Stuffed Undies Like Scholarship Onlyism Fallacy

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

In keeping with the tradition of attacking any Baptist who does not have an “accredited” degree from MyOwnGod University, the Stuff Fundies Like website pokes fun at a Baptist preacher in an “article” titled “Anti Scholar”.

Liberal groups like SFL have a habit of demeaning the educations of those who graduated from Bible colleges that are unaccredited. In their minds, a proper education and thus the only appropriate barometer for measuring ones intelligence is the inclusion of the academic standards of secular colleges and “higher learning” institutions. A Christian school can’t possibly know more about the Bible and Godly living standards than a state- sponsored accreditation entity.

It must have been such a shock to all the converts of the early church to find out that the apostles that Jesus chose were fishermen and tax collectors-ordinary people. The Pharisees themselves questioned the education of Jesus:

How knoweth this man letters having NEVER LEARNED” John 7:15

Aside from the fact that over 53% of college graduates in the US are unemployed [1] (“A college diploma isn’t what it used to be”, ibid) it is nothing short of pompous arrogance and foolishness to think that a state- sponsored accreditation agency can produce better education standards to learn the Bible and church ministry than a school/college that focuses on that particular subject exclusively.

And on another note, who goes to a Bible college to get a job in the auto industry? If you went to a Bible college and then complain that you can’t get a job curling hair, an accredited degree probably isn’t going to offer the kind of help you really need.

Unless you have an “accredited” education, you are not as smart as Dr. Harvard. Dr. Harvard is well versed in “equal rights” of homosexuals and Muslims, is an astute expositor of Marx, Benthem, Maslow, Descartes and Kant; and can demonstrate why Christians should not hold to an exclusive view of their religion over all others. Dr. Harvard can prove that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and no Christian can possibly be “educated” enough to prove otherwise unless they have obtained a degree from an  institution that demands a “balanced” approach and equal emphasis on alternative beliefs.

Of the numerous comments on the SFL article in support of the title, the tide seems to have turned toward the lack of “scholarship” in evaluating Biblical texts. One reader, “Bob” posts;

As others have pointed out, your analysis is absolutely backward. I don’t know who you have been listening to, but I spent the better part of 9 yers reading books and articles and researching textual criticism. Erasmus’ text was not even the Textus Receptus. That was a designation given later to a text that was based on Erasmus’ and had been corrected. The textual theory behind the original Greek New Testament that Westcott and Hort compiled is a far superior textual method than Erasmus. It does not matter how great the scholars were who translated the KJV, it was a horrendous Greek text compared to the most recent ones that other English versions are based on. The UBS and NA are excellent and produced by the most painstakingly accurate textual scholars. DO they have disagreements? Yes, but Erasmus had no one to help him, and he was in a rush to be the first Greet text printed, and he made some bad blunders. So, as another has said, please get your facts straight before you pontificate.

There is so much “scholarship” on SFL that many of them can’t agree with each other on the issues of textual criticism. We could write an entire book on the errors of just this comment. In fact, Dean Burgon has written an irrefutable book on the matters of the texts used by Westcott and Hort (The Revision Revised, and Causes of Corruption in the New Testament). And the scholarship of the “UBS” texts are so “scholarly” that they omitted the entire book of Revelation on most of their texts, even though “Bob” here would merely claim “do they have disagreements?”, I would have to say the omission of entire books of the Bible is a pretty big “disagreement”. And then of course, the NA didn’t just stop at NA1, or NA 20, or NA 27 (the most popular used  being NA28), the “scholarship” is so advanced that they have to keep revising NA (Nestle-Aland) texts every few years or so.

It is worthy of note that NASB scholar-even with his “accredited” degree-Frank Logsdon, said the following about his involvement in translating the NASB:

“I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?”

Logsdon renounced his involvement in the translation of the NASB and began defending the KJV.

Other so-called scholars like James White have attempted to down-play Logsdon’s involvement by making accusations and straw-man arguments that KJVO proponents have never claimed for Logsdon. Regardless of the debate of whether Logsdon was “co-founder” of the Lockman Foundation, or NASB Committee (critics can’t make up their mind as to which accusations to stick to), there is no question Dr. Logsdon was an integral part of the process, that he was a recognized scholar in the field of Greek and Hebrew (with an ACCREDITED degree), and that he was formerly against the KJV and capitulated TO the KJV after objectively reviewing all of the evidence from David Otis Fuller, Dean Burgon et al, facts that all the KJVO critics are unwilling to admit.

