Friday, April 08, 2022

Posts are now only going to be at the new What is Truth? site

 I am no longer planning to post my new posts here. Please visit, the new What is Truth? site, to read my Friday posts from now on.  Thank you.

Hey everyone, this is Kent Brandenburg.  I'm not posting here anymore either.  This will be available to use, but nothing new is coming here.  It's all at the new site, which really isn't new anymore.  

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Symbols and Identity

My wife and I worked hard for several months on various things without much of a break and we could get away for a day or so.  Utah is a beautiful state.  Little did Brigham Young know, when he said, "This is the place," that it meant five national parks, two of which are thirty minutes apart, Arches and Canyonlands.  They both deserve national park status.

Arches especially means hiking, because you've got to hike to see the greatest scenes.  They laid these out with well done trails.  My wife and I walked miles, people passing us, we passing people, people walking along side of us, and crowds of people together with us looking at amazing views.

I want to take this moment to announce a trigger warning.  Trigger warning to women.  I'm preparing to talk about women wearing skirts or dresses.  In all of those hours, besides my wife, I never saw another skirt.  Not a single other woman in the entire time we were at those two national parks did I see a woman in a skirt or a dress.

I did see many women in skin tight leggings or pants.  Loose ones too.  The temperatures were cool, so there weren't so many shorts, but there were even some of those worn only by women, none by men.

A big occurrence this Sunday night before my wife and I left on our trip was the Academy Awards in Hollywood.  My phone notified me that Will Smith punched Chris Rock.  It came with an unedited video.

The comedian Chris Rock, who apparently hosted the show, added an ad lib joke about Smith's wife, Jada, an actress sitting with Will Smith, who suffers from a hair loss disease.  She's essentially bald, and Rock sarcastically joked about her upcoming appearance in G. I. Jane, making fun of her hairless state.  Some might call this joke, tasteless, because it made fun of a woman's medical condition over which she has no control.  In other words, it's not funny to joke about that, or it shouldn't be.  It's off limits.

Whether you think it was right for Smith to walk to slap Rock onstage in what some might think a chivalrous manner, it's an issue of women's hair length.  Someone in Hollywood slapped someone else for making fun of a woman's hair length.  Being called a "G. I. Jane" was insulting.  None of this means anything if hair length on a woman isn't a symbol of identity, like a skirt or dress is a symbol of identity.

The Bible mentions visible symbols as they relate to identity.  People know they matter.  It's why you see a transgender "woman," biological male, wearing a dress.  The dress is a symbol, as is hair.  "Look at me, I'm a woman."

The girl, who wants to be a boy or thinks of herself as a boy, wants to get rid of her breasts.  Or she prevents them with hormone blockers.  The boy, who wants to be a girl or thinks of himself as a girl, wants those breasts.  Breasts are symbols, even if they don't function except as a symbol.  The Bible treats any kind of reversal of these symbols as an abomination and against nature.  It's also the view held by professing Christians through their entire history until very recently, and one never rescinded by God.

The symbols that speak of identity are not arbitrary symbols.  They aren't a social construct.  They are the "laws of nature and nature's God" of the Declaration of Independence.  Writing about this in 1762, Abraham Williams of Boston said:

The law of nature (or those rules of behavior which the Nature God has given men, . . . fit and necessary to the welfare of mankind) is the law and will of the God of nature, which all men are obliged to obey. . . . The law of nature, which is the Constitution of the God of nature, is universally obliging. It varies not with men's humors or interests, but is immutable as the relations of things.

Rebellion against the laws of nature is rebellion against God in a fundamental or root manner.  The person violating these laws involves himself in a personal offense against the nature of God.  In many of these instances, especially the ones I'm describing, they become an abomination to Him.  You can deny that, but you'll still face God.

Our world reacts to symbols.  The Swastika.  The Hammer and Sickle.  The Gay Flag.  Men wearing skirts.  The symbols mark identity in an elemental way.

The downfall on identity began first with the abdication and then the repudiation of symbols.  Identity confusion and chaos starts with renouncing the symbols.  If you think they're meaningless, then why do they trigger such strong reactions?

