Truth Shall Set You Free

Truth shall spring out of earth;
and righteousness shall look
down from heaven. Psalm 85:11

Home Public VPP Repudiations B-P Brethren's Response to VPP Useful Resources Contact Us

Monday, 09 July 2007



Main Menu

Public VPP Repudiations
B-P Brethren's Response to VPP
Useful Resources
Contact Us

 Verbal Plenary
 Preservation - Perfect
 KJV-Onlyism is a false
 witness that sows
 discord among brethren
 (Prov 6:19)

 The Perfect KJV (KJV-Onlyism, KJV Onlyism, or KJVO) heresy is an abandonment of the Historic Reformed Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith and comes in two forms: –

·         Ruckmanism, which holds to an inspired 1611 translation (“double inspiration”) resulting in a perfect English Bible.  Where there is a discrepancy between the English and its underlying Hebrew Masoretic or Greek TR texts, the English is to be taken as more correct!?

·         Verbal Plenary Preservation, also known as KJV-VPP or VPP-KJV, which holds to an inspired perfect textual criticism or recognition in 1611 which restored the Hebrew and Greek text of the KJV to be jot and tittle identical to the Divine Original Autographs!?

Ruckmanism and KJV-VPP are estranged twin sons of Benjamin Wilkinson, a leading Seventh Day Adventist who wrote “Our AV Vindicated” in 1930.  Wherever it has gone, in whatever circles, Perfect KJV Onlyism has wrecked havoc and caused discord among brethren.

Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) has sadly not only adopted, but now champions this false Charismatic post-canonical inspiration doctrine.  FEBC cannot prove KJV-VPP – they cannot even convincingly and consistently identify the Hebrew-Greek underlying texts – but they call all who do not hold their views, “Neo-Fundamentalists”, “Neo-Evangelicals” or lacking in saving faith.  In this website, the KJV-VPP heresy is exposed and refuted with clear evidential facts and sound biblical exegesis!  It is our humble, earnest prayer that the Lord would be pleased to deliver His people from this divisive “doctrine”, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Amen.




King James Onlyism: A New Sect

New Book to dispel the VPP error!

King James Onlyism: A New Sect

Author: Rev Dr James Price

To pre-order, please email Rev Yap Beng Shin 65602410 (O)

Read the introduction here.

Table of Contents


List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Charts

INTRODUCTION: The King James Only Doctrine Is a New Idea

  • Original Languages Were Authoritative for Baptists

  • Original Languages Were Authoritative for Presbyterians

  • Original Languages Were Authoritative for Lutherans

  • Original Languages Were Authoritative for the Evangelical Free Church of America

