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.

Why do modern scholars oppose the Textus Receptus and the Authorised Version?

Dan Wallace recommended us to have three modern versions and unsurprisingly, he did not recommend the Authorised Version (KJV). Mark Ward made videos that attempt to convince us that the KJV cannot be understood by modern English speakers. Jan Krans rejected the Textus Receptus (TR) in favour of the false Arian Modern Critical Text (MCT)

We may ask why do these people and most modern supposed 'scholars' oppose the TR and KJV?

The reason is actually simple......money.

Dan Wallace is a consultant of four modern versions including the now very popular ESV. Jan Krans' academic career practically depends on the ever-changing and uncertain MCT.

If we continue to read the TR and the KJV, modern 'scholars' would need to find new employment. Therefore, it is in the financial interest of modern 'scholars' to oppose the TR and the KJV.  

We Evangelicals are in very serious danger!

This short article follows my article yesterday (2 April 2024) about seminaries teaching men to doubt the Word of God and to trust the works of unbelievers.

If an Evangelical pastor was taught by his seminary to doubt parts of the Bible, example the traditional conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11), the same doubts would be passed on to the people who listen to the sermons by the same pastor. John MacArthur and John Piper have sermons doubting Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 respectively. Given the massive influence of MacArthur and Piper, they could lead many Christians the wrong way. If parts of the Bible can be doubted, then how can any Christian trust in the Bible? And how can MacArthur and Piper teach us to trust the Bible? 

Unbelievers are now indirectly influencing the way many Evangelicals believe through the seminaries. All theological scholarships done by unbelievers MUST BE REJECTED AND OVERTHROWN! Remember, the works of unbelievers, including their theological scholarships, are rejected by our Almighty God. If we continue to tolerate unbelieving scholarship like we do today, we Evangelicals are in very serious danger!

Is going to seminary really necessary?

Seminaries were established to prepare men for the ministry. Men because only men could be lawfully ordained. Many men saw seminary as a necessary path towards their entry into the ministry.

However, it has come to my attention that many seminaries (even Evangelical ones) are teaching seminarians to doubt the Bible. Evangelical pastors graduating from these seminaries now firmly think that the traditional conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11) are not part of Scriptures. Even famous pastors such as John MacArthur and John Piper doubt Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 respectively. 

The seminarians are also taught to reject the Textus Receptus (TR) - the traditional Greek New Testament text handed down by Christians from generation to generation throughout the centuries, and to accept and trust the false Arian Modern Critical Text (MCT) - a text rejected by ancient Christians and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years but promoted by unbelievers since the 19th century. 

In addition, the seminaries appear to encourage antipathy towards the Authorised Version (KJV) - the faithful and most accurate English translation of the Word of God. Is this one reason why modern Evangelical pastors keep complaining about the 'old English' of the KJV?

The seminaries are promoting scholarship done by unbelievers who deny the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Word of God. It seems that seminarians now trust in some academic methods (also invented by unbelievers), and have no problem accepting theological scholarship done by unbelievers.

Is this why many Evangelical churches are increasingly becoming more liberal?

More importantly, if seminaries are teaching men to doubt the Word of God and to trust the works of unbelievers, is going to seminary really necessary for men who wish to enter into the ministry? 

KJV English is not exactly 16th and 17th centuries English

Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have frequently used the 'old English too difficult to understand' excuse to reject the KJV in favour of modern English versions. You can read my article here: Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com). The opponents claim that KJV English is 17th century English used by English-speaking Christians of that time. From this reasoning, they claim that therefore, we need a modern English version for English-speaking Christians today.

The claim about KJV English is not completely correct. 

We must remember that William Tyndale and the translators of the KJV endeavoured to bring the Word of God to the common (English) people using the language (English) they understood. William Tyndale even became a martyr on 6 October 1536 for translating the Bible into English. 

However, the English of the 1526 William Tyndale's New Testament and of the KJV were not exactly the English spoken by the people of England in the 16th and 17th centuries. Tyndale and the KJV translators endeavoured to publish a faithful and very accurate translation and as a result, William Tyndale's New Testament and the KJV introduced words into the English language. At the same time, the KJV transformed mediaeval English into modern English. The KJV could bring about that transformation is exactly because KJV English was not exactly 16th and 17th centuries English.

Tyndale and the KJV translators showed that there is a standard in translation and they did not simply publish an 'easy English' translation. The opponents of the KJV appear to forget that even in modern English, there are significant differences between informal spoken English and formal written English. 

The demand for a modern English version has led to a multitude of versions published over the last 100 years. Now which of the modern versions is the most accurate? The opponents of the KJV are not sure of the answer themselves too. This is why many readers of modern versions are reading more than one version. You can read my article: Bethel: Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do (bethel-sg.com).

Faith of textual criticism scholar not important?? Another reason to reject the Modern Critical Text and many modern Bible versions

In a blog post rejecting the Textus Receptus (TR) and supporting the Modern Critical Text (MCT), Jan Krans suggested that the faith of the textual criticism scholars working on the MCT did not matter. Krans backed up his suggestion by claiming that it was a set of academic standards that dictated the scholarship behind the MCT.