Sunday, March 27, 2022

John MacArthur: A Conservative Evangelical Preaches on Separation

A sermon popped up in the notifications on my phone late last week and it said, "Come Out from Their Midst and Be Ye Separate (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)" by John MacArthur.  Apparently it was something preached earlier in March at his Shepherd's Conference, but only posted three days before.  I was very surprised to see the text and especially the title with the word "separate" in it.
In the introduction of his sermon, MacArthur was, what I would characterize as, apologetic to the audience for preaching on "separation," as if merely using the word could trigger them.  He said that he had been thinking about preaching this sermon for a year.   It's always possible and a rare exception, but evangelicals don't preach or write on separation, even though its taught in almost every book of the Bible.  I will comment on MacArthur's sermon, but what caused or motivated him to preach on separation at the Shepherd's Conference?

What got MacArthur's attention was at least two things.  The underlying problem was the corruption of the gospel by means of the social gospel.  MacArthur explained his concern.  When the social gospel came on the scene in the 1920s, it ruined churches and Christian institutions through its perversion of the gospel.  Later, he said, in the 1960s evangelicalism rejected liberation theology, another name or form of the social gospel.  Now evangelicalism is not repudiating social justice, which is a later iteration or relabeling of liberation theology and the social gospel.

MacArthur said that evangelicalism has accepted social justice because of pragmatism.  Between the 1960s and now, pragmatism took over evangelicalism.  Evangelicals embraced social justice for perceived success and to ward away the alienation of the world.  I understand what he's saying, because I've witnessed this personally close-up in recent days.

A second aspect, spoken by MacArthur is the ensuing destruction wrought in evangelicalism.  It divided friends.  It devastated churches in institutions.  He mentioned the Southern Baptist Convention as an example.

I could not help but think of the pragmatism of John MacArthur.  His supporters and other evangelicals laugh at this.  The social justice proponents will scorn MacArthur and MacArthur and his advocates do the same with separatists.  I'm not going to explain again all the ways that MacArthur compromised and compromises with the world to keep his audience.

MacArthur called the Jesus' movement of Lonnie Frisbee a true revival.  The immodest dress, worldly music, worldly entertainment, and lack of ecclesiastical separation all mark pragmatism.  Relying on naturalistic, rationalistic secular, unbelieving textual criticism to modify the Bible fits within the description of an unequal yoke in the very context of 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

I shared the youtube of MacArthur's sermon, because from a sheer exegetical standpoint, he gives the passage a good treatment.  He used the outline of past, present, and future.  The past looked at Old Testament revelation of separation and how Israel lost because it didn't obey God's command to separate.  The present looked at the first half of the text and the future the eschatological hope for separatists.  The world has no future, so why yoke with such a sinking failure.  For what he said, I didn't disagree with MacArthur's interpretation.

In the end, MacArthur said nothing about applying 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 (read A Pure Church).  Sure, it teaches separation.  He got that right.  How does a church practice that passage?  What does it require?  He said nothing.  This itself is a form of pragmatism.  That isn't good preaching either.

Why do evangelicals ignore ecclesiastical separation?  Besides the pragmatism, they do it because of their wrong view of the church.  Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:25 "that there should be no schism in the body."  If the true church is all believers, like MacArthur teaches, how can the church separate?  It would disobey 1 Corinthians 12:25.  With the massive amount of teaching on separation in the Bible, it's practice is ignored to keep unity between all believers.  The only true view of the church must harmonize what scripture teaches on unity and separation.

The teaching and preaching of MacArthur will not preserve the gospel.  Evangelicals will need to do more than preach a sermon on separation.  They need to repent for not separating and then begin applying those passages on separation, unlike what MacArthur has done or does.

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

In the Long Prayer of Jesus to His Father in John 17, Has "Of The World" Become Meaningless?

The model prayer of Matthew 6 and Luke 11, Jesus didn't pray.  He was teaching His disciples how to pray.  Certain few times the New Testament records that He spoke to His Father, He didn't ask for anything.  He prays for one thing in John 12:28, "Father, glorify thy name."

