First, in chapter 8 pages 194-195, White says that is just fine to omit some of Christ's titles from 23 verses of scripture. His reasoning for this is "Byzantine text-type has longer titles for the Lord Jesus in comparison with the Alexandrian or Western types." Meanwhile, Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Next on page 197 James White has the audacity to say that the AV diminishes from the deity of Christ. Here are the references where the AV supposedly diminishes from Christ's deity.
AV
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
NASB
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
James White somehow think that the AV diminished from Christ's deity here in John 1:18. I do not know how he arrived at that, he seems to be creating a smokescreen to cover up the modern version creating two Gods. Count them, in John 1:1 the "Word was God" but now the NASB says that the Word is "the only begotten God". So the NASB says that there is a begotten God and an unbegotten God, that is TWO Gods. There is only one God, but He is in three Persons. There are not separate "unbegotten" and "begotten" Gods. There is only one God, therefore when you say "only begotten God" then the Father and Holy Ghost have to be begotten as well.
Here White says that the AV's reference to Christ's deity is "ambiguous" and that the NIV is "clear". You be the judge. I see no difference in the two other than the different word order. Both versions call Christ God. I do notice that the NIV changed the simple and easy to understand NIV and made it have more difficult words.
AV
Romans 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
NIV
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Here is the next verse on White's hit list.
AV
Philippians 2:
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
[9] Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
NIV
Philippians 2:
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
The AV says "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and the NIV says "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage". But Christ did accept people worshiping Him because He was God. The NIV would have you think that He never exercised His deity attributes. Yes He was made "in the likeness of men" but He also accepted peoples worship because He was God. The AV reads correctly "thought it not robbery".
Next....
AV
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
NIV
Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form
White says that the AV does not give deity to Christ here in Colossians 2:9. "Godhead" is the Bible word for "trinity" and it is used THREE times in the Bible (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9). This is not an error in the AV, this is James White not knowing what "Godhead" was.
Next....
AV
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
NIV
Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
I am not sure why White says that the NIV is better. Both versions call Christ God. The AV is worded differently but it does not state that Christ and God are separate. Same instance here in 2 Peter 1:1.
AV
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
NIV
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
What is wrong with saying that we have the righteouness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. That is Peter's style of writing, 2 Peter 1:1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 2:20. Also see 1 Peter 1:3. Saying that we have the righteouness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ does not mean that the righteousness "of God and our Saviour" is talking about different People. This is also done in 1 Timothy 1:1, Titus 1:4, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Timothy 1:2, 4:2, and 1 Corinthians 8:6. There is nothing wrong with that wording and it does not mean that "God and our Saviour" are different People. Isaiah 44:1 says, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen" but Jacob and Israel are the same people. In Isaiah 44:6 it says, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" but LORD the King of Israel and his redeemer are the same Person. The wording does not mean what James White implied that it meant. But also, James White ignored his precious Greek in this case.
Here is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory.
1:1: tou theou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou
1:11: tou kuriou emon kai soteros Iesou Christou
It is then noted that the only difference between the two verses is the substitution of kuriou (Lord) in verse eleven instead of theou (God) as found in verse one. Therefore, according to the Greek, verse one must be translated as "our God and Savior" in order to be consistent. Since the KJV does not do this, it is looked upon as mistranslating this passage.
The point is well taken, and would be correct if the Greek text that underlies the KJV read as presented. However, it does not. The Greek text used by the King James translators was Beza's text of 1589 and 1598. There we find an additional emon (our) at 2 Peter 1:1 that is not provided by those who call this a mistranslation. The two are compared below with Beza's text presented first.
Tou theou emon kai soteros emon Iesou Christou
Tou theou emon kai soteros Iesou ChristouThe translation of Beza's text is correct and consistent in the Authorized Version, and is consistent since the additional emon appears in 2 Peter 1:1 and not 2 Peter 1:11."
Also White thinks that "Me" should be added in John 14:14, "if ye shall [Me] any thing in my name". I do not care what White wants to insert (Deuteronomy 4:2).
He also thinks that 1 Peter 3:14-15 should read "Christ as Lord" instead of "Lord God". Again, I do not really care what Mr. White wants to change.
White also approves of this change.
AV
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
NASB
Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
White's explanantion, "The TR adds one word here, "God," which results in the disruption of the flow and the introduction of a second person into the text, "the Lord God," who is then differentiated from the Lord Jesus Christ. Most would feel that "Lord God" would be referring to the Father." I agree with Mr. White. Brother Jude differentiated from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. It is perfectly fine to mention the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate persons. Look at Ephesians 4:1-6.
Ephesians 4:
[1] I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
[2] With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
[3] Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
[5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
All three persons of the Godhead are named separately. By White's reasoning would not this be saying that the three persons of the Godhead are different Gods? For a writer to address the different persons of the Godhead is fine. Meanwhile White attacks 1 John 5:7, the greatest verse in the Bible on the Trinity.
Pages 207 to 210 are not really anything to address.
On page 211 White brings this up again, but I have already dealt with this difference in Philippians 2:6.
AV
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
NIV
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
On page 213 in Romans 14:10 White wants to change the judgment seat of Christ to the "judgment seat of God". However, the judgement seat we stand before is Christ's, (2nd Person of the Godhead). Christ is the one that died for us and gave himself for us, His judgment seat is where He tells us what we did for Him. It is specific to Christ, not the rest of the Godhead.
Next is where James White plays defense for his modern perversions.
AV
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
NIV
Micah 5:2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Here the NIV says that Christ has "origins" from "ancient times" while the AV says that Christ's goings forth have been from everlasting. White tries to justify this by saying that it is referring to the ancient lineage of David. Sure......
