Granville Sharp Rule

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Debriefing the Farhan Qureshi Debate

First of all, let me thank you all for being here this afternoon. I Wish there were more people here. I think these are important things and You know what for the peace of the world. I think more people should see Christians and Muslims honestly airing their differences, but doing so with respect for one another.

I can honestly say to you that I am going to be praying for Farhan Qureshi. I have very much enjoyed our encounter and I hope you have learned a lot by being here today. I would like to address just a couple of things.

Farhan opened the door for a future debate, I think. Because he said we cannot prove we cannot know what the canon of the scripture in the text of scripture was in the days of Muhammad. Oh. Would I like to have a debate with you on that one?

Because I believe that we can document that one to the hilt. I believe that that is completely an error and I would like to be able to demonstrate that we have entire Manuscripts of the Bible that exists by that period of time.

The issue of the can was long in the past that particular period of time and I would love to be able to address that. He also addressed the issue of the language of the Son of God. And that by default the definition is my friends anytime we use human language of God.

You better be careful that phrase by default, especially when you're using the human definition. Even when describing Allah we have to be very careful in the language that we use in Islamic theology. Do we not?

Do we not have to avoid reading into those words human definitions when you're applying them to God that is the same case here. The biblical use of Son of God is not By default some biological or Derivative expression.

He says are you worshiping the physical nature of Jesus or the spirit within him? Jesus is one man. He's the God-man. When I walk up to someone and greet them people don't go. If I greet bow over here people don't go.

Why are you greeting bows spirit or bows body? No, I'm greeting bow. And when we worship the God-man, he has become incarnate. The Logos has entered into human flesh. We don't distinguish and divide between them in that kind of a fashion.

And so what have we seen today? I appreciate the fact that Farhan was very straightforward and saying look I'm not going to deal with all the other New Testament text because I'm Coming from a particular perspective and I'm going to deal just with what Jesus claims for himself.

Now, of course, I believe that's a little bit of a unfair limitation of the data, but I've gone with it. I'm willing to go with that and say, all right, let's look at what Jesus says about himself. Does Jesus use Lord of himself?

Yes, do his disciples use God of him? Yes. Does Jesus accept worship? Yes, does he Jesus identify as? Faithful actions not Idolatry, but as an act of faith the ascription to him of the phrase my Lord and my God.

Does he identify himself with the Son of Man when the book of Daniel is a divine being with a kingdom and his servants? Give him luck true. Oh, the true is the highest form of worship found in the temple itself in the temple worship in Jerusalem.

The Jews understood Jesus claims we have not had and an explanation that far I said well. But it was a great thing claimed to be a prophet or Messiah. There are all sorts of people claim to be prophets and messiahs in those days and Jesus himself kept his Messiah hood a Secret in the public context.

He only revealed that to private individuals. Look at the Gospels when people identify as of side don't tell anybody that that's not what offended the Jews in John 10. That's not what offended the Jews in John 8.

That's not what offended the Jews in Mark 2 when she has claims to forgive sins. It wasn't a claim to prophethood Messiah hood. It was Jesus's claim to deity because folks Jews don't stone People but for what blasphemy.

Blasphemy and that's exactly what they say in John chapter 10. We are stoning you for blasphemy because you being a man make yourself out to be what Messiah? No a God. Why didn't she is great? Why didn't you say?

Oh, you're wrong? You know, it's all metaphor. You just don't understand. He never does that. And so did Jesus claim to be God? The answer is yes, and that becomes very clear when we do not adopt a Presupposition that the New Testament as a whole has been corrupted and we look at the rest of the testimony of the New Testament.

That phrase ambiguity is completely lost. That's the evidence that we have before us this day and to my Muslim friends. It is my prayer that the Spirit of God will open your eyes to see the glory of Jesus Christ.

Who loved you? Loves you still and gave himself on Calvary's cross my closing statement from the debate Sunday afternoon with Farhan Qureshi. Did Jesus claim to be God somewhere outside of Escondido? I honestly don't remember the exact name of the town.

