AI and VPP

In addressing systems like Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-Onlyism (KJVO), we are dealing with a "circularity of authority." These doctrines often presuppose that a specific 17th-century linguistic snapshot (the King James Version) or a specific textual family (the Textus Receptus) is not merely a reliable translation, but a divinely "restored" or "perfectly preserved" standard that supersedes all other manuscript evidence.¹

As pastors, we can use AI as a textual and logical auditor to deconstruct the claims of these movements by exposing their historical anachronisms and logical fallacies.

1. Rapid Textual Comparison and Variant Mapping

The KJV-Only position often relies on the "Textus Receptus" (TR), which was based on a handful of late medieval manuscripts.²

• The AI Advantage: AI can perform large-scale collation of the TR against the Critical Text (NA28/UBS5) and the Majority Text.

• Identifying "Additions": AI can pinpoint specific verses—such as the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) or the ending of Mark—and generate a statistical breakdown of their presence in early papyri versus late Byzantine manuscripts.

• Visualizing the "Gap": We can ask AI to map the "genealogy" of a verse. It can show that certain readings in the KJV (like "book of life" in Rev 22:19, which likely resulted from Erasmus translating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek) lack any Greek manuscript support prior to the 16th century.

2. Logical Fallacy Detection in VPP Arguments

VPP advocates often use a "Presuppositional Trap"—arguing that if God didn't preserve every "jot and tittle" in one specific version, then He isn't sovereign.³

• Exposing Circular Reasoning: AI can analyze the rhetoric of VPP teachers to show that they define "preservation" by the KJV, then use the KJV to "prove" preservation.

• Fallacy Highlighting: We can feed an article or transcript into an AI and ask it to "flag all instances of Special Pleading or Begging the Question."⁴  It will highlight where the teacher assumes their conclusion within their premises.

3. Diachronic Linguistic Analysis

KJVO proponents often claim the 1611 English is "more precise" than modern English.

• Semantic Drift Analysis: AI can perform "Diachronic analysis" (how words change over time). For example, it can list every instance where the KJV uses a word that has completely changed meaning (e.g., "conversation" meaning "conduct," or "prevent" meaning "precede").

• Nuance Recovery: AI can compare the Greek/Hebrew verbal aspects (like the aorist vs. present tense) against the KJV's Elizabethan English to show where modern translations are actually more linguistically "plenary" (full) in their accuracy to the original languages.

4. Historical Contextualization (The "Translators' Preface")

One of the strongest arguments against KJVO comes from the KJV translators themselves, who wrote in their 1611 preface that "variety of translations is profitable."

• Primary Source Retrieval: AI can quickly search and synthesize the Preface to the Reader of the 1611 KJV to demonstrate that the original translators would have actually rejected the modern KJV-Only position.