Plagiarizing sermons, using God’s material, or something else?

The election of Ed Litton to the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention was controversial. On the heels of that controversy is a dust-up about his borrowing of sermon material. Boiled down to its simplest, the issue is that Ed Litton plagiarized sermons of former SBC President J. D. Greear.[i]

• This news is out there and cannot be ignored. Even Ed Litton has responded with that understanding.
• This is, at least to some degree, political. Many are responding pro or con in direct proportion to whether they were pro or con Ed Litton becoming President of the SBC.

Perhaps this controversy provides a good opportunity to reflect on how preachers use the material of other preachers.[ii] As mentioned above, some of the outrage is more about Litton’s SBC presidency than actually about borrowing or plagiarizing sermon material. It perhaps even adds a new element which previously was not a concern among preachers and churches generally. When I was a young preacher, I remember that it was common that many of the older and more experienced preachers compiled and printed their sermon outlines. They expected others to use this material as a resource. I do not recall that any were particularly concerned about getting credit. In fact, it seems they took it as a compliment when others used their outlines. I do not relate this to encourage preaching other preachers’ work. It is all too common for a preacher to pick out someone’s outline and use it with little or no study of his own. I relate this to say this is not something new. On one hand, learning from others is normal and to be expected. On the other hand, copying another person’s style and words to preach a sermon like that other preacher did crosses a line, whether it is with or without that person’s permission.

I tell people if they have learned anything from something God and other Christians taught me, feel free to pass it on. I do not need any credit. There is a problem, and no little amount of hypocrisy, when we claim a sermon is from God and then we try to copyright it!

I have written “commentaries” on several books of the Bible. I place footnotes in the books to credit material I immediately and consciously use. In them I also acknowledge the fact that I have learned so much over my ministry that there is no way I can remember who all to credit. I have included statements such as these below to stress that fact.[iii]

Over years of study, I have learned about Jonah from many sources. Many of these became a part of my own thinking and I no longer remember the specific sources. Therefore, this booklet includes thoughts of many of God’s people I can no longer directly credit. But here I credit generally all those whom the Lord used to teach me, and that own my work as built on their foundation.

Concerning acknowledgements, there are too many to name or even remember who have taught me concerning the epistle of Jude. Even many turns and phrases may reflect some long remembered thoughts whose originators are long forgotten.

In these comments on Philemon, I have tried to “give credit where credit is due” in the footnotes. Yet I am unable to satisfactorily credit the multitude of persons who have taught me over the past 35 years, as well as what my mind has retained from other unremembered sources. May God give them their credit that is due, and may the reader be well aware there are numerous sources that can no longer be remembered or named.

Now those statements are in print. It is a simple fact that we are not going to have footnotes in sermons like we have in written material. “I heard a story about” should be good enough, shouldn’t it, without going into detail as to its origin? Telling someone else’s story as if it were our own blatantly violates both truth and trust. Many years ago, I attended a ceremony with a motivational speaker who was a university professor and expert in communication. And he was a great speaker, as speaking goes. He opened with an extremely touching fishing story about him and his father. Later, I learned that the story was not true (at least it was not his story), and that this was apparently standard procedure. I lost much respect for him.
 
Or maybe we tell too many stories? God’s holy word has a plethora of illustrations we can use. Above all, we should stick with 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word.”

---

[i] You can read more about this controversy HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

[ii] Yes, even personal reflection! 

[iii] On the other hand, preaching to mostly the same people every Sunday, I do not make that kind of acknowledgement every time I preach. I may mention it from time to time.

James 4:13ff

James 4:13-17 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If we rightly believe our life in a vapour, it might not affect all that much whether we plan to go somewhere, conduct business, and make money (i.e., not knowing about tomorrow, we still might make plans. Cf. Proverbs 6:6-8 Proverbs 31:16). However, if we rightly believe our life in a vapour, it should affect how we think and talk about those plans! A plan is made in the mind or thoughts. The thought-out plan is spoken with the mouth. Have these two things occurred with or without taking the truth about life, the future, and God into account? Very often our tongue will tell (Matthew 15:18). Over a lived-life, the Christian should learn that God is the disposer of life, and the events of life (Luke 12:20; Proverbs 16:33; 19:21).

In verse 13, James refers to what they say. In verse 15, he refers to what they ought to say. In verse 14, he refers to what they do not know, as well as the true condition of life. Verse 15 applies the recognition of this true condition to how we think and act.

• Our knowledge is restricted. “ye know not what shall be on the morrow.”
• Our life is temporal. “It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.”
• God’s will is sovereign. “If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.”

James concludes with a general principle that stresses the importance of doing what we know to do. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Do not sin. Do what you know is right.

