If You Are Attending BPC...

If you encounter a church teaching doctrines like Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), KJV-Onlyism, or a "Perfect TR" (Textus Receptus), here’s a balanced approach based on biblical principles, scholarship, and pastoral wisdom:

If You Are Attending This Church:

1. Evaluate with Scripture & Scholarship:

o   Study the Bible objectively (using multiple translations like ESV, NASB, NIV) and compare it to the church’s claims. Examine manuscript evidence (e.g., Codex Vaticanus/Sinaiticus vs. TR) and scholarly resources (e.g., Dan Wallace, Bruce Metzger).

o   Recognize that VPP/KJV-Onlyism are minority views rejected by most evangelical scholars due to:

§  Lack of manuscript support for a "perfect" TR.

§  Translation errors in the KJV (e.g., 1 John 5:7–8; Acts 12:4).

§  God’s preservation of Scripture’s teachings (not every vowel) through thousands of manuscripts.

§  Like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), test everything against God’s Word. Study how Scripture defines inspiration and preservation (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:24–25) and what the Bible says about translations and manuscripts.

 

2. Engage Humbly & Respectfully:

o   Ask questions privately with leaders: "How do we reconcile textual variants in ancient manuscripts with VPP?" or "If the KJV has known translation errors (e.g., 'Easter' in Acts 12:4), how is it 'perfect'?"

o   Avoid accusations. Focus on seeking truth together (Acts 17:11).

o   Approach the pastors or elders respectfully. Ask for biblical support for their teachings on VPP, KJV-onlyism, and the "Perfect TR." Listen carefully, but weigh their answers carefully with sound exegesis.

o   If the leadership refuses to be corrected, you may need to lovingly confront doctrinal error. Correct with humility, avoiding a quarrelsome spirit (2 Tim 2:24–25).

3. Seek Wise Counsel:

o   Consult pastors/theologians outside this church for perspective.

o   If core doctrines (e.g., salvation, authority of Scripture) are upheld, disagreements over secondary issues may not require immediate departure—but if these views become tests of orthodoxy or foster division, reconsider your place (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:9–10).

4. Decide Prayerfully:

o   If leaders are unyielding and the teaching harms the church’s witness or your conscience, leave graciously (without sowing discord). Your primary allegiance is to Christ, not a group (Galatians 1:6–9).

o   If the leadership insists on promoting false doctrine as a test of faith or fellowship, it may be necessary to leave (Rom 16:17). Find a sound church that faithfully teaches the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), not man-made traditions or textual myths.

o   Protect your heart and your household from legalistic or divisive teachings that replace Christ-centered truth with textual absolutism.

 

If You Are an Outsider Addressing the Leadership:

1. Build Relationship First:

o   Engage leaders privately (Matt. 18:15), not publicly. Show genuine respect for their zeal for Scripture’s authority.

o   Galatians 6:1 – "If someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently."

o   Avoid harshness or sarcasm. Speak respectfully to the leaders.

2. Offer Scholarly Resources:

o   Share accessible works:

§  The King James Only Controversy by James R. White.

§  Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman (with discernment).

§  Essays from credible sources (e.g., CBMW, TGC) on textual transmission.

o   Highlight that scholars like B.B. Warfield (inerrantist) rejected KJV-Onlyism.

o   Ask Clarifying Questions：

§  “Why do you believe the KJV is the only faithful Bible?”

§  “Where in Scripture is the doctrine of a perfect TR found?”

§  “How do you define preservation—and how does that compare to how Scripture defines it?”

3. Appeal to Unity & Truth:

o   Emphasize that these doctrines:

§  Divide Christians unnecessarily (1 Cor. 1:10).

§  Undermine missions (e.g., insisting on KJV in non-English cultures).

§  Risk elevating tradition over biblical evidence (Mark 7:8–9).

