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.

Unbelievers telling us what is in the Bible?

        Can you think of anything more illogical and unreasonable?

      However, you are accepting that if you read and trust the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other false bibles that are translated from the false Arian uncertain and ever-changing Modern Critical Text.

       Have you ever wondered why in those false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB, you would see statements and footnotes casting doubts on parts of the Bible? Have you also wondered why those false bibles exclude some verses?

        If you need an example, simply turn to Chapter 16 of St. Mark’s Gospel and the conclusion of Chapter 7 of St. John’s Gospel. There you will see the false bibles casting doubts on the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11). Meanwhile, in another example, in the main text of the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB, Acts 8:36 is immediately followed by Acts 8:38 and therefore, St. Phillip’s reply and the Ethiopian’s confession in Acts 8:37 are not found in the main text of those versions.

        The answer is very simple, the unbelieving scholars editing the Modern Critical Text do not think they are part of the Bible. 

           On what basis you may ask. 

        On the basis that the the false Arian Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are the ‘best’ and ‘most reliable’ manuscripts. It should be noted that those two manuscripts have different readings even from each other. It is estimated that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels.

       On the basis of the questionable textual criticism methods invented by the same unbelieving scholars where the Traditional Text - the text accepted by Christians over  the centuries - must be rejected in favour of a lost text (represented by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that had effectively disappeared for 1400 years.

        Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger, and others, the men editing the Modern Critical Text from the 1881 Westcott and Hort text to the modern day Nestle-Aland text are unbelievers who deny the truth, infallibility and divine preservation of the Word of God. Therefore, unbelievers are telling and deciding for Christians what is in the Bible.

        Is there any wonder why the unbelievers are favouring a false Arian text represented by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and rejecting the true Traditional Text represented by the Textus Receptus (TR)?

        ‘Trust the scholars and their expertise’ say the supporters of the Modern Critical Text and the readers of false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB. In reality, that statement should be corrected to ‘Trust the unbelievers and their doubts’. Does this make sense or sound logical and reasonable to you?

           Dear reader, you must reject the false Arian Modern Critical Text and all the false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB.

Convenience or confusion? The multitude of modern English versions

         A multitude of modern English Bible versions have been published since the end of the Second World War. The following are some examples of these modern versions and the year of their first publication:

1. Revised Standard Version / RSV (1952)
2. New American Standard Bible / NASB (1971)
3. Good News Bible / GNB (1976)
4. New International Version / NIV (1978)
5. New King James Version / NKJV (1982)
6. New Revised Standard Version / NRSV (1989)
7. New International Reader's Version / NIrV (1996)
8. New Living Translation / NLT (1996)
9. English Standard Version / ESV (2001)
10. Holman Christian Standard Bible / HCSB (2004)
11. Christian Standard Bible / CSB (2017)

        Why are there so many modern English versions? 

        Greg Gilbert in his article published on the website of Crossway (the copyright holder of ESV), listed the benefits of a multitude of versions before concluding that the different versions are meant for different people with different motivations and approaches towards Bible study. Gilbert’s conclusion is commonly used by many to justify the need for a multitude of versions. 

        Meanwhile, the American academic Dan Wallace suggested that for us to have a better understanding, we need to have three Bible versions, one each from the three translation philosophies - word for word, thought for thought, and a mixture of the first two philosophies. It should be noted that Wallace very strongly supports the false Arian Modern Critical Text that is used for the translation of the New Testament in most Bible versions published since 1881. Wallace also fiercely opposes the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Authorised Version (KJV). For more information about the Modern Critical Text, read my article: Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com).

        Gilbert and Wallace were simply very ridiculous. They were basically suggesting that the multitude of modern English versions was for our convenience. Therefore, according to those two men, instead of man conforming himself to the authoritative teachings of the Bible, man is the authority and the Bible has to be adjusted to suit him. With men like Gilbert and Wallace, and their attitude towards the Bible, it is little wonder why liberalism is increasingly gaining ground among modern English-speaking Evangelical Christians.

        In reality, the multitude of modern English versions brings confusion to Christians who do not read the KJV and to new believers who do not know about the KJV. 

        Whenever a new version is introduced to the market, its publisher would usually advertise the newest version to be the most accurate modern version by virtue of the latest scholarship, latest archaeological discoveries, and better English translation. Does this mean that all previous modern English versions published after the RSV in 1952 are inaccurate and outdated? Which modern English version is the most accurate then? Is it the currently very popular ESV? Or is it the NIV after their 2011 revision? Or is it actually the latest (2020) edition of the NASB? The opponents of the KJV are certainly unsure and confused. This also explains why Wallace and many opponents of the KJV think that we need to have more than one modern English version.