A Simple Guide to Family Worship, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• A Simple Guide to Family Worship -- “Sadly, it seems that few Christians can remember having daily family worship times in their homes. Yet the thought of beginning this new pattern of worship can be daunting for those just beginning.”
• Confessing Sin Is Always Awkward, Sometimes Costly, and Absolutely Worth It -- “Growing up in a traditional Asian American church, I was taught the importance of reputation. I was told to avoid confessing struggles and sins.”
• Elhanan Winchester: Revivalistic Universalist -- “Unlike the more rationalistic Universalists of the following century, Winchester was what I call a ‘revivalistic Universalist.’ He was convinced that hell was real, albeit temporary.”
• DeSantis Signs Law Requiring Students To Learn ‘Evils Of Communism,’ ‘Real Patriots’ Who Escaped It -- “Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed three bills into law Tuesday that boosted civics education in the public school system and specifically teaches students the horrors of communism.”
• How Long Should a Sermon Be? -- “Pew Research Center recently analyzed 50,000 sermons preached between April 7 and June 1, 2019, in order to determine the median sermon length in the United States. Their answer? 37 minutes. ”
• KJV or NIV? -- “Let us retain the KJV. Let us retain it in such a way that we use it. Let us use it ourselves in our personal study of and searching of the Scriptures. Let us use it in our homes, for our family devotions and for the teaching of our children.”
• Official: Haiti President Jovenel Moïse assassinated at home -- “The country’s security situation is under the control of the National Police of Haiti and the Armed Forces of Haiti.”
• Texas Supreme Court rules Facebook can be sued for sex trafficking -- “...the court held that section 230 did not bar the plaintiffs’ statutory claims against Facebook.
• The concept of revelation in the theology of Cornelius Van Til -- “Van Til takes the Scripture to be the self-revelation of God. It is regarded as the only authoritative rule for faith and practice.”
• The odd empty column at the ending of Mark in Codex Vaticanus -- “The NT in Vaticanus is written in three columns. Generally, if the text of a particular book ends in one column, the text of the next book begins in the very next column.”
• The Other Side of “Proof-Texting” -- “Yet proof-texting may prove to be a practice that emerges in both positive and negative forms.”
• The Traditional Text of Scripture: A Select Annotated Bibliography -- “...a select annotated bibliography with a list of resources I have found helpful in understanding and explaining why the traditional text of Scripture is to be preferred to modern critical texts.”
• The ‘widow-maker’ heart attack hits women, too -- “The widow-maker is a massive heart attack that occurs when the left anterior descending artery (LAD) is totally or almost completely blocked.”
• “They always wanted to go together — and they did”: Couple married for 59 years died in Surfside condo collapse -- “Around 1:20 in the morning, Sergio Lozano was startled by a loud boom which he thought was a tornado, and he stepped out onto his balcony to bring the patio furniture inside. Instead of rain, he was hit by a staggering sight: billowing smoke and an expanse of night sky where his parents’ condo building once stood.”
• U.S. Supreme Court gives states more leeway to restrict voting -- “One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud. Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election.”
• Were the Sons of God Fallen Angels? -- “It seems we are dealing with the gross sins of humans, not angels, that caused God to send the Flood.”
• Why the corporate boycott of GB News is bad news for the Church -- “Stop Funding Hate (SFH), the most hateful of all the ‘anti-hate’ groups, is pressurising corporations and businesses not to advertise on GB News.”

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still

He that complies against his will
Is of his own opinion still
Which he may adhere to, yet disown,
For reasons to himself best known.

Samuel Butler, Hudibras, Part III, Canto III, 1678

My Dearest Friend

My Dearest Friend.

1. I have a Friend, a precious Friend,
Who keeps my day by day,
On whom my hopes of heav’n depend,
Who is my guide and stay.

Refrain:
My dearest friend, my truest friend,
My friend in life, my friend in death,
Unto His name let praise ascend,
With glad, with glad exultant breath.

2. I need not feel one anxious thought,
Or know one pressing care,
But that I may—His word hath taught—
Take unto Him in prayer.

3. O sinner, take Him for your Friend,
His grace is free to all;
He will the trusting soul defend,
Nor suffer it to fall.

4. ’Tis sweet to feel His presence near,
And on His strength rely;
To know that He thro’ life will cheer,
Support when death is nigh.

5. ’Tis sweet to work for such a Friend;
Dear Lord, our efforts guide,
For if Thou wilt Thy blessing send,
The work shall e’er abide.

This song, as posted above, is No. 190 in The Best Gospel Songs and Their Composers (Dalton, GA: A. J. Showalter Company, 1904) with the tune by Anthony Johnson Showalter. It shows a copyright of 1901. The hymn itself was written by Mrs. J. M. Hunter. Though she wrote hundreds of hymns, it appears that none of us in the present know who she is! As others, I have come up empty in my attempts to identify her. I wonder if two letters written to a Mrs. J. M. Hunter in 1911 and 1912 by preachers Lyman Abbott and Charles W. Elliott might be to this Mrs. J. M. Hunter. These are housed in the Columbia University (New York, NY) Rare Book & Manuscript Library Archival Collections. Perhaps someday they could be researched to see whether they turn up any information.

This hymn, with a different tune and under the title I Have a Precious Friend, is found on page 545 in The Sacred Harp, 2012 Cooper Revision. In it the composer, Thomas Jefferson Allen, disposes of the refrain that Showalter uses (which has a different meter), and rather uses the first stanza as the repeating chorus (making the tune common meter with a common meter chorus). He uses stanzas 2, 3, and 4 as his stanzas 1, 2, and 3.

1. I need not feel one anxious thought,

Or know one pressing care,

But that I may is word has taught,

Take unto Him in pray’r.

