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.

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.

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.

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.

Why do modern scholars oppose the Textus Receptus and the Authorised Version?

Dan Wallace recommended us to have three modern versions and unsurprisingly, he did not recommend the Authorised Version (KJV). Mark Ward made videos that attempt to convince us that the KJV cannot be understood by modern English speakers. Jan Krans rejected the Textus Receptus (TR) in favour of the false Arian Modern Critical Text (MCT)

We may ask why do these people and most modern supposed 'scholars' oppose the TR and KJV?

The reason is actually simple......money.

Dan Wallace is a consultant of four modern versions including the now very popular ESV. Jan Krans' academic career practically depends on the ever-changing and uncertain MCT.

If we continue to read the TR and the KJV, modern 'scholars' would need to find new employment. Therefore, it is in the financial interest of modern 'scholars' to oppose the TR and the KJV.  

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.   

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.

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.

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?

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).

We must reject modern textual criticism

Unbelievers and heretics who deny the truth, infallibility, and Divine Preservation of the Word of God, have involved themselves in theological scholarship.

Unsurprisingly, the unbelievers and heretics developed their methods of textual criticism according to the principles of higher criticism. With their methods, they tell Christians that the Modern Critical Text based on the so-called Alexandrian text and generally constructed from the texts of two false Arian manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), is the most accurate ‘New Testament’ text. What the unbelieving scholars seldom tell you is that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not even agree with each other with 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels. According to the same unbelievers, those two false Arian manuscripts are the ‘most reliable’ manuscripts. Their whole textual criticism methods are designed to reject the Textus Receptus (TR) which is the printed form of the Traditional Text - the text passed down faithfully by Christians from generation to generation throughout history.

Would you trust the TR, the text read and accepted by generations of Christians including the Reformers and the Puritans? Or would you trust the Modern Critical Text (Alexandrian text) that was rejected by ancient Christians and therefore, effectively disappeared for 1,400 years before the two unbelievers Westcott and Hort began promoting them in the nineteenth century?

Hebrews 11:6 teaches us that without faith it is impossible to please God. The Modern Critical Text, modern textual criticism in general, and modern theological scholarships done in universities in general, are the works of unbelievers and heretics. Therefore, in my view and from my understanding, the Modern Critical Text, modern textual criticism in general, and modern theological scholarships done in universities in general are all rejected by our infinitely holy God.

If you are not convinced and still think that it is possible for unbelieving scholars to do faithful and 'professional' scholarship, consider Jeremiah 13:23:

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

(Je. 13:23, KJV)

Dear reader, do not believe the ‘scholars’ who tell you that the Modern Critical Text is better than the TR. You must reject those unbelieving scholars, their unbelieving scholarship, their unbelieving textual criticism, the Modern Critical Text, and all false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB that are translated from the Modern Critical Text.

Why do ‘scholars’ love and promote the Modern Critical Text

The answer is simple: it is in their financial interest to do so.

The Modern Critical Text (MCT) is an ever-changing uncertain text. It relies on archaeological discoveries, new interpretations of those discoveries, and constant updating of the text as a result of those discoveries and interpretations.

Therefore, it is unsurprising that unbelievers such as Aland (of the Nestle-Aland edition of the MCT) and Metzger (of Princeton Theological Seminary) have spent their entire career on the ‘scholarship’ of MCT. The ever-changing and uncertain nature of the MCT provides constant academic opportunities and a steady income resulting from those opportunities.

For example, by doubting the Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11), ‘scholars’ could write books and research about where and when they think these 12 verses originated. Another discovery of an ‘ancient’ manuscript would lead to research and discussion over if the MCT should be updated. Can you not see the constant availability of work?

If all Christians accept the fixed and authoritative Textus Receptus (TR), whole university and seminary departments would be shut down and many ‘scholars’ would need to find another job. Therefore, it is very clearly in the financial interest of those ‘scholars’ to heavily promote the MCT while aggressively casting doubts on the TR and unreasonably vilify TR supporters at the same time.

Dear reader, why should we trust the ‘scholars’ and the MCT when there is so clearly a conflict of interests?

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.