Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1: Testimonies to the Deity of Jesus Christ

The Dividing Line Opens and the Upcoming Trinity Debate

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. We are in the big studio today and I need to make sure that you know on Thursday we will be here again and if I recall correctly we will be starting a number of hours earlier, 11 o 'clock our time if I recall correctly, to Eastern.

Right, so we have a debate, our first formal debate here in the big studio and the Muslim metaphysician and I will, I'm not going to be calling him that, I'll be calling him Jake, but we are going to be doing sort of a, I guess we'll call it a general topic introduction to what may come later as far as other more in-depth discussions if everything goes well.

The Trinity and Tawhid is a, that's a subject that we've, I've done with Shabir Ali and with numerous other Muslim Da 'i practitioners of Dawah down through the years literally, but it does give you an opportunity of laying out some of the foundational things and so we're going to be sort of demonstrating that this can be done without yelling and screaming and having anybody condemning the other one and jumping through the screen.

Jake will just be over there on that screen and we'll have it all set up and it'll be about an hour and 40 minutes formal time, so fairly straightforward, but anyways we hope that you will join us live at that point, two o 'clock Eastern Daylight Time, sort of a number that a lot of people can work with to figure out when that is wherever you are around the world.

I would imagine most of our Australian friends will definitely want to get up in the middle of night to watch that because you've got nothing else better to be doing given that you have been locked inside your homes again because of two COVID deaths.

Two COVID deaths, you lock the whole stinking place down. I don't even know what's going on. No disease has ever, ever, ever. Do you do this for snake bites or all those incredible spiders you have down there?

Does everyone hide in their home at that point? It's just, and I had an Australian literally saying, well we have a different respect for life here and I'm like, is hiding in your home living? It's just, it's astonishing.

It truly, truly is astonishing and by the way I did retweet this morning about 40 minute conference, news conference that was held in Canada. Some very important doctors, researchers, scholars discussing the censorship and suppression of any kind of counter narrative to what the government wants being told.

Talking about the pressures are being placed upon people because I know, I am well aware of the fact that there are many, many people in the medical field that are well aware that what's going on in our world is completely upside down.

They know why they wear masks and how long they wear masks and how long they should wear masks and so they know when they see children being forced to wear a mask all day that this is one of the most unhealthy, ridiculous, absurd things that's ever been done to children and yet it's still being done and it's going to continue to be done as if Big Brother is like, I don't care how many exposés you do, I don't care how many papers are published, we're just gonna do this, do it or we kill you.

We put you in the gulag, we destroy your job or eventually we just get rid of you, you, we disappear you. This is, this is Big Brother doing how, that's how Big Brother works, it's how Big Brother worked and under the Soviets and and so on and so forth and so I know that there are all sorts of medical folks out there that are just astonished at what's going on but at the same time the regular testimony of those folks is we're afraid to say anything.

We have been told that if we say anything we will lose our job. We cannot in any way shape or form take that risk and so there are a lot of people in that situation but many others are like I can't, I can't do this, I have to say something about what's going on and they are attacked immediately.

In this video, like I said, a retreat this morning, Joe Boot had put there, so if you look for Joe Boot, Ezra Institute, look through my feed, it may still be up, who knows, we know how that goes. You'll see if, it's only 40 minutes, I mean some of these things, I was sent one that sounds really interesting to listen to with Brett Weinstein and stuff and the guy who invented the mRNA stuff but it's three hours long and it's like well if I put it 1 .5 times I might be able to get through it eventually but this is only 40 minutes so it doesn't take that long to get through and new folks I had never seen before including an MP from up there in Canada and they're just, they're just talking about what we all know to be the case and that is if you point out the obvious.

I mean this one guy, you can just tell he does not want to be there, he's just, he is your classic researcher nerd guy, you know, I mean he has no interest in being out front or anything like this but he is just astonished at, he was asked a single, he is a vaccinologist, his whole thing is vaccines, that's what his research is and everything else and he was asked on a radio program and was asked a single question which was do you see a connection between the mRNA COVID vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and the pericarditis, the heart inflammation and he said yes I think there is a connection, boom!

That's it, how dare you? You are, it doesn't matter if it's as obvious as the nose on your face, you are not allowed to say these things, you are not allowed as a teaching professor in the field, you're not allowed to say these things and as I've said over and over again, once you weaponize medicine it's the greatest danger we face since we invented the atomic bomb, there's no question about it.

