A critique of the book "Keep pure in all ages" by Jeffrey Khoo

The book "Keep Pure In All Ages" can be retrieved and downloaded from: https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/febc_press/Kept%20Pure%20in%20All%20Ages%20(2nd%20Edition).pdf

Here is a chapter-by-chapter critique of Kept Pure in All Ages (2nd Edition), highlighting its weaknesses, doctrinal errors, and false teachings, followed by a biblical response and conclusion.

---

📘 Critique of "Kept Pure in All Ages (2nd Edition)"

📖 Overview

Kept Pure in All Ages is a defense of the doctrines of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and the Textus Receptus (TR) as the only preserved, perfect text of Scripture. It asserts that the KJV, based on the TR, is the only faithful English translation, and it accuses modern textual criticism and translations of corrupting God’s Word.

---

🧱 Chapter-by-Chapter Critique

---

Chapter 1 – The Doctrine of Preservation

Claim: God not only inspired His Word but has perfectly preserved every word without error in the TR and KJV.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Equates preservation with word-perfect preservation in one manuscript stream (TR).

• Misuses verses like Psalm 12:6–7 and Matthew 5:18 out of context to support VPP.

• Ignores the history of transmission through multiple textual families and copies.

Response: While God has indeed preserved His Word (Isaiah 40:8), the Bible never teaches that He did so perfectly in a single Greek text or English version. The early church used many manuscripts with minor variations, and no biblical text declares the TR or KJV as uniquely preserved.

---

Chapter 2 – Scripture’s Own Testimony

Claim: The Bible teaches VPP; inspiration and preservation are equally exact and verbal.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Conflates inspiration (original autographs) with perfect preservation of one copy.

• Appeals to circular reasoning: “God must have preserved every word somewhere, therefore it must be in the TR.”

Response: Scripture teaches that God's Word is true and enduring, but the process of preservation involves faithful transmission, not perfection in one tradition (cf. 1 Peter 1:24–25, 2 Timothy 3:15–16).

---

Chapter 3 – History of the Text

Claim: The TR represents the providentially preserved text used by the true church.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Oversimplifies church history by implying the TR is the only text accepted by the true church.

• Ignores evidence of Alexandrian and Byzantine textual variety throughout history.

Response: The TR is a 16th-century compilation by Erasmus, based on a handful of late manuscripts. The church never universally used a “perfect” text. Church history shows diversity, not uniformity, in manuscript use.

---

Chapter 4 – Preservation in the Confessions

Claim: The Westminster Confession supports VPP and the perfect TR.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Misreads “kept pure in all ages” in the Confession to mean exact verbal preservation in the TR.

• Overlooks historical context—Westminster divines did not use or teach the TR was perfect.

Response: The Westminster Confession affirms preservation in the original languages, but it never claims that one Greek edition is perfect or preserved to the letter.

---

Chapter 5 – Textual Criticism

Claim: Modern textual criticism is unbiblical and based on unbelief; only the TR is acceptable.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Demonizes all critical scholarship as corrupt and unspiritual.

• Paints Westcott and Hort as villains based on misquotes and conspiracy theories.

• Rejects manuscript evidence from earlier texts without proper analysis.

Response: Faithful textual criticism seeks to recover the original wording through God-given reason and manuscript evidence. It is not inherently liberal or heretical. God preserved His Word not by freezing it, but by faithfully transmitting it through thousands of manuscripts.

---

Chapter 6 – Comparing the Bibles

Claim: Modern translations (NIV, ESV, NASB) are based on corrupted texts and omit God’s words.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Fails to recognize textual variants as natural in manuscript transmission.

• Ignores the fact that no major doctrine is affected by variants between TR and critical text.

• Selectively cites omissions without context.

Response: All reliable modern translations reflect the same Christian gospel. Small textual differences do not negate God’s truth. Scripture's clarity and authority are preserved across faithful translations.

---

Chapter 7 – Attacks on the Bible

Claim: Anyone who uses modern Bibles or non-TR texts is undermining God’s Word.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Makes sweeping and divisive accusations against Christians, pastors, scholars, and churches.

• Suggests that believers who read other translations are compromising or deceived.

Response: This spirit of judgment contradicts the unity of the body of Christ. Believers can hold different views on textual issues without questioning each other’s salvation or faithfulness.

---

🧾 Conclusion of the Book

False Teaching Summary:

• Verbal Plenary Preservation as word-perfect in the TR is not a biblical doctrine.

• The claim that the TR and KJV are exclusively perfect is unsubstantiated and divisive.

• Condemning all modern Bibles as corrupt is an overreach and misrepresentation of the truth.

Doctrinal Concerns:

• Promotes a form of Bibliolatry—exalting a version over the Savior.

• Divides the church over non-essential issues.

• Misuses historical creeds and misrepresents church history.

---

✅ Biblical Response and Final Thoughts

• The Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), and He has preserved it faithfully, though not through one single Greek or English edition.

• The KJV is a noble translation, but it is not the only faithful one.

