for prominent barley beer. Recently, however, Stager has suggested that šēkār may have actually been a kind of brewed and distilled grape beverage made from a variety of vineyard products.24 Wine and other fermented liquids were considered special gifts from God (or the gods) in the ancient Near East and thus were to be reciprocated in kind as part of the array of sacrifices.25

R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, vol. 3B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 473.

Luke 23:36

They offered him wine vinegar. This act is mentioned in all four Gospels (Mark 15:36; Matt 27:48; John 19:29–30). “Wine vinegar” was the ordinary wine drunk by soldiers.

Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 590.

Matthew 9:16–17

 Nor can wine that has not yet fermented—bubbling, expanding, and emitting gas—be put into old, brittle containers, or they will explode. One needs new containers that are more flexible.

Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 158–159.

Numbers 6:3–8

The vineyard and its produce thus can have an antithetical usage in the Bible. On one hand vineyards are evidence of Yahweh’s great blessing upon the land (Isa 5:1–2, 7a; Jer 2:21). A large cluster of grapes was brought back by the team of spies who explored the land of Canaan prior to Israel’s rejection of the land (Num 13:23–24). Wine is combined with various elements in the sacrificial system for worshiping God and making atonement (Num 15:5, 7, 10; 28:7–10, 14). Israelites living far from Jerusalem were even encouraged to purchase wine and strong drink along with sheep and cattle with money from their tithes, and then they would eat and drink these in the presence of the Lord with rejoicing (Deut 14:24–27). However, excessive consumption is condemned categorically (Prov 20:1; 23:30–31; 31:4; Isa 28:7).130 In the New Testament limitations regarding wine consumption are listed among the requirements for overseers and deacons, and drunkenness is the antithesis to being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18; 1 Cor 6:10).

R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, vol. 3B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 122–123.

Titus 2:3

3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.

The older women must not be “addicted to much wine.” Paul’s inclusion of this item suggests that alcohol may have been an especially troubling problem among Cretan women.

Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, vol. 34, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 298.

Matthew 26:26–30

“Fruit of the vine” (v. 29) was a stock phrase used in thanksgiving prayers for the wine (m. Ber. 6:1) and therefore does not refer to unfermented beverage, “though it was customary to cut the wine with a double or triple quantity of water.”20

Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 391.

Titus 1:7

Paul disqualified a drunkard from serving as an elder. The elder must “not be given to much wine” (author’s translation). Even in light of Paul’s other comments regarding the abuse of wine, one cannot be dogmatic that he requires total abstinence in the elder.24 However, considering the addictive qualities of alcohol, any Christian (whether an elder or not) should seriously consider Paul’s statements concerning the responsibilities of the “strong” to the “weak.”25 Remaining blameless in any situation that gives offense should be the governing rule with regard to any questionable practices allowed by Scripture yet not encouraged by Scripture.

Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, vol. 34, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 283–284.

Charles Seets thinks he is cleverer than John Calvin

He has written an article:
Click the link below to read his article.

DRINKING: MODERATION OR ABSTINENCE?

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.19.9

Paul makes an admirable distinction in regard to things indifferent: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled,” (Tit. 1:15.) For why is a woe pronounced upon the rich who have received their consolation? (Luke 6:24,) who are full, who laugh now, who “lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches;” “join house to house,” and “lay field to field;” “and the harp and the viol, the tabret and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts,” (Amos 6:6; Is. 5:8, 10.) Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine. This is true, but when the means are supplied, to roll and wallow in luxury, to intoxicate the mind and soul with present and be always hunting after new pleasures, is very far from a legitimate use of the gifts of God. Let them, therefore, suppress immoderate desire, immoderate profusion, vanity, and arrogance, that they may use the gifts of God purely with a pure conscience. When their mind is brought to this state of soberness, they will be able to regulate the legitimate use. On the other hand, when this moderation is wanting, even plebeian and ordinary delicacies are excessive. For it is a true saying, that a haughty mind often dwells in a coarse and homely garb, while true humility lurks under fine linen and purple. Let every one then live in his own station, poorly or moderately, or in splendour; but let all remember that the nourishment which God gives is for life, not luxury, and let them regard it as the law of Christian liberty, to learn with Paul in whatever state they are, “therewith to be content,” to know “both how to be abased,” and “how to abound,” “to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need,” (Phil. 4:11.)

John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 436–437.

