The previous chapter reveals the magnitude of the attacks by modern version producers upon
the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Doctrines such as these fall prey to Satan’s penknife at the hands of the modern version producers. Despite the immense variations, many of the modern version gurus refuse to admit any problem associated with these changes. Some of the 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! If this includes you, reread chapter two before continuing.
The next passage is a favorite of 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! 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 eleven 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. 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.
(KJB) 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 glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
The main differences between the two versions are clearly seen: “…the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” in the KJB 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 that 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 KJB the least of the three.” He also claims that the NIV and NASV are clear, whereas the King James Bible is ambiguous.
If necessary, go back to the previous chapter and see if you arrive at the same conclusion concerning the NIV’s supposed superiority concerning its treatment of the deity of Jesus Christ. A few pages later, Mr. White’s attack on God’s word concerning this passage continues.
The insertion of the second ‘our’ 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 that 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. [Emphasis mine]
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 presently 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.
In addition to those pages already mentioned, Mr. White spends four entire pages (267 to 270) discussing Titus 2:13 in an attempt to prove the inferiority of the King James Bible. In another of his comments he states, “The KJV 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 Sharp’s Rule attempting to prove his point. What exactly is his point?
He claims that when the KJB says “…the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” the use of “our” between God and Saviour makes it possible to separate “God” from “Saviour.” This is TRUE and exactly what the Holy Ghost intended to convey. However, the separation of God and Saviour does not make the KJB inferior but, in fact, superior. In fact, the reading from the KJB 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. .
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 the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour or not. The reason God placed the personal pronoun “our” before Saviour is because He is the great God in spite of man’s belief, but one’s personal Saviour only if that relationship has been established.
Therefore, the book of Titus proclaims that we are looking toward the day when the great God and our Saviour 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 Saviour (the our 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.
When the NIV and all of the other modern versions change the passage to read: our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, it can imply that there is more than one great God—our great God and their great God.
This reading allows those who claim false gods to have an “out.” With the wording of the NIV, one could construe that there is our great God (the Christian God) and their great god of choice. One does not have this problem when allowing the King James Bible to remain the final authority. According to the Bible, when the Lord returns, He will be THE great God and OUR Saviour to those who have trusted in Him. However, He will not be everyone’s Saviour. “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (I Timothy 4:10).
Furthermore, the construction in each of the three chapters of Titus in the King James Bible testifies to the design planned by God. The parallel composition of each chapter does not indicate that there are two Saviours, but instead that the Lord Jesus Christ is God. The modern versions retain the construction in chapters one and three, but arbitrarily eliminate it in chapter two (the subject verse). Take note of the unique construction of the KJB:
“…God our Saviour” (Titus 1:3)
“…Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.” (Titus 1:4)
“…the doctrine of God our Saviour …” (Titus 2:10)
“…our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13)
“…love of God our Saviour…” (Titus 3:4)
“…through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Titus 3:6)
In each case, God is pointed out as the Saviour (1:3, 2:10, 3:4) and then Jesus Christ is pointed out as the Saviour (1:4, 2:13, 3:6). The modern versions destroy God’s designed construction by changing the second chapter’s reference, but retaining it in the first and third chapters. Moving the “our” in Titus 2:13 in front of “great God” (as the new versions do) destroys the parallelism, thus weakening the truth. This is the mess created by the modern versions and supported by dishonest Bible critics like Mr. White.
Devoting the time and space necessary to refute every error and inconsistency against the KJB by those claiming the superiority of the modern versions would fill volumes. However, when we consider how the critics emphasize and distort the truth concerning Titus 2:13, their position in other areas becomes equally suspect. Mr. White and others use the same tactic concerning a similar passage.
Another favorite “proof text” used by the modern Bible critic to attack the King James Bible is Jude 4. Again, KJB critics claim that the modern versions are actually stronger concerning the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Once again, Mr. White states, “Few KJV Only works address this passage, though it would seem like consistency would demand at least some explanation of the difference between the KJV and the modern texts.”
I do not find it necessary to dodge any of the passages that Mr. White claims Bible believers must avoid. Once again he misinterprets the passage by reading the corrupt translation of the modern version and concludes, “The last passage we will examine wherein the deity of the Lord Jesus is more plainly revealed in modern translations than in the KJV is Jude 4.”
He goes on to say that the TR (Textus Receptus) adds one word here, “God,” which he says disrupts the flow and introduces a second person into the text. He implies that “the Lord God” should not be differentiated from the Lord Jesus Christ. He concludes by saying that most would feel that “Lord God” refers to the Father.
(KJB) Jude 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.
Mr. White says, “the modern texts contain a very clear testimony to the deity of Christ.” Once again, his virulent attack against the word of God is unsubstantiated and blinds his objectivity. The confusion caused by the mistranslation of the text in the NIV has caused the readers to miss God’s purpose for the distinctions given by the King James Bible. Once again, the NIV inexcusably fails to make any distinction between THE only Lord God and OUR Lord Jesus Christ.
