March 16, 2006

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602, or toll-free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341.

And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Opening Remarks and the Upcoming Response to Dr. Stauffer

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon. I've got to admit, that is really good theme music, you know? It really is. I mean, it was like it was designed to be introductory music to a webcast, which of course, when Steve recorded that, there wasn't such thing as a webcast.

And we were just discussing in channel the existence of LPs, and a lot of folks don't know what an LP is. My dear daughter, who is really into music and stuff, thought that you pronounced that word as vinyl instead of vinyl.

They just, you know, some of us are old. But anyway, I mentioned on the blog that I want to respond to Dr. Stauffer's book. It's coming, it hasn't arrived yet, but I mentioned on the last program that I had found, taking you back to the last program in case you didn't hear that, I was responding to some comments that were made by a gentleman from California in regards to a book by Dr. Stauffer, One Book Stands Alone.

It came out in 2001. I'd never heard of it. Maybe somebody sent me a note or something. It wasn't passed on to me. I've never heard of it. And the fact of the matter is that after the program, I found a link, or someone actually I believe sent me a link, I think Marie in channel, if I recall correctly, mentioned finding this to Macallan Mills Publishers and their excerpts, some chapters, from the book available online.

And so I started looking at them and was amazed. Maybe I know now why no one had really bothered to ask about it, because to be honest with you, there is nothing that I've seen in What's Online that is at all new, everything that has been presented is either something I had already responded to in the book or is just really bad.

That's the only way I think really to describe it. It was just really bad. I linked to it, and if I thought there was anything there that was even slightly relevant to the thesis of my book, why would I be giving folks the link?

Well, because I would be very happy if someone would pick up my book, read King James' One Book Stands Alone, and then look at what Dr. Stauffer has to say here. Because unless you're already pre-programmed to disbelieve anything I say, I really think the argumentation I present stands up quite well to this book that came out after my own book came out.

And it does seem to me as I'm reading this that Dr. Stauffer and the gentleman on the Puritan board said he left me, what was it, no out or pin me to the mat or did something along those lines. It doesn't seem to me that Dr. Stauffer even reads the Greek language.

And I'm not really certain exactly what you're doing trying to rebut information that specifically focuses upon textual critical issues, manuscripts, and the Greek language when you somehow haven't learned to translate that language yourself or to at least be somewhat competent in it so as to be able to really, let's face it, it would be difficult to interact with my book if you can't read Greek, if you can't check out what it's saying.

And I see no evidence now that the book, maybe just these chapters for some reason are different. I don't know, but it doesn't seem so. And so anyway, I'm going to be responding to Chapter 3, which again, if you go to the blog, you can find the link there to McCowan Mills Publishers.

It's mccowanmills .com and you can find the excerpts there. I'm going to be responding to his comments on Titus 2 .13 and Jude 4. And I think that's going to be useful for a number of reasons, not only for the King James only reason, but also in regards to the deity of Christ and the issues relevant to that, the connection between translation, transmission.

For example, it doesn't seem to me that Dr. Stauffer even recognizes that one of these is a translational issue and one of these is a textual issue. Those should be clearly distinguished from one another.

I clearly distinguish them in my work. There are translational issues of the King James and Titus 2 .13 is a translational issue. And there are textual issues. The Jude 4 passage is a textual issue. And so we'll be looking at those.

And if you'd like to run over to the blog while you're listening and bring up that particular link on your screen, that will be very, very useful. But we had and just lost a caller who was going to comment on the upcoming Shabbir Ali debate May 7th in Los Angeles.

But, well, maybe his cell phone died or, you know, aliens beat him up or something. I don't know. So I was going to go to that first so we would not have to break up the discussion. But not there. So we'll go ahead with looking at the Titus 2 .13 section.

Titus 2:13, the Deity of Christ, and the Granville Sharp Construction

Now, unfortunately, even though my book starts off talking about the attitudes of King James only writers and the unnecessary utilization of ad hominem and the like, unfortunately, once again, Dr. Stauffer's book is no different than all the books that have come before in its utilization of that kind of argumentation.

