Proverbs 2:6

For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. 

Comparison between Papyrus 75 and the Textus Receptus (TR)

Introduction: Papyrus 75 and the Textus Receptus

Papyrus 75 (𝔓75)

Date: c. AD 175–225 (one of the earliest known NT manuscripts).

Contents: Large portions of the Gospels of Luke and John.

Text-type: Alexandrian—closely aligned with Codex Vaticanus (B).

Significance: Provides a very early witness to the text of the Gospels; important for comparing how the New Testament was transmitted before later manuscript traditions like the Byzantine.

Textus Receptus (TR)

Date: Compiled in the early 16th century, chiefly by Erasmus (1516), and revised by Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers.

Basis: A handful of late (12th–15th century) Byzantine manuscripts.

Role: Forms the Greek base of the King James Version (KJV).

Text-type: Byzantine, which generally reflects a smoother and fuller text with harmonizations.

Are Papyrus 75 and the TR Identical?

No. Papyrus 75 and the Textus Receptus are not identical—they often differ in readings, word order, omissions, and additions. Their differences arise from:

Manuscript age: 𝔓75 is 1,300 years earlier than the manuscripts behind the TR.

Textual tradition: 𝔓75 is Alexandrian; TR is Byzantine.

Editing: TR involved editorial choices and back-translations (e.g., Erasmus had to reconstruct missing Greek text from the Latin Vulgate).

Examples of Differences Between Papyrus 75 and TR. Here are some notable examples from the Gospel of Luke and John:

Passage	Papyrus 75 (Alexandrian)	TR (Byzantine)
Luke 2:33	“His father and mother”	“Joseph and his mother” (to protect virgin birth doctrine)
Luke 10:41	“Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled...”	Same meaning, but TR has slight wording variation
Luke 11:4	“Forgive us our sins...”	“Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.”
John 1:18	“the only God, who is at the Father’s side”	“the only begotten Son”
John 3:13	“...the Son of Man”	“...the Son of Man who is in heaven” (Byzantine addition)
John 6:47	“Whoever believes has eternal life.”	“He who believes in me has eternal life.” (TR adds "in me")

These differences are not trivial—they reflect additions, harmonizations, and theological concerns that shaped the Byzantine tradition used in the TR.

Observations and Scholarly Consensus

𝔓75 supports the Alexandrian tradition, shared with Codex Vaticanus.

TR adds smoothing phrases, liturgical language, and theological clarifications that are often absent in earlier manuscripts.

Most differences are not doctrinally heretical but reflect how scribes and editors shaped the transmission of the text.

Conclusion

Papyrus 75 and the Textus Receptus represent two very different stages and traditions in the transmission of the New Testament:

𝔓75 is early, concise, and Alexandrian, likely closer to the original autographs.

TR is late, fuller, and Byzantine, influenced by centuries of church use and theological concerns.

While both are valuable, they are not identical, and anyone claiming that the TR represents the perfectly preserved original form must grapple honestly with the existence of early manuscripts like Papyrus 75 that differ significantly.

A critique of the book "Keep pure in all ages" by Jeffrey Khoo

The book "Keep Pure In All Ages" can be retrieved and downloaded from: https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/febc_press/Kept%20Pure%20in%20All%20Ages%20(2nd%20Edition).pdf

Here is a chapter-by-chapter critique of Kept Pure in All Ages (2nd Edition), highlighting its weaknesses, doctrinal errors, and false teachings, followed by a biblical response and conclusion.

---

📘 Critique of "Kept Pure in All Ages (2nd Edition)"

📖 Overview

Kept Pure in All Ages is a defense of the doctrines of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and the Textus Receptus (TR) as the only preserved, perfect text of Scripture. It asserts that the KJV, based on the TR, is the only faithful English translation, and it accuses modern textual criticism and translations of corrupting God’s Word.

---

🧱 Chapter-by-Chapter Critique

---

Chapter 1 – The Doctrine of Preservation

Claim: God not only inspired His Word but has perfectly preserved every word without error in the TR and KJV.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Equates preservation with word-perfect preservation in one manuscript stream (TR).

• Misuses verses like Psalm 12:6–7 and Matthew 5:18 out of context to support VPP.

• Ignores the history of transmission through multiple textual families and copies.

Response: While God has indeed preserved His Word (Isaiah 40:8), the Bible never teaches that He did so perfectly in a single Greek text or English version. The early church used many manuscripts with minor variations, and no biblical text declares the TR or KJV as uniquely preserved.

