Sam Gipp Versus the KJV Translators, Mormonism Review Including the Book of Abraham

And greetings! Welcome to The Dividing Line, James White along with you. Of course we have Prescott's most famous Frenchman running all of the technical stuff just across the room, making faces, doing other things to cause problems, but you all never see that and so you believe all this stuff about how I'm mean and stuff like that.

That's okay, it's just part of the life I have to live. Today we are going to continue last week's discussion of Mormonism. I've got one little brief thing to do at the beginning, but then I wanted to mention we're going to be doing three programs this week.

Well, I'm going to be doing any more than that, but three Dividing Lines. I have just really majorly overcommitted myself right before I'm heading out once again. I'm not sure how I did this, but that's January.

I guess that's sort of how it worked out. Anyway, tomorrow we got Radio Free Geneva and I am going to be responding to some material by Dr. Allen in the new big... I guess they're really into doing big books.

It could have been much smaller. It could have been typeset. It's nice large print, so for us older folks it's very nice, but I get the feeling it's meant to say something about we're big. I will try to remember.

I had actually looked it up and maybe I did tweet it. I don't remember, but I will try to post. Try to remember to post. I will probably forget. The URL to... I'm not sure what we did, but I think we took a section of the Dividing Line and posted it separately from a regular Dividing Line about, I don't know, two years ago when Dr. Allen's book on the extent of the Atonement came out.

There were two books that I had on the desk when I was responding to it. Dr. Allen had written an article in response to me on Romans 8. We looked at all the published material, the article, the books.

We went through everything and we demonstrated that the position being presented by the provisionists is an eisegetical one. He had tried to go into various commentaries. We went to all the commentaries.

We went deep in providing a response. Well, here's this new book, Calvinism, A Biblical and Theological Critique, edited by David Allen and Stephen Lemke. There isn't anything really new in it. It's just the provisionist thing going on there.

But once again, the issue of Romans 8, there is a brief section on it. And so, we're going to respond to that and demonstrate, yet once again, one side can do exegesis and present their theology from the page of Scripture.

The other side, the best they can do is go, nope, doesn't mean that. Well, what does it mean? Well, it doesn't mean that. But what does it mean? And we've seen this over and over again with Leighton Flowers, with David Allen.

They'll say it can't mean that. But they can't give you a positive exegetical presentation. And that's why provisionism will always be, well, what it is right now. So, we'll do Radio Free Geneva on that.

And we will throw in there the Frank Turek video with Leighton Flowers, where Frank basically says, I just think a lot of, you know, these Calvinist brothers, I just don't think they've really thought through what they believe.

And he holds up Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler. So, it's sort of like, all right, we'll comment briefly on that. And then on Thursday in a morning for us program, it'll be early afternoon for people on the East Coast, I guess, I want to talk about Andy Stanley's new unhitching from the new test.

Because once you, you know, once you unhitch from the old, eventually, you're probably going to unhitch from the new too. And that's what he's done. And so, we will take a look at that and respond to that Thursday as well.

And then on Friday morning, I'm recording a Swear to Us dialogue with Doug Wilson that will probably be available the week after that. And like I said, we've got to, we'll have a debate going on that I think will be live streamed a week from this coming Friday.

Yes, a week from this coming Friday. Oscar Dunlap, a deacon at our church, Gabe Wrench from up in Moscow is coming down. I'm moderating. It's all I'm gonna say. It should be interesting. Gabe will never be the same.

Let's just put it that way. That'll be a week from Friday. And then don't forget, coming up on my trips, I've got two debates. And both, I've heard the second one's gonna be live streamed as well. I'm not sure about that.

I haven't verified that. But they both may be available in that way. One of them is is there in Houston, where we had the same location, Lutheran Church there in Houston, where we had the debate on Molinism last year, or the year before last, one of the two.

And that was last year, early last year. And then there's going to be a debate on the 24th of February. I hope to be in attendance up in Salt Lake City. And it's going to be Zach Lautenschlager, who is a member of the OPC Church up there in Salt Lake City.

And my son-in-law, Eric something, Jaeger. Yeah, yeah, Eric. I just got to try to remember these things. What's his name? Yeah, you know, the guy who married my daughter. And they're going to be debating who is in the New Covenant.

