The KJV & The Deity of Christ (White vs Holland)

Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the Dividing Line radio broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

The Dividing Line is brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries, Calvary Press Publishers, the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and Bethany House Publishers. Your host is Dr.

James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now by dialing 1 -888 -TALK -960.

That's 1 -888 -TALK -960. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Well, we need to counterman that order. Don't call 1 -888 -TALK -960 right now, because we have a special edition of The Dividing Line today.

My name is James White, and I will soon be joined by Dr. Thomas Holland, and we are going to be debating the issue of the

Deity of Christ in the King James Version and in modern translations, which translation or translations best present this blessed truth of the

Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. We won't be taking calls today. We will be taking calls next week, so please make sure to mark down your calendar to be with us next week as we take phone calls on this important issue.

Dr. Holland will be with me again, Lord willing, I think is always the best way to put that. And we will be addressing this issue again and taking your phone calls next week here on The Dividing Line.

Just to give you an idea of what we are going to do, I am going to turn the microphone over to Dr.

Holland. I guess it's actually the phone line, since I believe Dr. Holland is in Ohio. And I am going to allow

Dr. Holland 15 minutes to present to the audience his viewpoint, his perspective on this particular issue.

Then we're going to take a break. Then I'm going to have 15 minutes to present my perspective. And then we're going to take another break.

And then when we come back from that break, Dr. Holland and I can have some interchange, ask each other some questions, deal with some issues that are raised by the presentations that each one of us gives.

And that will finish off the program for today. And then next week, we will be taking calls right from the start at 1 -888 -TALK -960.

So write that down. Make sure to put it in your computerized calendar. Make the alarm go off next week at 1255 or something, so that you can join with us and call in and participate in the program.

But as is always the case, this is a technical situation. And so I want to make sure that Dr.

Holland is on the line with me. Are you with us, sir? White. How are you doing today? I'm doing fine.

How are you doing? Oh, not bad. I'm always glad when I hit that button and a voice comes through the other side.

When there's nothing there, it is just, well, they call it dead air. And that's not a good thing to have at all.

No, it's not. Well, I'm glad you could be with us today. And I'm very happy that we have this opportunity of presenting these issues to folks, getting folks to think.

This is not exactly the kind of topic that a lot of radio programs would touch with a 10 -foot pole.

But we do a lot of this type of thing. And so without taking up any more time from anybody,

I'd like to invite you to present your case. I'll give you 15 minutes or so.

And feel free, if you get it 14 minutes and 30 seconds or something, you're done, just let me know.

We'll take our break and go from there. Does that sound fair to you? That sounds wonderful. All righty, sir.

Well, why don't you present to us what your viewpoint is on the deity of Christ and the modern translations.

I'll be glad to. And let me begin by saying, first of all, thank you, James, for letting me have this opportunity. The issue that we have before us today really has to do with translations, such as the

New American Standard and the New International Version and the King James Version and what they have to say on the deity of Christ.

And it's my position that the King James Version presents a stronger Christology regarding Christ's deity than contemporary versions such as the

NASV and NIV. Now having stated that, I want to make it very clear that I am not saying that the

NIV or the NASV or their translators deny the deity of Christ.

Just that whenever we compare, say, those three translations, we will find a stronger proclamation of Christ's deity in the

King James Version. And in your book, on page 196, you make a statement that I'm in total agreement with.

You say, quote, is it true that some translations are stronger and others weaker on the doctrine of the deity of Christ?

Yes, it is, end of quote. And we are in agreement there. When we look at translations such as, say, the

New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, you and I both would agree that that's a translation that's not only weak on the deity of Christ, that's a translation that makes a direct assault on the deity of Christ.

I think we would also agree that if we took, say, Good News for Modern Man, while it might be a little stronger than the

Jehovah's Witness translation, it certainly is not as strong on the deity of Christ as, say, the

New American Standard or the King James or the New International Version. And so I think when we take these three in like manner, when we take these same three translations and we compare them, we'll find that the

King James does make a stronger proclamation of Christ's deity. Our problem of disagreement comes on the next page, where I think you seem to define strength in terms of clearer and weakness in terms of ambiguity.

And I think that these are relative terms. I think a better definition for strength is content.

That is, contextually, does the passage proclaim Christ's deity, yes or no?

While clarity is important, it certainly is secondary to content. And when we look at it this way,

I think that there are a number of passages that we can place in one of four categories, and in so doing, we'll establish that the

King James Version presents a stronger Christology regarding Christ's deity. First of all, there are passages that contextually proclaim

Christ's deity in the King James Version that do not proclaim Christ's deity in either the

New American Standard or the New International Version. Now, usually these are textual variants, and either today or next week,

I hope we can discuss some of those. But here I'm thinking of passages such as, say, 1

Timothy 3 .16. And here the King James Bible says, Great is the mystery of godliness.

God was manifest in the flesh. That's a clear, strong statement of Christ's deity.

God manifests in the flesh. And if you pick up the New American Standard or the New International Version, you find

He who was manifest in the flesh, or That which was manifest in the flesh. And we don't have the word

God there. So here's a passage. When we compare the King James with the New American Standard or New International, we find that the

King James gives a strong, clear declaration of Christ's deity that we do not find in the

New International Version or New American Standard. Another example is 1 John 5 .7, where we're told there are three that bear record in heaven, the

Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. That verse is omitted in both the

New American Standard and New International Version. So when we take 1 John 5 .7, we definitely find in the

King James Bible a stronger proclamation of Christ's deity than we have in those two modern translations.

Romans 14, 10 through 12, where we're told that we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ because we have to give account of ourselves to God.

Contextually, there's a passage that proclaims Christ's deity, but when you pick up a modern translation it says we stand before the judgment seat of God because we give account of ourselves to God.

So that contextually in that passage, you do not have a proclamation of Christ's deity that we find in the

King James Version. Matthew 19, 17, where the rich young ruler comes to Jesus and he says, good master, and Jesus says, why callest thou me good?

There's none good but one, and that's God. A clear statement of Christ's deity because Christ is saying there's none good but God, and since I am good,

I must be God. Modern translations there in that passage render it as, why do you ask me about what is good?

So in Matthew 19, 17, we have a clear proclamation of Christ's deity in the

King James Version that we do not have in the New American Standard or the New International Version.

And then another verse we could put in this same category would be Revelation 1, 8 through 11, where in verse 8, the

Almighty God says, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

And in verse 11, Jesus is speaking and he says, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

Contextually, there's a passage that proclaims Christ's deity. But in modern translations, when you get to verse 11, it doesn't say,

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. So here's another passage where the deity of Christ is proclaimed in the

King James Version where it's not proclaimed in the NIV or New American Standard. Now a second category would be passages that contextually proclaim

Christ's deity in the King James Bible that have been mistakenly labeled as not proclaiming his deity or as being ambiguous, when in fact they do proclaim his deity and it proclaims it strongly.

And here I'm thinking of Titus 2, 13, and I hope that we have time to discuss that verse because in the

King James Bible, that's a verse that proclaims the deity of Christ. Possibly 2 Peter 1, 1,

Colossians 2, 9. For some reason, you seem to think that that's ambiguous. And here's a passage that says,

Christ is the fullness of the Godhead bodily. That word Godhead means three persons in one

God. So that's saying in Christ, you find in bodily form the Trinity. That's a strong statement on the deity of Christ.

Philippians 2, 6, where almost all translations say that Christ was in the form of God.

I think the NIV says was by very nature God. But the next phrase in the King James Bible is consistent.

Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

That's a strong proclamation that Christ recognized as he is the equality with the

Father. But yet modern translations render that as thought equality with God, not a thing to be grasped.

And even 1 Peter 3, 15, where we find when we run the cross references, that Jesus Christ is called

Lord God. So here are passages that still proclaim the deity of Christ in the Authorized Version.

A third category would be passages that do not proclaim Christ's deity in the

King James Version because doctrinally these are not passages for the deity of Christ.

And when we try to make them into passages concerning the deity of Christ, then we end up developing a doctrinal problem.

And there are two passages that come to my mind here. John 1, 18 would be one, where we're told in the

King James Bible that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son. And the

New American Standard Version translates that as the only begotten God. And to me that really smacks of Gnosticism.

That's the same rendering we find in the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation. And I really cannot under -emphasize this enough, that if we translate

John 1, 18 as Christ being an only begotten God, then that opens the door to be able to redefine other verses dealing with the deity of Christ.

Like John 20, 28, where Thomas says, My Lord and my God. Or one could simply say, instead of this being the

God, this is the unbegotten God, instead what we find here in John 1, 18 is a begotten

God. So when you go to another passage, they reinterpret it, kind of like the Jehovah's Witnesses do, with saying, well

Jesus is not the almighty God, he is a mighty God. And so I think that that causes some confusion.

Same way with Romans 9, 5, where a placement of a comma really kind of attacks the subordination of Jesus Christ.

And then finally, there are categories where we find the divine name given. And I think in your book you call this the expansion of piety theory, and you give about 23 examples.

Really there are about 230. And here we're talking about where you find the divine name, instead of it saying the

Lord Jesus Christ, it may be rendered as Christ or Jesus. And on the offset that may sound minor, but whenever we look at those passages historically and theologically, we find that it has some significance.