To life, freedom, liberty, everything, wow! And yet it has happened and it's happened very very quickly and the people who have done it are getting away with it and they think that there's nothing that can be done to them and so check that out, it's well worth your time to take a look at it.

But I'd like to put some of that aside today, despite the fact that we are faced with those realities daily, I'd like to put aside Sermon Gate, even though there's been new developments in in that area and you know we all now know names that we have, I had never heard of Docent Research Group in my life, but now that's become a regular part of our vocabulary and we see the amazing discussions going on there and the defense that has been offered by many people.

Let's put all that aside and let's do something a little bit more useful, even though to be honest with you it comes from, it comes from the strange strange world of King James only-ism. Dr. Douglas Stouffer, I mentioned on the last program and I pointed out that I had been sent a video and you know what I forgot to look, let me let me let me see if I can pull this up real quick, I should have had this this queued up but um dee-dee-dee-dee-dee-dee just trust us, now I played that and I played the hackable animals, that really bugged you, I don't want to show that one again, makes you want to get your gun, okay I'm not sure you want to say it out loud, but I may have left this on my home unit because I'm not seeing it coming up here, I think I remember what happened with it and yeah I'm not gonna pull it up right here, but I'll eventually remember to get it moved over to Dropbox so I can find it.

Anyway, Dr. Stouffer very confidently informed his parishioners, that's not really what you call people in an independent feminist Baptist King James only Church, but the members of his church that people like myself who are behind all these new versions, I didn't know I had that kind of authority, I really have only been associated with a single translation committee and that of course was in a advisory role long after the translation was done, just in regards to textual critical issues, but anyway he informed his people that his sterling argumentation had forced me to change much of what was found in my book, this is the first edition of the King James only controversy, this is the second edition and as I recall 2009, so wow it's been it's been 12 years, 12 years, wow it's been 12 years since we did the second edition of the King James only controversy, goodness, goodness, goodness, I think I might need to sit down now, anyway he informed his people that his argumentation made me change a great deal of material between these two books and the reality is anybody who has both these books knows the second edition is larger than the first and that 99 of the difference between the two is the addition of added material, I didn't, they didn't ask me to take anything out, I didn't take anything out and he specifically told his people that it was about Titus 2 .13 and as I said on the program last week if you just look at the index you'll see that all the material that was in the original is in the second edition, nothing's been changed about Titus 2 .13 or anything like that, but he said that there was a chapter in his book, one book stands alone, what is right versus James White, I think is what it was and so I'm like all right, it's available in Kindle, so I grabbed it and started looking at this particular chapter for the first time, I couldn't have changed the book 12 years ago for something I just now saw, but anyway, and I have written to Dr. Stauffer's church, I sent an email yesterday or the day before yesterday, I wanted to, to the church itself and I just checked my email and checked my spam and I have not yet gotten a response from the folks down there in Niceville, Florida to my challenge to debate these issues because like I said, Niceville is just straight down from Atlanta, it's about five hour drive down from Atlanta and it really wouldn't be out of my way either going to or coming from G3 to include a stop there, I checked on RV parks and I have, I have more apps on my phone now about how to find RV parks, how to avoid low bridges, all sorts of stuff and starting next week I will be doing my first major, major, major, major trip, so prayers are appreciated that, that all goes well in, in that endeavor.

Titus 2:13, Psalm 12, and the King James Only Debate

But anyway, I said, hey let's, I'll come down, we'll, we'll do it on your turf, your church, let's, let's debate Titus 2 .13 and let's also debate Psalm 12 because that's a big, that's a big, huge issue for King James Only folks, is the idea that Psalm 12 is a, is an explicit promise of the preservation of the King James version of the Bible.

Now I'm sure that the psalmist who wrote Psalm 12 many, many centuries before Christ would be pretty astounded to discover that their words were being used in specific reference to an English translation when of course it was going to be another minimally 1 ,500, 1 ,700 years before the very first proto-English language developed.

They probably have, really would have no idea why anyone would think that that's what they were talking about, but anyway, that's a big thing with a lot of King James Only folks and we could, I think it's very worthwhile to exegete Psalm 12 and to demonstrate a consistent interpretation of the psalm and what it's referring to, especially because the last verse in Psalm 12 I think is one of the most important verses for us today.

The wicked strut about when that which is evil is exalted amongst the sons of men and, and man do we see that. That there, that is a vitally important observation about what is taking place in our society.

