Why is not possible that verse 8 of 1 Corinthians 13 be not translated as completions of NT and apostolic ages?

The short answer is this: 1 Corinthians 13:8 cannot mean “the completion of the New Testament” or “the end of the apostolic age” because Paul’s language, logic, and hope point far beyond history and into the final state of redemption. Once you slow down and actually listen to the text, the cessationist shortcut collapses.

Let’s walk through it calmly and honestly.

---

1. Paul Is Contrasting the Present Age with the Final State, Not One Church Era with Another

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul sets up a clear contrast:

Now → Then
Partial → Complete
Knowing in part → Knowing fully
Seeing dimly → Seeing face to face

This is eschatological language. That word simply means: language about the end, the final fulfillment of God’s plan.

When Paul says in verse 12,

“Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face,”

he is using language that, everywhere else in Scripture, refers to the direct vision of God, not the closing of a canon or the death of apostles.

No Jew in the first century—Paul included—used “face to face” to describe reading a completed book. That phrase comes from Old Testament encounters with God Himself (e.g., Moses). Paul is pointing forward to the consummation, not a publishing milestone.

---

2. “Knowing Fully” Cannot Describe the Post-Apostolic Church

Paul says:

“Then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

Ask the obvious question:
Has any Christian after the apostles known God as fully as God knows them?

Of course not.

Even the most learned theologians, armed with a complete New Testament, still confess partial knowledge, mystery, and limitation. The church today does not possess the kind of knowledge Paul describes here.

If “the perfect” arrived with the completed New Testament, then verse 12 would imply that ordinary believers now possess near-equal knowledge to God’s knowledge of them. That is not just wrong—it is theologically reckless.

Paul’s vision is glorification, not information.

---

3. The Illustration of Maturity Points to Resurrection, Not Canon Closure

Paul uses a personal analogy:

“When I was a child, I spoke like a child… when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”

This is not a timeline of church history.
It is a contrast between this life and the life to come.

Paul consistently uses “maturity” language to describe the transition from the present fallen condition into resurrection life. The “childhood” is life under weakness, sin, and limitation. The “manhood” is life completed, restored, perfected.

Paul never uses this language anywhere else to describe the closing of revelation or the end of apostles. That idea has to be imported into the text. It does not arise from it.

---

4. The Context Is Love’s Permanence, Not Gifts’ Replacement by Scripture

Verse 8 begins:

“Love never ends.”

That is the controlling idea.

Spiritual gifts are temporary because they belong to the present age, where the church needs signs, knowledge, and mediated revelation. Love is permanent because it belongs to the age to come.

Paul is not saying:

“Gifts will stop when something better replaces them.”

He is saying:

“Gifts will stop when they are no longer needed.”

And when are they no longer needed?
When faith becomes sight.
When hope becomes possession.
When mediation gives way to direct presence.

A completed New Testament does not eliminate the need for faith, hope, or love. Resurrection does.

---

5. Paul Expected “the Perfect” to Coincide with Christ’s Return

Throughout his letters, Paul consistently locates perfection, fullness, and completion at the return of Christ, not at an earlier church milestone.

The Corinthians reading this letter would have naturally understood “the perfect” as the age to come, because that is how Jewish and early Christian theology worked. They were not thinking about a future leather-bound Bible on a shelf. That concept did not exist.

To claim Paul meant “the New Testament canon” requires assuming:

• Paul foresaw a 27-book canon
• Paul expected gifts to cease within decades
• Paul used eschatological language metaphorically for ecclesial administration

None of those assumptions are stated, implied, or supported by the text.

---

6. The Argument Collapses If Applied Consistently

Here is the decisive point.

If “the perfect” = completion of the New Testament, then:

• Faith should already have given way to sight
• Hope should already be fulfilled
• Knowledge should already be full
• The church should already be mature in the absolute sense Paul describes

But Paul ends the chapter by saying:

“So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three…”

Faith and hope still abide. That alone proves “the perfect” has not yet arrived.

Paul’s timeline is simple:
Now → faith, hope, love
Then → love alone

We are still in the “now.”

---

Final Summary

It is not possible to translate or interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8 as referring to the completion of the New Testament or the end of the apostolic age because:

• The language is eschatological, not historical
• “Face to face” points to God, not Scripture
• “Knowing fully” exceeds any post-apostolic reality
• The maturity metaphor fits resurrection, not canon formation
• Paul consistently places perfection at Christ’s return
• Faith and hope still remain, proving the “then” has not arrived

The chapter is not about when gifts stopped.
It is about why love lasts.

Paul lifts our eyes beyond church debates and reminds us that everything partial—gifts, knowledge, weakness—will one day give way to glory. Until then, we live by faith, serve in love, and wait for the day when “then” finally arrives.

Announcement to Our Readers

We thank God for the growing community of readers and writers who share a love for truth, Scripture, and careful reflection.

We would like to invite all who wish to contribute their writings to our blog to do so. If you have articles, reflections, sermons, studies, or thoughtful essays that you believe will bless the church and build up God’s people, you are welcome to submit them.

Please send all your writings to the following email address:

febc992@gmail.com

All submissions will be reviewed and edited by the editor for clarity, faithfulness, and readability. After editing, selected writings will be published on our website with proper credit to the author.

We see this as a shared work—many voices, one purpose: to serve the church with truth, humility, and love.

We look forward to reading and sharing your work.

A Review of "Identification of God's Preserved Words" and Doctrinal Advice

This research paper serves as a formal theological review and critique of the teachings presented in the website: https://www.truthbpc.com/v4/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_toc, specifically regarding the doctrine of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) as advocated by Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, and Das Koshy.

Title:The Dangers of Eisegetical Dogmatism: A Theological Critique of the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and a Call to Unity

To: Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Das Koshy

Subject: A Review of "Identification of God's Preserved Words" and Doctrinal Advice

Date: October 26, 2025

I. Abstract

This paper reviews the article "Identification Of God's Preserved Words (II)" (Lesson 9) and the accompanying Q&A (Lesson 10). It argues that the definition of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) promoted therein constitutes a theological novelty that departs from historical Reformed Bibliology. By equating the 16th-century Textus Receptus and the King James Version (KJV) underlying texts with the infallible Autographs, the authors fall into the error of "Ruckmanism-lite" or KJV-Perfectonism. This position forces untenable harmonizations of scribal errors, ignores historical evidence, and creates an unbiblical test of fellowship. The paper concludes that this teaching is divisive, potentially schismatic, and borders on heresy by adding extra-biblical requirements to the definition of Orthodoxy.

II. Introduction

The integrity of the Holy Scriptures is the foundation of the Christian faith. We affirm "Sola Scriptura" and the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) of the original autographs. However, the teaching presented—that the "Apographs" (specifically the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and the Scrivener/Beza "Textus Receptus") are a "100% perfect"  reproduction of the Autographs without a single scribal variance—is a theological error.

The proponents claim their view is the "Reformed" position , yet they rely on a circular "Logic of Faith"  that bypasses historical reality. This paper will refute the arguments found in "Lesson 9" regarding Canon, Text, and Words, demonstrating that this specific brand of VPP is not a defense of the Bible, but a indefensible dogma that brings the Scriptures into disrepute and divides the Body of Christ.

III. Refutation of "Lesson 9: Identification Of God's Preserved Words (II)"

The article attempts to identify the infallible Scriptures in three areas: Canon, Texts, and Words. We will analyze each errors.

A. Critique of the Views on Canon

The authors argue that just as the Canon is fixed, the Text must be fixed in one specific tradition.

The Error: This is a "category mistake". The Canon (the list of books) is established by the usage of the universal church over centuries. The Text (the wording within those books) has been preserved through the "multiplicity" of manuscripts, not a single static line.