Let us look at another interpretation:

9. Against the abuse of Christian freedom for gluttony and luxury!

Paul’s statement best distinguishes among things indifferent: “To the clean all things are clean, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is clean, inasmuch as their minds and consciences are corrupted” [Titus 1:15, cf. Vg.]. For why are the rich cursed, who have their consolation, who are full, who laugh now [Luke 6:24–25], who sleep on ivory couches [Amos 6:4], “who join field to field” [Isa. 5:8], whose feasts have harp, lyre, timbrel, and wine [Isa. 5:12]? Surely ivory and gold and riches are good creations of God, permitted, indeed appointed, for men’s use by God’s providence. And we have never been forbidden to laugh, or to be filled, or to join new possessions to old or ancestral ones, or to delight in musical harmony, or to drink wine. True indeed. But where there is plenty, to wallow in delights, to gorge oneself, to intoxicate mind and heart with present pleasures and be always panting after new ones—such are very far removed from a lawful use of God’s gifts.

Away, then, with uncontrolled desire, away with immoderate prodigality, away with vanity and arrogance—in order that men may with a clean conscience cleanly use God’s gifts. Where the heart is tempered to this soberness they will have a rule for lawful use of such blessings. But should this moderation be lacking, even base and common pleasures are too much. It is a true saying that under coarse and rude attire there often dwells a heart of purple, while sometimes under silk and purple is hid a simple humility. Thus let every man live in his station, whether slenderly, or moderately, or plentifully, so that all may remember God nourishes them to live, not to luxuriate. And let them regard this as the law of Christian freedom; to have learned with Paul, in whatever state they are, to be content; to know how to be humble and exalted; to have been taught, in any and all circumstances, to be filled and to hunger, to abound and to suffer want [Phil. 4:11–12].

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 840–842.

To the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is clean! No wine is good! John Calvin is against the abuse of Christian freedom for gluttony and luxury! He is not saying we should entirely refrain from wine.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.19.8

8. Freedom in the use of God’s gifts for his purposes*

“I know,” says Paul, “that nothing is common” (taking “common” in the sense of “profane”), “but it is common for anyone who thinks it common” [Rom. 14:14 p.]. With these words Paul subjects all outward things to our freedom,11 provided our minds are assured that the basis for such freedom stands before God. But if any superstitious opinion poses a stumbling block for us, things of their own nature pure are for us corrupt. For this reason, he adds: “Happy is he who does not judge himself in what he approves. But he who judges, if he eats, is condemned, because he does not eat of faith. For whatever is not of faith is sin” [Rom. 14:22–23 p.].

Amidst such perplexities, do not those who show themselves rather bold by daring all things confidently, nonetheless to this extent turn away from God? But they who are deeply moved in any fear of God, when they are compelled to commit many things against their conscience, are overwhelmed and fall down with fright. All such persons receive none of God’s gifts with thanksgiving, yet Paul testifies that by this alone all things are sanctified for our use [1 Tim. 4:4–5]. Now I mean that thanksgiving which proceeds from a mind that recognizes in his gifts the kindness and goodness of God. For many of them, indeed, understand them as good things of God which they use, and praise God in his works; but inasmuch as they have not been persuaded that these good things have been given to them, how can they thank God as the giver?

To sum up, we see whither this freedom tends: namely, that we should use God’s gifts for the purpose for which he gave them to us, with no scruple of conscience, no trouble of mind. With such confidence our minds will be at peace with him, and will recognize his liberality toward us. cFor here are included all ceremonies whose observance is optional, that our consciences may not be constrained by any necessity to observe them but may remember that by God’s beneficence their use is for edification made subject to him.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 839–840.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.19.7

7. The third part of this liberty is, that we are not bound before God to any observance of external things which are in themselves indifferent, (ἀδιάφορα,) but that we are now at full liberty either to use or omit them. The knowledge of this liberty is very necessary to us; where it is wanting our consciences will have no rest, there will be no end of superstition. In the present day many think us absurd in raising a question as to the free eating of flesh, the free use of dress and holidays, and similar frivolous trifles, as they think them; but they are of more importance than is commonly supposed. For when once the conscience is entangled in the net, it enters a long and inextricable labyrinth, from which it is afterwards most difficult to escape. When a man begins to doubt whether it is lawful for him to use linen for sheets, shirts, napkins, and handkerchiefs, he will not long be secure as to hemp, and will at last have doubts as to tow; for he will revolve in his mind whether he cannot sup without napkins, or dispense with handkerchiefs. Should he deem a daintier food unlawful, he will afterwards feel uneasy for using loaf-bread and common eatables, because he will think that his body might possibly be supported on a still meaner food. If he hesitates as to a more genial wine, he will scarcely drink the worst with a good conscience; at last he will not dare to touch water if more than usually sweet and pure. In fine, he will come to this, that he will deem it criminal to trample on a straw lying in his way.