This sudden explosion of ungodliness is because it is being specifically encouraged by the culture makers in a way that hasn't been for a long, long time, at least in Western culture. So, so I've, I've invited them to do that, I haven't heard back yet, the next thing will be, have to be a phone call to see if that's at all a possibility because I need to get all that trip put together, arranged, booked and so on and so forth.

Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 as Testimonies to Christ's Deity

And so anyway, the point is, I was thinking, well, why don't we take a look at what Dr. Stouffer says and then go to the board. Let's, let's do some, some Greek today and look at Titus 2 .13, 2nd Peter 1 .1 and let's, let's think about the issues relating to these testimonies to the deity of Christ.

And one of the reasons that this specific text is important to me is a, is an old story that I've told many, many times before and, you know, maybe I can, yeah, you know what, I think I can. Let me, let me pull something up here while I'm, while I'm telling you the story and see if, is that in there?

No, of course it's not going to be in there. Why would it, why would it be the easy way of doing things? And that is a story that I have told before, so I apologize to Algo and those who've heard the story before.

But many, many moons ago, back when Rich and I were much younger men than we are now, and of course Rich, and just talk about getting over the hill, it's, it's sort of, sort of sad to see, but, but he, he keeps, you know, he keeps showing up and, and that's the important part.

And so we, in 1993, what did we drive up there? Did we rent a car? Did we rent the car? Because I have a strange, I, I think it was, yeah, I think we drove Rich's car up to Denver, Colorado for World Youth Day, and we had, my dad had printed up a whole bunch of really nice, glossy, fancy-looking tracks for us to pass out, and we showed up World Youth Day, and, and there were, there were two of us, and I don't know how many thousands of other people, but we had some other stuff we're going to do up there, as far as passing out tracks and stuff.

We were on, we were on the trail to Cherry Creek State Park, I think is what it was called. There was going to be a mass there, and there was a pilgrimage along this trail, and it was hot, and all these young people are walking by, and, and we're standing out there passing out tracks, and had lots of conversations, but at some point, well, that's also, that's also the trip where I debated gerrymatitics twice on the papacy, and those are available in audio, on sermon audio.

93 was a little bit before we were getting overly video-technical at that point, and so Rich and I had stopped at a, at a health food store, because we were very, very conscious of being, of eating healthy.

It's called Winchell's Donuts, and we had gotten our, our donuts, and I'm sure he had coffee, and I don't like coffee, so I probably had a thing of milk or something like that sitting there, and I don't know how we ended up with a newspaper, because I'm, I've never been a big newspaper person, but we had a newspaper, and, and I was looking through it, and all of a sudden, I, you know, here, here's this thing about the Papal Treasures Exhibit, the Papal Treasures Exhibit, and I'm sort of looking at it, I'm not all that excited about it, until I saw that they were going to have this.

Now, in fact, let me see if I can, come on, baby. I don't have my, my mouse, and, okay, I don't know how that happened. I can't get the, no, it's because of the battery issue. Come on. Well, it's, okay, I'm gonna have to do this this way, since it will not move over to the other side.

I'm gonna have to do it this way. There you go. There's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. I'm reading the newspaper, and I find out that this is in the Papal Treasures Exhibit there in Denver, and this is P72, and go, go to the, yeah, because I still have the note thing up here.

Let me, P72 is from around 175 to 200, and this is the earliest manuscript we have of 1st, 2nd Peter and Jude, and over here, we have the end of 1st Peter, and you can see very clearly, Petru Epistole Be, so there is 2nd Peter, and so by this time, there is already a identification of these books in this fashion, and this was the very, this was the very page that was on display.

What's that high-pitched? I have, that's interesting. There is a high-pitched, it sounds like an alarm or something like that going on. I hope it's not an, I hope it's not a, something in the other, other room where we have an alarm going off or something like that, but I'll continue on here, and hopefully you can't hear that, and we'll just keep talking.

Anyway, this was the exact page. This is very, very easy to read. For example, you can see Simon Peter, a servant of Christ Jesus. It's, it is really, really amazing, though let's be honest, this is not the level of, this is not the level of writing that you would see in, for example, whoops, sorry about that, that you would see, for example, in Codex Sinaitic or something like that.

This is not the best handwriting in the world, but it's, but it's legible, it's legible, and so I say to Rich, I said, we, they've got a page of P72, we've got to go see it, so you had to actually, I think, sign up somehow, and of course there was no internet at the time.