But it was somewhere where I could quickly drive from there to the San Diego Airport and fly home. So Very enjoyable debate with Farhan Qureshi on that particular subject rather short but what I really appreciate is it stayed on the topic stayed on the subject and as such I think was very useful to the people who were there and of course, obviously when the Videos are available.

We will be Letting you know that we'll be getting those from Arabic Christian perspective. Pastor George Saag is there and I want to thank them and for all the work they did. Thank David would David. Well back up just a second.

I Started off a little bit oddly. I I knew I was gonna be working hard this weekend. I knew I was gonna be working hard this weekend because I've never done two debates in in one one shot basically in one day and so.

That I knew I knew Saturday was gonna be tough and then to do another debate the next day three debates in two days is a lot and So I was gonna be doing what? Dave Hunt did but they'd all be on the subject of Islam and I'm Probably 35 years younger than Dave is and haven't had my hips replaced yet so I'm working that direction, but you know, who knows so I knew it's gonna be a real challenge and Then this thing started coming up.

I even had to change my travel plans or actually fly standby to get there early enough to do it. But the things are coming up on Friday night. There's gonna be like some presentations. We're just gonna record it.

Then some Muslims are gonna be there and we're gonna ask some questions and okay. But could you do a 20 minute presentation on? Original sin and the need for atonement. Okay, so I'm you know, I've got a fourth presentation to make but you know I really wasn't overly focused on that because it wasn't the debates.

So we get there and now as I get to the building is the first time I hear it called a debate. And what ends up being I'm sitting there next to brother Scott From Australia. He was the one who got in all the trouble, you know.

He was brought up on charges under Australia's hate crimes law. We're doing a seminar on Islam and he's from Pakistan and then next to him is David Wood and then we have Sammy's authority and This ends up being I do the opening statement and Then Sammy gets to respond to me and then David does a statement and Sam responds to him and they do crossfire and then Daniel Scott speaks and Sammy responds and they do crossfire and I'm sitting there surfing the web.

I Mean, I'm sitting there in the chat channel. I can't even defend my opening statement. I got nothing man, and that is frustrating. It's like no, no, no, no, I had no idea and now it's debate and it goes on forever and I'm like, oh man and so Finally in the audience questions.

I got to answer questions. I got two minutes and Then what the other guys decided to do was we were trying to shorten that because it was going so long. All of us were supposed to get five-minute closing statements they decided to give the Christian side to a 10-minute closing statement instead of 15 5 for each of the persons and David and Daniel decided I should have all 10 minutes.

So I got the 10-minute closing statement so I poured two and a half three hours worth of frustration into 10 minutes and The folks the folks who listened did seem to very much appreciate the closing statement anyway, so We'll have to put that on YouTube sometime once once again once we get the videotapes of it, which could be a number of Months down the line lanes and channel and he says it was worth it for that closing statement though.

So he was there so everyone seemed to appreciate the the conclusion there. So we sort of had I say I did three and a half debates this weekend because that wasn't really a full debate. Because I didn't even do crossfire.

There's no cross-examination or rebuttal. I Did an opening statement answered one question did a 10-minute closing statement. So that doesn't quite count as a full debate, but I was there anyways, and then the two debates on on Saturday and the one debate on Sunday now I Should make some comments.

I think about about the debates. Especially if you have seen the clips that I've already put on the YouTube page, and I think I've already linked on the blog and They were very different the two debates I did in one day were with a man by the name of Osama Abdullah and I Had seen of course Osama's website and I knew that these debates were not exactly to be like the debates.

I've had with Shabir Ali Or something like that that they were going to be a little different because I had seen many very basic fundamental errors in argumentation factuality from reading Mr. Abdullah's website.

I came to the conclusion that he really doesn't know almost anything about the Bible at all. He does not seem to be able to read it in context and Is willing to accept any kind of argumentation against the Christian faith as long as it agrees with Islam no matter where it comes from.