For it is no trivial dispute that is here commenced, the point in debate being, whether the use of this thing or that is in accordance with the divine will, which ought to take precedence of all our acts and counsels. Here some must by despair be hurried into an abyss, while others, despising God and casting off his fear, will not be able to make a way for themselves without ruin. When men are involved in such doubts, whatever be the direction in which they turn, every thing they see must offend their conscience.

John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 434–435.

It seems BPC is rejecting John Calvin teaching on wine!

the kingdom of God is not meat and drink

The truth of our observation, that Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual one, is evident from a consideration of the hardship and misery of our condition in the warfare under the cross. It ought to be known, that whatever felicity is promised us in Christ, consists not in external accommodations, such as a life of joy and tranquillity, abundant wealth, security from every injury, and numerous delights suited to our carnal desires, but that it is suited to the heavenly state. Rather, “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom 14:17). Since it is not terrestrial or carnal, but spiritual, it elevates us even to eternal life, that we may patiently pass through this life in afflictions, hunger, cold, contempt and other disagreeable circumstances; contented with this single assurance, that our King will never desert us till our warfare is done.

John Calvin

Calvin’s View of Christian Freedom

(3) The third subject is the adiaphora, or “things indifferent.” This is a crucial concern in the Reformation, one which was already addressed by Luther, but here made much tighter. Calvin’s pastoral concern emerges throughout. He does not want believers to be in doubt, but free of conscience (3.19.7). Here he elaborates on what he said in 3.10.1–4. He takes up one of the classic texts, Romans 14, and gives extensive comments. (He briefly refers to the other significant passage on the adiaphora, 1 Cor. 8–19, in 3.19.16.) He argues that not by daring all things, but by using them for the purpose given by God, we may truly be free in practicing things indifferent. In a way, therefore, nothing is quite indifferent, since every practice ought to be subject to God (3.19.8). Always seeking a balance, Calvin cautions against opulence in the name of freedom (3.19.9). Though we have never been forbidden to laugh, eat well, gain wealth, enjoy music, or drink wine, yet when desire gives way to gluttony, then we lose all sense of propriety in the exercise of freedom.

https://faculty.wts.edu/posts/calvins-view-of-christian-freedom/

Pray meeting. Where is Unity?

OUR PRAYER MEETING

Now that the FEBC Hall comes under FEBC’s exclusive use, I thought it would be such a blessing for FEBC and True Life, having a symbiotic relationship from the start, to pray together at the FEBC Hall. Our combined FEBC-TLBPC prayer meeting was scheduled to commence on February 13, 2015. On February 9, 2015, I received a letter from the Rev Charles Seet (for Board of Elders, Life BPC) that we should not hold such a combined FEBC-TLBPC prayer meeting. They said it contravened Article 11 of the Scheme which states, “Neither party shall permit any other body to use the Premises at any time, whether for profit or otherwise, except with the written consent of the other.” We do not think it contravenes the Scheme at all because it is also an FEBC event.

To put things into perspective, it bears noting that Life BPC has not sought FEBC’s consent for third parties like Sharon Bible-Presbyterian Church, the Emmanuel Reformed Bible Lectures (ERBL – “a joint project of several like-minded Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore”), and other churches to hold services, weddings, seminars etc in the premises. This is not to say we wish to deny these parties the use of the premises even though these parties and the people who run them are antagonistic towards FEBC. We are taught by the Lord to love our neighbours, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” (Lev 19:18, Matt 5:43-45). Although Sharon BPC together with some other churches had signed a statement against FEBC and submitted it to the Courts to put FEBC down, and although the ERBL hold night classes at the same time as FEBC’s thereby posing certain inconveniences to us, we do not wish them ill, neither do we want to hinder their worship of God or their Bible classes. Taking this into consideration and the fact that Life BPC had indicated that they wish to put away past differences and grievances and move on in doing God’s work, we thought that Life BPC would live and let live.