• God’s people should pursue truth in love, not division over textual preferences.

• The gospel has been preserved, and the message of salvation remains unchanged in all faithful translations.

---

“The Word of our God will stand forever.” — Isaiah 40:8
Not in just one stream or one version—but in the enduring truth of God's voice across time, language, and people.

A Reasoned Refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

Here is a reasoned response and refutation to the article titled “What REALLY is the Doctrine of VPP?” published by Calvary Pandan BPC, this article can be retrieved at https://static.calvarypandan.sg/images/resources/article/doctrines/What%20is%20really%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20VPP.pdf, which promotes the false teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). This critique will focus on the central theological, exegetical, and logical errors found in the article, followed by a conclusion.

A Reasoned Refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

1. Confusing Inspiration with Preservation

The article repeatedly equates verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) with verbal plenary preservation (VPP), claiming that the moment God inspired His Word, it was also perfectly preserved without error throughout history. This is an unbiblical conflation of two distinct doctrines.

• Biblical Inspiration (2 Tim 3:16) refers to how Scripture was breathed out by God through the prophets and apostles. This was a historical event, not a continuous process.

• Preservation, as taught in Scripture, refers to God's general care and protection over His Word (e.g., Isa 40:8; Matt 24:35), but the Bible never promises the perfect, word-for-word, jot-and-tittle preservation of any specific text form, translation, or manuscript.

The author falsely assumes that a perfect original must result in a perfect copy forever, but that is a logical fallacy—it demands a perfection Scripture never promises.

2. Misuse of Key Verses

The article misapplies several Bible verses to defend its claim of perfect preservation:

Psalm 12:6–7

"The words of the LORD are pure words...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD..."

This is a commonly misunderstood passage. The context is not about Scripture preservation across generations, but about God protecting the poor and needy (v.5). Most modern translations clarify that "them" refers to the people, not to the "words." The article rips this verse out of context to support an idea the psalm never intends to teach.

Matthew 5:18

"One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law..."

This verse affirms the authority and enduring relevance of God’s moral law, not the perfect preservation of every manuscript copy. Jesus upholds the truthfulness and fulfillment of the Law in Himself—not the scribal accuracy of all future manuscript traditions.

3. False Dilemma and Strawman Arguments

The author asserts:

“Either the Bible is perfectly preserved word-for-word, or it is wholly unreliable and full of errors.”

This is a classic false dilemma. There is a vast middle ground: the doctrine of preservation in substance, meaning that while minor copyist errors exist, the message and authority of Scripture have not been lost. This has been the belief of the historic Protestant church, including the Reformers and early translators like Tyndale and Luther, who did not believe in a perfect TR or perfect preservation of any one textual family.

Moreover, the article paints anyone who doesn’t hold to VPP as believing the Bible is “full of mistakes,” which is a strawman argument. Mainstream evangelicals and scholars believe in the inerrancy of the autographs and that God's Word has been faithfully preserved through thousands of manuscripts, allowing reliable reconstructions.

4. Illogical Theology of the Perfect Bible in History

The author writes:

“There was never a time on earth when the perfect Word of God was not with man.”

This is historically and theologically absurd:

• Were there perfect copies circulating before the printing press?

• What about the centuries of textual corruption, as in the case of the Latin Vulgate or miscopied Byzantine manuscripts?

• If only one version or manuscript line is perfect (usually the KJV/TR in VPP thinking), does that mean all other Bible translations and manuscripts are “corrupt”? This nullifies the global church's access to God's Word outside that tradition.

5. VPP Undermines Biblical Authority by Making a Particular Text Form Infallible

The author elevates a particular textual tradition (e.g., the Textus Receptus or the King James Version) as the perfectly preserved Word of God, effectively replacing the authority of Scripture with the authority of a human tradition.

Ironically, this becomes a new form of Roman Catholicism, where infallibility is transferred from the Pope to the TR/KJV and its defenders. It adds to Scripture something the Bible itself never teaches.

6. Accusations and Emotional Manipulation

The article frequently accuses those who disagree with VPP of being:

• Deceivers

• Ungodly

• Wolves in sheep’s clothing

• Not born again

• Possessed by Satanic deception

This is an uncharitable and spiritually abusive tone. It avoids serious theological engagement and instead weaponizes fear and guilt. This approach mirrors cultic behavior, not the spirit of Christ or healthy doctrinal debate.

Conclusion: VPP is a Dangerous and Unbiblical Teaching

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is not only unsupported by Scripture, it directly contradicts:

• Textual evidence (which shows scribal variation)

• Historical theology (the Reformers never taught it)

• Basic exegesis (misusing verses like Psalm 12 and Matt 5)

It leads to division, legalism, and false assurance, while attacking the integrity of all other faithful Bible translations and textual traditions.

Instead, Christians should believe:

• That God’s Word was perfectly inspired in the autographs.

• That it has been providentially preserved through thousands of manuscripts.

• That modern textual criticism, while not infallible, allows us to recover the original meaning of Scripture with extremely high confidence.

