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, that's a subject that 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. 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? I, it's just, it's astonishing. It truly, truly is astonishing. And by the way, I did retweet this morning a, 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 going to 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. We disappear you. This is Big Brother doing how that's how Big Brother works. It's how Big Brother worked under the Soviets. 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 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 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 is your classic researcher nerd guy. 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's he is a vaccinologist. His whole thing is vaccines. That's 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? 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've faced 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 Sermongate, even though there's been new developments 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 Stauffer, 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, Just trust us. No, 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. 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. I'll eventually remember to get it moved over to Dropbox so I can find it. Dr. Stauffer 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 I've only been associated with a single translation committee, and that of course was in an 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 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 is 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 a 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 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 all goes well in that endeavor. But anyway, I said, hey, I'll come down. We'll do it on your turf, your church. Let's debate Titus 2.13 and let's also debate Psalm 12 because that's a big huge issue for King James Only folks is the idea that Psalm 12 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 man, do we see that. 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 I've invited them to do that. I haven't heard back yet. The next thing will 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. And so anyway, the point is, I was thinking, well, Why don't we take a look at what Dr. Stauffer says and then go to the board. Let's do some Greek today and look at Titus 2.13, 2 Peter 1.1, and 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 an old story that I've told many, many times before. And maybe I can, yeah, you know what? I think I can. Let me pull something up here while I'm telling you the story and see if, is that in there? No, of course it's not gonna be in there. 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, talk about getting over the hill. It's, uh, it's, it's sort of, sort of sad to see, but, but he, he keeps, you know, he keeps showing up and, uh, and that's the important part. And, uh, so, uh, we, in 1993, what did we drive up there? Did we rent a car? Did we rent the car? Cause I have a strange, I, I think it was. Yeah. I think we drove Rich's car, uh, up to, uh, Denver, Colorado for world youth day. And, uh, 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, uh, and there were, there were two of us and I don't know how many thousands of other people, but, uh, We had some other stuff we're gonna do up there as far as passing out tracks and stuff. We were on the trail to Cherry Creek State Park, I think is what it was called. There was gonna 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 we're standing out there passing out tracks and had lots of conversations. But at some point, Well, that's also the trip where I debated geriatrics 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 health food store, because we were very, very conscious of eating healthy. It's called Winchell's Donuts. And we had gotten 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've never been a big newspaper person, but we had a newspaper and I was looking through it and all of a sudden, 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 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 going to 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 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 Epistle 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 page that was on display. What's that high pitched? That's interesting. There is a high pitch that sounds like an alarm or something like that going on. Um, I hope it's not an, uh, I hope it's not a, uh, something in the other, uh, other room where we have an alarm going off or something like that. But, uh, I'll continue on here and, uh, hopefully you can't hear that. Uh, and, uh, we'll just keep talking anyway. Uh, 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 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 legible, it's legible. And so I say to Rich, I said, 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 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 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. 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 Nomen 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 first 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 would come up And they'd look at it, and they'd read what it was about, and they'd see that I'm really engrossed in looking at it very, very carefully. And they'd look over at him, and 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 2 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 2 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 Tan Theon, you know what, I'm going to, it's, it's gotten a little bit messy there. So, 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 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 is one, 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 Sharpe's original work. where he laid out, like I said, five different possibilities. And what is called Granville Sharpe'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 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 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, aha, 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. 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 three, 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 Sharpe'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 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 Bishop's 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. 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 is 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 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 the 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 Onlyism, you're attacking God's Word. The black and white irrationality of cultic King James Onlyism. A few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's Word concerning this passage continues. The insertion of the second hour in the A.V. 