What is equally ironic about the ensuing comments posted from the SFL article is that there is no evidence that any of the readers themselves have ANY degree, let alone accredited ones. So should their comments all be summarily dismissed for lacking the qualifications to critique the “unqualified” Bible scholars from “Non Accredited” schools?

Accreditation is nothing more than a group of fallible humans agreeing on what they believe should be taught in public institutions, and how they should be taught. Most accrediting agencies are biased by default against the exclusive claims of Christianity, and therefore are not even remotely “qualified” to make a judgment on what should and/or should not be taught in regards to matters of Biblical beliefs. The majority of curriculums in a public institution, with the exception of technical/vocational trade schools, are humanist and replete with anti-Christian sentiment. Hardly an appropriate environment for any student who has a desire to be in ministry and learn the word of God. Yet liberals and back-slidden anti-fundamentalists seek to impose standards on believers that Christ Himself did not impose on the very first group of people He chose to lead His church.

Let the Bible speak on the matter of the “wise” and “higher learning” of the statist sponsored standards of education.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31:

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

——————-

There are @ 17 grammatical errors contained in this article. We will award you the Award of Pedantic Scholarship if you can find all 17.

J/A

Isaiah 26:18-Defending the KJV

In Isaiah 26:18 the nation of Israel continues to complain “We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; NEITHER HAVE THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD FALLEN.”

This is the reading of the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1587 – “neither did the inhabitants of the world fall.”, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, the RSV, Youngs, Darby, Douay 1950,  the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NKJV 1982,  ESV 2001-2011, Holman Standard 2003, the Judaica Press Tanach – “neither do the inhabitants of the world fall.”, the Common English Bible (a critical text edition)of 2011 and the Knox Bible of 2012.

Coverdale’s bible says: “and the inhabitours of the worlde perish not.” Foreign language bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read as does the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1090, 1960, 1995 and the RV Gomez of 2010 – “ninguna liberación logramos en la tierra ni cayeron los moradores del mundo.”,  = “neither have the inhabitants of the earth fallen”, the Italian Nuova Diodati of 1991 – “e gli abitanti del mondo non sono caduti.” = “and the inhabitants of the earth are not fallen.”, the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 – “nem caíram os moradores do mundo.”= “neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.”, the French Darby – “et les habitants du monde ne sont pas tombés” and Luther’s German bible 1545 – “und die Einwohner auf dem Erdboden wollen nicht fallen.”

However the NASB actually changes this to “WE HAVE NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD”.  The NIV 1984 edition is similar with the equally ridiculous “NOR WERE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD BORN.”  However the NIV 2011 edition changed this verse once again and now it reads: “AND THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT COME TO LIFE.”,which would be the exact opposite meaning of that found in the KJB, ESV, RV, ASV, etc.

The NASB concordance shows they have translated this word # 5307 as Fallen or Fall, as in Babylon is Fallen, 197 times but only once as “given birth”; and the NIV likewise has “Fall or Fallen” 237 times and only one time as “Born”.

Dan “Anything but the KJB” Wallace and company’s NET version also reads in a similar manner to the NASB, NIVs.  It says: “We were pregnant, we strained, we gave birth, as it were, to wind. We cannot produce deliverance on the earth; people to populate the world are not born. (30).  He then footnotes: “Heb “and the inhabitants of the world do not fall.”

The Voice 2012, put out by Thomas Nelson Company, the same people who give us the NKJV, reads: “WE COULDN’T MAKE IT TEEM WITH LIFE.” – Again, the opposite of what even the NKJV says.

Which other version do you think reads this way?  You got it. The modern Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 reads: “we have not given salvation to the earth, NO INHABITANTS FOR THE WORLD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO BIRTH.”  Oh, but wait.  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to the Hebrew reading – “For this reason, THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH HAVE NOT FALLEN.”

The RSV read as does the Hebrew and the KJB with: “AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT FALLEN.”  However the NRSV of 1989 went with: “and NO ONE IS BORN TO INHABIT THE WORLD.”  But then the revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV of 2001, went back to the Hebrew reading of “AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD HAVE NOT FALLEN.”