For example, 1 John 1, 7, where it says, if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his

Son, cleanses us from all sin. Modern translations render that as the blood of Jesus, his

Son. Now we don't see much difference. Jesus is Jesus Christ. But since John was writing this to confront

Gnosticism, when we look at it historically, it does make a difference. Because the

Gnostics taught this dual identity of Christ, that he was Jesus and the

Christ, that the Jesus was the physical, and that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary, and at his baptism he became the

Christ. And then of course on his crucifixion, the Gnostics said that the Christ left, so that the

Jesus died, the Jesus shed his blood, and the Jesus was buried, and then the Christ rose.

If John had written the blood of Jesus, he would have been writing something that the

Gnostics would have agreed with. But to say the blood of Jesus Christ, that was a direct assault on their doctrine.

So when we look at it that way, I think that we find that the King James Version, when we consider all of these things, that the

King James Bible, both quantitatively and qualitatively, presents the deity of Christ stronger than the

New American Standard, or the New International Version. As I said, we go back over this, we've got five verses where the

King James Bible proclaims the deity of Christ, that modern translations do not, 1

Timothy 3 .16, 1 John 5 .7, Romans 14, Matthew 19 .17,

Revelation 1 .8 -11. Then you have five other passages where the King James still proclaims the deity of Christ, Titus 2 .13,

2 Peter 1 .1, Colossians 2 .9, Philippians 2 .6, 1 Peter 3 .15.

Here are ten passages of scripture on the deity of Christ, and the New American Standard, the

New International Version, only proclaims Christ's deity in maybe five of those. Then you deal with verses such as John 1 .18

and Romans 9 .5, where we end up developing a false doctrine by trying to force those into statements about the deity of Christ.

And then when you consider that in light of the hundreds of times that the name of Christ is diminished a little, and the doctrinal significance that can have, we see over and over again that the

King James Bible does in fact make a stronger proclamation of Christ's deity. So with that,

James, I'll turn it back over to you. Okay, thank you very much, Dr. Holland, and we'll go ahead and take our first break, and be right back with my presentation on the same subject.

Stick with us. Welcome back to The Dividing Line. My name is

James White. We're having a debate today on the issue of the deity of Christ in the King James Version and the modern translations.

We will be taking your calls next week. I have Dr. Thomas Holland on hold, and hopefully he can hear me just fine while I am going to present my position now in regards to this particular issue.

And I want to thank Dr. Holland for presenting an excellent case, and hopefully we'll have the opportunity the rest of this hour and next week to cover each one of the passages that has been presented.

Dr. Holland made reference to the eighth chapter of my book, The King James Only Controversy, in which

I present a chart on page 197 that compares the NIV, the

NASB, and the King James Version on key passages in regards to the deity of Christ. These are primarily passages that use the term

Theos, or God, of Christ. They were John 1 .1, John 1 .18, John 20 .28,

Acts 20 .28, Romans 9 .5, Philippians 2 .5 -6, Colossians 1 .15

-17, Colossians 2 .9, 1 Timothy 3 .16, Titus 2 .13,

Hebrews 1 .8, and 2 Peter 1 .1. Obviously, none of us believe that these are the only passages that teach the deity of Christ.

There are many others that do as well. Some of those Dr. Holland has brought up, and I will respond to them as time allows.

But what I presented in that particular chart is something that any individual who does a lot of dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, dealing with the

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, would be aware of. And that is that on these key passages, the

NIV and the NASB are more clear on these particular issues than the King James is.

Now, specifically, I indicated that the King James Version does not contain the reference at John 1 .18.

Dr. Holland made reference to that. He indicated that he feels that the use of that term there, the only

God, or the only Son who is God, or various other translations of that phrase, monoghanes theos, he indicated smacks of Gnosticism, and in fact presents a false doctrine.

I think that is based upon a misunderstanding of what monoghanes means. It means unique. And specifically in John 1 .18,

and we presented this a couple of weeks ago, we have there the clear statement that it is the unique God, Jesus Christ, who has revealed the

Father. Therefore, all the Old Testament theophanies, the revelation of the Father by the Son, these are all references to the

Deity of Christ. That reference is not found in the King James Version of the Bible. I think it is one of the strongest and clearest presentations of the

Deity of Christ in the New Testament, and it certainly has nothing to do with Gnosticism, because you look through the

Nag Hammadi Library, and in the Nag Hammadi Library, you'll find that they liked the phrase, the only begotten

Son. They never used the phrase, the only begotten God. So, that is a particularly important passage.

He also mentioned Romans 9 .5, which I have in my chart as being ambiguous in both the

NASB and the King James Version of the Bible. The New King James Version of the

Bible, also using the same text as the King James translators used, in Romans 9 .5

says, "...of whom are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is overall the eternally blessed

God. Amen." The NIV, likewise, renders it in a very clear way, indicating the

Deity of Christ in this particular passage. And I hope that Dr. Holland and I can wrestle with that particular passage.

I do not believe it is a matter of simply where you place a comma. I believe the early Christians were very clear in their understanding of this passage, and I believe there are tremendously compelling arguments to force us to the conclusion that Romans 9 .5

is a reference to the Deity of Christ. In Philippians 2 .5 -6, again, a very excellent passage on the

Deity of Christ. I indicated that the NIV was the most clear, the NASB was clear, and the KJV was the least clear, primarily due to the archaic phraseology and translation used by the

King James translators. Not that there is a textual variant there, but some of the translation as robbery and things like that does not communicate with modern readers in such a way as to clearly testify of the

Deity of Christ in that place. Then in Colossians 2 .9, I indicated that both the NIV and the

NASB are clear in referring to the Deity, the fullness of Deity dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form.

The reason I said the King James Version is ambiguous in its presentation there is because it does use the term

Godhead. Now, Dr. Holland indicated that Godhead meant three persons and one

God. Well, that may be how you understand that particular English word, but the problem is the King James Version uses the term

Godhead in two places, in Romans 1 .20 and in Colossians 2 .9. The problem is the underlying

Greek term that it's translating in those two places are two different words. In Colossians 2 .9,

it's theatetos, which is a very strong Greek word referring to that which makes God, God.

It is Deity itself, which is why it's translated that way in both the NIV and the NASB. In Romans 1 .20,

however, it's theates, which is a different term which refers to divine characteristics or divine nature.

By translating both Greek terms by the one English word, you have ambiguity introduced into the text.

You have ambiguity introduced in regards to two different words that are being used in two different ways.

The King James fails many times at this point because of the fact that the Gospels were translated by one committee, the

Epistles by someone else, and the final editing did not harmonize the renderings of various terms the way we can harmonize them today.

with a little better technology available to us to do so. And so I indicated that the

King James Version is somewhat ambiguous at Colossians 2 .9, not that it denies the Deity of Christ, but that it is clear to emphasize that in Colossians 2 .9,

it is in Jesus Christ that the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

That indeed was a direct slap at the Gnostics and at their particular beliefs concerning who

Christ was. Then I indicated that in 1 Timothy 3 .16, the reference in the

KJV is clear. The reference does not exist in the NAV and NASV. This is due to the fact that the

Greek texts from which the modern translations are taken read Has, which means

He Who, rather than Theos, which means God. I would simply point out in passing that in my book

I discuss very clearly why there is a textual variant there, why the term

Theos should be taken seriously, and I would just note that in any modern Greek text, you have that reading given in the endnotes.

You won't find that in your Textus Receptus, in your TR, which gives you no variant readings. And very rarely in any

King James Version of the Bible will you find textual notes anymore, they were a part of the original, that would indicate that this is a variant reading and that you could see that the word

God, or He Who, was found in various manuscripts. So, I listed on page 197 of my book, 1

Timothy 3 .16, as a clear reference in the KJV, but absent in the NAV and NASV. And then

I did list, in both Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1, the ambiguous rendering of the

King James Version of the Bible. In those passages, you have reference to our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

In the King James Version, it's our Great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ, which is exactly how the

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses renders it. Please, however, do not get the idea that whenever I mention the

NWT, I'm trying to say that the King James Version is guilty by association. The King James translators translated before they had a knowledge of what's known as Granville Sharpe's Rule, which would indicate to us that these passages should be translated as our

God and Savior in 2 Peter 1 .1 and our Great God and Savior in Titus 2 .13. They were not aware of this feature of Koine Greek, they were instead much more familiar with the

Latinized forms, with the Latin language, and they translated according to what was available to them.

Now, the problem with that is, of course, the New World Translation should be held culpable for mistranslating the

Granville Sharpe's Rule because it was translated after that feature of Koine Greek was recognized, and they translate the

Granville Sharpe's Rule correctly three out of four times in 2 Peter itself. So, they know of the

Rule, and the New World translators are specifically attempting to hide the Deity of Christ. There is malice aforethought, you might say, in regards to why they do this.

There was no malice aforethought in the King James Version of the Bible at those particular passages. So, on these key issues, you have ambiguity a total of four times, a lack of clarity once, and absence once in these key passages that are used to demonstrate the

Deity of Christ. I remember very clearly attempting to discuss the Deity of Christ with some Mormon missionaries once, and I opened up a

Greek text with me, and to my chagrin, I discovered it was the Textus Receptus, rather than the modern text, and I wasn't able to share with those individuals that particular point because it wasn't there.

