1
THE CHAMELEON VPP-TR TEXT (In Dr Jeffrey
Khoos publications and letters, he changed his
mind about theVPP NT Greek text several times,
and today still is not sure which it
is.) By Lim Seng Hoo
2
In 2001, Beza 1598

• Following D A Waites original position (per
  Waite Vs Dr John White debate), Dr Khoo
  maintained Beza 1598 as the perfect VPP Greek NT
  text, and wrote in Kept Pure in All Ages, FEBC
  Press, 2001,
• Since there were no printing or photocopying
  machines in those early days, the production of
  copies of the NT manuscripts was done
  painstakingly by hand, word for word. This
  tedious process would invariably result in some
  copying errors experienced even today by typists
  on electronic typewriters or computers. (p 31)
• By the providential hand of God, all such
  typographical and transmission errors, both
  accidental and intentional, have been corrected
  by 1598 in Theodore Bezas fifth edition of the
  Textus Receptus. The printing machine invented
  during the 15th century has removed the need to
  hand copy the Scriptures, thereby preventing any
  scribal errors from recurring in the transmission
  process. (p 32)

3
In Jan 2003, Scrivener 1881/84

• When informed by Rev Charles Seet in late 2002,
  that Scriveners Greek Text underlying the KJV
  published by the Trinitarian Bible Society and
  used by FEBC, differed from Beza 1598 in over 190
  places, Dr Khoo quietly changed his position,
  writing in A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The
  Burning Bush, Jan 2003, p 9,
• In like manner, the Lord allowed copyist errors
  and corruptions to enter into the transmission
  process through the pen of fallible scribes. I
  believe that in the fulness of time - in the most
  opportune time of the Reformation God
  restored from out of a pure stream of preserved
  Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the purest Hebrew
  and Greek Text of allthe Text that underlies our
  KJVthat accurately reflects the original
  Scriptures.
• If there exists a perfect TR, then which of the
  many editions of the TR is perfect? The present
  edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the
  English Authorized Version of 1611 follows the
  text of Bezas 1598 edition as the primary
  authority, and corresponds with The New
  Testament in the Original Greek according to the
  text followed in the Authorized Version, edited
  by F H A Scrivener.

4
In Feb 2003 Hills Reformation Text

• I wrote to him on 12 Feb 2003 pointing out that
  Scrivener served on the Revised Version Committee
  with Westcott and Hort and his 1881 work was a
  product of the RV commission, which included
  revising the AV via the removal of PLAIN AND
  CLEAR ERRORS whether in the Greek Text
  originally adopted by the Translators, or in the
  Translation made from the same. Only necessary
  changes were to be made to introduce as few
  alterations as possible into the Text of the AV,
  and they should indicate such alteration in the
  margin. (The Revision Revised page 3).
• Dr Khoo responded on 14 Feb 2003 stating,
• I do not consider Scrivener's 1881 Greek
  edition of the TR to be the perfectly restored
  text or the exact replica of the Autographa. What
  I did say was, "the purity of God's words has
  been faithfully maintained in the Traditional /
  Byzantine / Majority /Received Text and fully
  represented in the Textus Receptus that underlies
  the KJV." In other words, it is not strictly
  Scrivener's TR (although extremely close) but the
  TR underlying the KJV that is the perfectly
  restored text or as Hills calls it "The
  Reformation Text.

5
In Mar 2003, No Single Purified Text

• I replied to Dr Khoo on 14 Mar 2003, But
  wonderful all that is now required to
  decisively come to a judgement is to produce a
  copy of this The Reformation Text for all to
  see and examine! This will be the talk of the
  Millennium! But ought not this VPP text by now
  to be very well known, broadly published and
  widely used and scrutinised by the public,
  resulting in its infallibility being clearly
  upheld? Why did Burgon not know of this? Hills
  and Burgon did argue that God would not allow
  such a text to be hidden in some monastery or in
  a bottle, but would ensure its wide accessible
  public use in the churches! (And is the CUV
  also based on this The Reformation Text?) And
  poor Scrivener did not know of it either and
  spend great efforts and years in reconstructing
  the Greek TR underlying the KJV from Beza and
  other sources.
• Dr Khoo thus finally replied on 21 Mar 2003,
• I do not believe there is a "single purified" TR
  (there is no such volume at present). I have
  never advocated a "miraculous" (i.e. double
  inspiration) but a special "providential"
  preservation of Scripture. I have never held to
  a perfectionist view of the KJV. I have always
  affirmed that the KJV is the best, most faithful,
  most reliable, most accurate, most beautiful
  Bible in the English language.

6
Fatal Self-Contradiction

• Dr Khoo consistently contradicted himself and
  changed position much like a chameleon. And
  after admitting and conceding that there is no
  single purified text no such volume at
  present, he indefatigably insisted on a perfect
  VPP Bible that we have in our hands today!
•  
• But plainly and crucially, his concession is
  completely fatal to the entire VPP postulate! 
  No single purified text No VPP text the
  two terms are by definition synonymous!  Without
  a single purified text that is perfect and pure,
  jot and tittle exact to the Autographs, you have
  no VPP text.
•  
• Ending thoughts Would not this make the VPP
  text, less existent and/or more intangible
  than the Autographs!  Without a single purified
  text, would not the KJV translators have to be
  inspired in their textual criticism, in order to
  have arrived at the perfect underlying text?

7
Postlude 1 Scriveners Error at Eph 624

• Postlude late 2004 news!
• In 2004, Dr Khoo started telling his FEBC
  students that Scrivener 1884 differs from the KJV
  in one place the Amen ending in Eph 624 of
  the KJV is absent in the Scrivener Greek text!
• Would this be the only difference? And which
  should be the correct reading the Greek or the
  English?

8
Postlude 2 Supernatural and Miraculous

• Postlude latest 2005 news!
• On 14 Aug 05, Dr Khoo in long-delayed response to
  my Sep 03 paper, wrote that he understands
  providential preservation in terms of special
  providence - supernatural and miraculous
  (involving Gods personal supervision and direct
  intervention). By His singular care and
  providence, kept pure in all ages (WCF, I8).
  Biblical preservation is Gods work, not mans.
• At www.febc.edu.sg , Dr Khoo now states, God has
  supernaturally preserved each and every one of
  His inspired Hebrew/Aramaic OT words and Greek NT
  words to the last jot and tittle, so that in
  every age, Gods people will always have in their
  possession His infallible and inerrant Word kept
  intact without the loss of any word (Ps 126-7,
  Matt 518, 2435, Mark 1331, Luke 2133, John
  1035, 1 Pet 123-25).How do these new
  statements augur with those on Page 2 and 5 afore?

9
FINAL CONCLUSION

• Truth is Forever Unchangeable/Unchanging!
• The VPP Text Is Always/Ever Changing!?!?!
• ? Clearly VPP Is Not Truth!!