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 an introduction that 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-ists 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 2 Peter was written in, and so it's not running to the Greek, it is actually 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 it for a second. When the Holy Ghost conveyed the words of Titus chapter two, 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. This is not just important about King James Only-ism, this is also important today. Remember the 1946 movie? Remember we've talked about this, the 1946 movie, you're gonna be seeing more and more about it. The whole idea that the Bible was never supposed to mention homosexuality and it was put in in 1946, it's the exact same issue. These people have major linguistic catastrophes on their hands because they don't understand basic foundational translational issues. When Paul wrote arsenokoites, it had a meaning that he intended when he wrote the word to be understood by the Corinthians when they opened that papyri and read that word. And he utilized the language of his day to communicate it. And it was based on the biblical translation of the Old Testament they were using called the Greek Septuagint. And hence goes back to the original words in Hebrew. And we need to know all these things. What a translation committee decides in 1946 is irrelevant to what the meaning of those things actually is. So it's the same issue we're dealing with here. What did Paul intend to convey in his description of Jesus in Titus 2.13? He is saying that Paul intended to distinguish between God and Savior. That there are two persons involved here. So he says, this is true and exactly what the Holy Ghost intended to convey. However, the separation of God and Savior does not make the KJV inferior, but in fact, superior. In fact, the reading from the KJV should bolster one's faith in the inspiration and preservation of God's perfect Word as found in the pages of one book, the King James Bible. Follow along carefully. You ready? The article THE is used in reference to the Great God because there is only one Great God. This fact holds true whether a person accepts Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior or not. The reason God placed the personal pronoun our before Savior is because he is the great God in spite of man's belief, but one's personal Savior only if that relationship has been established. Therefore, the book of Titus proclaims that we are looking forward toward the day when the great God and our Savior returns because a saved man is addressed in the book of Titus. Again, for emphasis, Jesus is the great God, but a personal conscious decision must be made to make him one's personal savior, the hour in the verse. Don't miss this point because Mr. White's house of cards comes tumbling down based on the outcome of this single verse. He placed all of his eggs in this one spiritual basket and they all just cracked, leaving him with egg on his face. So, When the NIV and all the other modern versions change the passage, notice again, cult of King James only-ism, the English of the King James is the standard, rather than the original language itself, 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. Now, of course, to identify this as absurd on every level is being very kind. But hopefully, what everyone understands is that the issue is, what did Paul write to Titus? And what did he mean to communicate? All right, so I can't believe it's 2.51, our time, but let's go over here Let's go to the board. All right. Titus 2 to 11, for the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. It's very interesting. The grace of God here. This is saving grace. And hence you have to do something with all men. Why? Because this grace teaches us, teaches us. This is a teaching grace. This is an effective grace. This is a powerful grace. And this saving grace teaches us that we are to deny ungodliness and worldly desires. And instead, we are to live sofranos, wisely, in a disciplined fashion. We are to live in a righteous way. And we are to live godly lives in this present age. So the point is, that what Paul is writing to Titus is, we are talking about God's saving grace, there is a purpose in his salvation, and so it teaches us that we are to deny these things, live a godly life. Titus 2.13 is a continuation of this thought. That's important to notice because some people will separate it out and you won't recognize what's actually going on if you don't see that this is a continuation of a verse, is a continuation of a verse. So bring the note back up. So we are looking for, looking, and that's, we are denying ungodliness and we are looking for, so this is continuation of what we are to be doing, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing, and here's the Granville Sharp construction, and this is what we need to be looking at here. So, the glory of our great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ. So here is your Granville Sharp Construction. And so what is the essence of Granville Sharp Construction? You have two nouns. The glory of is not technically a part of it, but it's connected with, it's descriptive of the first noun, God and Savior. So teros. connected by Chi, the first noun has to have the article, the second has to be anarthrus, without an article. And you might go, well, I don't see an article. There's an article before glory, but then you've got Megalu before Thayu. It is articular, there is the article. you would put the description, great, between the article and God. So God has the article. So Terras does not. And hamon is placed after the two. So it is our great God and savior. And then all of that referring to the one phrase here, Jesus Christ, right? So there is your syntax. You have the article, you have Chi. First noun has the article, second does not. Our great God and savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself in our behalf. Now notice something. Look at this. Hey, Alton, gave himself. Do we have one person in Titus 13 or two? Because that's singular. So you'd have to theorize, well, yes, we're looking for the great glory of our God, and then our Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself. And so there's a distinction between the two. But where do you get the fact that there's somehow been the introduction of a split here? So we're looking for the glory of our great God. But now we're just trailing off and now we're talking about Jesus Christ. No, there is a single person in view in Titus 2.14 because there's a single person in view in Titus 2.13 as well. He gave himself in our behalf in order that he might purify us, he might, that same Hamas that is mentioned earlier, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and then purify, catharizo, redeem, and purify for himself. And notice this phraseology here, a people for his own possession. Now, why is that important? Well, let me show you something here. If I can get, I'm going to have to remember to bring the mouse over next time because the, my Mac, some of you know, older Macs had a thing where the batteries expanded. And so like the top can't even really cover anything. It made the touch pad next to impossible to use. It's pushing up on it from the back and stuff. So that's why I use a, a trackball when I'm in the other room. But let me show you from Keynote here. Actually, I need to project this over there. So mirror, and go full screen. So Times New 13, there's the translation. Let's look at some of the terminology that is used in the description in Titus 2.14. Some of the terminology is used. So for example, we look back. Oh my goodness, I have a misspelling right there. Look at that. I hope no one