“Not One Iote or One Title…”: A Plea for Original Spelling by John Bookman [Pseudo.]
by Doug Kutilek
Just days ago, I realized that we have not gone far enough in insisting that the Bible be preserved unchanged “in the form God intended for us to have.” Of course, I speak of the infallible, inerrant, verbally-inspired and unalterably preserved English Bible, the Authorized Version (AV 1611), “the Bible God uses and Satan hates.” Sure, there are lots of zealous defenders who have shielded it from the corruptions of such heinous translations as the NIV, the NASB and that most sinister NKJB, and have kept us from returning to the now-completely-unnecessary Hebrew and Greek. But while they kept their watch on one front, the Enemy has come in unawares by another route and sown seeds of corruption that have, I fear, already yielded a corrupt harvest.
What am I getting at? Simply this: we have insisted on the verbal inspiration of the English, that is, that the very English words were divinely chosen and given to the Learned Men. But simply insisting on the perfection of the English words and preserving the words is not enough. A careful consideration of the true intent and meaning of the words of Matthew 5:18 is necessary: “Till heauen and earth passe, one iote or one title, shall in no wise passe from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (I have made no mistake in my spelling, as I shall shortly explain). Notice how Jesus insisted on the verbal inspiration, not just of the words, but also of the very letters of the words of Scripture. And since this verse is a specific promise of the preservation of Scripture in our infallible English Bible, we must insist on following, not just the original KJV words but also their very spelling. What other meaning can we draw out of the words “one iote or one title”? Every letter–the very spelling–is certainly inspired, and to alter the spelling of a single word, to alter even a single letter in a single word, is to deny and reject the inspiration of the AV 1611. If God had wanted us to spell the words in the AV 1611 different in our Bibles, He would have given them to us in that form originally. Modern spelling is as hideous and hateful a thing as modern translations. Its new age corruption, pure and simple. No one was ever authorized to corrupt, to “modernize” the infallible original spelling. There are eight spelling corruptions in John 3:16 alone!!!
I’m sure some “liberal” soul will say, “What difference does spelling make?” Argue it out with Jesus, brother! Didn’t He say that inspiration of the words included the very spelling, every iote, not just the words? Will you reject the teaching of Matthew 5:18 of letter/spelling inspiration of our preserved AV 1611? To stop at “word inspiration” and not insist on spelling inspiration is to be second cousin to mere “thought inspiration.” It is creeping apostasy, through and through. Next someone will deny the inspiration of the chapter and verse numberings in the AV 1611. Where will it stop?
And I think we must recognize that Jesus’ infallible English word was “title” and not the now-corrupted “tittle.” A tittle is part of the ornamentation of a Hebrew letter (at least that’s what I’ve heard at Fellowship meetings, so I have assurance that it’s right). But a title is something else. I have complete confidence that this promise of Jesus was a specific reference to the preservation of the chapter and page headings, the titles found in the original AV 1611. Sadly, those infallible titles, attached by the Learned Men under divine inspiration at the top of each page and at the beginning of each chapter have been removed from our modern editions. Without them, we cannot claim that we have a perfectly preserved Bible, and by allowing them to be removed, we have called God a liar, and denied that He is able to preserve the inspired English Bible He has given us.
It is no secret that none of the commonly used English Bibles published in our day have the original AV 1611 spelling, or punctuation (that, too, is part of our directly inspired, infallible English Bible) or titles of which Jesus spoke, so in reality, these Bibles, even though they say “King James Version” or “Authorized Version” are really not Bibles at all. Only the Nelson reprint of the original 1611 AV is a real Bible; all the others are sinister corruptions.
