(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. This is my response to the King James Only controversy by James White. Today I'm in chapter number 8, The Son of God, The Lord of Glory. Now what this chapter is about is the fact that many King James Only, as myself included, have pointed out the fact that the modern versions, like the NIV, have a lot of verses in them that attack the deity of Jesus Christ. And if you watch our film, New World Order Bible Versions, you'll see that. Or if you listen to my sermon, Anti-Christ Bible Versions, where I talk about the modern versions attack on the Trinity, you'll see a lot of examples of that. And those are both available on YouTube. Well, he is basically saying that the new versions actually affirm the deity of Christ and that they're actually stronger on the deity of Christ than the King James Version. Now the reason that he's writing this chapter to defend the modern versions is because of examples like 1 Timothy 3.16, where the King James clearly says, God was manifest in the flesh. And it's unequivocally talking about Jesus. And it calls him God there. Whereas in the NIV, it just says, He appeared in a body. So instead of God was manifest in the flesh, it says, He appeared in a body. So it's not clear. And then also in Micah 5.2, it talks about Jesus, that his goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, from everlasting, speaking to his eternal pre-existence, right? Whereas the NIV says his origins were from long ago, from ancient times. Well, origins are beginnings. And of course, Jesus Christ doesn't have any origin. He has no beginning. He is the beginning. He is the end. Okay, so things like that, or the fact that the NIV calls Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2.33, whereas the King James says Joseph and his mother. And I'm going to get to that later in the video. So there are examples like that, that show attacks on the deity of Christ, or removing 1 John 5.7, whatever, that attack Christ's deity or the Trinity. And so he's defending the modern versions in this chapter. So he starts out the chapter with this section about hundreds and hundreds of deletions. And he shows this chart about how the word Jesus is omitted from all these different verses. And then on the next page, he shows a chart where the word Christ is omitted from a whole bunch of verses in the modern versions. And there are scores of examples of the word Lord being omitted, Jesus being omitted, Christ being omitted. And those who are King James only would say that this is a downgrading of Christ's title, taking him from Jesus Christ to just Jesus, or Lord Jesus Christ to just Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus to just Lord or just Jesus. Whereas James White's response to that would be, we'll know what this is, is the Byzantine Greek manuscripts, and by extension, the King James Version, they're adding these titles to beef up Christ's deity or to give him more lofty titles out of respect. So those are the two different points of view there. Then he goes into a section called, Is One Translation Stronger? And he says in this section, Is it true that some translations are stronger and others weaker on the doctrine of Christ's deity? Yes, it is. In fact, one aspect that I check upon reviewing any new translation of the scriptures is how it handles the classical passages on the deity of Christ. The bent of the translation committee can be quickly identified by checking how the translators handle key passages, such as, and then he lists passages that he considers are key passages, and then he says, there are some modern translations I cannot recommend due to their handling of various key passages. Now, on the next page, he has a chart about how the different versions measure up on the deity of Christ. He's got the NIV, the New American Standard, and the King James Version here, and he's putting forth the NIV as the clearest on the deity of Christ. And then the NASB is in the middle, and then the King James, he's showing as being weaker on the deity of Christ. So let's go through the examples that he gives here. First of all, he shows John 1-1 and says, you know, it's clear in all three. All three of them get a clean bill of health on, in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Then when we get to John 1-18, he shows the NIV is clear, the New American Standard is clear, and the KJV is absent. So remember, James White has said that these are just the classical passages on the deity of Christ. That's what he called them on the previous page. And he's saying, you know, we need to check out how these versions do. And he's showing that the King James is absent. Okay, well, what's he talking about? Well, in the King James Version, this verse says, No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Well, what the New American Standard and the NIV do is, No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath explained him. So this should right away jump out at you as being very strange. The only begotten God? I mean, all throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ is called the only begotten or the only begotten Son. That's a very common name to be applied to Jesus. So it's very strange how the modern versions have this anomaly of the only begotten God. James White is claiming that this is just some great proof of Christ's deity. But really, it's just very weird and strange, and it actually would open up a theological can of worms. You know, this begotten God thing is very strange. Whereas only begotten Son makes perfect sense. Now, part of the way that James White explains away this weird verse of only begotten God is he messes with the definition of only begotten. In fact, he doesn't believe that only begotten is the best translation for this verse. Even though the NIV, New American Standard, King James all have it, he thinks that the word monogenis, which is the Greek word underlying the term only begotten, he thinks that the Greek word monogenis should be more like unique