And we will see that as we as we read it. The chapter chapter three is called What's Right Versus James White, which I guess maybe, you know, borrows a little bit from Gail Ripplinger and her her penchant for utilizing people's last names.

Some of you may have seen the booklet that she did where she just went wild with the word white. James White meets Vanna White. White lies, whitewashed tombs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And, yes, sometimes it does get frustrating dealing with childishness like that.

But that's that's what you got to do if you're going to engage the subject. And one of the reasons to engage the subject is because it does damage the ministry of the church. And there are many church splits as a result of this kind of stuff.

And so you just you do what you have to do. And so this one starts off. The previous chapter reveals the magnitude of the changes in the modern versions concerning the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even the most precious of Bible doctrines falls prey to Satan's penknife.

Despite the immense variations, many of the modern version gurus fail to admit the problems associated with these differences. Some of the least honest Bible critics go so far as to claim the modern versions are superior in this area.

The next passage is a favorite of those proclaiming the superiority of modern versions. Of course, all attempts to elevate the modern versions must first try to prove the inferiority and mistranslation of the King James Bible.

For this reason, extra attention is devoted to completely refuting this errant position. So evidently, I'm one of these people being used as Satan's penknife. And I'm a dishonest Bible critic. So far would be the things we could call from that.

And of course, we see the use of language changes. You know, I discussed the utilization of language in a dishonest fashion or at least an improper fashion where you make the King James the standard. I pointed out that there were English translations before the King James version of the Bible.

And would it have been right to use them as the standard and accuse the King James of changes from them, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't get a lot of these folks to really discuss these issues. And by the way, I mentioned the blog.

Once I've got the book in my possession, I would love to have Dr. Stouffron. In fact, if someone mentioned to him that I was going to be doing this, I did announce on the blog, I would be happy to have him call 877 -753 -3341.

I would love to ask him whether he reads the text in the original language. I would love to ask him why he uses this kind of language. Be happy to toll free phone number 877 -753 -3341. One man that has written an entire book attacking the KJB is James White.

Now, he's going to bring this up later. But as my book says, obviously, my book is about King James only ism, not about the King James Bible itself. Obviously, I have to deal with the King James Bible.

And I believe I deal with it in the exact way that its translators would have wanted it to be dealt with. They recognize that there is going to be a need for editing. There is going to be a need for revision of their own work.

They recognize that. I think we need to recognize that as well. But it is not a book attacking the King James Bible in any way, shape, or form. And I can demonstrate that that's the case if, again, if anyone would like to try to say otherwise.

Mr. White mentions the next passage on 11 different pages in his book and devotes four full pages in an attempt to prove that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible in their treatment of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, actually, there's an entire chapter, chapter 8 of my book, demonstrates that the charge that modern translations, at least the NIV, the NASV, are seeking to denigrate the deity of Christ. There are modern translations that do.

Liberal modern translations do denigrate the deity of Christ. There's no question about that. But I was, of course, dealing with King James-only-ism at this particular point in time. On the surface, it may appear that he uses credible evidence for this verse, but not if one fully considers the implications of these differences.

So Dr. Stauffer is claiming that he is going to provide extra attention, a complete refutation of this errant position, and that if we would simply fully consider the implications of these differences, that we would see what the issues are.

And so he then gives us the King James Version and the NIV at Titus 2 .13. If you haven't looked at it yet, I would suggest you do so. The NIV says, While we wait for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

And the King James says, Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. And as I mentioned, as I explained in the book, and I put it on two different sections, because the discussion of this particular translational issue, and this is primarily a translational issue at Titus 2 .13, there is a small textual issue, and it really isn't much of a textual issue at all, in the King James 2 Peter 1 .1, which is another one of the main passages that one has to deal with the Granville-Sharp construction.

But as I explained, I presented this in Chapter 8 on the deity of Christ, and then I have a lengthier discussion, where I presented in essence a paper that I wrote in Bible college, where I spent a great deal of time examining, this was B .C., before computer, examining all possible Granville-Sharp constructions in the Pauline Corpus, in the writings of Paul, and I believe I also included Peter in that, if I recall correctly.