        Most modern English versions published since the Revised Version (RV) in 1885 are basically the same. Their Old Testament were mainly translated from Kittel's edition of the Masoretic Text. It should be noted that Kittel was an antisemitic unbeliever. Meanwhile, other than the NKJV, the New Testament of most modern English versions were translated from the Nestle-Aland edition of the uncertain and ever-changing false Arian Modern Critical Text. Although the New Testament of the NKJV was translated from the TR, there are footnotes giving the Modern Critical Text reading. It should also be noted that the editor of the NKJV did not believe in the TR. Since the Modern Critical Text is not the Word of God, all modern English versions translated from the Modern Critical Text such as the NIV, ESV, CSB, and NASB are false bibles.

        These false bibles cause further confusion with their footnotes and statements that cast doubts on parts of the Bible. For example, the following statement could be found after Mark 16:8 in the NIV: 'The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.'. The 'earliest manuscript' in the NIV statement refer to the Arian Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. How can the confused readers of the NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, and other false bibles trust the Bible when they see those footnotes and statements? It is little wonder why liberalism is increasingly gaining ground among modern English-speaking Evangelical Christians.

        Dear reader, the multitude of modern English versions only brings confusion. You must reject the false bibles and return to the accurate, majestic, and authoritative KJV.

Christ was indignant? The NIV mistranslation of Mark 1:41

And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

(Mar. 1:41, KJV)

        During an evangelical outreach when we invited unbelievers to the church to study the Bible together with us, we read from the first chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, the account of Christ healing a leper. Unfortunately, the Bible version used was the NIV and the NIV had the following reading for Mark 1:41:

Jesus was indignant.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

with the following footnote:

1. Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion

        The man leading the Bible study was endeavouring to get the visitor understand why Christ was indignant. He asked a few times (I cannot remember the exact words): 'Why do you think Jesus was angry?' The visitor seemed distracted and did not answer him directly. At that point of time, I felt I had enough so I explained that in the Authorised Version (KJV) instead of 'indignant', the reading was 'moved with compassion'. Therefore, we could understand that Christ was having compassion towards the leper. Following my explanation, the visitor agreed with me.

        The point of this article is not to boast about myself but to explain where the mistranslation of the NIV originated. In the Textus Receptus (TR), the word used is σπλαγχνισθεις (translated as 'moved with compassion' in the KJV). However, the NIV chose the reading οργισθεις (translated as 'was indignant' in NIV) that appears in just one single manuscript. The NIV translators had very clearly chosen the difficult reading based on the 'difficult readings are preferred' principle of the questionable and illogical method of modern unbelieving textual criticism.

        In comparison, the reading in the ESV is 'Moved with pity' and in NASB is 'Moved with compassion'. This shows that even the other false bibles do not agree with the NIV in this reading. 

        In conclusion, the NIV has mistranslated. It is also little wonder why the visitor was distracted and not answering the question directly.

The Arminian misunderstanding of free will

            Do you believe that our salvation depends on the Almighty God alone? Or do you think that our salvation also depends on our independent choice? 

The way you answer the above two questions would determine if you are a Calvinist Christian or an Arminian. Christians who are Presbyterians (myself included), Reformed Baptists, and others who hold to Reformed confessions such as the Three Forms of Unity, are Calvinists. All who reject Calvinism such as the Wesleyan Methodists, Brethrens, and Roman Catholics, are Arminians. There is no middle ground, you are either a Calvinist Christian or an Arminian.  

Calvinist Christians believe that true believers are elected unconditionally by God who grants them irresistible grace to believe in Him. The elect will certainly attain salvation because God wills to save them and He will certainly preserve His elect that they will never lose their faith. Calvinist Christians believe in the absolute sovereignty and almighty power of God and therefore, we rightly believe that our salvation depends on our Almighty God alone. 

Arminians think that God has given man an independent choice to accept or reject faith and salvation. They think that God chooses as His elect those who will accept faith and salvation through their free choice. Therefore, Arminians think that salvation also depends on man. 

Some time ago, I read an online article where a Theology professor at an American university explained why he was an Arminian. From my understanding, the main reason he rejected Calvinism was his refusal to accept the Calvinist teachings on Predestination and free will. The professor thought that the Calvinist Christian position on the true biblical teaching of Predestination did not allow free will. Like all other Arminians, he thought that for a man to truly have free will, he must be able to freely and independently choose to accept or reject faith and salvation. However, Arminians are in error because firstly, they have a wrong understanding of free will and secondly, they have forgotten the truth that the will of God will certainly be done. 

