March 16, 2006

Alpha & Omega Ministries iconAlpha & Omega Ministries

2 views

Comments are disabled.

00:04
Desert Metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is
00:17
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.
00:28
Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
00:34
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
00:43
United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
00:50
James White. And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line on a
00:56
Thursday afternoon. Gotta admit, that set is really good theme music, you know? Really is.
01:01
I mean, it was like it was designed to be introductory music to a webcast, which of course, when
01:08
Steve recorded that, there wasn't any 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
01:18
LP is. My dear daughter, who is really into music and stuff, thought that you pronounced that word as vinyl instead of vinyl.
01:32
They just, you know, some of us are old. But anyway, I mentioned on the blog that I want to respond to Dr.
01:45
Stauffer's book. It's coming. 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,
02:01
I was responding to some comments that were made by a gentleman from California in regards to a book by Dr.
02:09
Stauffer, one book stands alone, it came out in 2001. I had never heard of it.
02:14
Maybe somebody sent me a note or something, it wasn't passed on to me, I've never heard of it.
02:20
And the fact of the matter is that after the program,
02:26
I found a link or someone actually I believe sent me a link, I think Marie in channels,
02:32
I recall correctly mentioned finding this to McCowan Mills publishers and their excerpts, some chapters from the book available online.
02:42
And so I started looking at them and was amazed.
02:50
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.
02:59
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.
03:10
That's the only way I think really to describe it is it was just really bad. I linked to it.
03:18
And if I thought there was anything there that was even slightly relevant to the thesis of my book, why would
03:24
I be giving folks a link? Well, because I would be very happy if someone would pick up my book, read the
03:31
King James Only Controversy and then look at what Dr. Stauffer has to say here. Because unless you're already pre -programmed to disbelieve anything
03:40
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.
03:51
And it does seem to me as I'm reading this that Dr. Stauffer and the gentleman on the
03:57
Puritan board said he left me, what was it?
04:02
No out or pin me to the mat or did something along those lines. I it doesn't seem to me that Dr. Stauffer even reads the
04:10
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
04:22
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,
04:34
I mean, let's face it, it'd be difficult to interact with my book if you if you can't read
04:40
Greek, if you can't check out what it's saying. And I see no evidence now that the book, maybe these just these chapters for some reason, you know, are different.
04:51
I don't know. But but it doesn't seem so. And so anyway,
04:59
I'm going to be responding to chapter three. Which, again, if you go to the blog, you can find the link there to McCowan Mills Publishers, it's
05:09
McCowan Mills dot com, and you can you can find the excerpts there. I'm going to be responding to his comments on Titus two, 13 and Jude four.
05:19
And I think that's going to be useful for a number of reasons, not only for the King James only reason, but also on regards to the deity of Christ and the issues relevant to that, the connection between translation, transmission, for example.
05:34
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.
05:43
Those should be clearly distinguished from one another. I clearly distinguish them in my work. There are translational issues, the
05:51
King James and Titus two, 13 is a translation, translational issue, and there are textual issues.
05:57
The Jude four passage is a textual issue. And so we'll be looking at those.
06:02
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.
06:09
But we have we had and just lost a caller who was going to comment on the upcoming
06:20
Shabbir Ali debate May 7th in Los Angeles. But well, maybe his cell phone died or, you know, aliens picked up or something.
06:33
I don't know. So I was I was going to go to that first so we would not have to break up the discussion, but not there.
06:40
So we'll go ahead with looking at the Titus two, 13 section now. Unfortunately, even though my book starts off talking about the the attitudes of of King James only writers and the unnecessary utilization of ad hominem and the like.
06:58
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.
07:10
And we will see that as we as we read it. The chapter chapter three is called What's Right vs.
07:16
James White, which I guess maybe, you know, borrows a little bit from Gail Riplinger and her her penchant for utilizing people's last names.
07:26
Some of you may have seen a booklet that she did where she just went wild with the word white.
07:33
James White meets Vanna White. White lies, whitewashed tombs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
07:38
And yes, sometimes it does get frustrating dealing with childishness like that.
07:43
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.
07:53
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.
08:01
And so this one starts off the previous chapter reveals the magnitude of the changes in the modern versions concerning the deity of our
08:08
Lord Jesus Christ, even the most precious of Bible doctrines, falls prey to Satan's penknife.
08:14
Despite the immense variations, many of the modern version gurus fail to admit the problems associated with these differences.