We do not need a myth of a perfect manuscript to trust in a faithful God who has preserved His Word in substance and truth. Our confidence is not in human scribes or printers, but in the living Word who speaks through the written Word that has been faithfully handed down to us.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

 

A critique of the VPP arguments

Calvary Pandan BPC has published an article at https://static.calvarypandan.sg/images/resources/article/doctrines/vpp-vpp.pdf about Verbal Plenary Preservation, click the link to go to the article. 

I am now providing a critique of the those VPP arguments drawing on textual scholarship, historical theology, and hermeneutics:

1.  While VPP proponents claim it's about the original languages, not translations, the practical application of VPP (insisting only the originals are "perfect") inevitably undermines confidence in all translations, including the KJV they often favor, as no translation perfectly mirrors the hypothetical preserved originals.

2.  The leap from affirming VPI (divine inspiration of the autographs) to requiring VPP (divine preservation of every word of the autographs in accessible manuscripts) is a theological assertion not explicitly mandated by Scripture itself; inspiration does not logically necessitate perfect, word-for-word preservation in all subsequent copies.

3.  The cited proof texts (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18) do not explicitly teach VPP as defined; Psalm 12:7 likely refers to God preserving the poor and needy (v. 5), not the "words" (v. 6) in a textual sense, and Matthew 5:18 speaks to the enduring authority and fulfillment of the Law's intent, not the flawless textual transmission of every letter.

4.  The claim "Without VPP there is no VPI" is a false dichotomy; one can fully affirm God inspired the original writings (VPI) while acknowledging, based on manuscript evidence, that the transmission process involved minor textual variations (none affecting core doctrine), trusting God preserved His "message" and "authority" without requiring absolute textual perfection in every extant copy.

5.  Stating VPP means "every Christian holds in his hand a perfect BIBLE" is demonstrably untrue based on textual criticism; no single manuscript or printed edition (including those underlying the KJV) contains the "perfect" original text in every detail, as all are copies with known variants.

6.  The Westminster Confession (WCF 1.8) states God "kept pure" the originals "by his singular care and providence," meaning His message was preserved authentically 'through' the textual tradition; it does 'not' teach the modern VPP doctrine of flawless word-for-word preservation in a single identifiable text form, but rather God's providential oversight ensuring the substance remains intact despite minor copyist variations.

7.  While distortions of VPP cause division, the core VPP doctrine itself "is inherently divisive" because it brands all who acknowledge the reality of textual variants (including most conservative scholars and translators) as undermining inspiration (VPI) and the Bible's authority.

8.  The argument that faith rests on the perfect originals, not translations, is valid "only if" one has access to those perfect originals; VPP claims they exist in current manuscripts, but textual scholarship shows no such perfect manuscript exists, making this claim practically meaningless for faith based on actual texts.

9.  Rejecting VPP does not equate to rejecting VPI; one can firmly believe God inspired the autographs (VPI) while also believing God providentially preserved His message through the manuscript tradition despite minor, identifiable scribal errors in copies, without requiring the autographs' absolute textual perfection to exist today.

10. The 1% discrepancy calculation is a scare tactic; textual criticism reveals variants overwhelmingly concern spelling, word order, or minor omissions/additions (like "Lord" or definite articles), with no variant affecting any core Christian doctrine, demonstrating God preserved the substance even if VPP's demand for word-for-word perfection in all copies isn't met.

11. While the term VPP might be new, the doctrine as defined (flawless preservation of every word in accessible manuscripts) is a novel theological development beyond historical Reformation confessions like the WCF; historically, "preservation" referred to the survival and authenticity of the message, not the modern VPP claim of textual perfection in transmission.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of VPP is ultimately untenable because it imposes an extrabiblical requirement for flawless, word-for-word textual preservation—a concept neither explicitly taught in Scripture nor historically affirmed by the church. By conflating inspiration (VPI) with preservation (VPP) and declaring them inseparable, VPP proponents create a false dichotomy that misrepresents orthodox bibliology.

Heartfelt reflection

There are few sorrows deeper than watching the body of Christ—God’s people whom Christ died to redeem—divided and broken over teachings that should never have become tests of faith.

When I look at how Verbal Plenary Preservation, KJV-onlyism, and the claim of a Perfect Textus Receptus have stirred up confusion, accusations, mistrust, and even the splitting of churches, my heart aches. These doctrines, which were once fringe opinions, have grown into dividing lines that separate brother from brother, elder from elder, even whole congregations from fellowship with others who love the same Lord.

The pain runs deeper when I see faithful, godly men and women marginalized or slandered simply because they uphold the Bible in other trustworthy translations or follow sound textual scholarship. Accusations of heresy, charges of being "satanic," and cries of betrayal fly—not because we’ve denied Christ, but because we dare not exalt a man-made translation or manuscript family above the living, enduring Word of God in its true essence.

I grieve not just for the arguments—but for the wounded relationships, the silent departures, the fractured fellowships, and the lost witness to the world.

And yet, I still hope.