Chorus:

I have a precious friend,

Who keeps me day by day;

On whom my hopes of heav’n depend,

Who is my guide and stay.

2. O sinner, take Him for your friend,

His grace is free to all,

He will the trusting soul defend,

Nor suffer it to fall.

3. ’Tis sweet to feel His presence near,

And on His strength rely,

To know that He through life will cheer,

Support when death is nigh.

Jeff Riddle and a Turretin Fan

The following links present an interesting discussion about the Textus Receptus (or Traditional Text) between Jeffrey Riddle and a blogger who styles himself TurrentinFan (i.e., a fan of Francis Turretin).

• Word Magazine # 75: James White Versus Francis Turretin -- “JW typically confuses the TR and Majority text position with KJV-Onlyism. Furthermore, he criticizes KJV-Onlyism for all the wrong reasons.”
• Responding to Jeff Riddle - Regarding James White and (the real) Turretin -- “Our brother in Christ, Jeff Riddle (JR), has posted some comments regarding James White (JW) and the real Francis Turretin (FT), which because I'm a friend of the former and a fan of the latter, I would like to address.”
• Responding to TurretinFan on (the real) Turretin -- “Though I would take exception to most of TF’s critique I wanted to offer an initial response to what I believe to be the central intellectual area where this critique is problematic.”
• Muller on Turretin and Textual Criticism – Follow-Up Response to Jeff Riddle -- “Riddle responded by quoting Richard Muller’s discussion of views of issues related to inerrancy, contrasting folks like Turretin with later folks like B.B. Warfield.”
• Even more thoughts on Muller and (the real) Turretin -- “ What Muller is saying is that the Protestant orthodox, like (the real) Turretin, did not seek the ‘infinite regress’ of the reconstruction (restoration) of the hypothetical inerrant ‘original autograph.’”
• WM # 76: Rejoinders to TurretinFan -- (Sermon audio)

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Conclusion.

I hope supporters of the King James translation of the Bible can find common ground, proceed with caution in unclear areas, promote a Bible that is consistent from its initiation, to the present, and for the future,[i] and leave the theatrics for the purveyors of the ever-changing modern critical text of the Bible.
 
There is no doubt that orthography has a place of interest and usefulness. Capitalization or the lack thereof – especially for modern readers’ expectations – may cause us to find or miss divinity in a passage. Punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence. For example, a comma and the lack thereof might make things serious (or humourous).

• Let’s eat, grandpa.
• Let’s eat grandpa.[ii]
  

Sometimes these things seem clear-cut. On the other hand, there are fluid standards and/or the fluid interpretation of standards. Sometimes what someone insists is the only correct punctuation really does not change what people read and understand. The way I was taught punctuation when I was in school often appears to be outdated by today’s standards. I (generally) use commas more often than recommended by current standards.
 
The approach of folks like Verschuur and Kizziah, however well-intentioned, ultimately leads people to doubt their King James Bibles rather than have confidence in them. Believers may begin to agonize over minutiae where they once with simplicity confidently read and trusted their Bibles. This new approach makes readers dependent on some authority or authority figure – we must accept what someone else has researched and claims to be true.[iii] Perhaps there are some slight differences that ought to be cleaned up in some printings of the King James Bible, but I do not think any of this is widespread enough to cause us to worry about whether we have the word of God.
 
Let’s not belittle this kind of discussion, as do others. The Bible is the most important above all other books. We ought to look at the issues carefully. We ought to be sincere and thoughtful. When possible, as a group of King James supporters, can we agree on some orthography that should be fixed? If so, let’s do it. However, let’s not divide over how the same word can be spelled in different ways. And let’s not look through a 21st century lens to find problems where there are none.

---

[i] That is, consistent in meaning & application, not exact orthography from 1611 to the 21st century.

[ii] In reality, unless the reader lived in a cannibalistic society, the reader would likely understand what the writer really meant – while laughing about the obvious mistake in punctuation!

[iii] We complain about this when someone tries to make a priest over the believer in other situations.

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Part Three.

Unlike Matthew Verschuur, who is very specific in recommending which Bible he thinks is the “pure” edition of the King James translation, Nic Kizziah leaves us hanging. He uses very strong language to condemn counterfeit Bibles, but then does not tell us to “buy this one.” At the end of his composition he writes, “The best place I know to purchase a good Bible at a reasonable price is at Bearing Precious Seed Ministry.” I agree and recommend Bearing Precious Seed Bibles. However, I have checked my Bible that I purchased and found some of the very “errors” that he says makes a Bible counterfeit. His trumpet gives an uncertain sound.[i]
 
“Just give us the text that has established itself as the standard text of the Holy Bible, an old fashioned, Christ exalting, devil kicking, Authorized King James Bible,” Kizziah writes. But which one is that? He continues, “To the best of my understanding this is the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible with a few minor printing errors and spellings corrected along the way in the 1800’s.” But how many claim to follow the 1769 edition? Which printing errors and spellings were corrected, since all editions from the 1800’s are not exactly the same?
 
In his treatise Kezziah further advises, “All the common ordinary Bible believer wants is the same Bible that his grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had etc. that’s all.” I agree. I believe he is right about that. What he is wrong about, though, is thinking that these grandmothers had the same concern about minute orthography as do some 20th and 21st century King James advocates. They did not.
 