So it's not specifically on baptism, but it is. But it's on a more basic issue related to that subject. And that will be on the 24th in Salt Lake City. I don't know whether I'll be able to get there or not for the simple reason that I will be hot-footing it across the United States from Tennessee with my fifth wheel.

And hence, what will determine whether I can be in Salt Lake City or not? The weather. If there is a, you know, big old blizzard snowstorm blowing through, it would not be wise to turn north. It would be much wiser for me to cancel all my reservations and head south, young man, to try to get back.

So I'm certainly hoping to be there, but we'll see what's going to happen there. So lots of stuff. Lots and lots and lots of stuff going on. So we want to get back to Mormonism. But first, I saw this.

Bad preacher clips. Bad sermons. Is that what it is? Is that bad sermons? I think this was bad sermons, actually. Bad something on Twitter. These poor guys, you know, I often say, I listen to the heretics, you don't have to, but they listen to the really bad fundamentalists.

Really? Well, okay, it's both, actually. So bad sermons is the actual... Bad sermons, uh-huh. It says bad preacher clips? Okay, okay. Rich and I were both commenting on the fact that Sam Gipp still looks like Sam Gipp did in 1995 on the John Ankerberg show.

Actually, his hair was dark back then, so there has been some change. But Rich is fairly certain that's the same suit and tie he was wearing in 1995. Which would be great, if he can wear the same suit.

That's super. Anyway, for those of you who haven't... For those of you who aren't Algo... Yeah, for those of you who aren't Algo, Sam Gipp is a King James only-ist. He was one of the four people that we took on...

Or was it three people? Yeah, maybe only three people that we took on on the John Ankerberg show in 1995, which I think is available on YouTube, I think. Yeah, anyway. And he's the one that sent me the coloring book and crayons.

And he had done a little... A fairly well-made little series promoting King James only-ism, I don't know, about five, six years ago. And I responded to each episode and demonstrated why their arguments, as normal, are completely vacuous, and circular, and incoherent, and all those types of things.

It's a familiar church here. You've seen this background before. The guy that... I think the Korean guy who just goes crazy nuts. There's a video. The camera's farther over to this side, but that's where he was doing the Gail Ripplinger wackadoodle stuff and came running up to the camera and went...

It's just really weird. So this is a well-known haven of King James only wackoism. And so this clip was posted, and I wanted to play it just so we can get a sense of just how weird King James only-ism can become, how the cultic type of King James only-ism.

And here you have a good example of it. So let's listen to old Sam Gipp here,.

And then respond to what he has to say. And here's what I say, guys, in this, well, how do you know which one to choose? You don't have to choose. Remember this statement, all question of proper translation ended in 1611.

In other words, if there are six ways you can be translated, 25 ways you can be translated, it doesn't matter. All question proper translation ended in 1611. So I was talking to Daniel last night about this, and I was teaching in a Bible conference probably about 20 years ago, 25 years ago, and this pastor, who was a good man, Bible believer, but he would use a Greek.

And he came up to me after I got done teaching, and I don't call him any names, and he said, and this was his description. He said, when the King James translators came to any word, guys, any word, doesn't matter, interfaith or anything else, he said, when they came to a word and they had a crisis, they had maybe six, seven ways it could be translated, their crisis was, which one do we put down?

And he said, when they put a word down, when they made that decision, they ended that crisis. I said, well, he said, when I go back to the Greek, I reopen that crisis, don't I? Well, I'd never heard described that way.

I said, yeah, and I'm telling you, I never seen a man get more solemn in my life. He said, I will never do it again. Pretty good. I will never do it again.

I will never do it again, he said. Now, what I want you to understand, what he just said was that every single issue of translation, every single choice of translation was dealt with, and the answers given to us in 1611 with the publication of the King James Version of the Bible, there is, this is your standard second inspiration perspective.

The King James is inspired, it's perfect in and of itself, and it was a new inspiration. That's why they can't show you the King James prior to 1611. It was a new inspiration that takes place because this is saying there can be no improvement.