---

Chapter 2 – Scripture’s Own Testimony

Claim: The Bible teaches VPP; inspiration and preservation are equally exact and verbal.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Conflates inspiration (original autographs) with perfect preservation of one copy.

• Appeals to circular reasoning: “God must have preserved every word somewhere, therefore it must be in the TR.”

Response: Scripture teaches that God's Word is true and enduring, but the process of preservation involves faithful transmission, not perfection in one tradition (cf. 1 Peter 1:24–25, 2 Timothy 3:15–16).

---

Chapter 3 – History of the Text

Claim: The TR represents the providentially preserved text used by the true church.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Oversimplifies church history by implying the TR is the only text accepted by the true church.

• Ignores evidence of Alexandrian and Byzantine textual variety throughout history.

Response: The TR is a 16th-century compilation by Erasmus, based on a handful of late manuscripts. The church never universally used a “perfect” text. Church history shows diversity, not uniformity, in manuscript use.

---

Chapter 4 – Preservation in the Confessions

Claim: The Westminster Confession supports VPP and the perfect TR.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Misreads “kept pure in all ages” in the Confession to mean exact verbal preservation in the TR.

• Overlooks historical context—Westminster divines did not use or teach the TR was perfect.

Response: The Westminster Confession affirms preservation in the original languages, but it never claims that one Greek edition is perfect or preserved to the letter.

---

Chapter 5 – Textual Criticism

Claim: Modern textual criticism is unbiblical and based on unbelief; only the TR is acceptable.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Demonizes all critical scholarship as corrupt and unspiritual.

• Paints Westcott and Hort as villains based on misquotes and conspiracy theories.

• Rejects manuscript evidence from earlier texts without proper analysis.

Response: Faithful textual criticism seeks to recover the original wording through God-given reason and manuscript evidence. It is not inherently liberal or heretical. God preserved His Word not by freezing it, but by faithfully transmitting it through thousands of manuscripts.

---

Chapter 6 – Comparing the Bibles

Claim: Modern translations (NIV, ESV, NASB) are based on corrupted texts and omit God’s words.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Fails to recognize textual variants as natural in manuscript transmission.

• Ignores the fact that no major doctrine is affected by variants between TR and critical text.

• Selectively cites omissions without context.

Response: All reliable modern translations reflect the same Christian gospel. Small textual differences do not negate God’s truth. Scripture's clarity and authority are preserved across faithful translations.

---

Chapter 7 – Attacks on the Bible

Claim: Anyone who uses modern Bibles or non-TR texts is undermining God’s Word.

Weaknesses & Errors:

• Makes sweeping and divisive accusations against Christians, pastors, scholars, and churches.

• Suggests that believers who read other translations are compromising or deceived.

Response: This spirit of judgment contradicts the unity of the body of Christ. Believers can hold different views on textual issues without questioning each other’s salvation or faithfulness.

---

🧾 Conclusion of the Book

False Teaching Summary:

• Verbal Plenary Preservation as word-perfect in the TR is not a biblical doctrine.

• The claim that the TR and KJV are exclusively perfect is unsubstantiated and divisive.

• Condemning all modern Bibles as corrupt is an overreach and misrepresentation of the truth.

Doctrinal Concerns:

• Promotes a form of Bibliolatry—exalting a version over the Savior.

• Divides the church over non-essential issues.

• Misuses historical creeds and misrepresents church history.

---

✅ Biblical Response and Final Thoughts

• The Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), and He has preserved it faithfully, though not through one single Greek or English edition.

• The KJV is a noble translation, but it is not the only faithful one.

• God’s people should pursue truth in love, not division over textual preferences.

• The gospel has been preserved, and the message of salvation remains unchanged in all faithful translations.

---

“The Word of our God will stand forever.” — Isaiah 40:8
Not in just one stream or one version—but in the enduring truth of God's voice across time, language, and people.

A Reasoned Refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

Here is a reasoned response and refutation to the article titled “What REALLY is the Doctrine of VPP?” published by Calvary Pandan BPC, this article can be retrieved at https://static.calvarypandan.sg/images/resources/article/doctrines/What%20is%20really%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20VPP.pdf, which promotes the false teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). This critique will focus on the central theological, exegetical, and logical errors found in the article, followed by a conclusion.