It doesn't matter what its source is doesn't matter what worldview it comes from. Doesn't matter if the same person would use the exact same arguments against Islam doesn't matter. He's he's gonna throw Everything out there and in his we were debating two subjects was Jesus crucified or substituted and Then are the New Testament documents reliable and I read his material on the lie of the crucifixion and it was basically dependent upon accepting the Acts of Peter which is a third century document as If it was actually given to Peter and he believes implicitly that it was given directly to Peter though it's a Gnostic document and and is filled with Stuff that no Muslim could ever believe but hey as long as it supports his pointing against Christianity then it's cool, and we can just forget about the rest of stuff and Then there was stuff and And I I pointed this out.

He basically makes the argument that if any of the Gospels refer their own authors, then it must be bogus. They must be Frauds, and so since Matthew records his own being called by Jesus then Matthew's a fraud but then he goes into John and We all know that John also talks about someone named John the Baptist and Osama Abdullah Doesn't recognize there's a difference between John the Apostle who wrote the gospel and John the Baptist who didn't write the gospel and So I pointed this out I Pointed this out my opening statement.

So at that time he could have said hey, you know, sorry about that. You know, I I made a mistake instead he gets up after I've made my opening presentation and he repeats the same error and So I get up and I point out that he's repeated his error and I explain it more clearly That John the Baptist is not John the Apostle.

One person wrote the gospel the other person didn't so his point is wrong. He gets up and repeats it again. Third time I get up. The next day when we're in the car driving to San Diego, I bring it up.

And he has never admitted that he was wrong. In fact, he never admitted any factual error despite the fact that I documented him. There is one Isaiah 53 9. And he said well, you know here in Isaiah 53 9, you know, I looked at at Young's literal translation of the Bible and the word death is not in here.

It's a lie. He says and so I obviously hadn't gone there specifically myself in my presentation, but What I did is since they were changing tapes I had time In bringing up and putting my computer up there my Mac to fire up Bible works under parallels and make sure that it was going to display properly and So I put Isaiah 53 9 anybody who would like to look at Isaiah 53 9 ESV says and they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death although he had done no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth and So I blew up the font so be nice and clear for everybody to see and I get up there and I display Isaiah 53 9 and If you're familiar with Bible works, you know that if you put the cursor on the word It will parse it right on the screen for you.

And so I've just done that in Bible works on this computer and I put it on there and it gives you the Particle particle preposition of the bait there in at by with or among and then below it. You have the word for death.

Okay, so here's Bible works. It's not me. It's a computer program a scholarly computer program. Defining the word there says Isaiah 53 9. Do you think that Osama Abdullah would ever admit he was wrong?

Even Driving down to San Diego the next day. I Said to him sir. Do you read Hebrew? No, he doesn't read Hebrew. Okay, so you can see a computer program that gives you the definition. I've taught the language.

I've got the text right here. I can show this to you. Yeah, but I looked it up and young sir There is the word Kev air. Kev air means grave. But that's before this where it's two words before this word you looked up the wrong word.

Yeah, but young is literal you just. Eventually what I said was obviously the sound system here does not work because in essence what was so frustrating. About a some Abdullah. He's not another Achmed.

Okay, he didn't behave like that. He didn't even though he did cover 20 different topics. Didn't stay on topic at all just do everything out there repeated stuff between debates and completely different topics.

Was just standing there the podium scrolling through his website reading this reading that reading the next thing just throwing all just hoping something would stick and Everybody saw it. I mean, I mean, you know you've got to remember there's an audience there and everyone saw it and everyone will see it when when those tapes are distributed and He just needs to understand that people see those kinds of things but what frustrated me even more than just Throwing everything out there and using all sorts of inconsistent arguments and stuff like that.

Was it it was like he stuck an iPod Earphones fired up his iPod or something when I was up there. He didn't listen to me and Even when he tried to listen to me, I guess He gets up after my opening presentation I had in talking about the New Testament documents had pointed out that there were that there are fifty five hundred plus Catalogued manuscripts of the Greek New Testament averaging somewhere around 200 pages apiece do the math about 1 .1 1 .2 million pages of text.

That we have to that we're looking at it's a lot of material. So the first time he gets up and says well James said that there's millions of manuscripts. I didn't say there were millions of manuscripts.