I think the reason Krans made that suggestion is because anyone familiar with modern textual criticism scholarship would know that the main people behind the MCT such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, and Metzger were unbelievers who denied the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Holy Scriptures. Krans was probably trying to justify the involvement and work of unbelieving scholars.

For the benefit of anyone not familiar with modern textual criticism, the set of academic standards mentioned by Krans and followed by MCT scholars, is also invented by unbelievers with the aim of rejecting the TR - the traditional New Testament text handed down faithfully by Christians from generation to generation throughout the centuries.

You can read about the errors of modern textual criticism in my article: Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com).

Is the faith of the textual criticism not important as Krans claimed? Consider these two verses:

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

(Romans 14:23, KJV)

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

(Hebrews 11:6, KJV)

The MCT is produced by unbelievers using methods invented by unbelievers. We can confidently conclude that the MCT is rejected by our Almighty God. Therefore, we must reject the MCT and all versions translated from the MCT such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB.

Why is the language of the Authorised Version (KJV) majestic and beautiful?

The language of the Authorised Version (KJV) is well known to be majestic and beautiful. This observation is not doubted even by fierce opponents of the KJV who would then complain that the old English of the KJV is too difficult for the modern reader. You can read my article: Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com).

Why is the language of the KJV majestic and beautiful?

Some have claimed that it was the intention of the translators of the KJV and I do not dispute this claim.

However, in my view, the true reason why the language of the KJV is majestic and beautiful is because the KJV is effectively the Word of God in the English language. The KJV was faithfully and very accurately translated from the true representatives of the Word of God in the original languages - the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament. The Word of God is authoritative and majestic, the KJV being a faithful and very accurate translation would naturally reflect the authority and majesty of the Word of God.  

Now consider the modern English versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB. The reason the language of these modern versions is neither majestic nor beautiful is because these same modern versions are not the Word of God. The New Testament of most modern versions published since 1885 is based on the false Arian Modern Critical Text that was rejected by ancient Christians and effectively lost for 1,400 years. You can read my articles: Bethel: A treatise on why I read the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible (bethel-sg.com), Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com), and Bethel: A treatise on the textual criticism errors behind most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com).

One reality supporters and readers of modern Bible versions should know

Supporters of modern Bible versions (such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB) and of the Modern Critical Text (MCT) have often claimed that modern versions are more accurate than the Authorised Version (KJV). The reason behind this claim has nothing to do with English language nor the scholarship and knowledge of the translators. The claim is based on the observation that far more manuscripts are available to modern scholars than to the Reformers and Puritans. On this basis, the supporters of the MCT claim that the MCT is more accurate because it is based on many more manuscripts than the Textus Receptus (TR).

However, the reality is opposite to the claim. From my understanding, at least 90% to 95% of the manuscripts available to us today actually support the TR. On the other hand, the MCT is an Alexandrian type text that is supported by relatively very few available manuscripts and in reality, is mainly based on only two manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. To make matters worse, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with each other with about 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels.

The reason why the MCT is mainly based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is because the so-called scholars since Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century have claimed that those two manuscripts are the 'oldest and best'. This is certainly not the case, you can read my articles: Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com) and Bethel: A treatise on the textual criticism errors behind most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com). It should be noted that the editors of the MCT such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, and Metzger were all unbelievers who denied the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Word of God. You can read my other article: Bethel: Unbelievers telling us what is in the Bible? (bethel-sg.com).

In summary, the claim that the MCT is based on many more manuscripts than the TR is absolutely false. In reality, the MCT is based on only two questionable and inaccurate manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) because of the unreasonable and illogical preference of unbelievers beginning with Westcott and Hort.

Doctrines not affected by modern Bible versions?

Supporters of modern textual criticism, the Modern Critical Text (MCT) of the New Testament, and the modern Bible versions translated from the MCT, often assure us with the claim that although the MCT is shorter than and significantly different from the Textus Receptus (TR) - the traditional Greek New Testament text handed down faithfully by Christians from generations to generations throughout history, no major doctrine is affected. In other words and by extension, the MCT supporters are claiming that no doctrine and no understanding would be affected if a man reads a modern English Bible version translated from the MCT such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB instead of the Authorised Version (KJV) that was translated from the TR. 

However, the claim made by MCT supporters is false. Two major doctrines are immediately affected by the acceptance of the MCT. 

First, the Divine Preservation of the Holy Scriptures. If you accept the MCT, you would be saying that God did not preserve His Word because the supposedly true New Testament text was hidden from Christians for 1,400 years and therefore, during that 1,400 years, Christians did not have the true New Testament text.

Second, the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. If God had not preserve His Word, how can we be confident that the Bible we hold in our hands is the infallible Word of God?

When these two major doctrines are affected, the authority of the Bible in the eyes of man would also be affected. If man has doubts about the truth of the Bible and no longer trusts in the Bible, potentially ALL doctrines can be affected.

Secret changes in Romans 13:9 in modern English versions (modern false bibles confessing to bearing false witnesses)

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

(Ro. 13:9, KJV)

τὸ γάρ, Οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, ἐν τῷ, Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν.