 

Refutation: The authors dismiss the role of historical investigation, yet they rely on the Council of Carthage (AD 397) to define the Canon. They accept the historical process for the Canon but reject the historical process (Textual Criticism) for the Text. You cannot have it both ways. The same God who used the consensus of the church to fix the Canon used the multiplicity of manuscripts to preserve the text, ensuring that no doctrine is lost even if scribal variants exist.

B. Critique of the Views on Texts (OT & NT)

The article asserts that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus (TR) are the only preserved texts, rejecting all others as "corrupt".

1. The Old Testament Fallacy

The Error: The authors reject the Biblia Hebraica (Kittel/Stuttgart) because it includes variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. They claim the Ben Chayyim text (published 1524-25) is the only standard.

Refutation: This is chronologically and theologically unsound. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) predate the Masoretic Text by over 1,000 years. In many places, the DSS confirm the Masoretic text, but in others, they show that the Septuagint (LXX) preserved a more ancient Hebrew reading. To reject the DSS—the greatest archaeological discovery confirming the antiquity of the Bible—simply because they do not match the 16th-century printed text 100% is not "faith"; it is obscurantism.

2. The New Testament Fallacy (The "Two Streams" Theory)

The Error: The article promotes the conspiracy theory of "Two Streams": a pure stream (Byzantine/TR) and a corrupt stream (Alexandrian). It attacks Westcott and Hort as "heretics".

Refutation: This is a "Genetic Fallacy" (attacking the men rather than the data).

Antiquity: The "corrupt" Alexandrian manuscripts (e.g., P75, Vaticanus) are centuries older than the majority of Byzantine manuscripts.

Providence: If God preserved His text, why did He allow the "pure" Byzantine text to be unknown to the early church fathers in the first few centuries, who frequently quoted readings that match the Alexandrian text?

The Textus Receptus: The TR is not a single text; it went through many editions (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Scrivener). Erasmus, a Roman Catholic humanist, created the first TR using only a handful of late manuscripts and even back-translated the last six verses of Revelation from Latin because he lacked the Greek! To claim this eclectic patchwork is the "100% perfect" autograph is historically untenable.

C. Critique of the Views on "Words" (Specific Errors)

The most dangerous aspect of this teaching is the insistence that there are "no scribal errors" in the KJV underlying text. This forces the authors into impossible exegetical gymnastics.

1. The Case of 2 Chronicles 22:2 (Ahaziah's Age)

The Issue: 2 Chronicles 22:2 in the KJV/Masoretic says Ahaziah was 42** when he began to reign. 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22.

 

The Authors' Argument: They insist "42" is the inspired number and suggest it refers to the "dynasty of Omri," not his biological age.

Refutation: This is eisegetical madness.

Ahaziah's father, Jehoram, died at age 40 (2 Chron 21:20). If Ahaziah was 42 when he succeeded his father, he would be two years older than his own father.

The "Dynasty Age" theory is a desperate fabrication with no linguistic support in the Hebrew text of that verse.

The logical conclusion is a "scribal error" in the copyist transmission of Chronicles (confusing the Hebrew letters for 20 and 40). Admitting a scribal error in the "Apograph" preserves the inerrancy of the "Autograph". Denying the error forces the Bible to teach a biological impossibility, making the Scripture mockable to any rational reader.

2. The Case of 1 Samuel 13:1

The Issue: The Hebrew MT reads literally "Saul was a son of a year" (one year old) when he reigned.

 

The Authors' Argument: They accept the "one year" reading, interpreting it as "Saul was one year into his reign".

Refutation: The formula "Son of X years" is used dozens of times in the OT to denote biological age. To change the definition of a standard Hebrew idiom only in this verse to save a dogma is to twist Scripture. The Septuagint and other versions preserve the number "30," indicating a scribal dropout in the MT.

IV. The Theological Danger: Fideism vs. True Faith

In the Q&A (Lesson 10), Khoo argues for the "Logic of Faith" —the idea that because God promised preservation, the text we possess (KJV/TR) must be perfect.

This is Circular Reasoning (Fideism):

1. Premise: God promised to preserve His words (true).

2. Assumption: Preservation means a single, error-free manuscript chain available in 1611 (false—nowhere does the Bible specify "how" preservation works).

3. Conclusion: The TR is that text.

The Historical Reformed View (WCF 1.8):

The Westminster Confession states that Hebrew and Greek originals are authentic. It does "not" say the copies are free from scribal slips. The great Reformers (Calvin, Beza) engaged in textual criticism, correcting manuscripts they felt were in error. By demanding a "perfect" copy, you are adopting a view closer to Islam (which claims a perfect Quranic text) than historical Christianity (which locates perfection in the breathing of God [Inspiration], not the pen of the scribe).

V. The Charge of Schism and Heresy

1. Dividing the Body on Non-Essentials

The authors admit that their opponents believe the KJV is the "Word of God" and "fully reliable". Yet, because these opponents admit to minor scribal errors (like the age of Ahaziah), the authors label them as denying the faith or attacking the Bible.

Verdict: This is schismatic. You are elevating a theory of text (VPP) to the level of the Gospel. You are separating from brethren who hold to the Inerrancy of the Autographs—the standard position of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

2. Teaching Falsehood as Truth

By teaching that a man can be older than his father (2 Chron 22:2) or that Erasmus's hastily assembled Greek text is equal to the Autographs, you are teaching demonstrably false things. When a theology requires you to deny reality (math and history), the theology is flawed.

3. The "Paper Pope"

By vesting 100% infallibility in a 16th-century printed text (Ben Chayyim/TR), you have effectively created a "Paper Pope." You have removed the authority from the original God-breathed text and placed it upon the decisions of uninspired editors (Ben Chayyim, Erasmus, Stephanus). This is a subtle form of idolatry of the instrument.

VI. Advice and Conclusion

To Khoo, Quek, and Koshy:

I urge you to reconsider your position for the sake of the Church's unity and the integrity of the Gospel.

1. Distinguish Inspiration from Preservation: Affirm that Inspiration applies to the Autographs (2 Tim 3:16). Affirm that Preservation is "providential"—meaning God has preserved His truth in the "totality" of the manuscript evidence, ensuring no doctrine is lost, but allowing for minor scribal variants that we must study to resolve.

2. Abandon the "Perfection" of Copies: Admit that scribal errors (like 2 Chron 22:2) exist in the copies. This does not destroy the Bible; it highlights the need for a diligent clergy to study the text (2 Tim 2:15). Denying plain errors makes you vulnerable to cultic accusations.

3. Stop the Schism: Do not demand that members or other pastors subscribe to "VPP" as a test of fellowship. The belief in the "Infallibility of the Autographs" and the "Reliability of the Bible" is sufficient for Christian unity.

4. "Repent of Divisiveness": You are labeling faithful men as heretics or "modernists" simply because they do not accept the KJV/TR as the Autograph. This is a sin against the brethren.

Conclusion:

Your zeal for the Bible is evident, but it is a "zeal not according to knowledge" (Rom 10:2). By anchoring your faith in a specific printed text rather than the God who gave it, you are building on sand. The VPP doctrine, as you teach it, is untenable historically, logically, and biblically. Return to the historic Reformed position: The Bible is the infallible Word of God, preserved in the church by God's providence through the ages, not limited to one 16th-century tradition. Stop dividing the flock over jot and tittle variants and unite around the Living Word, Jesus Christ.

20 Apologetics Training Points: Refuting VPP for Young Christians

CATEGORY 1: BIBLICAL REFUTATIONS

1. The "Missing Promise" Problem

Elevator Pitch: VPP claims God promised perfect manuscript preservation, but they can't show you where in the Bible God actually made that promise.

Key Point It Solves: Helps youth recognize that VPP adds to Scripture what God never said.

Apologetics Training:

• Challenge: Ask VPP advocates to show ONE verse where God promises identical manuscript preservation (not just that His Word endures).
• Key Distinction: Matthew 24:35 ("My words will not pass away") = God's truth endures forever. NOT = every manuscript must be identical.
• Scripture Check: Read Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 together - adding doctrines God didn't teach IS adding to Scripture.
• Your Response: "I believe God's Word endures forever. I just don't see where God promised what VPP claims. Can you show me the actual verse?"