I forget, I think you had to make a phone call or something like that, but we had to get our tickets and, and show up at a certain time, and so very early on, this was under glass, and so we go walking up to it, and I'm just, I'm enthralled.

Here is, here is something that a fellow believer copying the scriptures 1 ,800 years earlier, and I'm reading it, and so I'm, most everybody else just sort of walks up, looks at it, reads the thing, and goes on their way, you know, it's sort of like, you know, really who cares, but I'm there for quite some time, wishing I had my Greek New Testament with me, and I'm seeing certain things, so for example, do you notice these?

See these lines between, lines written between the lines, right there, and there, and there, and there, and there, and there, those are the marks of the Nomena Sacra. Oh, there's another one right there, the genitive form of God.

Those are the Nomena Sacra, and these immediately tell anyone who's looking at an ancient papyri, that we are looking at a Christian papyri, because only the Christians utilized the Nomena Sacra. These were abbreviations, so this is the accusative form of Jesus Christ, it's three letters, three letters, two letters for God, two letters for God here, this is the genitive, and same thing, the accusative of God over here, and at the end of 1st Peter.

These automatically tell us that this is a Christian manuscript, it's just, you don't even have to be reading, you can just automatically tell this is what we're what we're dealing with. And so I'm looking at those, and Rich will tell you that, you know, people would come up, and they'd look at it, and they'd read what it was about, and they see that I'm really engrossed in looking at it very, very carefully, and they'd look over at him, they'd go, can he read that?

And Rich would go, yeah, look at this Herbert, this man can read, and people start gathering around, and so I'd have to go look at something else, and I'd come back, and eventually the security folks started getting a little worried, and we had to go look at other stuff, and I had to leave this.

But one of the things, of course, that I was looking at especially, which was really, really, really important, was the fact that 2nd Peter 1 .1 contains, right here, the Granville Sharp Construction, all right?

The Granville Sharp Construction. And so, what is the Granville Sharp Construction? Well, if you look at 2nd Peter 1 .1 in a modern translation of the Bible, it speaks of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

And the issue is, you have Soteros right here, and you have God right here, and you'll notice, ton, theon, you know what, I'm going to, it's, it's gotten a little bit messy there, so here is God, right there, and here is Soteros, and here is Jesus Christ, all right?

So, here is our, here is Chi. Now, Chi is the connective, the word and. And the Granville Sharp, one of the complex of Granville Sharp rules. Granville Sharp was an English abolitionist who identified these rules at the end of the 18th century.

I did a lot of work on this when I was a Bible major Greek minor at Grand Canyon College. In fact, what I did, this was before computer, before Bible programs for computers and things like that, and so one of my projects, I believe it was my senior year, I examined every Chi.

And there are a lot of Chi's. My daughter knows the word Chi, that was one word that she did like to learn. But every word and in Paul's epistles and in Peter's epistles. Now, that would be so easy to do today.

It would be so simple to do a search for all possible Granville Sharp constructions using accordance or logos today. Just, just knowing how to do the search parameters. Couldn't do that back then, so I called this project iStrain.

And so I looked at every Chi, and what I was looking for is, do you have a noun being connected to another noun by Chi with the article before the first and no article before the second? So this was, this is one, and what happened was, I had to, I managed to, through something called interlibrary loan.

Again, today you could probably, I've not gone looking for it, but today you could probably go online and find a PDF scan, probably in Google Books someplace, of Granville Sharp's original work, where he laid out a multiple, like I said, five different possibilities.

And what is called Granville Sharp's rule, in most grammars back then, this would be 1984, 84, 85, somewhere in that time range when I was doing this. It's not that we didn't have computers, we just didn't have Bible programs that could do this kind of stuff.

We had the, we had the compact portable at that time, with its two floppy drives and no hard drive. Anyway, the Granville Sharp rule, as it was defined by grammars at that time, was just one of a number of different rules that Granville Sharp identified in his study of the New Testament.

And that helped when I just, when I used interlibrary loan and tracked down this old, old, old printing of Granville Sharp's work. That really helped to develop a lengthy paper that I wrote on this particular subject as a Bible major in college.

So I'm looking at this and I'm going, uh-huh, here is your Granville Sharp construction and a number of years after this you had Dan Brown show up with his Da Vinci code, where he's saying that all this stuff about the deity of Christ was developed at the time of the Council of Nicaea.

