Gethsemane BPC has published an article online in her website, "Our Position on the Preservation of Scripture" can be retrieved at https://gethsemanebpc.com/pastoral/preservation-of-scripture/ click the link to go the article.
This article promotes the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)—the belief that every single word of the original language Bible (Hebrew/Greek) has been perfectly preserved without error down through the centuries, particularly in the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus (TR), and translated perfectly into the King James Version (KJV). While this view is passionately held by some, it suffers from serious theological, textual, historical, and logical weaknesses. Below is a critique of the article, organized into three parts: (1) Key Weaknesses**, (2) False Teachings and Errors, and (3) Corrective Response.
1. Key Weaknesses of the Article
Misuse of Biblical Passages
Many of the prooftexts cited (Psalm 12:6–7, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, etc.) are misapplied:
Psalm 12:6–7 – Grammatically and contextually, “preserve them” in verse 7 refers not to God's words, but to the poor and needy (v. 5). Hebrew scholars widely agree on this.
Isaiah 40:8 – “The word of our God” refers to God's promises and decrees, not a guarantee of a perfect manuscript tradition.
Matthew 5:18 – This verse affirms the enduring authority of the Law* until fulfilled, not the preservation of every manuscript jot without variance.
These verses affirm God's truthfulness, faithfulness, and authority of His Word—but not mechanical preservation of every letter in one textual stream (e.g., TR or MT).
These verses primarily speak to: The Eternal Validity and Trustworthiness of God's Message: His promises, commands, and revelation stand true forever and will accomplish their purpose.
God's Faithfulness to Protect His Word from Ultimate Destruction: His core message will never be eradicated.
They do NOT explicitly promise: Perfect, letter-for-letter preservation of the autographic text (the original manuscripts) in every single copy or lineage throughout history. Interpreting them as guaranteeing zero textual variants or demanding one specific manuscript family (Masoretic Text/Textus Receptus) is an over-extension of their meaning.
Conflation of Inspiration and Preservation: While closely linked, inspiration (God breathing out the original writings) and preservation (God ensuring the message survives) are distinct acts. The article treats them almost identically (VPI necessitates VPP).
Confusing Doctrines: Preservation ≠ Perfection of Copies
There’s a false equivalence drawn between:
Inspiration (the original giving of Scripture),
Preservation (God's providence in keeping His Word available), and
Inerrancy in specific printed editions (e.g., TR/KJV).
But Scripture never promises that a particular printed edition in history (TR/KJV) will be perfectly preserved word-for-word without any scribal or transmission error.
Preservation is an ongoing providential process concerning transmission. God preserves the message and substance faithfully, but the process involves human copying and transmission, where minor, non-doctrinal variations (spelling, word order, synonyms) naturally occur. The Westminster Confession itself speaks of "kept pure in all ages" – implying a process, not instantaneous perfection in every copy.
Historical Anachronism: Misuse of the Westminster Confession
The article claims:
“The idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in the Textus Receptus of the New Testament was unknown to the authors of the Confession of Faith.”
This is historically false.
The Westminster Confession affirms the general purity and authenticity of Scripture, not perfection in any specific printed edition.
Textual criticism as a field was “nascent” in 1648. The divines were unaware of many manuscripts known today, including older and more reliable ones (e.g., Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus).
Calvin, Beza, and other Reformers acknowledged textual variants and did not claim the TR to be a perfect reconstruction.
KJV-Onlyism in Disguise
Although the article doesn’t fully embrace KJV-Onlyism, it leans toward it by:
Insisting the KJV is “the most faithful” and implying that modern translations are corrupt.
Rejecting all critical texts, even those built from earlier and more complete manuscripts.
This promotes division in the church and undermines confidence in faithful, accurate modern translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV).
2. False Teachings and Doctrinal Errors
False Teaching 1: Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)
The article claims that:
“Every word in the Bible… in the original languages… is verbally and plenarily preserved… in the Masoretic Text and TR.”
This goes beyond biblical teaching. No verse says that every word in the original Hebrew/Greek has been perfectly copied and preserved through one line of manuscripts.
False Teaching 2: The TR is Identical to the Originals
Claiming the TR and Masoretic Text are the exact texts inspired by God is unproven and false.
The TR is a human compilation based on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts.
Erasmus’ Greek NT (basis of TR) was assembled in haste, and even back-translated Latin into Greek in Revelation due to missing Greek texts.
The TR differs from the majority of early manuscripts in hundreds of places.
False Teaching 3: Rejection of Modern Translations
The article implies that using modern versions based on the Critical Text is sinful. This is both uncharitable and unjustified.
Modern translations are based on older, more diverse, and carefully compiled manuscript evidence.
No fundamental doctrine is changed by textual variants.
God has preserved His Word in totality, though not by perfectly identical copies.
False Teaching 4: Denial of Textual Reality & Scholarship
Existence of Variants: The article implies the Masoretic Text (MT) and Textus Receptus (TR) are identical to the autographs. This is demonstrably false. Textual criticism (study of manuscript evidence) reveals thousands of minor variants between manuscripts within the MT and TR traditions, and significant differences between these traditions and much older manuscripts (like the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT and early papyri like P66/P75 for the NT). The vast majority are minor, but they exist.
Ignoring Manuscript Evidence: The article dismisses earlier manuscripts (like those underlying modern critical texts) simply because Reformation scholars didn't have access to them. This is an argument from ignorance, not evidence. Earlier manuscripts are generally considered more likely to be closer to the originals.
Misrepresentation of History: The claim that the Westminster divines believed the MT/TR were identical to the autographs and had "no mistake" is likely anachronistic. They affirmed the texts they had as God's preserved Word, not that they were textually perfect copies. They lacked the manuscript evidence we have today. William Orr's interpretation reflects the VPP view, not necessarily the nuanced understanding of the divines themselves.