In fact, I'm not just standing up there I've got a whole presentation going very nice presentation. In fact, very pretty very readable and it says 5 ,500 plus Greek manuscripts and Then the average manuscript 200 pages you do the math.

There you go. And so I'm just so I have to get up and I have to keep correcting What he hasn't heard me say right the first time. It's like it's up the next time. He says, okay. I'm sorry. So there's there's 1 .2 million words.

Actually, I'd given the exact number of words in the Greek New Testament, but that's not the point and that's one hundred three thousand so I Eventually got up and said there must be something wrong the sound system because clearly my opponent is not hearing a word I'm saying and that's what was frustrating was that Both for me and then obviously for the audience is that if you're looking for a debate You need to have debaters who actually hear what the other side saying you can't have a debate if one side is just simply talking about a couple dozen different topics and Not even listening to what the other side saying and when they do try to quote them.

They don't get him, right? And it was so painfully obvious that Osama Abdullah just did not understand what I was saying. He has no background in this field. He is just couldn't follow it along at all.

And even then even then We got to the end I made my closing statement I made an argument once again, I from Islamic sources and I mentioned Sahih al-Bukhari 6 5 1 9 5 10. And I read it. It talks about the Ithmanic revision of the Quran the collection of the Quranic materials Sahib and Thabit and and Abu Bakr and and the the qurra who died at al-mam at the at the Battle of Yamama and Concerned that a large portion of the Quran could be lost if further of the qurra were to die and I Raised these issues and I was contrasting the centralized Control of the text of the Quran with the non-centralized distribution of the early manuscripts in the New Testament and demonstrating that Counterintuitively that when you really think about it The New Testament is in better shape because of that than the Quran could be as far as trustworthiness of those early manuscripts.

Because when you have a centralized controlling authority that can make changes. Well, then you've got some questions, but that was never an issue with the New Testament. There was never a centralized controlling group that had control of the New Testament so I had mentioned this and I sit down and a sum up till it gets up and No, no, let me back up before I tell you what it says.

Remember on Saturday, there were three debates. I debated first then David would debated Farhan Qureshi on Can you trust the Quran and then we did the New Testament after that with me and Osama Abdullah so three debates that day was a long day and When Farhan Qureshi got up I was listening to his opening statement, even though I was next door I was grabbing lunch that time and the whole beginning of his statement was based upon Sahih al-Bukhari six five one nine five ten the very same hadith that I went through that talks about the gathering of the materials and The Battle of Yamama and the Qura and and all that stuff He used as the foundation of his opening presentation and So with that in mind now, I've read it and raised issues based upon it.

And so Osama Abdullah gets up and he decides That that's not a sahih hadith. That is not that isn't not a valid hadith and I'm sitting here Going you've got to begin because I know That that Muslim scholars have Written entire books on this this section.

I know he's making this up out of thin air and I know any knowledgeable Muslim and the audience could be going what is this guy talking about and so I happen to catch Farhan Qureshi in the back of the room and he's sitting there shaking his head because Osama Abdullah just threw him under the bus.

Because his whole thing statement had been based upon the soundness of that very same hadith and of course, I didn't get to say anything about at that point in time because My this was the the end and I'd already done my closing statement and so on and so forth but I don't really need to say much about it because Knowledgeable Muslims are going to be realizing that Osama Abdullah is not one of them when they hear him making that kind of argumentation now Osama Abdullah was very nice in person I Didn't have any problem, you know along those lines.

He did not behave in the irrational way that another Ahmed behaves all the time. But when it came to debates someone who cannot hear the other side and Someone who thinks they already know all the answers, but actually doesn't know any of the answers at all.

I saw no evidence that he was willing to learn. I saw no evidence that he was willing to ever admit a mistake. Even when the mistakes were absolutely glowing just as obvious as could be easily documented he he wouldn't Wouldn't even even admit it.

So that's one of the reasons I so enjoyed the debate with Farhan Kadeshi is because he was just the opposite of all those things. In my conversations with Farhan he would listen to me I would listen to him.

There was meaningful exchange. He was willing to admit when I was right. I was willing to admit when he was right it was just a completely different world just just a completely different encounter and and when David would had started his debate with Farhan Kadeshi He had made some comments that a couple of us in the audience to sort of like well Dave What are you talking about?