or one of a kind. So, you know, the unique God. And I've heard him verbally talk about this on YouTube videos and stuff where he talks about how, you know, monogenis actually means the unique God or the one of a kind God, which sounds really weird. But I just want to demonstrate to you that the Greek word monogenis does not mean unique, one of a kind. It actually just means only begotten. It's not some special edition, unique, one of a kind. That's not what it means. Now, first of all, if we just break down the word into its components, you have mono, which is the only portion, and then rheni, which is the begotten part. It's one word, but in English it's two words, only begotten. Now, if you look at Matthew chapter one, for example, in a Greek New Testament, over and over again you see the word begat, you know, Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob. Well, that word in Greek is egenison. And again, it's from the same verb of monogenis, egenison. And it's begat, begotten. Very easy to see, folks. But not only that, you know, in reading the Greek New Testament in the book of Luke, I kept seeing this word monogenis come up, and my first thought when I saw it was, James White and his weird definition, unique, one of a kind, doesn't fit. So, let me give you some examples. Luke chapter seven, verse 12. Now, when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out. The only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and much people of the city was with her. So, when the Bible says the only son of his mother, the Greek word there is monogenis. Okay, Luke 8 42. For he had only one, excuse me, for he had one only daughter, about 12 years of age, and she lay dying, but as he went the people thronged him. So, when it says he had one only daughter, the only there is monogenis. Okay, Luke 9 38. And behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son, for he's my only child. And again, monogenis is the word. So, basically, you know, in these situations, we see that it's just referring to the fact that this is their only begotten. It's their only offspring. It's their only physical child. They're saying, you know, this is my one kid, my monogenis son, daughter, child, whatever. Okay, whereas if we took James White's unique, oh, this is a really special, unique, one of a kind kid. No, is that what they're saying, folks? No. They're just saying it's their only kid, folks. Okay. And so, Jesus Christ is the only begotten son. He's not, it's not saying he's unique or one of a kind or special. Of course, he is unique and one of a kind and special, but that's not what that word means. Okay. And if you apply that definition to the three mentions in Luke, it would be a silly definition. And it's a real straightforward word, folks, just monogenis. It's not, it's not anything complicated, the simple word monogenis. Okay, so let me move on from that. So, I say that the NIV and the New American Senator are out to lunch with their only begotten God. Okay, that's from corrupt manuscripts that have substituted the word God for son. The Holy Spirit should tell you right away that that's a bogus reading. It makes no sense. Okay, so John 20-28, everybody gets a clean bill of health, according to his chart. Acts 20-28, everybody passes. Now, Romans 9-5, he has the NIV showing a clear teaching of Christ's deity. Whereas the New American Senator and the King James are ambiguous, according to him. Okay, so let's look up Romans 9-5 in the King James Version. It says, let me find it here. Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed forever. Amen. So that last part, of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed forever. Amen. The New American Standard pretty much says the exact same thing. Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed forever. Amen. Here's what the NIV says. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised. Amen. So the NIV is unequivocally saying that the Messiah is God. Okay, whereas the New American Standard and the King James are ambiguous on that point. Right, so why is that? Okay, well, let's read the Greek original of Romans 9-5. I'm, of course, going to be using modern Greek pronunciation. And so, you know, you could check this with a native speaker. This is the correct way to pronounce. So, the end here, it says, Who is above all, God blessed. Amen. Forever. Amen. This is really straightforward, the way this is worded in Greek. And the way it's translated into the King James and into the New American Standard is literally like a word for word translation. Now, that's not always possible when you're translating from Hebrew into English or Greek and English. It's not always possible to go with, you know, a word for word translation. A lot of times you have to use more of a dynamic equivalence or something like that. But in this case, I mean, this is very literally translated. Basically, the words are in the same order. Like in the King James, it says, Who is over all. Oon, who. Epi, over. Pandon, all. Who's over all. Okay. And then it says, Theos, God. Eloitos, blessed. Istus eonas, forever. Amen. So the King James is saying exactly what the Greek says in the exact order, word for word. And that's why the New American Standard is doing the same thing. But the NIV has basically taken this jump and this leap and, you know, moved words around a little bit to make it just clearly say the Messiah is God. Now, James White wants us to get really excited about this and say, Oh, look, the NIV is declaring the Messiah to be God. We should just go with this. But here's the thing about that. That's not the way it's worded in the original. In the original, it's worded just like the King James. So therefore, if it's ambiguous in the original, it's ambiguous in the King James, it's ambiguous in the NIV. What gives the, I'm sorry, in the New American Standard, what gives the NIV the right to just make this clear? That the Messiah is God when that's not what it says. So just because you're affirming the deity of Christ, it doesn't