Here is the sum and substance of it all. To find the right and wrong Bible, one must have and consult his “Quick Check List When Buying a King James Bible?” Those poor grandmas were out of luck! Here is the “Check List.”

Kizziah’s check list proves too much. In Genesis 11:3, the “Real Bible” must have throughly, but the 1611 printing has thorowly. Genesis 23:8 should have intreat, but 1611 has entreat.[ii] Genesis 41:38 should have a capital “S” (Spirit), but 1611 has a lower case “s” (spirit). Exodus 25:30 should have shewbread and alway, but 1611 has Shew-bread and always. Leviticus 25:9 should have jubile, but 1611 has Jubile. Numbers 10:25 should have rereward, but 1611 has rere-ward. 1 Samuel 18:6 should have musick, but 1611 has musicke. Psalms 149:6 should have twoedged, but 1611 has two edged. Isaiah 59:17 should have cloke, but 1611 has cloake. Matthew 1:19 should have publick, but 1611 has publique. And if we would create a hill to die on with the “seven-letter” Saviour, it might be worth noting that the 1611 typography is Sauiour, not Saviour. I realize that this can be considered nit-picking. However, it is nit-picking the nits picked by the pickers. If the 1611 printing of the new translation has “cloake” – do we really need to differentiate between “cloke” and “cloak” to identify a “real” Bible from a counterfeit? Pfft.
 
Interesting also, when claiming that ensample means something different than example – why not look at the Bible itself? 2 Peter 2:6 uses “ensample” and Jude verse 7 “example” with the same meaning regarding the same historical incident.
 
Whichever edition is the one of which Nic Kizziah speaks, “It is basically the same Book that rolled off the printing press in 1611.” Basically, but not exactly.  “The only differences being,” he writes, “it was changed from Gothic type to Roman type, printer’s errors were corrected and spelling was stabilized.” It becomes the one that Nic Kizziah says it is. We just have to accept that!
 
As concluded yesterday, good honest Bible believers who happen to buy and use a King James Bible with some variant spellings should not be charged with using a Bible that is “counterfeit.” This practice causes confusion and dissension, sets up a select few as authorities over us all, and turns fellow KJV supporters into opponents rather than allies. Lord, help us to avoid such a course of action.

---

[i] For example, Kizziah proclaims, “The rules of English grammar may change but the King James Bible is fixed in a moment of time (the 1800’s, the 1900’s and for ever more) and is unchangeable. This is the standard text and there is no other.” How is it fixed in a moment of time, when you say it was being fixed from the 1600’s to the 1900’s. Which one is the standard text? Be clear. (He sort of seems to say, “There is a standard text; I am just not sure which one it is.”)
[ii] There can be a difference in the words “entreat” and “intreat,” according to the context. Sometimes entreat means to treat in a certain way, as in Matthew 22:6, et al. However, in the English language “entreat” and “intreat” are also variant word spellings with the meaning “to ask earnestly” (e.g. Exodus 10:18). Using the spelling variant “entreat” instead of “intreat” (or vice-versa) does not make a Bible “counterfeit.” However, it is best leave “intreat” where it is and “entreat” where it is, already in the King james translation. The variant spellings can then function as a cue to the possible difference in meaning.

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Part Two.

Matthew Verschuur has committed a great deal of research to the orthography of the Bible. The effort and extent of his research is commendable.[i] Verschuur offers the following examples (see below) of how to know you have a “pure” King James Bible. According to him, “It is important to have the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible, since there are correctors (e.g. publishers) who have changed some aspects of King James Bible texts. The final form of the King James Bible is the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900), which conforms to the following:”
 
1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8
 
Notice the following comments about Matthew Verschuur’s examples.

• No. 2. 2 Chronicles 33:19 in the 1611 printing has neither “sin” nor “sins”. The word there is “sinne”, which agrees with the PCE in number but not in spelling. 
• No 4. Jeremiah 34:16 in the 1611 printing has “whome yee”. The word “yee” agrees with the PCE in number but not in spelling. 
• No. 5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” Ezekiel 11:24 in the 1611 printing has both “the spirit” and “spirit of God” with a small “s”, which disagrees with the PCE.[ii]
  
• No. 8. Matthew 26:39 in the 1611 printing has “further”. Further and farther are variants and/or synonyms, but can also have a different connotation. According to Merriam-Webster, “Further is the older of the two, with farther originating from it as a variant in Middle English. For much of their history the words have been used interchangeably. As adverbs, they still are interchangeable when applied to distance (of the spatial, temporal, and metaphorical varieties).” Few if any people will get a different understanding from either word, in context.
• No. 9. Matthew 26:73 in the 1611 printing has “bewrayeth”. There is some difference in the connotation of these words, though betray is used as a synonym for bewray. 
• No. 12. 1 John 5:8 in the 1611 printing has a capital “S” “Spirit”, disagreeing with the PCE. The context shows that a capital “S” is correct (that is, as far as we understand capitals today). Notice that verse 6 says Jesus the Son of God “came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” These are the same three elements of verse 8 – water, blood, and the Spirit. The Spirit in verse 6 is the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit. The three mentioned in verse 8 are the same as the three in verse 6, and the capital “S” would be right, signifying the Holy Spirit. The 1611 printing has all three words of verse 8 with capital letters – “And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood: and these three agree in one.”