Follow-up Question for You: Should I include more on how to distinguish between what verses actually say vs. what VPP claims they say?

2. The Context Killer: Psalm 12

Elevator Pitch: VPP's "proof text" (Psalm 12:6-7) is actually about God protecting oppressed people, not manuscripts - read the whole chapter!

Key Point It Solves: Teaches how to read Scripture in context instead of isolating verses.

Apologetics Training:

• Read Together: Psalm 12:1-5 - Notice the theme is oppressed people being attacked by liars.
• Verse 5: God says "I will protect THEM" (the oppressed people mentioned throughout).
• Verse 7: "You will keep THEM safe" - continues the same thought about protecting people.
• The Test: Cover up verses 6-7 and ask: "What's this Psalm about - people or manuscripts?" Everyone will say "people."
• Your Response: "If the whole Psalm is about protecting people from wicked oppressors, why would verse 7 suddenly switch to manuscripts? That doesn't make sense."

Follow-up Question: Would visual aids help - like showing how Psalm 12 flows when you read the whole thing?

3. Jesus Didn't Teach VPP

Elevator Pitch: Jesus quoted from manuscripts that had minor differences, proving He didn't require perfect identical copies.

Key Point It Solves: Shows that even Jesus worked with "imperfect" manuscripts and called them God's Word.

Apologetics Training:

• Example 1: Jesus quoted Deuteronomy in Matthew 4:4, but His quote differs slightly from the Hebrew - yet He called it God's Word.
• Example 2: The Gospel writers quote the same OT verse differently (compare Matthew 2:15 with Hosea 11:1).
• The Point: If Jesus required perfect identical manuscripts, He would have corrected these "discrepancies." He didn't - because substance matters, not mechanical perfection.
• Historical Fact: In Jesus' day, multiple Hebrew manuscript traditions existed (Dead Sea Scrolls prove this). Jesus never said "only use manuscript family X."
• Your Response: "If VPP were true, Jesus would have told us which manuscripts to use. He never did."

Follow-up Question: Should I add more examples of NT writers quoting OT verses with variations?

4. The Bible Contains Textual Variants... IN THE BIBLE

Elevator Pitch: Scripture itself shows us the same event with different details, proving God allows variation while preserving truth.

Key Point It Solves: Demonstrates that perfect word-for-word identity isn't required for Scripture to be God's Word.

Apologetics Training:

• Compare: 2 Samuel 22 with Psalm 18 (nearly identical but with small differences in Hebrew).
• Compare: Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's accounts of the same events (different words, same truth).
• The Question: "If God demands perfect word-for-word preservation in manuscripts, why did He inspire different accounts of the same events in Scripture?"
• The Answer: Because God cares about TRUTH being preserved, not mechanical word-for-word identity.
• Your Response: "God inspired the Bible with built-in variations. That shows us He values faithful transmission of truth over mechanical perfection."

Follow-up Question: Want me to list specific parallel passages they can compare?

CATEGORY 2: HISTORICAL REFUTATIONS

5. The "Perfect Manuscript" That Doesn't Exist

Elevator Pitch: VPP claims one manuscript tradition is perfect, but even manuscripts in that tradition disagree with each other.

Key Point It Solves: Exposes that VPP's claim is historically impossible to prove.

Apologetics Training:

• The Claim: VPP says the Textus Receptus (TR) is perfectly preserved.
• The Problem: There are multiple editions of the TR that differ from each other (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir all differ).
• The Question: "Which edition of the TR is the 'perfect' one? They don't all agree."
• Even Worse: The KJV itself was revised multiple times (1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769). Which version is "perfect"?
• Your Response: "If God perfectly preserved every letter, why are there differences between TR editions and KJV versions? VPP can't answer this."

Follow-up Question: Should I include specific examples of differences between TR editions?

6. The Church Survived 1,500 Years Without VPP

Elevator Pitch: Christians trusted Scripture and spread the gospel for 1,500+ years before anyone invented the VPP doctrine.

Key Point It Solves: Shows VPP isn't necessary for faith, missions, or Christian living.

Apologetics Training:

• Timeline: VPP as a formal doctrine = 20th-21st century. The Great Commission = 1st century.
• The Facts:
  • Early church fathers (100-400 AD) - knew about textual variants, still trusted Scripture
  • Medieval church - copied manuscripts faithfully, never claimed perfection
  • Reformers - used best available texts, never taught VPP
  • Missionaries - translated Bible into hundreds of languages before VPP existed
• The Question: "If VPP is essential to Christianity, how did the church survive and thrive for 1,900 years without it?"
• Your Response: "The gospel spread worldwide without VPP. That proves it's not a biblical requirement."

Follow-up Question: Would quotes from Reformers like Luther and Calvin help (showing they didn't teach VPP)?

7. The KJV Translators Didn't Believe VPP

Elevator Pitch: The men who translated the KJV said other translations were also God's Word - totally opposite of VPP!

Key Point It Solves: Uses VPP's own "hero translation" to refute VPP teaching.

Apologetics Training:

• Quote from KJV Preface (1611): "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible... containeth the word of God."
• What This Means: KJV translators believed MANY translations (even "meanest" = poorest) contain God's Word.
• More Evidence:
  • They included marginal notes showing alternate readings
  • They used multiple source manuscripts, not just one "perfect" text
  • They revised their translation multiple times
• Your Response: "The KJV translators themselves rejected what VPP teaches. That's awkward for VPP advocates."

Follow-up Question: Should I include the actual quote from the KJV preface for them to read?

8. Manuscript Evidence Contradicts VPP

Elevator Pitch: We have 5,800+ Greek NT manuscripts - they're 99%+ identical but NOT 100% identical, proving VPP is false.

Key Point It Solves: Uses actual evidence to show God's ACTUAL method of preservation is better than VPP's claim.

Apologetics Training:

• The Facts:
  • 5,800+ Greek NT manuscripts exist
  • 10,000+ Latin manuscripts
  • Thousands in other ancient languages
  • Over 1 million quotations from early church fathers
• Agreement Level: 99%+ identical - remarkable for ancient documents!
• VPP's Problem: That remaining 1% shows manuscripts aren't perfectly identical.
• God's Actual Method: Multiple independent witnesses across different regions and time periods - BETTER than one "perfect" manuscript (which could be corrupted or lost).
• Your Response: "God gave us overwhelming evidence through thousands of manuscripts. VPP's demand for mechanical perfection actually insults God's wisdom."

Follow-up Question: Want a simple illustration comparing God's method to a safety system (redundancy is better)?

CATEGORY 3: LOGICAL REFUTATIONS

9. The Circular Reasoning Trap

Elevator Pitch: VPP "proves" the Bible is perfect by assuming it's perfect - that's circular logic, not biblical faith.

Key Point It Solves: Teaches critical thinking about religious claims.

Apologetics Training:

• VPP's Argument:
  1. "God must have perfectly preserved His Word"
  2. "Therefore the TR/KJV is perfect"
  3. "How do we know? Because God preserves His Word perfectly"
• The Problem: This is circular - they assume what they're trying to prove.
• Compare to: "The Book of Mormon is true because it says it's true" - same logic!
• Better Approach: Start with evidence God HAS provided (thousands of manuscripts) and trust His wisdom in HOW He preserved His Word.
• Your Response: "You're assuming your conclusion. Show me FROM SCRIPTURE that God promised what you claim, without assuming it first."

Follow-up Question: Should I add examples of other circular arguments so they can recognize the pattern?

10. The "Lost Words" Contradiction

Elevator Pitch: VPP says no words are lost, but manuscript variations mean SOME reading must be non-original - VPP can't have it both ways.

Key Point It Solves: Exposes internal contradiction in VPP logic.

