The Dividing Line, September 23, 2008

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 of the time.

We've been on the air. Let's talk with Mike. Hi, Mike. How are you doing? Hello, Mike. Hello, Dr. White.

How are you, sir? I am doing very good. Quick question. I'll try to be brief. I've been debating a

JW at work recently, and I used Titus chapter 2, verse 13, and Granville Sharp's rule.

Now, what he pointed out after reading the rule was that the rule does not work if either nouns or pronouns, and since Theos has an article that would make it a pronoun,

I was not sure on this. I've been trying to look at research. I don't have any Greek learning on my own.

I'm confused. I'm confused. Are you saying pronoun or proper noun? I'm sorry.

Proper noun. Forgive me. 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 doesn't follow.

All Greek grammarians recognize that Titus 2 .13 is a Granville Sharp construction. That's not an issue.

My book, The Forgotten Trinity, has a chapter that deals with this, and so I would recommend that to you.

I'd also recommend to you the section in Daniel Wallace's second -year grammar. He has,

I think, somewhere around 80 pages on the subject of the Greek article, and he has done extensive work in the

Granville Sharp constructions, and so I would recommend that to you. But just to try to make it understandable to you, I would present both

Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1 as my primary texts, and both of them have contextual demonstration that the proper translation is

God and Savior. In Titus 2 .13, the very fact that theos, actually it's theo, it's an adjenative, has the article to in front of it, is necessary for a

Granville Sharp construction to exist. It's soteros that does not, so 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 rule is actually stating, and he would basically say that no proper nouns could ever be used in a

Granville Sharp construction, because obviously in any Granville Sharp construction, the first noun has to have the article anyways.

So he would be, by definition, getting rid of all Granville Sharp 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 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 for himself 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's 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 that one.

Then I would go to 2 Peter, and this one will help you. Does he use the New World Translation?

One more time, please. Does he use the New World Translation? Their translation? Yes, he does. Okay. Take him to 2

Peter 1 .1, and have him read 2 Peter 1 .1 in the New World Translation.

The end of the verse is going to say, in a good translation, it's going to say, "...of

the righteousness 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 when it 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 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 an 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 -Sharpe construction in 2

Peter 1 .11, but it won't correctly translate the Granville -Sharpe construction in 2 Peter 1 .1.

And the reason is not in the language. It is in their theology, completely and totally.

In fact, there are two more Granville -Sharpe constructions in 2 Peter, and the New World Translation translates every single one of them correctly, except for 2

Peter 1 .1. And you can demonstrate that they're parallel in the original language, therefore the only reason that they would make the distinction they do is because of their overriding theology.

Their theology is not being derived from Scripture, it is being derived from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and they then translate

Scripture in light of that overriding priority. Okay, thank you very much,

White. It's been very helpful. Okay, remember The Forgotten Trinity, and there's also discussion of it in my book,