The so called Greek Septuagint version is really messed up in this verse.  Instead of saying: “”We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth WIND; WE HAVE NOT WROUGHT ANY DELIVERANCE in the earth; NEITHER HAVE THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD FALLEN.” (KJB) the LXX actually says: “We have conceived, O Lord, BECAUSE OF THY FEAR, and have been in pain and have brought forth THE BREATH OF THY SALVATION, WHICH WE HAVE WROUGHT UPON THE EARTH; WE SHALL NOT FALL, BUT ALL THAT DWELL UPON THE LAND SHALL FALL.”!!!  The meaning of the LXX is almost the exact opposite of the Hebrew text.  NO Bible version follows the so called Greek Septuagint in this verse.

However the Modern Greek Bible reads like the Hebrew text and the KJB saying: ” ουδε επεσαν οι κατοικοι του κοσμου.” = “neither have the inhabitants of the earth fallen.”

Any time some bible agnostic tries to tell you that “Thanks to the science of textual criticism, we are now very, very close to what the originals said.” you should know that he is full of baloney and hot air – not a good combination.

Jamison, Faucett and Brown remark in their commentary: neither . . . world fallen–The “world” at large, is in antithesis to Judea. The world at enmity with the city of God has not been subdued. But MAURER explains “fallen,” according to Arabic idiom, of the birth of a child, which is said to fall when being born; “inhabitants of the world are not yet born”; that is, the country as yet lies desolate, and is not yet populated.”

So, did the NASB, NIV follow this Arabic idiom instead of the Hebrew?

Here is the straight forward comment by Matthew Henry – neither have the inhabitants of the world, whom we have been contesting with, fallen before us, either in their power or in their hopes; but they are still as high and arrogant as ever.’’

John Gill comments – “neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen; worldly men, the great men, the kings of the earth; particularly such as commit fornication with the whore of Rome, Popish persecuting princes; these as yet are not fallen, though they shall in the battle of Armageddon.”

John Calvin comments on this verse saying: “And the inhabitants of the world have not fallen.  for lpn (naphal) signifies “to fall.” … if we follow the ordinary interpretation, we must view it as referring to the wicked. “The inhabitants of the world annoy us and do not fall; everything goes on prosperously with them.”

The Pulpit Commentary says: “we have not effected the downfall of our heathen enemies.”

Do you still think all bible say the same thing, but with different words?

~Will Kinney

Did Dean Burgon Believe The Bible Needed Corrected?

Critics of the King James Only position love to take statements out of context made by Dean John Burgon, who wrote “Revision Revised”, a thorough refutation of the works of Westcott & Hort and the corrupted Alexandrian texts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (the Roman Catholic manuscripts of which all modern versions that depart from the KJV are based on).

Rick Norris, who wrote “Unbound Scriptures”, takes such ‘liberty’ with quotes by Burgon;

John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72). Burgon wrote: “We hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value” (p. 114).

For example, Dean Burgon wrote: “Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction” (p. 21). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1)

But when read in context, we see that Burgon was criticizing the revisions by Westcott, Hort, and others who engaged in continuously revising the Textus Receptus. Burgon was arguing for what he considered to the be Traditional Text, which was the Textus Receptus before it had been mangled by others.

What Norris and other critics like James White, Doug Kutilek, James Price, et al have attempted to do is get readers to doubt the veracity and accuracy of the underlying texts of the KJV, and then reject the KJV by default. The critics also assume that because Burgon passed away before his works were completed, that he would have agreed with today’s current critics. How convenient an accusation. See Dean Burgon Society’s defense against this accusation, Chapter 1.

Back to Norris’ comments, here’s what Burgon actually said on page 114, quoted by Norris,  in context:

“WHATEVER may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a sense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms?

“It may be confidently assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611, — the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version.’ And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief, — As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purpose, especially in respect of difficult and controverted passages: — we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.”

___________________

Furthermore, this is what Burgon says about the Sacred Text which he was clearly opposed to tampering with, not the revisions done to the Greek text there were carried out by others after Stephanus:

“My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which–recommended though it be by eminentnames–I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end.” [Dean John W.Burgon, Revision Revised, p. v].

““It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but apoisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type.” [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. vi-vii].”

Dean Burgon frequently referred to the “Authorized Version Revised” by Westcott & Hort with references that would give a critic opportunity to claim that Burgon was referencing the King James Bible. Norris references are from repeating antiKVJO authors interpretations of what Burgon wrote.