08:20
Some of the least honest Bible critics go so far as to claim the modern versions are superior in this area. The next passage, the 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
08:34
King James Bible. For this reason, extra attention is devoted to completely refuting this errant position. So evidently,
08:41
I'm one of these people being used as Satan's penknife and I'm a dishonest Bible critic.
08:47
So far would be the things we could call from that. And of course, we see the use of language changes.
08:55
You know, I discussed the utilization of language in a dishonest fashion or at least an improper fashion where you make the
09:02
King James the standard. I pointed out that there were English translations before the King James version of the Bible.
09:07
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.
09:13
But I don't get a lot of these folks to, you know, really discuss these issues. And and by the way,
09:18
I mentioned the blog. Once I've got the book in my possession, I would I would love to have Dr. Stouffron.
09:24
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 -334 -9000.
09:33
I 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.
09:41
Be happy to toll free phone number 877 -753 -334 -1. One man that has written an entire book attacking the
09:47
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
09:58
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.
10:07
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.
10:14
They recognize that. I think we need to recognize that as well. But it is not a book attacking the
10:20
King James Bible in any way, shape or form. And I can demonstrate that that's the case.
10:26
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
10:37
King James Bible in their treatment of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, actually, there's an entire chapter, chapter eight of my book demonstrates that the charge that modern translations, at least the
10:50
NIV, the NASB, are seeking to denigrate the deity of Christ. There are modern translations that do, liberal modern translations do denigrate the deity of Christ.
10:59
There's no question about that. But I was, of course, dealing with King James only as in this particular point in time.
11:05
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.
11:13
So Dr. Stouffer 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.
11:32
And so he then gives us the King James Version and the NIV at Titus 2 .13.
11:37
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
11:44
God and Savior, Jesus Christ. And the King James says, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great
11:50
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 translational issue at Titus 2 .13,
12:06
there is a small textual issue and it really isn't much of a textual issue at all in the
12:12
King James 2 Peter 1 .1, which is another one of the main passages that one has to deal with the
12:18
Granville Sharp construction. But as I explained, I presented this in chapter eight on the deity of Christ, and then
12:26
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.
12:34
This was B .C., before computer, examining all possible Granville Sharp constructions in the
12:41
Pauline corpus and the writings of Paul. And I believe I also included Peter in that, if I recall correctly.
12:47
And that means I looked at every word chi, which is the word and, in Paul's writings and Peter's writings.
12:53
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.
13:02
I think this was second year Greek, if I recall correctly, maybe third, I'm not sure right now.
13:09
It would probably be second or third, one of those two years I did this particular study. And I even tracked down, and as I recall, it was an 1805 edition of Sharp's work.
13:22
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,
13:28
I presented the substance of that particular paper in the second part of the book, which is a little bit on a higher level that uses more of the original languages and things like that, and explained that what we're talking about here is a translational issue.
13:42
That specifically, when you have two nouns, two substantives, specifically here,
13:49
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.
13:59
And hence, the translational issue is whether God and Savior are both being used to describe one person, that is
14:10
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.
14:22
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
14:30
Greek article. So the Greek article is very different than how Latin would express definiteness over against an indefinite substantive.
14:42
And yes, it is good old Marie there, our channel librarian, tracked down the paper.
14:50
It's up on the website. You can track it down there. And anyway, the
14:56
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.
15:11
Not amongst those who do not have a tremendous bias already. So you have these differences.
15:24
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.
15:29
Those of you listening on archive have no idea why I mentioned that. That's OK. We do have a live listening audience, and I see some of those folks are mentioning that in channel right now.
15:37
So be that as it may, there's a difference. It is a translational difference. It's not an underlying textual difference.
15:44
A translational difference is God and Savior referring just to Jesus Christ. The King James translation just isn't that clear.
15:49
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 differentiated between God and Savior.
15:58
It doesn't necessarily have to mean that, but it's just simply is not as good a translation as the modern translations present.
16:06
And, of course, the idea was the assertion by King James only individuals is that modern translations like the
16:12
NASV or the NIV, that they are specifically seeking to denigrate the deity of Christ.
16:21
Now, why would they put a translation such as this translation of the
16:29
Granville Sharp Constructions and Second 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
16:38
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
16:54
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.
17:03
Stauffer, the main differences between the two versions are clearly seen. The great God and our Savior Jesus Christ in the
17:08
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 that the
17:19
NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ, the NASV just a bit less so, and the
17:24
KJV the least of the three, end quote. Now, unfortunately, he's sort of bouncing around here.
