Modern English Bible versions are an obstacle to evangelisation and ammunition for unbelievers

        Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have rejected this accurate and faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language on the basis of the old English and the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) from which the New Testament of the KJV was translated. The same people claim that the old English of the KJV is outdated and difficult for modern English speakers to understand. They also claim that we have far better manuscripts today than the Reformers had when the TR was published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They further claim that scholarship over the last 150 years (they did not mention the scholarship was done by unbelieving liberal scholars using higher criticism) has given us a Modern Critical Text (MCT) that is more accurate than TR. Therefore, the opponents of KJV conclude that the KJV is not suitable for the modern reader and equally unsuitable for evangelisation today.

        What is the solution then? The opponents of KJV insist that we must use the ESV, NIV, and other modern English versions that were translated from the MCT. However, the MCT is in reality, not a representative of the Word of God but a false Arian ever-changing and uncertain text. Therefore, all versions translated from the MCT, including the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB are false bibles.

        Do you logically expect false bibles to be suitable and more effective for evangelisation? Of course not. The false bibles have verses missing and contain footnotes and statements casting doubt on parts of the Bible.

        If we hand out booklets of the NIV Gospel of St. Mark, what would the unbeliever think when he sees the following statement after Mark 16:8:

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.

        What message are we sending? Parts of the Bible in your Bible is not the Word of God? We are not sure if these 12 verses are Scripture?

        These footnotes are not limited to NIV nor these 12 verses. You will see the following statement after John 7:52 in the ESV, casting doubt on the Pericope Adultarae:

The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11.

        When you read about the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts Chapter 8 in the CSB, you would realise that verse 36 is followed immediately by verse 38 with a footnote:  

Some mss include v. 37: Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

        There are more examples that are not listed in this article. The reason the false bibles contain those statements and have missing verses is because of the differences between the MCT and the TR. The MCT and the two faulty manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not contain words and verses found in the TR. 

        The TR represents the Traditional Text handed down by Christians from generation to generation, and was the authoritative text accepted by the Reformers and Puritans. On the other hand, the MCT represents a text that has been lost and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years, and that is promoted by unbelieving scholars using methods of higher criticism. Judge for yourself, who and which text would you trust? Do you trust the Traditional Text or a lost false Arian text? Do you trust the Reformers or the unbelieving scholars?

        Therefore, it is clear that the false bibles introduce doubts to both believer and unbeliever. Believers are unsure about parts of the Bible themselves. John Piper even claimed that the Pericope Adultarae is not Scriptures. Unfortunately, Piper is not the only pastor doubting the Scriptures, there are discussions whether and how Pericope Adultarae, the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and other ‘disputed’ parts of the Bible should be preached. 

        Meanwhile, when we evangelise, we would normally say ‘Trust the Bible’ but how can the unbeliever trust the Bible when he sees those doubting statements and footnotes? Without doubt, false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, and CSB are themselves an obstacle to evangelisation.

        Moreover, the false bibles are ammunition for unbelievers who would seize those doubting statements and footnotes to attack Christians. Should we be surprised? Obviously no. Remember, the MCT from which the false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NASB were translated, is itself the work of unbelieving scholars such as Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, and Metzger.

        In conclusion, false bibles such as ESV, NIV, CSB, and NASB are very harmful and dangerous to the believer, an obstacle to evangelisation, and ammunition for unbelievers to attack the Christian.

Unbelievers telling us what is in the Bible?

        Can you think of anything more illogical and unreasonable?

      However, you are accepting that if you read and trust the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and other false bibles that are translated from the false Arian uncertain and ever-changing Modern Critical Text.

       Have you ever wondered why in those false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB, you would see statements and footnotes casting doubts on parts of the Bible? Have you also wondered why those false bibles exclude some verses?

        If you need an example, simply turn to Chapter 16 of St. Mark’s Gospel and the conclusion of Chapter 7 of St. John’s Gospel. There you will see the false bibles casting doubts on the traditional conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11). Meanwhile, in another example, in the main text of the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB, Acts 8:36 is immediately followed by Acts 8:38 and therefore, St. Phillip’s reply and the Ethiopian’s confession in Acts 8:37 are not found in the main text of those versions.