With this hope I wrote a letter to the Rev Seet on February 16 pleading with him and his Board to apply the higher law of Christian charity and not stop our joint prayer meetings. Our prayer meetings do not deprive them of anything, nor inconvenience them in any way. It was regrettable that on February 25, the Rev Seet replied to say that we should stop our joint prayer meetings at FEBC. It is our lawyer’s view that Life BPC will likely bring FEBC to court over this (ie for arbitration). What should we do? I had to pray for God’s wisdom and grace. I was guided by 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 which tells me that without charity, I am nothing. I was also guided by 1 Corinthians 6:7, “Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” In this case we will not pursue the matter but take the wrong and suffer loss. We can apply the higher law of Christian charity for the sake of Christ and our neighbours (Matt 5:38-48).

Let us continue to pray for the Lord’s protection and provisions. Philippians 4:6-7 says, “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” Our prayer meetings will return to RELC. We are peaceful. JK

THE BIBLE COLLEGE, THE HIGH COURT, AND 
THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE TRUST

Did FEBC break the commandment in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 in seeking a declaration from the High Court (Case No OS6/2009G) that she has the right to the premises at 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road which be her birthplace and home since 1962?

The answer is no for the following reasons:

(1) The case between Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (LBPC) and Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) had to do with public and not private property and funds. Gifts and offerings were given by believers or collected in churches to purchase the land and erect the buildings not just for LBPC, but also for FEBC. Since monies were given for the purpose of a Bible College, specifically FEBC, it is the duty of the directors and trustees of the College to protect the funds and ensure that they are used to accomplish the charitable purpose for which they have been given.

(2) The dispute over doctrine and property should ideally be resolved between LBPC and FEBC without going to court. FEBC had repeatedly asked for a face-to-face meeting in 2007/2008 to resolve this matter amicably but to no avail.

(3) LBPC insisted that FEBC had no legal rights whatsoever to the premises. LBPC also demanded an unconditional undertaking from FEBC not to preach or teach the Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Holy Scriptures if she wanted to use the premises. This was impossible because FEBC cannot disobey God and act contrary to His Word. Verbal Plenary Preservation is a biblical doctrine (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35), and FEBC can neither deny the faith nor compromise on doctrine. To deny the faith and compromise on doctrine is sin.

(4) Since FEBC refused to sign this undertaking, LBPC ordered FEBC to vacate the premises by 30 June 2008. FEBC was deemed a “trespasser”. LBPC warned FEBC against advertising any of her classes and said that any attempt by FEBC to do so would be seen as an attempt by FEBC to instigate the public to trespass into LBPC’s property.

(5) The new FEBC term was about to open in two weeks’ time. It was not possible for FEBC to vacate for she had nowhere to go. Besides, Gilstead Road is FEBC’s birthplace and home since 1962. LBPC started to knock out and change the locks of the FEBC hall and classrooms.

(6) FEBC acknowledged LBPC’s right to use the premises, but LBPC denied FEBC any right. Pushed to the extreme, FEBC had no choice but to appeal to Caesar. The question of whether FEBC is also “owner” and has rights to the premises was a question of law. Romans 13:1-5 tells us that the government is a divine ordinance to maintain peace and order in a country, and to make sure its citizens are treated justly and fairly [See J O Buswell’s article, “Government as a Divine Ordinance,” in TLBPC Weekly, 20 July 2008]. Buswell said, “There are cases … in which one is a steward of a property for his own dependents and for others, cases in which it would be wrong to allow great loss without a protest. … Indeed with the intricacies of modern economic and social life, there are some disputes which require the expert authority of the secular courts.” What does the law say about our rights to the land? Having sought legal advice, the FEBC directors realised they had to act according to their fiduciary duty to seek the consent of the Attorney-General to apply for a declaration from the High Court concerning FEBC’s rights to 9, 9A and 10 Gilstead Road.

(7) While FEBC waited for the Attorney-General’s consent, LBPC went ahead to carry out her threat to commence action against FEBC. On 15 September 2008, LBPC filed a lawsuit to evict FEBC from the land. On 8 October 2008, the Attorney-General gave FEBC consent to seek a declaration from the High Court with regard to her rights to the premises at 9, 9A and 10 Gilstead Road.