I still believe in the church that Christ is building—a church not founded on the KJV, nor on the TR, nor on man-made theories of preservation, but on Christ Himself, the Word made flesh, and the truth revealed in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit.

I hold on to the vision of Paul in Ephesians 4:

One body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

This is the unity I long for.

Not a unity based on uniformity of translation,

But a unity grounded in truth, love, and the person of Jesus Christ.

May the Lord humble us all. May He open our eyes to what truly matters.

And may He heal His church, bind up the wounds, and make us one, as He and the Father are one.

DEBATE: Is the KJV the best English translation?

 

James White’s "The King James Only Controversy"

 Overview

In The King James Only Controversy, James White addresses the claims of those who argue that the King James Version (KJV) is the only inspired or perfectly preserved translation of the Bible. White is not attacking the KJV itself but is confronting the ideology that elevates one translation above all others to the point of idolatry or false doctrine.

Main Point of the Book

White’s central argument is this:

The KJV is a valuable historical translation, but it is not the only reliable Bible. God’s Word has been preserved through the entire manuscript tradition—not in any single translation or Greek text type.

The core argument is that KJVOism (in its various forms) is a modern, divisive, and ultimately indefensible position lacking biblical, historical, or textual support. White systematically dismantles the claim that the KJV is the only reliable or "inspired" English Bible, or that its underlying Greek/Hebrew texts (Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text) are uniquely "perfect" or "preserved" in a way other texts are not.

He warns that King James Onlyism:

Undermines Christian unity,

Misinforms believers about the Bible’s textual history,

Leads to a rejection of sound scholarship,

Distracts from the true authority: God’s inspired Word in the original Hebrew and Greek, not any one English version.

Key Arguments and Explanations

White covers topics such as:

Textual Criticism: He explains how the Bible we have today is based on thousands of manuscripts, and how scholars use careful methods to recover the most accurate text.

TR vs. Alexandrian Texts: He defends the legitimacy of modern textual discoveries (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus), contrary to KJV-only claims that these are “corrupted.”

Translation Differences: He shows why differences between versions like the KJV, NASB, ESV, and NIV do not affect core doctrines of the Christian faith.

Misuse of Scripture: He critiques how KJV-only advocates misuse verses (like Psalm 12:6–7 or Matthew 5:18) to support their view of “perfect preservation” in one translation.

His Suggestions and Warnings

Value the KJV—but don’t idolize it. White respects the KJV’s historical role but warns against equating it with divine perfection.

Use multiple translations. This helps believers understand the richness and nuance of Scripture.

Learn about textual history. Christians should not fear the study of manuscripts or translation science; it enhances faith, not undermines it.

Avoid slander and division. He warns both sides (KJV-only and non-KJV-only) not to use inflammatory language or accusations of heresy.

What Should We Do According to James White?

White's practical exhortations flow from his analysis:

1. Reject KJVO Dogmatism: Do not accept the claim that the KJV is the only valid English Bible or that using other translations is sinful or dangerous to faith. This doctrine causes unnecessary division.

2. Learn the Basics of Textual Transmission: Gain a basic understanding of how we got the Bible, the reality of textual variants (most minor), and the principles of textual criticism. Demystify the process.

3. Utilize the Best Available Tools: Use modern translations based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts for serious study. Use the KJV if you prefer it, but be aware of its textual basis and archaic language.

4. Compare Translations: When studying a passage, compare several reputable modern translations to gain different perspectives and insights.

5. Focus on Unity in the Gospel: Do not allow disagreements over Bible translations to fracture Christian fellowship or become a primary test of orthodoxy. Unity should center on the core gospel truths clearly presented across all major translations.

6. Engage Charitably: Discuss these issues with KJVO proponents with grace, patience, and factual evidence, avoiding personal attacks. Understand the sincere (though misguided) desire for certainty that often underlies KJVO beliefs.

Conclusion

The King James Only Controversy is a powerful, well-researched, and necessary corrective. White effectively exposes the flawed foundations of KJVOism while providing a clear, historically-grounded, and theologically sound framework for understanding biblical preservation and translation. His main point is that KJVOism is a harmful error, and his suggestion is clear: Christians should confidently utilize the wealth of excellent modern translations available, grounded in superior manuscript evidence, and focus their unity on the unchanging gospel message those translations faithfully convey. It remains an essential read for pastors, teachers, and any Christian seeking clarity in the "translation wars."

James White’s The King James Only Controversy is not an attack on the King James Bible—it is a defense of biblical truth and a call for clarity, unity, and scholarship. For those who want to uphold the authority of God’s Word while avoiding narrow and divisive teachings, this book is a valuable resource.

Defending the church from false teaching

 “Contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3).

“Test everything. Hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

“Speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

1. Why defending against false teaching is godly

When you challenge unbiblical teachings like:

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) in the extreme form (e.g., that God preserved every word perfectly only in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus),

Perfect TR claims, and

KJV-onlyism that elevates a translation above the original languages or claims it is the only inspired version,

you are not attacking God’s Word—you are protecting it from distortion. These teachings, though often well-intended, can:

Lead to division in the church,

Undermine confidence in solid biblical scholarship,

Replace Christ-centered faith with man-made doctrines.