The reading simply wasn't found in what I had in front of me, and hence it's not found in the King James Version or the

New King James Version of the Bible as well. Now, in regards to some of the passages that Dr.

Holland presented, I would just make some brief comments. First of all, I've already mentioned 1

Timothy 3 .16, a passage that I think has good evidence that God is a good reading there, and I mentioned that in my book.

1 John 5 .7 is a passage that almost every scholar that I'm familiar with recognizes is a later addition to the text.

It is not found in any Greek manuscripts for the first thousand years. There are possible allusions to it in maybe one or two or three early church fathers, but the simple fact of the matter is, even

Dean Burgon, who is frequently cited by King James -only advocates as one of the greatest scholars of the past century, recognized that if 1

John 5 .7 is allowed into the text of the New Testament, the entire science of textual criticism should be thrown out.

If that particular reference is brought into the text of the New Testament, then if we're consistent and use the same standards for many other textual references in the

New Testament, the entire character of the entire New Testament would have to be changed.

In other words, if any reference that has just simply a few allusions and some early fathers presence in some

Latin texts but nothing in the Greek manuscript tradition until the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries is allowed to be a part of the text, then there's a whole bunch of other passages that likewise on the same logical basis need to be inserted into the text.

They're not in the TR, they're not in the King James version of the Bible. I don't know of any person who supports the

Kamiohonium, 1 John 5 .7, that also is consistent in saying that all these other readings that have no better manuscript evidence than the

Kamiohonium need to be put into the TR. I don't know anybody who's consistent at that point. And so I would say that 1

John 5 .7, which by the way, most of your well -trained Jehovah's Witnesses are ready to pounce on, to demonstrate was a later edition and so on and so forth, that 1

John 5 .7 is not exactly a passage that would want to be used in any particular situation demonstrating the deity of Christ.

Now, Romans 14, 10 through 12, the modern translations use the term God rather than Christ.

However, I don't think that that change whatsoever changes the testimony to the deity of Christ that is found there, because the same passage from Isaiah is quoted there that Paul quotes of Jesus Christ in Philippians chapter 2.

The person is still being talked about as Christ there and the fact that the New Testament writers could easily move back and forth between the terms

God and Christ is itself testimony of what they believed about who Jesus Christ was.

Instead, I think what we have taking place, as Dr. Metzger mentions in his textual commentary, is a parallel harmonization with 2

Corinthians 5 .10 which in all modern translations refers to the judgment seat of Christ and therefore there is no effort on the part of modern translations to somehow downplay that particular emphasis.

In Matthew chapter 19 verse 17, Dr. Holland mentioned the idea that here, why do you ask me concerning what is good?

There is none good but God alone. Actually, in the NASB and the NIV, Mark 10 .18 says, why do you call me good?

This is another example where later scribes attempted to parallel the synoptic gospels with one another and to make them say the same things.

So that reference to why do you call me good is found in the modern translations in Mark chapter 10 verse 18 as well.

And then in Revelation chapter 1 verses 8 through 11, the reference made there by Dr. Holland is not even found in the majority text.

It is found in the minority of Revelation texts and of course, I don't think that again, that's a textual variant issue that we could deal with as we get together and talk about it.

Now, one that was very interesting to me was 1 Peter chapter 3 verse 15. In 1

Peter 3 .15 I believe what Dr. Holland is referring to is that in the

King James Version of the Bible you have the phrase, Lord God. 1 Peter 3 .15

and I don't have time, unfortunately, right now to really go into depth on it, but 1 Peter 3 .15 is an excellent passage for demonstrating the deity of Christ even in the

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because as it reads in the New King James, it specifically says but sanctify the

Lord God in your hearts and always be ready to give a defense. But the modern translations say sanctify

Christ as Lord in your hearts. When you look at the Old Testament background that particular command is to sanctify

Jehovah as holy. So here is a place where Peter takes an

Old Testament reference about sanctifying Yahweh which in the

Old Testament is Kurios as it was rendered in the Greek Septuagint. And here he specifically refers to Yahweh as Christ in the modern translations and in the

New World Translation, this is actually a reference that you can use in demonstrating the deity of Christ that is not to be found in the

King James Version of the Bible. So I would actually turn that around and say that this passage is a much stronger proof text in the modern text than it is in the specific assertion of the

King James Version of the Bible. Finally, and in closing since I have approximately 50 seconds left, the passages that Dr.

Holland was referring to in regards to what I call the expansion of piety, that is in a modern translation it might say

Jesus Christ, but in the King James it might say the Lord Jesus Christ. This expansion of titles.

I just point out that in the Gospels especially in the Synoptics most of the time

Jesus is just simply Jesus. And if that was enough for the Gospel writers then

I don't think expanding titles can in any way shape or form be said to provide a stronger reference to the deity of Christ than what is found even in the

King James Version of the Bible where you'll find frequently just that one single name being used in regards to the person of the

Lord Jesus Christ. That's my time. We have one more break coming up and Dr.

Holland and I will now discuss some of these things. Right after this break stay with us. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name is James White. We're not taking phone calls today. We are having a debate between myself and Dr.

Thomas Holland. You've now heard the two presentations and I want to hopefully make sure

I suppose I should have had our call screener check this. You heard what I had to say, right Dr. Holland? I heard it all.

And I have to say this too. This is one of the joys of live radio.

I've been fighting a cold all this week and I could fill up my voice and I was so worried that I'd be coughing in the middle of my presentation and you know how it is when you get a head cold.

I really was not anticipating my dog to start barking. So I apologize to Phoenix, but he's a good dog.

No problem about that at all. I did a radio show recently and I was live on the air someplace and my dog outside knocked a section of fencing over and went insane.

So it happens. When it's live radio that's the way it works. Well, we have looked at a lot of passages and unless somebody was taking notes they've probably completely and totally lost most of what in the world we were saying.

I hope they can roll the tape back or listen on the internet or whatever it is and catch things over and over again.

At least the first 15 minutes. No, we'll make sure everything's there and they need to at least listen to the first 15 and the second 15.

So they can get the whole idea. Where would you like to start? Since you're the guest, I'll give you the first choice there and then maybe we can go back and forth and look at some of these particular passages.

I do want to look at John 1 .18. I know you talked about it a couple of weeks ago and let me say in preference to that in response to your statement, you've got all these references in your book and you do mention about one passage being a little more ambiguous or one translation being a little ambiguous and I think that is relative.

Definitely though when we look at those passages, we'll still see the deity of Christ presented in the

King James Version. And in those passages, those five that you gave there at the end, when you compare it with a modern translation, the deity of Christ is not presented there.

So again, I think we have a stronger statement on the quality and quantity of the evidence.

But one of the verses that's very important is John 1 .18 and there's really two aspects on here, so I hope we can deal with both of these separately.

The translation of Monogenes and then should it be Eos, Son, or Theos, God.

And I should tell the listener that James and I will pronounce Greek differently. Some of that has to do with the schools you go to, but I have a, my grandfather is

Greek and I tend to use a modern Greek pronunciation but it's the same word. Alrighty.

Well, substantially I would say that the strongest issue in regards to John 1 .18

is not the theology that we try to read into it. I believe that there is a perfectly orthodox and in fact very strong understanding of John 1 .18

that can be gathered from the use of the term Monogenes Theos. But the issue is how it reads, and specifically the fact that the two most ancient papyri manuscripts of the

Gospel of John, P66 and P75, which were, I think you'd admit, unknown to Dean Burgon and to people until this century, both have that reading.

The two earliest manuscripts that we have. And so that in and of itself is a very strong argument that we need to allow the phrase to stand as it is, recognizing that the phrase

Monogenes Theos is found in other places in the Gospel of John, like John 3 .16,

and hence the tendency amongst scribes is to use the normal phrase or the phrase that's used repetitively and to replace difficult phrases rather than the other way around.

And so I would say that the textual evidence strongly favors the reading that is found in the modern

Greek text and the modern translations, and that there's a perfectly orthodox understanding of that particular assertion.

I would like to look at the evidence for that reading because I do disagree, as you assumed

I would, on the papyrus there. But before we get to that, I think it's important to understand monogenes.

And a couple weeks ago you stated and you stated again today that that word means unique or one of a kind.

And let me make this statement as clearly as I can. Monogenes never means unique or one of a kind in the sense of special apart from birth or procreation.

The only way that monogenes can mean unique is because an only child is unique or an only child is one of a kind.

But if we were going to say that you know this is a this painting is really unique or this person is very special, he's one of a kind, the

Greek word that would be used there would be monadekos, not monogenes.

Monogenes always means a birth or procreation. And I know you pointed out a couple of weeks ago that we have this word divided mono meaning singular or one of a kind, and that genes comes from genos, is that correct?

Yeah, genos. Okay, again pronunciation. Right, that's fine. And I think you said there that genos means unique.

Kind or type. Kind or type. What's interesting is that the word genos, again Thayer bears this out as well, is used 21 times in the

Greek New Testament. And out of that 21 times, not one time does the King James Bible, does the

New American Standard, does the New International Version ever translate this as one of a kind or uniqueness.