(8) So, did FEBC sin against God? In light of the circumstances, No! John Calvin himself was not against the need to go to court when the situation requires it; he is only against those who initiate a lawsuit in order to do harm to their fellow brethren. Calvin, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 6, wrote, “Paul does not condemn here those who, by force of circumstances, must enter into legal proceedings before unbelieving judges, for instance anyone who is summoned to court; but he finds fault with those who, on their own responsibility, bring their brothers there, and do them injury, as it were, at the hands of unbelievers, when another remedy is available to them. It is therefore wrong to take the initiative in instituting proceedings against brothers in an unbelievers’ court. It is in order, however, to come into court and conduct your case, if a charge is made against you.” In the court proceedings, LBPC was the plaintiff and FEBC the defendant.

(9) Calvin also went on to say that a lawsuit is in and of itself not wrong if it is for a good and just cause, but believers must enter into a lawsuit not with a heart of hatred or vengeance but with a heart of love. He wrote, “Let us therefore remember that Paul does not disapprove of law-suits on the ground that it is wrong in itself to uphold a good case by having recourse to a magistrate, but because they are nearly always bound up with improper attitudes of mind, such as lack of self-control, desire for revenge, hostility, obstinacy and so on. … If a Christian therefore wants to prosecute his rights in a court of law, without going against God, he must take special care not to come into court with any desire for revenge, any bad feeling, any anger, or in a word any poisonous thing. In all this love will be the best guide.”

(10) FEBC had no choice but to defend her birthright, her birthplace and home. It was done out of love for God, His Word, and His people. FEBC affirms and upholds not just the past but also the present perfection of the Bible, and by the logic of faith, based on the twin doctrines of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation, identifies where the infallible and inerrant words of God are so that God’s people might subject their faith and practice to the sole, supreme and final authority of a sure and certain Scripture which is readily available and easily accessible. Surely such a biblical conviction and confession is good for the Church and all Bible-believers (Ps 19:7-14).

(11) FEBC was duty bound to protect the beneficiaries of the charitable purpose trust. FEBC did not seek the eviction of LBPC, but LBPC sought to deprive FEBC of her heritage and home. The apex court on 26 April 2011 judged that FEBC has rights to 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road and declared that “the College, in adopting the VPP doctrine, has not deviated from the fundamental principles which guide and inform the work of the College right from its inception, and as expressed in the Westminster Confession … It is not inconsistent for a Christian who believes fully in the principles contained within the Westminster Confession (and the VPI doctrine) to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine.”

(12) This whole process has brought about a healthy respect for the judiciary and the law. It is also a matter of public interest to know and understand what a charitable purpose trust is. All churches and charities should understand this principle of law. God can glorify His Name even in a secular court, because the secular court is an institution set up by Him.

“I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul.”(Ps 138:1-3). JK

http://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/resources/church_weekly/2015-03-15.xii-24

6 Solas of BPC

Our Beliefs

1. Sola Scriptura: The Bible alone is our highest authority.
2. Sola Fide: We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
3. Sola Gratia: We are saved by the grace of God alone.
4. Solus Christus: Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Saviour and King.
5. Soli Deo Gloria: We live for the glory of God alone.
6. Sola Bible: King James Version

FEBC and The Chinese Union Version

"The truth however is that the CUV, like most other translations in other languages, was not based on the same Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek texts used by the 1611 KJV translators. This 1919 publication, which is today’s most widely used Chinese Bible, was translated in 1890 by a panel of missionaries from the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Congregationalist churches and from the China Inland Mission, using the 1885 English Revised Version as its source text supplemented by the original manuscripts for crosschecking." From www.Truth.sg

Please note that VPPers are English speaking and evangelize the English speaking and do not directly involved, if any, with the non-English speaking. They do not really understand that God’s purpose is to save and build up all man/race/countries whose bibles are not based on KJV/TR. VPPers have to do some gymnastic to cover their short-comings as we have seen above. VPPers have shaken their faith so badly.

Paul Cheong

http://factsonvpp.blogspot.com/2008/12/febc-and-chinese-union-version.html

For hypocritical mask-wearing BPC ministers.

Listen to Rev. John Currie preach at Redeemer OPC in Ada, MI on Luke 12:1–7 and how Christ teaches us a way of life much better than hypocritical mask-wearing.

https://faculty.wts.edu/sermons/the-cure-for-hypocrisy/

Are Bible Translators Traitors?

A famous Italian proverb declares “traduttore, traditore,” which means, “translator, traitor.” Those who assume this is true are unaware [of] how difficult it is to produce a translation. Every translator at some point invariably discards the meaning of the original text.

