Which version to read (which is the best English translation)?

‘Which version should I read?’ or ‘Which is the best English translation?’ are common questions asked by Christians today given the multitude of English versions available.

Modern version supporters including Mark Ward, Greg Gilbert (from ESV publisher Crossway), and even Grace to You (ministry of John MacArthur) would not give you a straightforward answer but would tell you that the answer entirely depends on you. This is actually no answer at all. These people would normally discourage you from reading the Authorised Version (KJV) due to their complain that Biblical English of the KJV is incomprehensible to modern English speakers. The complain is not true because Asians and Africans whose native language is not English continue to read the KJV today.

However, should the same questions be asked to traditional KJV readers, we can immediately answer without any doubt that you should read the KJV.

The KJV and other Reformation-era Bibles are translated from the true Traditional Text of the original biblical languages. However, almost all modern English versions are translated from the false Modern Critical Text. 

The KJV brings visible unity to English-speaking Christians. Modern false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB bring visible division. Modern version supporters cannot even agree on a standard English Bible.

It is time for Evangelical Christians to stop reading the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other false bibles. Why are they not considering the reason for the multitude of modern false bibles is due to financial interests of the publishers and scholars?

Divine Preservation of the Textus Receptus and Authorised Version

The Textus Receptus (TR) and the Authorised Version (KJV) have been fiercely attacked by liberal and unbelieving scholars since the publication of the Westcott and Hort text and the Revised Version (RV) in 1881.

However, nearly 150 years later today, the TR and the KJV continue to be read and accepted by many Christians. On the other hand, the Westcott and Hort text has evolved into the modern Nestle-Aland text which editors claimed that it is not definitive and is only a working text (meaning the editors themselves have doubts) while the competitors of the KJV have come and disappeared. 

It is to note that the RV and almost all modern translations are based on the Westcott and Hort and Nestle-Aland texts (Modern Critical text). 

The RV and its 1901 American edition, the American Standard Version (ASV), have long gone out of print. Hardly anyone is reading the 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV) anymore. The 1970 New American Standard Bible (NASB) was published exactly because the ASV was becoming unknown by that time. The NASB only gained acceptance by John MacArthur and some scholars who favour a very literal translation. MacArthur was apparently unhappy with the 2020 update of the NASB and went on to publish his own version, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), a translation mainly used by him and his students in Masters' Seminary. The 1989 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) never gained wide acceptance and was a controversial translation. The 1978 New International Version (NIV) is gradually being replaced by the 2001 English Standard Version (ESV) as the popular translation among English-speaking Protestants who complained about the biblical English of the KJV.

Modern scholars (mostly liberals and unbelievers) continue to attack the TR and the KJV. However, as noted, the TR and the KJV continue to be read and accepted by many Christians while the competitors of the KJV have come and disappeared. 

We can be very sure that there is Divine Preservation of the TR and the KJV. The TR is the true representative of the Greek New Testament and the KJV is a very accurate translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament. 

On the other hand, the Westcott and Hort and Nestle-Aland texts are false texts. The RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and other translations based on the Westcott and Hort and Nestle-Aland texts are false bibles. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the Nestle-Aland text continues to evolve and its editors continuously doubting the text while the false bibles come and disappear.   

Nestle-Aland a working text

I am aware that in the preface of the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland (NA27), the editors described the text in that edition to be a working text, in other words, not a fixed text. This very clearly show the doubts the editors who are mostly unbelievers and liberals have towards their scholarship.

We must understand that the Nestle-Aland will never be a fixed text because this is in the financial interests of the scholars. If the Nestle-Aland text becomes fixed, whole university departments would close and those scholars would have to look for another job. Also, those unbelieving scholars probably do not have the knowledge and skills to excel in jobs outside of left-wing academia. Therefore, the scholars would make sure that the Nestle-Aland text is ever changing.

Given that almost all modern versions are translated from the Nestle-Aland editions, how is it possible for modern version (such as ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB) readers have any confidence that the version they are reading is truly the Bible?