Now, everyone needs to understand a couple things. First of all, every single one of the King James translators would laugh, either laugh with hilarity or would agree to the burning or the drowning of Sam Gibb as a obviously heretical nutcase Anabaptist.

Every single one of them would just go, you have got to be kidding us. No King James translator believed anything like this. They never expressed anything near it, and in fact, they expressed the exact opposite of it.

It is very plain from their own writings that they recognized that, well, the very fact that they provided marginal translations demonstrates that this whole thing, well, it was just, there's no reason to read the Greek.

You just got to look at what the King James did. The King James translators go, we put the alternate readings in the margin, you moron. What are you, what are you talking about? It is astonishingly absurd to believe this kind of stuff.

It is ahistorical, irrational, and yet these guys are still running around, you know, it's been, we're coming up on 30 years since, yeah, 28 years ago was when we did the John Ankerberg show and just demonstrated over and over and over and over and over again, how utterly incoherent this whole movement is, but it's, they're still out there peddling their wares and selling their books and doing stuff like that.

The idea that, well, you know, there's six different ways to translate this Greek word, and there's no reason to even bother learning that language any longer because we have the 1611. That, of course, was the exact argument in regards to the Vulgate.

That was the exact argument in regards to the Greek Septuagint. That these men would never accept those arguments, but then they turn around and make them again. King James-only-ism is utterly ahistorical.

It, because the fact that it uses one set of standards for the King James and another set of standards for everything else, they don't have to worry about whether their assertions make mincemeat out of history or mean that there were all sorts of other versions of the Bible that we should still be using today that we don't, because you could make much better arguments for them.

You can make a much better argument for the Vulgate than you can for the King James. 1 ,100 stinking years, that's a long time to be the standard, right? King James, not nearly that long. They're so disconnected from history, or when they try to pretend to do something with history, they just destroy it so badly and use such horrific standards of historiography it's just unbelievable, the things that they do.

But you just need to hear what's being said there. Here's a pastor who's learned Greek, I'll never do that again. Now, I don't know if that conversation ever took place. You know, a lot of these sermon illustrations, but the reality is, let me just give you one example, and I was going to pull it up, but I felt it was more important to have this stuff ready for Mormonism than just this illustration.

And I've talked about this many times before. I remember many, many, many, many moons ago, and I don't hear a certain thing running in the background, am I right? And we had a very, very, very small office over on 16th Street, South Camelback, and I don't know how I got hold of it or somebody sent it to me, but I started subscribing to Dennis McKenzie's biblical errancy.

McKenzie was, he's dead now, but so he's not an atheist anymore, but he was an atheist then, and he would mimeograph. Those of you who don't remember the smell of mimeographed copies, you were not my age in a Baptist church.

Well, actually, for some reason, his was brown. I'm not sure why his was a different color, but yeah, normally it was purple colored ink stuff. Anyway, he would put out three pages back, both sides, so a total of six pages.

Each month, he would put out a newsletter with errors in the Bible, biblical errancy, and I remember one of the key examples that I used in refuting him, and we had him on the program. We actually got him on The Dividing Line in an atheism series we did, again, sometime in the mid to late 1980s, and his assertion was, he took a section from Matthew, he took a verse from Matthew, where Jesus says, you shall not kill, and then he has a section from Paul, and it's, you shall not murder.

Now, it could have been reversed, but I think it was kill in Matthew, murder in Paul, and he's quoting from the King James Version of the Bible. The problem is, when you go to the original language, it's ooph, anusais, in both places, the exact same Greek.

The King James translated differently, in one place murder, one place kill. Now, murder and kill are not necessarily synonymous. They have different semantic domains. They overlap at some point, but they do have different semantic domains, and so it's easy, once you understand Bible translation, the history of the Bible, and when you understand the history of the King James Version of the Bible itself.

The committee that translated the Gospels is not the committee that translated Paul, so you had multiple committees that had different responsibilities, and there wasn't, you know, today, you may have similar things to that, but then you'll have a final committee at the end that will try to catch stuff like this, where you've got the identical Greek phrase being translated in different ways, and there's no reason in the context that that would be the case, and so it was just simply something that King James translators and editors missed, that they would render it in two different ways, when there's nothing in the context to indicate why you're doing that, and so, you know, I could easily respond to people like Sam Gipp, here's a guy, that guy might have died and gone to hell because the King James Version of the Bible, you know, this kind of stuff, their books are filled with it, and Sam Gipp may send coloring books and crayons to other people, as he likes to do, but I'm going to tell you, it's his position that is best written in crayon, because it does not have any lasting staying power to it at all.