A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of translation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called “formal equivalence,” which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is “word-for-word” or “literal” translation. The second is called “dynamic equivalence.” This approach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is “thought-for-thought” translation. But adopting an approach does not mean that all the translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make his or her own decision—which can lead to controversy.

First Corinthians 7:1 is illustrative of the potential hazard.

ESV

“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

NASB

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

NIV

“It is good for a man not to marry.”

NLT

“It is good to live a celibate life.”

The most “word-for-word” of these translations is that of the NASB, which captures the literal reading of the Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb “touch” (ἅπτοιαι, haptomai). Other translations move away from the ambiguous “touch” to “have sexual relations with” (ESV).

The most controversial renderings are the NIV (“It is good for a man not to marry”) and the NLT (“It is good to live a celibate life”). How is it that the translators could go from a Greek word that means “touch” to these options?

The answer is that the translators factored in what was presumed to be the wider context of the chapter and, ultimately, the writer. In 1 Corinthians 7:7–8, Paul describes himself as single. His advice to the Corinthians in several places is that it would be wiser for those who are not married to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:7–8, 26–27) because of an undefined “present distress” (7:26). This context is presumed in 7:1 by the NIV and NLT.

These translations are certainly plausible but still problematic. While Paul notes a “present distress” in 7:27, can we be certain that Paul was thinking of that distress in 7:1? Might Paul have been thinking about sexual morality instead? The verses that immediately follow 7:1 speak frankly of sexual temptation (7:2–4). If morality was on Paul’s mind, then the ESV is more on target. The point would then be an admonition to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage, not to avoid marriage itself.

Translation isn’t just a matter of matching words of one language to words of another. Rather than consider Bible translators as traitors, we need to be sympathetic to their burden. Reading multiple translations can reveal the complexities of the process.

***

Dr. Michael S. Heiser is a scholar-in-residence for Faithlife, the makers of Logos Bible Software. He is the author of The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible and has taught many Mobile Ed courses, including Problems in Biblical Interpretation: Difficult Passages I.

This article is excerpted from Dr. Heiser’s book I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible.

Important Assignment for Rev Quek Swee Hwa and Rev Phillip Heng

Both senior pastors may invite Charles and Jeffrey for an afternoon tea, and for a total reconciliation between two of them.

Even South Korea is befriending with North Korea. What about BPC in Singapore ???

So, you want to be a textual scholar?

The Bibles we read today come from different manuscripts that don't always match. That creates a problem if you're translating the Scriptures from Hebrew or Greek into English (or any other language).

Which manuscript should you follow?

With the Old Testament, for example, you're working from three equally important textual traditions (see pages 32—34). When these manuscripts don't agree, how do you decide which version to translate? This is where the painstaking work of textual criticism comes in.

When comparing the same passage in different manuscripts, there are basically two kinds of variations (or variants) that might occur during the copying process:

• a change the scribe made unintentionally (in other words, a mistake);

• a change the scribe made intentionally.

Of course, some changes can't be categorized either way. To determine which reading should carry more weight, the textual critic looks closely at the nature of the variation.

UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES

Scribes do make mistakes. They're only human, after all. Here are some specific examples of unintentional changes that could have happened when scribes were copying ancient manuscripts.

TRANSPOSED LETTERS: Sometimes a scribe seems to have mixed up two letters. One likely example can be seen in these two readings of Proverbs 14:32:

REVISED STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE SEPTUAGINT	ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE MASORETIC TEXT
The wicked is overthrown through his evil-doing, but the righteous finds refuge through his integrity.	The wicked is overthrown through his evildoing, but the righteous finds refuge in his death.

At the end of the verse, the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint reads (bétümmö; "in his integrity"), while the Masoretic Text reads (bémötö; "in his death"). So the difference between these variants is only two letters.

IN HIS INTEGRITY in.lnz ininz IN HIS DEATH

While most English translations follow the Masoretic Text, scholars are divided over which reading is original. (For an explanation of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, see pages 33—34.)

MISTAKEN LETTERS: Some letters in the Hebrew alphabet look alike, and scribes could easily get them confused. For example, Genesis 10:4 identifies a group of people known as the "Dodanim" ( ). However, 1 Chronicles 1:7 refers to the same group as the "Rodanim" ( ). Most scholars think 1 Chronicles 1:7, with Hebrew letter "1 (resh, "r"), is correct and that Genesis 10:4 reflects a mistake using the similar-looking letter -T (dalet, "d").