(NIV) Jude 4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Mr. White’s argument sounds quite plausible on the surface; however, like so many of his other statements, this one has no basis in truth. The King James Bible differentiates between the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ for a reason. God is “THE only Lord God”! However, He is only “OUR Lord Jesus Christ” to those who have trusted in Him as their Lord and Saviour.
Clearly showing his true colors, Mr. White attacks the foundation for the King James Bible in his concluding comments concerning this passage. He says that “the KJV’s rendering obscures this by following inferior manuscripts, resulting in a reading that allows one to distinguish between the ‘Lord God’ and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The “inferior manuscripts” to which Mr. White refers are those used by the churches for centuries and known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus). In their place, he elevates two Roman Catholic texts that have thousands of differences between themselves. Sheer lunacy and blatant hypocrisy!
Mr. White believes that the Westcott and Hort Greek text (with the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as their primary basis) are the most reliable manuscripts. He calls the Sinaiticus a great codex though it was of no more value than kindling discovered by Tischendorf in a convent of St. Catherine. The fact that it was found in the “waste-paper basket” was attested to by Dean William Burgon (1813-1888), a contemporary of Tischendorf, who was rehearsing Tischendorf’s narrative of the discovery! Mr. White, using his late twentieth century revisionist pseudo-intellectualism, arrogantly calls into question Dean Burgon’s contemporaneous account. Never trust a biased view of history motivated by pride and driven by arrogance.
Mr. White states that he is fully aware that these two (corrupt) manuscripts were used by (corrupt) men to eventually produce the glut of (corrupt) bibles on the market. He states: “Westcott and Hort used (Sinaiticus) and (Vaticanus) to produce their New Testament, a work that displaced the text used by the KJV, later known as the Textus Receptus, in scholarly studies.” This is the main reason that the modern versions differ from the King James Bible. These men and their “scholarly studies” have produced men who have reduced the power in the pulpits to a mere whisper of what it once was. They elevate scholarship over true preaching.
The differences are not due to the “scholars’” desire to simply update the Bible into today’s modern language! All of the modern versions have a significantly different foundation. Mr. White points out that these (corrupt) Greek texts replaced the true text in scholarly studies. That means that the seminaries moved away from the Text of the King James Bible first. No wonder our seminaries are creating scholarly infidels.
“Education without salvation brings damnation.”
Hopefully, the comparisons between the KJB and the NIV have sufficiently convinced the reader of the infidelity of the Bible critic. However, the scriptural evidence is not limited to simply comparing the truth with the counterfeit. It was common practice in the word of God for the writer to refer to “our Lord Jesus Christ.” In fact, one will find the phrase 54 separate times in the New Testament, from Acts to Revelation.
Finally, take note of the clear distinction between the LORD and our Lord given in Psalm 135. For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods (Psalm 135:5).
David distinguishes between the LORD that is great and our Lord that is above all gods. The Bible will never lose its capacity to silence the critic. However, for those who still need a little more evidence—examining the reason that the Bible distinguishes between Lord and LORD also reveals much. The Hebrew word Jehovah is translated as “LORD” (all capitals) in the King James Bible to distinguish it from the Hebrew word Adonai, which is translated as “Lord” (only the L capitalized). Could the variation be significant? Read the next passage, keeping this distinction in mind.
Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
The Lord Jesus Christ quotes David’s remarks unmistakably revealing their meaning. One can see that the second use of the word Lord is Christ Himself.
Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
When God wants to make a distinction during the translation of two different Greek words into English, He has no problem doing so. The passages say, “The LORD (the Father) said unto my Lord (the Son)…” Too bad history does not repeat itself today in the bible-rejecting seminaries around the world. Obviously, from the reaction of the Pharisees (in verse 46), they were much more convicted and quickly silenced than the critics of today. One day, the enemies of the great God who is our Saviour Jesus Christ will be made His footstool and silenced forever too (Hebrews 10:12-13).
At the great supper of the Lamb everyone will finally realize that OUR Lord is THE great God, too. No more excuses for those who have rejected Him. “And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God” (Revelation 19:17).
Just as the King James Bible says, one day He will be revealed as THE great God! The gods of these false religions will not be able to protect the lost. Either each person accepts Him as hos own personal Saviour or suffers the eternal consequences. God requires a personal relationship!
(KJB) Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
I hope the reader realizes that He is not to be just THE great God, but every person must make a personal, conscious decision whether to include himself in the statement when we say, “He is OUR Saviour Jesus Christ.” Is He YOUR Saviour?
James White—Further Comments
The introduction to a book is used to introduce the basic premise of the book to the reader. Here is one statement from the introduction of Mr. White’s book.
James White makes the previous statement in the introduction to his book. However, the facts clearly indicate otherwise. Here is just a sampling of comments gleaned from just two chapters of his book to prove the absurdity of his stated position on the King James Bible. Can one really trust a man that seems to have such a hatred and disdain for God’s word, all the while claiming not to be against it?