Now, having looked at that, let's get to the important stuff, because we discussed on the program last time Mormonism, and what happened was Rich and I started reminiscing, and we haven't gotten the rocking chairs yet, though I'm pretty close to bringing a couple of those in and setting them up up here, and Rich and I can put some nice comfy pillows on them, and just start reminiscing about, well, it's 2023, it's 40 years for Alpha and Omega Ministries, we can sit around and reminisce about a bunch of guys pushing a gold Volks 74 Sun Beetle around the parking lot of Motel 6 in downtown Salt Lake City to get it, to try to get started, because the starter went out, and then I drove it all the way to Northern California without ever stopping it.

Yeah, everybody's all, y 'all just do this for the money. Yeah, right, and that was when I went up to Golden Gate, and I was looking at going to Golden Gate, and that's also the same weekend that Kelly and I realized that I went, uh-oh, I think you're pregnant, and she's like, what?

And they had just, believe me, this is how long ago is it, they had just come out with pregnancy tests. Back in the olden, olden days, you had to go to a doctor, what was the old phrase they used to do, did the rabbit die?

Something like that, I think it had something to do with a rabbit, I have no idea what that was all about, but they had just come out with pregnancy tests that you could buy at a drugstore, and this had been 85, yeah, 85, late 85, probably in October, and got that pregnancy test, and yep, that's why I didn't end up at Golden Gate, was, there came Josh, so anyway, that was a long, long, long, long, long, long time ago, we started telling all those stories, but now we need to get to what I promised to do, and that is to look at some of the biblical texts I mentioned to you last time, um, I still don't hear anything going on, oh, oh, oh, oh, you talk, and I'll be, you'll be right back, okay, I'll try to remember to say something while you're gone, um, anyway, trying to get the fan going up above, we've got these lights start getting you just a tad bit on the toasty side, uh, fairly quickly, and for some reason, the, um, our normal way of getting things going isn't working.

I mentioned to you last time, there is something called the 100-verse memorization system on our website, um, that you can, um, read and download for yourself, it'll give you far more verses than I have time to deal with here, and the important part is, just like Letters to a Mormon Elder, it gives you the context, that is so massively important, I don't care what verse we're looking at, when you, you know, people ask me, they'll go, how is it that when you're out in Mesa, or you're out in Salt Lake City, you're having these conversations, and you seem to be in control of the conversation, you seem to direct it where you want it to go, you, people don't, the rest of us struggle to the conversation going in the same direction, and part of it, honestly, is, A, knowing what they believe better than they know it, really, really does help, but mainly, it's when you, when you do present biblical texts, you are presenting them within a context, you're saying, now, you know, um, if I was talking with a Jehovah's Witness, uh, and I would, I wanted to go to John chapter 17, I wanted to deal with verses 3 through 5, when you put it in the context, you know, we're looking at our Lord's High Priestly Prayer, and, uh, this is really the Lord's Prayer, and this is, this is right at the end, you know, we, we had, we had his public ministry ends in, in chapter 12, chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have been his private ministry to the disciples, and now, right at the end, you have this tremendous interaction between the Father and the Son, by providing that context, um, you, you really, uh, you cause people to hesitate to interrupt and throw other things in, because they weren't aware of what you're currently saying, or they are able to determine by the way you're saying it, that this isn't just something that you've memorized off of a card someplace, that what you're telling them from John chapter 17 actually has meaning to you, and you, you're familiar with it in its context, and things like that, so the 100 verse memorization system, I, I highly recommend it to you, look it up at aomin .org and grab that, then, uh, in speaking with Mormons, you're going to be looking especially at the trial of the false gods in Isaiah 40 through 48.