17:30
That is a that is earlier on page 197 of my book. I have a chart there with John 1 .1,
17:37
John 1 .18, John 20 .28, Acts 20 .28, Romans 9 .5, Philippians 2 .5 -6,
17:42
Colossians 1 .15 -17, Colossians 2 .9, 1 Timothy 3 .16, Titus 2 .13,
17:48
Hebrews 1 .8 and 2 Peter 1 .1. These are the key texts that utilize the term theos of Jesus Christ.
17:57
And so I just compared the NIV, NASV, and the KJV at these particular points and just said where they gave a clear, ambiguous, most clear, clear, and least clear for Philippians 2 .5
18:11
-6, and then absent if, for example, John 1 .18 doesn't even have a reference to the deity of Christ, the
18:18
KJV, and 1 Timothy 3 .16 the NIV and NASV do not have a reference to the deity of Christ, whereas the
18:26
King James 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.
18:36
So he quotes to me that there, and he says he also claims the NIV and NASV are clear, whereas the
18:42
King James Bible is ambiguous. Specifically, I meant, I used that in the chart of each text, and there were places where the
18:51
King James Bible was clear, just the NIV and NASV were clear, or there was one place I listed where the
18:56
NIV and NASV didn't even have it, and the King James 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,
19:10
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
19:21
King James only book attacking my book. And that has been a rather consistent element of what
19:31
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.
19:45
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
19:57
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.
20:03
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
20:12
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.
20:21
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.
20:32
But we may get to that later. Anyway, it says a few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's Word concerning this passage continues.
20:39
Now, again, that is loaded, I would say, ridiculous language.
20:46
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.
20:52
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?
21:05
So he then quotes from my book, going back to Titus 2 .13,
21:12
the insertion of the second hour in the AV translation makes it possible to separate
21:17
God from the Savior, as indeed those who deny the deity of Christ would assert. But this is an error, as is demonstrated elsewhere.
21:24
The elsewhere is the discussion that I provide of Granville Sharp's construction in the second part of the book. The fact is that the
21:30
KJV provides an inferior translation in these passages, one that unintentionally detracts in presentation of the full deity of Jesus Christ.
21:39
The willingness of the KJV defenders to overlook this fact is most disturbing, and that's exactly what
21:46
I wrote. Dr. Stauffer continues, this KJV defender, the author, does not feel compelled to overlook this passage.
21:53
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
22:01
King James Version, end quote, which is true. Of course, Dr. Stauffer, if you would be listening to this, there is a difference between disagreeing with King James -only -ism and attacking the
22:12
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
22:31
King James and another standard for everybody else. When you have to do that, your position is simply untrue.
22:40
I'm very, very thankful that in the 12 years since that book, 11 years since that book came out, 12 years as I started writing it, that so many people have been able to see that, and that's what really the enduring quality of the book itself.
22:56
Such a statement would be similar, this is going back to Stauffer, since I said the statement he's referring to is this book is not against the
23:04
King James Version. He says, such a statement would be similar to my claiming that this book is not against the
23:09
International Version. I would be a hypocritical, deluded liar if I made such a ridiculous claim and expected anyone to believe me.
23:17
So I guess I'm a hypocritical, deluded liar. Or Dr. Stauffer 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.
23:43
He continues, in addition to those pages already mentioned, Mr. White spends four entire pages, pages 267 to 270, discussing
23:50
Titus 213 in an attempt to prove the inferiority of the King James Bible. Actually, that's the section where I discuss
23:57
Granville Sharp's rule, and explain it, and give its background, and the form of the rule, and things like that.
24:04
I continue on. Here is another of his comments, quote, the KJV translators, through no fault of their own, obscured these passages through less than perfect translation.
24:13
Modern versions correct their error, end quote. Stand by that. Be glad to stand by that and defend that against all comers.
24:21
He then, now listen to this, this is Dr. Stauffer. You tell me, remember we're talking here about how you translate a
24:28
Greek phrase, a phrase that was written in the Greek language, and Dr. Stauffer says, he then runs to the
24:36
Greek and Granville Sharp's rule, attempting to prove his point. What exactly is his point?
24:41
No answers 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, you know,
24:54
I suppose this work, 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.
25:14
Stauffer is able to do that. And again, for those wondering why I would even be addressing this, it was suggested to me on the
25:23
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.
25:34
And anyway, he claims that when the
25:39
KJV says, the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the use of our between God and Savior makes it possible to separate
25:45
God from Savior. Here's his commentary. This is true, and exactly what the
25:52
Holy Spirit intended to convey. However, the separation of God and Savior does not make the
25:58
KJV inferior. In fact, the reading from the KJV should bolster one's faith, and the inspiration and preservation of God's perfect Word is found in the pages of one book, the
26:07
King James Bible. Let me explain. Okay, here we go. Evidently, Dr.