4. Propose Humble Dialogue:

o   Suggest a moderated discussion with qualified scholars (e.g., from Westminster, SBTS) to review textual evidence together.

o   Show that VPP is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

o   Demonstrate that the KJV, while valuable, is a translation based on specific manuscript traditions, not a divine re-inspiration.

o   Clarify that no biblical promise guarantees a perfect printed edition of the TR or any manuscript family.

5. Know When to Step Back:

o   If leaders reject correction and the gospel is compromised, express concern prayerfully—then entrust them to God (2 Tim. 2:24–26). Do not force confrontation.

o   Warn that elevating the KJV or TR above all others divides the body and can lead to spiritual pride.

o   Emphasize God’s preservation of His Word in meaning, not necessarily in identical spelling or one manuscript tradition.

o   Recommend reading from a variety of faithful translations to gain fuller understanding.

o   Suggest resources from scholars and pastors who uphold biblical inerrancy without falling into textual extremism.

Key Theological Clarifications:

• Biblical Preservation: God preserved His message intact (Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35), not via one manuscript or translation. Over 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts show minor variations—none affecting core doctrines.
• KJV-Onlyism: The KJV is a valuable translation but not "inspired." Its underlying Greek TR contains passages (e.g., the Comma Johanneum) absent from older manuscripts.
• Gospel Priority: If the church affirms Christ’s deity, substitutionary atonement, and salvation by grace, secondary disagreements may not warrant separation—but if these views distort Scripture itself, caution is urgent.

Final Counsel: Truth requires courage, but also love and humility (Eph. 4:15). Whether inside or outside such a church, prioritize Christ-centered unity without compromising biblical fidelity. Pray for discernment, and trust the Holy Spirit to guide His Church (John 16:13).

Doctrinal purity matters deeply, especially when false teachings begin to distort the gospel or divide the church.

VPP, KJV-onlyism, and TR perfectionism are modern inventions, not apostolic doctrines.

Our faith is not in a translation or manuscript edition, but in the living Word of God revealed in Christ and faithfully transmitted through all reliable translations.

 

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” —John 17:17

“All Scripture is breathed out by God...” —2 Timothy 3:16 (Paul did not specify which manuscript or version.)

1 John 5:7-8

1 John 5:7 

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 

Readers of modern translations will realize that the extraordinary shortness of verse 7 is due to an omission from the text of several lines, found in the Textus Receptus and translated in the Authorized Version of 1611. The NIV footnote addition would give the following reading: ‘For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement’ (verses 7–8). They are completely ignored by the RSV and NEB since they do not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John before the fourteenth century, and then in only six, all of them late and so of very little value. The words came from a fifth-century Old Latin version and were incorporated into the Vulgate about AD 800, where they remained. F. F. Bruce, in a lucid discussion of the matter, tells how Erasmus was attacked for omitting the ‘three heavenly witnesses’ in his first printed edition of the Greek New Testament (1516). He replied that he would include them only if a Greek manuscript could be produced in which they were contained. Such a manuscript was eventually produced, written about 1520! Erasmus duly kept his word, although he realized that this was no evidence at all, and incorporated the extra text in his third edition (1522). Luther translated this into German and Tyndale into English. Other printed editions of the Greek New Testament also included it and by this route it was incorporated into the Textus Receptus and the Authorized Version of 1611.5 Perhaps the strongest evidence against the reading is that it is not quoted by any of the early church fathers, who, in their battles with the heretics, would only too gladly have seized on the text as a clear biblical testimony to the Trinity, had it existed.6

5 Bruce, pp. 129–130.

6 Marshall, p. 236.

David Jackman, The Message of John’s Letters: Living in the Love of God, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 151.

Byzantine text-type is a "corrupted" form of the New Testament text

Core Thesis: The Byzantine Text (or Majority Text) represents a later stage in the transmission of the New Testament, characterized by scribal efforts to:

Harmonize parallel passages (especially in the Gospels).

Expand texts for clarity, piety, or liturgical use.

Conflate (combine) different readings from earlier traditions.

Smooth out perceived grammatical difficulties or theological ambiguities.

Standardize the text across manuscripts.

