Modern versions based on much more and better manuscripts than KJV? - A very clearly incorrect claim made by modern versions (false bibles) supporters

When opposing the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible, supporters of modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, and other false bibles make the following claim:

'Compared to the KJV, four centuries of scholarship means that we have better, earlier, and much more manuscripts for modern versions to base on.' 

This claim is very clearly incorrect. 

The dispute is mainly on the New Testament text. The KJV and other Reformation-era Bibles were translated from the Textus Receptus (TR) - the Traditional Text continuously read and accepted by Christians over the centuries. Modern false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB were translated from the Critical Text - a text rejected by ancient Christians and was effectively lost for 1,400 years before being promoted by unbelieving scholars since the nineteenth century.

First on the quantity of manuscripts. 90% of the manuscripts we have today support the TR and the KJV. On the other hand, the Critical Text and therefore, modern false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB are actually based only on two so-called 'earliest and best' manuscripts - the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Second on the quality of manuscripts. As mentioned, 90% of manuscripts we have today support the TR and the KJV. On the other hand, modern versions (false bibles) supporters frequently fail to mention that their so-called 'best' manuscripts - the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus actually disagree with each other, with about 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels alone. It should also be noted that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent a so-called Alexandrian text - a text read in Egypt before the fifth century. Why is this note on the Alexandrian Text significant? That was the time (fourth century) and place (Egypt) of the Arian heresy. 

Third, on the age of manuscripts. The unbelieving scholars and modern versions (false bibles) supporters claim that 'earliest is the best'. They say this because they think the fourth century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the best. However, an early manuscript with a text different to the Traditional Text can only prove that there was a text rejected by ancient Christians. There can only be one reason why ancient Christians rejected the Alexandrian Text - they very clearly knew that the Traditional Text is the true representative of the original New Testament text. Do modern versions (false bibles) supporters really think that they and their unbelieving scholars know more about 'ancient' manuscripts than the ancient Christians do?   

Therefore, by making a very clearly incorrect claim about manuscripts, modern versions (false bibles) supporters show that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Antipathy towards Biblical English by modern British Evangelical leaders

Many modern British Evangelical pastors have abandoned the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible and are singing the modernised versions of traditional hymns from for example, the Praise! hymn book.

The reasoning these pastors give is that Biblical English (the old English of KJV with words such as thou and thee) is incomprehensible to modern English speakers and an obstacle to evangelical work.

Is Biblical English incomprehensible to modern English speakers? 

Absolutely not! 

English in the modern day form has been spoken since the 18th century, however, English-speaking Christians continued reading the KJV and singing hymns in Biblical English until the 1950s. It must be noted that universal education in England only began in the 20th century, very clearly showing that historically, even the illiterate and uneducated could understand Biblical English.

As a separate note, many non-White English-speaking Christians in Asia and Africa continue to read the KJV and sing traditional hymns in Biblical English today. Clearly, these Asians and Africans can understand Biblical English. 

It is absolutely ironic that the people who complain that Biblical English is incomprehensible to modern English speakers are highly educated white British people (including many British Evangelical pastors). 

What is clear is that these British Evangelical leaders have an antipathy towards Biblical English.

No to thous and thees but yes to Hillsong??

I understand that there are modern Evangelical Christians in England who hate the Authorised Version (KJV) so much that they ban the singing of hymns that contain the Biblical English of the KJV during worship in their church. After all, the Praise! hymn book used by many English Evangelicals unnecessarily modernised many traditional hymns to remove the 'thou', 'thee', and other Biblical English words.

However, these same English Evangelicals are happy to sing songs from Hillsong, Bethel Music (not related to this website!!), Stuart Townend, and other Charismatics during worship.

This makes me conclude that these English Evangelicals are walking according to their feelings. They oppose traditional hymns because they hate the KJV while they sing questionable and even forbidden songs because these songs make them feel good and happy. I am inclined to think that the same English Evangelicals have turned worship into an occasion of self-entertainment.

Worship is solemn and is regulated by the Word of God. It is my position that we should sing only the biblical Psalms during worship. 

Even if the English Evangelicals do not believe in Exclusive Psalmody, surely they should know that songs from Hillsong, Bethel Music, and other Charismatics should not and must not be sung at any time??

Egocentrism and arrogance - major reasons people complain about KJV English

Following on from my article ''KJV English is obsolete and we need a modern English Bible?' Is this reasonable?' on 4 May 2024, I boldly identify egocentrism and arrogance as major reasons people complain about KJV English.

The Authorised Version (KJV) is a faithful and very accurate translation, the Word of God in the English language. Therefore, the KJV is majestic and reminds readers of the authority of the Word of God.

Instead of rightly viewing the Word of God to be the authority, KJV opponents wrongly view themselves to be the authority. And therefore, instead of upgrading themselves to understand the Biblical English of the KJV, KJV opponents think the Bible has to be changed for them. It is unsurprising then that Greg Gilbert (most likely a KJV opponent) claimed in the Crossway (publisher of ESV) website, that the multitude of modern English versions today is for different people reading the Bible in different circumstances. Does not Gilbert's claim about the multitude of modern English versions sound more like a commercial advertisement?   