We are also absolutely certain that the Nestle-Aland editions represent a false and rejected text (Alexandrian text). 

Therefore, I would suggest that the church reader must not proclaim 'this is the Word of God' after reading from the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other versions translated from the Nestle-Aland or other forms of the Alexandrian text.

The Modern Critical Text (Alexandrian Text) cannot be trusted

Academia is extremely left wing and this is in full display after President Donald Trump's historic victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election on 5 November 2024.

Elite universities such as Harvard and Georgetown are either giving students a day off or some kind of help to support their distress and depression due to Trump's victory. Academics and students in these elite universities are refusing to accept reality and the will of the American people. How left wing and liberal are these people! Can you trust anything that comes out of academia in the modern day?

The reason I wrote about this is we must remember the false Modern Critical Text based on the false Alexandrian text is a product of unbelieving and liberal scholars of academia (universities). If you would not allow the same unbelieving and liberal scholars to preach in your church on a Sunday, why are you allowing them to tell you what is and what is not in the Bible?

Tyndale Memorial

William Tyndale was a great English reformer who translated the New Testament from the Greek Textus Receptus and parts of the Old Testament from the Hebrew Masoretic Text into English. The first edition of his English translation of the New Testament was published in 1526.

At that time, both the Pope and King Henry VIII of England forbade the translation of the Bible into English. Therefore, Tyndale's translation had to be smuggled back to England from continental Europe where Tyndale was then living.

Tyndale was fluent in seven languages including Hebrew and Greek such that when he spoke any of those languages, he was thought to be a native speaker of that language. He was also quoted to have said to a Roman Catholic official that he hoped to make the ploughboy know the Scriptures more than the Pope.

Many opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) quoted Tyndale's ploughboy quote to justify their support of modern English versions. However, the same opponents of the KJV are very mistaken to use the ploughboy quote because the English of Tyndale's translations are Biblical English and NOT the English spoken by the ploughboy and the common Englishman of the 16th century. Tyndale and the KJV revolutionised the English language, transforming mediaeval English into modern English. How would Tyndale revolutionise English if his translation is the same English spoken by the ploughboy?

William Tyndale was martyred in Brussels, Belgium on 6 October 1536. Tyndale's last words were his prayer: 'Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.' Having said thus, the rope around Tyndale's neck was tightened and the flames soon consumed his earthly body.

Tyndale's prayer was answered. Two years following his martyrdom, King Henry VIII himself who had by then broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, commanded the translation of the Bible into English. Tyndale's translation then formed the foundation of the KJV and it can be rightly said that the KJV translators completed the work started by Tyndale. When we read the KJV, we are also reading Tyndale's work.

As we remember Tyndale on the anniversary of his martyrdom, may we treasure our Bibles (I am referring to the KJV and other versions translated from the true Traditional Text and NOT the modern false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB that are translated from the false Modern Critical Text) and remember that men like Tyndale had paid the greatest price to give us the liberty to read the Word of God in our language. 

Rosh Hashanah (ראש השנה) 2024

At sunset today (2 October 2024) would be 1 Tishrei 5785 in the Jewish calendar. This day is the first day of the seventh Jewish month and is the Feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:24, Numbers 29:1).

The Jews also celebrate this day as their New Year's Day (ראש השנה / Rosh Hashanah - Head of the year). 

Therefore, to my Jewish friends, שנה טובה (Shanah Tovah - literally means 'Good year').

The truth about the English Standard Version (ESV)

The ESV published in 2001 is now very widely used by people who claim themselves to be conservative Christians. However, do these people actually know about the ESV that they so strongly support?

The ESV is a conservative revision of the liberal Revised Standard Version (RSV) published in 1952, updating the unacceptable RSV to a more acceptable version. In other words, the ESV is a conservative version of RSV. If RSV and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - another liberal revision of the RSV published in 1989 - are rejected by conservatives, why should not the ESV be rejected also?

Remember, the ESV is RSV! The base text of the ESV is the RSV. 

Now the question is, why are conservatives so against us returning to the Word of God in English - the Authorised Version (KJV)?