And there is growing upon me the deep conviction, as deep as anything I’ve written in this article, that no English-speaking person can be saved if he was not saved by an original, unaltered AV 1611, with original spelling, original punctuation, and original chapter and page titles. This simply means that anyone who thought he was saved by reading a revised “KJV” or by hearing a sermon from such a “Bible” or by reading a Gospel tract that quoted the words in a revised spelling form, even if it was labelled “KJV” is not really saved, has never been saved, and never will be saved until he gets a true, fully-preserved AV 1611. That will mean that virtually all those who thought they were saved–preachers, deacons and all–will have to go back and get truly saved through a real AV 1611, then get rebaptized. Verbal inspiration of the English requires inspiration of the very spelling as well. Anything less is rank modernism.
I will confess to one further worry: original type style. The real AV 1611 was printed in what printers call “black letter,” a very ornate type style much like Gothic script, which is still used many times for the banner at the top of the front page of newspapers. This original type style was replaced with “Roman” type sometime in the 18th century. Note that name: Roman. I fear that once again, the Jesuits have conspired to corrupt the pure word in English. They have taken away the original Gothic (and as everyone knows, the Gothic Bible used the textus receptus for its foundation which proves with certainty that the Gothic was the correct script for a real Bible), and have substituted the corrupt Roman script. In a real sense, even the KJV has become a Roman Bible, since its modern editions use Roman script and not the original black letter. As further proof that Roman type is a corruption, notice that all these apostate Bibles–the ERV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJB, and the rest, have always been printed in Roman type. That’s proof enough to me that any Bible in Roman type is no Bible at all, and that only a Bible with the original script, the black letter, given to us in the form we should have it by the Learned Men, is a true Bible. Perhaps even those saved by the true original spelling KJV are not saved at all, and must locate a black letter edition. The Roman script Nelson reprint may not be enough (it’s just like those Bible corrupters at Thomas Nelson to pass off a Roman script KJV as though it were a real Bible!). Fortunately for me, my brother has a facsimile reprint in the original black letter of the AV 1611, and I’m secure since I’ve studied out of it several times.
It is a desperate situation. The shortage of black letter, original spelling AV 1611 Bibles is severe. There is truly a famine of the preserved word of God in the land. And all our efforts at preaching, teaching, Bible study, and soul winning are completely futile until we return to the real, unaltered, perfectly preserved bonafide AV 1611. Perhaps the best thing to do for the present is to send off and buy one of those pages from an original KJV, and if you can get a page that has a salvation verse, or part of the “Romans road,” perhaps there will be enough of the Gospel in the true preserved English to rescue your soul.
[As a service to the reader, so he can be saved through a real AV 1611, I will quote John 3:16; unfortunately, I have no capacity to reproduce the original black letter script, so even believing the unrevised spelling may not be enough, but we can hope for the best:
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
And just today, I came to understand that the only proper format for any Bible is in scroll form (or at least loose-leaf), since the Apostle assures us that “the word of God is not bound.” Therefore any book that is bound, regardless of its printed contents, cannot honestly be said to be the word of God. I’m sure the inspired 1611 translators never intended for their translation to come sown and within leather covers. Such would be a travesty, in light of the Apostle’s clear and plain teaching.
I’ve begun the systematic unstitching of all my sewn Bibles so that they can qualify, according to Paul’s definition, as the word of God. I urge you to do the same.
The following parody (or sad commentary) comes from Tom In The Box:
This past Sunday Jake Krenshaw celebrated the number “100.” No, that is not his age, neither has he been a Christian for one-hundred years. The number also does not represent how many people he has “won to salvation.” For Krenshaw, rather, the number “100” is significant because that is how many times he has “walked the aisle” at his home church, Chapel Hill Baptist Church, and gotten “saved.”
“I think I’ve finally got it right this time,” said a smiling Krenshaw. “This is the 100th time that I’ve responded to the invitation, and this time it’s for real. I really got saved this time.”
The journey of faith began for Krenshaw back in 1995 when he first “walked the aisle” at Chapel Hill Baptist. He was baptized for the first time the following Sunday. But it was within a couple of weeks that Krenshaw began to have serious doubts that he had been sincere, so he again “walked the aisle” and again was baptized the following week. From that point on any time Krenshaw has had the slightest doubt he has “walked the aisle” and received the invitation. As a result, he has been now been “saved” 100 times and has been baptized 93 times.
