The Turin Shroud

There were reports over the last few days about Italian researchers supposedly proved that the Turin Shroud originated from the first century.

To readers who do not know about the Turin Shroud, it was claimed that the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord. The Shroud contains an image of a man (maybe visible only through certain types of camera) and was discovered in the middle of the fourteenth century.

I do not believe the claim that the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord.

First, the Gospels do not record whatsoever happened to the burial cloth after the Resurrection of our Lord other than:

Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

(Luke 24:12)

And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

(John 20:5-7)

Second, there is also no certain and proven explanation of whatsoever happened to the Shroud between the first and fourteenth centuries. Even the Italian researchers who somehow proved the Shroud to originate from the first century cannot explain whatsoever happened to the Shroud in the 1,300 years before its discovery.

Third, the authenticity of the Shroud was doubted by a bishop not long after its discovery in the fourteenth century while carbon dating done by scientists in the twentieth century suggested that the Shroud originated from about the time of its discovery.

Fourth, according to the same Italian researchers, for the conclusion that the Shroud originated from the first century to be true, certain specific conditions such as some temperature over 1,300 years prior to the Shroud’s discovery is required. In my opinion, the same Italian researchers are only suggesting a possibility (with very low probability) and not proving the Shroud to originate from the first century.

Therefore, with these four reasons, I do not believe about the claims concerning the Turin Shroud.

Trust God or unbelieving scholars?

 A question for those who read modern false bibles such as NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB.

Do you believe in the Divine Preservation of the Holy Scriptures?

Or do you believe that unbelievers need to use their own understanding and methods to guess what is in the Bible?

Therefore, do you trust God or unbelieving scholars?

The editors of the Modern Critical Text that is chiefly represented by the Nestle-Aland text are unbelieving scholars. If you do not accept an unbelieving scholar preaching in Church, why do you accept the  unbelieving scholar telling you what is in the Bible?

Dear reader, you must reject modern false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB. The Modern Critical Text is used in the translation of these false bibles. It is unsurprising if modern false bibles bring doubts to their readers.

Evangelical work using the NIV (or any other modern version)

Handing out free copies of the Gospels and exhorting men to trust in the Bible are often parts of evangelical work.

I know of a church that is distributing free copies of St. Mark's Gospel and inviting unbelievers to Bible studies on the same Gospel every Sunday. The motivation is certainly very good. However, in an effort to remove the supposed language barriers due to the Biblical English of the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible, the church chose the NIV St. Mark's Gospel to be distributed and studied.

Now a potential conflict arises.

The unbeliever is encouraged to trust in the Bible and while convincing himself to remove any doubt towards the Bible, the same unbeliever may turn to the final pages of the NIV St. Mark's Gospel that he was given earlier. 

What would the unbeliever see? 

There is a possibility that the unbeliever may see a statement such as 'the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20' after Mark 16:8. What would the unbeliever think after seeing that statement?

Can modern version supporters not see that instead of promoting better understanding of the Bible, modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB are themselves obstacles to evangelical work and sources of doubt?     

Modern versions based on much more and better manuscripts than KJV? - A very clearly incorrect claim made by modern versions (false bibles) supporters

When opposing the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible, supporters of modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, and other false bibles make the following claim:

'Compared to the KJV, four centuries of scholarship means that we have better, earlier, and much more manuscripts for modern versions to base on.' 

This claim is very clearly incorrect. 

The dispute is mainly on the New Testament text. The KJV and other Reformation-era Bibles were translated from the Textus Receptus (TR) - the Traditional Text continuously read and accepted by Christians over the centuries. Modern false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB were translated from the Critical Text - a text rejected by ancient Christians and was effectively lost for 1,400 years before being promoted by unbelieving scholars since the nineteenth century.

First on the quantity of manuscripts. 90% of the manuscripts we have today support the TR and the KJV. On the other hand, the Critical Text and therefore, modern false bibles such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB are actually based only on two so-called 'earliest and best' manuscripts - the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Second on the quality of manuscripts. As mentioned, 90% of manuscripts we have today support the TR and the KJV. On the other hand, modern versions (false bibles) supporters frequently fail to mention that their so-called 'best' manuscripts - the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus actually disagree with each other, with about 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels alone. It should also be noted that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent a so-called Alexandrian text - a text read in Egypt before the fifth century. Why is this note on the Alexandrian Text significant? That was the time (fourth century) and place (Egypt) of the Arian heresy. 