26:13
Stauffer is now going to defend the same translation of the New World Translation, by the way.
26:19
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
26:27
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
26:33
King James only advocate who is saying Titus 2 .13 is not a reference to the deity of Christ.
26:40
And that God and Savior are not both identifying Jesus Christ. Now, I would just simply point out, that would mean that in 2
26:49
Peter 1 .11, when it says our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that Lord and Savior are not identifying
26:56
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
27:13
I address King James onlyism, is there I have never met a consistent
27:20
King James only advocate. Not one. Not a one. They cannot use the same standards of the
27:27
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.
27:44
You cannot look at somebody else and say you are playing fast with the facts, when you yourself are doing it.
27:52
And you can't just close your eyes when evangelicals do this kind of thing, when conservative
27:58
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?
28:07
We have to be consistent, don't we? Could someone,
28:13
I would love to, obviously, Mr. Dries has listened to this by now.
28:21
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.
28:30
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.
28:40
Please, 877 -753 -3341. I thank Mr. Dries for pointing me to this book, because it provides such an incredible example of exactly what
28:52
I've documented over the years. And those of you who listen to this broadcast, you know this isn't my favorite subject.
28:59
King James only, isn't it? We've done programs on it, and we have, you know, before Dr.
29:07
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
29:12
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.
29:21
You can't get these folks to do almost anything. Now Mr. Dries has publicly made statements.
29:27
He won't, 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.
29:35
I'm not saying anything about whether he will or won't, but I would, I would love to find out if he'd be willing to do so.
29:41
I'd be, I'd love to find out if he'd be willing to debate, to answer for these things.
29:47
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.
29:59
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.
30:11
When there's a dialogue taking place. So, anyways, here's, here's the explanation that Dr.
30:17
Stauffer gives as to why the, the King James Version translation of Titus 2 .13
30:24
should be accepted. And the actual Greek is basically irrelevant.
30:32
If you're waiting for him to, to address the issue of the
30:41
Greek, it's not going to happen. Because he's not going to do it. He's not going to, he's not going to address it.
30:51
Here it is. The is used in reference to the great
30:56
God, because there is only one great God. This fact holds true whether a person accepts the
31:03
Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior or not. The reason that our is used before Savior is because he may be the great
31:11
God, but not one's personal Savior. Therefore, Paul proclaims that we are looking toward the day when the great
31:20
God and our Savior returns, because he addressed a saved man in the book of Titus.
31:27
Jesus is the great God, but a personal conscious decision must be made to make him one's personal
31:34
Savior, the our in the verse. When the NIV and all the other modern versions change, change the passage to read our great
31:43
God and Savior Jesus Christ, it can imply that there is more than one great God.
31:50
Our great God and their great God. This reading allows those that claim false gods to have an out.
31:58
With the wording of the NIV, one could construe that there is our great
32:04
God, the Christian God, and their great God of choice. One does not have this problem when allowing the
32:12
King James Bible to remain the standard. According to the Bible, when the Lord returns, he will be the great
32:19
God and our Savior to those that have trusted in him. However, he will not be everyone's
32:26
Savior, for therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in living
32:31
God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe, 1st Timothy 4 .10.
32:39
Does that make any sense to you? Evidently, he's actually saying that both terms are referring to Jesus, right?
32:53
That seems to be what he's saying, but by putting the and then our is no longer our
33:02
God, so does that mean God is not the God of Christians? That would seem to follow, but again,
33:10
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
33:19
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
33:27
Savior instead of our great God and Savior. Since it was written to a saved man,
33:33
Titus, Dr. Stauffer, wouldn't it be just simpler to accurately translate the
33:40
Greek as our great God and Savior? Folks, that is some of the most tortured reasoning
33:48
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.
34:01
It's talking about the fact that we are looking forward to the manifestation, the appearance of our great
34:09
God and Savior, Jesus Christ. That's all it's talking about. It's describing one person.
34:16
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.
34:33
We've only got one person, okay? 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, godly, in the present age.
34:46
While we are looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great
34:51
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.
35:02
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
35:11
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
35:20
God of our choice. So are we to look at every rendering of the term
35:27
God in the King James Bible when it doesn't have the word Thee? That's what it means? That this is opening it up for other gods?
35:34
Oh my goodness, I hope you can hear, aside from the frustration that any serious person has to have looking at some of this,
35:43
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.
35:59
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
36:08
Muslims or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses?
36:14
They have absolutely no meaningful way of defending themselves.
36:21
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.