mean we're going to get excited about you making something clear that's ambiguous in the original and ambiguous in the King James, because that's just what it says, folks, OK? It says that Christ is above all. And then at the end, it says God blessed forever. Amen. Now, what do I mean by ambiguous? Ambiguous is something that could be interpreted one of two ways. You could either say that the God blessed forever is referring back to Jesus, that he is God blessed forever. Or you could just say that Paul is saying, whose are the fathers and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all. And then just at the end saying, God blessed forever. Amen. You know, he's just blessing God at the end. You could legitimately interpret this either way in Greek or in the King James. So, you know, the King James translated this really clearly, really accurately. It's really a no brainer. It's really straightforward. So let's move on to the next thing here. Philippians chapter two, verses five and six. This is, of course, the famous passage on let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant was made in the light to submit. He says the NIV is clearest on the deity of Christ. The New American Standard is clear. And the King James is the least clear. Boy, do I beg to differ with that. That is just ridiculous. Let me just read for you what this verse says in these different versions. In the King James, I already quoted it to you. It says that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation. So the Bible says he was in the form of God, and he thought it not robbery to be equal with God. What's robbery? Robbery is when you take something that doesn't belong to you. It's stealing, right? So Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God. Why? Because he's not taking something that doesn't belong to him because Jesus is equal with God. That's why he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, because Jesus is co-equal with God the Father. Okay, so he didn't think it was robbery. Now, what the NIV said back when this book was written, because the NIV changes, folks. Right now we're on the 2011 NIV, but back when James Wright wrote his book, they were on the 1984 NIV. So the NIV in 1984 said that Jesus did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. Okay, now when I hear that from the NIV, that to me sounds like he can't quite grasp equality with God, or he can't quite attain unto that, or that it's out of his grasp. It's out of his reach. I think the King James is much clearer on the deity of Christ. I've heard a lot of people bring up Philippians 2.6 as a point that the NIV is downgrading Christ deity or being equal with God. So again, I totally disagree with James White. I think the King James is, I would say the King James is clearest on the deity of Christ in Philippians 2.6. Okay, then Colossians, everybody gets a clean bill of health in chapter 1. He says in Colossians 2.9 that the NIV is clear, New American Standard is clear, and that the King James is ambiguous. Now, what verse is that? That's the verse that says that in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Okay, now he says that the word Godhead is confusing. He says, how does one explain what Godhead means? Who really uses this term any longer? And what about the fact that the KJV uses Godhead in other places when it is translating a completely different Greek term? That is just a lie. Okay, but I'll get to that in a moment. How do we know what the word Godhead means? Okay, here's an idea. Look it up in the dictionary. Okay, who even uses that word? Oh, I don't know, just millions and millions of King James Bible believers, thousands and thousands of independent fundamental Baptist churches in the US, churches all over the world that use the King James Version. Everybody who reads the King James Bible is very familiar with the word Godhead. It's a pretty common word amongst Bible believing Christians. But, you know, how do we figure out what it means? All you have to do is look it up in the dictionary. It's very simple. The word Godhead means Godhood. Godhood. Okay, it's an old form of Godhood. Okay, so, for example, there's an old word Maidenhead. Maidenhead is virginity. Maidenhood. Okay, now if you look it up in a dictionary, Godhead, it'll tell you that it means Godhood. It means deity or divinity. Godness, right? Godhead. That's what Godhead means. So, the New American Standard says, for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. The King James says, in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So, he's saying that the NIV and the New American Standard are more clear because they use the word deity, whereas the King James uses the word Godhead. But, here's the thing about that. Godhead and deity both mean the exact same thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with the word deity as a translation for this Greek word. I don't think there's anything wrong if you translate it as divinity because deity, divinity, and Godhead all mean the exact same thing. Okay, so there's really no problem here, but remember how he claims that, you know, the King James uses Godhead in other places when it's translated in a completely different Greek term. Okay, let me tell you the completely different Greek term. Okay, so these are the two terms that are completely different according to James White. Okay, the words are theotes and theotes. Did you get that? Theotes and theotes. Theotes, theotes. Theotes, theotes. Yes, I'm saying two different words folks because there's just one little yotta difference between these two words. These two words are spelled and pronounced almost identical. They are just two variations of the same word and they both mean the same thing. Okay, so he has imagined that these are just two completely different Greek terms. You know, usually when you use the word completely different, wouldn't there be more than just one letter different? And wouldn't they be pronounced differently, not almost identical? Theotes, theotes. Okay. These