(Ῥωμ. 13:9, TR)

In the Authorised Version (KJV) and the Textus Receptus (TR), in Romans 13:9, the Apostle St. Paul listed five of the Ten Commandments:

1. Thou shalt not commit adultery (Οὐ μοιχεύσεις) [7th Commandment]

2. Thou shalt not kill (οὐ φονεύσεις) [6th Commandment]

3. Thou shalt not steal (οὐ κλέψεις) [8th Commandment]

4. Thou shalt not bear false witness (οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις) [9th Commandment]

5. Thou shalt not covet (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις) [10th Commandment]

Now let's look at how Romans 13:9 is read in the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB. Look for 'Thou shalt not bear false witness'.

9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b]

[a] Exodus 20:13-15,17; Deut. 5:17-19,21

[b] Lev. 19:18

(Romans 13:9, NIV)

9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

(Romans 13:9, ESV)

9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

(Romans 13:9, NASB)

9 The commandments, Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal;[a] do not covet;[b] and any other commandment, are summed up by this commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c]

[a] Other mss add do not bear false witness

[b] Ex 20:13–17; Dt 5:17–21

[c] Lv 19:18

(Romans 13:9, CSB)

Dear reader, can you see 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' is missing in the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB? A quick check shows that the highlighted commandment is also missing in the same verse in NRSV, LSB, and GNB. Out of those 7 modern English versions, only CSB contains a footnote that informs the reader of the highlighted commandment being found in other manuscripts. Therefore, you would not be aware of the highlighted commandment in Romans 13:9 if you read only the main text of the modern English versions mentioned.

Why do the modern English false bible lack the highlighted commandment? This is because the false Arian manuscript Vaticanus and the Modern Critical Text (MCT) based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not contain the highlighted commandment in Romans 13:9. Almost all modern versions are translated from the MCT.

Why did Vaticanus leave out the highlighted commandment? Is it because the scribes of the false Arian Vaticanus knew that they were breaking the commandment? Remember, Vaticanus and the Alexandrian text it represents, are significantly different from the TR - the Traditional Text handed down faithfully by Christians from generation to generation throughout the centuries.

Why do the editors of the MCT follow Vaticanus instead of Sinaiticus here? Other than the principle to prefer shorter readings, is it that the editors of the MCT themselves knew that they were also bearing false witnesses?

Why do modern false bibles such as the the NIV, ESV, NASB, and NRSV leave out the highlighted commandment without even a footnote informing the reader that the commandment is found in other versions and manuscripts? Is it because the editors and translators of the mentioned false bibles also knew that they themselves were also bearing false witnesses?

Therefore, in conclusion, the secret changes to the text of Romans 13:9 in modern false bibles actually shows that the same false bibles are confessing to bearing false witnesses.   

Secret changes in Acts 9:5-6 in modern English versions

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

(Ac. 9:5-6, KJV)

This is the Word of God in the Authorised Version (KJV) for Acts 9:5-6. Now notice the differences in NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB:

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

(Acts 9:5-6, NIV)

5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

(Acts 9:5-6, ESV)

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told to you what you must do.”

(Acts 9:5-6, NASB)

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul said.

“I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “But get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

(Acts 9:5-6, CSB)

In the KJV, our Lord told Saul that 'it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.' Saul trembling and astonished said 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?' From my understanding, this was the first time Saul (who would later become the Apostle St. Paul) acknowledged and confessed Jesus Christ is Lord.

However, not only is this not in the text of the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB, there are no footnotes or statements in those same modern versions acknowledging the text found in the KJV.

If modern false bibles such as NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB could make secret changes in the text of Acts 9:5-6 without informing the reader, can we still trust the same false bibles and their editors?

Double standards from modern Evangelicals who reads most modern English versions

I am very sure that the pastors and leaders of most Evangelical Churches in England would not allow an unbeliever to preach from the pulpit. However, why are they then allowing unbelievers to tell us what is in the Bible? 

The Kittel’s edition of the Hebrew Bible and the Modern Critical Text (MCT) of the New Testament are the works of unbelieving scholars who deny the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Word of God. Almost all modern versions including the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB were translated from those two mentioned texts.

I simply do not understand the double standard that when it comes to the important work of textual criticism and theological scholarship, faith is suddenly not a requirement.

President Ronald Reagan supported the KJV

I have recently discovered that Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States of America between 1981 and 1989, was a supporter of the Authorised Version (KJV) over the modern English versions.

If President Reagan did not have any issue with the old English of KJV, why do many white educated people in England and America such as Mark Ward, claim that the old English of the KJV is too difficult to understand?

It seems to me that those opponents of the KJV are determined to abandon the KJV and are simply using 'old English too difficult to understand' as an unreasonable and illogical excuse. 

Why do translators of modern Bible versions love unbelieving 'scholars'?

Do you know that many modern Bible versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB were translated from the works and scholarship of unbelievers? You can read more from my article: Bethel: Unbelievers telling us what is in the Bible? (bethel-sg.com).  