This process resulted in a text that is generally longer and more uniform than the earliest recoverable text, but also one that reflects the cumulative editorial choices of later scribes rather than the earliest autographs.

Concrete Proofs and Evidence:

Chronological Priority of Other Text-Types:

Evidence: The earliest surviving New Testament manuscripts (papyri from the 2nd-4th centuries, like 𝔓⁷⁵, 𝔓⁶⁶, 𝔓⁴⁵, 𝔓⁴⁶) overwhelmingly support the Alexandrian text-type. Key early uncials like Sinaiticus (א, 4th cent.) and Vaticanus (B, 4th cent.), representing the Alexandrian text, predate the earliest pure Byzantine manuscripts by centuries.

Proof: The Byzantine text-type as a distinct, standardized form does not appear in manuscripts before the 5th century (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus - A - shows some Byzantine influence but is mixed). Its dominance comes much later (9th century onwards). The text-types showing the most variation (Alexandrian, Western) are found in the earliest manuscripts, while the highly uniform Byzantine text appears later. This strongly suggests the Byzantine text is a product of later standardization, not the original source.

Harmonization of Parallel Passages (Especially Gospels):

Concrete Example 1: Matthew 12:40

Alexandrian/Early: "For just as Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster three days and three nights..."

Byzantine: "For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights..." (Adding "great fish" from Jonah 1:17/Matt 12:40 LXX, harmonizing the story detail).

Concrete Example 2: Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4

Alexandrian/Early (P⁷⁵, א, B, D): Shorter version: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us into temptation."

Byzantine: Expands to match Matthew 6:9-13: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (Adds "Our...in heaven," "Your will be done...", "but deliver us from evil" - harmonizing Luke to the more familiar Matthean version).

Proof: The shorter, less harmonized readings in early Alexandrian manuscripts are demonstrably more difficult and likely original. Scribes tended to add familiar phrases from parallel accounts to make them consistent, not omit them.

Expansions of Piety and Clarity:

Concrete Example 1: Addition of "Lord" or "Christ" to "Jesus"

Alexandrian/Early (P⁷⁵, א, B): Luke 8:28: "What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?"

Byzantine: Often reads "What have I to do with you, Jesus, Lord, Son of the Most High God?" (Adding "Lord" for reverence).

Concrete Example 2: Acts 20:28

Alexandrian/Early (P⁷⁴, א, A, B): "...the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." (Theologically rich but potentially ambiguous - God's blood?).

Byzantine: "...the church of the Lord, which he obtained with his own blood." (Clarifies it's the Lord/Jesus whose blood was shed). OR "...the church of God, which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." (Further expansion for clarity and piety).

Concrete Example 3: Softening Phrases (Mark 1:41)

Alexandrian/Early (א, B, Old Latin): "Moved with anger (ὀργισθεὶς), Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him..."

Byzantine: "Moved with compassion (σπλαγχνισθεὶς), Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him..." (Scribes found "anger" difficult and replaced it with a more expected emotion).

Proof: These expansions consistently add reverential titles, clarify perceived ambiguities, or soften difficult statements. The principle of lectio difficilior potior (the more difficult reading is stronger) suggests the shorter, more theologically complex or challenging readings in early manuscripts are likely original. Scribes smoothed them out later.

Conflation (Combining Variants):

Concrete Example 1: Luke 24:53

Alexandrian (B): "...praising God."

Western (D): "...blessing God."

Byzantine: "...praising and blessing God." (Combines both readings).

Concrete Example 2: John 13:24 (Simon Peter gestures)

Alexandrian (P⁶⁶, א, B): "So Simon Peter nodded to him..."

Western (D): "So Simon Peter asked him..."

Byzantine: "So Simon Peter nodded and asked him..." (Combines both actions).

Proof: Conflation is a hallmark of later texts. When faced with two different readings in earlier manuscripts, later Byzantine scribes often included both, creating a longer text. This process is clearly visible by comparing the distinct readings in early Alexandrian and Western manuscripts to the combined readings in Byzantine texts. The original authors wouldn't write both; scribes copying from multiple sources did.