36:33
That may be good to keep them from doing that, because it would be absolutely embarrassing.
36:39
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.
36:48
The parallel composition of each chapter does not indicate that there are two saviors, but instead that Lord Jesus Christ and God the
36:55
Father are one and the same. Eh? One and the same, as in person,
37:04
Dr. Staufer? The modern versions retain the construction in chapters one and three, but arbitrarily eliminate it in chapter two.
37:12
Excuse me. Aside from the fact that almost sounds like heresy, and it almost sounds like he's trying to say
37:19
Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father are the same person, which if it is, then we now discover that Dr.
37:25
Staufer does not understand the doctrine of the Trinity very well. But aside from that, arbitrarily eliminate.
37:35
Now, if you were to actually try to defend that, wouldn't you have to demonstrate that Granville Sharpe's construction is invalid?
37:45
There's no attempt made by Dr. Staufer to do so. None. Zip, zero, nada. Nothing there.
37:51
That's not arbitrary. The modern translations are following a recognized rule of Greek grammar.
37:59
And so he gives some listings of where God our Savior, Titus 1 -3, Lord Jesus Christ our
38:04
Savior, Titus 1 -4, the doctrine of God our Savior, Titus 2 -10, our
38:10
Savior Jesus Christ, Titus 2 -13, love of God our Savior, Titus 3 -4, and through Jesus Christ our Savior, Titus 3 -6.
38:18
He says, in each case, God is pointed out as the Savior, then Jesus Christ is pointed out as the Savior. The modern versions eliminate the construction of the second chapter, but retain it in the first and third chapters.
38:27
By the way, Dr. Staufer, that's because they're being consistent in their translation of the Greek text. That's the only reason.
38:32
It's not a matter of eliminating anything. It's just following standard translational procedures.
38:38
By the way, the same thing the King James translators attempted, at least, to do in their own description of that.
38:45
Moving the hour in Titus 2 -13 in front of great God, as the new versions do, destroys the parallelism and weakens the truth.
38:54
Not sure what the truth is. If you're trying to say the Father and the Son are the same person, that's not even the truth to begin with.
39:00
But furthermore, it's not a matter of moving anything. It's just a matter of how you translate the Greek and whether you're following the consistent rules of grammar and syntax or whether you're not.
39:11
That would be the issue at this point. One cannot devote the time or the space necessary to refute all the errors and inconsistent treatment against the
39:19
KJV by those claiming the superiority of the modern versions. In other words, the vast majority of what
39:26
I said in the book, especially in the Deity of Christ, completely untouched in this chapter. Not even mentioned.
39:33
Not even touched upon. However, when we consider how the critics emphasize and then distort the truth concerning Titus 2 -13, their position in other areas becomes equally suspect.
39:42
In other words, take what I've said here, ignore the fact that I haven't touched the Greek, evidently cannot touch the
39:48
Greek, have thrown out something that makes no sense whatsoever about the
39:59
God and our God and pure Christ Jesus. Take that and then accept that I have actually accomplished the refutation of James White and therefore don't believe anything else he has to say.
40:10
That's what we just read. Mr. White and others use the same tactic concerning a similar passage in the book of Jude.
40:15
Now, before we go to that, I was very interesting as I wanted to see, alright, he said later on there's something about Titus 2 -13 and the
40:27
Granville Sharp construction, so I'm going down and down and down I look and finally
40:34
I find this long section where he quotes all these statements of mine, culled from throughout the book.
40:44
This book is not against King James Version. James White makes a previous statement in the introduction to his book. However, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. Here is just a sampling of comments gleaned from just two chapters of the book to prove the absurdity of his position on the
40:54
King James Bible. Can one really trust a man that seems to have such a hatred and disdain for the
40:59
King James Bible all the while claiming that he is not against it? Alright, let's see what my hatred and disdain comes from.
41:05
Here's the quotes. Therefore we see that in reality the KJV rendering is inferior to all the modern translations which more faithfully bring out what
41:12
Paul is referring to. I think that had something to do with Granville Sharp. Here the
41:17
KJV rendering is better than it was in a previous example, though it is still found to be inferior to the modern versions. We discover the modern translations are much more accurate than the rather free and misleading translation of the
41:26
KJV at this point. The KJV is the favorite version of a number of groups that promote work salvation.
41:32
That happens to be true. I've never seen Dr. Stouffer outside the temple in Salt Lake City, but hey, you know, maybe we just missed him all those years.