notices it. A little late for that. Israel hope in Yahweh for with Yahweh there is steadfast love and with him is plentiful redemption and he will what what's the term redeem Israel from all his iniquities and please note the verb that is used in the Greek septuagint the same verb is found in in Titus 2 14 so who's doing this Who is the one who redeems, who washes? They're related, Kotharidzo, and they're being used in Titus 2, verse 14. Who is the redeemer of Israel? Yahweh. Yahweh. Here in Ezekiel 37, 23, they shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things or with any of their transgressions, but I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned and will cleanse them and they shall be my people and I will be their God. Katharidzo. now use I will cleanse them and they shall be my law on my people same terminology cleansing redeeming people all this flowing from the Old Testament references to Yahweh and his work of redemption. Exodus 19 5, Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples for all the earth is mine. He is cleaning, redeeming a special people for himself. This is what Yahweh is doing. And so when we look at Titus 2, and we don't just stop in verse 13, we look at verse 14, we see that all the language that Paul is using is being drawn directly from the Old Testament, the Greek Septuagint, about what Yahweh would do with his people. Yahweh is the one redeeming his people, and yet 2.14 says, who gave himself. and then everything is identified as Yahweh. When you put a Bible translation above actually exegeting the text, you miss the fact that Titus 2.13 and Titus 2.14 Together are a tremendously clear and strong testimony to the fact that the New Testament Church not only would call Jesus God, but identifies the very actions of Yahweh as Jesus's actions, and that it's Yahweh who gives himself. You abandon some of the key Trinitarian evidence because you want to defend and English translation of the Bible. Shame on you. Shame on you. Now, we've already gone a little bit over time, but there is another of the references in the Bible. I'll be much shorter on this. We'll just use this and wrap things up. 2 Peter 1.1 is the text that I showed you in P72 earlier in the papyri. We were looking at that one. The NASB has, by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, you notice the New World Translation. Now, very, very quickly, the TR has a variant at this point. And so you could argue that they would not have seen a Granville-Sharp construction, even though they didn't know what a Granville-Sharp construction was, that they wouldn't have seen it because of a minor variant in the TR. But again, it's It really has no possibility of being original, but again, if you're TR only, it has to be. But notice 2 Peter 1.1, "...by the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ, a new world translation which is based upon the Westcott and Hort text has no excuse here." They insert the word the by the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ. So we know why the New World Translation, the translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, we know why they want to do what they're doing here. But let me just show you something I think is sort of pretty cool. And that is, here is 2 Peter 1.1 and we can compare it with 2 Peter 1.11. There are actually four or five Granville Sharp instructions in 2 Peter. The New World Translation correctly translates four of the five, but not the first because it would mess up their theology. But here in, look at the Greek and compare 2 Peter 1.1 with 2 Peter 1.11. Let me go ahead and... Yes, I know. So, there is your article. There is your first noun, God, Lord, but kuriu is in genus singular, theu, genus singular, haemon, kai, soteros, Jesu, Christu. The only difference, the only difference between 1-1 and 1-11 is Theyu versus Koryu. Now, if you want to sort of test how much someone's liberal theology is impacting their translation, check that out. 1-1 and 1-11 should be translated identical to each other. And if they're not, then someone's not translating according to the actual grammar. Now, if the Greek throws you a curve, here it is in English. And here you have it in, I'm sorry, this is transliteration. Here's the English down below. Our God and Savior Jesus Christ versus our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Also see, uh, first Peter, uh, second Peter two 20 and three 18. Did I say five earlier? I think it's four. Sorry. Well, there's actually, um, there is a fifth, but there's some dispute given the syntax, whether it's actually a Granville Sharp instructor or not. That's, that's, um, where that number came from. So you don't have in the immediate context of 2 Peter 1, I mean it's the introduction of the book, you don't have what you have in Titus where you get all this Greek septuagint language flowing in identifying Jesus as Yahweh. But what you do have is when you look at all of 2 Peter and you go, wow, there's all these other places where you have Granville Sharp constructions and they're very clear. And especially 111 is syntactically word order down to the cases of the words, identical between the two, absolutely identical. And so it must be translated in that fashion. So here's your point. If you're going out talking to the Jehovah's Witnesses anytime soon, you might want to be aware of 2 Peter 1.1 and Titus 2.13. You might want to be aware of the fact the New World Translation does not translate them correctly. At the same time, I think you can see why Dr. Stauffer hasn't jumped on my invitation for me to come down to Niceville and put all this up on a screen and get him to answer for all this. Because the reality is Titus 2 13 is a testimony to the deity of Christ and it should be translated our God and Savior Jesus Christ. And the King James does not have as clear a translation as the New American Standard does that point. That is a fact. and every Christian should love all facts, and I can guarantee you every single translator of the King James Version of the Bible would agree with me against Douglas Stauffer. That's a fact. That's just reality. But who knows? Maybe once I give a phone call, maybe something will happen, but I'm not gonna get too overly excited to see if that's gonna happen or not. All right, well, we went a little longer than I expected, a little deeper. That sometimes happens, but it's enjoyable to have the opportunity to talk about God's Word this way. And hopefully somebody out there, because I've had this happen many times, somebody out there is going to get in touch with me eventually and say, you're not going to believe it, but after watching the dividing line, The Jehovah's Witnesses came by my house and I was able to show this to them and I was able to have them. They had their kingdom in linear with them and so we looked at second second Peter 1 1 and I showed them second Peter 1 11 and they went away wondering why why there is an issue there. I hope that happens because I've done that. I've shown many a Jehovah's Witness that. But we need to have lots of other folks doing the same thing. So I hope you will do that. Thanks for watching the program. Don't forget, on Thursday, earlier time, 2 o'clock, Eastern Daylight Time, Trinitian Tawhid, the Muslim metaphysician Jake will be with me, and we'll be doing an hour and 40 minute debate. We hope you'll join us then. God bless.