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 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? 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Romans 14:23, KJV)

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

(Hebrews 11:6, KJV)

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

One reality supporters and readers of modern Bible versions should know

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

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

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

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

Doctrines not affected by modern Bible versions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ro. 13:9, KJV)

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

(Ῥωμ. 13:9, TR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[b] Lev. 19:18

(Romans 13:9, NIV)

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

(Romans 13:9, ESV)

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

(Romans 13:9, NASB)

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

[a] Other mss add do not bear false witness

[b] Ex 20:13–17; Dt 5:17–21

[c] Lv 19:18

(Romans 13:9, CSB)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ac. 9:5-6, KJV)

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

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

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

(Acts 9:5-6, NIV)

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

(Acts 9:5-6, ESV)

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

(Acts 9:5-6, NASB)

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul said.

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

(Acts 9:5-6, CSB)

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

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

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

Double standards from modern Evangelicals who reads most modern English versions

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

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

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

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. 

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?