Apologetics Training:

• Setup: When two manuscripts differ, at least ONE must not be original.
• Example: 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum)
  • Present in late Latin manuscripts
  • Absent from early Greek manuscripts
  • One of these must be non-original
• VPP's Problem:
  • If they say late Latin is original → early Greek "lost" it (contradicts VPP)
  • If they say early Greek is original → late Latin "added" it (contradicts VPP)
  • Can't claim both are original - they contradict each other
• Your Response: "You can't say both readings are original when they contradict. Admitting one is non-original admits words were NOT preserved perfectly in every manuscript."

Follow-up Question: Should I include more examples of variants where this logic applies?

11. The "Which Language?" Problem

Elevator Pitch: VPP claims English KJV is "God's Word" but can't explain what Spanish, Chinese, or Swahili speakers should do.

Key Point It Solves: Shows VPP's English-centrism is illogical and unfair to global church.

Apologetics Training:

• The Question: "Is the KJV the only perfect Bible?"
  • If YES → What about non-English speakers? (2+ billion Christians!)
  • If NO → Then VPP admits translations can vary and still be God's Word
• The Dilemma: VPP typically says "original Hebrew/Greek is perfect" BUT also says KJV is perfect in English. Which is it?
• Global Reality: Most Christians don't speak English. Did God only preserve His Word for English speakers?
• Better View: Multiple faithful translations in many languages can all be "God's Word" - which is what the KJV translators believed!
• Your Response: "My friend reads a Spanish Bible. Is he reading God's Word or not? VPP creates an impossible situation for most Christians."

Follow-up Question: Want me to add statistics on global Christianity and Bible translation?

12. The "Perfect Translation" Impossibility

Elevator Pitch: No translation can be 100% equivalent to the original language - that's not how language works.

Key Point It Solves: Teaches basic linguistics to refute VPP's translation claims.

Apologetics Training:

• Language Fact: Every language has unique idioms, wordplays, and grammar that don't translate perfectly.
• Examples:
  • Hebrew has one word for "love" - Greek has 4 (agape, phileo, eros, storge)
  • Greek has more verb tenses than English
  • Wordplays like Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter [Petros], and on this rock [petra]") don't work in English
• VPP's Claim: KJV perfectly preserves every word in English.
• The Problem: This is linguistically impossible. Translation always involves interpretation.
• Your Response: "I appreciate the KJV, but claiming ANY translation is perfect denies how language actually works. Even the KJV translators knew this - that's why they made revisions."

Follow-up Question: Should I include examples they can verify in an interlinear Bible?

CATEGORY 4: PRACTICAL REFUTATIONS

13. The "Experts Disagree" Fact

Elevator Pitch: Godly, Bible-believing scholars throughout history have disagreed on manuscripts - proving VPP isn't obvious from Scripture.

Key Point It Solves: Shows VPP isn't clear biblical teaching but a debatable interpretation.

Apologetics Training:

• Historical Fact: Even Reformation-era scholars disagreed:
  • Calvin said Psalm 12:7 refers to people, not words
  • Luther saw both people AND words in Psalm 12:7
  • Geneva Bible (1560) had both interpretations in margin notes
• Modern Fact: Bible-believing scholars who love God's Word disagree on textual theories.
• The Point: If VPP were clear biblical teaching, godly scholars wouldn't disagree.
• Compare to: Clear doctrines (Trinity, virgin birth, resurrection) - all Bible-believers agree because Scripture is clear.
• Your Response: "If VPP is biblical, why did godly Reformers disagree? Maybe because it's not actually in Scripture."

Follow-up Question: Should I include quotes from respected evangelical scholars who reject VPP?

14. The "Division" Test

Elevator Pitch: VPP divides Christians over non-essentials and questions other believers' faith - that's not the fruit of biblical truth.

Key Point It Solves: Applies Jesus' teaching about "fruit" to test doctrines.

Apologetics Training:

• Jesus' Test: "By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16-20).
• VPP's Fruits:
  • Calls faithful Christians who use NIV/ESV "deceived" or "unbiblical"
  • Questions salvation of scholars like Westcott & Hort
  • Creates division in churches and denominations
  • Makes non-essential issues tests of orthodoxy
• Biblical Essentials (1 Corinthians 15:3-4): Christ died, was buried, rose again
• VPP = Not mentioned anywhere in essential Christian doctrine
• Your Response: "Doctrines that divide Christians over non-essentials and question others' faith don't bear good fruit. That should make us suspicious."

Follow-up Question: Should I add Jesus' prayer for unity (John 17) as a counter-example?

15. The "Study Helps" Contradiction

Elevator Pitch: VPP advocates use Strong's Concordance and Greek/Hebrew study tools - proving they don't actually believe English KJV is enough.

Key Point It Solves: Catches VPP in practical inconsistency.

Apologetics Training:

• Observation: Watch VPP preachers/teachers - they constantly say "the Greek word here means..."
• The Question: "If the KJV is perfectly preserved in English, why do you need to check the Greek/Hebrew?"
• The Contradiction:
  • VPP claims: "KJV is perfect and sufficient in English"
  • VPP practice: Constantly refers back to original languages
• What This Reveals: Even VPP advocates know translation has limitations.
• Your Response: "You just said the Greek word means something the English doesn't fully capture. That proves translation isn't perfect, which contradicts VPP."

Follow-up Question: Want examples of specific VPP teachers doing this?

16. The "Textual Criticism" Necessity

Elevator Pitch: VPP attacks "textual criticism" but uses it themselves to defend their position - they can't have it both ways.

Key Point It Solves: Shows VPP's double standard in methodology.

Apologetics Training:

• Definition: Textual criticism = comparing manuscripts to determine original readings.
• VPP's Claim: "Textual criticism is evil/faithless/attacks God's Word."
• VPP's Practice: They do textual criticism to argue TR is better than other manuscript families!
• Examples:
  • Comparing manuscripts to claim Byzantine > Alexandrian
  • Analyzing readings to defend 1 John 5:7
  • Evaluating manuscript age, quality, consistency
• The Hypocrisy: They use textual criticism, just with different presuppositions.
• Your Response: "You're doing textual criticism right now to defend your view. So it can't be wrong - you just don't like the conclusions of scholars who disagree with you."

Follow-up Question: Should I explain faithful vs. unfaithful textual criticism approaches?

CATEGORY 5: PASTORAL REFUTATIONS

17. The "Faith Killer" Problem

Elevator Pitch: VPP sets believers up for crisis when they discover manuscripts actually do vary - better to teach truth from the start.

Key Point It Solves: Shows VPP actually harms faith long-term.

Apologetics Training:

• The Setup: VPP teaches young Christians "every manuscript is identical."
• The Crisis: Later they learn about textual variants (in college, seminary, or personal study).
• The Fallout:
  • "I was lied to - what else about my faith is false?"
  • "If manuscripts vary, maybe the whole Bible is unreliable"
  • Some lose faith entirely
• Better Approach: Teach from the start:
  • Manuscripts have minor variations (fact)
  • We can determine original text with high confidence (fact)
  • God providentially preserved His Word through multiple witnesses (biblical)
• Your Response: "VPP sets people up for faith crisis. Truth is stronger than false claims about perfection."

Follow-up Question: Should I include testimonies of people who left faith after VPP disillusionment?

18. The "Missionary" Dilemma

Elevator Pitch: VPP makes Bible translation nearly impossible - if only KJV is perfect, how do we translate for unreached people groups?

Key Point It Solves: Shows VPP undermines the Great Commission.

Apologetics Training:

• The Scenario: Missionary to a tribe with no Bible in their language.
• VPP's Problem:
  • If only KJV is perfect → Don't translate, teach them English (absurd!)
  • If they translate → They admit translations can vary and still be God's Word
• Historical Reality:
  • Modern missions movement (1700s-today) = 1000s of translations
  • Wycliffe, Bible translators worldwide use best scholarship, not just TR
  • God has blessed these translations with millions of conversions
• The Question: "Has God been blessing 'imperfect' Bibles for 300 years of missions? Or is VPP wrong?"
• Your Response: "VPP makes the Great Commission impossible. That should tell us something about VPP, not about God's Word."