Therefore, it can be concluded that egocentrism and arrogance are major reasons people complain about KJV English.

'KJV English is obsolete and we need a modern English Bible' Is this reasonable?

Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have frequently complained that the English of the KJV is 17th century English and is therefore, obsolete. From here, the same opponents would insist that we need a modern English Bible today and may even compare KJV English to Latin.

However, KJV English is in reality Biblical English shaped by the original Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Scriptures. KJV English was not the everyday English spoken in 16th and 17th centuries England nor in any point of history. 

William Tyndale's 16th century English translations form the foundation of the KJV. Even Tyndale, who would later become a martyr for translating the Scriptures into English and who also famously declared that he desired the ploughboy to understand the Scriptures, did not translate the Scriptures into the everyday English of 16th century England. To better translate the Scriptures, Tyndale even introduced words into the English language. Meanwhile, the KJV translators wisely kept the second person singular pronouns of thou, thee, and thy because the original Hebrew and Greek differentiate between the second person singular and plural. This was done despite second person singular pronouns were already going out of use in 1611. Therefore, the English of Tyndale's translation and of the KJV is the timeless and precious Biblical English, developed to accurately translate from the original Hebrew and Greek.

If the English we use when speaking to a respected teacher and a friend is different, should we not use a better English during worship to rightly express our reverence towards our Almighty and infinitely holy God? The 18th, 19th, and even early 20th centuries hymn writers understood this and this is why all their hymns are in Biblical English.

If KJV English is timeless and will never become obsolete, the cry from KJV opponents that 'KJV English is obsolete and we need a modern English Bible' is unreasonable. 

The reality in academia

Academia is an extremely left wing and politically correct environment that is much more interested in pursuing ridiculous ideologies than meritocracy. 

Academics in England and the West are mostly left wing, politically correct, socialist atheists. The same people employ people of their kind, resulting in academia being increasingly left wing and politically correct as time progresses. 

It is known in England that those left wing academics would refuse to employ anyone who is right wing or who supports Brexit (U.K. leaving the E.U.). Vice Chancellors could openly criticise Brexit when they should be politically neutral in official communications.

In recent developments, academic job applications begin to demand applicants submitting a 'statement of diversity', detailing the applicant's past experience of and future plans to promote diversity. Merits are no longer important, meritocracy is no longer the rule, and the best people do not get the job.

This is the reality in academia.

Now, would you trust the work and so-called 'scholarships' of the so-called 'scholars' who work in academia? Would you allow them to tell you what is and what is not in the Bible? Would you believe them when they claim that the Modern Critical Text (MCT) is the most accurate text?

You can read why modern scholars oppose the Authorised Version (KJV) and the Textus Receptus (TR) - the Traditional Text of the Greek New Testament in my articles: Bethel: Why do modern scholars oppose the Textus Receptus and the Authorised Version? (bethel-sg.com) and Bethel: Why do ‘scholars’ love and promote the Modern Critical Text (bethel-sg.com). The answer is simple: career and money.

A question to ask an Evangelical pastor who supports modern Bible versions

Most Evangelical pastors sincerely believe the Bible is the Word of God. They would often encourage us to trust the Bible in our hands. However, if an Evangelical pastor reads and promotes modern versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB while at the same time, opposes or discourages us from reading the Authorised Version (KJV) because of the 'old English' or the Textus Receptus (TR), we can ask him this question:

'Do you consider the traditional conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11) to be the Word of God?'

Pastors who graduated from seminaries that do not read the KJV and the TR would answer 'no'. This is what they were taught in the seminaries. Even famous pastors deny those verses. John MacArthur denied Mark 16:9-20 and John Piper denied John 7:53-8:11. By their denials, MacArthur and Piper had to convince their congregations during their respective sermons that although they denied those verses, their congregation should still have faith in the Bible.

If there are verses in the Bible in your hands that are not the Word of God, how can you trust the Bible?

We must however, note that those denials only came about when those pastors trusted the unbelievers and their scholarships. The Modern Critical Text (MCT) from which modern versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB were translated, is a work of unbelievers who deny the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Holy Scriptures. The scholarships of unbelievers deny Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 to be the Word of God. This is why modern versions usually mark those verses with a statement such as 'the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain these verses.'

What the unbelievers do not tell you is that the so-called 'earliest and best manuscripts' namely the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus were lost for 1,400 years and they even contradict each other - there are 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels. 

Unbelieving scholarships have entered into seminaries. You can read my articles: Bethel: Is going to seminary really necessary? (bethel-sg.com) and Bethel: We Evangelicals are in very serious danger! (bethel-sg.com).

Why do Evangelical pastors trust unbelievers and their scholarships? Why are Evangelical seminaries teaching men the scholarships of unbelievers? Why are they very reluctant and unwilling to return to the TR and KJV? It is very obvious that many modern Evangelical pastors who read and promote modern versions based on the MCT, have a fear of returning to the KJV. To them, it is any version but KJV.

Is this why modern Evangelicals are becoming increasingly liberal?

WE MUST REJECT ALL SCHOLARSHIPS DONE BY UNBELIEVERS!

We must return to the TR and KJV. Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are the Word of God. We can and must trust the TR and KJV in our hands.