DIFFERENT VOWELS: Hebrew writing originally used only consonants. In the Middle Ages, a system was created to indicate the vowels by adding tiny dots and dashes above and below the consonant characters. Proverbs 10:24 ends with the consonants y, t, and n. The Masoretic Text shows the vowels as i and e, but the reading reflected in ancient Aramaic translations suggests the vowels u and a. Many English translations continue to follow this ancient understanding of the meaning of the verse.

READING IN THE MASORETIC TEXT	READING REFLECTED IN ARAMAIC TRANSLATIONS
yiten he will grant the desire ofthe righteous	yutan the desire of the righteous will be granted

WORD DIVISION: "God is nowhere." That's a great message! But wait—maybe someone really meant to write "God is nowhere." This kind of mistake was easy to make when copying long passages of Scripture. Here's an example from Hosea 11:2 involving different ways of spacing the Hebrew letters. Following the Septuagint, the New Revised Standard Version has "They went away from me." But following the spacing in the Masoretic Text, the New American Standard Bible has "They went away from them."

NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE SEPTUAGINT	NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, FOLLOWING THE MASORETIC TEXT
They went away from me. (literally "from before me, they")	They went away from them. (literally "from before them")

EYE SKIP: In the copying process, a scribe is constantly looking from a source manuscript to the copy he's making and back to the source. In returning to the source, he looks for the word or phrase he just copied, to see what comes next.

An eye skip happens when the scribe goes back to the right word or phrase, but it's at a later spot in the text. When he starts copying from the new spot, any material in between gets lost.

Look at Leviticus 4:25—26 and notice that the two underlined phrases are identical:

25 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering. 26 And all its fat he shall burn on the altar ...

This quotation is from the English Standard Version, based on the Septuagint. But the words in red are missing from the Masoretic Text because a scribe skipped them. Looking at the source text, he saw the Hebrew phrase mizbach ha'olah ("altar of burnt offering") and wrote it down on his copy. Then, when he looked back at the source text to see what came next, his eyes went to the second occurrence of the phrase and started copying from there. He jumped ahead to verse 26 before he had finished verse 25.

HOMOPHONES: These are words that sound alike even though they are spelled differently, like "there," "their," and "they're." Homophones could lead to errors when scribes were copying a manuscript that was being read aloud to them. For example, the two Hebrew words below sound exactly the same, "10," but they mean entirely different things.

The word on the left is a prepositional phrase with a suffix, meaning "to him" or "for him"; the word on the right means "no." For a scribe taking dictation, it would have been easy to hear "LO" and write the wrong word (as appears to have happened at 1 Sam 2:16 and Isa 9:2).

HAPLOGRAPHY: This refers to omitting identical words or phrases that occur side by side. Basically, it amounts to writing once what should have been written twice.

In the Masoretic Text, the end of Judges 20:13 says,

"Benjamin [ , bnymn] were not willing to listen." The singular subject "Benjamin" doesn't match the plural verb "were," suggesting an omission. A note in the margin explains the error: the text should read "the sons of Benjamin [ , bny bnymn]," but the similarity between the two Hebrew words caused the scribe to skip the first one.

DITTOGRAPHY: This is essentially the opposite of haplography—writing twice what you should have written only once. Here's an example from the Masoretic Text of Leviticus 20:10:

If there is a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, he shall be put to death.

Some translations follow this reading exactly (for example, KJV, NASB); others regard the repeated phrase (in red) as a scribal mistake and omit it (ESV, NRSV).

INTENTIONAL CHANGES

In addition to making mistakes, scribes occasionally made deliberate changes to the text they were copying. Technically speaking, there are four types of intentional variants.

TlaaUNE SOPHERIM: This is Hebrew for "emendations of the scribes," and the scribes actually provide a list of the things they changed intentionally. There are 18 of these in the Hebrew Bible, according to scribal tradition.

ITTURE SOPHERIM: This means "omissions of the scribes"— things they left out.

GLOSSES: Sometimes a scribe may have added a word or phrase to the text to explain something he thought would be too difficult for a reader to understand.

EUPHEMISMS: If a scribe thought the original text was risqué or indelicate, sometimes he might substitute a different word or phrase.

