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).

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 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.

Why is the language of the Authorised Version (KJV) majestic and beautiful?

The language of the Authorised Version (KJV) is well known to be majestic and beautiful. This observation is not doubted even by fierce opponents of the KJV who would then complain that the old English of the KJV is too difficult for the modern reader. You can read my article: Bethel: Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers? (bethel-sg.com).

Why is the language of the KJV majestic and beautiful?

Some have claimed that it was the intention of the translators of the KJV and I do not dispute this claim.

However, in my view, the true reason why the language of the KJV is majestic and beautiful is because the KJV is effectively the Word of God in the English language. The KJV was faithfully and very accurately 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. The Word of God is authoritative and majestic, the KJV being a faithful and very accurate translation would naturally reflect the authority and majesty of the Word of God.  

Now consider the modern English versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and CSB. The reason the language of these modern versions is neither majestic nor beautiful is because these same modern versions are not the Word of God. The New Testament of most modern versions published since 1885 is based on the false Arian Modern Critical Text that was rejected by ancient Christians and effectively lost for 1,400 years. You can read 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).

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.