A Review of "Identification of God's Preserved Words" and Doctrinal Advice

This research paper serves as a formal theological review and critique of the teachings presented in the website: https://www.truthbpc.com/v4/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_toc, specifically regarding the doctrine of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) as advocated by Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, and Das Koshy.

Title:The Dangers of Eisegetical Dogmatism: A Theological Critique of the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and a Call to Unity

To: Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Das Koshy

Subject: A Review of "Identification of God's Preserved Words" and Doctrinal Advice

Date: October 26, 2025

I. Abstract

This paper reviews the article "Identification Of God's Preserved Words (II)" (Lesson 9) and the accompanying Q&A (Lesson 10). It argues that the definition of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) promoted therein constitutes a theological novelty that departs from historical Reformed Bibliology. By equating the 16th-century Textus Receptus and the King James Version (KJV) underlying texts with the infallible Autographs, the authors fall into the error of "Ruckmanism-lite" or KJV-Perfectonism. This position forces untenable harmonizations of scribal errors, ignores historical evidence, and creates an unbiblical test of fellowship. The paper concludes that this teaching is divisive, potentially schismatic, and borders on heresy by adding extra-biblical requirements to the definition of Orthodoxy.

II. Introduction

The integrity of the Holy Scriptures is the foundation of the Christian faith. We affirm "Sola Scriptura" and the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) of the original autographs. However, the teaching presented—that the "Apographs" (specifically the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and the Scrivener/Beza "Textus Receptus") are a "100% perfect"  reproduction of the Autographs without a single scribal variance—is a theological error.

The proponents claim their view is the "Reformed" position , yet they rely on a circular "Logic of Faith"  that bypasses historical reality. This paper will refute the arguments found in "Lesson 9" regarding Canon, Text, and Words, demonstrating that this specific brand of VPP is not a defense of the Bible, but a indefensible dogma that brings the Scriptures into disrepute and divides the Body of Christ.

III. Refutation of "Lesson 9: Identification Of God's Preserved Words (II)"

The article attempts to identify the infallible Scriptures in three areas: Canon, Texts, and Words. We will analyze each errors.

A. Critique of the Views on Canon

The authors argue that just as the Canon is fixed, the Text must be fixed in one specific tradition.

The Error: This is a "category mistake". The Canon (the list of books) is established by the usage of the universal church over centuries. The Text (the wording within those books) has been preserved through the "multiplicity" of manuscripts, not a single static line.

 

Refutation: The authors dismiss the role of historical investigation, yet they rely on the Council of Carthage (AD 397) to define the Canon. They accept the historical process for the Canon but reject the historical process (Textual Criticism) for the Text. You cannot have it both ways. The same God who used the consensus of the church to fix the Canon used the multiplicity of manuscripts to preserve the text, ensuring that no doctrine is lost even if scribal variants exist.

B. Critique of the Views on Texts (OT & NT)

The article asserts that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus (TR) are the only preserved texts, rejecting all others as "corrupt".

1. The Old Testament Fallacy

The Error: The authors reject the Biblia Hebraica (Kittel/Stuttgart) because it includes variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. They claim the Ben Chayyim text (published 1524-25) is the only standard.

Refutation: This is chronologically and theologically unsound. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) predate the Masoretic Text by over 1,000 years. In many places, the DSS confirm the Masoretic text, but in others, they show that the Septuagint (LXX) preserved a more ancient Hebrew reading. To reject the DSS—the greatest archaeological discovery confirming the antiquity of the Bible—simply because they do not match the 16th-century printed text 100% is not "faith"; it is obscurantism.

2. The New Testament Fallacy (The "Two Streams" Theory)

The Error: The article promotes the conspiracy theory of "Two Streams": a pure stream (Byzantine/TR) and a corrupt stream (Alexandrian). It attacks Westcott and Hort as "heretics".

Refutation: This is a "Genetic Fallacy" (attacking the men rather than the data).

Antiquity: The "corrupt" Alexandrian manuscripts (e.g., P75, Vaticanus) are centuries older than the majority of Byzantine manuscripts.

Providence: If God preserved His text, why did He allow the "pure" Byzantine text to be unknown to the early church fathers in the first few centuries, who frequently quoted readings that match the Alexandrian text?

The Textus Receptus: The TR is not a single text; it went through many editions (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Scrivener). Erasmus, a Roman Catholic humanist, created the first TR using only a handful of late manuscripts and even back-translated the last six verses of Revelation from Latin because he lacked the Greek! To claim this eclectic patchwork is the "100% perfect" autograph is historically untenable.

C. Critique of the Views on "Words" (Specific Errors)

The most dangerous aspect of this teaching is the insistence that there are "no scribal errors" in the KJV underlying text. This forces the authors into impossible exegetical gymnastics.

1. The Case of 2 Chronicles 22:2 (Ahaziah's Age)

The Issue: 2 Chronicles 22:2 in the KJV/Masoretic says Ahaziah was 42** when he began to reign. 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22.