For Krenshaw the struggle with assurance of “genuine salvation” is rooted in his inability to see evidence of true faith.
“The reason I felt that I wasn’t saved this time goes back to last week actually,” he said. “I was flipping through the channels on Thursday evening when I came across an old rerun of Seinfeld. Well, they made dirty comment on the show, and I actually laughed at it. I knew that a saved person wouldn’t laugh at such a thing. So I determined right then and there that I was going to get my soul right, that when the preacher offered the invitation on Sunday that I was going to truly accept it this time.”
Since getting “saved” this past Sunday Krenshaw states that this week his life has been a virtual “bed of roses,” free from all temptation and “big sins.”
“Now that I’ve finally gotten saved,” he said, “I don’t have those old temptations to big sins anymore. I’ve been completely free from any desires to do what is wrong.”
Many, though, in Krenshaw’s congregation are skeptical as to whether this will be his last time to “walk the aisle.”
“Every time Jake so much as blinks the wrong way he thinks he’s not really saved,” said a church member who wished to remain anonymous. “Several of us even have a pool going to see when he’s going to walk the next time.”
If all goes according to plan, Krenshaw will be baptized for the 94th time this weekend.
“I know the drill by now,” said Krenshaw. “I know just when to hold my breath and how to lean back when I’m dunked. I’d say I’m pretty experienced at it.”
When asked if he thought he would ever have to “walk the aisle” again he replied, “as long as they can play fourteen verses of Just As I Am I’ll always have that option open to me.”
Too true . . . too funny. A classic.
This is a priceless, funny conversation between a humble, inquisitive child (the sort of which Christ tells us His kingdom is made of) and his falsely assured pastor who has – no doubt – been trained at a Southern Baptist seminary.
Enjoy 🙂 From: http://thelightheartedcalvinist.com/
Billy Talks to His Pastor about God
from The Trinity Review, July 1997
Billy: “Pastor, does God love everybody?”
Pastor: “Yes, Billy” (smiles, pats him on the head).
Billy: “How come it says in Romans 9 that he hated Esau?”
Pastor: “Been reading your Bible, huh, Billy?” (still smiles). “Well, the Bible also says that God hates, but that only is talking about God’s secret decree, and as far as we are concerned, he loves everybody.”
Pastor: “Yes, Billy.”
Billy: “If God tells us about his secret decree, is it still a secret?”
Pastor: “Er, well, I guess . . . not, Billy, but I meant that we should realize that there is a way the Bible talks about God’s love for everybody, and that’s what we should think about, not the one or two places where it says God hates.”
Billy: “Oh. How is it that God loves everybody?”
Pastor: “Well, he gives everybody rain and sunshine, and he blesses the people of the Earth with a conscience so they know right from wrong, and he has given them many gifts which they use to make the world a better and safer place to live.”
Billy: “Then he sends most of them to Hell?”
Pastor: “Yes, Billy.”
Pastor: “Yes, Billy.”
Billy: “Is it love for God to give people good things for a few years to make them feel comfortable and worthwhile, and then send them to Hell?”
Pastor: “Well, I . . . yes, it . . . is, I think because it would have been worse if, I mean it would be, um, well, it is, I guess, because he did not send them directly to Hell, but he allowed them to experience his goodness and his provision for his creatures. . . .”
Billy: “Is it love to let someone experience something good they will remember forever and always hate God for, because that good thing they loved more than forgiveness?”
Pastor: “Could we change the subject, Billy? I am not sure my answers are satisfying you.”
Billy: “O.K., Pastor. Did Jesus die for everybody?”
Pastor: “Why, sure, Billy.”
Pastor: “Yes, Billy.”
Billy: “If Jesus died for everybody, why isn’t everybody going to Heaven?”
Pastor: “Well, Billy, it’s because not everybody will accept him.”