And that means I looked at every word chi, which is the word and, in Paul's writings and Peter's writings, and that would be much easier to do now on a computer than it was back then. I called it Project I-Strain, and I wrote up my results from that, I think this was second year Greek, if I recall correctly, maybe third, I'm not sure right now, it would probably be second or third, one of those two years I did this particular study.

And even tracked down, and as I recall, it was an 1805 edition of Sharp's work, and that may be up on the website, I'm not really certain, I'd have to take a look at it again to see if it is there, but anyway, I presented the substance of that particular paper in the second part of the book, which is a little bit on a higher level, it uses more of the original languages and things like that, and explained that what we're talking about here is a translational issue.

That specifically, when you have two nouns, two substantives, specifically here God and Savior, singular substantives, the first has the article, they're connected by the word chi, and the second does not have the article, that both are describing one person.

And hence, the translational issue is whether God and Savior are both being used to describe one person, that is Jesus Christ. Now, as I pointed out, the King James translators were more familiar with and more conversational in Latin than they were in Greek, and the Greek article and the Latin article, though there's even such a thing as a Latin article, in the same way there's a Greek article.

So, the Greek article is very different than how Latin would express definiteness over against an indefinite substantive. And yes, it is, good old Marie there, our channel librarian, tracked down the paper, it's up on the website, you can track it down there.

And anyway, the King James translators simply missed it. They simply missed the translation, and it's not really, to be honest with you, much of an argument, one way or the other. Not amongst those who do not have a tremendous bias already.

So, you have these differences, and I'm just watching that we're having a little bit of a feed problem at the moment, but it'll be right back there in a second. Those of you listening to the archive have no idea why I mention that, but that's okay, we do have a live listening audience, and I see some of those folks are mentioning that in channel right now.

So, be that as it may, there's a difference. It is a translational difference. It's not an underlying textual difference, a translational difference is God and Savior referring just to Jesus Christ. The King James translation just isn't that clear.

The appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Now, it seems by putting the and our in the way that it does, that you're differentiating between God and Savior. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that, but it's just simply is not as good a translation as the modern translations present.

And, of course, the idea was, the assertion by King James only individuals is, is that modern translations like the NASV or the NIV, that they are specifically seeking to denigrate the deity of Christ.

Now, why would they put a translation such as this, a translation of the Granville Sharp Constructions in 2 Peter 1 .1, Titus 2 .13, that more clearly express the deity of Christ, if they're trying to expunge the deity of Christ in the New Testament?

It doesn't make any sense. And that's what I was addressing in the book. And, in fact, this would be on pages 201 and the 202 of the King James only controversy, if you want to take a look at what I had to say at that particular point.

So, I continue after the citation of the text with Dr. Stauffer. The main differences between the two versions are clearly seen. The great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ, in the KJV, versus our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, in the NIV.

James White provides a chart listing 12 verses, including the subject verse, and concludes that, quote, we can see the NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ, the NASV just a bit less so, and the KJV the least of the three, end quote.

Now, unfortunately, he's sort of bouncing around here. That is earlier on page 197 of my book. I have a chart there with 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.

These are the key texts that utilize the term theos of Jesus Christ. And so, I just compared the NIV, the NASV, and the KJV at these particular points, and just said whether they gave a clear, ambiguous, most clear, clear, and least clear for Philippians 2 .5 -6, and then absent if, for example, John 1 .18 doesn't even have a reference to the deity of Christ, the KJV, and 1 Timothy 3 .16, the NIV and the NASV do not have a reference to the deity of Christ, whereas the KJV has it.

And so, that was a couple of pages before that, not specifically in my discussion of Granville Sharp's construction, found in pages 200 and following. So, he quotes from me there, and he says, he also claims the NIV and NASV are clear, whereas the KJV Bible is ambiguous.

Specifically, I used that in the chart of each text, and there were places where the KJV Bible was clear, just the NIV and NASV were clear, or there was one place I listed where the NIV and NASV didn't even have it, and the KJV Bible was clear.

So, why he would put it this way, when anyone can just go and look at the text itself, at my text, and read it, I don't know. In fact, to be honest with you, in reading this, the only people who would be convinced by this kind of argumentation are people who had not read my book, who are only willing to read a King James Only book attacking my book.