Follow-up Question: Want statistics on Bible translation and global missions success?

19. The "Romans 3:4" Abuse

Elevator Pitch: VPP misuses "Let God be true and every man a liar" to shut down honest questions - that's manipulation, not faith.

Key Point It Solves: Teaches how to recognize manipulative use of Scripture.

Apologetics Training:

• How VPP Uses It: When you ask about manuscript evidence, they say "Let God be true and every man a liar! Stop questioning God's Word!"
• The Problem: Romans 3:4 is about God's faithfulness to His promises, NOT about accepting VPP without evidence.
• The Manipulation: Using Scripture to silence legitimate questions is spiritual abuse.
• Biblical Examples of Good Questions:
  • Bereans searched Scriptures to verify Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11) - praised for it!
  • Thomas questioned resurrection - Jesus showed him evidence (John 20:24-29)
  • Gideon asked for signs - God gave them (Judges 6)
• Your Response: "Romans 3:4 doesn't mean 'turn off your brain.' The Bereans questioned even apostles and were called noble for it."

Follow-up Question: Should I add warning signs of spiritual manipulation through Bible verses?

20. The "Better Way" Alternative

Elevator Pitch: You can fully trust Scripture without VPP - here's a biblical view of preservation that actually matches evidence.

Key Point It Solves: Gives positive alternative so youth aren't left uncertain.

Apologetics Training:

• What We CAN Confidently Believe:

  1. God inspired Scripture without error (2 Timothy 3:16)
  2. God promised His Word would endure forever (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:25)
  3. God providentially preserved His Word through:
     • Multiple manuscript traditions across regions
     • Thousands of independent witnesses
     • Faithful copying and transmission
     • The church's recognition of canonical books
  4. We can know the original text with 99%+ confidence
  5. No major doctrine depends on disputed variants
  6. The Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture to believers (John 16:13)
  7. Multiple faithful translations communicate God's Word accurately

• The Difference:

  • VPP = Mechanical perfection in one manuscript line (unprovable, unbiblical)
  • Biblical view = Providential preservation through multiple witnesses (provable, biblical)

• Your Response: "I trust God's Word completely. I just trust God's ACTUAL method of preservation (which we can see in evidence) rather than a method He never promised."

Follow-up Question: Should I create a one-page summary of "What to Believe About Scripture" they can share?

QUICK RESPONSE GUIDE

When VPP Advocate Says... You Respond...

"Don't you believe God's Word is perfect?" → "Yes! I believe the original Scriptures were perfect. I just don't see where God promised every manuscript copy would be identical. Can you show me that verse?"

"You're trusting man's scholarship over God!" → "No, I'm trusting God's ACTUAL promises (Word will endure) over human claims about HOW He preserved it. VPP is also a human interpretation - just a different one."

"Modern versions remove verses!" → "Older manuscripts don't have some verses found in later ones. Textual scholars aren't 'removing' - they're following the oldest, most reliable evidence. Would you want your Bible based on late, less reliable manuscripts?"

"This will destroy your faith!" → "Actually, false claims about perfection destroy faith when people discover the truth. I'd rather build my faith on what God actually said, not on claims He didn't make."

"You sound like a liberal!" → "Many conservative, evangelical, Bible-believing scholars reject VPP. This isn't about liberal vs. conservative - it's about what Scripture actually teaches vs. what VPP adds to Scripture."

Lesson 10 - Theological Error Analysis of the Q&A

Here is a "theological error analysis" of the Q&A posted on https://www.truthbpc.com/v4/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_10

This is a sharp, theological refutation of the doctrines presented in the article. The text outlines the position known as Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), specifically a form of Textus Receptus (TR) Onlyism.

From the perspective of orthodox, historical Protestant theology and textual scholarship, the panelists (Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Das Koshy) promote several grave errors. These teachings conflate preservation with perfect identity, elevate a specific 16th-century text above the original autographs, and employ fallacious arguments to sustain a sectarian divide.

What follows is not a disagreement over tone or emphasis, but a substantive refutation of false doctrines, false dichotomies, and logical failures taught by the three speakers in this article. I will move question by question, identify the specific false teaching, explain why it is false, and then give a biblically and historically correct answer at the end of each section.

What is at stake here is not “preferences,” but the nature of God’s providence, the definition of preservation, and the legitimacy of the historic Christian doctrine of Scripture. Much of what is taught here collapses under scrutiny.

QUESTION 1

Is VPP a personal conviction, and is it serious enough to leave a church?

False Teaching #1:

VPP is a “doctrinal truth” equivalent to inspiration, and denial of it makes a church doctrinally dangerous.

Koshy explicitly states that VPP is “God’s truth” and not a theological opinion .

Koshy and Quek teach that if a church denies VPP (i.e., admits the KJV/TR has scribal errors), members should leave that church. They claim that staying makes one complicit in teaching that "the Bible has mistakes" and that tithes are used to promote error.

This is false.

By making a specific 17th-century translation theory a litmus test for orthodoxy, they cause division in the Body of Christ over non-essentials. They encourage rebellion against church leadership  based on a false doctrine of textual perfection.

VPP (Verbal Plenary Preservation as defined here) is not a doctrine taught explicitly in Scripture, nor is it confessed as such in the ecumenical creeds, the Reformed confessions, or by the Reformers themselves. What Scripture teaches is God’s faithfulness, the endurance of His word, and the sufficiency of Scripture, not that a single identifiable printed text must exist without textual variation.

They have illegitimately elevated a theological inference into a test of orthodoxy.

Scripture distinguishes:

Inspiration: a completed, once-for-all act (2 Tim 3:16)

Preservation: God’s providential care across history, not mechanical perfection in one stream

Nowhere does Scripture say:

all copies will be identical

all variants are corruptions

believers must identify a single perfect manuscript tradition to remain faithful

False Teaching #2:

Teaching non-VPP positions equals teaching that “the Bible has mistakes”

Quek repeatedly claims that rejecting VPP means teaching that “the Bible has mistakes” and that children are being taught error .

This is a strawman.

Historic Christianity has always affirmed:

textual variants exist

none affect any doctrine

God’s word remains fully authoritative and sufficient

Textual variation ≠ doctrinal error.

This false equation poisons the conscience and weaponizes fear.

Correct Answer to Question 1

Belief in VPP is not a biblical requirement, not a Reformed standard, and not a test of faithfulness. Christians may disagree charitably on textual theories without breaking fellowship. Leaving a church over this is not biblically mandated, and labeling fellow believers as undermining Scripture is sinfully divisive.

Unity in Essentials, Liberty in Non-Essentials. The doctrine of Inerrancy applies strictly to the original Autographs. Copies and translations are the Word of God insofar as they faithfully represent the original. Christians can use the KJV, NASB, or ESV and still possess the Word of God. To divide a church over the use of the Textus Receptus is to violate the biblical command for unity.

QUESTION 2

Is VPP a new doctrine?

False Teaching #3:

VPP is as old as the Bible itself

Quek claims preservation “is as old as the Bible” and merely refined by adjectives .

This is historically false.

The church never taught VPP in this form:

No Father

No medieval theologian

No Reformer

No confession prior to the 20th century

The Westminster Confession affirms providential preservation, not verbatim identity of a specific manuscript family.

Khoo’s claim that critics “explain away” Matt 5:18 is misleading . The passage teaches the permanence of God’s law, not the immutability of every copy across transmission history.

False Teaching #4:

Rejection of VPP equals rejection of preservation

This is a false dilemma.

One may affirm:

God preserved His Word

textual transmission involved copying, variants, and correction

the church has always lived with this reality

Correct Answer to Question 2

The doctrine of preservation is ancient.