On the cross in Luke 23:34, Jesus prays, "Father, forgive them."  He prayed three times in the Garden of Gethsemane in Matthew 26, two of which He requested essentially the same thing, and the third time it says he prayed the same thing as the first two.  In verse 39, He prayed, "Not as I wilt, but as thou wilt," regarding His suffering and death, and then in verse 42, "Thy will be done," which was about the same thing.

We know Jesus prayed other times, but those passages don't tell us what He prayed.  John 17 most represents what Jesus prays, because it contains more that He prayed than all the other places combined.  I will focus on one point of His requests in the chapter, which were not many, but of all of those prayers, He uses the words, "of the world," seven times.
Jesus never, per se, prays that believers will not be "of the world."  Not in those exact words.  However, He is asking the Father that in a practical way they will not be of the world.  Let me explain.  John 17:14-16 say (underline mine):

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Verses 14 and 16 say something similar that lead into the prayer requests of Jesus in John 17:17-20.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.

The Lord Jesus Christ has sent His own into the world, which not only includes His disciples at that time, but all of them into the future (v. 20).  Since they are not "of the world," even as Jesus was not "of the world," He prayed that the Father would sanctify them through the truth.  The prayer is that believers would live out in a practical way who they were by nature.  That would occur by sanctification through the Word of God.
Let me further elaborate.  They would be in the world, but since they were not "of the world," Jesus wanted it to continue that way.  Not being "of the world" directly relates to sanctification.  They would need sanctification through the truth to keep them "not of the world" even as Jesus was "not of the world" (v. 14).  By nature they were "not of the world" (v. 16), but sanctification would be required for them to stay "not of the world" in a practical way or manner.
Of all that Jesus could have or may have prayed, He associated a big chunk of it with "not of the world."  It seems that the Apostle Paul understood this when he wrote a crucial command of sanctification in Romans 12:2, "Be not conformed to this world."  It seems that the Apostle John comprehended it, because he wrote in 1 John 2:15-17:

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Two verses later, he connected these verses with this (v. 19):

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

"Of the world" and "of us" seem to be a contrast with the other.  If they were not "of us," based on those previous verses, it seems that they "loved the world" and were "of the world" instead.
John says that "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life" are "of the world."  This will enter into the right understanding of worldliness.  In Titus 2:15, Paul says that the grace of God teaches us to deny "worldly lusts."
It also seems for sure that Peter understood what Jesus prayed, when he later wrote in 2 Peter 2:20:

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

This parallels also with what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:14, "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts."
Much more could be said about the phrase, "of the world," since it is found in the New Testament many times.  Many related phrases also occur with the "the world" in them, that add to this overall teaching.  However, a believer being in a practical way "not of the world" was a prayer of Jesus in John 17, when coupled with His prayer for sanctification.
Since Jesus did not want true believers to be "of the world," should we not assume that we can know what "of the world" actually means?  Since Jesus prayed for this, should we also not surmise that Satan would want believers to be "of the world," especially since John 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11 say he is the "prince of this world."  In John 17:15, when Jesus prays that the Father would "keep them from the evil," this would relate to Satan, as likely Jesus was praying, "keep them from the evil one."  This is how the adjective, used as a noun with the preposition (ek, "from"), might imply the noun, such as "evil thing," "evil person," or "evil business."
What is it to be "of the world"?  If someone is not to be "of the world," then he needs to know what "of the world" is?  Can he know?  I am contending that "of the world" has become meaningless in evangelicalism and much of fundamentalism.  People know the words, but they do not give an interpretation or an application of these words.  "Not of the world" is not some arbitrary concept.  It means something.
The adverb "worldly" can represent the prepositional phrase "of the world."  If someone is not worldly, then he is not of the world.  What is worldliness?  When is someone worldly?  It's nearly impossible for an evangelical or most fundamentalists to be worldly anymore, because they've made it meaningless.
For someone not to be worldly, which Jesus prays for all true believers, he will not think worldly, act worldly, wear worldly dress or have a worldly appearance, listen to or play worldly music, or love worldly things.  For all of that to occur, worldliness must have meaningIt does have meaning.
To love the world (1 Jn 2:15) is not the same thing as loving chocolate cake or donuts.  It is to love the world system, which results in conforming to the spirit of the age (Rom 12:2).  Those who conform to the spirit of the age love the world.  They are of the world.
A vast majority of churches today are worldly.  That means they are not "of God."  They are "of the world."  Because of a particular view of the grace of God, they think they are saved.  It is not the grace of God.  It is the grace of God having been turned into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4).
With worldliness having no meaning, churches can be worldly and it doesn't matter to them.  Professing believers can be worldly and it means little to nothing.  By staying worldly, churches keep their worldly people.  Since they don't preach against worldliness or at least explain what it means, the people most often don't know anything is wrong.  They don't even know that worldliness clashes with being a Christian.  If they stood and preached against worldliness, they would shrink to almost nothing.