There are disagreements of the 1611 printing of the Bible with the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) in four examples that are given above.[iii] Thorough research of the two Bibles would yield even more. It is neither consistent nor useful to establish one’s own “perfect orthography” of the Bible and demand others acquiesce to it. The decisions are quite arbitary as to what is an acceptable change and what is not.
 
Even though alternate spellings still mean the same thing, I prefer that we not go rambling through the Bible to find spellings to update. On the other hand, good honest Bible believers who happen to buy and use a King James Bible with some variant spellings should not be charged with using a Bible that is not “pure.” This causes confusion and dissension, sets up a select few as authorities over us all, and turns fellow KJV supporters into opponents rather than allies. May we avoid such pitfalls.

---

[i] Recognizing that, however, does not require others to accept all of his conclusions.

[ii] Interestingly, Ezekiel 11:1 has a capital “S” – though Verschuur does not take notice of that verse. Overall, I suspect that there is some type of theological disagreement behind some of the conclusions about the capitalization of the word Spirit/spirit.

[iii] It is my understanding that there are some typographical differences even in the first two printings of the new translation by King’s Printer Robert Barker.

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Introduction.

As a pastor and supporter of the King James translation, I am asked about certain debates over mistakes, so-called, in various editions or printings of the King James Bible. These “mistakes” are usually in reference to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, some have advocated that only the Pure Cambridge Edition is an exact presentation of the word of God. Others advocate in a similar manner, but come to different conclusions on spellings, capitalizations, and so forth. For example, Nic Kizziah offers a short check list of orthography (scroll to the bottom of his page),[i] which is some cases differ with the conclusions advocated by Matthew Verschuur (Pure Cambridge).
 
We should take printing of the word of God seriously. We want the Bible to be printed accurately, and have a right to question why changes are made. However, we should be reasonable and consistent in assessing them. To radically reject a King James Bible because it has some modern spelling updates, changes in punctuation, capitalization, etc. works against rather than for the support of the King James Bible. There are NO modern printings (i.e., barring replicas) of the King James translation that reproduce the spelling exactly as found in 1611.
 
We have a problem reading our own modern ideas of spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and so forth back into discussing and deciding this issue. The modern education system, for many years now, has worked to systematize that which was not originally systematized in the English language.[ii] Today, the standards include sentence case (capitalization at the beginning of a sentence), with other words being in lower case. The main exception to this is proper nouns – persons, places, “I”, religions/churches (John, Texas, Christianity, Islam, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist), brand names (Pepsi, Skil saw), days and months (Sunday, January). I do a lot of historical research, and in old writings the use of capitalization and spelling does not conform to our modern ideas on the subject. This can be seen regularly – words we would capitalize that are not capitalized, or words that we would not capitalize that are capitalized. We cannot assume that because we would now capitalize or not capitalize a word, that the same was true in 1611 when the new translation was printed.
 
The Declaration of Independence provides a good historical secular example. If Thomas Jefferson had turned that paper in to some of the old English teachers I had, there would have been all kinds of red marks on his “improper” use of capitalization. See also, for example, the first lines of the U. S. Constitution and notice the now-uncommon capitalization.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[iii]

The poem “This Is My Letter to the World” by Emily Dickinson shows the general capitalization of nouns (even some pronouns) was still common in the U.S. in the 1860s. The common capitalization of substantives (nouns) seems to be rooted in the Germanic background of the English language, or German typography, with a gradual decline of such usage. Some capitalization was simply individual aesthetic – the capitalization of words the author thought to be important. We cannot judge the orthography of the Bible simply by 20th and 21st century standards. 
 
The King James Bible itself warns us off of over-worrying about consistent spelling. Take, for example, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, where Matthew and Mark spell what Jesus said on the cross in slightly different ways – “Eli” vs. “Eloi”. Surely they are referring to exactly the same thing, while spelling the word differently. The difference in spelling does not change what Jesus said! In those same passages in the 1611 printing, there are some other spelling differences. Matthew 27:46 has “cried” and Mark 15:34 has “cryed”. Matthew 27:46 has “loud voice” and Mark 15:34 has “loude voice”. Matthew 27:46 has “mee” and Mark 15:34 has “me”. These spelling differences did not make the original 1611 printing impure or a counterfeit! (These differences can verified in a 1611 printing HERE.)
 
Over the next two days, I want to interact with the positions of Matthew Verschuur and Nic Kizziah – which are the same but different!

Part Two
Part Three

---

[i] “Orthography” is a noun meaning, “The art of writing words with the proper letters, according to accepted usage.”

[ii] I consider this standardization generally to be a good thing. Nevertheless, it is a human standard, and human standards change.

[iii] And “spell-check” will complain about defence, advising its change to defense.

The source itself, the Scripture

One should always be careful to search every teaching from the true source. Namely, even in the sciences about man it is strictly regulated that all the methods and teachings are derived and built from the true principles in a right and careful manner; than they are finally proved by their natural cause, experience and general benefit and usefulness for the people. However, our task here is not to form or compound a certain teaching. We receive it from heaven as already formed and included in the book. It only remains for us to know it well and apply it in our everyday usage. The Son of God Himself, who rests in His lap, has revealed us from there all the secrets. It is exactly to this source and to this wealth that we are referred to by God.