Now, um, people who've gone to BYU, uh, if you've ever watched the, uh, debate, that, uh, wasn't really debate, but the discussion that took place on Apologia Radio about, I don't know, three years ago, four years ago, with a, uh, young, non-representative, uh, Mormon fellow, uh, Kwaku was his name, uh, I think he's still sort of Mormon, uh, he's gone off into some wild stuff, there's no two ways about it, but, uh, that would give you a good idea of what people are going to get, they go to BYU, oh, this was standard language back then, all the different gods said that they're the only two gods, and, you know, all the rest of this kind of stuff, and all meant to, uh, try to, in some way, shape, or form, rescue the horrifically polytheistic system of Mormonism, because when you understand what Mormonism, what Mormonism developed into, now, it, it, it is true that there was a period of development after Joseph Smith, there had to be, uh, if, I've said many times, if Joseph Smith had not been murdered in a Carthage jail in 1844, if he had been given only two more years, there'd be no Mormonism today, there would be no Mormon church, why?

His beliefs were changing so fast, so radically, that no one would have been able to make heads or tails out of him in just two more years, um, I really, really, really do believe that, I believe that the men who murdered, and he was murdered, he, yeah, he was shooting back, but he still was murdered, he was in a jail cell, it's not exactly a fair fight, but he did shoot back, and, uh, he, he, at that point in time, he had moved from an ignorant Trinitarian monotheism with shades of modalism, like many Christians today have, uh, into a radical polytheism, and that's why you have such difference between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, this is evolution taking place during Joseph Smith's own lifetime, and if that evolution had, had continued, uh, there would, there would be no Mormonism, so what Mormon apologists have to do today is they have to try to find some mechanism of defending Joseph Smith, or, like some Mormons, some Mormons are just adopting a view of prophethood now that is so wildly wacky, for some reason it's still not running, uh, it stopped, um, the fan's by saying, well, yeah, you know, but Isaiah didn't, you know, these passages in Isaiah weren't meant to be taken, uh, to the extreme you're taking them, and things like that, but let's look at just a few, we only have so much time today, let's look at just a few that you'd want to be looking at, like I said, what I would, what I would do, what I would highly recommend to you, um, is to just read through Isaiah 40 through 48, uh, there's a paper on the website, uh, titled, um, Doctrine of God in Isaiah 40 to 48, I think is what it's called, and, um, that's, again, a seminary paper from long, long ago, and just see the repetitiveness of the fact that God is bringing the idols into the court of law, and he's saying, he's putting them on trial, and that's why he can say, for example, in Isaiah 43, you are my witnesses, declares Yahweh to Israel, you are my witness, so he calls Israel as a witness, that he is the only true God, and by bringing accusation against them, by bringing accusation against them, what's fascinating about this section is it reveals to us certain aspects of God's character and being through the negation of the false God, so, so one of the constant challenges is, tell us what's going to happen in the future, tell us what's going to happen in the future, the idols can't do that, they don't know the future, because they are not the creator who made all things, not only that, they can't speak either, so that's, that's sort of a problem as well, but tell us what happened in the future, tell us what happened in the past, and why it happened, do something, what you find in Isaiah 40 to 48, well, for example, Isaiah 40 21 happens to be on the screen right now, so, do you not know, have you not heard, has it not been declared to you from the beginning, have you not understood from the foundations of the earth, that's interesting, there you have an assertion that what the author is going to be talking about here, is revealed in creation from the foundations of the earth, it is he who inhabits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, it is he who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to inhabit, it is he who reduces rulers to nothing, who makes the judges of the earth utterly formless, scarcely have they been planted, scarcely have they been sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth, but he merely blows on them, and they wither, and the storm carries them away like stubble, to whom then will you liken me, that I would be his equal, says the holy one, lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these stars, the one who leads forth their hosts by number, calls them all by name, because the greatness of his vigor, and of the strength of his power, not one of them is missing, and so, then you have these assertion being made about God's grandeur, and then it's applied, why do you say oh Jacob, and assert oh Israel, my way is hidden from Yahweh, and the justice do me, passes by my God, do you not know, have you not heard, the everlasting God, Yahweh, the creator of the ends of the earth, does not become tired, we are retired, his understanding is unsearchable, so there is application, direct application being made, and that is Israel saying, well we're not going to, we're not going to be punished for our sins, but do you not know, the everlasting God, Yahweh, the creator of the ends of the earth, does not become weary or tired, now the Mormon commitment to the King James is not nearly as strong as it once was, it's still the default, but I'm encountering more and more Mormons that are using other translations, and fascinatingly, this is one of my great disappointments about early 2020, is we were supposed to have a conversation with a Mormon scholar that has done his own translation of the New Testament, and it's a very good translation of the New Testament, but he's not using the same textual basis as the King James, that raises all sorts of fascinating questions, it really, really does, and I'd still like to have that conversation someday, but I'm reading from the Legacy Standard Bible here, and so if you're following along in the NIV, NASB, New King James, whatever, I kept saying Yahweh, and you're seeing Lord, but the O and the R, they are in capital forms, they're smaller font, but capital form, the Mormons do tend to use the old English phrase, Jehovah, of these places, my recollection, remember this, quad, my recollection is that in the Bible Dictionary, let me see, on page, this would be interesting if I actually remember this, 666, 667, pretty close, 667, the name Jehovah appears in the material, and it says, the covenant of proper name of the God of Israel, it denotes the unchangeable one, the eternal I am, the original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews in reading never mentioned it, but substitute one of the other names of God, usually Adonai, probably it was pronounced Jahweh or Yahweh, in the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by Lord or God, printed in small capitals, so why do I mention this to you?