If this was written around AD 200, this is 125 years before the Council of Nicaea, and you have clear reference to the deity of Christ right there. And so that was what I was looking at, that's what I was staring at and confirming and doing stuff like that.

It was pretty exciting to see that at that particular time, and I'm thankful that I had that opportunity, that Rich and I had that opportunity to see this text here. But that's also why I was primarily interested in talking about the subject of...

Rich will get the camera over here eventually. He's busy with other things at the moment, so we don't want to distract him. So that was part of what was behind my thinking in dealing with the subject of what is being said by Doug Stauffer in this text, is because 2 Peter 1 .1 and Titus 2 .13 are key references to the deity of Christ.

Yet it has been my experience over the years that King James Only advocates will throw these texts under the bus because they are not clearly references to the deity of Christ in the King James version of the Bible.

Now think about that for just a moment. Where are the priorities for these folks? It's not with the faith, it's with the King James version of the Bible. So let's take a look at Titus 2 .13, let's take a look at what the text is saying, and let's recognize what's going on here, and then... well let me back up.

Let me explain to you what Doug Stauffer says so you can see what happens here. So in his book, which like I said, I picked up the Kindle edition. Let me just read, this is chapter 3, What's Right versus James White.

Now he had done a, the previous chapter he had done a run-through of some passages on the deity of Christ in the King James version of the Bible. No one is saying the King James version of the Bible does not contain references to the deity of Christ, it obviously does.

The question is, are there passages that present the deity of Christ that are not clearly translated in the King James version of the Bible, and the fact is that there are. Some of these are due to textual issues, and some of these are simply due to the fact that, for example, Granville Sharp's working at the end of the 18th century.

He's working long after the King James was translated. King James translators were heavily influenced by Latin formulations, and they translated very much in light of Latin formulations, and Latin does not work the way King James does with the article at all, and the Granville Sharp construction has to do with articles, presence or absence of articles.

And so the question is, is not, the question is not, were the King James translators trying to deny the deity of Christ? Of course not. The question is, would even the King James translators, upon seeing the evidence for the Granville Sharp construction, go, oh yes, well we need to, that needs to be amended, that needs to be made more clear, and I believe without a doubt that they would definitely say exactly that.

No question about it at all. But King James only-ism is a completely different system of belief than the King James translators themselves possessed. Very, very much so. Very, very much so. None of the King James translators would be King James only advocates today.

None of them. None of them. Now, so Douglas Salfer says, the previous chapter reveals the magnitude of the attacks by modern version producers upon the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Well, it didn't, but.

Doctrines such as these fall prey to Satan's penknife at the hands of the modern version producers. This is your standard rhetoric. This is why, this is why they detest this book so much, because it blows a hole in all this stuff.

Despite the immense variations, many of the modern version gurus refuse to admit any problem associated with these changes. Some at least honest Bible critics go so far as to claim that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible concerning the deity of Christ.

This includes you reread chapter 2 before continuing. The next passage is a favor to those proclaiming the superiority of the 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.

And just in passing, notice what's going on here. You have to remove the King James translation from its history. You can't put it in its history, you can't talk about the Bishops Bible, you can't talk about Tyndale, you can't talk about Wycliffe, you can't talk about the Geneva Bible, you can't have people recognizing that there have been multiple editions of the King James version, you've got multiple editions today, you know, Oxford and Cambridge editions, and they're not identical to one another.

You can't talk about any of that stuff. What you're doing, as you see here, is the King James versus everything else. As if everything else can be thrown into one big pile, and of course it can't. So for this reason, extra attention is devoted to completely refuting this errant position.

One man who has written an entire book attacking the KJB is James White. Mr. White mentions the next passage on 11 different pages in his book, Copyright 1995, 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.

So what I did, obviously, is I did have a, and do have, in both editions, despite his claims otherwise, I do have an extensive discussion of the Granville Sharp Rule because I think it's important for people to understand it.

And it does illustrate the necessity of analyzing any Bible translation and recognizing that even the best Bible translations need revision and update in light of what? Wanting to know what the Bible originally said.

Not some tradition later on. What did the Apostles write? This is the issue. This is the issue. It's not the issue for them. On the surface, it may appear that he uses credible logic for his position, but not if one fully considers the implications of these differences.

Then he puts King James KJB, I don't know why he uses B, but it's King James Version, Titus 2 13, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.