And that has been a rather consistent element of what I have seen in the few attempted responses to my book, is that the people writing them seemingly are assuming that their audience is not going to read my book, they're just going to accept whatever they have to say.

And I cannot imagine writing a response to someone's book personally, where I would have to actually assume that my readers were just going to listen to what I had to say, and they were not going to read what the other side had to say.

I don't understand that kind of thinking. It's beyond me. It truly is. Well, anyways, I continue with Stauffer. If necessary, go back to the previous chapter and see if you arrive at the same conclusion concerning the NIV's supposed superiority in its treatment of the deity of Christ.

Well, the previous chapter, I'm sorry, didn't even begin to deal with any of the issues that I'm dealing with here. It is a very poor, very shallow attack on the NIV that, again, shows very little understanding of the defense of the deity of Christ and the key passages and things like that, but we may get to that later.

Anyways, it says a few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's word concerning this passage continues. Now, again, that is loaded, I would say, ridiculous language. It is not meant to convince anyone.

It's certainly not meant to convince me. It's not meant to convince anyone who has read the book. It is only meant to convince people who are already convinced. And if that's the only argumentation that you can offer is to people who are already convinced, you are, in essence, proving my point.

Are you not? So he then quotes from my book, going back to Titus 2 .13. The insertion of the second hour in the A .V. translation makes it possible to separate God from the Savior, as indeed those who deny the deity of Christ would assert.

But this is an error, as is demonstrated elsewhere. The elsewhere is the discussion that I provide of Granville Sharp's construction in the second part of the book. The fact is that KJV provides an inferior translation in these passages, one that unintentionally detracts from the presentation of the full deity of Jesus Christ.

The willingness of the KJV defenders to overlook this fact is most disturbing. And that's exactly what I wrote. Dr. Stouffer continues. This KJV defender, the author, does not feel compelled to overlook this passage.

In spite of devoting almost 300 pages to the attack of the King James Bible, Mr. White's book contains an introduction which emphasizes that, quote, this book is not against the King James Version, end quote.

Which is true. Of course, Dr. Stouffer, if you would be listening to this, there is a difference between disagreeing with King James-onlyism and attacking the King James Version of the Bible. If you can't see what that difference is, well, that only speaks to how very committed you are to your own tradition and seemingly aren't able to see past that tradition to see the inconsistencies of your argumentation, the circular arguments, and the fact that you're using one standard for the King James and another standard for everybody else.

When you have to do that, your position is simply untrue. I'm very, very thankful that in the 12 years since that book, 11 years since that book came out, 12 years since I started writing it, that so many people have been able to see that, and that's really the enduring quality of the book itself.

Such a statement would be similar, this is going back to Stouffer, since I said, the statement he's referring to is, this book is not against the King James Version. He says, such a statement would be similar to my claiming that this book is not against the International Version.

I would be a hypocritical, deluded liar if I made such a ridiculous claim and expected anyone to believe me. So I guess I'm a hypocritical, deluded liar. Or Dr. Stouffer is so entrenched in his tradition that he cannot even hear with any level of accuracy what somebody else such as myself is saying and what actually motivated me to write that book at that particular time and why it remains just as relevant and just as accurate today as it was then.

He continues, in addition to those pages already mentioned, Mr. White spends four entire pages, pages 267 to 270, discussing Titus 213 in an attempt to prove the inferiority of the King James Bible. Actually, that's the section where I discuss Granville Sharp's rule and explain it and give its background and the form of the rule and things like that.

I continue on, here is another of his comments, quote, the KJV translators, through no fault of their own, obscure these passages through less than perfect translation. Modern versions correct their error.

End quote. Stand by that. Be glad to stand by that and defend that against all comers. Now listen to this. This is Dr. Stouffer. You tell me. Remember, we're talking here about how you translate a Greek phrase, a phrase that was written in the Greek language.

And Dr. Stouffer says, he then runs to the Greek and Granville Sharp's rule, attempting to prove his point. What exactly is his point? No answer is given. All he says is, see additional material at the end of the chapter concerning Granville Sharp's rule.