VPP as defined here is modern, reactionary, and historically unsupported.

QUESTION 3

What is wrong with believing preservation exists in the total manuscript tradition?

This section contains the densest concentration of error.

False Teaching #5:

Manuscripts exist in two moral streams: “Preserved” vs “Corrupted”

Khoo invents a dualistic manuscript cosmology.

This is not textual criticism, not church history, and not theology. It is sectarian myth-making.

Manuscripts are:

geographically diverse

textually mixed

historically layered

No manuscript family is morally “pure” or “evil.”

False Teaching #6:

Westcott and Hort were unbelievers, heretics, Marian worshippers, Darwinists

This is libel, repeated without evidence and long debunked by historians.

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Truth is not decided by genealogy or guilt-by-association.

The reliability of a manuscript (like Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus) depends on its date, scribe, and transmission history, not on the personal theology of the men who collated it in the 19th century. Even if W/H were heretics (which is a distortion of history), the manuscripts they used exist independently of them.

Scripture itself was preserved through:

sinful scribes

corrupt priests

persecuting empires

God does not need morally perfect agents.

If personal theology invalidates a text, the VPP advocates have a problem: Desiderius Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, was a Roman Catholic humanist who dedicated his work to Pope Leo X and never left the Catholic Church. If W/H’s alleged "Mary worship"  invalidates their work, then Erasmus's actual Catholicism must invalidate the TR.

False Teaching #7:

Textual criticism is “playing God” and “diabolical”

Quek calls textual study “deadly” and “arsenic” .

This is a theological overreach.

The Reformers themselves practiced textual criticism.

So did Erasmus.

So did Calvin.

To condemn it wholesale is to condemn the very process that produced the TR itself.

Correct Answer to Question 3

God preserved His Word through the entire manuscript tradition, not by hiding it in a single stream. Textual criticism is a servant, not a master, and does not undermine faith when practiced reverently.

Truth is determined by weight of evidence, not the biography of the scholar. The "Critical Text" is not the "W/H text"; it is an eclectic text based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts available today. The differences (such as the omission of the long ending of Mark or the Pericope Adulterae) reflect the earliest available witnesses to the Autographs, not a conspiracy to delete doctrine.

QUESTION 4

Can users of non-TR translations believe in VPP?

False Teaching #8:

True belief in VPP should logically lead to abandoning modern translations

Khoo states that anyone who understands VPP will reject W/H-based translations .

This turns VPP into a practical litmus test, contradicting earlier claims that it is merely doctrinal.

It also:

invalidates global Christianity

binds conscience where Scripture does not

elevates English textual history above the catholic church

Correct Answer to Question 4

Faith in Scripture does not require allegiance to one textual tradition or translation. God’s Word is not hostage to English history.

QUESTION 5

How do we know which preserved text is correct?

False Teaching #9:

"Logic of Faith” replaces evidence

Appeal to E.F. Hills’ “Logic of Faith” is circular:

The panelists argue that we identify the true text not by examining historical manuscripts, but by the "Logic of Faith". They claim that because God promised to preserve His word, He must have done so in the specific text used by the Reformation church (the TR). They explicitly reject the need to "check every manuscript" and dismiss the "reverse engineering" critique as "too technical".

God promised preservation

therefore the TR is preserved

therefore variants elsewhere are corrupt

By rejecting historical evidence (manuscripts) in favor of a "faith" construct, these teachers insulate their claims from truth. If evidence shows the TR adds words (which it does), they simply deny the evidence. This turns faith into a shield for error.

This is theological reasoning detached from history.

Faith is trust in God, not selective immunity from evidence.

The Contradiction: Khoo admits the TR was "identified" later and relies on the "Ben Chayim" and "Scrivener’s text". Scrivener’s Greek text was created in the late 19th century specifically to match the King James Version. To claim this late, back-translated text is the "definitive reading"  is to canonize a text created after the translation. This is not preservation; it is retroactive canonization.

Correct Answer to Question 5

The church recognizes Scripture through historical transmission, communal discernment, and God’s providence, not by asserting a conclusion first and forcing history to comply.

God has preserved His Word in the totality of the manuscript witnesses (over 5,800 Greek fragments and codices). No single manuscript or printed edition is free from copyist errors, but the entire body of evidence allows us to reconstruct the original text with extreme accuracy. We trust God’s providence in history, which includes the discovery of older manuscripts (like the Papyri) that bring us closer to the Apostles' writings than the late medieval manuscripts used by the KJV translators.

QUESTION 6

Is 1 John 5:7 authentic?

False Teaching #10:

The verse must be original because it supports the Trinity. Khoo defends the inclusion of the "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7, claiming it is found in the TR, the Latin Vulgate, and has "Greek manuscript evidence". He argues it must be right because it "glorifies God".

This is a theological fallacy.

Truth is not validated by usefulness.

The Trinity stands without this verse.

1 John 5:7 is absent from every known Greek manuscript prior to the 14th century. It is not quoted by any early Greek Church Father during the Trinitarian controversies (when it would have been their strongest weapon). It appeared first in Latin manuscripts.

Claiming grammar “doesn’t work” without it is demonstrably false and rejected by Greek grammarians.

Correct Answer to Question 6

1 John 5:7 in its longer form is not part of the original Greek text, though the doctrine it teaches is fully biblical.

1 John 5:7 is a later Latin addition (gloss) that crept into the text. It is not part of the inspired Word of God. Removing it is an act of faithfulness to what John actually wrote. We must defend the Trinity using the authentic texts (e.g., John 1:1, Matthew 28:19), not fabricated ones.

QUESTION 7

Is the TR a “reverse-engineered” text?

False Teaching #11:

Dismissing the problem instead of answering it

Calling the issue “too technical” avoids the real concern: the TR was compiled, not divinely dropped from heaven.

Faith does not require denial of process.

Correct Answer to Question 7

The TR is a historical reconstruction, valuable but not divinely guaranteed in every detail.

QUESTION 8

Does “closest” imply imperfection?

False Teaching #12:

Semantic coercion

They redefine “closest” to mean “exact” by assertion, not logic .

Words mean things.

“Closest” necessarily implies comparison.

Correct Answer to Question 8

The Bible is fully authoritative and sufficient without requiring textual absolutism.

QUESTION 9

Has the TR existed since the first century?

False Teaching #13:

Retroactive existence

Claiming the TR “existed” but was “unidentified” is category confusion.

Books can exist unidentified.

Compiled printed texts cannot.

Correct Answer to Question 9

The TR is a post-Reformation compilation, not an eternal artifact.

Summary of Correct Doctrines

1. On Preservation: God has providentially preserved His Word in the plurality of manuscripts (Critical and Majority), ensuring no essential doctrine is lost. He did not re-inspire a 16th-century printer to create a perfect text.
2. On Manuscripts: The Alexandrian texts (used in modern Bibles) are older and often more reliable witnesses to the original than the Byzantine texts (TR). Textual criticism is a valid tool to discern the original reading.
3. On 1 John 5:7: This verse is a Latin addition and not part of the original inspired Scripture.
4. On Christian Fellowship: Belief in the perfection of the KJV/TR is not a fundamental of the faith. We should not separate from Bible-believing churches that use modern translations

FINAL CONCLUSION

This Q&A teaches:

sectarian exclusivism

historical revisionism

fear-based theology

circular logic

false dilemmas

moralized manuscript mythology

It replaces confidence in God with confidence in a system, and substitutes faith with certainty theater.

God preserved His Word.

He did not promise to preserve our theories about how He did it.

That distinction matters.

Correcting the Constitution of Tabernacle Bible-Presbyterian Church

Part of the constitution:

4.2.1.1 We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Scriptures (Apographs) in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Ps 12:6-7; Matt 5:18, 24:35);

4.2.1.2 We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant;

4.2.1.3 We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be The Word of God – the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation of the Bible in the English language, and do employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible;

Different actions have been taken to amend the constitution. Let's examine what is wrong, why it is wrong according to the Bible, and how to faithfully correct it:

First, the underlying theological problem.