Because some people instruct us to search for the truth sometimes from the old, sometimes from the learned, sometimes from the fathers and the tradition, therefore, it needs to be carefully stressed, as opposed, that Christ and the apostles did not want to list any fathers or their traditions and customs. They could have undoubtedly created them for themselves, and their reputation was of great value to the Pharisees and the priests, as well as with the common people themselves. But, instead, they have not mentioned any of that, not even in the smallest matter, neither for themselves, nor against their opponents. Moreover, they have strictly admonished the traditions of the ancestors. Therefore, all the truth should be exhausted from the source itself, the Scripture. We are built on this unique foundation of the prophets and the apostles. They are the only heads, both of the Church and the faith, and we should rely on the Scripture. Therefore, while emulating them and listening to them, let us not worry too much of what others say or propagate, which instructions or obligations they try to enact upon us or teach us in advance. 

(Matthias Flacius Illyricus, from O načinu razumijevanja Svetoga Pisma. Zagreb, Filozofija. Niz 5. Hrvatska filozofska baština; knj. 1. 1993, p. 93, and possibly translated by Stanko Jambrek).

God Knows (Times of Trial)

1. God knows the bitter, weary way,
The endless striving day by day,
The souls that weep, the souls that pray—
He knows it all.

2. He knows how hard the fight has been,
The clouds that come our lives between,
The wounds the world has never seen—
He knows it all.

3. He knows, when faint and worn we sink,
How deep the pain, how near the brink
Of dark despair we pause and shrink—
He knows it all.

4. He knows! O tho’t so full of bliss!
For tho’ on earth our joys we miss,
We still can bear it, feeling this—
He knows it all.

This poem was written by Marian Adele Longfellow, a niece of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. She born to Stephen Longfellow and Marianne Preble at Portland, Maine on April 1, 1849. She married William Francis Morris (1846-1910) on May 9, 1876. Later she married Michael F. O’Donoghue (1856-1921). According to Julian, her poem/hymn beginning “He knows the bitter, weary way” was titled “Times of Trial” and was written September 15, 1874. (A Dictionary of Hymnology, Part II, John Julian, editor. New York, NY: Dover Publications,  1907/1957, p. 1577)

Marian Longfellow Morris died at the mining town of Shawmut in Tuolumne County, California in the home of her son, Henry Wadsworth Morris, on January 23, 1924. Marian Longfellow published a good bit of poetry under pseudonyms, which might possibly account for this hymn being credited to various authors.

A Summer to Glory in Evil, and other reviews

The posting of book or film reviews does not constitute endorsement of the books or book reviews that are linked.

• A Summer to Glory in Evil? -- “...both of these shows stem from something first offered to children, and in the pull to complete a narrative, the viewer may not realize values change while characters stay the same.”
• Book Note: Jacob K. Olupona’s African Religions -- Though it takes an overall relativistic view on theology and religious practices (describing, rather than prescribing), this little book is a succinct, well-written, and insightful introduction to understanding African religions.
• Book Recommendation: What Happens When We Worship -- “We won’t chase after excitement or entertainment; rather, we will be satisfied with the simplicity and “ordinariness’ of what we do, recognizing that truly extraordinary things are happening by the Spirit of God.”
• Book Review: Help! I’m Married to My Pastor, by Jani Ortlund -- “Ortlund doesn’t simply dispense advice for common problems. She reorients the pastors’ wife to communicate with her husband about each of these topics.”
• Book Review: Parenting AAA: God’s Goals and Guidelines for Generational Spiritual Reproduction by Timothy Paul Geist -- “You will enjoy Geist’s book, whether you are a church leader or member, written in a style that digs deep but communicates in an understandable and practical manner.”
• Book Review: People of Promise, by Joseph Minich and Bradford Littlejohn (eds.) -- “Like me, I trust you’ll find a good deal in this book that’s edifying. But among Protestant traditions, Baptists will probably be the most put off by some of the arguments found here.”
• Book Review posted: Dirk Jongkind, An Introduction to the Greek New Testament (THGNT) -- “The author of this introduction is to be commended, inparticular, for offering a theological rationale for his approach to thetext of the New Testament and for his charitable interactions withthose who hold to differing views (namely, those who hold to thepriority of the TR or the Byzantine positions).”
• Book Reviews, Novum Testamentum: Assimilation as a Criterion for the Establishment of the Text -- “The main motive behind Wisselink’s thesis is to prevent our branding the Byzantine text inferior because of its alleged harmonizing character. Those who denigrate the Byzantine text reach such a conclusion, according to Wisselink, because of an unsound methodological basis.”
• Canon Revisited by Michael J. Kruger -- “I’m confident that this book will help you think well through ‘the question about whether the Christian belief in the canon is intellectually justified.’”
• Critique of Ruckmanism Ruckus, a new book in defense of Peter Ruckman -- “Kim writes, ‘Please understand I do not blindly believe in whatever Ruckmanism teaches.’ However, in the entire book Kim expresses no disagreement with Ruckman on anything.”
• How We Got the Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded -- “Lightfoot appears to give the same kind of slavish devotion to the modern Westcott-Hort text that he accuses those who promote the older Textus Receptus and the King James Bible of having to that text.”
• Introduction to the Seventh-day Adventist Clear Word Bible -- “This is interesting and problematic since in many places the CWB does not allow the Bible to interpret itself, but in fact, drastically alters the original verses when they don’t fit SDA theology.”
• Review of online article: “Beza and Revelation 16:5” -- “One of the things I would be most interested to know is whether Beza made a pure conjectural emendation or if he had some manuscript evidence to support this reading.”
• Review of Textual Criticism and the Bible, by Anderson and Widder -- “Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder...provide a text easy to read and understand that gradually leads to more and more complex matters of method and approach...”
• REVIEW: The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing by Jonathan Pennington -- “Pennington does an exceptionally admirable job of keeping his perceived main theme of the sermon in view.”
• WM 205: Interview: David Charles on Albert N. Martin Festschrift -- “David Charles is co-editor of A Workman Not Ashamed: Essays in Honor of Albert N. Martin (Free Grace Press, 2021)”