Well, we'll look at that, but there's nothing, nowhere in this work does, at least the work that's online, I suppose this material online could be very different than the book, even though it comes from the publisher, which wouldn't make any sense.

But if the material that is online is representative, there is no meaningful interaction with the syntactical discussion of Granville Sharp's rule anywhere in this work. And I just don't get the feeling that Dr. Stouffer is able to do that.

And again, for those wondering why I would even be addressing this, it was suggested to me on the Puritan board by a man who claims to be a Calvinist, Mr. Dries, that this book thoroughly refuted me and that I was afraid of it and I couldn't respond to it.

And anyway, he claims that when the KJB says, the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the use of our between God and Savior makes it possible to separate God from Savior. Here's his commentary. This is true and exactly what the Holy Spirit intended to convey.

However, the separation of God and Savior does not make the KJB inferior. In fact, the reading from the KJB should bolster one's faith in the inspiration and preservation of God's perfect word is found in the pages of one book, the King James Bible.

Let me explain. Okay, here we go. Evidently, Dr. Stouffer is now going to defend the same translation of the New World Translation, by the way. The Jehovah's Witnesses are always trying to attack Granville Sharp's rule.

And just as some of you heard a number of years ago when Dr. Thomas Holland came on the program and tried to say Romans 9 .5 is not a reference to the deity of Christ, here we have another King James only advocate who is saying Titus 2 .13 is not a reference to the deity of Christ and that God and Savior are not both identifying Jesus Christ.

Now, I would just simply point out that would mean that in 2 Peter 1 .11, when it says our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that Lord and Savior are not identifying Jesus Christ. There's two different people there.

We have a different Lord than we have a Savior. If, if, if, and here of course is the real problem, if we are consistent with ourselves, and that is the whole reason I address King James onlyism, is there I have never met a consistent King James only advocate.

Not one. Not a one. And they cannot use the same standards of the King James they use for everybody else. And you say, well, why should that bother you? Because I am an apologist that believes that we as Christians must honor the truth and we must play right with the facts.

You cannot look at somebody else and say you are playing fast with the facts when you yourself are doing it. And you can't just close your eyes when evangelicals do this kind of thing, when conservative Bible believers do this kind of thing.

If we don't rebuke it within the camp, upon what basis can we turn around and rebuke it outside the camp? We have to be consistent. Don't we? Could someone, I would love to, obviously, Mr. Drys has listened to this by now.

I would love to hear from him. I would love to hear from him how he feels this book, in any way, shape, or form, is even slightly a refutation of my work. I haven't seen anything in it that any meaningful, thoughtful person could look at and go, oh, yeah, he's got you there, got you there.

Please, 877 -753 -3341. I thank Mr. Drys for pointing me to this book because it provides such an incredible example of exactly what I've documented over the years. And those of you who have listened to this broadcast, you know this isn't my favorite subject.

King James only isn't. We've done programs on it. And we have, you know, before Dr. Elitis passed away, we invited him to come on the program. We've invited D .A. Waite to come on the program. When they did the Southwest Radio Bible broadcast, attacking me personally, we invited them to come on.

I refuted everything they said, but said, hey, if you'd like to come on, they wouldn't. You can't get these folks to do almost anything. Now Mr. Drys has publicly made statements. He won't call in. I'm really going to be interested in seeing if Dr. Stauffer will.

Since I haven't contacted him directly, I'm not saying anything about whether he will or won't, but I would love to find out if he'd be willing to do so. I'd love to find out if he'd be willing to debate to answer for these things.

And because when you get into a debate and you've got cross-examination, when you are using inconsistent arguments, when you're using double standards, that's going to come out. That's going to come out very, very clearly in the cross-examination period.

And this kind of stuff just simply can't hold up when there is a dialogue taking place. When there's a dialogue taking place. So, anyways, here's the explanation that Dr. Stauffer gives as to why the King James Version translation of Titus 2 .13 should be accepted.

And the actual Greek is basically irrelevant. If you're waiting for him to address the issue of the Greek, it's not going to happen. Because he's not going to do it. He's not going to address it. Here it is.

