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. 

The reality in academia

Academia is an extremely left wing and politically correct environment that is much more interested in pursuing ridiculous ideologies than meritocracy. 

Academics in England and the West are mostly left wing, politically correct, socialist atheists. The same people employ people of their kind, resulting in academia being increasingly left wing and politically correct as time progresses. 

It is known in England that those left wing academics would refuse to employ anyone who is right wing or who supports Brexit (U.K. leaving the E.U.). Vice Chancellors could openly criticise Brexit when they should be politically neutral in official communications.

In recent developments, academic job applications begin to demand applicants submitting a 'statement of diversity', detailing the applicant's past experience of and future plans to promote diversity. Merits are no longer important, meritocracy is no longer the rule, and the best people do not get the job.

This is the reality in academia.

Now, would you trust the work and so-called 'scholarships' of the so-called 'scholars' who work in academia? Would you allow them to tell you what is and what is not in the Bible? Would you believe them when they claim that the Modern Critical Text (MCT) is the most accurate text?

You can read why modern scholars oppose the Authorised Version (KJV) and the Textus Receptus (TR) - the Traditional Text of the Greek New Testament in my articles: Bethel: Why do modern scholars oppose the Textus Receptus and the Authorised Version? (bethel-sg.com) and Bethel: Why do ‘scholars’ love and promote the Modern Critical Text (bethel-sg.com). The answer is simple: career and money.

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.

We Evangelicals are in very serious danger!

This short article follows my article yesterday (2 April 2024) about seminaries teaching men to doubt the Word of God and to trust the works of unbelievers.

If an Evangelical pastor was taught by his seminary to doubt parts of the Bible, example the traditional conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11), the same doubts would be passed on to the people who listen to the sermons by the same pastor. John MacArthur and John Piper have sermons doubting Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 respectively. Given the massive influence of MacArthur and Piper, they could lead many Christians the wrong way. If parts of the Bible can be doubted, then how can any Christian trust in the Bible? And how can MacArthur and Piper teach us to trust the Bible? 

Unbelievers are now indirectly influencing the way many Evangelicals believe through the seminaries. All theological scholarships done by unbelievers MUST BE REJECTED AND OVERTHROWN! Remember, the works of unbelievers, including their theological scholarships, are rejected by our Almighty God. If we continue to tolerate unbelieving scholarship like we do today, we Evangelicals are in very serious danger!

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? 

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.

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. 

Why do translators of modern Bible versions love unbelieving 'scholars'?

Do you know that many modern Bible versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB were translated from the works and scholarship of unbelievers? You can read more from my article: Bethel: Unbelievers telling us what is in the Bible? (bethel-sg.com).  

Although there is generally very little controversy over the Hebrew Old Testament text, there are in general two editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text today:

1. The Ginsburg/Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text prepared by Ben Chayim in the sixteenth century. Ginsburg, Bomberg, and Ben Chayim were all Christians. It should also be noted that Ginsburg and Ben Chayim were Jews who converted to Christianity. The Old Testament of the Authorised Version (KJV) is generally translated from this text.

2. The Kittel edition of the Hebrew Bible edited by Rudolf Kittel and published by the German Bible Society and the United Bible Societies. Rudolf Kittel was a German antisemittic unbeliever. The Old Testament of most Bible versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are translated from this text.

Just a quick thought, why would you accept a Hebrew Bible edited by a German antisemittic unbeliever when there is a Hebrew Bible prepared by Jews who converted to Christianity? 

We know that unlike the KJV, the New Testament of most Bible versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are translated from the false Arian Modern Critical Text (MCT) that was edited and promoted by unbelievers. The MCT was rejected by ancient Christians and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years before unbelievers such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, and Metzger brought the text back from obscurity in an effort to challenge the true Traditional Text (Textus Receptus/TR). You can read more from 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).

Therefore, it is reasonable to say that translators of modern Bible versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB love 'unbelieving' scholars and trust their scholarship. Does this even sound reasonable and logical to you? Would you even listen to an unbeliever preaching Christianity to you? If not, why trust the scholarship of unbelievers?

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.

We Protestants are catholics too!

During one Sunday Service in the Evangelical Church I normally attend, the Nicene Creed was recited in English. About the Church, the English translation read 'We believe in one holy universal and apostolic church'. 

However, in my view, the correct and proper translation should be 'I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church'. This is because the same line in Latin reads 'Et in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam'. In Greek, the word 'catholic' is also there. The word 'catholic' means universal and not the Roman Catholic Church.

I think the English translation read in the Service while was generally correct, clearly showed the fear of any association with the Roman Catholic Church. 

I do not agree with the deliberate change from 'catholic' to 'universal' simply because of that fear. The reason is the Reformers considered themselves 'catholic' too and this is why they refer to the followers of the pope as 'Roman Catholic'. Therefore, instead of avoiding the word 'catholic', we should like the Reformers, consider ourselves catholic.   

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?

Copyright trap of most modern English false bibles

Dear reader, are you aware that the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and most modern English versions published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have copyright?

What does this copyright mean to the reader?

Well, in very simple explanation, the copyright laws ensure that the modern versions must have significant differences among one another. This would naturally affect the accuracy of all modern version because the translators may have to make changes to their translation purely to ensure it is different.

Think this way. If the 1971 NASB has translated a verse accurately, the 2001 ESV may not be able to use the exact accurate translation from the NASB due to the copyright laws. The different words used by the ESV would logically be less accurate. Now consider the multitude of modern English versions and all the copyrights they have, is it unreasonable to conclude that none of them is reliable and trustworthy due to the copyright trap.

The unnecessary divergence of translation among the multitude of modern versions due to copyright laws naturally brings confusion to the readers of those versions. 

In conclusion, the copyright trap is another reason why you must reject the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other modern English false bibles published in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

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).

One simple reason you should not read the NIV, ESV, NASB, and other modern English versions

Doubt is an adversary of any Christian.

However, the NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, and most modern English versions contain many statements and footnotes that cast doubt on parts of the Bible. If you need examples, just look at the statements they have for the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11).

Why those statements and footnotes? 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 why I read the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible (bethel-sg.com).

It is without doubt that those statements and footnotes would cause the reader to doubt the infallibility and Divine Preservation of the Word of God. The authority of the Bible to the reader, and the faith of the reader would be affected.

Therefore, those statements and footnotes in the ESV, NIV, and other modern English versions would be a simple reason for you not to read them.