Well ended up David knows Farhan better than I thought he did. I guess he said this was there like fourth debate or something like that. So they've debated before and once I got a chance to actually talk with Farhan after the the debates on Saturday and then all the way down to San Diego we had a long conversation and and Then in San Diego and then during the debate.

I just found him to be Really a breath of fresh air in comparison to the vast majority of the of the Muslims with whom I've had Contact he he's trying to listen to what I'm saying he's trying to respond to and he's trying to be consistent within his own religious worldview and He wasn't just doing the I'm gonna grab any argument and throw it at you routine, which is what?

Sadly a large majority of Islamic apologists do. He tries to be consistent now. Obviously, I would say if he was completely consistent Stop being a Muslim become a Christian but that's for for the Spirit of God to convince him of and if I can be an instrument and that I'll keep trying but the point was that the debate we had was significantly better because of that and Because of he also once he finished a point Sat down.

He didn't he didn't do what so many people do is you finish a point in the crossfire and okay. Now let's talk about 14 different other things here so no one can possibly follow any type of chain of discussion or thought or anything like that at all and so I I deeply appreciated that and still appreciate that and Would look forward to you know, I as I said at the end of my closing statement there Farhan opened the The door for another debate in the future when he he said that we don't even know What the the canon of Scripture was at the time of Muhammad and that's just not true when we're talking about Obviously the Old New Testament, that's just not true we do know not only what the canon was but we know what the state of the text was too and I would be more than happy to demonstrate and document that but you see Farhan Farhan's the kind of guy That once I've challenged him on that He may just go and get himself some books and do some reading and go.

You know what? I was wrong Christians can make a good case they know what the state of their text was at that time and the canon was at that time and so I'm not just in debating it because My argument there wasn't a valid argument anyways, so he doesn't you know, for some reason there are some people some Muslims I think Osama Abdul is one but if they admit they made one mistake They think that that means their entire faith is invalid because they think they're defining their faith Farhan realizes.

He doesn't define his faith. I Made a mistake. I pointed out on the on the YouTube thing I was speaking too quickly and just to give you some insight into what happens when you're trying to write too fast and think too fast.

Farhan mentioned the phrase Alpha and Omega in the book of Revelation and he said that I was never used of God in the Old Testament and So he immediately moved on another point and I'm trying to write.

I was trying to write a. In my notes I was trying to write down Exactly what I wanted to say in response to his previous point at the same time listening to this one. Then he's moving on to the next one.

And so I started to write olive and I don't know if I tried to write Tao or if I was going to write all if Wow Tao which would be the Hebrew equivalent of Alpha and Omega Wow is the end. But and look at my notes.

All I got was Alpha and Wow Tao just disappeared. I don't know if I just didn't I was gonna try to go back to it after I wrote down the next thing and Forgot, I don't know. Did I just write Wow instead of Tao?

I don't can't even remember it was going by too quickly but if you watch the video I say olive and Wow instead of olive and Tao and Olive Wow is not the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet even though it sounds like that's what I'm saying.

And I do know that. But I misspoke because I was speaking too fast didn't even catch it myself. Just reading my notes moving along I'm thinking sort of like a chess player three or four moves down the down the road.

So I made a mistake I am NOT infallible the truth of the Christian faith does not depend on my writing down something Too too quickly or anything like that. So We are we are fallible beings and I think that Farhan if you're to do that research would would go Yeah, I'm not sure.

I want to debate that particular subject. Anyway, when we come back We've got a phone call to take and get back into the soul scriptura debates and all sorts of stuff like that. So eight seven seven seven five three, three, three, four one.

We'll be right back.

Ministry Updates and Upcoming Opportunities

Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave No stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day.

The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis. Entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women.

Is a public crime occurring in your town. Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org. What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism.

False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant.

In his book the potter's freedom. James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded.

Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate. James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org. Hello, everyone. This is Rich Pierce.

In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program. The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet.

They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha to Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses. Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well.