Well, then it goes on to say, Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ who came to earth, being born of Mary, well, the identification of Jehovah and Jesus is a later development in Mormon theology, but the reason I mention that is, it is important to be able to recognize when the name Yahweh or Jehovah is being used, so you need to know that L-O-R-D, or if it's in G-O-D in all capitals, normally Lord God, Yahweh Elohim, and their own Bible will substantiate your explanation of that, so if someone's going, well, I'm not sure that's really what's there, you can take them, just remember page 666 and go one page over, that's why I remembered it, that's how it was, which would also work if it was on page 617, if you know about the text of Ovarian, Romans 13, 18, but we won't get into that right now, so anyway, just, you know, it's always helpful to use their material, if they're standing there with a quad and you can turn to page 667 and show them the name Jehovah and how that's found, and hence be able to show them in texts like Deuteronomy 435, that Jehovah, he is Elohim, there is no God besides him.

In Mormon theology, as it developed later, this wasn't Joseph Smith's view, but it is officially defined by the church, I think in, was that 1901 was the first presidency statement, or 1911, I think it was 1901, but I'm not sure, I need to look that up again, there was a statement by the first presidency, 1901, I think, where they specifically laid out what you just, what I just read to you there, and that is Jehovah is the premortal Jesus.

Joseph Smith hadn't done that, Joseph Smith had not made that distinction, but it's a distinction develops in Mormonism at a later point, and you will run into a lot of Mormons who don't even know that, that's why being able to open their own Bible and show that to them might be of assistance.

Point being, as I have been reading here, it says the everlasting God, Yahweh, the creator of the ends of the earth, King James is going to say the everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth, because they don't translate the Tetragrammaton, they just follow the Jewish custom, and in essence, hide the divine name.

So it's important to recognize that, because in Mormonism, especially if you're talking to a temple Mormon, if they've been through the temple, they have watched as in the presentations, if in Salt Lake City, which is of course closed right now because the place almost fell over during the earthquake a number of years ago, actors would act this out, and in all the rest of the temples it's done on video, Elohim and Jehovah are separate distinct physical individuals.

Elohim is the father, Jehovah is the son, Elohim sends Jehovah and Michael down to organize the earth. So you see three beings, you see three physical personages, and one sends the other two down. That's a major, major problem in Isaiah, and why is that a major problem in Isaiah?

Well, some reason. Oh, okay, there it is. Well, let me show you a few. Of course, this is the one that's best known. Most people, when witnessing the Mormons, this is one of the first verses they'll memorize.

This is great to memorize because it was one of the verses that I went through with the Jehovah's Witnesses last week when they came by my house. Isaiah 43 .10, it's one that all Jehovah's Witnesses know, and what's interesting is since I started with the Mormons, I had the Yahweh.

So again, remember this is the court of law. And my servant whom I have chosen, she may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me there is no God for him, there will be none after me.

