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.

The Deity of Christ in the King James Version and Modern Translations

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're 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's on the line with me.

Are you with us, sir?

You're 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, 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.

Alrighty, 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 manifest in the flesh.

That's a clear, strong statement of Christ's deity, God, manifest in the flesh. And if you pick up the New American Standard or the New International Version, you find He who is 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 -12, where we're told that we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ because we have to give account of ourselves 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 -11.

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.

I mean, it'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 5, I'm sorry, 1 Peter 3, we find when we run the cross references that Jesus Christ. 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 underemphasize 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, 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 then 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 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 in 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, 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.

The King James Version's Clarity on Christ's Deity

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 of 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 KJV is ambiguous in its presentation there is because it does use the term Godhead.

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 KJV 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 KJV 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 KJV 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 NIV and the NASB.

This is due to the fact that the Greek texts from which the modern translations are taken read ὁς, which means he who, rather than θεὸς, 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 θεὸς 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 would list it on page 197 of my book, 1 Timothy 3 .16, as a clear reference in the KJV, but absent in the NIV and NASB. And then I did list, in both Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1, the ambiguous rendering of the KJV of the Bible.

In those passages, you have reference to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the KJV, 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 KJV 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 of 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 Kamiohanium, 1 John 5 .7, that also is consistent in saying that all these other readings that have no better manuscript evidence than the Kamiohanium 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 -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 is 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.