Sunday, March 20, 2022

How Even Apparently Conservative Evangelicals Justify Disobedience to Scripture as a Deconstruction

Today churches have gone "woke."  Many accept critical race theory and same sex relations.   Before contemplating those extremes, we might consider something short of that and what leads to it.

A man I know well pastors in the same city as a conservative evangelical does, and the two discussed separation.  The conservative evangelical church accepts membership of many and widely varied doctrinal and practical positions.   Everyone is worldly also to sundry degrees, many very much so.

The conservative evangelical graduated from Masters Seminary and in general follows their way of thinking and operation.  In a conversation, the man who I know well mentioned to the conservative evangelical 1 Timothy 1:3:

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.

Paul besought Timothy to charge the pastors at Ephesus that they "teach no other doctrine."  That's very clear.  "Teach no other doctrine" is one Greek word, heterodidaskaleo.  This matches up with what Paul also said in 1 Timothy 6:3-5:

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness . . . . from such withdraw thyself.

Here's what the conservative evangelical, who went to Masters Seminary, said:  "We teach that "doctrine" there [in 1 Timothy 1:3] is [or means] 'the gospel.'"

This is the kind of dealing with scripture or teaching that justifies disobedience to scripture.  Is "doctrine" "the gospel" in 1 Timothy 1:3 and in 1 Timothy 6:3-5 among other verses of scripture?  Of course not.  Still, that's how conservative evangelicals will go ahead and understand "doctrine."  "Doctrine" refers only to "the gospel" in that passage.

Calling "doctrine" "the gospel" is a type of deconstruction.  Rather than a verse asserting absolute truth, a person assigns a meaning that he conceives at that moment in time.  In Is There Meaning in this Text?  Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes (pp. 21-22) about the deconstruction of the postmodernist Derrida, the one most associated with it:

The belief that one has reached the single correct Meaning (or God, or “Truth”) provides a wonderful excuse for damning those with whom one disagrees as either “fools” or “heretics.” . . . Neither Priests, who supposedly speak for God, nor Philosophers, who supposedly speak for Reason, should be trusted; this “logocentric” claim to speak from a privileged perspective (e.g., Reason, the Word of God) is a bluff that must be called, or better, “deconstructed.”

A teacher or preacher may dismantle Christianity by deconstructing the language.  Christianity is based upon language, the language of the Bible.  Rather than say you don't believe the Bible, you can just deny a "single correct meaning."

Deconstructing the biblical text allows and even instructs men not to believe and obey the Bible.  They not only disobey, but they disobey while thinking they're obeying, because of the deconstruction of the language of scripture.  A church can grow in numbers from the welcome of plenteous and diverse disobedience, while still labeling it obedience.

Friday, March 18, 2022

Charles Darwin on Evidence for Design in Creation

 Do you know what Darwin said about evidence for design in creation? Find out in my latest post here.

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Editions of the King James Version and the Criticism of Not Updating It

I'm sure someone has made this argument, even though I haven't heard it.  Someone might call the five previous editions of the King James Version an argument for another update.  Four editions followed the original 1611.  Why no sixth edition?  Why did we stop at 1769, the date of the last edition, what is called the Blayney Edition?