I didn't say it did, I said kind or type. Okay, but what it has, listen how it is defined. It's translated as kind, meaning a descendant or nation, or kindred, or offspring, or stock of Abraham.

In Mark 7, 26, the NIV translates it as born. In Acts 4, 36, the

New American Standard translates it as birth. Monogenes, and does genes, always has a connection with birth.

And so when you get mono, one singular, genes, of a kind, birth, begotten, that's the concept, not uniqueness in and of itself.

And when you look at the New American Standard Version here, they understood that, because they translate this as only begotten.

The problem has to do then with what the word follows. Well, I would strongly disagree. Loanidas, Greek English lexicon in the

New Testament, based on semantic domains, Newman and Needis, a translator's handbook on the Gospel of John, Mulligan's, the vocabulary of the

Greek New Testament, all refer to this particular use of the term. And of course, any term has to be defined within the context it's being used.

It would seem that if you want to emphasize that monogenes has to have the idea of generation or birth in it, then the phrase only begotten son would have the exact same meaning that Arians attempted to attach to it, and that is the concept of a birth or begettal of Christ, or at least a beginning point of the relationship of sonship between He and the

Father. So I don't think that would be the issue. The issue would be when you use monogenes, what are you using it with?

And the subject is used with Israel. Well, was Israel begotten by God? Or is that term begotten being used in a much broader sense that can be understood in the context in which it's being used?

In John 1 .18, the reason for the use of monogenes is because of the fact that the son here is being described, the logos is being described as the one who is next to the

Father's heart, who is close to the Father. Why? Because He reveals Him. He makes

Him known. This is the same assertion that's being made in John 1 .1. And so the use of that term talks to the deity of Christ and to the fact that He is the only one who can truly exegete,

He is the only one who can truly explain, perfectly reveal the Father to us.

And so in context, I don't think that a person who's translating monogenes contextually, recognizing its use in other passages, recognizing its septuagint background, would come to the conclusion that what this means is

John is somehow here violating everything the Jewish person would ever believe in regards to saying that this is a secondary

God who was created at a point in time. I don't think that anyone could bear that type of an assertion at all.

And certainly, since you made mention of it, are you saying that this is a corruption that had

Gnosticism in the background, since you had brought up Gnosticism? Well, I certainly think it's max of Gnosticism, and I'll give some examples of that.

But those sources that you give as far as how the word monogenes can be translated meaning unique, again, if you look at it, in its context, it's unique as an only child is unique.

Is Israel an only child? They are the descendant. They consider God as their father.

So you do have that idea of birth, that offspring, and that's the concept of the word, both in the form monogenes, how it's used in the

New Testament, and also with Gnos, and how it's used in the

New Testament. So when Israel is called monogenes, we understand that as simply being sort of alliterative, or allegorical, they considered

God their father, so on and so forth. So you recognize that it doesn't always mean literal parentage. No, it does not mean an idea of special or uniqueness.

It has to do with the begetting, a certain generation, or a nation, in that sense, because you're dealing with a descendant.

So you're saying it could never be used to refer to a unique one? It never is used that way. No Greek would ever use monogenes in that sense.

He would use it in the eye sense of procreation. So you're saying Moulton Milligan and those others, they're wrong in their citations about that?

I'm thinking that you probably have misapplied their understanding of it, but I don't believe that I mean, when you look at that verse, again, the

Greek word that's going to be for special or one of a kind is monadekos, not this idea.

Unless there is a relationship involved, and that relationship is involved here. But let's go to that second part.

Very quickly, because I'd like to get to another passage as well. The second part being, what, theos?

Theos. And you said John would never write that, and I agree, he never would. He wrote monogenes eos.

No, I never said John would never write that. I said John did write that, and that the earliest manuscripts of the

Gospel of John you will admit, all the earliest manuscripts read that way, correct? No. Which one is earlier?

I would say, okay, when we deal with those earliest ones, such as P66, there's a total lack of consistency in saying, because, you know, that's a mixed text, and so when it agrees with the

Alexandrian line of manuscript then we're free to translate it or use it. But whenever we find those horrible traditional text readings in there that agree with the

King James Bible, those somehow are put on the sideburner. But coming does P66 read that way?

I agree that it does read that way. Does P75 read that way? Yes. Sinaiticus? Yes. Vaticanus?

Yes. So what manuscript do you have that is earlier than any of those in date that reads huios?

Well, as I said, those would agree with it because of what I feel is a corruption that has crept into the text.

And I'm not the only one who feels that way. One of the individuals who sat on the committee for the

United Bible Society text was Dr. Alan Whitcron. And he wrote a dissenting viewpoint on this, and it found its way in textual commentary, and he wrote, quote, "...it

is doubtful that the author," referring to John, "...would have written monogenes huios, which may be a primitive transcriptional error in the

Alexandrian tradition." So therefore, if that is an early transcribal error in the

Alexandrian tradition, we would expect therefore Alexandrian type manuscripts to continue that reading.

Okay, but Dr. Alan, wait a minute, that's in Metzger's commentary, we can all see that the majority of the committee disagreed, but you indicated a few seconds ago, at least,

I thought I heard you say, that the earliest manuscripts don't read this way. No, I didn't say that.

You asked me if we had any early the earliest, let's be careful though, the earliest Greek manuscripts coming out of Egypt and supporting the

Alexandrian line read this way. And those are the earliest manuscripts we have, correct? Correct, because of where they came from.

Okay, alright, let's in just a few, I think we have just a couple moments left,

I wanted to touch on, before we finished up today, a passage I wanted to raise. We looked at John 118 quite some time.

Romans chapter 9, verse 5. You seemingly indicated that this is not only, this is just an issue of a placement of a comma on your website.

You have an article in which you assert that if it is translated as it is in the New King James version of the

NIV, where it is a clear assertion of the deity of Christ, this introduces false doctrine because it makes

Christ superior to the Father. Is that your argumentation? Because it diminishes the subordination of Jesus Christ, right?

Well, so, in the other passages in the Bible where Jesus Christ is the creator of all things, John 1, 3,

Colossians chapter 1, why doesn't that diminish the same thing? Why does that not mean that He is the creator of the

Father? Because Jesus Christ did not create the Father. I would agree. I would agree a thousand percent.

So why in Romans 9, 5, when it says He is over all, why do we assume that the Father has anything to do with that? Because the text, if we read it and we say that Jesus Christ is over all, and then say

God bless forever, we have a true statement, Jesus Christ is over all. He's going to come back as King of kings and Lord of lords.

But whenever we say that Jesus Christ is God over all, then we have a reference that can indicate that Jesus Christ is

God over the Father. And when we have that... Dr. Holland, there's no more reason to think that than to think that Colossians 1, 15 because if we say

He's the creator of all things... When you read that, when you read it for exactly what it says, that Christ is God over all, then you have...

How about the New King James? Jesus Christ refers to the Father as His God. Yes, He does.

And the Father even refers to Him that way. Therefore God even thy God. So it is proper for the

Son to refer to the Father as His God. That's something we find.

But whenever we have this verse where it can be turned around, where we have the Father saying that the

Son could be called His God, that He's God over all, I think that we have a misapplication.

And it is over the entrance of a comma because, as you know, there's no punctuation in the earliest manuscripts that we have.

But the term Father, A, is not in the context. That's not a part of the reference. There's no reason to believe the translator, who is overall

God -blessed forever, as the New King James version does, would in any way endanger the relationship with the

Father and the Son. Would you at least agree that the rendering of the New King James version, Christ came who is overall

God -blessed forever, is superior in reference to the Deity of Christ than the

King James of this particular passage? No. Because I think that it disagrees with the subordination of Jesus Christ.

And I do not believe that that passage is given for the doctrinal statement concerning the Deity of Christ. You have to move the punctuation.

When we look at this thing historically, like Christostom, when he quotes this passage in 407

A .D., in his commentary, he quotes it as though it renders in the King James version, and he makes no allusion, no statement to the

Deity of Christ whatsoever in that passage. However, actually, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theodorus, Augustine, Jerome, Silo of Alexandria, all quoted it and understood it as referring to the

Deity of Christ. Even the passage you cite on your webpage, when it goes on from there, makes the clear application of the

Deity of Christ based upon Romans 9 -5. And that is the view of Calvin, Haldane, Stuart, Hodge, Lydden, Shedd, Zahn, Gifford, I could go on and on and on.

And we could equally make a list saying that it doesn't. I don't believe you could.

But, we do agree that there is no punctuation in the earliest manuscripts. And we would have to agree that this is an argument based not upon the wording as much as it is upon where we are going to place our punctuation.

And we find, and Metzgrieben points this out, we have about 26 of the

Greek manuscripts that have, that do have punctuation in later cursive manuscripts that agree wholeheartedly with the rendering that we find in the authorized version.

Which are much later translations. That's quite true. However, I would just point everyone both to the commentary on the

Epistle of Romans by Douglas Moo, a massive work. We're out of time. Look at what Moo has to say at that particular point.