And so, what you have, let's make sure we, you know, this would be helpful for all the people you're dealing with. So, for the Mormons, here's your section. Before me there is no God formed, and there will be none after me.

I, even I, am Yahweh, and I've got my font a little bit too large. There is no savior besides me. So, there is who is being identified. It says declares Yahweh. So, Yahweh says before me there is no God form, there will be none after me.

So, there's numerous problems that causes for LDS theology because Yahweh is Jesus, and he had a God before him. Then again, even if it was Elohim, which is the term for God, as the Father, he had a God before him too.

Because he was a man who lived on another planet, and his God was once a man, his God was once a man, on back into eternity. So, there's real problems there. So, whoever is speaking is saying, before me there was no God form, there will be none after me.

This is absolute monotheism. But, keeping that in mind, notice what we have before that. You are my witnesses declares Yahweh, and again, here is those who are not familiar with it, Yod-Heh-Wau-Heh, Naum-Yahweh, thus says Yahweh, you are my witnesses, and my servant whom I have chosen, we won't get into that today, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.

Okay, here is the section of Isaiah 4310 that is extremely important for Jehovah's Witnesses, because this is the verse they get their name from. You are my witnesses declares Jehovah in their translation.

So, here's where Jehovah's Witnesses comes from, this very verse. So, when I talked with the Jehovah's Witnesses last week, and I asked, you know, where does your name come from? They very quickly said, Isaiah 4310s.

They knew. So, I pointed out to them, well, it's fascinating, because this section here, over here, in order that you may know and believe and understand, Ha-Ti-Ego-Ai-Mi. Ego-Ai-Mi. So, there's Ego-Ai-Mi, and that is Anahu in Hebrew, that you may now understand that, and here it is, I am he.

Now, don't have time to go through this in the Forgotten Trinity. We've talked about many, many times before. This phrase is used in the Gospel of John in John 8 .24, John 8 .58, John 13 .19, and John 18 .5 -6, and in John 18 .5 -6, when Jesus says, Ego-Ai-Mi, the soldiers fall back upon the ground.

In John 8 .58, Ego-Ai-Mi before Abraham was, I am. Jews pick up stone and stone him. John 8 .24, unless you believe that Ego-Ai-Mi, I am, you will die in your sins. And John 13 .19, in the context of prophecy, Jesus is talking about the betrayal by Judas.

He says, I'm letting you, I'm telling you this in order that you may know and believe and understand that I am he, and he uses the same, I think he uses Note and Pstuceta. I don't think he uses Suneta, but he uses at least two of the three exact same verbs in John 13 .19 that are used right here in the Greek Septuagint.

Now, Jesus knew the Old Testament Scriptures, so he's quoting Yahweh speaking in Isaiah 43 .10 of himself, of himself, and people skip over it all the time because it doesn't necessarily just jump out at you, but here is a place where Jesus is identifying himself as Yahweh using the Ego-Ai-Mi language, Anahu in Hebrew, and it's also extremely relevant because Isaiah 43 .10 just cuts the eternal law of progression in half.

In Mormonism, there were many, many, many, many, many, many gods in the past, and there will be many gods in the future. God says, before me there is no god formed, there will be none after me. Isaiah 43 .10, very, very important text, and one that it would be very, very, very wise for you to memorize because I think you see what we just did.

So, now we've skipped over a lot to get to Isaiah 43 because there's 41 to 42, you have the material where some of the most astonishing sarcasm in all Scripture is found. I don't have time to go over today, but I would just highly recommend that you read it where it's the picture.

I mean, it is the, you know, Rich said I could do this. You know, that's, it is so much easier to sit here than it is to sit on that thing. To get up on that thing is just so tough, and for some reason, I'm just letting everybody know one of the cuboid bones in my left foot just went wacky on me.

So, if I all of a sudden just sort of fall over, it's just because something, you know, you get old and stuff just goes places it's not supposed to go. I just, I just got up and walked over there, and it's like, okay, watch this.

So, anyway, I'll get back over there, but it's just going to look like, look how old he's getting. He's going to die soon. Anyways, no. What are you doing that for? No, you know I don't like that angle.