A Reasoned Refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

1. Confusing Inspiration with Preservation

The article repeatedly equates verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) with verbal plenary preservation (VPP), claiming that the moment God inspired His Word, it was also perfectly preserved without error throughout history. This is an unbiblical conflation of two distinct doctrines.

• Biblical Inspiration (2 Tim 3:16) refers to how Scripture was breathed out by God through the prophets and apostles. This was a historical event, not a continuous process.

• Preservation, as taught in Scripture, refers to God's general care and protection over His Word (e.g., Isa 40:8; Matt 24:35), but the Bible never promises the perfect, word-for-word, jot-and-tittle preservation of any specific text form, translation, or manuscript.

The author falsely assumes that a perfect original must result in a perfect copy forever, but that is a logical fallacy—it demands a perfection Scripture never promises.

2. Misuse of Key Verses

The article misapplies several Bible verses to defend its claim of perfect preservation:

Psalm 12:6–7

"The words of the LORD are pure words...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD..."

This is a commonly misunderstood passage. The context is not about Scripture preservation across generations, but about God protecting the poor and needy (v.5). Most modern translations clarify that "them" refers to the people, not to the "words." The article rips this verse out of context to support an idea the psalm never intends to teach.

Matthew 5:18

"One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law..."

This verse affirms the authority and enduring relevance of God’s moral law, not the perfect preservation of every manuscript copy. Jesus upholds the truthfulness and fulfillment of the Law in Himself—not the scribal accuracy of all future manuscript traditions.

3. False Dilemma and Strawman Arguments

The author asserts:

“Either the Bible is perfectly preserved word-for-word, or it is wholly unreliable and full of errors.”

This is a classic false dilemma. There is a vast middle ground: the doctrine of preservation in substance, meaning that while minor copyist errors exist, the message and authority of Scripture have not been lost. This has been the belief of the historic Protestant church, including the Reformers and early translators like Tyndale and Luther, who did not believe in a perfect TR or perfect preservation of any one textual family.

Moreover, the article paints anyone who doesn’t hold to VPP as believing the Bible is “full of mistakes,” which is a strawman argument. Mainstream evangelicals and scholars believe in the inerrancy of the autographs and that God's Word has been faithfully preserved through thousands of manuscripts, allowing reliable reconstructions.

4. Illogical Theology of the Perfect Bible in History

The author writes:

“There was never a time on earth when the perfect Word of God was not with man.”

This is historically and theologically absurd:

• Were there perfect copies circulating before the printing press?

• What about the centuries of textual corruption, as in the case of the Latin Vulgate or miscopied Byzantine manuscripts?

• If only one version or manuscript line is perfect (usually the KJV/TR in VPP thinking), does that mean all other Bible translations and manuscripts are “corrupt”? This nullifies the global church's access to God's Word outside that tradition.

5. VPP Undermines Biblical Authority by Making a Particular Text Form Infallible

The author elevates a particular textual tradition (e.g., the Textus Receptus or the King James Version) as the perfectly preserved Word of God, effectively replacing the authority of Scripture with the authority of a human tradition.

Ironically, this becomes a new form of Roman Catholicism, where infallibility is transferred from the Pope to the TR/KJV and its defenders. It adds to Scripture something the Bible itself never teaches.

6. Accusations and Emotional Manipulation

The article frequently accuses those who disagree with VPP of being:

• Deceivers

• Ungodly

• Wolves in sheep’s clothing

• Not born again

• Possessed by Satanic deception

This is an uncharitable and spiritually abusive tone. It avoids serious theological engagement and instead weaponizes fear and guilt. This approach mirrors cultic behavior, not the spirit of Christ or healthy doctrinal debate.

Conclusion: VPP is a Dangerous and Unbiblical Teaching

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is not only unsupported by Scripture, it directly contradicts:

• Textual evidence (which shows scribal variation)

• Historical theology (the Reformers never taught it)

• Basic exegesis (misusing verses like Psalm 12 and Matt 5)

It leads to division, legalism, and false assurance, while attacking the integrity of all other faithful Bible translations and textual traditions.

Instead, Christians should believe:

• That God’s Word was perfectly inspired in the autographs.

• That it has been providentially preserved through thousands of manuscripts.

• That modern textual criticism, while not infallible, allows us to recover the original meaning of Scripture with extremely high confidence.