2. Why proponents of such teachings call you "satanic"

People often label godly correction as "satanic" out of fear, pride, or misunderstanding. Consider:

Jesus was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24).

Paul was called a troublemaker (Acts 24:5) for preaching the gospel.

When truth confronts error, it disrupts comfort zones. Instead of examining the correction biblically, some react defensively—sometimes spiritually weaponizing labels like “satanic” to shut down dialogue.

3. How should you defend the faith?

Paul exhorted Timothy:

“The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed...” (2 Timothy 2:24–25).

So even when misunderstood or maligned:

Speak truthfully, with Scripture as your authority.

Act humbly, recognizing we are all learners under God’s Word.

Live graciously, letting your conduct reflect Christ.

Final encouragement:

If you’re defending the church from teachings that are not grounded in the full counsel of Scripture, and you’re doing so in truth and love—you are on godly ground. You are not being satanic. You are being faithful. And even if misunderstood, God sees your heart.

“Blessed are you when people insult you... and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad...” (Matthew 5:11–12).

An introduction of this blog

The Singapore BPC blog is a strongly worded platform openly critiquing and rejecting Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and the notion of a “perfect Textus Receptus (TR)”. 

Purpose

The blog positions itself as a corrective voice within the Bible‑Presbyterian (BPC) and Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) circles, repeatedly denouncing the VPP doctrine and KJV-onlyism as unbiblical, divisive, and textually unsound 

Key Themes & Criticisms

1. Against VPP

VPP claims God perfectly preserved every word, syllable, and letter of the original manuscripts in one text-line or translation (typically the TR/KJV).

The blog argues this idea is misguided—Scripture assures the message endures (e.g. Matt 24:35, Ps 119:89), not the literal form of one translation 

2. Historical & Textual Evidence

The blog cites the thousands of variant manuscripts, including earlier witnesses like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, to show that no tradition—even the TR—matches the autographs perfectly. 

It labels the belief in a “perfect TR” or KJV as a theological addition, not rooted in biblical text or historical manuscript evidence 

3. Pastoral & Ecclesial Impact

VPP is described as church-dividing, fostering unwarranted certainty, elevating a human edition to divine status, and alienating believers who use modern translations 

The blog emphasizes the call for humility and unity, teaching that preservation of gospel truth—not perfection of word—is what Scripture ensures 

4. Balanced Preservation View

Offers a middle-ground: affirming verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) of the original manuscripts, but rejecting that VPI extends to perfect, literal preservation in one textual stream.

Favors the idea of God’s providential preservation of essential doctrine and message, even amid textual differences, and endorses multiple faithful translations like NIV, ESV, NKJV, NLT, etc. 

The blog names VPP as an erroneous and potentially heretical doctrine, offering biblical, historical, and practical rebuttals. 

Conclusion

The Singapore BPC blog vigorously opposes VPP and the idea of a perfect TR/KJV. Its position is that while the Bible is inspired and faithfully preserved, it is not preserved word-for-word in a single text or translation. Instead, God has providentially preserved His message, allowing faithful translations and scholarship to guide us toward His truth—without idolizing any one version.

Matthew 4:4

The Original Context of Deuteronomy 8:3

The verse quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:4 originates from Deuteronomy 8:3. In its original setting, Moses is reminding the Israelites of their forty-year journey through the wilderness. God had humbled them and allowed them to hunger, only to then feed them with manna, a food unknown to them or their ancestors. The purpose of this experience was explicitly stated: "that He might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord". This passage emphasizes that the wilderness experience, including the provision of manna, was a test of Israel's trust and obedience to God's instructions, even when those instructions involved an unfamiliar form of sustenance. The core lesson was that physical provision, while necessary, is not the ultimate source of life; rather, life ultimately depends on "anything that the Lord decrees".   

The Meaning of "Motza" (מוֹצָא) in Deuteronomy 8:3

A critical linguistic detail lies in the Hebrew word translated as "word" in Deuteronomy 8:3: "motza" (מוֹצָא). Unlike    

dabar (דָּבָר), which typically refers to a spoken or written word in a more literal sense, "motza" more accurately means "what comes forth," "utterance," or "that which proceeds". In the context of Deuteronomy 8:3, the meaning is that "people can live on anything that God says people can live on," or more broadly, "anything that God says" in the sense of "what God refers to," rather than strictly the actual words themselves. This is supported by other biblical usages of "motza," such as in Numbers 30:13, Deuteronomy 23:24, and Jeremiah 17:16, where it refers to the  content or outcome of an utterance, not just the precise words.   