Benjamin Blayney, English Hebraist, updated the King James Version.  Dot Wordsworth in The Spectator wrote (based on his reading of Gordon Campbell’s Bible: The Story of the King James Version:
Dr Blayney made thousands of changes to the text of 1611. In vocabulary he incorporated amendments from another version from 1743, for example, fourscore changed to eightieth, neesed to sneezed, and the archaic crudled to curdled. In grammar he changed, among other things, number, so that ‘the names of other gods’ became ‘the name of other gods’; and tenses, so ‘he calleth unto him the twelve and began’ changed to ‘he called unto him the twelve, and began’. There were changes in spelling, in punctuation, and in the choice of words to italicise (which had been intended to indicate words not literally present in the original languages).
A highly documented paragraph in the Wikipedia entry on the King James Version says the following:
By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of 20 years' work by Francis Sawyer Parris, who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 and in John Baskerville's fine folio edition of 1763.  This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney, though with comparatively few changes from Parris's edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings. Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. . . . Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney's 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.
With all of the above in mind, why hasn't the KJV been updated like some call for?  It might seem to follow along a pattern already set for the King James Version.  Some today criticize King James Version and Textus Receptus proponents for not giving the King James Version an update to eliminate obsolete or archaic words.
The changes occurring in the past updates or editions of the original King James Version did not retranslate the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament or the Textus Receptus of the New Testament.  They are still the King James Translation.  The Wikipedia article provided a comparison between the 1611 and the 1769 for 1 Corinthians 13:1-3:
[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Reading that, you can see how Blayney made 24,000 spelling or punctuation changes.  Changing from "feede" to "feed" counts as one of them. 1769 also does not read at all like a retranslation.  Compare that to a different translation of those same verses, the NASV with the above 1769 KJV.
[NASV] 1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
None of the four editions proceeding from the 1611 King James Versions read like a new translation or an update in the translation.  They didn't do that.  The updates or editions of the King James Version are not a new translation.  They don't look anything like a new translation.
Would another update of obsolete or archaic words in the 1769 Blayney edition represent the spirit of the previous editions of King James Version?  My honest assessment is that it wouldn't.  Critics, who don't prefer the KJV, want something more than a new edition.
I have not read an official explanation for why no continued updates to the King James Version.  No authorized figure said, "This is our last update."  I think that they stopped in 1769 because they were done.  They had done enough.  No one was motivated to update again, because the 1769 Blayney edition accomplished what people wanted at the time.  It hasn't been done again, because no one agreed it was significant to do.
Men like Mark Ward and others criticize people such as myself and Thomas Ross for not endeavoring to update the King James Version.  They see our lack of support for an update as a sign that we really, actually believe the preservation of scripture occurred in the English translation.  If I did, however, I would advocate for foreign translations from the English King James Version. I don't. I support foreign translations from the Hebrew and Greek original language text.  That doesn't sound like someone who believes preservation of scripture in the English translation.
Previous to the King James Version, men made several translations of the English Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek Testaments.  The momentum for translation changed after the completion of the KJV.  Churches acce[ted the King James Version.  Updates didn't continue after 1769.  Churches were satisfied with the updates.
The King James Version was changed after 1611.  The concept of an update is not foreign to the King James Version.  Changes occurred.  Why not further updates to the King James Version?  To be an update, what would need to happen?  The answer to this second question also explains why it hasn't happened and probably won't.


1.    The 1769 Blayney Edition Is Good

Despite the "false friends" of Mark Ward, the existence of words obsolete and archaic to today's English reader, the Blayney Edition of the King James Version is good.  It is a good translation of the preserved original language text.  True churches accepted it.  It has had a supernatural impact over the centuries.  It is still causes a great effect on the souls of men.  The Blayney Edition of the KJV is proven.
Most people still read the King James Version after all these years.  Almost three times the people read the King James Version than read any other single version of the English Bible according to Statista.  A study published in 2014 by The Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University and Purdue University found that 55% of Americans read the King James Version.  Next was the NIV at 19%.