Although there is generally very little controversy over the Hebrew Old Testament text, there are in general two editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text today:

1. The Ginsburg/Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text prepared by Ben Chayim in the sixteenth century. Ginsburg, Bomberg, and Ben Chayim were all Christians. It should also be noted that Ginsburg and Ben Chayim were Jews who converted to Christianity. The Old Testament of the Authorised Version (KJV) is generally translated from this text.

2. The Kittel edition of the Hebrew Bible edited by Rudolf Kittel and published by the German Bible Society and the United Bible Societies. Rudolf Kittel was a German antisemittic unbeliever. The Old Testament of most Bible versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are translated from this text.

Just a quick thought, why would you accept a Hebrew Bible edited by a German antisemittic unbeliever when there is a Hebrew Bible prepared by Jews who converted to Christianity? 

We know that unlike the KJV, the New Testament of most Bible versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are translated from the false Arian Modern Critical Text (MCT) that was edited and promoted by unbelievers. The MCT was rejected by ancient Christians and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years before unbelievers such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, and Metzger brought the text back from obscurity in an effort to challenge the true Traditional Text (Textus Receptus/TR). You can read more from my articles Bethel: A treatise on why I read the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible (bethel-sg.com), Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com), and Bethel: A treatise on the textual criticism errors behind most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com).

Therefore, it is reasonable to say that translators of modern Bible versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB love 'unbelieving' scholars and trust their scholarship. Does this even sound reasonable and logical to you? Would you even listen to an unbeliever preaching Christianity to you? If not, why trust the scholarship of unbelievers?

The division, confusion, and egocentrism brought by the multitude of modern English versions

There was a time when all English-speaking Christians read from the same Bible. This is despite the English language of the Bible they were reading, was already considered ‘old English’ to them. At that time, not many people were highly educated and illiteracy was common. However, nobody complained about the ‘old English’ nor had difficulty understanding the English Bible. The common English Bible brought unity among different Protestant Churches. True, there were significant differences between members of different Protestant Churches, however, there was unity during Scripture readings.

That was generally between 1611 and 1885, and the common English Bible read by all English-speaking Christians was the majestic Authorised Version (KJV).

In contrast, the multitude of modern English versions today brings division, confusion, and egocentrism to modern Christians. 

Different versions are used in different Churches even if they belong to the same denomination. Modern English-speaking Evangelicals no longer read from a common English Bible. The ESV and the NIV are very popular with modern Evangelicals in England.

Meanwhile, the wordings in different modern versions can be significantly different due to adherence to copyright laws. The different versions also use different translation philosophies. For example, the ESV is word-for-word while the NIV is thought-for-thought. This naturally leads to a divisive question: Which version is the best? 

To add to the division and confusion, we are also advised to read more than one version to get a better understanding. If the publisher of modern versions issue this advise, it is clear that this advise may be motivated by financial interests. If a supporter of modern versions issue the same advise, is it because he himself knows that modern versions are inaccurate?

How does the multitude of modern versions promote egocentrism? Well, according to an article written by Greg Gilbert and published in the Crossway (copyright holder of ESV) website, different versions are for different people reading the Bible with different approaches and at different times. Can you not see the whole promotion of egocentrism? Instead of upgrading yourself for the Bible, now the Bible has to be adjusted to suit you. Instead of rightly acknowledging the authority of the Bible, the reader has become the authority.

The most important difference between the KJV and most modern English versions is the text they were translated from. The New Testament of the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (TR) - the Traditional text faithfully passed down by Christians from generation to generation and was read and trusted by the Reformers and Puritans. In contrast, most modern versions were translated from the Modern Critical text (MCT) - a false Arian text that was rejected by ancient Christians and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years before they were promoted from the nineteenth century onwards, by unbelieving ‘scholars’ who deny the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Word of God. 

Therefore, the KJV is the Word of God in the English language. Meanwhile, the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other versions translated from the MCT are in reality, false bibles.

No wonder liberalism is gaining ground among modern Evangelicals. No wonder the false bibles are bringing division, confusion, and egocentrism.

Dear reader, we must return to the TR and the KJV.

We Protestants are catholics too!

During one Sunday Service in the Evangelical Church I normally attend, the Nicene Creed was recited in English. About the Church, the English translation read 'We believe in one holy universal and apostolic church'. 

However, in my view, the correct and proper translation should be 'I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church'. This is because the same line in Latin reads 'Et in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam'. In Greek, the word 'catholic' is also there. The word 'catholic' means universal and not the Roman Catholic Church.

I think the English translation read in the Service while was generally correct, clearly showed the fear of any association with the Roman Catholic Church. 

I do not agree with the deliberate change from 'catholic' to 'universal' simply because of that fear. The reason is the Reformers considered themselves 'catholic' too and this is why they refer to the followers of the pope as 'Roman Catholic'. Therefore, instead of avoiding the word 'catholic', we should like the Reformers, consider ourselves catholic.   

Why are modern Evangelicals becoming more liberal?

In my view, there are two main reasons.

