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.

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.