41:40
Yet this is a case in which the modern translations are more literal and more correct than the KJV. Cultic groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses have made great use of the
41:48
KJV's ambiguous rendering of words that have to do with the afterlife. This is one place in which many modern translations far surpass the
41:55
KJV in accuracy. While the KJV's translation of these terms is certainly unfortunate, these are all just quotes from my book, every single one of these, what's the relevance of each one?
42:06
If what I'm saying about that particular passage is true, then there's nothing quote -unquote against the
42:12
King James or showing hatred for the King James in what I'm saying, is there? See, and again, long before he ever wrote this book, long before he wrote this book,
42:27
I specifically made it very, very clear that this kind of attitude is rampant amongst
42:34
King James Only people who cannot differentiate between disagreeing with a rendering in the
42:43
King James Bible and disagreeing with the Word of God. There's a whole discussion of this right at the beginning of the book, and all
42:49
Dr. Stauffer is doing is proving very, very clearly that I accurately represented exactly what it was they were saying.
43:02
And so he goes down, finally I get to the Granville Sharp stuff, he goes on to justify the changes already discussed in the body of this chapter, but the humorous statement comes on the next page.
43:13
After he spends a full page justifying why the Granville Sharp rule would have changed the outcome of the word in King James Bible in 2
43:19
Peter 1 1, he makes the following statement. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five Granville Sharp constructions. By the way, today
43:25
I would probably want to say four, because there is a slight syntactical difference, and I think it's three -two.
43:32
I think that's what it would be. That would be one of the changes I would make in the book, but unlike some people who make changes in their books,
43:39
I would put a footnote in to describe it. Anyways, no one would argue the other four instances are exceptions to the rule, and he puts that in bold, and then he says, let me try to rephrase
43:49
Mr. White's insightful comments. This rule that did not exist when the
43:54
King James translators did their work is being used to justify changes that are unnecessary and unscriptural. Back up the truck.
44:01
This is why I would love, really really love, to get Dr. Stauffer on the phone.
44:09
The rule did not exist. Well, that's interesting. What that means is that the rule had not been recognized in English translation.
44:21
The rule existed when Paul and Peter wrote. It was simply a rule of the language in the utilization of the language when it was written.
44:31
The recognition of it in the English language is the issue that that I had addressed and said it had not yet been recognized, and that's why
44:40
I frequently pointed out the King James translators cannot be faulted for purposely trying to misrepresent the text or mistranslate the text, okay?
44:51
Evidently, Dr. Stauffer doesn't understand simple translational issues along those lines.
44:58
Then it says to justify changes. No, not changes. The King James cannot be the standard. The standard is what was written by Paul, not what was translated 1 ,600 years later.
45:09
So that's improper terminology that are unnecessary and unscriptural. If the
45:15
King James is not accurately representing the text, then it is necessary unless you don't care what
45:23
Paul originally wrote. And unscriptural? Where does that come from? That makes no sense whatsoever.
45:29
Furthermore, his arguments for the changes in the modern versions are bolstered by a rule that he says applies five times in one book, but four of them are clearly exceptions to the rule?
45:40
Question mark, question mark, question mark, exclamation mark, exclamation mark, exclamation mark. Excuse me?
45:47
No, that's not what I said. No one, I mean, the man doesn't even understand the point of Granville Sharpe's construction and clearly doesn't understand what
46:00
I was saying. I never said that four of them are exceptions to the rule.
46:06
I said that no one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule.
46:12
If you look at the other four, it's where the phraseology is, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Is someone going to argue that we have a different Lord than the
46:20
Savior Jesus Christ? So no one argues that. That's what proves that 1 .1
46:26
is not an exception to the rule either. So he completely and totally misses the entire point, seemingly has no knowledge of what the
46:36
Granville Sharpe construction is about, and he says, after completely blowing that, says, here is a better rule.
46:43
Any rule that contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture is satanically inspired and has no basis in truth. So what is the plain teaching of Scripture?
46:54
It's whatever Dr. Stauffer thinks it is from the King James Version of the Bible, even if that detracts from the deity of Christ as plainly proclaimed by the
47:03
Apostle Paul in Titus 2 .13 or by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1 .1. That's when this stuff gets really dangerous, and we've seen it more than once.
47:13
He's not the only person to have done this. The purpose of this book is to keep our discussions simple.
47:23
However, answering the critics sometimes necessitates a more technical rebuttal. Okay, good, here comes the technical rebuttal.
47:31
Please pardon the technical nature of this short answer to Mr. White's scriptural infidelity. Mr. White fails to recognize that the
47:38
God and our Savior is a Hebraism called Hendiades.
47:44
He doesn't even, at least here in the web version, that's not even spelled right.