words both mean the same thing. They both mean divinity or deity or Godhead. Now let me give you these three words. I'm sorry, these three verses from the King James Version. Okay. We've got Colossians 2, 9, for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. It's basically just saying that Jesus Christ is fully divine. Amen. Acts 17, 29, for as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver or stone graven by art and man's device. He's just saying, look, why would we think that divinity or deity or Godhead, you know, is like unto gold or silver or stone, right? I mean, God is not a graven image. Then in Romans 1 20, it says, for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse. So it's saying his eternal power and Godhood, his eternal power and deity, his eternal power and divinity. It's the same word as the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Okay. So, you know, he's trying to say it's two completely different terms because of the fact that I guess he's just assuming you're not going to look it up or whatever and see that they're both virtually the same word. They're just two different styles of the same word. He basically wants to go with the NIV and those other versions as, you know, divine nature, which, you know, divinity, deity, whatever. Okay, so let's keep moving. But I think Godhead is a great word. And it's a word that many people are very familiar with. In fact, it even has God in it, has God in the word. So it really proves his deity, his Godness, his Godhood, his Godhead. Okay. So he's wrong about that. Okay. Then, first, Timothy 3 16 is the one that he includes in the chart where he shows that the modern versions are lacking because remember, this is the one where they say he appeared in a body, whereas the King James said God was manifest in the flesh. Okay, then Titus 2 13 is another one where he criticizes the King James as being ambiguous. And then second Peter, one one, he also criticized the King James for being ambiguous. So let's look up these last two verses in the King James versus the NIV, etc. So in the King James, it says, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Okay. Whereas the NIV says, while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Okay. So it's just worded slightly differently. And he's saying that the NIV makes it unequivocally clear that Jesus is God, whereas the King James doesn't. Well, here's the thing about that the King James says, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. In both of these phrases, the word and there is not talking about two different things. It's restating the same thing. So when he says looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing, the blessed hope and the glorious appearing are the same thing. The blessed hope is the glorious appearing. And there are lots of examples in the New Testament where the word and is not putting two different things together, but it's putting the same thing restated. Okay, let me give an example. God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Are those two different people? No. When the Bible says God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the and there is separating two of the same. So the word and can either separate two that are different or can separate two that are the same. So the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the great God equals the Savior Jesus Christ, just like the blessed hope equals the glorious appearing. So, you know, the King James is saying the same thing here as the NIV. Now let's look at the Greek New Testament, Titus chapter two, verse 13 in Greek says, So let's break this down word by word. Okay, so that's the glorious appearing. So basically, it's again, this is another example where the King James is going virtually word for word in the exact same order like the Greek. The great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. The great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. It's the King James is word for word exactly what the Greek is saying here. So if he thinks it's ambiguous in English, then he would have to admit that the Greek is ambiguous because it's the same in English. Now what he'll do when you point this out, though, that Titus to 13 is no more or less ambiguous in the Greek, or the English, he'll say, Well, the Granville Sharp rule, you know, he loves to talk about this Granville Sharp rule from the 18th century. And how, you know, this guy, in 1798, laid out this rule for Greek grammar, and the King James translates, they didn't know about it, because they were back in 1611. And he came out with this in 1798. Here's my question, if the 54 brilliant scholars who translated the King James, who were experts in Greek, and had studied up on all the classic Greek literature, and all the the Greek philosophers and all the different epics and everything, that, you know, they knew the language extremely well, and say Greek all day long, if they didn't know about this so called Granville Sharp rule of grammar. I wonder if Titus knew about it. It's that hard to figure out, if you can just read your whole life and not know this, you know, man, I guess that Titus was had some serious grammar training. Okay. But here's the thing, I looked up an article on the Granville Sharp rule. Listen to what the Granville Sharp rule says. The Granville Sharp rule states, when the copulative K connects two nouns of the same case, either substantive or adjective or participles of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity or connection, and attributes, properties or qualities, good or ill, if the article O or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle. So I wonder if this is what was running through Titus's head when he read through Paul's epistle unto him. So then the next paragraph says in simpler terms. Thank God, right? The Granville Sharp rule says that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and these two nouns are joined by an additive conjunction, and the definite article