A Basic Understanding of the Confessional Text, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• A Basic Understanding of the Confessional Text Position -- “The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue.”
• A Confession of Faith -- “...this new orthodoxy is grounded in a false vision, and when false visions are enforced by the coercive power of the state, they invariably become tyrannical.”
• Did Trump destroy evangelical Christianity? – Greg Sheridan -- “There are three wrong ways for Christians to respond to a culture going mad: go to total war with it; surrender to it totally, thereby offering no ethical challenge; or retreat from it into a tight ghetto.”
• IRS denies tax-exempt status to Christian nonprofit group because ‘the Bible’s teachings are typically affiliated with the Republican Party’ -- “Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations.”
• Is the KJV Too Archaic for Use? -- “One of the chief objections to our continued use of the KJV is its archaic language.”
• Recollections from a Fireman’s Daughter -- “We always left our keys in the floorboard of our cars so dad could easily jump in and race to town. This habit caused a bit of grief in my first year away at college as I often locked my keys in my car.”
• Recommended non-Ruckmanite literature in defense of the KJV or Textus Receptus -- “All these books and pamphlets in some manner defend the KJV or Textus Receptus, or some aspect about them.”
• Robertus Stephanus’ Greek New Testament editions online -- “The famous printer Robertus Stephanus (Robert Estienne) published four editions of the Greek New Testament. All of these can be found online, though quality and access differs.”
• SATAN – The First Critic of God’s Word -- “‘Has God indeed said?’ The critic begins with this simple question. This question is one from unbelief and it is meant to sow seeds of unbelief.”
• Should We Read the Bible Critically or Confessionally? Two New Resources -- “Mapping out the two competing approaches to the text is essential to understanding the academic landscape (and how to survive it).”
• The Battle for the Bible -- “This means that the Scriptures must be received by faith as the Word of God. There is a lot of misunderstanding on this point. We do not prove that the Scriptures are the Word of God.”
• Van Bruggen and Bible Translations--Ignored or Forgotten? -- “A final thing to note in Van Bruggen’s popular work is his positive attitude towards the King James Version. Van Bruggen’s conclusions are surprising, especially for our day and age where there is virtually no end to the reverent negative view on the KJV.”
• What’s in the Water? — Combatting Superstition and Sentimentalism with Scripture (Part 1) -- “Perhaps a greater vulnerability for regular church-going folks would be sentimentalism. If your understanding of baptism is largely shaped by your experience with baptism and the people involved, then this may be the case for you.”
• What’s in the Water?: Baptism as a Sign of the New Covenant (Part 2) -- “To baptize infants is to misunderstand more than the sign, but the nature of the new covenant and the people it creates. Circumcision and baptism are both covenant signs, but baptism is the sign of a new and better covenant.”
• What’s in the Water?: Baptism as a Sign of Addition (Part 3) -- “The Word led to baptism, which led to a defined worshiping community, and as people were baptized, they were “added” to that community. That’s what Luke is teaching us.”
• 10 Victorian Cemetery Traditions -- “Death was a common part of the Victorian world. There were epidemics and sickness. Families had more children and many of them died young. It wasn’t uncommon for families to lose as many as half of their children before they reached adulthood.”

Some Church Fathers who quote or reference the “Johannine Comma”

Tertullian, Against Praxeas (Circa AD 200-220)

“Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus.” (Against Praxeas XXV).

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, “I and my Father are One.” (Translation by or for KJV Today)

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” [in respect of] unity of substance not singularity of number. (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

Tertullian alludes to the “Comma” in De Baptismo (translation by S. Thelwall), Chapter VI (concerning the baptismal formula)

Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared for the Holy Spirit. In this case also a type has preceded; for thus was John beforehand the Lord's forerunner, “preparing His ways.” Thus, too, does the angel, the witness of baptism, “make the paths straight” for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains. For if “in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand:”--while, through the benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we have as sureties of our salvation too--how much more does the number of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise! Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under “three witnesses,” there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three.

Phoebadius of Agen (France), who died circa AD 392, wrote Contra Arianos around AD 357. It is in Latin.

