Stuart Townend's version of Psalm 23

    I uphold Exclusive Psalmody - the practice of singing only the biblical Psalms during personal and congregational worship. Therefore, I do not participate when uninspired songs are sung during any church Service.

    The Evangelical Church which I normally attend on Sundays has a strong preference for modernised traditional songs (usually known as hymns) and modern songs. I have noticed that songs written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend are sung in almost every services. This probably shows that the pastors and others in the church love them and their songs.

    However, I am writing this article to protest against Stuart Townend's version of Psalm 23 that was sung during Services in the Evangelical Church I normally attend. My anger was kindled because Townend added his own chorus 'I will trust in You alone......' to his version of Psalm 23.

    Why can't Townend sing the Psalm faithfully and properly? Why must he add his own chorus? In my view, with the addition of the 'I will trust in You alone......' chorus, Townend's version of Psalm 23 is no longer Psalm 23 and is certainly not a Psalm that can be sung during Services. 

    Therefore, I disapprove of and would refuse to sing Townend's version of Psalm 23.    

English-speakers will always be able to understand the English of KJV

Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have frequently used the unreasonable 'old English of the KJV too difficult to understand' excuse to reject this most accurate and faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language. I have proven that the English of the KJV could be understood by modern English speakers in my article: Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com). 

Those same opponents of the KJV would then insist that we must instead read modern English versions such as the NIV and ESV. They would also very strongly insist that the KJV is no longer suitable for the modern English speaker. Are modern English versions much easier to understand? Clearly not. The same people would then recommend us to read more than one modern English version. You can also read my article: Bethel: Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do (bethel-sg.com). In reality, those same opponents actually hate the KJV. To them it is 'any version but KJV' and they do not want to hear the KJV read to their ears again.

Why such extreme antipathy towards the KJV? The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Opponents of the KJV are pricked in the heart because they subconsciously know that the KJV is the Word of God.

We must remember that William Tyndale's New Testament and the KJV revolutionised the English language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, transforming mediaeval English into the modern English we understand today. From 1611 onwards, the KJV has always been the standard of the English language and therefore, there has been no major changes in English over the previous 400 years. It is also reasonable to be confident that with the KJV continuing to be the standard, there will be no major changes nor revolution in the English language in the future.

Therefore, English-speakers will always be able to understand the English of the KJV.      

Modern English Bible versions and church attendance

In my article: Bethel: Modern English Bible versions are an obstacle to evangelisation and ammunition for unbelievers (bethel-sg.com), I have shown how modern English Bible versions are an obstacle to evangelisation and ammunition for unbelievers.

In the last few decades, many Evangelical churches in England have abandoned the Authorised Version (KJV), often citing the ‘old English of KJV too difficult to understand’ excuse. I have another two articles Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com) and Bethel: Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do (bethel-sg.com) that prove that modern English speakers are able to understand the old English of KJV. Therefore, ‘old English of KJV too difficult to understand’ is in reality an unreasonable excuse.

If modern English versions such as the ESV and NIV really help in evangelisation, we should be seeing a massive and even exponential growth in attendance in the Evangelical churches that read them. In reality, this appears not to be the case. 

While Evangelical churches are doing much better than the liberal Church of England and the Methodist Church (both of them suffering massive decline in church attendance), I think it is still fair to say that much of the growth of church attendance comes from immigrants who were already Evangelical Christians when they came to this country.

Therefore, in conclusion, modern versions have not helped in evangelisation nor improve church attendance.

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?

Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do

The answer is simple:

1. The Authorised Version (KJV) represents a fixed authoritative text.

2. The KJV is very accurately and faithfully 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.

3. The KJV is majestic, easy to read and memorise.

4. The KJV (despite complains about old English) can be very clearly understood.

5. Theology is very clear in the KJV.

6. True English-speaking Christians will love the KJV because they know this Bible is the Word of God in the English language.

7. Readers of false bibles such as the ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB read more than one version (normally excluding the KJV because they complain about the old English) because those false bibles despite in modern English, could not be easily and clearly understood.

8. One reason why readers have difficulties understanding the false bibles is that in cases of textual variants, the editors of the false bibles and the false Arian Modern Critical Text from which the false bibles were translated, deliberately chose the difficult and unlikely reading because of their questionable and illogical methods of unbelieving textual criticism.

9. The false bibles represent an ever-changing and uncertain text, to be adjusted to suit the needs of the reader who becomes the authority.

10. Some false bibles such as the NIV use the thought-for-thought translation philosophy, meaning that they are inaccurate.

11. Readers of ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, and other false bibles are confused.

The true reason traditional hymns were modernised

I uphold Exclusive Psalmody - the practice of singing only the biblical Psalms during personal and congregational worship. Therefore, I do not participate when uninspired songs are sung during worship services.

However, I am not completely against the singing of uninspired songs. They can be sung during Sunday School or during other occasions. They are only not to be sung during worship. My position is consistent with the Regulative Principle of Worship.

I have noticed a trend in modern Evangelical churches across England where the modernised versions of traditional uninspired songs (commonly called hymns) are increasingly being sung. The editors of new hymn books such as Praise! actively modernised traditional hymns by removing all second person singular pronouns (thou, thee, thy, thine), often claiming that they are making the hymns more suitable for modern English speakers. My observation is that in reality, the whole modernisation project is actually driven by some modern Evangelicals’ extreme antipathy towards the use of the old English second person singular pronouns.

Why is this extreme antipathy? Well the old English second person singular pronouns are the main representatives of the English of the Authorised Version (KJV). Their use in hymns reminds the singer of the KJV. Therefore, the extreme antipathy mentioned earlier in reality, originated from the extreme antipathy towards the KJV - the most accurate and a faithful translation of the Word of God in the English language. 

You can read my article Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com) to understand the reason for the extreme antipathy towards the KJV shown by some modern Evangelicals.

In my view, the so-called ‘modernisation of traditional hymns’ is effectively vandalism. The well known hymn normally sung on Easter Sunday ‘Thine be the Glory’ has been changed to ‘Glory to Jesus’, and clearly the meaning has been changed.

In conclusion, I absolutely reject the vandalism (modernisation) of traditional hymns. I also reject hymn books such as Praise! that actively vandalise (modernise) traditional hymns.

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.