  • Original Languages Were Authoritative for Interdenominational Churches

  • Original Languages Were Authoritative for Historical Leaders

  • Fundamentalism Is Divided over the King James Only Issue

  • This Book Discusses the Problems of the King James Only View 

1. Early English Versions Were Incomplete until Wycliffe

  • Translating Is an Ancient Tradition

  • Bible Translations before Wycliffe Were Incomplete

  • Wycliffe Translated the First Complete Bible

  • Wycliffe’s Bible Was Opposed

2. Tyndale Was the First to Translate from Hebrew and Greek

  • Tyndale’s First New Testament Was in 1526

  • Tyndale Translated the Pentateuch in 1530

  • Tyndale Revised the New Testament in 1535

  • Tyndale Was Martyred in 1536

  • Tyndale Translation Exhibited Literary Excellence

3. Tyndale’s Translation Was Revised Seven Times

  • Coverdale Revised Tyndale’s Bible

  • Matthew’s Bible Was a Revision of Tyndale and Coverdale

  • The Great Bible Was a Revision of Matthew’s

  • Sample of the Great Bible

  • The Geneva Bible Was a Revision of Tyndale

  • The Bishop’s Bible Was a Revision of the Great Bible

  • The Rheims-Douay Bible Was Translated from Latin

4. The King James Version Was a Revision

  • Fifty-Four Translators Participated

  • The Qualifications of the Translators

  • The Theology of the Translators

  • The Character of the Translators

  • The Translators Had Fifteen Instructions

  • The Translation Was Carefully Edited

  • The Translation Exhibits Literary Excellence

  • The First Printing Was in 1611

5. The King James Version Was Revised Several Times

  • The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1629

  • The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1638

  • The KJV Was Unsuccessfully Revised in 1653

  • The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1762

  • The KJV Was  Revised at Oxford in 1769

  • Nearly 24,000Changes Were Made

6. Current Editions of the King James Version Differ

  • Known Discrepancies Exist

  • Misprints Exist

  • Other Inadvertent Oversights Exist

  • Many Archaic and Obsolete Words Remain

  • Current Editions Differ

  • Current Differences Are Recorded 

7. The Biblical Text Was Preserved through Ancient Bibles

  • The Texts May Have Been Preserved by Various Means

  • The Hebrew Text Was Preserved in Ancient Hebrew Bibles

  • The Greek Text Was Preserved in Ancient Greek Bibles

  • Various Types of Manuscripts Exist

  • The Manuscripts Are Variously Distributed

  • Conclusion: Many Witnesses Exist for the Hebrew and Greek Texts 

8. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Ancient Translations

  • The Greek Versions Preserved the Text

  • Aramaic Versions Preserved the Text

  • The Syriac Versions Preserved the Text

  • Latin Versions Preserved the Text

  • The Coptic Versions Preserved the Text

  • Ethiopic Version Preserved the Text

  • The Armenian Version Preserved the Text

  • The Georgian Version Preserved the Text

  • The Waldensian Version Is Wrongly Represented

  • Conclusion: The Witness of the Versions Is Secondary 

9. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Patristic Quotations

  • Quotations of the Old Testament Preserved the Text

  • Quotations of the New Testament Preserved the Text

  • Conclusion: The Witness of the Quotations Is Incomplete and Secondary 

10. Some Recognize the Alexandrian Text as the Preserved Text

  • Textual Theories Have Early History

  • Westcott and Hort Developed a New Theory

  • The Westcott and Hort Theory Was Modified Later

  • The Reasoned Eclectic Theory Follows Sound Methodology

  • Alternative Theories Exist

  • Stemmatic Methods Were Developed

  • The Thoroughgoing Eclectic Method Was Developed

  • Conclusion: The Reasoned Eclectic Method Is Preferred

  • Old Testament Textual Criticism Lags Behind

  • Opponents Wrongfully Charge the Westcott-Hort Method with Problems 

11. Some Recognize the Majority Text as the Preserved Text

  • The Masoretic Text Is the Hebrew Majority Text

  • John W. Burgon Preferred the Greek Majority Text

  • Burgon Has Several Modern Advocates

  • The Lucian Recension Has Historical Support

  • Popular Misconceptions of the Majority Text Exist

  • Conclusion: The Majority Text Method Is Not Preferred

12. Some Recognize the Textus Receptus as the Preserved Text

  • Some Regard the Bomberg Edition as the Traditional Hebrew Text

  • Some Regard the Greek Textus Receptus as the Traditional Text

  • Hills Argued the Case for the Textus Receptus

  • Hills Had an Underlying KJV Agenda

  • Some Regard the Text of the Reformation as Authority

  • Conclusion: The Textus Receptus Is Not to Be Preferred

13. Textual Emendations Were Made in the King James Version

  • The Greek and Hebrew Were Authoritative in 1611

  • Two Hebrew Texts Were Used

  • Other Authorities Were Used

  • Emendations Were Made to the Old Testament

  • Some Emendations Were Justifiable

  • Some Emendations of the Old Testament Were Unjustifiable

  • Conclusion: The King James Version Does Not Follow the Traditional Hebrew Text

14. Modern English Versions Are Evaluated

  • The English Revised Version of 1881

  • The American Standard Version of 1901

  • The Revised Standard Version of 1952

  • The Jerusalem Bible of 1966

  • The New American Standard Version of 1970

  • The New English Bible of 1971

  • The New International Version of 1978

  • The New King James Version of 1982

  • The English Standard Version of 2001

  • The Holman Christian Standard Bible of 2002

  • Other Modern Versions 

15. Modern Versions Support Orthodox Doctrine

      PART ONE: The Versions Support the Deity of Christ

  •       Jesus is Called God

  •       Jesus Christ Received Worship

  •       Jesus is Called Lord

  •       Jesus Is the Son

  •       Other Words Indicate Deity

      PART TWO: The Versions Support the Virgin Birth

  •       Isaiah 7:14

  •       Matthew 1:23

  •       Luke 1:27

      PART THREE: The Versions Support the Blood of Jesus

      PART FOUR: The Versions Support Faith, Justification, Forgiveness, and Sanctification

      PART FIVE: The Versions Support the

        Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

  •       He Really Died

  •       He Was Buried

  •       He Arose from the Dead

  •       He Appeared to His Disciples

  •       His Was a Physical Body

      PART SIX: The Versions Support the Second Coming of Christ

      PART SEVEN: The Versions Support Salvation by Grace through Faith

      PART EIGHT: Criticism of the Versions Is Faulty

  •       Modern Versions Allegedly Contain Errors

  •       Modern Versions Allegedly Correct the Word of God

  •       A Balanced View Is Necessary

  •       Modern Versions Help a Person Understand the KJV

  •       Conclusion: Modern Versions Support Orthodox Doctrine

16. Textual Uncertainty Is Insignificant

  • The Large Number of Variants Is Insignificant in the Big Picture

  • The Many Differences Are Insignificant in the Big Picture

  • Uncertainty Exists in the Exegesis of the English Bible

  • Uncertainty Exists in the Meaning of Words

  • Uncertainty Exists in Interpretation

  • Uncertainty Is the Occasion for Faith not Doubt

17. Conclusion: Use Versions with Discernment 

Appendix A: Changes in the AV Since 1611 

Appendix B: Catalogue of Variants in Current Editions of the AV 

Appendix C: Examples of Late, Secondary Byzantine Readings 

Appendix D: An Evaluation of Burgon’s Test of Antiquity

  • The Overall Witness of the Ancient Versions Is Inadequate

  • The Citations of the Church Fathers Are Insufficient

  • The Combined Witness of Versions and Fathers Is Inadequate 

Appendix E: An Evaluation of Hodges’ Majority Text Theory

  • The Model Is Unrealistic

  • The Proof Is Trivial

  • The Theory Is Inadequate

  • The Byzantine Text Is a Late Enhanced Branch

  • The Majority Theory Has Limitations 

Appendix F: A Mathematical Analysis of Hodges' Statistical Model 

Appendix G: The Greek Text of the Authorized Version 

Appendix H: Partial List of Differences Between The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text 

Appendix I: Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version 

Appendix J: Differences Between the NA-27 Text and the R-P Byzantine Text 

Glossary of Terms 


Index of Persons and Topics

Adobe Reader

Adobe Reader is required to read PDF documents. Click on to download your free copy of Adobe Reader.



Copyright All Rights Reserved.