It is noteworthy that the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, rendered "motza" in Deuteronomy 8:3 as rima (ῥῆμα), which means "word". This Septuagintal translation subsequently influenced Matthew's Greek rendering of the verse. While Matthew's Greek uses "word," the underlying Hebrew meaning of Deuteronomy 8:3 points to God's authoritative decree or provision as the ultimate source of life, rather than solely the precise wording of a written text. This suggests that Matthew 4:4's primary emphasis is on the authority and life-giving power of God's command or utterance, which can manifest in various forms, such as the manna that sustained Israel. This nuance is particularly crucial for discussions surrounding Verbal Plenary Preservation, as it implies that Matthew 4:4 strongly supports the authority and reliability of God's communication, but it is less directly a proof-text for the perfect preservation of every single letter or word in a transmitted manuscript. It supports the concept of God's enduring truth, but not necessarily the specific mechanism of textual preservation in its most stringent form.   

A nuanced understanding reveals limitations to Matthew 4:4 as a direct proof-text for the most stringent form of VPP. While the verse emphasizes the authority and life-giving power of God's utterance, the original Hebrew context of Deuteronomy 8:3, with "motza" meaning "what comes forth" or "anything God decrees" , suggests a broader emphasis on God's active provision and decree rather than solely on the precise textual transmission of    

1. every single word or letter. Furthermore, Matthew's use of rima ("word")  reflects the Septuagint translation, which itself, while reliable, sometimes differs in exact wording from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This highlights that while the 
2. message and authority are preserved, the exact wording across different ancient versions can vary. Matthew 4:4, by itself, does not explicitly detail the mechanism of preservation or guarantee the perfect transmission of every jot and tittle across all manuscript copies throughout history. It affirms the source and power of God's communication, but not the precise textual integrity of all subsequent copies.

When Matthew 4:4 is viewed through the lens of Jesus's reverence for Scripture, it certainly supports the principle that God's Word is dependable and enduring. When combined with passages like Psalm 119:89 and Isaiah 40:8, there is a strong cumulative biblical argument for God's providential preservation of His Word. This means God has superintended the transmission process to ensure that His authoritative and sufficient Word is available to His people in every generation. This perspective allows for acknowledging the reality of textual criticism, which observes variations in manuscripts, while maintaining a high view of Scripture's ultimate divine preservation. The "Bible" in this sense refers to the reliability of the received text for faith and practice, rather than an absence of any textual variants. This implies a dynamic where God's sovereign will to preserve His Word, as affirmed in Psalm 119:89, Isaiah 40:8, and Matthew 24:35, works through human processes of copying and translation. The "perfection" of the Bible, is not necessarily a mechanical, error-free reproduction of every single letter in every copy, but rather God's providential oversight ensuring that the substance, message, and authority of His Word remain intact and accessible across generations, despite minor human variations in transmission.

Conclusion: Implications for Christian Faith and Practice

Matthew 4:4, when examined in its immediate context of Jesus's temptation and in light of its Old Testament source in Deuteronomy 8:3, offers profound insights into the nature of Scripture. It is not a direct, explicit proof-text for Verbal Plenary Preservation in its most stringent form—that is, the perfect preservation of every jot and tittle in all copies—it powerfully affirms the authority, truthfulness, and life-giving power of God's Word, supporting the concept of a "perfect Bible."

Jesus's response to the devil's temptation, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" , underscores His complete reliance on the written revelation. This act implicitly validates the Bible's infallibility—its inability to deceive—and its functional inerrancy—its complete truthfulness for guiding human life and combating spiritual adversaries. The nuance of "motza" in Deuteronomy 8:3 highlights that true sustenance comes from God's authoritative utterance and decree, which is faithfully embodied in Scripture.   

Furthermore, Matthew 4:4 contributes to the broader biblical case for God's providential preservation of His Word. Passages like Psalm 119:89 and Isaiah 40:8 explicitly declare the eternal and unchanging nature of God's Word, affirming that it is "firmly fixed in the heavens" and "stands forever". Jesus's own words in Matthew 24:35 reinforce this permanence. These verses, combined with the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17) which asserts that "All Scripture is God-breathed" , logically imply that a God who perfectly inspires His Word would also ensure its faithful transmission and availability to all generations. Thus, while textual criticism acknowledges minor variations in manuscripts, the theological conviction remains that God has providentially preserved the essential truth, authority, and message of His Word.   

For Christian faith and practice, the implications of this theological understanding are profound:

1. Scripture as Divine Sustenance: The Bible is not merely a collection of human writings but the very "word that comes from the mouth of God," essential for spiritual life and more vital than physical food. It is the daily bread for the soul.   
2. Ultimate Authority: The Bible stands as the supreme and trustworthy authority for faith, doctrine, and conduct, as demonstrated by Jesus's own example in His moment of greatest temptation.   
3. Confidence in God's Promises: Believers can have unwavering confidence in the Bible's promises and truths, knowing that God's Word, unlike transient earthly things, "stands forever". This provides an anchor in a world of uncertainty.   
4. Call to Engagement: Just as Jesus relied on Scripture to overcome temptation, believers are called to diligently read, study, memorize, and meditate on God's Word as their daily bread and source of life. It is through active engagement with this divinely preserved Word that spiritual life is sustained and nurtured.   

