Modern version supporters, do you know what you are doing?

A quick thought for those supporters of modern versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB. 

You claim your version is more accurate than the Authorised Version (KJV) because your modern version is based on the ‘earliest and best manuscripts’ according to scholars.

However, think about this.

First, the scholars you trust are either liberals or unbelievers.

Second, the ‘earliest is the best’ idea has no basis because even those liberal and unbelieving scholars whom you trust, do not believe in this idea. They only say this to convince you to trust them and their false text.

Third, the ‘earliest and best manuscripts’ is a label given to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by those same liberal and unbelieving scholars whom you trust.

Forth, Sinaiticus was discovered in an Orthodox monastery. Have you ever thought why the monks did not read Sinaiticus?

Fifth, Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library and nobody knows its origin. Why would you trust something that you do not actually know?

Therefore, modern version supporters, do you actually know what you are doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divine Preservation of the Textus Receptus and Authorised Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nestle-Aland a working text

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

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

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

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

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

The Modern Critical Text (Alexandrian Text) cannot be trusted

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

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

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

Tyndale Memorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rosh Hashanah (ראש השנה) 2024

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

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

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

The truth about the English Standard Version (ESV)

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

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

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

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

The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) is now heretical

The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) is a fellowship of Calvinist (mainly Baptist and Congregationalist) churches in Great Britain established in 1922. Today, FIEC has over 600 member churches across the country.

The FIEC is historically traditional and conservative. However, today they are increasingly liberal. In my survey of some of their member churches, I have discovered female deacons in some of them including the Westminster Chapel where Martyn Lloyd-Jones once preached. I have yet to find any FIEC member church (again including Westminster Chapel) where the Authorised Version (KJV) is read and preached from. Lloyd-Jones was a supporter of the KJV and yet it appears that even the Westminster Chapel has abandoned the KJV.

FIEC appears to be at war with the KJV. The leadership of FIEC member churches appears to be extremely hostile to the KJV. Any version is acceptable other than the KJV. Not only do they ban the reading and preaching from the KJV in their services, they effectively forbid godly men who read and trust only the KJV from serving in church leadership. 

The FIEC churches sing modernised versions of traditional hymns (no more 'thou', 'thee', and other KJV English) from the Praise! hymn book, all kinds of modern songs, and even songs from heretics (like Hillsong and Bethel Music) and charismatics but no song with KJV English is allowed.

Does FIEC know what they are doing? Opposing the KJV is opposing the Word of God. Opposing the Word of God is opposing the Almighty God Himself. 

By promoting and reading false bibles such as the ESV and NIV (the most common false bibles read in FIEC churches), the FIEC is now heretical. By banning the KJV and claiming KJV supporters as divisive, the FIEC is determined to remain heretical.

Without the KJV - the Word of God in English - in their hands, the FIEC has NO right to claim that they believe in Sola Scriptura (Scriptures alone).   

It is little wonder why Evangelicals in England are increasingly liberal. 

Piper and MacArthur doubt the Bible

John Piper taught in his sermon on 6 March 2011 that Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11) is not the Word of God.  Meanwhile, in his sermon on 26 June 2011, John MacArthur taught that the traditional conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) is not part of Holy Scriptures.

Both Piper and MacArthur have put their trust in the Modern Critical Text and the unbelieving scholars. It is a tragedy that these men have become supporters of unbelievers and false bibles.

I would now question if Piper, MacArthur, and all Evangelical pastors who read and preach from false bibles such as NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB, have any right to teach us to have faith in the Bible when they themselves doubt the Bible.

Is it any wonder why Evangelicals are getting increasingly liberal?

Modern versions and liberalism

 A quick thought for the day.

It appears that the unbiblical liberal churches of the modern day that forsake biblical truth all read from modern Bible versions (such as NIV) translated from the Modern Critical Text (chiefly represented by the UBS Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament).

Is this a coincidence?

Absolutely not. It was unbelief, liberalism, and egocentrism that led to the forsaking of the Authorised Version (KJV) and the Traditional Text represented by the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament.

Therefore, there is certainly a direct link between modern versions and liberalism.

What do Modern Critical Text scholars, Mormons, and Muslims have in common?

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? 

The Turin Shroud

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.

Trust God or unbelieving scholars?

 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.

Evangelical work using the NIV (or any other modern version)

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?     

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

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

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

This claim is very clearly incorrect. 

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

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

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

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

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

Antipathy towards Biblical English by modern British Evangelical leaders

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

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

Is Biblical English incomprehensible to modern English speakers? 

Absolutely not! 

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

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

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

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

No to thous and thees but yes to Hillsong??

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

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

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

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

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

Egocentrism and arrogance - major reasons people complain about KJV English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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