Next week we take your phone calls here on The Dividing Line. Be with us. Thank you Dr. Holland for being with us.

You're welcome. Today we are going to be taking phone calls for Dr.

Holland and myself. I'll bring him online in just a moment. So, let's go to the phone line and bring Dr. Holland online.

Hello Dr. Holland, are you there? Hi Dr. White, how are you doing today? I'm doing just fine. I understand it's cold back where you are.

Up in Ohio we're expecting a few more inches of snow even tonight. Snow, could you define that term for us?

The opposite of the sunshine, you all have come that way. Yeah, I've heard, what's it supposed to be today? 78, 80, something like that,

Rich? Sorry, isn't that one of the cardinal sins?

Arrogance, pride, boasting, something like that. This is the time of year we like to call our relatives back in the

Midwest and go, So, you know, it's snowing back there and it's been doing that for a long time now.

It's not here. Which is maybe why half of all of your neighbors have moved out here now. Well, I appreciate that.

My uncle lives in Scottsdale, so I do hear about it from time to time. Unfortunately, the church that I pastor is up here in central

Ohio and it's got to be where the Lord wants you. You couldn't convince all of them to do a mass exodus type thing, huh?

Well, maybe when the Lord returns. Let's not get into that now. Okay.

Last week we started talking about the subject of the deity of Christ and the testimony to that divine truth found in,

I hope you would agree, in all the versions of the Bible we're talking about, we weren't talking about the New World Translation or some ultra -liberal type of translation, like what

I call the Oxford Monstrosity, the gender -neutral he -she -it type

God inclusive silliness like that. But in the Bibles that the people of God use, we were looking at the subject of the deity of Christ and we both made some statements.

Unfortunately, first of all, I need to start off with a correction and that is that when we were talking about John 1 .18,

I brought up the issue of the use of monogamies in regards to Israel. That's not monogamies. That is actually prototokos, or in the

Hebrew language, bekor, meaning firstborn. And so I was in error about that.

But I wanted to clarify one thing on that. I wanted to spend just a minute or two finishing up on Romans 9 -5 because if you may have heard, we got cut off in the middle of that one by the end of the hour, which is amazingly unflexible in regards to what we can and cannot do.

And then we can continue the conversation from there and hopefully get our callers involved at locally here, 508 -0960 or hey, even back there in Ohio.

They can call 1 -888 -TALK -960 and they'd get through too. We have a fellow who calls almost every week from New York.

Unfortunately, we just can't hear you right now. Well, I know, but they might have a question they could ask you.

You know, something along those lines. But basically, the question I had to ask you on monogamase is, as I recall in reviewing the program, you had emphasized a couple of times, and I wanted to clarify what you meant by it, that monogamase is never used outside of a relationship context, and I think what you were saying is in the

New Testament. Am I correct at that point? Because in looking at monogamase this week,

Moulton & Milligan lists a number of usages in papyri that have nothing to do with relationship. There's passages in the

Septuagint where monogamase, there's no relationship whatsoever indicated whatsoever. So my assumption is what you were saying is that in the

New Testament the term monogamase always has something to do with relationship. Is that a proper understanding?

Well, I haven't seen all the papyrus and stuff, so some of that might be interpretive on how it's used, but certainly within the confines of the

New Testament. I mean, if we put aside the fact that the Greek word for unique is not monogamase, but is monodakos, and if we even forget the fact that of the 21 times that genos is used in the

New Testament, that it deals with descendants or offspring, we still have nine times that monogamase is used in the

New Testament. And I'd encourage the listener, because real briefly here, does monogamase mean one -of -a -kind, unique, or does it, in the sense of special, or does it have relationship with children, offspring, and procreation?

And the first time that it's used in the New Testament is in Luke 7 -12, where we're told that the monogamese son of his mother, and then in Luke 8 -42, where it says, for he had one monogamese daughter, and then in Luke 9 -38, it says of the father who had the demonic son that he is mine monogamese.

And then in John 1 -14, which is just four verses above the verse in question here, it says that as of the monogamese of the father, and then of course

John 3 -16, his monogamese son, that whosoever believeth in him. And John 3 -18, of the monogamese of son of God.

And Hebrews 11 -17, in reference to Abraham and his son Isaac, offered up his monogamese.

And then finally in 1 John 4 -9, where it says God sent his monogamese son. So every time we find that the

Holy Spirit inspires a writer to use the word monogamese, he uses it in connection with a parent and their child.

Never as this special unique quality of an individual apart from a relationship of parents.

And of course I think that in John 1 -18, you have monogamese eos, only begotten son. And certainly the

New American Standard Version, which is one of the three translations that we were discussing, translates this as only begotten as well.

So you would agree then, the answer to my question is yes, you're talking about the New Testament. By the way, for you, the

Multimilligan references to those papyri are on pages 4 -16, 4 -17, where he specifically says monogamese is literally used as literally one of a kind, only unique, not only begotten, which would be monogenitas and is common in the

Septuagint in this sense. And he gives for example Psalm 21 -21, Psalm 24 -16, and other references like that.

You would just simply say that he, Beasley Murray, pretty much the widest variety of modern scholars,

Murray Harris, and so on and so forth, are in error in what they say about this? Well I would say that that's definitely not how modern

Greeks would use it. It's definitely not how it's used in the New Testament. And their idea really is, and I've looked over some of the references as found in the

Forgotten Trinity that you wrote, some of the references there, I think it's Prestige who says that this means of soul descent, which obviously means the same as far as my understanding, soul descent would mean only begotten.

But when they say about monogenes, when they say it does not mean only begotten, they're applying it to the entire

New Testament. And obviously anyone listening to the verses that we just gave and how the New Testament uses it, it is in direct connection to the only child, or that the only one of that parent, or the only one of that mother and father, such as in Abraham, Isaac, and so it carries that idea with it certainly.

And I think that's a little better than going to some of the liberal sources. Well, I don't know that the ones I was citing were necessarily liberal.

I don't think Beasley -Murray is a liberal source. But the term hryos, meaning son, is used in John, only of Christ, is it not?

In the sense of the Son of God? So the aspect is the

Son of God is, Jesus is uniquely the Son of God, is he not? Right, because he's the only begotten Son of God.

Okay, but that concept of uniqueness is there. I mean, any child who is your only child is your unique child, is he not?

Exactly, and that's what I said about monogamy, that it's always used in connection there in the New Testament and even today.

In the sense of parent, you can use the word unique, but only because that only child is unique, and that's how it's produced.

So if in the context of John 1, 18, as I assert, the relationship between the Father and the

Son, and that is, the Son is the one who is at the Father's side, that is a relationship issue that is specifically presented there, as is the phrase pros tamtheon, with God in John 1, 1.

Since there is the relationship, and since then it is the role of the Logos to reveal the

Father, I still don't understand why you would say that it is impossible to look at John 1, 18 the way that I do, and see in it a very clear reference both to the

Deity of Christ, as well as to the special revelatory nature that he has in revealing the

Father. Are you saying that it's not possible to understand it that way? What I said was that's not how the

Holy Spirit uses it. That's not how modern Greeks would use it. Modern Greeks wouldn't use a lot of the stuff that's in the

New Testament, of course. I don't know if that's the issue. But as far as the heritage of the word and the understanding of the word, that bears importance.

But I think that it's important that we understand that the rendering is not monogenes theos, only begotten God, as we find in the

New American Standard, and the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. And what's interesting, as I'm sure you know,

Dr. White, whenever we go back and we look at those early sources that quote it as only begotten

God in John 1, 18, we're dealing with people who are either Gnostics or associated with Gnostics for a good portion of the time.

Tatian, for example, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Arius himself, all of them quote it as only begotten

God, but whenever the Orthodox Fathers quote this, such as Irenaeus or the

Greek Fathers and all, they quote it as only begotten Son. And the reason for that is because when you come up with this idea that Jesus Christ is the only begotten

God, it is a rendering that truly smacks of Gnosticism. Can you show me any place where a

Gnostic ever used that reading? Well, obviously Gregory Nyssa thought that, because when he writes in his

Defense of Orthodox Christianity, he talks about how the Gnostics refer to Jesus Christ as the monogonist

Theos, only begotten God, and the Father as the unbegotten God. So, in those writings, yes.

And the fact that the followers of Valentinus whenever they quote 1 John, I'm sorry, John 1, 18, they quote it as monogonist

Theos, only begotten God. And whenever you find the Gnostics using this, I think that and you find a defender of the faith, such as Gregory, saying, hey, this is their doctrine.

We certainly have a rendering here that smacks of Gnosticism. And the reason why it's important and let me just add this real fast, is because once we can misunderstand that verse, to say that Christ is a begotten

God, then we can redefine other verses on the deity of Christ. Well, and of course their response to the Gnostic misuse as passage, and of course they cited many passages and misused them, was that the idea, and this is the whole problem that I have with your presentation is that monogonist does not mean created.

It does not mean brought into existence. That is, I think, the whole issue that needs to be raised at that point.

And I think the misuse of scripture is not necessarily a good argument against using it as it's originally written. Now, 508 -0960 508 -0960 is the local number.

If you're out of the area, 1 -888 -TALK -960. If you'd like to join our conversation, ask a question.