Linguistic and Grammatical Smoothing:

Concrete Example: Mark 6:33 (Preposition)

Alexandrian/Early (P⁴⁵, א, B): "...and ran there together from (ἐκεῖθεν) all the towns..."

Byzantine: "...and ran there together on foot (πεζῇ) from all the towns..." (Adds "on foot" for clarity/redundancy, sometimes also changing the preposition to συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ - smoothing the grammar).

Proof: Byzantine scribes often replaced unusual words, added clarifying adverbs or prepositions, or "corrected" grammar they perceived as awkward, resulting in a smoother but less original text.

Conclusion:

The Byzantine text is not "corrupted" in the sense of being maliciously altered, but rather in the technical textual critical sense of being developed and expanded over centuries of copying. The concrete evidence demonstrates:

It's Later: It appears as a standardized text centuries after the earliest manuscripts (Alexandrian/Western).

It's Expanded: It consistently adds words for harmonization, piety, clarity, and conflation.

It's Smoothed: It modifies difficult or ambiguous phrases.

It's Standardized: Its uniformity arises from later editorial control, not early origin.

Modern critical texts (like NA/UBS) prioritize the earliest and most diverse manuscript evidence (primarily Alexandrian, with significant Western input), precisely because they demonstrably preserve readings that are older, more difficult, less harmonized, and shorter than the later, more polished Byzantine text. The Byzantine text represents the end result of a long process of scribal transmission aimed at creating a clear, consistent, and reverential text for liturgical and devotional use within the mainstream Byzantine church.

Byzantine Text

To demonstrate clearly that the Byzantine Text (also known as the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus in its later printed form) is a corrupted and expanded form of the New Testament text, we must examine three main lines of concrete evidence:

---

1. Historical and Chronological Evidence

❗ The Byzantine Text Is Late

• The earliest complete and undisputed Byzantine manuscripts date from the 9th century onward (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus is 5th century but only partially Byzantine).

• Earlier manuscripts (2nd–4th centuries) — such as Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א) — do not support the Byzantine readings. These belong to the Alexandrian text-type.

• No full Byzantine-type manuscript exists from the first 800 years of Christianity.

🕰️ Comparison of Manuscript Dates:

Manuscript	Century	Text-type
Papyrus 66 (P66)	c. 200 AD	Alexandrian
Papyrus 75 (P75)	c. 175–225 AD	Alexandrian
Codex Vaticanus (B)	4th century	Alexandrian
Codex Sinaiticus (א)	4th century	Alexandrian
Majority/Byzantine MSS	9th–15th centuries	Byzantine

✅ Conclusion: The Byzantine text is late, and cannot represent the original autographs better than earlier witnesses.

---

2. Textual Comparison and Additions

📌 Byzantine Text Is Full of Additions

Scholars have documented many verses or phrases found in the Byzantine text but absent from the earliest and best manuscripts.

⚖️ Examples of Additions:

✒️ Matthew 17:21

• Byzantine: “However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”

• Not found in earliest manuscripts like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, and P75.

• Likely added due to harmonization with Mark 9:29.

✒️ John 5:4

• Byzantine: “For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool…”

• Absent from early Alexandrian texts (P66, P75, Vaticanus).

• It interrupts the flow of John 5:3–5 and is believed to be a gloss (marginal note) that entered the main text.

✒️ Luke 24:51 (Ascension of Jesus)

• Byzantine: “and was carried up into heaven”

• Earliest manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) omit this phrase.

• Likely added for harmonization with Acts 1:9.

✒️ Doxology in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13)

• Byzantine: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.”

• Absent in earliest Greek MSS (e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P64).

• Known to be a liturgical addition that crept into the text.

✅ Conclusion: The Byzantine text is longer, and these longer readings are not original, but later scribal additions.

---

3. Internal Evidence and Scribal Habits

✒️ Scribes Tend to Add, Not Shorten

• The nature of textual corruption typically follows a pattern:

  • Additions for clarification, harmonization, and piety.