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Granville Sharp Rule and Titus 2:13 / 2 Peter 1:1

Thank you, and welcome back to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning.

Let's go ahead and take our phone call that's been waiting patiently for well most the time we've been on the air. Let's talk with Mike. Hi Mike. How you doing? Hello, Mike. Hello. Dr. White. How are you, sir?

I'm doing very good. I'll try to be brief. Um, I was. I've been debating a thing and Granville Sharpe rule, right? Now what he pointed out after reading the rule was that if either nouns or pronouns and Since the OS has an article that would make it a pro many Greek learning on my okay.

Okay. I'm confused. Are you saying pronoun or proper noun? I'm sorry proper noun. Okay, okay well Actually the rule states that that's in regards to names not proper nouns that would be the first thing and the article would not indicate that one way or the other an Article does not indicate proper noun an article just indicates whether it's articular or not.

You can have proper nouns even names can have articles in Greek so that that doesn't follow. Everyone all all Greek grammarians recognize that Titus 213 is a Granville Sharpe construction. That's not an issue.

There's my book The Forgotten Trinity has has a chapter that deals with this and so I would I would recommend that to you. I'd also recommend to you the section and Daniel Wallace's second-year grammar.

He he has I've I think somewhere around 80 pages on the subject of the Greek article and he has done extensive work in the Granville Sharpe constructions. And so I would recommend that to you, but just just to try to make it understandable to you I would present both Titus 213 and second Peter 1 1 as my primary texts and both of them have contextual demonstration that The proper translation is God and Savior in Titus 213 the very fact that they ask actually it's they know it's an agenda has the article to in front of it is Necessary for a Granville Sharpe construction to exist.

It's so tear off that does not so it's the first the first noun has the article the second one does not. They're connected by Chi hence. They're both referring to Jesus Christ. If he says that the Article somehow makes something a proper noun proper nouns don't fit.

He doesn't understand what the what the what the rule is actually stating. And he would basically say that no proper nouns could ever be used in a Granville Sharpe construction because obviously in any Granville Sharpe construction the first noun has to have the article anyways, so he would be by definition Getting rid of all Granville Sharpe constructions if his understanding was correct.

But there's two other things to recognize the context of Titus 2 is extremely strong. I Can't go through it right now. But if you would look at the if you get a like a good reference Bible that will give you the background terms in Titus 2 14 Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness to purify from self people for his own possession?

Who are zealous for good deeds psalm 130 verse 8 for example the same terminology is used of Yahweh in fact you can trace verse 14 verbiage all through the Old Testament all in reference to Yahweh and What I would point out is that there is no switching of persons back and forth in Titus 2 12 13 14.

There's only one person in view he has to be inserting somebody in view that is never mentioned in the text because he has to make a distinction between Jesus and whoever he views God as Yahweh or something like that and yet It's clearly talking about Jesus Christ in the terms of Yahweh in Titus 2 14 so you have contextual Argumentation to make in in that one.

Then I would go to second Peter and this one will help you. Does he use the New World Translation? Does he use the New World Translation their translation. Okay take him to second Peter 1 1 and Have him read second Peter 1 1 in the New World Translation the the end of the verse is going to say By the righteousness of our in in a good translation to say of the rights of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

He's going to say of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ now if he has What's called the kingdom interlinear translation it used to be a purple bound book now. It's a blue bound book. It was more fun was purple because we call it the purple people eater, but now it's blue.

And it's just sort of boring, but anyway if he has the kingdom interlinear interlinear translation have him look at it and then say okay, so You're saying that this doesn't work. That this should be our God and our Savior.

Well if that's the case then look down at verse 11 in the New World Translation and That one reads for in this way there will be richly provided for you any Entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

You can put the Greek of God and Savior Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior Jesus Christ right next to each other right out of the kingdom interlinear translation and they are absolutely Identical. The only difference is Lord instead of God.

But Grammatically everything else word order everything is identical. The New World Translation will correctly Translate the Granville Sharp construction 2nd Peter 1 11. But it won't correctly translate the Granville Sharp construction and 2nd Peter 1 1 and the reason is not in the language.