precedes the first noun but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person. This principle of semantics holds true in all languages. Let me read that again. This principle of semantics holds true in all languages. Okay, well, in that case, we can get the same meaning in English because if the Granville Sharp rule holds true in all languages, then when we read Titus chapter two in English, you know, the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, then the Granville Sharp rule would apply in all languages. So, anyway, stating that this rule came out in 1798, so the King James translators couldn't have known about it, you know, that's just crazy because, you know, if this is a thing, if this is real, if this is really a rule, then everybody would know about it. Even if they didn't call it the Granville Sharp rule, then they would just instinctively know it. So when Titus read this, then he knew that that's what was being said. And when we read the King James, we know what's being said. I mean, you know, if you want to make the case that Titus 2.13 is ambiguous in the King James, you'd have to say that it's ambiguous in the original because the way it is stated in the King James is exactly how it is stated in the original. So if it's ambiguous in one, it's ambiguous in the other. Okay. But anyway, let's move on to the next example, the last example, actually, that he gives in this chart, which is 2 Peter chapter one, verse one. So 2 Peter chapter one, verse one says, 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 savior, Jesus Christ, through the righteousness of God and our savior, Jesus Christ. Okay. So he's saying that's ambiguous in the King James, whether it's like they obtained the faith through the righteousness of God and through our savior, Jesus Christ, or did they obtain it through the righteousness of God and our savior, Jesus Christ? Okay. I think it's pretty clear in the King James that it's the latter. I think it's pretty clear when you read this, that it's the righteousness of God and our savior, Jesus Christ. And that again, this is just the word and connecting two of the same again, God and our savior, Jesus Christ. God and our savior, Jesus Christ are both one and the same there. Okay. Because Jesus is God. Amen. So what the modern versions do here, New American Standard says, Simon Peter, a bond servant and apostle of Jesus Christ to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours by the righteousness of our God and savior, Jesus Christ. So here it says our God and savior, Jesus Christ. So there it's unequivocally saying that Jesus is God. NIV to those who through the righteousness of God, excuse me, sorry, to those who through the righteousness of our God and savior, Jesus Christ have received a precious, have received a faith as precious as ours. Sorry. I get the King James in my head and then I try to read these other versions and sometimes I choke on it. So, okay. So let's, let's go back to the Greek verse here. Second Peter chapter one, verse one. So let's break this down again in Greek and the the righteousness of God, of our God. So the, the righteousness of our God, and savior, Jesus Christ. Now, if you read this in the original Greek, that just the natural translation that you would just come up with, just like a straightforward word for word translation, the way we did the other two verses. Okay. Would basically be righteousness of our God and savior, Jesus Christ. Righteousness of our God and savior, Jesus Christ. Which is what the new American standard says, righteousness of our God and savior, Jesus Christ. NIV, righteousness of our God and savior, Jesus Christ. So here I will admit that the new American standard and the NIV are more literal word for word, just, you know, straightforwardly translating this. Whereas the King James, when it says through the righteousness of God and our savior, Jesus Christ has said it in a slightly different style. Okay. I don't think there's anything wrong with second Peter one, one in the King James version. I think that either way is a legitimate translation of the Greek here. You could either say of God and our savior, Jesus Christ, or of our God and savior, Jesus Christ, because I believe that they're both saying the same thing and that the, and there is two of the same. So even though I will admit that the new American standard and NIV are being more literal in this case, the King James is not always the most literal. Okay. And, and, and, you know, I, I went over this in an earlier video, a lot of King James onlyists have made the mistake of thinking that what's wrong with the new versions is that they use dynamic equivalents. And, you know, the King James is word for word literal. You know, the King James often uses dynamic equivalents and the modern versions are often literal and overly literal. And I think in this case, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I think that both translations here are both saying the same thing. They both mean the same thing. They're both legitimate. Okay. Is one of them clearer on the deity of Christ? Well, certainly in this case, I will, you know, out of this whole chart, I've disagreed with James White a lot, but I will agree here that the King James is more ambiguous in this particular verse. But here's the thing about that. The King James is not attacking the deity of Christ here or deleting the deity of Christ. It's still there. It's a little bit harder to see in the King James, a little bit more ambiguous in this particular verse. So this is the one thing on the chart that I will agree with. Okay. Right here. But it doesn't matter because the King James is still accurately translating the Greek. It has tons of other hard hitting verses on the deity of Christ, but the NIV has things that actually attack the deity of Christ. Like, you know, giving him an origin or calling Joseph his father or, you know, he's from ancient times as opposed to being from everlasting and so forth. So anyway, let's move on from that. Let's