Convenience or confusion? The multitude of modern English versions

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

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

        Why are there so many modern English versions? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Mar. 1:41, KJV)

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

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

with the following footnote:

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

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

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

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

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