In conclusion, Matthew 4:4, is not a standalone proof-text for every detail of VPP, serves as a powerful testament to the Bible's divine authority and its perfect sufficiency for life. It points to a God who speaks, and whose every utterance is life-giving and eternally preserved, providing a firm foundation for faith in His unchanging Word across all generations.

Matthew 4:4

Let's carefully and theologically examine Matthew 4:4 and whether it supports the concept of a perfect Bible or the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP).

---

Matthew 4:4 – The Text

"But he answered, 'It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (ESV)

Jesus quotes this verse from Deuteronomy 8:3, affirming the divine importance of God’s Word. The phrase "every word that comes from the mouth of God" is often used by proponents of VPP to argue that every single word God has spoken has been perfectly preserved without corruption in a specific Bible version, often the KJV or the Textus Receptus.

---

1. What is Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)?

Verbal Plenary Preservation teaches that not only was the Bible inspired in every word (verbal) and in its entirety (plenary) at the moment of writing, but also that every word of the original manuscripts has been perfectly preserved without any loss or error throughout history, down to specific copies or versions.

---

2. What is Matthew 4:4 affirming?

a. Jesus’ Trust in Scripture’s Authority

Jesus affirms that Scripture is the living Word of God, relevant and authoritative. By saying "It is written," He shows that even a written record centuries after Moses still carried divine authority.

This affirms:

• Preservation in a general sense: God’s Word has been faithfully transmitted so that God's people can continue to live by it.

• The authority and sufficiency of Scripture for life and obedience.

However, this does not necessarily imply perfect word-for-word preservation in a specific manuscript tradition or Bible version.

---

3. Does Matthew 4:4 Teach VPP?

Theologically and exegetically, Matthew 4:4 does not teach VPP. Here's why:

a. Context of the Quotation

• Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 8:3, which was written in Hebrew, but Jesus likely spoke it in Aramaic or Greek (in the Gospel text).

• The Greek NT records the words differently than the Hebrew original, showing that exact verbal reproduction was not necessary for it to remain authoritative and inspired.

This suggests:

The emphasis is on the message and authority of God’s Word, not the exact form or language.

b. “Every word from the mouth of God” refers to divine revelation, not manuscript transmission

• The “word from God’s mouth” speaks of God’s life-giving revelation, not a technical doctrine of how each word has been passed down through scribal copying.

• Jesus is teaching us that spiritual life depends on God’s revealed truth, not just physical food.

There is no indication in the passage that Jesus is teaching about textual preservation or about a particular manuscript tradition (e.g., the Masoretic Text or Textus Receptus).

---

4. Biblical Evidence on Preservation

While the Bible teaches that God's Word is preserved, the form and method of that preservation are not what VPP asserts. Consider:

a. General Preservation Promised

• “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

• “Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89)

These verses teach durability and permanence of God’s truth, not the meticulous preservation of each letter or word in every copy.

b. Copyist Errors and Manuscript Variants Exist

• The Bible itself acknowledges textual variations: e.g., 1 Samuel 13:1, or the different numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.

• The New Testament authors sometimes quote from the Septuagint (Greek OT), even when it differs from the Hebrew.

• This shows the apostles were comfortable with variations, as long as the message remained intact.

---

5. Conclusion: What Does Matthew 4:4 Really Teach?

Matthew 4:4 affirms the vital role of God’s Word in sustaining spiritual life, and it shows Jesus’ high regard for Scripture. But it does not support:

• That there is one perfect version of the Bible today with word-for-word perfection (e.g., the KJV).

• That every word of the original autographs has been preserved without any variation in any particular manuscript family.

What it does support:

• God’s Word is trustworthy, sufficient, and necessary.

• Believers must depend on God’s Word more than physical sustenance.

• God's revelation is authoritative, even in written form.

---

Final Thought:

Rather than insisting on a rigid doctrine like VPP, it is more faithful to Scripture to affirm that God in His providence has preserved His Word sufficiently and reliably through a wealth of manuscript evidence, and through the careful work of textual scholars, so that today we can trust that our Bibles faithfully communicate His truth.

“The Word of God is perfect in its message and purpose, even though human hands have transmitted it through history with human limitations. God’s providence ensures His people are never without His truth.”

 

Psalm 12:6-7

Psalm 12:1-8 (ESV) reads:

The Faithful Have Vanished

To the choirmaster: according to The Sheminith. A Psalm of David.

1 Save, O Lord, for the godly one is gone;

    for the faithful have vanished from among the children of man.

2 Everyone utters lies to his neighbor;

    with flattering lips and a double heart they speak.

3 May the Lord cut off all flattering lips,

    the tongue that makes great boasts,

4 those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail,

    our lips are with us; who is master over us?”

5 “Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan,

    I will now arise,” says the Lord;

    “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.”

6 The words of the Lord are pure words,

    like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,

    purified seven times.

7 You, O Lord, will keep them;

    you will guard us from this generation forever.

8 On every side the wicked prowl,

    as vileness is exalted among the children of man.