see. We flip through the pages here. He talks about on pages 250 and 251 how monogenes actually means unique and it's his uniqueness and he's one of a kind, yada, yada, yada. We already debunked that earlier. And then we move on to, okay, this is pretty important. Okay. John 14, 14. Prayer to Christ. So he's claiming that the modern versions in John 14, 14 are affirming Christ's deity by, you know, teaching us to pray directly to Jesus instead of praying to the father in the name of the son. Okay. So here the King James says, if you shall ask anything in my name, I will do it. The New American Standard says, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. So New American Standard says, if you ask me anything in my name, I'll do it. Now, this makes no sense, folks. The King James makes sense. You ask the father in Christ's name. The NIV is saying you ask Jesus in Jesus' name. How can I ask Jesus in Jesus' name? That would be like going to my wife on the behalf of my wife. That doesn't make any sense, folks. So, and in fact, let me just give you another verse from the same passage because in this passage where he's talking about prayer and he's talking about the comforter and the father and these different things. He says in verse 23 of chapter 16, and in that day, ye shall ask me nothing. Let that sink in what I just read. John 16, 23, and in that day, ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever you shall ask the father in my name, he will give it you. So consistently here, Christ is teaching that we ask the father in Jesus' name. Okay. And I've always thought it was silly when people would pray saying, Dear Jesus. And then at the end of the pray, they'll say in Jesus' name, Amen. Well, it's like, how can you be talking to Jesus in Jesus' name? And I may have made that mistake in the past. Obviously, sometimes it's easy to be careless and make mistakes, but that really makes no sense to speak to Jesus in the name of Jesus. That doesn't make any sense. It makes sense to speak to the father in the name of Jesus, because what does in the name of mean? In the name of means by the authority of, on behalf of, or representing, right? So I'm coming to the father through Jesus. Okay. And so I'm coming to the father in Jesus' name. You know, Jesus said, I come in my father's name. You know, he talked about another, the Antichrist who would come in his own name. Okay. But Jesus came in the name of the father. Okay. Well, we pray to the father in the name of the son. And look, folks, he says it in the same passage. In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name. Ask and ye shall receive that your joy may be full. So what we have here actually in John 14, 14 in the new versions is a butchering of the very definition of the concept in the name of. And we have basically a butchering of the Trinity right here with this, you know, ask me in my name, when it really should just say that if you shall ask anything in my name, I'll do it. Because the context is you're asking the father, you're not asking me, Jesus, right? So anyway, that's another one that kind of messes with the Trinity. It's certainly not some wonderful proof of Christ's deity that he would try to put forth. Okay, then let's move on here. We already talked about 1 Timothy 3 16. He loves the fact that the NIV used the term sovereign, of course, because he's a Calvinist. So the NIV used the term sovereign hundreds of times. That's a Calvinist buzzword. King James doesn't use it. They don't like that. Okay, Mark 1 1. Boy, this is key. Okay, Mark 1 1 in the King James says, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and then it has a footnote in the NIV that says, some manuscripts do not have the Son of God. Okay, you know, those some manuscripts are the same manuscripts that James White is constantly trusting and relying on in his textual criticism. And that's why the New American, excuse me, the New World Translation Jehovah's Witness Bible leaves out the Son of God here just says the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, period. Okay. Here's why this matters. Because the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is the most important teaching. I mean, that's the most important confession of faith. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Okay. Now, a lot of people want to make a huge deal about Christ's deity. And then they don't think that the fact that he's the Son of God is important. But it's, you know, if you had to pick what was the most important teaching about Christ, it's the fact that he is the Son of God. Okay. That's the milk of the word. That's the most basic, important teaching about Christ. And the reason this is so important is because of the fact that the gospel of Mark is constantly touted as being the oldest gospel or the earliest gospel. So these unbelieving scholars will try to point to Mark and say, see, Mark, you know, doesn't really paint Jesus as the Son of God or, you know, it doesn't really push his deity or something like that. So this is just giving them more ammo when you cast doubt on the first verse of the book of Mark, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But here's the worst one. Okay. This one's horrible. John 935. And this is really important. Okay. John 935 in the King James says, Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And when he had found him, he said in him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? Now, why is this so important? Well, because this is actually the only place where Jesus calls himself the Son of God. Okay. This is the only place where Jesus says that he's the Son of God. Now, of course, tons of places in the New Testament tell us that Jesus is the Son of God. But this is where Jesus says it about himself in his earthly ministry, that he's the Son of God. Now, in the next chapter, this is in John chapter 9, but in John chapter 10, he refers back to this and says, because I said, I am the Son of God. Okay. And he's referring back to when he said this in