  • Rarely do scribes remove material without reason.

• Byzantine scribes often harmonized Gospel accounts (making them more similar) — a clear indication of expansion.

📚 Scholars Agree:

• Bruce Metzger: “The Byzantine text… incorporates many changes which are characteristic of a later stage of transmission.”

• Kurt and Barbara Aland: “The Byzantine text is a secondary text, composed of readings selected from earlier text-types.”

✅ Conclusion: The internal evidence of scribal habits supports the secondary, expanded nature of the Byzantine text.

---

Summary of the Case Against the Byzantine Text

Line of Evidence	Finding
Historical	Byzantine text is late (9th century), absent in earliest MSS
Textual	Contains many interpolations not found in earliest and best texts
Internal	Reflects scribal expansion, harmonization, and doctrinal smoothing

---

Final Conclusion:

The Byzantine text is not the original form of the New Testament. It is a corrupted, expanded text developed through centuries of copying and editing, particularly in the Byzantine Empire.

The earlier manuscripts (Alexandrian text-type), supported by papyri and early church citations, more faithfully reflect the authentic text of the apostles.

A critique of the article: Our Position on the Preservation of Scripture

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.

Textual Variations Between 300 AD and 500 AD

Augustine wrote De Doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine) over an extended period, beginning around 396 AD and completing it in 426 AD. The specific discussion about manuscript variants and the integrity of doctrine—appears in Book II, which was likely written between 396 and 427 AD.

Key Timeline:

Books I–III: Likely drafted around 396–397 AD, shortly after Augustine became Bishop of Hippo (in 395 AD).

Book IV: Completed much later, around 426–427 AD, after a long interruption.

The entire work was finalized by 427 AD.

So, when Augustine discusses textual variants and preserving doctrinal truth (Book II, Chapters 12–15), he likely wrote those early in his bishopric, between 396 and 397 AD.

Clarifying the Source: De Doctrina Christiana

In De Doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), Augustine does discuss textual variants and the authority of Scripture, most notably in Book II, Chapter 14:

Augustine wrote: "...the great number of the translators proves a very great assistance, if they are examined and discussed with a careful comparison of their texts. Only all positive error must be removed. For those who are anxious to know, the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected, at least when they are copies of the same translation." (II.14)

It is not to be doubted that the translators of the Scriptures sometimes differ from one another; and the variety of readings in the manuscripts is such that it is very difficult to find out which of them is correct.

In the same context, he advises careful comparison of manuscripts, and gives priority to the Hebrew and Greek originals, but recognizes the value of comparing Latin versions to discern the most faithful reading. His main concern is preserving the meaning and doctrine, even if words differ.

He further states: "...Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned;..." (II.15.22)

Take note of what he said, "Among the translations themselves the Italian (Old Latin) is to be preferred, for it keeps closer to the words without losing clarity."

This shows Augustine was aware of textual discrepancies, valued textual criticism, and did not demand word-for-word uniformity—but held that the core doctrine remains intact despite variant readings.

Did Augustine Believe in a Perfect Bible?

No, not in the modern KJV-only or Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) sense. Here's why:

Augustine knew and accepted that the manuscripts of Scripture contain variations.

He held the view that the essential truth and teaching of Scripture is preserved, even if some copyist errors or minor variants exist.

He encouraged comparing different manuscripts and translations to arrive at the most accurate understanding, not relying on one perfect copy.

He said in "On the Christian Struggle" (Contra Faustum): "Accordingly, should there be a question about the text of some passage, as there are a few passages with various readings well known to students of the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult the manuscripts of the country where the religion was first taught; and if these still varied, we should take the text of the greater number, or of the more ancient. And if any uncertainty remained, we should consult the original text. This is the method employed by those who, in any question about the Scriptures, do not lose sight of the regard due to their authority, and inquire with the view of gaining information, not of raising disputes."