…cultic groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses have made great use of the KJV’s ambiguous rendering of words that have to do with the afterlife…this is one place in which many modern translations far surpass the KJV in accuracy.
The great scholars who labored upon the AV would have been the first to admit that their work was liable to correction and revision as the study of biblical languages and the textual history of the Bible advanced. (Better known as the evolution of mankind—see II Timothy 3:1-2, 7.) Surely they would have welcomed the study undertaken by Granville Sharp late in the 1790s. Sharp’s work resulted in a rule of koine Greek that bears his name, a rule that was not fully understood by the KJV translators. Because of his work, we are able to better understand how plain is the testimony to the deity of Christ that is found in such places as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. The KJV translators, through no fault of their own, obscured these passages through less than perfect translation. Modern translations correct their error. [Emphasis mine]
He goes on to justify the changes already discussed in the body of this chapter, but the humorous statement comes on the next page of his book. After he spends a full page justifying why the Granville Sharp rule would have changed the outcome of the wording of the King James Bible in II Peter 1:1, he makes the following statement.
The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five ‘Granville Sharp’ constructions. They are 1:1; 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule.
Let me try to rephrase Mr. White’s “insightful” comments. This rule that did not exist when the King James translators did their work is being used to justify changes that are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, his arguments for the changes in the modern versions are bolstered by a rule that he says applies five times in one book, but four of them are clearly EXCEPTIONS to the rule???!!! Here is a better rule: Any rule that contradicts the plain teaching of scripture is satanically inspired and has no basis in truth. (See Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35, Hebrews 4:12.)
The purpose of this book is to keep the discussions simple; however, answering the critic sometimes necessitates a more technical rebuttal. Please pardon the technical nature of this short answer to Mr. White’s scriptural infidelity. Mr. White fails to recognize that the statement “God and our Saviour” is a Hebraism called Hendiady (en dia dis). This means “one by means of two.” Other such constructions can be found in many scriptures such as I Timothy 1:1, II Timothy 1:2, and Titus 1:4.
Other examples of the Hebraism are found throughout the Old Testament. Here are three.
Zechariah 9:9 …riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass
Isaiah 49:7 …the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One
Isaiah 45:21 …a just God and a Saviour
Each of these examples reveals a clear Hendiady. They are all one by means of two. In addition to the fact that the construction of II Peter 1:1 is correct, the style is plainly the Apostle Peter’s style of writing as inspired by God.
The Apostle Peter’s inspired style of writing is “our Lord Jesus Christ,” Jesus our Lord,” and “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (See II Peter 1:1, 1:2, 1:8, 1:11, 1:14, 1:16, etc.).
Now consider the passage in Second Peter under attack by Mr. White. Once again, OUR Bible (like OUR Saviour) differentiates between God and our Saviour. Over and over again, the true word places an emphasis upon a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
(KJB) II 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:
The importance of a personal relationship with our Saviour Jesus Christ cannot be overemphasized. The KJB correctly makes this distinction; the modern versions fail to do so. In the NIV, the personal relationship is confused because the “our” is moved out of place. Instead of salvation being emphasized, it seems as though more than one God could be recognized—our God and their god.
(NIV) II 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:
Anyone can create a rule that supposedly corrects an error, but first you must prove that the error exists and then prove the veracity of the rule in its application to the particular passage. In this case, once again, the critic fails on both counts. Mr. White cannot prove the error and fails to establish that this rule changes the outcome of the text. Furthermore, Mr. White has failed to prove that this rule is valid for justifying an obviously unwarranted change.
Men like Mr. White and his cohorts should read the next passages very carefully. Pay particular attention to the fact that there is a distinction concerning our God (versus their god), and that OUR God is THE God of salvation. The verse thus distinguishes between OUR God and the god of the heathen. Their god does not save and our God will not save anyone who does not know Him personally.
Psalm 68:20 He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto God the Lord belong the issues from death.
Mr. White’s book and many others like his attack the greatest book ever given to man. As we have seen, some of their arguments are very easy to disprove. God foreknew that books like his would be written, and I believe that is why He included verse 20 above to stop the mouths of the gainsayers (Titus 1:9). God’s warning follows in the very next verse (21). Be warned!
Psalm 68:21 But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses.
God is not mocked; one day, He will judge the infidelity of those who attack His precious word. Why would anyone want to continue in error when the truth is so plain and the judgment is so certain?
2013 Update: After Mr. White was confronted with the information contained in this chapter along with the entirety of this book, he has continued to ignore the truth and state that the Granville Sharp rule would have changed the outcome of translating the word of God into English. For this reason, it is safe to say that Mr. White is heretically expounding falsehoods that will one day soon be called into judgment. Pray that he will repent of the error of his ways and not allow his pride to stop him from turning unto the truth.
II Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.