John 935. So if a Muslim or somebody said, well, show me where Jesus ever said he's the Son of God, you would take them to John 935, where he says this. And then in chapter 10, he refers back to this and says, I said, I'm the Son of God. So this couplet of verses in John 9 and John 10 are the only place where Jesus is specifically stating about himself that he's the Son of God. The NIV says, Jesus heard that they had thrown him out. And when he found him, he said, do you believe in the Son of Man? Now, of course, Jesus calls himself the Son of Man all the time. There's nothing wrong with, you know, calling Jesus the Son of Man. But changing Son of God to Son of Man in this verse is taking away a powerful, unique passage where Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of God, which doesn't happen very often. You say, well, how do we know that the King James is right? How do we know that the NIV is not right with Son of Man or the modern versions? Here's how, because in John chapter 10, he prefers back to this and says, because I said I'm the Son of God. But in the NIV, when did he ever say that? Okay. Whereas in the King James, you have an example of him saying it, not just, oh, well, you guys are mad at me because I said I'm the Son of God. And it's like, when did he ever say that? Well, in the King James, you have the answer. He said it in John 935. So the internal evidence proves that the Son of God is correct in John 935. John 935 and John 1036 are the only examples of Jesus referring to himself in his earthly ministry as the Son of God. So they're very significant. Here's what James White has to say about this. The textual background for this passage is addressed in the latter part of this work. The modern texts read Son of Man, while the TR, Textus Receptus, has Son of God. And there is a very strong case to be made for the modern reading. However, this passage is normally cited by KJV only advocates as evidence of some bias against the deity of Christ. In response, we must ask, is Son of Man any less a title of deity than the Son of God? Yeah, actually, it is less of a title of deity because Son of Man isn't a title of deity. I mean, Ezekiel is called the Son of Man. Okay. And it's not that Son of Man is a lesser title or not as good of a term. It's just not what the Bible says. It's just not what Jesus said. Folks, we need to have what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. Okay. Not just like, well, I really like what the NIV did here in Romans 9-5. I really like how it confirms the deity of Christ. Well, okay. But is that what it says, though, in the original? Okay. Is this what Jesus said? Did Jesus said, do you believe on the Son of Man? Or did Jesus say, do you believe on the Son of God? He said, do you believe on the Son of God? Because in chapter 10, he refers back to this as when he said that he's the Son of God. So instead of talking about the merits of the term Son of Man versus Son of God, you know, Son of God is right and right is right and wrong is wrong. And this is an important critical passage because, like I said, it's unique in the New Testament. All right, let me keep going here. Okay, we already talked about Philippians 2. We already talked about Micah 5-2. Okay, here's another interesting point he brings up. Romans 14-10, King James. Now, here's why this matters. The King James is specifically saying that we as Christians will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Whereas the new version just says, well, we're going to stand before the judgment seat of God. Okay. Now, obviously, Christ is God. I get that. But here's the thing. There are two different judgments. You've got the judgment seat of Christ, which takes place on this earth at the beginning of the millennium. It's pre-millennial. Okay. And then you've got the great white throne judgment that takes place after the millennium, post-millennial. These are two very different judgments. The great white throne judgment and the judgment seat of Christ are very different. Now, I don't want to speak for James White or put words in his mouth here. But since James White is not pre-millennial, I don't know if James White thinks that the great white throne and the judgment seat of Christ are both the same event. I've heard people teach that strange doctrine, but I think it's ridiculous. You know, the judgment seat of Christ, the place where we receive rewards as Christians. The great white throne is where people are being damned eternally for not believing on Christ and being sent to hell and judged for their sins and so forth. Two very different judgments separated by a thousand years. So anyway, I think that matters. That's important. The difference between the judgment seat of Christ and the great white throne. Now, modalist, oneness, Pentecostal-type heretics, like, for example, Tyler Baker. You know, I've heard him get up and preach and say that the judgment seat of Christ and the great white throne are the same thing because he's trying to erase all distinction between Jesus and God the Father. So he erases the difference between those two judgments and he conflates those things. Now, I'm not accusing James White of conflating the judgment seat of Christ with the great white throne because I'm not sure where he stands. I know that he is strongly Trinitarian and that he does not believe in any kind of oneness or modalism. So I don't know where he would stand on that because I know that he is not pre-millennial. I don't remember whether he's a-millennial or post-millennial. I think he's probably a-mill, but I don't know. So I don't want to put words in his mouth. But I'm just saying that from my point of view as a pre-millennialist, which is what the vast majority of Baptists are, especially independent Baptists, I feel that this is very important to distinguish the judgment seat of Christ from just the judgment seat of God. In general, God, Christ specifically. But let's get into the main thing, folks. Let's end on the main thing. And this is where James