'KJV English is obsolete and we need a modern English Bible' Is this reasonable?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If KJV English is timeless and will never become obsolete, the cry from KJV opponents that 'KJV English is obsolete and we need a modern English Bible' is unreasonable.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.

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.  

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? 

KJV English is not exactly 16th and 17th centuries English

Opponents of the Authorised Version (KJV) have frequently used the 'old English too difficult to understand' excuse to reject the KJV in favour of modern English versions. You can read my article here: Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com). The opponents claim that KJV English is 17th century English used by English-speaking Christians of that time. From this reasoning, they claim that therefore, we need a modern English version for English-speaking Christians today.

The claim about KJV English is not completely correct. 

We must remember that William Tyndale and the translators of the KJV endeavoured to bring the Word of God to the common (English) people using the language (English) they understood. William Tyndale even became a martyr on 6 October 1536 for translating the Bible into English. 

However, the English of the 1526 William Tyndale's New Testament and of the KJV were not exactly the English spoken by the people of England in the 16th and 17th centuries. Tyndale and the KJV translators endeavoured to publish a faithful and very accurate translation and as a result, William Tyndale's New Testament and the KJV introduced words into the English language. At the same time, the KJV transformed mediaeval English into modern English. The KJV could bring about that transformation is exactly because KJV English was not exactly 16th and 17th centuries English.

Tyndale and the KJV translators showed that there is a standard in translation and they did not simply publish an 'easy English' translation. The opponents of the KJV appear to forget that even in modern English, there are significant differences between informal spoken English and formal written English. 

The demand for a modern English version has led to a multitude of versions published over the last 100 years. Now which of the modern versions is the most accurate? The opponents of the KJV are not sure of the answer themselves too. This is why many readers of modern versions are reading more than one version. You can read my article: Bethel: Why KJV readers do not read other versions while modern version readers do (bethel-sg.com).