1. Many modern Evangelicals are reading false bibles

Many modern Evangelicals have abandoned the Authorised Version (KJV) in favour of modern English versions because they unreasonably and illogically complain ‘old English of KJV too difficult to understand’.

The most popular versions among modern Evangelicals appear to be the ESV and the NIV. However, many of them are not aware that the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and many modern English versions are actually false bibles.

The New Testament of the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (TR) - the traditional text faithfully handed down by Christians from generation to generation throughout the centuries. In contrast, many modern versions were translated from the Modern Critical Text (MCT) - the text constructed and promoted by unbelievers and heretics and that is generally based on two supposedly ancient manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that do not even agree with each other. The MCT is clearly Arian and is significantly different from and shorter than the TR. Since the MCT is a false Arian text, all versions that were translated from the MCT such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are in reality, false bibles. This is why you see statements and footnotes in the false bibles that cast doubt on parts of the Bible.

2. Modern Evangelicals are increasingly egocentric

The complain about the old English of the KJV very clearly shows the egocentrism of the Evangelical opponents of the KJV. In their opinion, instead of upgrading and changing themselves for the Bible, the Bible must be adjusted to suit them. 

The egocentrism is also clear in their worship services. Instead of singing the biblical Psalms, modern Evangelicals sing all kinds of songs even songs written by Charismatics and heretics. The most likely reason for this observation is that modern Evangelicals have added ‘self-entertainment’ to worship, in a very simple description: ‘I want to sing what I like and the songs that make me feel happy’.

Therefore, without the Word of God and with increasing egocentrism, it is not surprising that many Evangelicals are becoming increasingly liberal.

KJV only? The opponents of KJV are KJV only too

We who read, support, and promote the Authorised Version (KJV) have frequently been called 'KJV only' by the opponents of the KJV. This appears to be a deliberate tactic of insult and misinformation on the part of the opponents of the KJV.

There is a small minority of people who considers the KJV to have the same status as the original autographs. However, the vast majority of us do not hold this position. We who are the vast majority read, support, and promote the KJV because we know that the KJV is the most accurate and faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language. We know that the KJV is the Word of God in the English language because the KJV was translated from the true representatives of the Word of God in the original languages - the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament. To be accurate, we are not KJV only but are Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus only.

It should be noted that the New Testament of modern false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB were not translated from the Textus Receptus but from the false Arian Modern Critical Text. If you would like to know more about the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Modern Critical Text, you can read my articles Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com), Bethel: A treatise on the textual criticism errors behind most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com), and Bethel: A treatise on why I read the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible (bethel-sg.com).

The opponents of the KJV use the term 'KJV only' to describe everyone who reads the KJV, not differentiating between the vast majority of us and the small minority. 

Why do the opponents of the KJV do this? It is clear that only by doing so can they appear reasonable. 

My three articles mentioned earlier prove that the opponents of the KJV are in error because they trust the Modern Critical Text and all false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB that were translated from the Modern Critical Text. My other article Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com) proves that the 'old English of KJV too difficult to understand' excuse often used by the opponents of the KJV is false and unreasonable. In addition, my article Bethel: Convenience or confusion? The multitude of modern English versions (bethel-sg.com) shows that the opponents of the KJV are in favour of confusion when they promote the multitude of modern English versions.

The opponents of the KJV know very well that reason and logic are not on their side. However, arrogance and egocentrism have prevented the same opponents of the KJV from facing reality. Therefore, these opponents of the KJV can only deliberately spread misinformation and turn the term 'KJV only' into an insult.

However, the opponents of the KJV are themselves 'KJV only' too. 

How is this the case? 

The position of the opponents of the KJV is actually 'any version but KJV', and their extreme antipathy is only shown towards the KJV. Therefore, the opponents of the KJV are 'KJV only' because they oppose and hate only the KJV. 

Scholars indirectly confirm the inaccuracy of modern Bible versions

We are often told to trust the (unbelieving) scholars and their professional scholarship to determine the most accurate text for the Modern Critical Text (MCT) of the Greek New Testament. We are also often told that we should trust the MCT (without question) from which most modern bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB , and CSB were translated. This is despite the fact that the MCT is significantly different and shorter than the Textus Receptus (TR).

However, do you know that the same scholars have concluded that it is impossible to construct the original text of the New Testament? The goal of modern textual criticism has been changed and it is now simply about endeavouring to construct an early version of the New Testament text. Moreover, modern textual criticism methods have resulted in the MCT being an ever-changing and uncertain text. The discovery of a single supposedly ancient manuscript would be sufficient to significantly alter the MCT.

To the readers and supporters of ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other false bibles, the ‘scholars’ you trust are not even confident of the accuracy of the MCT. Therefore, they have indirectly confirm the inaccuracy of the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB and all other versions translated from the MCT. Why are you then insisting us to abandon the Authorised Version (KJV) and the TR in favour of the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other modern versions that are translated from the MCT?

Copyright trap of most modern English false bibles

Dear reader, are you aware that the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and most modern English versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have copyright?

What does this copyright mean to the reader?

Well, in very simple explanation, the copyright laws ensure that the modern versions must have significant differences among one another. This would naturally affect the accuracy of all modern version because the translators may have to make changes to their translation purely to ensure it is different.