We do not need a myth of a perfect manuscript to trust in a faithful God who has preserved His Word in substance and truth. Our confidence is not in human scribes or printers, but in the living Word who speaks through the written Word that has been faithfully handed down to us.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

 

A critique of the VPP arguments

Calvary Pandan BPC has published an article at https://static.calvarypandan.sg/images/resources/article/doctrines/vpp-vpp.pdf about Verbal Plenary Preservation, click the link to go to the article. 

I am now providing a critique of the those VPP arguments drawing on textual scholarship, historical theology, and hermeneutics:

1.  While VPP proponents claim it's about the original languages, not translations, the practical application of VPP (insisting only the originals are "perfect") inevitably undermines confidence in all translations, including the KJV they often favor, as no translation perfectly mirrors the hypothetical preserved originals.

2.  The leap from affirming VPI (divine inspiration of the autographs) to requiring VPP (divine preservation of every word of the autographs in accessible manuscripts) is a theological assertion not explicitly mandated by Scripture itself; inspiration does not logically necessitate perfect, word-for-word preservation in all subsequent copies.

3.  The cited proof texts (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18) do not explicitly teach VPP as defined; Psalm 12:7 likely refers to God preserving the poor and needy (v. 5), not the "words" (v. 6) in a textual sense, and Matthew 5:18 speaks to the enduring authority and fulfillment of the Law's intent, not the flawless textual transmission of every letter.

4.  The claim "Without VPP there is no VPI" is a false dichotomy; one can fully affirm God inspired the original writings (VPI) while acknowledging, based on manuscript evidence, that the transmission process involved minor textual variations (none affecting core doctrine), trusting God preserved His "message" and "authority" without requiring absolute textual perfection in every extant copy.

5.  Stating VPP means "every Christian holds in his hand a perfect BIBLE" is demonstrably untrue based on textual criticism; no single manuscript or printed edition (including those underlying the KJV) contains the "perfect" original text in every detail, as all are copies with known variants.

6.  The Westminster Confession (WCF 1.8) states God "kept pure" the originals "by his singular care and providence," meaning His message was preserved authentically 'through' the textual tradition; it does 'not' teach the modern VPP doctrine of flawless word-for-word preservation in a single identifiable text form, but rather God's providential oversight ensuring the substance remains intact despite minor copyist variations.

7.  While distortions of VPP cause division, the core VPP doctrine itself "is inherently divisive" because it brands all who acknowledge the reality of textual variants (including most conservative scholars and translators) as undermining inspiration (VPI) and the Bible's authority.

8.  The argument that faith rests on the perfect originals, not translations, is valid "only if" one has access to those perfect originals; VPP claims they exist in current manuscripts, but textual scholarship shows no such perfect manuscript exists, making this claim practically meaningless for faith based on actual texts.

9.  Rejecting VPP does not equate to rejecting VPI; one can firmly believe God inspired the autographs (VPI) while also believing God providentially preserved His message through the manuscript tradition despite minor, identifiable scribal errors in copies, without requiring the autographs' absolute textual perfection to exist today.

10. The 1% discrepancy calculation is a scare tactic; textual criticism reveals variants overwhelmingly concern spelling, word order, or minor omissions/additions (like "Lord" or definite articles), with no variant affecting any core Christian doctrine, demonstrating God preserved the substance even if VPP's demand for word-for-word perfection in all copies isn't met.

11. While the term VPP might be new, the doctrine as defined (flawless preservation of every word in accessible manuscripts) is a novel theological development beyond historical Reformation confessions like the WCF; historically, "preservation" referred to the survival and authenticity of the message, not the modern VPP claim of textual perfection in transmission.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of VPP is ultimately untenable because it imposes an extrabiblical requirement for flawless, word-for-word textual preservation—a concept neither explicitly taught in Scripture nor historically affirmed by the church. By conflating inspiration (VPI) with preservation (VPP) and declaring them inseparable, VPP proponents create a false dichotomy that misrepresents orthodox bibliology.

Heartfelt reflection

There are few sorrows deeper than watching the body of Christ—God’s people whom Christ died to redeem—divided and broken over teachings that should never have become tests of faith.

When I look at how Verbal Plenary Preservation, KJV-onlyism, and the claim of a Perfect Textus Receptus have stirred up confusion, accusations, mistrust, and even the splitting of churches, my heart aches. These doctrines, which were once fringe opinions, have grown into dividing lines that separate brother from brother, elder from elder, even whole congregations from fellowship with others who love the same Lord.

