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. 

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.  

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).

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?

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. 

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.

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. 

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).

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.