47:50
This means one by means of two. Now let me stop for a moment. How many of you have heard this one before?
47:57
If you've dealt with Jehovah's Witnesses, we are now listening to the very argumentation that Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to use against Granville Sharpe's construction.
48:08
Isn't this fascinating? Now somehow, without dealing with the
48:13
Greek, without dealing with the rule, all of a sudden we're going to a Hebraism. Hmm, I wonder if this is from the regional
48:23
Hebrew version of Acts 1 through 15. Maybe he's found what Dave Hunt couldn't find. I'm sorry, it's just sometimes you just, you just, if I had hair to pull out, this would be when you're doing it.
48:37
This means one by means of two. Other such constructions can be found in many scriptures such as 1st Timothy 1 .1,
48:42
2nd Timothy 1 .2, and Titus 1 .4. Now, does that mean, according to Dr.
48:51
Stauffer, that if we turn to, let's use Titus 1 .4.
48:58
That was the last one cited. Titus 1 .4 contains a parallel Hebraism to Titus 2 .13.
49:12
All right, Titus 1 .4. To Titus, my true child and the common faith, grace and peace from God the
49:18
Father and Jesus Christ our Savior. And Christ Jesus our Savior, I'm sorry. And so I'm looking at that and I go, what's that supposed to be?
49:28
First of all, there's not a Granville Sharpe construction there. So what's that supposed to, where's the parallel?
49:38
Not there. Doesn't seem, now again,
49:43
I suppose it's possible. Maybe Dr. Stauffer is an anti -trinitarian heretic. I don't know. I honestly don't know.
49:49
Maybe he doesn't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Maybe he thinks the Father is the Son and he's just ignorant of that. I don't know.
49:56
He made that statement up above that makes you go, it's a little bit odd. But maybe he's saying
50:06
God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior is this thing, is this alleged appearance of Henyades.
50:14
I don't know. It's hard to say. There's no explanation of it.
50:20
Because he goes to Old Testament passages, instead of New Testament passages, and Zechariah 9 .9,
50:26
writing upon an ass and upon a colt the full of an ass, or the Redeemer of Israel and His Holy One, or a just God and a
50:33
Savior, Isaiah 4521. Each of these examples reveals a clear Henyade.
50:40
They're all one by means of two. In addition to the fact that the construction of 2 Peter 1 .1
50:45
is correct, the style is plainly the Apostle Peter's style of writing. I don't understand it either, but I'm just reading it to you.
50:53
The Apostle Peter's inspired style of writing is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus our Lord, and the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
50:59
See 2 Peter 1 .1, 1 .2, 1 .8, 1 .11, 1 .14, 1 .16, etc. He just proved me right, of course, because he doesn't seem to recognize that 1 .11
51:09
and 1 .1 are Granville Sharp constructions, which identify
51:14
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He says Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 1 .11 is right. 2
51:19
Peter 1 .11? Well, if that's the case, then 2 Peter 1 .1 should be translated Our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
51:27
I missed that. It would help if he could read the language, but he's not evidently able to do so.
51:32
Now consider the passage in 2 Peter under attack by Mr. White. Yes, I'm attacking 2 Peter.
51:39
Once again, our Bible, like our Savior, differentiates between God and our
51:44
Savior. Again, I'm just reading it, folks. I Now, as I said in my book, that it should be
52:08
Our God and Savior Jesus Christ, just like it's Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which he accepts in 2
52:13
Peter 1 .11, but doesn't seem to recognize the parallelism there.
52:19
But anyways, the importance of a personal relationship of our Savior Jesus Christ cannot be overemphasized. The KJV correctly makes this distinction.
52:25
The modern versions fail to do so, as if somehow this is talking about our relationship with Jesus Christ, the description of Jesus.
52:37
And I wonder if he actually believes that faith is the gift of God in 2
52:42
Peter 1 .1. I'm really wondering what this fellow believes about Calvinism and about Reformed theology.
52:50
I haven't found much on the web where he would address this issue, but I'd like to find out.
52:57
In the NIV, the personal relationship is confused because the our is moved out of place. Instead of salvation being emphasized, it seems as though more than one
53:06
God could be recognized, our God and their God. Well, folks, I'm sorry, but that is just silly.
53:12
That is just absolutely, positively ridiculous. It has nothing to do with what
53:18
Peter was writing. It's already been refuted because he's accepted the translation of the Granville Sharpe construction in 2
53:24
Peter 1 .11 as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which, if he would be consistent, should be
53:29
Lord and our Savior Jesus Christ. But, of course, he's not going to do that because that would involve changing the
53:36
KJV and the KJV is his final authority in all things. And when the KJV is inconsistent with itself, just close your eyes and hum a few bars of Blessed Assurance and eventually the nasty bald guy will go away.