Before I continue with this article, I would like to point out that Arminianism was condemned as a heresy during the Synod of Dodt of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1619. The Canons of Dodt (the five points of Calvinism or TULIP) from the same Synod was published to clarify the doctrine of Predestination. Presbyterians (myself included) and all other Calvinists take the same position taken by the Synod of Dodt, and we totally reject Arminianism as a heresy. I would also like to point out that Arminianism actually originated from Roman Catholicism because Arminian teachings are basically Roman Catholic teachings. Jacobus Arminus and his followers lived during the Protestant Reformation and would unsurprisingly be influenced by teachings of Roman Catholicism. 

To understand free will, we can read the ninth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (On Free Will) that teaches about the four states of man first taught by the Church Father Saint Augustine of Hippo. The four states of man are: (i) state of innocency where man is able to sin and able to not sin (this is the state of Adam and Eve prior to the fall), (ii) state of sin where man is unable to not sin (this is our state before God grants us grace and faith to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ) , (iii) state of grace where man is able to not sin (this is our state after we believe in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), and (iv) state of glory where man is unable to sin (this is our state when we are in the Kingdom of Heaven). Our will depends on our nature while our nature depends on our state. 

Due to the original sin we inherited from Adam, we have a sinful nature, an inclination to sin that results in us certainly committing sins. The Apostle Saint Paul wrote in Romans 3:23 that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Prior to the Almighty God granting us His grace and the saving faith to believe in Him, we were in the state of sin and everything we did, thought, and said were sinful. Were we forced or pressured to sin? Absolutely not! We freely chose sin instead of righteousness. We with our free will, were simply acting according to our sinful nature. Moreover, due to the total depravity of our sinful nature, we were totally unable to resist sin or do anything good. St. Paul wrote in Romans 8:7 that the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. We can understand from Genesis 6:5 that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually. Therefore, when a man is in the state of sin, he would certainly and naturally with his free will, reject faith and salvation. 

However, when the Almighty God grants us His grace and the saving faith to believe in Him, we enter into the state of grace. God grants us a new righteous nature so that we can now defy our original sinful nature and supernaturally with our free will, accept faith and salvation. This is a miracle. With our new nature, we are able to resist sin, to choose righteousness, and to do good. We must remember that because of the corruption and original sin that remain in us, we still have an inclination to sin and we still sin. However, contrary to the man in the state of sin, we now have a continuous war between our old sinful nature and our new righteous nature, between our old man and our new man. This war is described by St. Paul in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The war will end with a complete victory for our new righteous nature and our new man on the day we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and the state of glory. This is the day when our original sin and all remaining corruption are completely removed. Without our old sinful nature, we will no longer be able to sin. Therefore, when we are in the Kingdom of Heaven and the state of glory, we with our free will according to our righteous nature, will only choose holiness and righteousness.  

We have now concluded that our free will depends on our nature, and no man in the state of sin will naturally with his free will ever accept faith and salvation. From here, we will consider the Arminian thinking that teaches the possibility of believers falling from the state of grace and therefore, losing their salvation. 

The seventeenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (on the Perseverance of the Saints) teaches that true believers who are elected unconditionally by God, will never fall from the state of grace and will never lose their faith and salvation. The perseverance of the saints can very clearly be seen in the Scriptures, for example, in John 10:27-29, Philippians 1:6, 2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 1:5, and Jude 24. We must remember that we do not preserve our faith and salvation by our own will and ability. The Almighty God who elected us to be His people and wills to save us, will as written in 1 Peter 1:5, keep us by His power through faith unto salvation. Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us in John 10:28-29 that no man is able to pluck us (His elect) out of His hand and His Father’s hand. The will of God will certainly be done and if God wills to save us, we will certainly be saved. As written in Psalm 33:9, God spoke and it was done, and He commanded and it stood fast. Proverbs 21:30 also reminds us that there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against God. Proverbs 16:9 teaches us that while a man’s heart devises his way, his steps are directed by God. Therefore, we conclude that the will and actions of man will never influence the will and Providence of God who has absolute sovereignty over all creation. 

Membership of the visible Church, regular attendance in worship services, and active participation in church activities do not make a man a true believer. Those not elected by God will never be true believers. God does not will to save those who He did not elect. Matthew 1:21 teaches us that our Lord Jesus Christ shall save His people from their sins. Very clearly, His people are all true believers who are elected unconditionally by God. Meanwhile, the man who is not a true believer does not lose his salvation because he is not saved at all and has never received salvation at any time. 

Therefore, we rightly conclude that our salvation depends on the Almighty God alone. The will of God will certainly be done and if He wills to save us, we will certainly be saved. God will certainly preserve us (His elect) that we will never lose our faith. Our free will and all our actions will never influence the will and Providence of God who has absolute sovereignty over all creation. 

We also conclude that Arminians are in error and their idea of free will is clearly unbiblical. In reality, by wrongly magnifying the ability of man such that man can freely and independently determine his own eternity, Arminianism does not believe in the absolute sovereignty and almighty power of God. We must reject Arminianism.