Think this way. If the 1971 NASB has translated a verse accurately, the 2001 ESV may not be able to use the exact accurate translation from the NASB due to the copyright laws. The different words used by the ESV would logically be less accurate. Now consider the multitude of modern English versions and all the copyrights they have, is it unreasonable to conclude that none of them is reliable and trustworthy due to the copyright trap.

The unnecessary divergence of translation among the multitude of modern versions due to copyright laws naturally brings confusion to the readers of those versions. 

In conclusion, the copyright trap is another reason why you must reject the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other modern English false bibles published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

The verse numbering system of the Bible

From my understanding, the verse numbers in our Bibles was first introduced by Stephanus in his 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus (TR). 

Therefore, this verse numbering system had been in general use for over 300 years before the publication of the Westcott-Hort edition of the Modern Critical Text (MCT) in 1881.

Why do I mention this?

The MCT does not contain some verses that are in the TR. You only need to look at your ESV, NIV or other false bibles translated from the MCT to see that some verses are not in the main text, for example in the ESV, Acts 8:36 is immediately followed by Acts 8:38. Other examples include Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 9:44, 46 and John 5:4. Meanwhile, there are statements casting doubts on the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11).

How do we know that the verses present in the TR but missing in the MCT are the Word of God? One witness to the truth that the TR (including those verses missing in the MCT) is the Word of God, is the verse numbering system. Remember, the verse numbering system has been introduced by the Providence of God.

Meanwhile, the verse numbering system also makes it very obvious when TR verses are not included in the false bibles (such as the ESV and the NIV) translated from the false Arian MCT.

Dear reader, you must reject the false Arian MCT and all the false bibles such as the ESV and the NIV that were translated from the MCT. You must return to the TR and the Authorised Version (KJV).

We must reject modern textual criticism

Unbelievers and heretics who deny the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Word of God, have involved themselves in theological scholarship.

Unsurprisingly, the unbelievers and heretics developed their methods of textual criticism according to the principles of higher criticism. With their methods, they tell Christians that the Modern Critical Text based on the so-called Alexandrian text and generally constructed from the texts of two false Arian manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), is the most accurate ‘New Testament’ text. What the unbelieving scholars seldom tell you is that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not even agree with each other with 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels. According to the same unbelievers, those two false Arian manuscripts are the ‘most reliable’ manuscripts. Their whole textual criticism methods are designed to reject the Textus Receptus (TR) which is the printed form of the Traditional Text - the text passed down faithfully by Christians from generation to generation throughout history.

Would you trust the TR, the text read and accepted by generations of Christians including the Reformers and the Puritans? Or would you trust the Modern Critical Text (Alexandrian text) that was rejected by ancient Christians and therefore, effectively disappeared for 1,400 years before the two unbelievers Westcott and Hort began promoting them in the nineteenth century?

Hebrews 11:6 teaches us that without faith it is impossible to please God. The Modern Critical Text, modern textual criticism in general, and modern theological scholarships done in universities in general, are the works of unbelievers and heretics. Therefore, in my view and from my understanding, the Modern Critical Text, modern textual criticism in general, and modern theological scholarships done in universities in general are all rejected by our infinitely holy God.

If you are not convinced and still think that it is possible for unbelieving scholars to do faithful and 'professional' scholarship, consider Jeremiah 13:23:

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

(Je. 13:23, KJV)

Dear reader, do not believe the ‘scholars’ who tell you that the Modern Critical Text is better than the TR. You must reject those unbelieving scholars, their unbelieving scholarship, their unbelieving textual criticism, the Modern Critical Text, and all false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB that are translated from the Modern Critical Text.

One simple reason you should not read the NIV, ESV, NASB, and other modern English versions

Doubt is an adversary of any Christian.

However, the NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, and most modern English versions contain many statements and footnotes that cast doubt on parts of the Bible. If you need examples, just look at the statements they have for the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11).

Why those statements and footnotes? You can read my articles Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com) and Bethel: A treatise on why I read the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible (bethel-sg.com).

It is without doubt that those statements and footnotes would cause the reader to doubt the infallibility and Divine Preservation of the Word of God. The authority of the Bible to the reader, and the faith of the reader would be affected.

Therefore, those statements and footnotes in the ESV, NIV, and other modern English versions would be a simple reason for you not to read them.

Stuart Townend's version of Psalm 23

    I uphold Exclusive Psalmody - the practice of singing only the biblical Psalms during personal and congregational worship. Therefore, I do not participate when uninspired songs are sung during any church Service.

    The Evangelical Church which I normally attend on Sundays has a strong preference for modernised traditional songs (usually known as hymns) and modern songs. I have noticed that songs written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend are sung in almost every services. This probably shows that the pastors and others in the church love them and their songs.

    However, I am writing this article to protest against Stuart Townend's version of Psalm 23 that was sung during Services in the Evangelical Church I normally attend. My anger was kindled because Townend added his own chorus 'I will trust in You alone......' to his version of Psalm 23.