        The answer is very simple, the unbelieving scholars editing the Modern Critical Text do not think they are part of the Bible. 

           On what basis you may ask. 

        On the basis that the the false Arian Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are the ‘best’ and ‘most reliable’ manuscripts. It should be noted that those two manuscripts have different readings even from each other. It is estimated that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels.

       On the basis of the questionable textual criticism methods invented by the same unbelieving scholars where the Traditional Text - the text accepted by Christians over  the centuries - must be rejected in favour of a lost text (represented by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that had effectively disappeared for 1400 years.

        Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger, and others, the men editing the Modern Critical Text from the 1881 Westcott and Hort text to the modern day Nestle-Aland text are unbelievers who deny the truth, infallibility and divine preservation of the Word of God. Therefore, unbelievers are telling and deciding for Christians what is in the Bible.

        Is there any wonder why the unbelievers are favouring a false Arian text represented by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and rejecting the true Traditional Text represented by the Textus Receptus (TR)?

        ‘Trust the scholars and their expertise’ say the supporters of the Modern Critical Text and the readers of false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB. In reality, that statement should be corrected to ‘Trust the unbelievers and their doubts’. Does this make sense or sound logical and reasonable to you?

           Dear reader, you must reject the false Arian Modern Critical Text and all the false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB.

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.

The Arminian misunderstanding of free will

            Do you believe that our salvation depends on the Almighty God alone? Or do you think that our salvation also depends on our independent choice? 

The way you answer the above two questions would determine if you are a Calvinist Christian or an Arminian. Christians who are Presbyterians (myself included), Reformed Baptists, and others who hold to Reformed confessions such as the Three Forms of Unity, are Calvinists. All who reject Calvinism such as the Wesleyan Methodists, Brethrens, and Roman Catholics, are Arminians. There is no middle ground, you are either a Calvinist Christian or an Arminian.  

Calvinist Christians believe that true believers are elected unconditionally by God who grants them irresistible grace to believe in Him. The elect will certainly attain salvation because God wills to save them and He will certainly preserve His elect that they will never lose their faith. Calvinist Christians believe in the absolute sovereignty and almighty power of God and therefore, we rightly believe that our salvation depends on our Almighty God alone. 

Arminians think that God has given man an independent choice to accept or reject faith and salvation. They think that God chooses as His elect those who will accept faith and salvation through their free choice. Therefore, Arminians think that salvation also depends on man. 

Some time ago, I read an online article where a Theology professor at an American university explained why he was an Arminian. From my understanding, the main reason he rejected Calvinism was his refusal to accept the Calvinist teachings on Predestination and free will. The professor thought that the Calvinist Christian position on the true biblical teaching of Predestination did not allow free will. Like all other Arminians, he thought that for a man to truly have free will, he must be able to freely and independently choose to accept or reject faith and salvation. However, Arminians are in error because firstly, they have a wrong understanding of free will and secondly, they have forgotten the truth that the will of God will certainly be done. 

Before I continue with this article, I would like to point out that Arminianism was condemned as a heresy during the Synod of Dodt of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1619. The Canons of Dodt (the five points of Calvinism or TULIP) from the same Synod was published to clarify the doctrine of Predestination. Presbyterians (myself included) and all other Calvinists take the same position taken by the Synod of Dodt, and we totally reject Arminianism as a heresy. I would also like to point out that Arminianism actually originated from Roman Catholicism because Arminian teachings are basically Roman Catholic teachings. Jacobus Arminus and his followers lived during the Protestant Reformation and would unsurprisingly be influenced by teachings of Roman Catholicism. 

To understand free will, we can read the ninth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (On Free Will) that teaches about the four states of man first taught by the Church Father Saint Augustine of Hippo. The four states of man are: (i) state of innocency where man is able to sin and able to not sin (this is the state of Adam and Eve prior to the fall), (ii) state of sin where man is unable to not sin (this is our state before God grants us grace and faith to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ) , (iii) state of grace where man is able to not sin (this is our state after we believe in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), and (iv) state of glory where man is unable to sin (this is our state when we are in the Kingdom of Heaven). Our will depends on our nature while our nature depends on our state. 