 

The Authors' Argument: They insist "42" is the inspired number and suggest it refers to the "dynasty of Omri," not his biological age.

Refutation: This is eisegetical madness.

Ahaziah's father, Jehoram, died at age 40 (2 Chron 21:20). If Ahaziah was 42 when he succeeded his father, he would be two years older than his own father.

The "Dynasty Age" theory is a desperate fabrication with no linguistic support in the Hebrew text of that verse.

The logical conclusion is a "scribal error" in the copyist transmission of Chronicles (confusing the Hebrew letters for 20 and 40). Admitting a scribal error in the "Apograph" preserves the inerrancy of the "Autograph". Denying the error forces the Bible to teach a biological impossibility, making the Scripture mockable to any rational reader.

2. The Case of 1 Samuel 13:1

The Issue: The Hebrew MT reads literally "Saul was a son of a year" (one year old) when he reigned.

 

The Authors' Argument: They accept the "one year" reading, interpreting it as "Saul was one year into his reign".

Refutation: The formula "Son of X years" is used dozens of times in the OT to denote biological age. To change the definition of a standard Hebrew idiom only in this verse to save a dogma is to twist Scripture. The Septuagint and other versions preserve the number "30," indicating a scribal dropout in the MT.

IV. The Theological Danger: Fideism vs. True Faith

In the Q&A (Lesson 10), Khoo argues for the "Logic of Faith" —the idea that because God promised preservation, the text we possess (KJV/TR) must be perfect.

This is Circular Reasoning (Fideism):

1. Premise: God promised to preserve His words (true).

2. Assumption: Preservation means a single, error-free manuscript chain available in 1611 (false—nowhere does the Bible specify "how" preservation works).

3. Conclusion: The TR is that text.

The Historical Reformed View (WCF 1.8):

The Westminster Confession states that Hebrew and Greek originals are authentic. It does "not" say the copies are free from scribal slips. The great Reformers (Calvin, Beza) engaged in textual criticism, correcting manuscripts they felt were in error. By demanding a "perfect" copy, you are adopting a view closer to Islam (which claims a perfect Quranic text) than historical Christianity (which locates perfection in the breathing of God [Inspiration], not the pen of the scribe).

V. The Charge of Schism and Heresy

1. Dividing the Body on Non-Essentials

The authors admit that their opponents believe the KJV is the "Word of God" and "fully reliable". Yet, because these opponents admit to minor scribal errors (like the age of Ahaziah), the authors label them as denying the faith or attacking the Bible.

Verdict: This is schismatic. You are elevating a theory of text (VPP) to the level of the Gospel. You are separating from brethren who hold to the Inerrancy of the Autographs—the standard position of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

2. Teaching Falsehood as Truth

By teaching that a man can be older than his father (2 Chron 22:2) or that Erasmus's hastily assembled Greek text is equal to the Autographs, you are teaching demonstrably false things. When a theology requires you to deny reality (math and history), the theology is flawed.

3. The "Paper Pope"

By vesting 100% infallibility in a 16th-century printed text (Ben Chayyim/TR), you have effectively created a "Paper Pope." You have removed the authority from the original God-breathed text and placed it upon the decisions of uninspired editors (Ben Chayyim, Erasmus, Stephanus). This is a subtle form of idolatry of the instrument.

VI. Advice and Conclusion

To Khoo, Quek, and Koshy:

I urge you to reconsider your position for the sake of the Church's unity and the integrity of the Gospel.

1. Distinguish Inspiration from Preservation: Affirm that Inspiration applies to the Autographs (2 Tim 3:16). Affirm that Preservation is "providential"—meaning God has preserved His truth in the "totality" of the manuscript evidence, ensuring no doctrine is lost, but allowing for minor scribal variants that we must study to resolve.

2. Abandon the "Perfection" of Copies: Admit that scribal errors (like 2 Chron 22:2) exist in the copies. This does not destroy the Bible; it highlights the need for a diligent clergy to study the text (2 Tim 2:15). Denying plain errors makes you vulnerable to cultic accusations.

3. Stop the Schism: Do not demand that members or other pastors subscribe to "VPP" as a test of fellowship. The belief in the "Infallibility of the Autographs" and the "Reliability of the Bible" is sufficient for Christian unity.

4. "Repent of Divisiveness": You are labeling faithful men as heretics or "modernists" simply because they do not accept the KJV/TR as the Autograph. This is a sin against the brethren.

Conclusion:

Your zeal for the Bible is evident, but it is a "zeal not according to knowledge" (Rom 10:2). By anchoring your faith in a specific printed text rather than the God who gave it, you are building on sand. The VPP doctrine, as you teach it, is untenable historically, logically, and biblically. Return to the historic Reformed position: The Bible is the infallible Word of God, preserved in the church by God's providence through the ages, not limited to one 16th-century tradition. Stop dividing the flock over jot and tittle variants and unite around the Living Word, Jesus Christ.