“Hoc si cui scandalum facit, audiat a nobis Spiritum esse de Deo, quia illi cui est in Filio secunda persona, est et tertia in Spiritu Sancto. Denique Dominus: Petam, inquit, a Patre meo, et alium advocatum dabit vobis. Sic alius a Filio Spiritus; sicut alius a patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu ut in Filio secunda persona, unus tamen omnia quia tres unum sunt.” (Contra Arianos XXVII:4-5)

English translation:

“If anyone stumbles at this, let us hear that the Spirit is from God; because that is the second person of the Son, and the third is the Holy Spirit. Finally, the Lord says this, I ask of my Father and he will give you another Advocate. So, the other Spirit comes from the Son; the other Son comes from the Father. So, the Spirit is the third as the Son is the second person. But the one is all, for the three are one.”

“4. If anyone is offended at this, let him also hear us say that the Spirit is from God, since [God] not only has a second person in the Son, but also a third [person] in the Holy Spirit. Our Lord speaks to this: I will ask of my Father and he will give you another Counselor. 5. Just as another – the Son – comes from the Father, so also another – the Spirit – comes from the Son. And just as the Son is the second person [of the Godhead], so also the Spirit is the third. Nevertheless, the sum (omnia) is one God, because the three are one. (Liber Contra Arianos, Kenneth C. Wessel translation)

[Note: Heinrich A. W. Meyer believes Phoebadius’s reference may be to Tertullian rather than the apostle John. (Critical and Exegetical Handbook on the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. Joh. Ed. Huther, New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1887, p. 598)]

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 - 390 AD) may allude to the “Comma” in his doxology at the end of Oration 45: The Second Oration on Easter, Paragraph 30:

“Εἰ δὲ καταλύσαιμεν ἀξίως τοῦ πόθου, καὶ δεχθείημεν ταῖς οὐρανίαις σκηναῖς, τάχα σοι καὶ αὐτόθι θύσομεν δεκτὰ ἐπὶ τὸ ἅγιόν σου θυσιαστήριον, ὦ Πάτερ, καὶ Λόγε, καὶ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· ὅτι σοὶ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, τιμὴ, καὶ κράτος, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.”

“But if we are to be released, in accordance with our desire, and be received into the Heavenly Tabernacle, there too it may be we shall offer You acceptable Sacrifices upon Your Altar, to Father and Word and Holy Ghost; for to You belongs all glory and honour and might, world without end. Amen.” (English translation at New Advent)

In Oration 31, Chapter 19, Gregory of Nazianzus had commented on the unconventional grammar of 1 John 5:6-8 in manuscripts without the “Comma”.

See also “The Greek Text in Acts xx. 28; 1 Timothy iii. 16; and i John v. 7, 8,” The Boston Review, Devoted to Theology and Literature, Volume IV, No. XXI, Boston, MA: John M. Whittemore and Co., 1864, pp. 265-270.

Near Misses

This bevy of books includes those never quite so successful as their classic cousins. Still, you might something readable here.

• A Confederacy of Dances (All the Dances against the Other One)
• A Kale of Two Cities (How Greens’ Farms can be Profitable)
• A Midsummer Night’s Scream (a Texas Heat Wave Tragedy)
• And Then There were Nine (Agatha Christie’s Baseball Tale)
• Chicken Slop for the Soul (101 Stories to Open the Palate and Rekindle the Stovetop)
• Grime and Punishment (a Warning Book for Dirty Children)
• Gulliver’s Gavels (After Lemuel became Judge of Several Remote Nations of the World)
• Hairy Potter; or, Why is there so much clay stuck to your arms?
• Hamwet (a Lispy Interpretation of Shakespeare)
• Less Miserables (Not as Many Miserable Ones as Usual)
• Little Mouse on the Prairie (Daring Days and Frightening Nights)
• Mess of the d’Urbervilles (the d’Urbervilles’ Lesser-Known Messy Daughter)
• Nine, Ten, Eighty-Four (a Quarterback’s Story)
• O, dip us the King! (a Tragic Drowning)
• One Hundred Fears of Solitude (a Pilgrim’s Guide to Loneliness)
• One Thousand and One Arabian Knights (Why Catholics Lost the Crusades)
• Rise and Fall of the Woman Empire (subtitle that, if you will!)
• Show Gun (a Gun Show Memoir)
• Tar Man (a Road Worker’s Memoir)
• The Bobbsey Twits (the never-ending tale of the silly Bobbsey family)
• The Bond Collector (How to know you have all the 007 movies)
• The Call of the Mild (To Be or Not to Be Gentle, that is the Question)
• The Diary of Anne. Frank! (Nothing Vague Here)
• The Old Man and the Pea (Unlucky Problems of the Elderly)
• The Purpose Driven Wife (a Husband’s Guide to Doing Household Repairs on Time)
• The Quotations From Chairman Mousy Tongue (Meeker than Uncle Mao )
• The Scrapes of Wrath (How the Depression rubbed people the wrong way)
• The Sound of the Baskervilles (a Dog-gone Good Musical)
• To Bill a Mockingbird (Veterinary Surgery for the Small and Famous)
• Zen and the Parts for Motorcycle Maintenance (An Inquiry into the Value of Keeping your Motorcycle Running)
• 20,000 Leaks Under the Sink (A Homeowner’s Plumbing Guide)