Lesson 4 - False Claims of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

The website we referenced, https://www.truthbpc.com/v4/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_04 - Truth Bible-Presbyterian Church (Truth BPC), promotes a doctrine known as Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). This view argues that the specific Hebrew and Greek words used for the King James Version (KJV) are a "100% perfect" and "jot-and-tittle" replica of the original writings (autographs) given by God.

As a scholar, I will address the core claims made on that page. While the sentiment of wanting a perfect Bible is noble, the claims of VPP often rely on a misunderstanding of history, linguistics, and the Bible’s own testimony.

1. The Claim: "God Preserved His Word in One Specific Text"

The VPP position argues that God's "providential preservation" means He kept His Word 100% intact within the Textus Receptus (TR) for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament.

The Scholarly Response:

The "Textus Receptus" is not a single, magically preserved manuscript. It is a title given to a family of printed editions created in the 1500s and 1600s.

• Human Effort: Desiderius Erasmus, who compiled the first edition in 1516, only had access to about six Greek manuscripts, all from late in history (12th century or later).
• The "Back-Translation" Problem: For the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus lacked a Greek manuscript entirely. He actually translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek himself. Some of the Greek words he created do not exist in any known ancient Greek manuscript.
• Multiple Versions: There are dozens of editions of the TR (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, etc.), and they differ from each other in hundreds of places. VPP proponents never clarify which specific edition of the TR is the "perfect" one, because they all have minor variations.

2. The Claim: "Psalm 12:6–7 Promises Word-for-Word Preservation"

This is the most common "proof text" used by VPP advocates. They argue that when the verse says, "Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them," the "them" refers to the "words" in verse 6.

The Scholarly Response:

In Hebrew grammar, this interpretation is highly unlikely.

• Grammatical Gender: In the original Hebrew, the word for "words" (imrot) is feminine. However, the word for "them" (tishmerem) in verse 7 is masculine.
• The Real Context: Most scholars agree that "them" refers back to the needy and the poor mentioned in verse 5. Psalm 12 is a lament about a world full of liars. David is comforted because God will preserve the people who are being oppressed by those liars.
• The Meaning: Using this verse to prove "word-perfect preservation" of a 17th-century text is a "proof-texting" error—taking a verse out of its grammatical and literary context to support a pre-conceived idea.

3. Psalm 19 Doesn't Prove What They Claim

The article also cites Psalm 19:7-10, which describes God's Word as "perfect," "sure," "right," and "pure." They argue this proves God must have preserved every word identically throughout history.

• The problem: This Psalm is praising the nature and quality of God's revelation—that His teachings are trustworthy and good. It says nothing about the transmission of that revelation through copying manuscripts over thousands of years.
• Think of it this way: If I say "my grandmother's recipe is perfect," I'm praising the recipe itself. I'm not claiming that every handwritten copy of that recipe throughout the family has been absolutely identical with zero copying errors. The perfection refers to the content, not to every physical copy.

4. The Claim: "Modern Versions are Corrupt and Based on False Texts"

VPP advocates claim that modern translations (like the ESV or NASB) are "corrupt" because they use the "Alexandrian" manuscripts (like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), which were found in Egypt.

The Scholarly Response:

Finding older manuscripts is a blessing, not a curse.

• Older is Closer: The manuscripts used for modern Bibles are roughly 1,000 years older than the ones Erasmus used. In historical science, a copy made 200 years after the original is generally considered more reliable than a copy made 1,200 years after the original.
• 99% Agreement: Despite what VPP advocates claim, the "differences" between these manuscript families are mostly spelling variations (like "honor" vs. "honour") or word order. No major Christian doctrine (the Trinity, the Resurrection, Salvation by Grace) is changed or lost in modern translations.

5. The Claim: "If the Bible isn't 100% Perfect Today, We Can't Trust It"

This is an emotional argument. VPP proponents argue that if we admit there are "scribal errors" in our copies, then the whole Bible is untrustworthy.

The Scholarly Response:

This creates a "false dilemma." We do not need a single, miraculously perfect printed book to have the infallible Word of God.