The KJV-Only Fallacy: The article elevates the KJV as "the most faithful translation" based solely on its use of the TR/MT, rejecting all others. This is problematic because:
Translation Imperfections: No translation is perfect. The KJV, while magnificent, uses archaic English, contains translation choices modern scholarship might question, and is based on a Greek text (TR) that includes passages (like the Comma Johanneum - 1 John 5:7-8) with very weak manuscript support.
Textual Basis: Modern translations using older, more diverse manuscript evidence (like the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts for NT) often reflect a text closer to the autographs than the TR does, especially where the TR relies on later manuscripts.
Providence & Translation: God's providence works through many faithful translations, not just one. Millions have come to faith through non-KJV translations accurately conveying the gospel.
Logical Fallacy ("Appeal to Tradition"): The argument "If the Westminster divines trusted their text without thinking it had mistakes, why can't we?" commits the appeal to tradition fallacy. Our belief should be based on evidence and sound hermeneutics, not solely on what past theologians believed before crucial manuscript discoveries were made.
Potential for Undermining Faith: By tying inerrancy and infallibility exclusively to one specific textual tradition (MT/TR) and one translation (KJV), this view creates unnecessary crises of faith when believers encounter the reality of textual variants or study modern translations. It suggests God's promise failed if the MT/TR aren't perfect, which is untrue.
3. Biblical and Theological Correction
1. God Preserves His Word Faithfully, Not Mechanically
God’s promise is to preserve His truth and make His Word accessible and trustworthy (cf. Isaiah 55:10–11). That does not require a word-perfect manuscript line without variants.
Jesus and the apostles quoted the Septuagint (LXX)—a Greek translation with many differences from the MT—yet never denied its authority.
2. The Bible is Inerrant in the Originals
We affirm the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), and we recognize God’s providence in preserving His Word. But inerrancy applies only to the original autographs, not every copy or edition (e.g., TR).
3. Textual Variants Exist but Do Not Corrupt Doctrine
Thousands of manuscript copies exist, and none of the variants affect essential doctrines (e.g., deity of Christ, salvation by grace).
Bart Ehrman, a critic of Christianity, admits: “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
4. Use a Balanced View of Translations
God’s Word has been preserved across many faithful translations. The KJV is a beautiful and historically important translation, but it is not perfect or exclusive.
Modern translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV, CSB) reflect accurate scholarship and are faithful to God’s preserved Word.
In Summary:
| Claim | Truth
| Every word preserved perfectly in TR/KJV | ❌ Unsupported by Scripture or history |
| Psalm 12:6–7 refers to preservation of words | ❌ Context points to people, not words |
| TR/KJV = original inspired Bible | ❌ TR is one of many manuscript families |
| Only KJV is faithful | ❌ Other translations are accurate and trustworthy |
| No errors in the Masoretic Text or TR | ❌ Many known textual issues exist |
The true doctrine of preservation is this: God has faithfully preserved His Word through a multitude of manuscripts and translations, enabling all generations to know His truth. We must avoid creating a doctrine of perfect textual preservation where Scripture itself does not teach it.
While affirming the crucial doctrine of God's preservation of His Word is essential, this article presents a specific interpretation ("Verbal Plenary Preservation" - VPP) that contains significant theological, historical, and textual weaknesses.
Correction Needed: A Biblically Faithful & Historically Grounded View
Affirm God's Faithful Preservation: God has sovereignly preserved His Word throughout history. The core message of salvation, the character of God, and the teachings essential for faith and practice are fully intact and reliably transmitted in the extant manuscripts. We have God's Word today.
Distinguish Substance from Transmission: God preserves the substance and truth of His revelation. Minor textual variations, overwhelmingly involving spelling, grammar, or synonyms, do not affect any core doctrine. Our faith rests on the message God has faithfully preserved, not on the myth of absolutely perfect transmission of every letter in one specific manuscript line.
Embrace Textual Criticism: Textual criticism is not an enemy of faith but a God-given tool to help us recover the text closest to the original autographs. By comparing thousands of manuscripts, scholars can identify and resolve variants with a high degree of confidence. The abundance of manuscripts is evidence for God's preservation, not against it.
Value Multiple Faithful Translations: God's Word is for all nations and languages. Faithful translations based on the best available textual evidence (which often includes earlier manuscripts than the TR/MT) are valid and powerful tools. The KJV is one valuable translation among many; its unique status is historical and linguistic, not divinely mandated.
Focus on the Message: The ultimate purpose of preservation is that God's people might know Him, His will, and His saving work in Christ (John 20:31; 2 Tim 3:15-17). This purpose is fulfilled through the reliably preserved and faithfully translated Scriptures we possess today.
Reinterpret "Proof Texts": Understand passages like Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, etc., as magnificent declarations of God's faithfulness to His covenant promises and the enduring power and truth of His revealed message, not as technical guarantees of zero textual variants in the transmission process. God preserves His Word through the sometimes-messy process of human copying and translation, ensuring its message remains potent and saving.
Conclusion:
The article's heart – a deep reverence for Scripture and trust in God's faithfulness – is commendable. However, its specific formulation of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) as requiring the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus to be identical to the autographs, and its elevation of the KJV as the only valid English translation, are biblically overstated, historically inaccurate, and textually unsustainable. A more robust doctrine of preservation affirms God's sovereign care in ensuring the reliable transmission of His saving message through the multiplicity of manuscripts and faithful translations, without requiring the denial of textual realities or binding faith to one specific textual tradition or translation. Our confidence is in God who has preserved His Word, not in the perfection of a single manuscript lineage.
Let us cherish the Bible as inerrant in its original writings, reliable in its transmission, and faithful in its message—without elevating one textual stream or translation as infallibly preserved.