53:49
Anyone can create a rule that supposedly corrects an error, but first you must prove that the error exists and then prove the veracity of the rule in its application to a particular passage.
53:58
In this case, once again, the critic fails on both counts. He cannot prove the error and fails to establish that this rule applies, listen to this, or even exists.
54:07
Furthermore, he cannot even justify that the rule is valid. Dr. Stauffer hasn't even told us what the rule is.
54:14
He doesn't even know what the rule is. He has no clue what the rule is, but now he's questioning whether the rule exists.
54:23
Wow, this is classic. I gotta admit, this is just... Men like Mr. White and his cohorts should read the next passages very carefully, pay particular attention to the fact there is a distinction concerning our
54:35
God versus their God, and that our God is the God of salvation. The verse thus distinguishes between our
54:41
God and the God of the heathen. Their God does not save, and he will not save anyone that does not know him personally. In Psalm 6820, he that is our
54:48
God is the God of salvation, unto God the Lord belong the issues from death. Wow, as if I didn't believe there's a difference, and as if this had anything to do with scramble -sharp construction at all, which it of course doesn't.
55:03
Mr. White's book and many others like his attack, the greatest book ever given to man. As we have seen, some of their arguments are very easy to disprove.
55:11
God foreknew what books like his would be written, and I believe that is why he included verse 20, to stop the mouth of the gainsayer.
55:18
God's warning follows in the very next verse. Verse 21, Be warned, but God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses.
55:28
Well, I'm obviously free of that one, aren't I? Because I don't have any hair, but I'm sorry.
55:35
It is so difficult to take any of this seriously. The man has no clue what he's talking about, and this is being promoted as having left me no out?
55:48
This is what I'm afraid of, Mr. Dries? I'm sorry,
55:55
I'm just, I'm left speechless by this kind of thing, and I didn't even get to Jude 4, because that demonstrates it doesn't seem to understand the difference between a textual issue and a translational issue.
56:08
But I mean, I'm left speechless.
56:16
Absolutely. If that, honestly, so someone has actually come up with an email address for me, and like I said,
56:26
I had had an AOL address, and to be honest with you, I hate writing to AOL addresses, because didn't we all, at one point in time, if we're honest, didn't we all once have an
56:35
AOL address? I did. It's still in a number of my books. I only recently got rid of it, actually.
56:41
I don't have it anymore, so don't bother sending stuff there. But I was just privately noticed a different email address that actually looks like it might be a little bit more up -to -date, because let's face it, folks, those
56:57
AOL addresses, I wonder how many emails AOL bounces per day.
57:03
I bet you the internet would work 14 times faster if we didn't all still have those old, old email addresses from AOL.
57:12
Anyway, that email address looks good. I'm gonna, I will definitely email
57:19
Dr. Stauffer once I've got his book, because I want to wait till I have the book in my hand. It may even be sitting over there right now, and I need to check.
57:26
But this week, I will send it to him, and I would like to ask him to listen to this and try to explain to us, my goodness, how this is a meaningful response to anything that was said.
57:35
I would love to have Dr. Stauffer on. If Dr. Stauffer believes that that was a refutation of Granville Sharpe's rule, and a refutation of what
57:44
I had to say, I would be so pleased to have him on. And he can explain, you know, not only the language that he uses of me, but how that is supposed to be a, a refutation of what
58:01
I had to say. To me, it is absolutely amazing, but sometimes you have to deal with amazing stuff.
58:07
Mr. Dries, again, I would invite you, give us a call. I'd like to know if you, if you still think that this material is valid, and that I'm afraid of it.
58:18
That's what I would like to know, if Mr. Dries would like to give us a call. Hopefully, one thing's for sure, you now understand
58:25
Granville Sharpe's rule at Titus 2 .13, and if anyone's tries undercutting it, now you know, you know,
58:32
I need to start looking for the tradition they're trying to defend. Are they a King James Onlyist? Are they a Jehovah's Witness? Where are they coming from?
58:39
That's what I'd like to know. I'd also like to know if Dr. Stauffer is a Trinitarian, and what he means by the
58:44
Father and the Son being the same. That's, I'd like to find it out. We'll find out. Maybe we'll know on Tuesday, because that's the next dividing line.
58:51
We'll see you then. God bless. It's been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.
59:44
If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602, or write us at P .O.
59:49
Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the
59:54
World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A -O -M -I -N -dot -O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.