The answer is very simple: They all deny the Divine Preservation of the Word of God.
Can you now see that by supporting and reading modern English false bibles (such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB) and the Modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, you are actually agreeing with Mormons and Muslims?
There were reports over the last few days about Italian researchers supposedly proved that the Turin Shroud originated from the first century.
To readers who do not know about the Turin Shroud, it was claimed that the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord. The Shroud contains an image of a man (maybe visible only through certain types of camera) and was discovered in the middle of the fourteenth century.
I do not believe the claim that the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord.
First, the Gospels do not record whatsoever happened to the burial cloth after the Resurrection of our Lord other than:
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
(Luke 24:12)
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
(John 20:5-7)
Second, there is also no certain and proven explanation of whatsoever happened to the Shroud between the first and fourteenth centuries. Even the Italian researchers who somehow proved the Shroud to originate from the first century cannot explain whatsoever happened to the Shroud in the 1,300 years before its discovery.
Third, the authenticity of the Shroud was doubted by a bishop not long after its discovery in the fourteenth century while carbon dating done by scientists in the twentieth century suggested that the Shroud originated from about the time of its discovery.
Fourth, according to the same Italian researchers, for the conclusion that the Shroud originated from the first century to be true, certain specific conditions such as some temperature over 1,300 years prior to the Shroud’s discovery is required. In my opinion, the same Italian researchers are only suggesting a possibility (with very low probability) and not proving the Shroud to originate from the first century.
Therefore, with these four reasons, I do not believe about the claims concerning the Turin Shroud.
A question for those who read modern false bibles such as NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB.
Do you believe in the Divine Preservation of the Holy Scriptures?
Or do you believe that unbelievers need to use their own understanding and methods to guess what is in the Bible?
Therefore, do you trust God or unbelieving scholars?
The editors of the Modern Critical Text that is chiefly represented by the Nestle-Aland text are unbelieving scholars. If you do not accept an unbelieving scholar preaching in Church, why do you accept the unbelieving scholar telling you what is in the Bible?
Dear reader, you must reject modern false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB. The Modern Critical Text is used in the translation of these false bibles. It is unsurprising if modern false bibles bring doubts to their readers.
Handing out free copies of the Gospels and exhorting men to trust in the Bible are often parts of evangelical work.
I know of a church that is distributing free copies of St. Mark's Gospel and inviting unbelievers to Bible studies on the same Gospel every Sunday. The motivation is certainly very good. However, in an effort to remove the supposed language barriers due to the Biblical English of the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible, the church chose the NIV St. Mark's Gospel to be distributed and studied.
Now a potential conflict arises.
The unbeliever is encouraged to trust in the Bible and while convincing himself to remove any doubt towards the Bible, the same unbeliever may turn to the final pages of the NIV St. Mark's Gospel that he was given earlier.
What would the unbeliever see?
There is a possibility that the unbeliever may see a statement such as 'the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20' after Mark 16:8. What would the unbeliever think after seeing that statement?
Can modern version supporters not see that instead of promoting better understanding of the Bible, modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB are themselves obstacles to evangelical work and sources of doubt?