What is held with unanimity by the Church universal, and is found in the more reliable manuscripts, must be preferred." (Paraphrased; see Contra Faustum, Book 11, Chapter 2)

Augustine did not believe in a "perfect Bible" in the VPP or modern fundamentalist sense.

He affirmed that the doctrine of Scripture remains true, even amid textual variations.

His method was critical, reasoned, and theological, emphasizing the message over mechanical perfection.

Manuscripts Available to Early Councils

Council of Laodicea held on 363 - 364 AD

Council of Hippo Year: 393 AD

Council of Carthage

Relevant Sessions:

397 AD: Ratified the same 27-book NT canon as Hippo (393).

419 AD: Reaffirmed the canon lists of 397 and added clarifications.

Carthage (397) is often cited as the earliest surviving conciliar decree listing the full 27-book NT.

Its decisions spread widely, becoming foundational for the Western church.

These councils (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage) did not have access to the later "Byzantine" text-type manuscripts familiar to us from the Middle Ages. Instead, they relied on earlier manuscript traditions circulating in the 2nd–4th centuries:

Councils sought to define which books were apostolic and authoritative for faith (e.g., "Is Revelation genuinely from John?").

They did not attempt to standardize every word of Scripture. Manuscript variations (spelling, minor phrases) were well-known but not seen as threatening core teachings.

Early Christians believed God inspired the authors (e.g., Paul, Luke)—not that every copyist was divinely guided.

As Augustine noted: "Variants in manuscripts are to be examined, but the truth of doctrine remains intact" (De Doctrina Christiana).

No single "perfect" manuscript existed. Councils worked with texts available regionally.

Example: The Council of Laodicea (AD 363) rejected Revelation—not due to textual flaws but because its apostolic origin was disputed in the East.

These Church Council Formalizing the canon (e.g., Hippo/Carthage affirming 27 books) declared which books were Scripture—not which version of those books was "perfect."

Key Context:

Manuscripts Used: These councils relied on early Greek/Latin copies (Alexandrian/Western text-types), not later Byzantine manuscripts.

Goal: They sought to define authoritative apostolic writings (canon), not perfect textual uniformity. Minor manuscript variations were known but not seen as invalidating the books' divine authority.

Why Not "Perfect"? Perfection was attributed to God's inspiration of the original authors, not later scribes. Councils focused on authenticity (apostolic origin) and doctinal consistency—not textual minutiae.

For reference: The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD) and Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 AD) were pivotal pre-council milestones, while Hippo/Carthage provided conciliar ratification of the emerging consensus.

Conclusion: The Quest for Authority, Not Perfection

The early Church’s formation of the biblical canon—formalized through councils like Laodicea (363–364), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397/419)—was driven by a pursuit of apostolic authority, not textual perfection. These councils relied on diverse manuscript traditions (Alexandrian, Western, Old Latin) circulating in the 2nd–4th centuries, acknowledging variations but prioritizing doctinal integrity over mechanical uniformity. Augustine’s contemporaneous work De Doctrina Christiana (396–397) explicitly affirmed this approach: textual variants existed, but the core truths of Scripture remained intact through careful comparison of manuscripts and translations.

Neither Augustine nor the councils operated under the illusion of a "perfect" physical Bible. Instead, they:

Distinguished inspiration from transmission: God’s inspiration resided in the original authors, not later scribes.

Valued critical discernment: Augustine advocated cross-referencing Greek/Hebrew texts and translations (like the Itala) to resolve uncertainties.

Focused on canonical authority: Councils declared which books carried apostolic authority—not which wording was divinely preserved.

The canon’s closure (e.g., the 27-book NT ratified at Hippo/Carthage) reflected a consensus that these texts were sufficient for salvation and faithful teaching, despite known textual variants. This historical reality dismantles modern claims of a "perfectly preserved" text (e.g., KJV-Onlyism). The early Church’s legacy is one of theological confidence amid textual diversity—trusting that God’s revelation endured through the Spirit-guided witness of the Church, not the ink of scribes.

"The Scriptures remain true in their essence, even where human hands differ." — Augustine’s enduring principle.

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.