Due to the original sin we inherited from Adam, we have a sinful nature, an inclination to sin that results in us certainly committing sins. The Apostle Saint Paul wrote in Romans 3:23 that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Prior to the Almighty God granting us His grace and the saving faith to believe in Him, we were in the state of sin and everything we did, thought, and said were sinful. Were we forced or pressured to sin? Absolutely not! We freely chose sin instead of righteousness. We with our free will, were simply acting according to our sinful nature. Moreover, due to the total depravity of our sinful nature, we were totally unable to resist sin or do anything good. St. Paul wrote in Romans 8:7 that the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. We can understand from Genesis 6:5 that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually. Therefore, when a man is in the state of sin, he would certainly and naturally with his free will, reject faith and salvation. 

However, when the Almighty God grants us His grace and the saving faith to believe in Him, we enter into the state of grace. God grants us a new righteous nature so that we can now defy our original sinful nature and supernaturally with our free will, accept faith and salvation. This is a miracle. With our new nature, we are able to resist sin, to choose righteousness, and to do good. We must remember that because of the corruption and original sin that remain in us, we still have an inclination to sin and we still sin. However, contrary to the man in the state of sin, we now have a continuous war between our old sinful nature and our new righteous nature, between our old man and our new man. This war is described by St. Paul in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The war will end with a complete victory for our new righteous nature and our new man on the day we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and the state of glory. This is the day when our original sin and all remaining corruption are completely removed. Without our old sinful nature, we will no longer be able to sin. Therefore, when we are in the Kingdom of Heaven and the state of glory, we with our free will according to our righteous nature, will only choose holiness and righteousness.  

We have now concluded that our free will depends on our nature, and no man in the state of sin will naturally with his free will ever accept faith and salvation. From here, we will consider the Arminian thinking that teaches the possibility of believers falling from the state of grace and therefore, losing their salvation. 

The seventeenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (on the Perseverance of the Saints) teaches that true believers who are elected unconditionally by God, will never fall from the state of grace and will never lose their faith and salvation. The perseverance of the saints can very clearly be seen in the Scriptures, for example, in John 10:27-29, Philippians 1:6, 2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 1:5, and Jude 24. We must remember that we do not preserve our faith and salvation by our own will and ability. The Almighty God who elected us to be His people and wills to save us, will as written in 1 Peter 1:5, keep us by His power through faith unto salvation. Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us in John 10:28-29 that no man is able to pluck us (His elect) out of His hand and His Father’s hand. The will of God will certainly be done and if God wills to save us, we will certainly be saved. As written in Psalm 33:9, God spoke and it was done, and He commanded and it stood fast. Proverbs 21:30 also reminds us that there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against God. Proverbs 16:9 teaches us that while a man’s heart devises his way, his steps are directed by God. Therefore, we conclude that the will and actions of man will never influence the will and Providence of God who has absolute sovereignty over all creation. 

Membership of the visible Church, regular attendance in worship services, and active participation in church activities do not make a man a true believer. Those not elected by God will never be true believers. God does not will to save those who He did not elect. Matthew 1:21 teaches us that our Lord Jesus Christ shall save His people from their sins. Very clearly, His people are all true believers who are elected unconditionally by God. Meanwhile, the man who is not a true believer does not lose his salvation because he is not saved at all and has never received salvation at any time. 

Therefore, we rightly conclude that our salvation depends on the Almighty God alone. The will of God will certainly be done and if He wills to save us, we will certainly be saved. God will certainly preserve us (His elect) that we will never lose our faith. Our free will and all our actions will never influence the will and Providence of God who has absolute sovereignty over all creation. 

We also conclude that Arminians are in error and their idea of free will is clearly unbiblical. In reality, by wrongly magnifying the ability of man such that man can freely and independently determine his own eternity, Arminianism does not believe in the absolute sovereignty and almighty power of God. We must reject Arminianism.