Billy: “But, Pastor, I thought Jesus saved us. You are telling me that we save Jesus.”
Pastor (laughing nervously): “Of course not, Billy! I believe that Jesus saves us completely! However would you get the idea that I believed we save Jesus?”
Billy: “Well, Pastor, you told me that Jesus died for everybody, and that only those who accept him will be saved. So, this means Jesus’ death and resurrection, what Jesus does, cannot save us of itself, but something more is needed, and that something more is what we do by accepting him. For those who do not accept Jesus, they will perish. That means that Jesus’ dying for them cannot help them. In fact, it means that Jesus’ work for them was a miserable failure. On the other hand, those who accept him make his work effective by their acceptance—they save his work from being a failure. Without us, Jesus and his work of salvation would be doomed! If Jesus cannot save us without the permission we give of our own free will, then we are the real saviors, and Jesus is the one we save! Wow! What would he ever do without us?!”
Pastor: “Er . . . uh . . . that’s not what I mean. I mean if, it is , I said . . . no, I believe Jesus is the one who does the saving, Billy, it’s just that . . . God has made it so that we . . . are free to acc . . . meaning, we are, are . . . Billy, the Bible is mysterious. It seems to mean certain things, but it doesn’t really, like it says . . . you are using logic, Billy. The Bible is not logical and the truths are not something we can fit into our human minds.”
Pastor (now showing a slight frown): “Yes, Billy.”
Billy: “When you say the Bible is not logical, does that mean the Bible does not make sense? ‘Cause you made sense when you said the Bible wasn’t logical. I think it was because you used logic that you made sense.”
Pastor (now glowering at Billy): “No, Billy, I didn’t mean the Bible does not make sense. It does make sense, but just not our kind of sense.”
Pastor: “Yes, Billy.”
Billy: “Why would God give a Bible to us that did not make our kind of sense?”
Pastor: “Well, Billy, it’s not that . . . I think it’s . . . it makes sense, just does not give us the answers we like to hear, and says things that seem contradictory but really are not, to keep us from asking smart-aleck questions.”
Billy: “So, God doesn’t make our kind of sense to keep us humble?”
Pastor: “That’s right, Billy. God wants to keep us humble, so he does not let us think we can be absolutely certain about the things some proud people are certain about.”
Pastor: “Yes, Billy.”
Billy: “Are you certain about what you just said to me?”
Pastor (showing obvious irritation): “What do you think, Billy?”
Billy: “I think you just called yourself a proud person, but I don’t know why, ’cause you are so smart and know so much about God, and how much he needs us.”
Pastor: “Billy, why don’t you go out and play, like the other children?”
Billy: “Why should I go out and play, when I can stay in here with you and learn how to save God?”
Pastor: “You need to be careful, Billy. I never said we save God. You are the one who said that, remember. I simply believe our choices are significant, and God does not treat us like robots. He created us to have true human responsibility.”
Pastor (now looking quite angry): “This will have to be the last question, young man! I have important things to do and you should be outside playing.”
Billy: “When God put Abraham to sleep, was he telling him what he thought of his ‘human responsibility’?”
Pastor (seething): “I have a bad headache, Billy, and I can’t answer any more of your questions, but I can tell you this. Whoever has been teaching you has been telling you things a boy your age should not even be thinking about. It sounds like you have been learning some kind of hyper-Calvinism! You better be careful, young man!”
Billy: “I don’t know about hyper-Calintisim, but I have been reading these things in the Bible. Thanks for straightening me out. I will try to cut these bad parts out. Can I borrow some scissors?”
Pastor (rising from his chair): “Get out of here, you, you, you . . . !”
Billy: “That’s O.K., Pastor. I’ll ask Joey. He was using some good scissors when we were cutting out our ‘friends with Jesus’ pictures for Sunday school. Good-bye.”
The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.
Dr. James White has some pretty honest reasons why, if you are shopping for a local Christian fellowship, you may want to dismiss a Reformed Baptist Church. You tell ‘em Doc.