The pain runs deeper when I see faithful, godly men and women marginalized or slandered simply because they uphold the Bible in other trustworthy translations or follow sound textual scholarship. Accusations of heresy, charges of being "satanic," and cries of betrayal fly—not because we’ve denied Christ, but because we dare not exalt a man-made translation or manuscript family above the living, enduring Word of God in its true essence.

I grieve not just for the arguments—but for the wounded relationships, the silent departures, the fractured fellowships, and the lost witness to the world.

And yet, I still hope.

I still believe in the church that Christ is building—a church not founded on the KJV, nor on the TR, nor on man-made theories of preservation, but on Christ Himself, the Word made flesh, and the truth revealed in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit.

I hold on to the vision of Paul in Ephesians 4:

One body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

This is the unity I long for.

Not a unity based on uniformity of translation,

But a unity grounded in truth, love, and the person of Jesus Christ.

May the Lord humble us all. May He open our eyes to what truly matters.

And may He heal His church, bind up the wounds, and make us one, as He and the Father are one.

DEBATE: Is the KJV the best English translation?

 

James White’s "The King James Only Controversy"

 Overview

In The King James Only Controversy, James White addresses the claims of those who argue that the King James Version (KJV) is the only inspired or perfectly preserved translation of the Bible. White is not attacking the KJV itself but is confronting the ideology that elevates one translation above all others to the point of idolatry or false doctrine.

Main Point of the Book

White’s central argument is this:

The KJV is a valuable historical translation, but it is not the only reliable Bible. God’s Word has been preserved through the entire manuscript tradition—not in any single translation or Greek text type.

The core argument is that KJVOism (in its various forms) is a modern, divisive, and ultimately indefensible position lacking biblical, historical, or textual support. White systematically dismantles the claim that the KJV is the only reliable or "inspired" English Bible, or that its underlying Greek/Hebrew texts (Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text) are uniquely "perfect" or "preserved" in a way other texts are not.

He warns that King James Onlyism:

Undermines Christian unity,

Misinforms believers about the Bible’s textual history,

Leads to a rejection of sound scholarship,

Distracts from the true authority: God’s inspired Word in the original Hebrew and Greek, not any one English version.

Key Arguments and Explanations

White covers topics such as:

Textual Criticism: He explains how the Bible we have today is based on thousands of manuscripts, and how scholars use careful methods to recover the most accurate text.

TR vs. Alexandrian Texts: He defends the legitimacy of modern textual discoveries (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus), contrary to KJV-only claims that these are “corrupted.”

Translation Differences: He shows why differences between versions like the KJV, NASB, ESV, and NIV do not affect core doctrines of the Christian faith.

Misuse of Scripture: He critiques how KJV-only advocates misuse verses (like Psalm 12:6–7 or Matthew 5:18) to support their view of “perfect preservation” in one translation.

His Suggestions and Warnings

Value the KJV—but don’t idolize it. White respects the KJV’s historical role but warns against equating it with divine perfection.

Use multiple translations. This helps believers understand the richness and nuance of Scripture.

Learn about textual history. Christians should not fear the study of manuscripts or translation science; it enhances faith, not undermines it.

Avoid slander and division. He warns both sides (KJV-only and non-KJV-only) not to use inflammatory language or accusations of heresy.

What Should We Do According to James White?

White's practical exhortations flow from his analysis:

1. Reject KJVO Dogmatism: Do not accept the claim that the KJV is the only valid English Bible or that using other translations is sinful or dangerous to faith. This doctrine causes unnecessary division.

2. Learn the Basics of Textual Transmission: Gain a basic understanding of how we got the Bible, the reality of textual variants (most minor), and the principles of textual criticism. Demystify the process.

3. Utilize the Best Available Tools: Use modern translations based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts for serious study. Use the KJV if you prefer it, but be aware of its textual basis and archaic language.

4. Compare Translations: When studying a passage, compare several reputable modern translations to gain different perspectives and insights.

5. Focus on Unity in the Gospel: Do not allow disagreements over Bible translations to fracture Christian fellowship or become a primary test of orthodoxy. Unity should center on the core gospel truths clearly presented across all major translations.

6. Engage Charitably: Discuss these issues with KJVO proponents with grace, patience, and factual evidence, avoiding personal attacks. Understand the sincere (though misguided) desire for certainty that often underlies KJVO beliefs.