There are some well-known examples of intentional variants, because the scribes more or less give us a heads up to what they're doing. Habakkuk 1:12 is an interesting example of tiqqune sopherim. The Masoretic scribal tradition informs us that the text originally read "You will not die" —with "You" referring to Yahweh. But in many Masoretic manuscripts, the phrase was changed to "We will not die"—and chances are that's what you'll find in your English translation. Somewhere along the way, a scribe or a scribal school thought it was offensive to suggest that God could die. They changed the text, but they left a little notation to explain the change.

Another example of tiqqune sopherim occurs in 1 Samuel 3:13. The King James Version says the wicked sons of Eli "made themselves vile," but the English Standard Version says they "were blaspheming God." These are two quite different translations. The Hebrew has three consonants reading "were blaspheming themselves" (on}, meaning "for themselves," "about themselves," "with respect to themselves")—hence the KJV reads "made themselves vile." But the original text actually had five consonants. If we fill in the other two, we get the word "God"

KING JAMES VERSION, FOLLOWING THE TlaaUNE SOPHERIM	ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL TEXT
for his sons were cursing themselves	for his sons were cursing God

So the original text had the sons of Eli blaspheming God, and at some point a scribe thought that idea was too offensive to reproduce. By deleting two consonants, the scribe changed the wording and the meaning.

EVALUATING TEXTUAL VARIANTS

With many variants, it's hard to say whether the scribe intended to make a change. If we can't really tell that it's an unintentional error, and if the scribes haven't told us it's something they changed on purpose, what are we supposed to do? Here are some principles that textual critics have developed to guide their work:

PREFER THE OLDER READING: Generally, older manuscripts are considered more reliable than later manuscripts because they are closer in time to the original composition—which means there have been fewer opportunities for copying errors to occur. However, even our oldest manuscripts are copies, so this principle has limitations. An early manuscript can still include errors or deliberate changes.

PREFER THE READING FOUND IN MULTIPLE MANUSCRIPTS: If a particular reading is found in just one manuscript, it's less likely to represent the original. Normally we can expect the best and oldest reading to show up in more than one or two manuscripts. However, this guideline should be balanced with the previous one about the manuscript's age. Evidence from just a few older manuscripts might outweigh the evidence from many recent manuscripts. Scholars also might give more weight to a reading that appears in multiple manuscripts across several textual traditions.l PREFER THE DIFFICULT READING: One principle (called lectio dificilior in Latin) says the more difficult reading is probably the original. There's some logic to this idea: a scribe would tend to simplify as he copied a text, not make it harder.

PREFER THE SHORTER READING: Ascribe would tend to add words to explain the meaning, not take words out—so the original is more likely to be the shorter reading (called lectio brevior). However, by lengthening the reading, the scribe often made it more difficult—so the principles of lectio diffcilior and lectio brevior sometimes work against each other.

PREFER THE READING THAT BEST FITS THE AUTHOR: This involves paying attention to an author's writing style. Remember, Hebrew developed over time, just like any other language. If you're in a passage full of older ways of writing and you find a variant reflecting a newer style, chances are that a scribe has "corrected" the writer's old usage.

A similar approach can be applied to an author's vocabulary. If one manuscript uses WordA where another uses Word B, which word is original? Well, if Word B is never used by that author anywhere else, it's a good bet that the original is Word A.

The literary forms and techniques can also give us clues. In some cases, the author is doing something deliberate in the structure of the text that can help us discern the original reading.

No one's omniscient. No textual scholar can look you in the eye and say, "We have reproduced the original text exactly—in every word, every syllable."But in most cases, scholars can tell with a high degree of certainty what the text would have originally said—or at least they can give a highly educated guess. They can say, "You know, we have a really good idea that the text we're now presenting for modern study and scholarship is very close to what would have been the original content of the Bible."

****On a related note, here's a guideline not to follow: Some textual scholars choose to follow the Masoretic Text simply because it's the Masoretic Text. They've just decided this tradition has a special heritage that gives it priority over other traditions. But this is not a good rule of thumb, because sometimes the Masoretic Text can be shown to have a copying error. Moreover, even within the Masoretic tradition, there are differences between manuscripts.

Adapted from Michael S. Heiser, "OT 281: How We Got the Old Testament," Logos Mobile Education (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), and from Amy Anderson and WendyWidder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, rev. ed., Lexham Methods Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, forthcoming; see facing page for pre-order information).