Very quickly, Dr. Holland, I didn't get a chance to finish. On Romans 9 -5, you had basically a couple of times identified this as an issue of simply a placement of a comma, and I tried to,

I don't know that the music allowed me to, last week point people to the discussion. It's found in a number of commentaries.

I'm looking specifically at the textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition by Bruce Metzger, pages 460 -461, where there is a list of five reasons why

Romans 9 -5 should be understood in the sense that it is by the

New King James and by the NIV and other modern translations over against the position that you presented.

Without going through all five, or just maybe asking if you've looked over these things, fundamentally the three that are most important to me is that Metzger and numerous others commenting on this passage, a very long line actually, of very solid conservative evangelicals, would point out that, first of all, if this passage is not referring to Jesus Christ as God overall, the participle own is superfluous, it does not need to be there.

This would become the only place in all of Paul's writings where he has a doxology in this form, and in all ancient ascriptions of praise and doxologies, the verb precedes the name of God, here it follows the name of God, which would make this a double unique, a double hapoxlegomena, a double situation where you're having to explain why a passage violates all the other usage, both by the writer as well as by other ancient writers who are writing the same thing, so it makes it doubly hard, and I think that really is important, that's what

I was trying to get out in response to your assertion, this is just a matter of where you place the comma. There's a reason why the

New King James Version, or the NIV, placed the comma where they do, and it has to do with the grammar of the text, and the context of the text in regards to its ancient setting, and in Paul's own writings.

So basically my question quickly is, have you looked through those, because I listed them in the book as well, they're in Metzger's works, they're

Douglas New's new tremendous commentary on Romans, likewise presents the same information, what is your response to those things?

Well I've heard arguments like that before, but I think both of us would recognize that the translation, strictly from a translational position, the translation found in the

King James, the translation found in the New American Standard, the translation found in the NIV, are possible translations of this phrase, and this has been a debate that's been going on for centuries as far as how we understand it, and even those who accept this as a statement of the deity of Christ in Romans 9 .5,

sometimes we'll still have the rendering, they'll read the rendering that's in the King James as a proclamation of the deity of Christ itself.

It's a matter of where we place God, if we place it beforehand or not. So some of that's different, but in fairness to evangelicals,

I think that we would both say that the committee for the New American Standard, which you helped in their revision, were evangelical conservatives, and the rendering in the

New American Standard agrees with the King James rendering here. I'm doing my best to get that so taken care of. But it is part, what

I'm saying here, evangelicals obviously accept the rendering here, and this is a debate that's been going on for some time.

My concern is when we have it as we find it in the New International version, is I think it can play down the subordination of Christ.

But then again, in fairness, there are people who take the rendering as we find it in the King James and think that that's a proclamation of Christ's deity.

Okay, here's, I think, the biggest question of all, and maybe you can answer this for me.

Is there any passage in any modern English version, or in any

English version that preceded the King James version of the Bible that is superior to the

KJV in its demonstration of the deity of Christ? None that I can think of on the demonstration of the deity of Christ as a whole.

Because whenever we look at all those verses, such as modern versions, you remember

I listed five verses that would obviously be found in the KJV that would not be found in modern versions supporting the deity of Christ.

And even old versions before the KJV, some of them have a little different rendering.

But at the same time, I want to say that because I believe in biblical preservation, I think that we have always had the proclamation of Christ's deity proclaimed throughout the centuries just as strongly as we have it in the authorized version.

And let me say this very quickly, too, for the listener. James and I differ strongly on translations and on the

King James issue and all, but that does not mean we differ on the deity of Christ, the virgin birth.

We are brothers in Christ, and I want anyone listening to understand that if we differ here, that's because we differ on this issue, not because we're differing as brothers.

And we can still have fellowship, so that's important to understand. So, maybe if I broaden it just a little bit, is there any passage in any modern

English version, and I'm including the New King James, which utilizes the Textus Receptus as its New Testament text.

Is there any passage in any modern English version that is superior to the King James at all? Or would you say that the

King James is the standard and cannot be improved upon, cannot be eclipsed by the

New King James, or let's put it this way, could we translate the TR better than the

King James has been translated? Well, that's a good question. It's not really the debate that we have at hand, but that's a good question, and my answer would be

I believe that the King James is a standard. I have not seen anything that has definitely replaced it, or that has been superior to it, and I think that we find

God's divine blessing upon it uniquely than what we find with some of the others. Again, that's a different issue.

The issue that we originally debated with, of these three translations, the King James, the New American Standard, New International, which one provides a stronger proclamation on Christ's deity?

And there are a couple other verses I'd like to get to if the callers don't get to. Yeah, 508 -0960.

The reason that I brought that issue up, and you said it's not part of the debate, but I think that for many people it is a part of the debate, because the fact that it seems that if the

King James is taken as the standard fundamentally, in the sense that this is the

English translation of the Bible, then the interpretation of passages would have to be influenced by that beginning presupposition.

So that when we look at Romans 9 -5, or in essence, if you look at any passage where a modern translation, in my opinion, would present a stronger reference to the deity of Christ, if a person takes the

King James as the starting place, then there has to be another reason why that is, if a person, as you have just said, believes in the deity of Christ anyways.

So, I think it does enter in, because it speaks to our starting presuppositions, that indicate something to us.

Right, but the starting point is not the King James version. From our position, the starting point is a belief in biblical preservation, and that an outcome of that for the

English -speaking people would be the authorized version. Okay, but I think it all ends up coming back to the same issue, that, for example, one of the passages that I use in presenting the deity of Christ to people is

John 14 -14. Because in John 14 -14, in the New American Standard, it says, if you ask me anything in my name,

I will do it. And of course, you know, the context of John 14 is Christ's return back to the presence of the

Father, He's sending the Holy Spirit to be with His people. The only way that we could ask anything of Jesus, after He's gone back to the

Father, is by prayer. And so this is one of the passages in the New Testament that refers to prayer to Christ.

I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the King James version does not have that reference. It says if you ask anything in my name,

I will do it. It doesn't say if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. It's a textual variant.

I didn't bring the majority text with me today. I'm not sure whether the majority text has the word me or not.

Possibly you have that there with you, and you could check that. But fundamentally, you mentioned the

New World Translation earlier, and I'm not sure why you mentioned that, because at this point, the New World Translation agrees with the King James, even though it shouldn't, because the word me is in the

Westcott and Hort text. They just simply skipped over and deleted it, which is a clear example of how they are willing to pervert the text, whereas the

King James translators were just translating the text they had in front of them. But when I approach a passage like that and try to share that with someone, the issue of whether it's the

King James or isn't the King James comes up. And I think it's a reference to the deity of Christ.

I think it's a reference of prayer to Christ. But if a person starts with a presupposition that the

King James is the standard, you couldn't possibly see that in the same way. I mean, in other words, we can't discuss the passage per se.

We have to discuss the quote -unquote doctrine of biblical preservation that you're talking about before we can discuss the passage.

So you see what I'm saying, that that's a presupposition. Yeah, I would say that was no more true than someone who believed in biblical inerrancy than someone who did not.

You know, do you just start off with your discussion about biblical inerrancy, or do you just go ahead and assume that the Bible is inerrant, and you go from that position in your evangelism?

And I think that that's what most of us and anyone listening would certainly go at. The reason why I brought up the

New World Translation was because it agrees with the New American Standard Version in its translation of John 1 .18,

both of them saying the only begotten God. But, speaking of the New World Translation... Except there is a difference,

Dr. Holland. One capitalizes, one doesn't. Right, true. I understand that. But both of them still have the same rendering other than the capitalization.

So the Jehovah's Witnesses, that's a little bit bigger issue than that. But certainly there are some other verses dealing with the deity of Christ I would like to talk about.

One of them would be Titus 2 .13. Okay, let's get to Titus 2 .13, but really quickly, because we've got just a couple moments here.

What do you say about John 14 .14? Am I right that that is an issue where that presupposition comes out very clearly?

And I don't know that it is the same as inerrancy, because inerrancy doesn't force me to a particular...

doesn't even force me to a particular Greek text. On my visitation this week, I was talking to a person, and he asked me, when

I pray, do I pray to Jesus? Do I pray to the Father? Do I pray to the Holy Spirit? Who do I pray to? And, you know, that's a good question, but how do you separate the

Trinity? You know, perhaps we might be able to say that there is an order here, and that we pray through Christ to the

Father by means of the Holy Spirit. I guess that's the best theological answer, but I don't know that the insertion of me there strengthens or weakens the doctrine of the deity of Christ.

If you were talking to a Jehovah's Witness and he does not believe that Jesus is a proper object of prayer, you could not show him this reference in the

King James Version of the Bible. I would show him other references. Okay, but if I were to say that this is a place where the

New American Standard provides you a reference to the deity of Christ that King James doesn't, would you at least say that that is true?

I would say that that provides you a place where they're offering prayer in the New American Standard directly to Christ saying me, as opposed to the other.