Third, on the age of manuscripts. The unbelieving scholars and modern versions (false bibles) supporters claim that 'earliest is the best'. They say this because they think the fourth century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the best. However, an early manuscript with a text different to the Traditional Text can only prove that there was a text rejected by ancient Christians. There can only be one reason why ancient Christians rejected the Alexandrian Text - they very clearly knew that the Traditional Text is the true representative of the original New Testament text. Do modern versions (false bibles) supporters really think that they and their unbelieving scholars know more about 'ancient' manuscripts than the ancient Christians do?   

Therefore, by making a very clearly incorrect claim about manuscripts, modern versions (false bibles) supporters show that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Antipathy towards Biblical English by modern British Evangelical leaders

Many modern British Evangelical pastors have abandoned the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible and are singing the modernised versions of traditional hymns from for example, the Praise! hymn book.

The reasoning these pastors give is that Biblical English (the old English of KJV with words such as thou and thee) is incomprehensible to modern English speakers and an obstacle to evangelical work.

Is Biblical English incomprehensible to modern English speakers? 

Absolutely not! 

English in the modern day form has been spoken since the 18th century, however, English-speaking Christians continued reading the KJV and singing hymns in Biblical English until the 1950s. It must be noted that universal education in England only began in the 20th century, very clearly showing that historically, even the illiterate and uneducated could understand Biblical English.

As a separate note, many non-White English-speaking Christians in Asia and Africa continue to read the KJV and sing traditional hymns in Biblical English today. Clearly, these Asians and Africans can understand Biblical English. 

It is absolutely ironic that the people who complain that Biblical English is incomprehensible to modern English speakers are highly educated white British people (including many British Evangelical pastors). 

What is clear is that these British Evangelical leaders have an antipathy towards Biblical English.

No to thous and thees but yes to Hillsong??

I understand that there are modern Evangelical Christians in England who hate the Authorised Version (KJV) so much that they ban the singing of hymns that contain the Biblical English of the KJV during worship in their church. After all, the Praise! hymn book used by many English Evangelicals unnecessarily modernised many traditional hymns to remove the 'thou', 'thee', and other Biblical English words.

However, these same English Evangelicals are happy to sing songs from Hillsong, Bethel Music (not related to this website!!), Stuart Townend, and other Charismatics during worship.

This makes me conclude that these English Evangelicals are walking according to their feelings. They oppose traditional hymns because they hate the KJV while they sing questionable and even forbidden songs because these songs make them feel good and happy. I am inclined to think that the same English Evangelicals have turned worship into an occasion of self-entertainment.

Worship is solemn and is regulated by the Word of God. It is my position that we should sing only the biblical Psalms during worship. 

Even if the English Evangelicals do not believe in Exclusive Psalmody, surely they should know that songs from Hillsong, Bethel Music, and other Charismatics should not and must not be sung at any time??

Egocentrism and arrogance - major reasons people complain about KJV English

Following on from my article ''KJV English is obsolete and we need a modern English Bible?' Is this reasonable?' on 4 May 2024, I boldly identify egocentrism and arrogance as major reasons people complain about KJV English.

The Authorised Version (KJV) is a faithful and very accurate translation, the Word of God in the English language. Therefore, the KJV is majestic and reminds readers of the authority of the Word of God.

Instead of rightly viewing the Word of God to be the authority, KJV opponents wrongly view themselves to be the authority. And therefore, instead of upgrading themselves to understand the Biblical English of the KJV, KJV opponents think the Bible has to be changed for them. It is unsurprising then that Greg Gilbert (most likely a KJV opponent) claimed in the Crossway (publisher of ESV) website, that the multitude of modern English versions today is for different people reading the Bible in different circumstances. Does not Gilbert's claim about the multitude of modern English versions sound more like a commercial advertisement?   

Therefore, it can be concluded that egocentrism and arrogance are major reasons people complain about KJV English.