The constitution rightly affirms verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. That is classic evangelical doctrine. The problem arises when it adds verbal plenary preservation in a way that is undefined, unbiblical, and then functionally resolved by elevating the King James Version and its underlying textual tradition to a unique status.

Scripture clearly teaches inspiration. Scripture does not teach a doctrine of perfect, word-for-word preservation in any one manuscript family, edition, or translation. Preservation is real, but it is providential, not mechanical; corporate, not singular; historical, not instantaneous.

When preservation is defined in such a way that only one text tradition or one translation qualifies, preservation quietly becomes re-inspiration by another name.

Now let’s look at each article carefully.

4.2.1.1 — What is wrong

The statement says:

“Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) … in the original languages … perfect Word of God”

There are several issues here.

First, Scripture explicitly teaches inspiration of the autographs, but it never defines preservation as “verbal plenary” in the same sense. Second Timothy 3:16 refers to the act of God breathing out Scripture, not to the later history of copying. Second Peter 1:20–21 speaks of prophetic origin, not manuscript transmission.

Second, Psalm 12:6–7 is frequently misused here. In Hebrew grammar, “them” most naturally refers to the oppressed people, not the words. Even if one takes it as referring to God’s words, the passage affirms God’s faithfulness, not a theory of perfect manuscript replication.

Third, the phrase “perfect Word of God” becomes ambiguous. If “perfect” means the inspired message God intends to communicate, evangelicals can agree. If it means every copied form is textually perfect, Scripture itself contradicts that, since we know the apostles cited Greek translations that differ slightly from the Hebrew (e.g., Hebrews using the Septuagint).

Biblical correction

The Bible teaches:
– Inspiration is verbal and plenary (every word, fully God-breathed).
– Preservation is real but providential, seen in the abundance of manuscripts, not in the perfection of one stream.
– Inerrancy applies properly to the inspired text as given by God, and derivatively to faithful copies and translations insofar as they accurately convey it.

Biblically amended version

A faithful revision would read:

4.2.1.1 We believe that the Holy Scriptures were verbally and plenarily inspired by God in the original writings, being the very Word of God, wholly truthful and without error in all that they affirm. We believe that God has faithfully preserved His Word through His providence in the manuscript tradition, so that the Scriptures available to the Church in the original languages are sufficient, reliable, and authoritative for faith and life. Therefore, Holy Scripture remains the supreme and final authority in all matters of belief and practice (2 Tim 3:16–17; Matt 5:18; Isa 40:8; 1 Pet 1:24–25).

This affirms everything Scripture teaches and avoids claiming what it does not.

4.2.1.2 — What is wrong

This clause states:

“the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of God”

This is theologically and historically problematic.

First, there is no single, fixed Greek or Hebrew text “underlying” the KJV. The translators used multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Text, and sometimes consulted other sources. To speak as though one stable, perfect textual form exists behind the KJV is simply false.

Second, this statement identifies the Word of God with a particular editorial tradition (late medieval Byzantine Greek texts and early modern printed editions). Scripture never authorizes that move.

Third, it implies that Christians before 1611—or believers using other faithful translations today—do not possess the Word of God in the same sense. That implication is ecclesiologically disastrous.

Biblical correction

Jesus and the apostles treated Scripture as authoritative across textual forms. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament in ways that reflect Hebrew texts, Greek translations, and interpretive renderings—without anxiety. Authority rests in God’s Word as given, not in a single editorial snapshot.

Biblically amended version

A sound evangelical revision would read:

4.2.1.2 We believe that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, as preserved in the manuscript tradition and faithfully represented in critical editions, constitute the Word of God written, infallible and inerrant in the original writings, and fully authoritative in all that they teach.

This keeps authority where Scripture puts it: in God’s Word, not in one printed form.

4.2.1.3 — What is wrong

This clause is the most serious:

“We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be The Word of God … and do employ it alone…”

Here the constitution crosses from preference into dogma.

Calling the KJV “the most beautiful” is subjective and harmless. Calling it “the best” or “most faithful” is debatable but allowable as an opinion. Calling it “The Word of God” in an exclusive sense, and enforcing exclusive use, is where the theology breaks.

No translation is inspired. Translations are ministerial, not magisterial. Even the KJV translators explicitly denied that their work was perfect or final. To absolutize it is to contradict their own preface.

This article effectively creates a secondary canon, where faithfulness to Scripture is measured by loyalty to one English translation. That is not evangelicalism; it is confessional overreach.

Biblical correction

Scripture authorizes the public reading and teaching of God’s Word, not the exclusive use of one translation. The early church used multiple languages freely—Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin—without anxiety, because the authority lies in the message faithfully conveyed.

Biblically amended version

A responsible and biblical revision would say:

4.2.1.3 We affirm the Authorised (King James) Version as a faithful and historic English translation of Holy Scripture, which we value and may employ in public reading, preaching, and teaching. We also acknowledge the legitimacy and usefulness of other faithful translations that accurately reflect the original languages, and we submit all translations to the authority of the inspired Word of God.

This protects Scripture without idolizing a translation.

Final theological assessment

The original constitution is motivated by reverence, but it suffers from category confusion:
– Inspiration is confused with preservation
– Preservation is confused with textual uniformity
– Textual tradition is confused with translation
– Translation is confused with canon

When those lines blur, the result is not higher doctrine of Scripture, but a smaller Bible bound to one tradition.

A truly evangelical doctrine of Scripture is confident, not anxious. It trusts that God has preserved His Word through history, languages, manuscripts, and faithful scholarship, so that the Church hears His voice clearly—not because one edition is perfect, but because God is faithful.

That confidence is biblical, catholic, and reformational.

Lesson 9 - Critical review and refutation of “Identification of God’s Preserved Words (II)

I will engage the article at https://www.truthbpc.com/v4/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_09, then systematically identify and refute its false teachings, and finally offer a biblically grounded, Reformed critique with a concise introduction and conclusion.

Introduction

The article, "Identification of God's Preserved Words (II)," argues for the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). The author posits that the "autographs" (original writings) are no longer required because God has perfectly preserved every original word in specific "apographs" (copies), identified as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Ben Chayyim) and the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the King James Version (KJV). The article asserts that any deviation from these specific 16th-century printed texts constitutes a rejection of God's promise to preserve His Word.

This research paper reviews these claims and refutes the article's teachings as historically inaccurate, logically fallacious, and theologically unsound. By demanding adherence to a specific printed text as the only "infallible" Word, the author creates a false dichotomy that undermines the true nature of God’s providential care for Scripture.

While presenting itself as orthodox, Reformed, and biblical, the article advances a novel and historically indefensible theory of preservation that confuses preservation with perfect uniformity, authority with one printed edition, and faith with anti-critical polemics. It further constructs a false dichotomy between “preserved Byzantine” and “corrupt Alexandrian” texts, while repeatedly misusing Scripture, misrepresenting church history, caricaturing modern textual criticism, and weaponizing the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) against positions the Confession itself never held.

This paper will demonstrate that the article’s central claims are exegetically unsound, historically inaccurate, theologically confused, and pastorally harmful. Far from defending Scripture, the VPP framework articulated here redefines preservation in a way Scripture never promises, binds conscience to fallible editorial decisions, and fractures the Church over matters God never absolutized.

I. False Teaching #1: Equating Preservation with Word-for-Word Identity in a Single Text Tradition

The Claim

The article repeatedly asserts that if God truly preserved His Word, then no word could ever differ, and therefore one exact form of the text must exist today, free from variants. Any textual variation is treated as proof of corruption, unbelief, or modernism.

Refutation

This claim fails biblically, historically, and logically.

Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word (Matt 24:35), but nowhere defines preservation as the absence of textual variation among copies. In fact, Scripture itself assumes copying, transmission, and human means (Deut 17:18; Jer 36; Col 4:16), without promising mechanical perfection in every manuscript.

The existence of textual variants is not evidence of loss, but evidence of abundant preservation. When thousands of manuscripts exist, variation is mathematically inevitable—and textually useful. No doctrine depends on a disputed text, and no essential teaching is lost.

The Reformers themselves knew of variants. Calvin openly acknowledged textual difficulties. Beza discussed variants extensively. The Reformed orthodox never claimed that preservation meant “no variants,” but that the Word as a whole is faithfully preserved and fully sufficient.

To redefine preservation as “perfect uniformity” is not Reformed theology. It is a modern absolutism imposed retroactively.

II. False Teaching #2: Treating the Textus Receptus as the Providentially Perfect New Testament Text

The Claim

The article claims that the Textus Receptus is the uniquely preserved Greek New Testament, received by the Church, purified by God, and immune from error—while all other text traditions are corrupt.

Refutation

This claim collapses under basic historical scrutiny.

There is no such thing as “the” Textus Receptus. Erasmus produced multiple editions. Stephanus produced several. Beza produced multiple. Scrivener retroactively reconstructed a Greek text from the KJV itself in the 19th century. These editions differ from one another in thousands of places.

Which one is “the” preserved text?

If preservation requires a single perfect form, VPP cannot even identify its own object.

Further, Erasmus openly admitted conjectural emendation, lacked Greek manuscripts for parts of Revelation, and back-translated from Latin. The TR is a remarkable historical achievement, but it is not a divinely guaranteed final form of the Greek text.

The Church never canonized the TR. No confession names it. No ecumenical council declared it infallible. The Reformers would have rejected that claim outright.

III. False Teaching #3: Demonizing Alexandrian Manuscripts as Heretical Corruptions

The Claim

The article portrays Alexandrian manuscripts (especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) as products of heresy, doctrinal corruption, and deliberate mutilation of Scripture.

Refutation

This is unscholarly polemic, not serious textual criticism.

There is no historical evidence that Alexandrian manuscripts were produced by heretics or altered to attack doctrine. In fact, many so-called “Byzantine” readings are later expansions, harmonizations, or liturgical clarifications—well known phenomena in manuscript transmission.

Older manuscripts are not “better” because they are older, but they are earlier witnesses. Textual criticism weighs manuscripts, it does not worship them.

Even more damning to the article’s thesis: modern critical texts often restore longer readings previously doubted, and Byzantine readings appear across all text-types, including papyri.

The reality is not two moral streams (“pure vs corrupt”), but a complex, cross-pollinated manuscript tradition—which is exactly what preservation through abundance looks like.

IV. False Teaching #4: Claiming Modern Translations “Delete” Scripture

The Claim

The article repeatedly claims that modern translations “delete” verses and words, implying intentional excision of God’s Word.

Refutation

This is misleading rhetoric.

Modern translations do not delete Scripture; they translate different manuscript readings, usually noting variants in footnotes. The KJV includes readings (e.g., Acts 8:37; Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11) that are absent in some earlier manuscripts but present in many later ones.

This is a textual question, not a theological conspiracy.

To claim that counting words removed equals loss of Scripture is numerology, not doctrine. If one translation includes expansions, another is not “cutting Scripture” by translating a shorter reading.

Ironically, if VPP logic were applied consistently, the KJV itself would be guilty, since it differs from earlier English Bibles and from the TR editions used to justify it.

V. False Teaching #5: Misusing Psalm 12:6–7 as a Prooftext for Textual Perfection

The Claim

The article repeatedly cites Psalm 12:6–7 as proof that God promised to preserve every word without variation.

Refutation

This is exegetical malpractice.

Psalm 12 contrasts God’s pure words with human lies and promises that God will guard His people against corruption. The nearest antecedent of “them” in verse 7 is the oppressed people, not syllables of text.

No Hebrew scholar—Reformed or otherwise—has historically interpreted Psalm 12 as a promise of identical manuscript transmission.

To extract a doctrine of VPP from this text is to force Scripture to answer a modern anxiety it never addresses.

VI. False Teaching #6: Declaring Scribal Error Impossible and Reclassifying Difficulties as “Apparent Only”

The Claim

The article insists that because God preserved every word perfectly, scribal errors cannot exist in the manuscripts we possess today.

Refutation

This position confuses inspiration with transmission.

Scripture itself records copying errors (Jer 36), variant numbers (2 Sam 8 vs 1 Chr 18), and parallel differences—without anxiety. Jesus and the apostles cited Scripture authoritatively without resolving textual minutiae.

To deny scribal error in copies is to deny the humanity of transmission—and ironically to accuse God of deception when the data does not cooperate.

The Reformers acknowledged scribal errors without panic because their doctrine of Scripture rested on God’s truthfulness, not on editorial perfection.

VII. Biblical and Reformed Alternative: Preservation Through Multiplicity, Not Monolith

Biblically and confessionally, preservation means this:

God has so overseen the transmission of Scripture that His Word has never been lost, its message never corrupted, its authority never compromised, and its saving truth never obscured.

Preservation operates through:

Abundant manuscripts

Cross-checking across traditions

The Church’s use, citation, preaching, and translation

The Spirit’s witness to the Word

This is exactly what we observe historically.

To the teacher propagating these false teachings:

You are rebuked for sowing discord among the brethren. By teaching that the use of modern translations is a "pop-modernistic attack" or a "perversion", you have falsely accused faithful servants of God of using "corrupt" Scriptures. You have made a "schism"  in the body of Christ over a non-essential, man-made dogma.

You are rebuked for binding the consciences of the sheep. You demand they ignore their God-given reason—forcing them to believe a son can be older than his father (2 Chron 22:2)—in order to uphold your tradition. This is the spirit of the Pharisees, who "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7).

You are rebuked for undermining confidence in the Word of God. By claiming that any error in a copy proves God failed, you set believers up for a crisis of faith when they inevitably encounter the reality of textual variants. True faith rests in God’s providence, not in the perfection of a printer’s press. Repent of this divisive pride and return to the humble study of the Scriptures as God actually gave them, not as you wish them to be.

Conclusion

The article "Identification of God's Preserved Words (II)" attempts to provide certainty in an uncertain world, but it does so by sacrificing historical truth and biblical accuracy. The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is a theological novelty that ignores the physical evidence of how God actually preserved His Word—through the broad, providential spread of manuscripts, not the perfection of a single European text type.

The "false teachings" within—specifically the denial of scribal errors and the vilification of older manuscript traditions—must be rejected. The Church possesses the infallible Word of God in the faithful apographs we have today, which, when compared and studied diligently, reconstruct the Truth of the autographs with absolute clarity. We do not need a "perfect" KJV to know Christ; we need only the preserved Gospel contained within the sure testimony of the prophets and apostles.

The article under review does not recover historic Reformed bibliology. It replaces it with a rigid, modern absolutism that confuses faithfulness with fear, preservation with uniformity, and reverence with suspicion.

Its doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation:

Is not taught explicitly in Scripture

Is not held by the Reformers

Is not confessed in the Westminster Standards

Is not sustainable historically

And is pastorally destructive

By insisting that faith requires allegiance to one printed text and one English translation, it binds consciences where God has not bound them, divides the Church unnecessarily, and shifts confidence from God’s living Word to human editorial outcomes.

The irony is sharp: in trying to defend Scripture, the article narrows it, weaponizes it, and turns it into a litmus test God never instituted.

The Church does not need a perfect edition to have a perfect Savior, nor a flawless manuscript to proclaim an infallible Gospel. God has kept His Word—not frozen in one form, but alive, abundant, and authoritative, calling sinners to repentance and saints to faith, across languages, centuries, and cultures.

That is preservation worthy of the God who speaks.