2.    Change Is Worse Than Possible Improvements

Think of the concept of changing the Bible.  Consider how much people already change the Bible.  Think about everything that is changing in the world.  The left wants to change everything and the meaning of everything.
The Bible stands over men.  When men say, "I want to change the Bible," then then are in a sense standing over the Bible.  Yes, updates were made, but it is very serious to change.
Once men were settled on the Blayney edition, they didn't keep updating.  The Bible should be very difficult to change or update.  It should at least be more difficult than changing the United States constitution.
Changing the Bible requires a certain amount of ego.  True scholars translate the Bible.  Someone else comes along and says that they didn't know enough, so they change it.  Later others say they're even smarter, so they change it.  John MacArthur recently led in another translation of the Bible.  He's studied the issues of text and translation, while preaching in his church, and he has the power and resources to create his own translation that favors most or all of his desires for a Bible.  He's got his own Bible now that he reports is the best ever.
Once another edition of the critical text arises and further collation of newly found manuscripts occurs, what will stop changing of MacArthur's Legacy Standard Bible.  These never ending changes take away from the perception of the authority of the Bible.  That is more dangerous by far than anything else.
The constant changing of the Bible looks like a bigger problem than updating obsolete and archaic words.  People who can't explain those words have bigger problems than those words.  Updating those will not take away those problems.

3.    King James Version Churches Don't Want the Update

I hear non-KJV people crying for a change.  I don't hear King James Version churches doing that.  Men like Mark Ward won't motivate KJV churches to change to a different Bible.  He won't impel men like Thomas Ross and I, who know original languages, to set in motion another update.  No one on my side of this issue talks about updating the King James Version.
Mark Ward and men like him incite churches that are already changing.  He's provided some cover for pushing forward changes.  Rick Warren wants changes too.  He's kindled changes to many churches looking for numerical growth.

4.    An Update Is Far From a Priority

Updating the King James Version pales next to other issues and problems for churches.  Before another English translation, churches could work on the first translation into other languages from the preserved text of the Old and New Testaments to get the Bible to millions others.
Churches are declining everywhere.  It's not because of the King James Version.  Even among churches that use the KJV, they deny the necessity of repentance for salvation.  Their people are more worldly.  They are colder toward evangelism. They are more pragmatic.
An update should arise from some movement toward the truth.  It should accompany desire for God and His Word.  It should proceed from a rise of repentance toward biblical belief and practice.


1.    King James Version Churches Would Want an Update

A successful update of the KJV would arise from more than a desire of one church.  A large majority of the King James Version churches would want it.  If 75% of those churches called for it, they might accomplish it.  A poll of those churches, I'm guessing, would receive less than 10% desire for an update.
The Holy Spirit works equally in all true believers.  Faith is "like precious faith" (2 Peter 1:1).  That same Spirit and that same faith will show up in more than one church.  Scripture would give common basis for necessary change.

2.    King James Version Churches Would Unify For an Update

Update would so motivate KJV churches that they unify to do so.

3.    King James Version Churches Would Provide the Good, Qualified Men from their Midst, Who Could Work Together to Accomplish an Update

If the KJV churches want an update, they would gather the men who could accomplish this task.  Those men would stop whatever else they were doing because this was more important.  With me it would take attention off evangelism, discipleship, the gospel, preaching, apostasy, sanctification, and the church itself.  I'm sure that's the same for other men.  They don't want that.

4.    King James Version Churches Would Approve of the Update

After finishing the update, the churches would still need to show approval. They would want the updated translation.  Maybe that would occur if the first three on this list occurred.  We're not close to those and so many other things are more important, I don't see those happening.  Most KJV churches would likely say that on the translation issue, the departure from the KJV is a bigger and more serious priority than the updating of the KJV.

5.    The Updated King James Version Would Become the King James Version for King James Version Churches

KJV churches do not want or use the new translations completed by individual churches and men from the same text as the KJV.  They find very little acceptance.  Why?  KJV churches don't want them.  They don't like them.
If KJV churches represent New Testament Christianity, and they don't want an update of the KJV or a new translation of the underlying text, then New Testament Christianity doesn't want that.  If they are not New Testament Christianity, then that's the bigger issue.  I believe that among the KJV churches is New Testament Christianity.  Only among those is belief in biblical doctrine of preservation of scripture.