White really screws up in his book. And I'm just going to call it like it is. And he blows it on this Luke chapter 2, verse 33 thing. And when I interviewed him for our film, New World Order Bible Versions, I was really hoping that I would get him to say this on camera, what he said in this book, because it's so ridiculous what he says in the book here. And I was hoping that I would get him to say it in the interview, but he didn't say it. But it's in the book, folks. So let's close on this. Luke chapter 2, verse 33. I think this is one of the worst things in the modern versions. The King James says, Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. And then the NIV says, the child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him. So here we have the narrator of the book of Luke calling Joseph Jesus' father. This is blasphemy, because Joseph is not Jesus' father. Jesus' father is God the Father. He's born of a virgin. So this corrupt text that's responsible for all these other horrible things that the new versions do in the New Testament, this Nestle-Allen, UBS, textual-critical, eclectic text is so corrupt that it calls Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2.33. Whereas the King James is careful to say Joseph and his mother, the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament says Joseph and his mother. Now, here's why I say that James White screwed up, because his explanation for this is so ridiculous. Wait till you hear it. He says, their own King James version forces them to abandon Luke 2.33 if they are in the least bit consistent in their arguments. He goes to Luke 2.48. This is the term father of Joseph with reference to the Christ child and that in the authorized version of 1611. Boy, he's just like coming unglued, like this is just the coup de grace, like man, I got you good. Here the King James itself is calling Joseph Jesus' father from the lips of Mary herself. Well, hail Mary, full of grace, buddy, but guess what? Mary isn't God, okay? This is so ridiculous because he says this use of Mary, this use of father by Mary is perfectly consistent with the use of father in Luke 2.33, blah, blah, blah. Okay, and he just acts like that's just his big coup de grace. That's why I was trying to get him to say that for our film, New World Order Bible versions, but alas, he didn't because he probably, I don't know, maybe thought about it later, how dumb of an answer that is because listen to what the Bible said. Let me read it for you, okay? It says, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. That's what Mary says. Folks, he forgot to read the next verse. And he said unto them, how is it that you sought me? Wish ye not that I must be about my father's business. That is clearly a rebuttal to this thing of, oh, your father and I have been looking for you. I mean, when Mary comes and says, your father and I have been looking for you, he rebukes that and says, well, how did you, how were you looking for me? How is it that you sought me? Wish ye not that I must be about my father's business. Folks, he wasn't doing carpentry when he said that, okay? He was preaching the word of God in the temple and discussing the word of God with the scholars and the scribes and so forth. And so there we see that when Mary called Joseph Jesus' father, he corrects her. He rebukes her. He answers it right away and makes it clear who his father is. But we're supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit in Luke 2 33 calls Joseph Jesus' father? Look, Mary got rebuked for saying it and somebody needs to rebuke the editors of the NIV. Somebody needs to rebuke James White for calling Joseph. Jesus' father has blasphemy and it's attacking the sonship of Jesus Christ, which is every bit as important as his deity is his sonship, his virgin birth. It's very critical. So, you know, for him to pull this out so deceptive that he puts verse 48 in there, leaves out verse 49 and then acts like, well, see that King James is calling Joseph Jesus' father. Folks, the King James is never going to call Joseph Jesus' father. Okay. It says that Mary said that and Mary's immediately corrected because Mary's not infallible. Okay. You know, only a Catholic would think that Mary's infallible, right? I'm sure Roman Catholics, they believe that because they believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. They believe that Mary was born without sin. Okay. So they believe that Mary is perfect and sinless. So whatever Mary says is gospel. But we know that Mary was a human being who made mistakes and her words are not authoritative. So when she called Joseph his father, she was wrong. That's why he corrects her in the next verse. Okay. So that's just a joke of a response. And look, Luke 2 33 is enough of a reason to throw the NIV in the trash. Just throw the NIV in the trash. I mean, what else do you need, folks? Luke 2 33 is attacking his sonship. And look, same thing in Isaiah 7 14. The NIV doesn't do this. But the RSV, instead of saying, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, it says, Behold, a young woman shall conceive. Right? And so many of the modern versions in Isaiah 7 14, instead of saying a virgin, they just say a young woman. Okay, attacking the virgin birth. All right. And then, you know, the NIV has the gall to call Joseph Jesus' father. New American Standard does the same thing. ESV does the same thing. All these corrupt modern Bibles are going to call Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2 33. That is enough of a reason to condemn these. Luke 2 33 alone. So that's it for chapter eight, we pretty much covered everything in chapter eight that hadn't already been covered in previous videos. So the next video is going to be on chapter nine problems in the KJV. Remember, this is a series of 10 videos. So we've got two more videos to go chapters nine and 10 in the King James only controversy by Dr. James White. If you want more, have you seen New World Order Bible versions? Check it out. God bless you. Have a great day.