We can declare anything we want

Another aspect of verbal plenary preservation is that we can declare anything we want, such as claiming the NIV is flawless or that one of the Alexandrian texts is Textus Receptus "Received Text" or Authorized Text.

The argument as commonly presented

VPP (as taught by figures like Jeffrey Khoo and Far Eastern Bible College) typically runs: Scripture promises its own perfect preservation (appeals to Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, etc.) → therefore God must have preserved a perfect text somewhere → the Received Text (behind the KJV) is that perfect text. The last step is usually defended less by manuscript evidence and more by providence, church usage, and doctrinal fittingness.

Our point

If "God promised preservation, therefore a perfect text exists, therefore I identify text X (from Alexandrian Text type) as that perfect text" is a valid move, then the identification step is doing all the work and isn't actually constrained by the premises. The premises (preservation promised) don't by themselves single out the Textus Receptus over any other tradition. Someone could run the identical inference and land on the Alexandrian text-type, or the NIV's underlying text, or the Majority Text, or Erasmus's first edition versus his fifth, or Beza's text versus Stephanus's — and nothing in the "God preserves His word" premise rules those out. We would need an independent argument for why this particular textual tradition rather than another, and that's exactly the step VPP arguments tend to assert rather than demonstrate. So yes — structurally, the reasoning as often presented is compatible with arbitrarily many conclusions, which is a sign it's not doing real argumentative work at that step.

What a VPP defender would say back

They would usually respond that the identification isn't arbitrary — it's tied to the text that has had continuous ecclesiastical use, was received by the church (hence "Received Text"), stands behind the historic Protestant confessions and translations, and that this "providential use by the church" is itself the criterion, not just a bare assertion. Whether that criterion actually picks out the TR uniquely (given that "the church" used various different Greek texts and translations across time and geography) is where the real debate sits.

Since the NIV is the best-selling Bible, I may now state that it is the majority text, the "Received Text," and the legitimate text recognized by the Church. (Click: https://www.athensbible.org/best-selling-bible-translations-in-2026/)

Wider context

Mainstream evangelical and Reformed textual scholarship (including many who hold high views of inspiration) generally rejects VPP as a formal doctrine, holding instead that inspiration applies strictly to the autographs, and preservation is providential-but-approximate, worked out through textual criticism rather than guaranteed in any single manuscript tradition. That's the more common position among conservative text critics who still affirm inerrancy. VPP is a minority position even within conservative Protestantism, strongest in certain Deformed Presbyterian and independent Baptist circles.

So: our reductio is a legitimate way of testing the logical form of the argument, not just a joke — it's the standard move critics of VPP make.

My Teow Chew may end up being the best-selling Bible within the Teow Chew community. In the future, I will be able to declare that it is the best and most perfect Bible because its core content is flawless and unchangeable.

I am attempting to certify that the Teow Chew Received Bible is the best and most accurate translation. Authorized and received.