• The "Jigsaw Puzzle" Analogy: Imagine a 1,000-piece puzzle. If you have 1,010 pieces because some pieces were duplicated or slightly smudged, you can still see the perfect picture. The "extra" pieces don't ruin the image; they actually help you confirm what the original looked like.
• The Historical View: The great Reformers (like Luther and Calvin) and the writers of the Westminster Confession did not believe in VPP as defined by Truth BPC. They believed God preserved His Word "pure in all ages" through the totality of all manuscripts, not just one specific version.

Claim	VPP View (Truth BPC)	Scholarly/Historical View
Location of Perfection	One specific printed Greek/Hebrew text.	The original writings (autographs).
Preservation Method	A "miracle" that kept one line error-free.	"Providence" through thousands of copies.
Scribal Variations	"Corruptions" or "Satanic attacks."	Natural human slips that don't affect truth.
The Goal	To defend a specific 1611 tradition.	To get as close to the original as possible.

Summary of the Real Issues

The VPP claim in the Truth BPC document is built on assumptions, not clear historical evidence:

• There is no surviving autographs (original manuscripts), so every claim about a physical perfect copy today is theological interpretation, not empirical evidence. Scholars of textual criticism accept that no two manuscripts are exactly the same.
• The Bible does teach that God’s Word is reliable and that the essential truths and doctrines have been faithfully transmitted, even though some copyists made minor errors over time. This view supports confidence in Scripture without requiring a letter-by-letter perfect text in every generation.
• Claiming one translation or textual tradition as the exclusive perfect preservation goes beyond what the Bible itself teaches and is not required for trusting Scripture.

The Real Historical Evidence They Ignore

Here's what we actually know from manuscript evidence:

• We have thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts: They don't all say exactly the same thing word-for-word. There are variant readings—most are minor (spelling differences, word order), but they exist.
• This doesn't undermine God's Word: Scholars can compare manuscripts and determine the original text with extremely high confidence. The core message, doctrines, and teachings remain clear and consistent.
• God worked through normal human processes: God inspired Scripture, but He used human authors writing in human languages, copied by human scribes. This is how God chose to work—and the overall reliability of Scripture through this process is actually a testament to His providence.

The Dangerous Consequences of This Teaching

Why does this matter? The VPP doctrine causes several problems:

• It makes false claims about history: VPP typically insists that one particular manuscript tradition (usually the "Textus Receptus" behind the King James Version) is the perfectly preserved text. But this can't be proven historically and isn't supported by manuscript evidence.
• It attacks faithful Christians: VPP advocates often claim that Christians who use other Bible translations or don't accept VPP are denying God's power or rejecting His Word. This divides the church unnecessarily.
• It confuses inspiration with preservation: God inspiring Scripture (giving us His perfect Word originally) is different from how that Scripture was copied and transmitted. VPP blurs this distinction in ways Scripture itself doesn't.
• It sets up false tests: If VPP were true, we should be able to point to one perfect manuscript. But we can't—even manuscripts in the same tradition have variations. This creates doubt rather than faith.

As Christians, we can confidently affirm:

• God's Word is inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy. The Bible is God's revelation to humanity.
• God has providentially preserved His Word. Through the thousands of manuscripts we possess, we can know what the original text said with great accuracy.
• The core message is clear. No major Christian doctrine depends on disputed textual variants.
• Good translations are trustworthy. Whether reading the KJV, NIV, ESV, or other scholarly translations, we're reading God's Word faithfully translated.

Conclusion: Faith vs. Evidence

The article's arguments for Verbal Plenary Preservation depend on misreading Scripture, ignoring context, making grammar arguments that even Hebrew experts dispute, and claiming historical certainty where evidence shows variation.

We don't need to accept VPP to have confidence in God's Word. We can trust that God has preserved His message for us through the careful work of thousands of manuscripts, the providence of history, and the faithful work of translators and scholars.

The truth is actually better than VPP: God has worked through human means—with all their imperfections—and still given us a reliable, authoritative Scripture that transforms lives. That's a greater testimony to His power than any claim about perfect word-for-word preservation that we can't actually demonstrate from history.

The scholars at Truth BPC are often well-meaning people who want to defend the Bible's authority. However, by claiming that a human-compiled text from the 1500s is "100% identical" to the originals, they are making a claim that history and the manuscripts themselves disprove.

We can trust our Bibles today because we have so much evidence—thousands of manuscripts—that confirm the message hasn't changed. We don't need to ignore the facts of history to have faith in the Word of God.