That might be true. You know, again, I don't see that as a major point. I don't see how that compares with God manifests in the flesh or a misunderstanding of Titus 2 .13

or John 5 .7 or something like that. And I have talked quite a bit to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Usually I don't get into that verse. I go to many other verses that strongly proclaim the deity of Christ. Well, to a

Jehovah's Witness who thinks that the use of the term God is easily explained in the sense of a

God or a mighty God, but not the almighty God demonstrating that Jesus exercises the prerogatives of deity is very important.

So I think that's important, but I think we've come to understand exactly what the position is there. And before we go to Titus 2 .13,

since we've only got, I'd only be able to give you about 35 seconds. I'm going to have to take a break. Let's go ahead and take our break right now and then on the back side we'll look at Titus 2 .13

and we'd like to hear from you at 508 -0960 or if you're out of the area, 1 -888 -TALK -960

Get on board now. Don't do this last minute thing. Here, let's hear from you at 508 -0960.

We'll be right back. And welcome back on this beautiful Saturday afternoon.

We are in the midst of a debate. However, we're missing someone. No, Dr. Holland's still there.

We're missing you. That's right. I think we scared the callers off. That's what happens when you use

Greek on the air. We scared the callers off. Either that or everyone who would call is still getting home from the seminar we just did on Mormonism and they don't have cell phones in the car.

Dennis in Phoenix is driving off the road trying to find a way to get to a phone call.

Nope. You've got to have some passages that you have some questions on and don't think that we're necessarily going to get to that question necessarily within the next 25 some odd minutes from now.

If you wanted to ask it's time to get on the phone and ask us at 508 -0960.

Titus 213 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Savior Jesus Christ. He's back! We have another caller!

Yes. My dog got loose out of the garage is what happened. If you had to get stuck in the garage when it's that cold, you'd want to get loose too.

So we can understand that and that's OK. It's live radio. It happens. Now, that particular passage 2

Peter 1 .1 passages that deal with what is known as Granville Sharpe's construction and the question being which is a clearer testimony of the deity of Christ, whether we say the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Savior Jesus Christ or of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.

Dr. Holland, your comments. Well, a couple of things. First of all you stated last week and you stated in your book that the

King James Version is giving a statement here that is shared with the New World Translation and I don't believe that that's the case.

And so I'd like to look at that. Secondly, because of the Granville Sharpe Rule, I do not believe the King James Bible is in violation of it, ignorantly or not, even though the

Granville Sharpe Rule came after it. I think that it's in agreement with it. I think the problem here is not understanding Greek grammar.

I think it's a lack of understanding the English grammar. I can go over that or if you want to right now, if you like.

Well, certainly. I mean, I think that in both instances and I'm aware that you would assert there's a textual variant in one of the two passages, but in Titus 2 .13

specifically, my assertion, and again I use this as an example as I did John 14 .14

of, I think why a lot of King James only material is incorrect to draw what are in fact incorrect parallels between modern translations and the

NWT in the same way I don't believe it's a correct thing to draw a parallel between the King James and the

NWT because of the fact that the rule was discovered after the time of the translation of the King James and the

New World Translators did know about it. They had a purpose not to use it and therefore there is no parallel between the two.

So I'd like to clarify why I brought those issues out was to demonstrate that just because two passages, two translations sound similar or even read similarly does not mean that they shared the same type of translators or purposes in translation.

So I want to bring that out. The King James translators did believe in the deity of Christ. In fact, I think you'd agree with me that in those days if you didn't, it was a good way to get yourself burned at the stake.

There was a Baptist who was burned in London in 1611 the same year that the version came out. So that just clarifies that.

Ultimately, I guess the reason I brought it up and this is what you can address is I think that you can look at the

King James translation and see this as a reference to the deity of Christ. You just can't see it as clearly and there is an unnecessary insertion of a word following more

Latin grammar than it is Greek grammar that allows as it is in the New World Translation the person who doesn't want to believe in the deity of Christ to separate our

Great God from our Savior Jesus Christ. And my assertion is grammatically there is no separation between the phrase

Great God or God in 2 Peter 1 .1 and Savior. Both terms are referring to one person.

I agree with you you can read the King James that way and if you go back to the original grammar that's what's meant.

But, by the translation it does not give as clear a testimony as in, for example the

New King James which is translating the same text. Okay, well let me respond to both of those. First of all, thank you because one, you've done a wonderful job in explaining

Granville Sharp on the radio and also in your book. And I don't disagree with the Granville Sharp rule.

And I'm glad to hear you say that one can look at Titus 2 .13 in the authorized version and get the deity of Christ because that is clearly what is being proclaimed here.

The problem I had is whenever you say that through no fault of their own that the King James translators have violated the

Granville Sharp rule. And as you know, the Granville Sharp rule is saying you have these two nouns and they're both referring to the same person.

Of course, there's a reason for that and we can get into that. But we both agree on it. We've scared everybody off already. But, my point is whenever you have in English the conjunction and followed by the possessive our that the context will determine if it's talking about two individuals or if it's talking about two aspects of the same individual.

For example, we could say in English that Dr. Holland is a supporter of the authorized version and our guest today.

Well, those are two aspects about the same person. I'm always a supporter of the King James version but today

I happen to be your guest. And I use this verse when I talk to Jehovah's Witnesses. I go to first of all,

I go to Galatians 1 .4 that says who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world according to the will of God and our

Father. And I'll ask a Jehovah's Witness. Now, this last phrase the will of God and our Father is this referring to two persons or is this referring to two aspects of the same person that God is also our

Father. And they'll say well it's two aspects of the same person. And the same thing is in 1 Thessalonians 1 .3

where it concludes by saying in the sight of God and our Father. Ask the same thing, get the same answer.

So then I go to Titus 2 .13 looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our

Savior Jesus Christ. Now say is this two people or is this two aspects of the same person? And they can't say it's two people because obviously in 1

Thessalonians 1 .3 and in Galatians 1 .4 it's two aspects of the same person. And the reason why it's worded that way in the

Authorized Version which is in agreement with the Granville Sharp Rule because Christ is not only the great God but he's our

Savior. And when Christ returns he's coming back as King of Kings he's coming back as Lord of Lords and so when he returns he's coming back as everybody's

King. He's coming back as everyone's Lord. He's coming back as God of Gods. He's everyone's God. But he is not returning as everyone's

Savior. He is returning as our Savior. And so that's why you find that rendering in the

Authorized Version which is consistent with the Granville Sharp Rule proclaims the Deity of Christ and is also consistent with how that phrase

Sotipos Emon, Savior of us, is translated elsewhere in Titus. It appears six times two times in each chapter.

Every time the New American Standard New International Version, King James, always translates that as our

Savior except in Titus 2 .13 and here the King James is consistent in translating it as our

Savior still in agreement with the Granville Sharp Rule. Well I don't know that it's in agreement with the Granville Sharp Rule in the sense that the insertion of the phrase does allow for a differentiation.

I agree with you. I appreciate the argument you present to the Jehovah's Witness though I would submit to you that if the

King James simply translated in the most succinct and clear way you wouldn't have to make that argument. But I just heard something

I don't understand and we do have a caller online so I'm going to try to make this fairly quick because I'd like to hear what some of the callers have to say.

But did you just say and I neglected to look really quickly at the

King James rendering of this, but he's coming back as everyone's God but our

Savior and so you felt this was relevant. Could you expand really briefly on what you meant by that?

Well obviously we know he's coming back as King Kings and Lord of Lords, Revelation Chapter 19. The very next verse, about 17 or 18 there you find that same phrase

The Great God is used in Greek it's relatively the same construction as we find in Titus 2 .13

When Christ returns he is coming back I believe to establish that kingdom he is returning as King of Kings he's everyone's

King he's coming back as Mighty God, the Great God but he is not returning as everyone's

Savior and that's why I think you have a distinction there that he is returning back as our

Savior, he's coming as Judge and he'll judge many who will be found guilty, he's still their

God he's not their Savior and that, so I think is an agreement, but the important thing here though James is, it is not a violation of the

Granville Sharpe Granville Sharpe says these two nouns refer to the same person and the English construction in the

King James Version are two nouns that refer to the same person Well you understand them to refer to the same person however you could understand that they could refer to two separate persons

I mean if that were to be used, if that rendering were to be used of father and son you would not say the father and son are one person, but primarily my main concern is the passage says that we are looking for the appearing of our

Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, are you saying that it's wrong to translate that one hour as referring

I mean the lost are not looking for the, it's not a blessed hope to them to look for the returning of our

Great God and Savior I don't see how contextually looking at it in its context, which is the most important thing, you can make a distinction between saying we are looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the

Great God, that's everybody, and our Savior Have you ever read anything by one of the

King James translators, someone who would indicate that that was the argument that they were attempting to make in their rendering? Well I wish we had more of their rendering.

Yeah we don't have much We've got John Boyden and that's about it but the text of the

King James says looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ and it's very clear in English, anyone reading that you really have to twist

English grammar to make it appear to two different people. I agree with you a thousand percent, and the

Jehovah's Witnesses are very good at twisting both English and Greek grammar, I can guarantee you that. True, but we should not be guilty of that, and we should not be saying that indirectly it has violated

Granville Sharp because it has not, it is in complete agreement with that as well as how it's translated other phrases and if one looks at the

New World translation of the, before Savior Okay let's take a, we need to take our break right now we have two callers online,

Kathy Nancy will be right with you in just a moment let's take a quick break and be right back We've got about 12 minutes left on the dividing line today and we have callers, we've been asking for them, we've got them, let's go to Kathy in Tempe Hello Kathy.