Next White says that it is okay for the RSV to change "a virgin" to "a young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 because the AV is not consistent in it's translation of the Hebrew words. (but he did not tell you that no version is consistent in translating the words "bethula" and "alma") Meanwhile the AV has a perfect prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ.
Next see a slightly edited version of a blog post I did refuting page 218.
(NIV) Luke 2:33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
(KJB) Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Page 218 of The King James Only Controversy...
" Here the charge that is leveled is obvious: the use of "father" rather than "Joseph" lends itself to a denial of the virgin birth, making Jesus the son of Joseph. Yet, given the plain teaching of Luke's gospel that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus (Luke 1:34-35), is it not much more natural to take this term as referring to the role of Joseph in Jesus' life? Was not Joseph the husband of Mary? Are we to believe that Jesus never referred to, or thought of, Joseph as His earthly father, the head of his family on earth? Could this not be a plausible explanation? Surely it is.Yes, KJV Only advocates are not likely to accept such an explanation. Their certainty that the "modern versions" are up to no good keeps most of them from allowing for such clarifications. But in this case, they have no choice. Their own King James Version forces them to abandon Luke 2:33, if they are in the least bit consistent in their arguments:
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (Luke 2:48)
Here, from the very lips of Mary, no less, we have the use of the term "father" of Joseph with reference to the Christ child, and that in the Authorized Version of 1611! This use of "father" by Mary is perfectly consistent with the use of "father" at Luke 2:33, where both Mary and Joseph are in view as a family unit. Also, the KJV itself refers to Joseph and Mary as "his parents" in Luke 2:41. There is absolutely no reason to read into the use of the term "father" a denial of the supernatural nature of the birth of the Messiah. "
Now let's rip James White to shreds....
"Here the charge that is leveled is obvious: the use of "father" rather than "Joseph" lends itself to a denial of the virgin birth, making Jesus the son of Joseph." You bet it does!
"Yet, given the plain teaching of Luke's gospel that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus (Luke 1:34-35), is it not much more natural to take this term as referring to the role of Joseph in Jesus' life?" Only is that natural to a mind that is as twisted as yours! About as natural as what your buddy said in Genesis 3:1 "Yea, hath God said".....
"Was not Joseph the husband of Mary? Are we to believe that Jesus never referred to, or thought of, Joseph as His earthly father, the head of his family on earth? Could this not be a plausible explanation? " Questions #1: Yes. #2: Yes. #3: Yes, if you are an idiot.
"Surely it is.Yes, KJV Only advocates are not likely to accept such an explanation." No it is not. You bet we KJB believers aren't going to accept your satanic scholarly "explanation" (you use the term loosely).
"Their certainty that the "modern versions" are up to no good keeps most of them from allowing for such clarifications. But in this case, they have no choice. Their own King James Version forces them to abandon Luke 2:33, if they are in the least bit consistent in their arguments:" My only certainty is that the King James Bible is the perfect word of God and that Satan has his ministers (you included obviously) perverting those words (2 Cor. 2:17, 11:15). My consistency is this, that the King James Bible is always right no matter what and anything more/less than that is unacceptable.
Here is proof that James R. White is clearly and purposefully leaving out information to deceive you. Let's see how this scholarly gentlemen perverts and twists scripture in defense of the attack on the deity of Christ.
"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (Luke 2:48)
Here, from the very lips of Mary, no less, we have the use of the term "father" of Joseph with reference to the Christ child, and that in the Authorized Version of 1611! This use of "father" by Mary is perfectly consistent with the use of "father" at Luke 2:33, where both Mary and Joseph are in view as a family unit."
We can now honestly say beyond any shadow of a doubt that James White is mentally sick. We can now see that Genesis 3:1 is in fact Mr. White's life verse as he has dedicated his "christian" life to attempting to overthrow the authority of ONE Book, the AV of 1611. James White gave you Mary's confusion and then left out the twelve year old Christ's rebuke to Mary. James White is being deceitful.
READ THE NEXT VERSE!!!
Luke 2:
[48] And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Oh my! What are us KJB believers going to do now? James White finally got us! Nooooope.....
[49] And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
James White clearly avoided these verses. Right after Mary called Joseph Jesus's "father" 12 year old Christ clearly rebuked her and said "HOW IS IT THAT YE SOUGHT ME? I MUST BE ABOUT MY FATHER'S BUSINESS"!!!! Jesus was clearly saying that Joseph was not His father! Now look what's next....
[50] And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Sounds about like James White! The KJB speaks for itself.
Now let's see what else White can drum up....
"Also, the KJV itself refers to Joseph and Mary as "his parents" in Luke 2:41. There is absolutely no reason to read into the use of the term "father" a denial of the supernatural nature of the birth of the Messiah. " James White clearly has it all backwards! "Parents" is referring to those that have parental control over the child. A parent does not have to be a father or mother. But White has twisted the entire story out of order.
Luke 2:
[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
12 year old Christ has Mary and Joseph as His "parents", they are the ones who have parental control. But God knew that a deciever like James White would accuse the KJB of calling Joseph "father" so He, in the next verse (v.43), made it clear that this was not the case.
[43] And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
[44] But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
[45] And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
[46] And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
[47] And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
[48] And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
God knew that decievers like James White would take what Mary said in verse 48 and try and say that the KJB calls Joseph Jesus's father so He provided the next verse where Jesus rebukes Mary for using the term "father".
[49] And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
[50] And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Like Mary and Joseph, James White still does not understand.
So how did James White start at verse 43,then go to 48, not even mention 49, and then go back to 41???
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your questions or comments welcome.