The is used in reference to the great God because there is only one great God. This fact holds true whether a person accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior or not. The reason that our is used before Savior is because he may be the great God but not one's personal Savior.

Therefore, Paul proclaims that we are looking toward the day when the great God and our Savior returns because he addressed a saved man in the book of Titus. Jesus is the great God but a personal conscious decision must be made to make him one's personal Savior, the our in the verse.

When the NIV and all the other modern versions change the passage to read our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, it can imply that there is more than one great God. Our great God and their great God. This reading allows those that claim false gods to have an out.

With the wording of the NIV, one could construe that there is our great God, the Christian God, and their great God of choice. One does not have this problem when allowing the King James Bible to remain the standard.

According to the Bible, when the Lord returns, he will be the great God and our Savior to those that have trusted in him. However, he will not be everyone's Savior. For therefore, we both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe, 1 Timothy 4 .10.

Does that make any sense to you? Evidently, he's actually saying that both terms are referring to Jesus. Right? That seems to be what he's saying. But by putting the and then our is no longer our God, so does that mean God is not the God of Christians?

That would seem to follow. But again, I'm asking for consistency here, and we're not allowed to do that when it comes to King James-only-ism. But so the great God means that that's the one God, but he's not the Savior of only those that believe.

So that's why it's our Savior instead of our great God and Savior. Since it was written to a saved man, Titus, Dr. Stauffer, wouldn't it be just simpler to accurately translate the Greek as our great God and Savior?

Folks, that is some of the most tortured reasoning I've ever heard in my life. Talk about eisegesis, reading something in that has absolutely positively nothing to do with what the text is talking about.

It's talking about the fact that we are looking forward to the manifestation, the appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. That's all it's talking about. It's describing one person. There's nothing in the context whatsoever that requires this kind of jumping through hoops to come up with a way of defending an inferior translation.

We've only got one person. Titus 2 .12 would talk to us about the grace that saves. It teaches us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, to live self-controlled, upright, and godly in the present age.

While we are looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds.

So there's one person in view. This is what Christ is doing. He gave himself for us, one person all the way through this, and he is our great God and Savior. What is this about? Well, if you don't have the gods, then that opens it up for there being other gods.

A God of our choice. So are we to look at every rendering of the term God in the King James Bible when it doesn't have the word the? That's what it means? That this is opening it up for other gods? Oh my goodness.

I hope you can hear, aside from the frustration that any serious person has to have looking at some of this, I hope you can hear the absolute dedication to King James-only-ism that results in an overthrow of any meaningful form of exegetical interpretation of the text.

That's why this stuff is utterly indefensible in debate. This would never hold up, not only against someone like myself, but what about when these people try to go out and debate Muslims or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses?

They have absolutely no meaningful way of defending themselves. And that's basically why most of them won't do it. You can't get these folks to engage in debate. And given this kind of argumentation, that may be a good thing.

That may be good to keep them from doing that, because it would be absolutely embarrassing. Well, it continues on. Furthermore, the construction in each of the three chapters of Titus in the King James Bible testifies to the design planned by God.

The parallel composition of each chapter does not indicate that there are two saviors, but instead that the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same. Eh? One and the same as in person, Dr. Staufer?

The modern versions retain the construction in chapters one and three, but arbitrarily eliminate it in chapter two. Excuse me. Aside from the fact that almost sounds like heresy. I mean, it almost sounds like he's trying to say, Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father are the same person.

Which, if it is, then we now discover that Dr. Staufer does not understand the doctrine of the Trinity very well. But aside from that, arbitrarily eliminate. Now, if you were to actually try to defend that, wouldn't you have to demonstrate that Granville Sharp's construction is invalid?

There's no attempt made by Dr. Staufer to do so. None. Zip, zero, nada. Nothing there. That's not arbitrary. The modern translations are following a recognized rule of Greek grammar. And so he gives some listings of where God our Savior, Titus 1 .3, Lord Jesus Christ our Savior, Titus 1 .4, the doctrine of God our Savior, Titus 2 .10, our Savior Jesus Christ, Titus 2 .13, love of God our Savior, Titus 3 .4, and through Jesus Christ our Savior, Titus 3 .6.