Hi, I really don't have a question necessarily about the debate, other than I want to find out if there is a listing of scriptures that we can get concerning the

Deity and also if there is some kind of an instruction as to how to use them for the

Jehovah's Witnesses so that we can be instructed as to how to present them Well, actually

I think that there is, it's called the Forgotten Trinity Why, I'm a good advocate!

That's right, I presented most of the major passages, there are also other listings in various works most of your systematic theologies would have a pretty extensive listing of passages, but it's the use part that's a little bit tricky

Yeah, that's what I'm here at, because I can look those up too, but I want to get the use and how to present them

That is something we started on a couple weeks ago, and then I went and preached my sermon against homosexuality and we sort of got off track, but we will continue doing that here on the program because we are in regular contact with Jehovah's Witnesses and those who deny the

Deity of Christ There's so often I'm in my car while I'm listening to you, and I simply can't take all this information

It would be best if you didn't necessarily write things down while driving, we'd like to keep you around I would too

But remember, we do have people who listen via our webpage too

I'm not in connection with that sort of thing at all Oh my, my, my I'm just not up to date on one of those old things

The Forgotten Trinity would help you out a lot and we'll be continuing in our presentation on the

Deity of Christ in the future Are you going to have anything written on this? Just even a few sheets of paper?

Well, like I said, the Forgotten Trinity is an entire book But that doesn't have to do with necessarily how to present it Actually it does.

When I try to write I try to write in such a way that I'm thinking about the audience I want to present this to including the

Jehovah's Witnesses So actually, there is a lot of material on how you would present to Jehovah's Witnesses in the book

There really is I'll have to pick that up. Thank you for your time Okay, thanks Kathy. Bye bye And we go to Nancy in Glendale.

Hello Nancy Hello How are you doing? The previous caller had the exact same question I did Listing of the other verses on the

Deity of Christ A person who doesn't want to believe it can't find a way to not believe it Right The ability of the human mind to resist

God's truth is almost incredible In fact, it's, I think, tremendous evidence of the sovereignty of God and salvation that He changes any of our hearts

So rebellious are we against His truth Even John 20, 28 Where Thomas says,

My Lord and my God You would not believe the mental gymnastics that Jehovah's Witnesses will go through If any of you get the

Christian Research Journal the current edition that just came out has a book review in it that I wrote on Greg Stafford's Jehovah's Witnesses Defended And there are responses to any passage that I could present to you written in that book

Now whether they're valid, whether they're true whether they're consistent, that of course is the issue

But a lot of people are surprised that these groups can come up with any type of response, and they do

And those responses aren't solid, but they can certainly sound that way, and to the person who wants them to sound solid, they will

So I would say that the passages that we would all agree on in regards to this, John 1, 1

John 20, 28, John 8, 58 Before Abraham was, I am There's a chapter on that in my book as well

The assertion in Philippians 2, verses 5 -11 That he who eternally exists in the form of God did not regard equality with God something to be grasped but emptied himself, that's extremely important Colossians 1, 15 -18

Colossians 2, 9 These are all passages that are extremely important, but when we discuss them as we did the prologue of John a couple weeks ago, we can give you what some of the common responses are so that you can be prepared for them and even in your own presentation present it in the strongest possible way so as to cut off as many objections as you can right from the start and keep the conversation the witnessing situation on track

That's what I need. Also a question is this recorded? Can we get a cassette tape of the program?

Yes, we do make those available through Alpha and Omega Ministries. We'll be sending copies to Dr. Holland as well, and possibly he'd like to give you information on how you can get hold of him.

And we do archive the dividing line on our webpage, so if people have access to the internet, in fact we have a bunch of folks who listen here and in other countries via the web

If I might, James, because I was going to offer another source, and that is my webpage If the listener

I was raised going to the Kingdom Hall because of my father, and we came out of that system

I do, I have a thanks section in there about cults and about Jehovah's Witnesses, and if they'd write on the internet it's

Logos, L -O -G -O -S 1611 at A -O -L dot com

You write, I'd give they'd be able to get a hold of me, I could send them the web address that way or if someone wants to write me, they can

It's 6062 Brown Deer Place Huber Heights, Ohio 45424

And either one of those ways, send it to me I'll be able to get them something about the deity of Christ sidestepping the translational thing, but on the deity of Christ and what the

Jehovah's Witnesses have to say Huber Heights, Ohio 45 what? 45424

OK All righty, and we have a number of tracks for Jehovah's Witnesses as well, through Alpha and Omega Ministries and our address and stuff is given in the close of the program

All righty, thank you for calling All righty we have another call coming in it's not quite ready yet, but we need to get it ready,

A -S -A -P and looks like it may have disappeared completely, I hope I didn't hit that button and blow it all away but be that as it may

I may not have a chance to thank you and I do appreciate the opportunity of being on your program to talk about this and maybe sometime if you want to discuss biblical preservation, we can do a program on that, but I really appreciate the opportunity

I've had the last two weeks Well I appreciate you being on, we wanted to get someone to address this issue and there are other issues in regards to the

King James issue that I think would be very good to address in future programs and certainly would be open to doing that we try to get a wide variety of folks on and hopefully give them an opportunity to say what they desire to say and give the callers an opportunity as well to get involved it is interesting to me that I think a lot of folks have been interested in what we have to say but more of the interest

I think focuses upon the shared faith that we have and I think people have been alerted to the fact that there are translational differences on this issue.

The big issue of course in regards to the deity of Christ is not so much the difference between the

King James or the New King James or the NASB or the NIV but especially in the regular realm of apologetics is dealing with those who would pervert the scriptures that would be the

New World Translation and those who would find ways around even the clearest testimonies to the deity of Christ.

A lot of Christians really struggle in those situations and I'm not sure if you indicated that it was did your father leave the witnesses and then bring you all out or did you come out first or exactly how did that happen?

My mom was a saved Baptist which is the best kind of Baptist to be and my dad actually was with Herbert W.

Armstrong so on Saturday we went to the Worldwide Church of God and on Sunday we went to the Kingdom Hall and then we had

Bible studies throughout the week but what got me James was Genesis 17 1 where it says that Abraham the

Lord appears before Abraham and says that he is the Almighty God and he speaks and I read that and I asked the elder who it was and they said well it's

Jehovah and I said but no one has ever seen Jehovah and you just told us that the spokesman was Jesus so this one is speaking and he's claiming to be

Jehovah God so who is it? And they said well we'll get back with you and that was 1968 and they haven't got back to me yet.

Well then it's Jehovah Jehovah who walks with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre who rains fire and brimstone from Jehovah in heaven down upon Sodom and Gomorrah so that's interesting because that is the exact same type of argument and the exact same type of text that another individual that I know of who left the

Watchtower Society that's what got him was the demonstration that the Old Testament clearly identifies

Jesus as Jehovah because you can argue all day long about God a God etc etc but if Jesus is

Jehovah that finishes the case for one of Jehovah's Witnesses that's all there is to it but how in the world did you do the

Worldwide Church of God and the Kingdom Hall? I tell you my Saturdays were gone

Sundays were gone then I'd go to school maybe I was looking to get out by that time but to be honest

I had been saved when I was younger and the Holy Spirit was bearing testimony to me that what

I was being told wasn't the truth and so we came out and my dad stopped going and my mom is still very active in her church and we rejoice in Godly Mother Well that's fantastic and we should all those of us who had them should be very thankful for Christian parents and Christian homes where we just went to church on Sunday and I had

Saturdays so I guess that was an advantage for me. Well Dr. Holland thank you very much for being on today the time goes very very quickly we'll be getting those tapes to you so you can make them available, we'll have them available and this information

I think is very important, I think we've discussed it in a way that allows folks to listen to both sides fairly and to weigh the information and at the same time we didn't have to attack each other or insult each other, do things like that we could actually allow the facts to speak for themselves and show respect to the listener in dealing with this issue

I'm going to be back in your neck of the woods next weekend, I would appreciate if you would warm it up by about 20 or 30 degrees for me at the minimum

Well we're sending a couple inches of snow even tonight Well thank you very much in fact

I'll be addressing this very issue back in Ohio I believe it's in Dover, Ohio, I'm not sure where in the world that is or if you looked it up or know where it is yourself

Near Columbus and I'm really hoping that the plane can land and I don't have to take a snowmobile anywhere or anything like that, but we really appreciate having you on with us and thank you very much for your presentation and thank you for being with us

I thank you and God bless Well that's it for the dividing line today

I'm very thankful for the callers that got in and if you have questions our webpage is www .aomin

.org over the next couple of weeks we'll continue dealing with important issues like presenting the deity of Christ to people and teaching them on those issues but I also have a number of places that I'm going to be going over the next number of months including three debates one against a

Roman Catholic one against a Muslim and one against a Oneness Pentecostal scholar and five different states about 40 to 45 different opportunities of speaking books to write, it's going to be really busy so sometimes we'll sneak in a show that we're doing from way far away, maybe