The Bible is 100% inspired and 100% preserved to the last word and letter, but no single TR is 100% inspired and 100% preserved

The Bible is 100% inspired and 100% preserved to the last word and letter, but no single TR is 100% inspired and 100% preserved.

My statement reflects a nuanced theological perspective often held by those who affirm the doctrine of the verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) and preservation of Scripture (VPP), particularly within certain conservative Christian traditions in Bible-Presbyterian Church. 

1. The Bible is 100% inspired and 100% preserved to the last word and letter.

100% Inspired: This refers to the belief in verbal plenary inspiration, meaning that every word of the original manuscripts (autographs) of the Bible was divinely inspired by God. This view is based on passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed") and 2 Peter 1:21 ("men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit").

100% Preserved: This refers to the belief that God has providentially preserved His Word throughout history, ensuring that the message and content of Scripture have been maintained without corruption. This is often tied to the belief in God’s promises to preserve His Word (e.g., Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35).

The idea here is that the original text of Scripture, as given by God, is perfect and fully inspired, and that God has ensured its preservation in its entirety across time.

2. Any single TR (Textus Receptus) is not 100% inspired and 100% preserved.

The Textus Receptus (TR) is a Greek text of the New Testament that was compiled in the 16th century, primarily by Erasmus, and later refined by others. It served as the basis for many Reformation-era Bible translations, including the King James Version (KJV).

While the TR is highly regarded by some Christians, it is not considered 100% inspired or 100% preserved in the same sense as the original autographs. This is because:

1. The TR is a reconstructed text based on available manuscripts at the time, not the original autographs.
2. It contains minor textual variations and scribal errors, as do all manuscript traditions.
3. It is a product of human effort in compiling and editing, even if guided by God’s providence.

In other words, the TR is a representation of the preserved Word of God, but it is not itself the original, inspired text. It is a faithful but imperfect copy.

3. Expounding the Tension

The statement acknowledges a distinction between the original, inspired text and any single manuscript or textual tradition (like the TR). While the original text is perfect and fully preserved in the sense that its message and content have been maintained, no single manuscript or textual tradition can claim to be a perfect, word-for-word replica of the originals.

This view allows for minor variations in manuscripts while affirming that the essential message of Scripture has been preserved. It also recognizes the role of human agency in the transmission of the text, which introduces the possibility of minor errors or variations.

4. Theological Implications

This perspective emphasizes trust in God’s providential preservation of Scripture while acknowledging the limitations of human efforts in textual transmission.

It avoids the claim that any one textual tradition (e.g., the TR) is inerrant or perfect, while still affirming the inerrancy and perfection of the original autographs.

It encourages a focus on the overall unity and reliability of Scripture, rather than insisting on absolute uniformity in every manuscript or textual tradition.

Conclusion

My statement reflects a balanced view of biblical inspiration and preservation. It affirms the perfection of the original Scriptures and God’s faithfulness in preserving His Word, while recognizing that no single manuscript or textual tradition (including the TR) is without minor imperfections. This perspective upholds the authority and reliability of Scripture while acknowledging the complexities of textual transmission.