    Why can't Townend sing the Psalm faithfully and properly? Why must he add his own chorus? In my view, with the addition of the 'I will trust in You alone......' chorus, Townend's version of Psalm 23 is no longer Psalm 23 and is certainly not a Psalm that can be sung during Services. 

    Therefore, I disapprove of and would refuse to sing Townend's version of Psalm 23.    

English-speakers will always be able to understand the English of KJV

Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have frequently used the unreasonable 'old English of the KJV too difficult to understand' excuse to reject this most accurate and faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language. I have proven that the English of the KJV could be understood by modern English speakers in my article: Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com). 

Those same opponents of the KJV would then insist that we must instead read modern English versions such as the NIV and ESV. They would also very strongly insist that the KJV is no longer suitable for the modern English speaker. Are modern English versions much easier to understand? Clearly not. The same people would then recommend us to read more than one modern English version. You can also read my article: Bethel: Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do (bethel-sg.com). In reality, those same opponents actually hate the KJV. To them it is 'any version but KJV' and they do not want to hear the KJV read to their ears again.

Why such extreme antipathy towards the KJV? The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Opponents of the KJV are pricked in the heart because they subconsciously know that the KJV is the Word of God.

We must remember that William Tyndale's New Testament and the KJV revolutionised the English language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, transforming mediaeval English into the modern English we understand today. From 1611 onwards, the KJV has always been the standard of the English language and therefore, there has been no major changes in English over the previous 400 years. It is also reasonable to be confident that with the KJV continuing to be the standard, there will be no major changes nor revolution in the English language in the future.

Therefore, English-speakers will always be able to understand the English of the KJV.      

Modern English Bible versions and church attendance

In my article: Bethel: Modern English Bible versions are an obstacle to evangelisation and ammunition for unbelievers (bethel-sg.com), I have shown how modern English Bible versions are an obstacle to evangelisation and ammunition for unbelievers.

In the last few decades, many Evangelical churches in England have abandoned the Authorised Version (KJV), often citing the ‘old English of KJV too difficult to understand’ excuse. I have another two articles Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com) and Bethel: Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do (bethel-sg.com) that prove that modern English speakers are able to understand the old English of KJV. Therefore, ‘old English of KJV too difficult to understand’ is in reality an unreasonable excuse.

If modern English versions such as the ESV and NIV really help in evangelisation, we should be seeing a massive and even exponential growth in attendance in the Evangelical churches that read them. In reality, this appears not to be the case. 

While Evangelical churches are doing much better than the liberal Church of England and the Methodist Church (both of them suffering massive decline in church attendance), I think it is still fair to say that much of the growth of church attendance comes from immigrants who were already Evangelical Christians when they came to this country.

Therefore, in conclusion, modern versions have not helped in evangelisation nor improve church attendance.

Why do ‘scholars’ love and promote the Modern Critical Text

The answer is simple: it is in their financial interest to do so.

The Modern Critical Text (MCT) is an ever-changing uncertain text. It relies on archaeological discoveries, new interpretations of those discoveries, and constant updating of the text as a result of those discoveries and interpretations.

Therefore, it is unsurprising that unbelievers such as Aland (of the Nestle-Aland edition of the MCT) and Metzger (of Princeton Theological Seminary) have spent their entire career on the ‘scholarship’ of MCT. The ever-changing and uncertain nature of the MCT provides constant academic opportunities and a steady income resulting from those opportunities.

For example, by doubting the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11), ‘scholars’ could write books and research about where and when they think these 12 verses originated. Another discovery of an ‘ancient’ manuscript would lead to research and discussion over if the MCT should be updated. Can you not see the constant availability of work?

If all Christians accept the fixed and authoritative Textus Receptus (TR), whole university and seminary departments would be shut down and many ‘scholars’ would need to find another job. Therefore, it is very clearly in the financial interest of those ‘scholars’ to heavily promote the MCT while aggressively casting doubts on the TR and unreasonably vilify TR supporters at the same time.

Dear reader, why should we trust the ‘scholars’ and the MCT when there is so clearly a conflict of interests?

Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do

The answer is simple:

1. The Authorised Version (KJV) represents a fixed authoritative text.

2. The KJV is very accurately and faithfully translated from the true representatives of the Word of God in the original languages - the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament.

3. The KJV is majestic, easy to read and memorise.

4. The KJV (despite complains about old English) can be very clearly understood.

5. Theology is very clear in the KJV.

6. True English-speaking Christians will love the KJV because they know this Bible is the Word of God in the English language.

7. Readers of false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB read more than one version (normally excluding the KJV because they complain about the old English) because those false bibles despite in modern English, could not be easily and clearly understood.

8. One reason why readers have difficulties understanding the false bibles is that in cases of textual variants, the editors of the false bibles and the false Arian Modern Critical Text from which the false bibles were translated, deliberately chose the difficult and unlikely reading because of their questionable and illogical methods of unbelieving textual criticism.

9. The false bibles represent an ever-changing and uncertain text, to be adjusted to suit the needs of the reader who becomes the authority.

10. Some false bibles such as the NIV use the thought-for-thought translation philosophy, meaning that they are inaccurate.