Now, it's plain as can be that as it is rendered in the King James, of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, pushes you toward the idea that there there is an appearing of two persons here. And then for some reason he uses the NIV, Titus 2 13, while we wait for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Which very plainly is identifying Jesus as our great God and Savior. There is no separation of the two terms God and Savior, nor a repetition of the word our before Savior. So there's a distinction between the two.

He goes on, 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 we can see at the NIV provides the clearest translations of the key passages that teach the deity of Christ, the NASB just a bit less so, and the KJV the least of the three.

And this was all sorts of other texts. We're talking about John 1 1, and John 1 18, and Titus 13, and 2 Peter 1 1, and Romans 9 5, and I dealt with all of these elsewhere in the, this was in the advanced materials section toward the back of the book.

He also claims that the NIV and NASV are clear, whereas the King James Bible is ambiguous. Specifically on this text, and especially Romans 9 5, where the New King James has, I think, the clearest rendering of Romans 9 5 at that point, because there is no textual issue that is involved there.

There are textual issues, for example, at John 1 18. If necessary, go back to previous chapter and see if you arrive at the same conclusion regarding the NIV's supposed superiority concerning the treatment of the deity of Jesus Christ.

A few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's Word. Please notice, disagree with King James only as in, you're attacking God's Word. The black-and-white irrationality of cultic King James only as in.

A few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's Word concerning this passage continues. The insertion of the second hour in the AV translation makes it possible to separate God from Savior as indeed those who deny the deity of Christ would assert.

But this is an error as is demonstrated elsewhere. The fact is the 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 because even by that point I had encountered people who, again, didn't care about the Granville Sharp construction.

Their most important thing is simply to defend the King James Bible. That's it. Nothing else, nothing else matters. He says, this KJV defender, the author, does not feel compelled to overlook this or any other passage in spite of devoting almost 300 pages to the attack of the King James Bible.

Mr. White's book contains introduction and boldly states, this book is not against the King James Version. Such a statement would be similar to my claiming that the book you are personally reading is not against the New International Version.

I would be a hypocritical, deluded liar if I made such a ridiculous claim and expected anyone to believe me. Welcome to the world of James White. Well again, cult of King James only cannot distinguish between refuting King James only-ism and an attack upon the King James Bible because for them they're all the same thing.

They cannot look at the King James translation historically, they cannot see it in its relationship to the Geneva Bible or Wycliffe or anything else, and so if you oppose King James only-ism then you're attacking the Word of God.

Which I have an entire discussion of right at the beginning of the book which perfectly describes him but he's not aware of that. In addition to those pages already mentioned, Mr. White spends four entire pages, 267 to 270, discussing Titus 213 in an attempt to prove the inferiority of the King James Bible.

In another of his comments he states, King James translators through no fault of their own obscured these passages through less than perfect translation. Modern versions correct their error. He then runs to the Greek and Granville Sharpe's rule attempting to prove his point.

What exactly is his point? Well yes, we run to the Greek because that's what Titus chapter 2 was written in, that's what 2nd Peter was written in, and so it's not running to the Greek, it is actually doing what it is doing what every single King James translator would have agreed you had to do.

Every single one of them. Every single one of them would have read this book and go, what is this guy talking about? They would have no idea. He claims that when the KJV 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.

Now here's his, you ready? This is true and exactly what the Holy Ghost intended to convey. So stop for just a moment. For cultic King James only, because there's non-cultic King James preferred, even King James only folks, that's non-cultic.

They don't literally say, we don't want to know what was written in the original languages, okay? But this is the cultic aspect of it, where the elevation of the King James becomes the central organizing focus of all of theology itself.

Even to the point where you will abandon a testimony to the deity of Christ, so as to defend the rendering of the King James Version of the Bible. Notice what he's saying, this is true and exactly what the Holy Ghost intended to convey.

So, now think about for a second. When the Holy Ghost conveyed the words of Titus chapter 2, when was that? That was in a personal letter from the Apostle Paul to Titus. Did the English language exist at that time?

No, it did not. And so, logically, rationally, the rational person wants to know, what did the Holy Spirit superintend in the writing of Paul's letter to Titus? How would Titus have understood this? What did Paul intend to convey?

Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, that's how Peter expresses it. There is a truthful answer to that question that existed before the first English word ever came into existence.

Now, languages develop very slowly and English especially is a mess as far as its history is concerned. But long before there was anything even remotely like the English language, the truth of what Paul said to Titus was discernible.