Conclusion

The King James Only Controversy is a powerful, well-researched, and necessary corrective. White effectively exposes the flawed foundations of KJVOism while providing a clear, historically-grounded, and theologically sound framework for understanding biblical preservation and translation. His main point is that KJVOism is a harmful error, and his suggestion is clear: Christians should confidently utilize the wealth of excellent modern translations available, grounded in superior manuscript evidence, and focus their unity on the unchanging gospel message those translations faithfully convey. It remains an essential read for pastors, teachers, and any Christian seeking clarity in the "translation wars."

James White’s The King James Only Controversy is not an attack on the King James Bible—it is a defense of biblical truth and a call for clarity, unity, and scholarship. For those who want to uphold the authority of God’s Word while avoiding narrow and divisive teachings, this book is a valuable resource.

Defending the church from false teaching

 “Contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3).

“Test everything. Hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

“Speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

1. Why defending against false teaching is godly

When you challenge unbiblical teachings like:

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) in the extreme form (e.g., that God preserved every word perfectly only in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus),

Perfect TR claims, and

KJV-onlyism that elevates a translation above the original languages or claims it is the only inspired version,

you are not attacking God’s Word—you are protecting it from distortion. These teachings, though often well-intended, can:

Lead to division in the church,

Undermine confidence in solid biblical scholarship,

Replace Christ-centered faith with man-made doctrines.

2. Why proponents of such teachings call you "satanic"

People often label godly correction as "satanic" out of fear, pride, or misunderstanding. Consider:

Jesus was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24).

Paul was called a troublemaker (Acts 24:5) for preaching the gospel.

When truth confronts error, it disrupts comfort zones. Instead of examining the correction biblically, some react defensively—sometimes spiritually weaponizing labels like “satanic” to shut down dialogue.

3. How should you defend the faith?

Paul exhorted Timothy:

“The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed...” (2 Timothy 2:24–25).

So even when misunderstood or maligned:

Speak truthfully, with Scripture as your authority.

Act humbly, recognizing we are all learners under God’s Word.

Live graciously, letting your conduct reflect Christ.

Final encouragement:

If you’re defending the church from teachings that are not grounded in the full counsel of Scripture, and you’re doing so in truth and love—you are on godly ground. You are not being satanic. You are being faithful. And even if misunderstood, God sees your heart.

“Blessed are you when people insult you... and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad...” (Matthew 5:11–12).

An introduction of this blog

The Singapore BPC blog is a strongly worded platform openly critiquing and rejecting Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and the notion of a “perfect Textus Receptus (TR)”. 

Purpose

The blog positions itself as a corrective voice within the Bible‑Presbyterian (BPC) and Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) circles, repeatedly denouncing the VPP doctrine and KJV-onlyism as unbiblical, divisive, and textually unsound 

Key Themes & Criticisms

1. Against VPP

VPP claims God perfectly preserved every word, syllable, and letter of the original manuscripts in one text-line or translation (typically the TR/KJV).

The blog argues this idea is misguided—Scripture assures the message endures (e.g. Matt 24:35, Ps 119:89), not the literal form of one translation 

2. Historical & Textual Evidence

The blog cites the thousands of variant manuscripts, including earlier witnesses like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, to show that no tradition—even the TR—matches the autographs perfectly. 

It labels the belief in a “perfect TR” or KJV as a theological addition, not rooted in biblical text or historical manuscript evidence 

3. Pastoral & Ecclesial Impact

VPP is described as church-dividing, fostering unwarranted certainty, elevating a human edition to divine status, and alienating believers who use modern translations 

The blog emphasizes the call for humility and unity, teaching that preservation of gospel truth—not perfection of word—is what Scripture ensures 

4. Balanced Preservation View

Offers a middle-ground: affirming verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) of the original manuscripts, but rejecting that VPI extends to perfect, literal preservation in one textual stream.

Favors the idea of God’s providential preservation of essential doctrine and message, even amid textual differences, and endorses multiple faithful translations like NIV, ESV, NKJV, NLT, etc. 

The blog names VPP as an erroneous and potentially heretical doctrine, offering biblical, historical, and practical rebuttals. 

Conclusion

The Singapore BPC blog vigorously opposes VPP and the idea of a perfect TR/KJV. Its position is that while the Bible is inspired and faithfully preserved, it is not preserved word-for-word in a single text or translation. Instead, God has providentially preserved His message, allowing faithful translations and scholarship to guide us toward His truth—without idolizing any one version.