 

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) claims that every word of the original scriptures has been perfectly preserved through history, typically applied to a specific textual tradition (e.g., Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus). Some use Psalm 12:6-7 to support VPP, interpreting "them" (v.7) as referring to God's "pure words" (v.6). However, this interpretation is highly unlikely for exegetical, grammatical, and contextual reasons:

 

Key Reasons Psalm 12:6-7 Does Not Support VPP:

1. Context: The Psalmist's Immediate Concern is Divine Protection, Not Scripture Preservation:

o   The entire psalm (v. 1-8) laments the prevalence of lies, flattery, and oppression by the wicked ("the godly one is gone," v.1).

o   The psalmist cries for God's intervention to protect the vulnerable poor and needy (v. 5).

o   God responds orally (v. 5): "I will now arise... I will place him in the safety for which he longs." This is a promise of action and protection.

o   Verses 6-7 flow from this: God's spoken promise (v.5) is utterly reliable (v.6), and He will protect His people (v.7).

2. The Antecedent of "Them" (v.7) is Likely the "Afflicted" or "Needy" (v.5), Not "Words" (v.6):

o   Grammatical Proximity: The closest plural noun before "them" (אֹתָם, 'otham) in verse 7 is the "poor" (עֲנִיִּים, 'aniyyim) and "needy" (אֶבְיוֹנִים, 'evyonim) in verse 5. "Words" (אִמְרוֹת, 'imroth) in verse 6 is grammatically feminine plural, while "them" in verse 7 is masculine plural. While Hebrew pronouns don't always match gender perfectly, the masculine plural "them" aligns better with the masculine plural "poor/needy."

o   Logical Flow:

§  Verse 5: God promises action: "I will protect... I will place him [the needy] in safety."

§  Verse 6: Why can we trust this promise? Because God's words (specifically, this promise) are pure and reliable.

§  Verse 7: Therefore, God will keep/protect them (the poor/needy mentioned in v.5, the object of His promise) from this wicked generation forever. The shift to "us" at the end of v.7 confirms the focus is on people being guarded.

o   Parallelism: Hebrew poetry often uses parallelism. Verse 7a ("You will keep them") parallels verse 7b ("You will guard us"). "Them" and "us" refer to the same group – the faithful poor/needy whom God promises to protect.

3. The "Words" (v.6) Refer Primarily to God's Oral Promise in Verse 5:

o   The "words of the Lord" (אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה, 'imroth YHWH) in verse 6 are best understood as the specific, just-spoken divine promise of protection in verse 5. The psalmist is marveling at the purity and trustworthiness of this particular promise made in response to the crisis. It's not a general doctrinal statement about the written Scriptures.

4. Genre and Purpose:

o   Psalms are poetic, worshipful, and often situational. Psalm 12 is a lament expressing trust in God's faithfulness to protect His people in the face of rampant deceit. It is not a theological treatise on the doctrine of Scripture preservation. Interpreting it as such forces an anachronistic meaning onto the text.

5. Lack of Connection to Written Scripture:

o   The psalm nowhere mentions written texts, manuscripts, or the transmission of scripture. The context is entirely about God's spoken promise and His action to protect His people from social oppression.

Scholarly Consensus:

• Robert Alter: Translates v.7 as: "You, O LORD, will guard them, / You protect him from this breed forever." (Note: singular "him" referring to the needy individual representing the group).
• Craigie & Tate (Word Biblical Commentary): "The promise of protection (v 5) is reliable because it is God's word (v 6), and therefore God will protect his people (v 7)."
• Dahood (Anchor Yale Bible): Explicitly states that "them" in v.7 refers to the "needy" of v.6 (in his translation/commentary structure).
• ESV Study Bible Note: "The 'words' of the Lord (v. 6) are his promises to protect the poor and needy (v. 5)... The 'them' in v. 7 refers to the poor and needy, whom the Lord will keep safe."

Conclusion:

While Psalm 12:6 beautifully affirms the absolute purity and reliability of God's words (specifically His promise of protection in this context), verse 7 declares God's commitment to protect His vulnerable people ("them"/"us") based on that reliable promise. It is not making a statement about the providential preservation of the written text of Scripture through centuries of copying and transmission. Using these verses to support Verbal Plenary Preservation involves:

1. Ignoring the immediate context (lament over oppression, promise of protection).

2. Misidentifying the antecedent of "them."

3. Imposing a later doctrinal concern onto an ancient text focused on God's faithfulness to rescue His people.

4. Confusing God's spoken promise with the written scriptures.

Therefore, Psalm 12:6-7 provides a powerful testimony to God's trustworthy character and His commitment to protect the faithful, but it is not a valid proof text for the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 4:2

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. 

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Deuteronomy 18:17-22 

“Then the LORD said to me, ‘What they have said is right. I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. I will personally deal with anyone who will not listen to the messages the prophet proclaims on my behalf. But any prophet who falsely claims to speak in my name or who speaks in the name of another god must die.’ “But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the LORD?’ If the prophet speaks in the LORD’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the LORD did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.