11. Readers of ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, and other false bibles are confused.

The true reason traditional hymns were modernised

I uphold Exclusive Psalmody - the practice of singing only the biblical Psalms during personal and congregational worship. Therefore, I do not participate when uninspired songs are sung during worship services.

However, I am not completely against the singing of uninspired songs. They can be sung during Sunday School or during other occasions. They are only not to be sung during worship. My position is consistent with the Regulative Principle of Worship.

I have noticed a trend in modern Evangelical churches across England where the modernised versions of traditional uninspired songs (commonly called hymns) are increasingly being sung. The editors of new hymn books such as Praise! actively modernised traditional hymns by removing all second person singular pronouns (thou, thee, thy, thine), often claiming that they are making the hymns more suitable for modern English speakers. My observation is that in reality, the whole modernisation project is actually driven by some modern Evangelicals’ extreme antipathy towards the use of the old English second person singular pronouns.

Why is this extreme antipathy? Well the old English second person singular pronouns are the main representatives of the English of the Authorised Version (KJV). Their use in hymns reminds the singer of the KJV. Therefore, the extreme antipathy mentioned earlier in reality, originated from the extreme antipathy towards the KJV - the most accurate and a faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language. 

You can read my article Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com) to understand the reason for the extreme antipathy towards the KJV shown by some modern Evangelicals.

In my view, the so-called ‘modernisation of traditional hymns’ is effectively vandalism. The well known hymn normally sung on Easter Sunday ‘Thine be the Glory’ has been changed to ‘Glory to Jesus’, and clearly the meaning has been changed.

In conclusion, I absolutely reject the vandalism (modernisation) of traditional hymns. I also reject hymn books such as Praise! that actively vandalise (modernise) traditional hymns.

Modern English Bible versions are an obstacle to evangelisation and ammunition for unbelievers

        Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have rejected this accurate and faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language on the basis of the old English and the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) from which the New Testament of the KJV was translated. The same people claim that the old English of the KJV is outdated and difficult for modern English speakers to understand. They also claim that we have far better manuscripts today than the Reformers had when the TR was published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They further claim that scholarship over the last 150 years (they did not mention the scholarship was done by unbelieving liberal scholars using higher criticism) has given us a Modern Critical Text (MCT) that is more accurate than TR. Therefore, the opponents of KJV conclude that the KJV is not suitable for the modern reader and equally unsuitable for evangelisation today.

        What is the solution then? The opponents of KJV insist that we must use the ESV, NIV, and other modern English versions that were translated from the MCT. However, the MCT is in reality, not a representative of the Word of God but a false Arian ever-changing and uncertain text. Therefore, all versions translated from the MCT, including the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are false bibles.

        Do you logically expect false bibles to be suitable and more effective for evangelisation? Of course not. The false bibles have verses missing and contain footnotes and statements casting doubt on parts of the Bible.

        If we hand out booklets of the NIV Gospel of St. Mark, what would the unbeliever think when he sees the following statement after Mark 16:8:

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.

        What message are we sending? Parts of the Bible in your Bible is not the Word of God? We are not sure if these 12 verses are Scripture?

        These footnotes are not limited to NIV nor these 12 verses. You will see the following statement after John 7:52 in the ESV, casting doubt on the Pericope Adultarae:

The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11.

        When you read about the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts Chapter 8 in the CSB, you would realise that verse 36 is followed immediately by verse 38 with a footnote:  

Some mss include v. 37: Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

        There are more examples that are not listed in this article. The reason the false bibles contain those statements and have missing verses is because of the differences between the MCT and the TR. The MCT and the two faulty manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not contain words and verses found in the TR. 

        The TR represents the Traditional Text handed down by Christians from generation to generation, and was the authoritative text accepted by the Reformers and Puritans. On the other hand, the MCT represents a text that has been lost and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years, and that is promoted by unbelieving scholars using methods of higher criticism. Judge for yourself, who and which text would you trust? Do you trust the Traditional Text or a lost false Arian text? Do you trust the Reformers or the unbelieving scholars?

        Therefore, it is clear that the false bibles introduce doubts to both believer and unbeliever. Believers are unsure about parts of the Bible themselves. John Piper even claimed that the Pericope Adultarae is not Scriptures. Unfortunately, Piper is not the only pastor doubting the Scriptures, there are discussions whether and how Pericope Adultarae, the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and other ‘disputed’ parts of the Bible should be preached. 

        Meanwhile, when we evangelise, we would normally say ‘Trust the Bible’ but how can the unbeliever trust the Bible when he sees those doubting statements and footnotes? Without doubt, false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, and CSB are themselves an obstacle to evangelisation.

        Moreover, the false bibles are ammunition for unbelievers who would seize those doubting statements and footnotes to attack Christians. Should we be surprised? Obviously no. Remember, the MCT from which the false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NASB were translated, is itself the work of unbelieving scholars such as Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, and Metzger.

        In conclusion, false bibles such as ESV, NIV, CSB, and NASB are very harmful and dangerous to the believer, an obstacle to evangelisation, and ammunition for unbelievers to attack the Christian.