- You don’t get to leave after every sermon feeling good about yourself. You may even desire repentance.
- You don’t get to hear the sermons in the same way you may be used to. It’s frequently verse by verse, maybe not even relevant to your current situation.
- You don’t get to be entertained. We don’t want to entertain you.
- You don’t get to go to church every weeknight for programs. We don’t have ‘em.
- You don’t get to be ‘lost in the crowd’. We tend to have accountability to one another.
- You don’t get to hear social commentary. Sermons are mostly biblical and serious.
- We’re not considered ‘seeker-friendly’. We don’t believe in seekers. Apart from regeneration, they don’t exist.
- You’re asked to apply the sermons to your life.
- You’re asked to attend services regularly, to support your elders in prayer and give sacrificially to the advance of the Gospel.
- You will experience conviction of sin with regularity.
” Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” – 1 Thess 5:16 – 18
The following is from the Disciple Man blog:
You Might Just Be A Calvinist If….
If you have a Martin Luther Jell-O mold… you just might be a Calvinist.
If your DVR has over 25 episodes of Wretched With Todd Friel recorded on it… you just might be a Calvinist.
If your child’s first word was “Westminster”… you just might be a Calvinist.
If your 4 year old can explain what the word “propitiation” means… you might just be a Calvinist.
If you send your mother tulips on Mother’s Day… you might be a Calvinist.
If your passion for evangelism blows away your Arminian friends… you might just be a (true) Calvinist.
If you hate rap music BUT you listen to Lecrea, The Cross Movement, Flame or D.A. T.R.U.T.H. because of the lyrics and theology… you might be a Calvinist.
If quotes from Pink, Spurgeon, Luther, Piper, and McArthur make up 90% of your Facebook statuses…you might be a Calvinist.
“A Letter to Paul the Apostle”
The Trinity Review, July, August 1988
Copyright (C) 2003
A Letter to Paul the Apostle
Presbyterian Church in Asia Minor
Committee on Missions
Paul the Apostle
c\o Aquila the Tentmaker
We recently received a copy of your letter to the Galatians. The committee has directed me to inform you of a number of things, which deeply concern us.
First, we find your language to be somewhat intemperate. In your letter, after a brief greeting to the Galatians, you immediately attack your opponents by claiming they “want to pervert the gospel of Christ.”
You then say that such men should be regarded as “accursed”; and, in another place, you make reference to “false brethren.” Wouldn’t it be more charitable to give them the benefit of the doubt—at least until the General Assembly has investigated and adjudicated the matter?
To make the situation worse, you later say, “I could wish those who trouble you would even cut them selves off!” Is such a statement really fitting for a Christian minister? The remark seems quite harsh and unloving.
Read the entire letter here.
HT: Flock Alert
If the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Church in Galatia had been published in the magazine Christianity Today how would it be received? Well, what follows is a dramatization of letters received from readers in response to Paul’s inspired Epistle.
(Source: Sacred Sandwich)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Christianity Today:
In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.
Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI
How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?
Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS
I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.
Ken Groener; San Diego, CA
To the Editors:
Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!
Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO
Dear Christianity Today:
The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who strive to worship God in their own special way.
William Zenby; Richmond, VA
I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision. Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus. My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other churches.
Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia, Turkey
EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating the doctrines of Christ.
HT: Sacred Sandwich
Sometimes a parody can say so much more than a million serious blog posts.
Sometimes the most scathing indictment of the current condition of the church in America comes to us on the wings of clever sarcasm.
If your church is everything the world wants, and nothing what the Lord intended, welcome to Contemporvant.
This is a classic! The man in this satirical video uses some ingenious methods in an attempt to prove that Jesus is not God. Although the video is in jest, it illustrates the absurdity of how some go to great lengths to make the Bible say what they want it to say, including denying Jesus’ deity (like Jehovah’s Witnesses).
Although the video is funny, the ramifications of those who deny Jesus’ deity certainly isn’t.