Norris cites Edward Miller’s introduction attempting to show examples of what Burgon believed about the Textus Receptus, but as stated above, Burgon was critical of the REVISIONS of the Textus Receptus, and when going back a few pages in the introdution, one can read where the term “Textus Receptus” had become a popular term that referred to several different works by other authors besides Stephanus including Cardinal Ximenes, Elzivir Brothers and Theodore Beza, and of course ultimately, Westcott & Hort, Tregelles and Tischendorf (the latter 2 of whom are the only 2 who had ever been permitted by Rome to view the Codex Siniaticus).

Burgon showed quite the bit of confidence in Stephens version of the TR. “‘It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [that is, Dr. F. H. Scrivener],‘that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originatedwithin a hundred years after it was composed:that Irenaeus (A.D. 150), and the AfricanFathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus” RR, page 30.

Burgon said about correcting “errors”: “Shame, — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an
evil hour) appointed to correct ‘plain and clear errors’ in the English Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame, —yes, shame upon them”.

This is how Norris and numerous KJVO critcs have quoted every source that I have seen, out of context and typically from the works of other antiKJVO authors in attempts to overwhelm readers with a plethora of quotes hoping they won’t check the sources.

One thing is certain about Burgon, he was emphatice that the King James Bible should not be changed, altered or tampered with.

J/A

Colossians 2:9 KJV-Is James White Right?

By Will Kinney

Godhead or Deity – Is James White Right?

Colossians 2:8-9

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, aftr the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of THE GODHEAD bodily.”

James White, a well known King James Bible critic, ignorantly harangues against the use of the word Godhead in the KJB. In his book, The King James Only Controversy, when discussing Colossians 2:9 Mr. White says on page 204: “Yet, the KJV rendering of this verse is probably the least clear of almost all currently available translations. 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?”

Then Mr. White has a chart which shows the NASB rendering of the three passages where the KJB has Godhead in all three. Here are the NASB renderings: Acts 17:29 the Divine Nature (Theios); Romans 1:20 divine nature (theiotes), and Colossians 2:9 Deity (theotes).

As for Mr. White’s puzzlement about how one explains what Godhead means, he might try looking at any number of current English dictionaries. As for his question – “Who really uses this term any longer?” maybe our befuddled scholar might  find some insight if he read the NIV introduction in the 1984 edition where it says on page xviii “Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead.” Actually the word Godhead is much stronger and more accurate than the word “deity” found in the NASB, NIV and ESV. I have also heard radio preachers today who use the modern versions talking about the Godhead, little realizing that this word no longer appears in the bible versions they are now using.

GODHEAD

Merriam Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1967, ” the nature of God especially as existing in three persons — used with the”.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000. 1. Divinity; godhood. 2. Godhead The Christian God, especially the Trinity.

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary 1997 -God•head

Pronunciation: (god’hed”)
—noun
1.
a. the essential being of God; the Supreme Being.
b. the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

 

The Greek lexicons of both Trench and Thayer’s also show Godhead as being one of the primary meanings of this Greek word used in Colossians 2:9.  Scholars often disagree with each other; what one affirms another denies. But of the three words used, there are some who affirm that each of the Greek words used has the meaning of “godhead”.

Concerning the first example of Acts 17:29 “the Godhead” KJB and many others, τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 1957 list this word on page 354 and reference Acts 17:29.  They define it as: 1. of the godhead and everything that belongs to it.

Concerning the Greek word used in Romans 1:20 θειότης, on page 285 of Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon he tells us that this word  means divinity or divine nature and is a synonym of θεότητος used in Colossians 2:9 which he defines as “absolute Godhead”.

Concerning Colossians 2:9 τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words page 289 references Colossians 2:9 and says: “Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead;  the apostle uses  τῆς θεότητος to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son.” Then he references Trench’s Synonyms.  When we look at Trench Synonyms of the New Testament on pages 24-25 he says that τῆς θεότητος as found in Colossians 2:9 means exactly the same thing Vine told us – the essential and personal Godhead of the Son.

And this Greek New Testament site – http://www.laparola.net/greco/  Gives the following quotes concerning Colossians 2:9:

Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book X: that this is what has been declared, “in whom dwelleth all the fulness of theGodhead bodily.”[12]

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book I: and further, “In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead; “[46]

Origen de Principiis Book II: And when it is said “above thy fellows,” it is meant that the grace of the Spirit was not given to it as to the prophets, but that the essential fulness of the Word of God Himself was in it, according to the saying of the apostle, “In whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”[88] 

The word Godhead implies the Three Persons of the Trinity, whereas the simple word Deity does not. There are many deities but only one Godhead. It is more than just coincidence that the KJB has the word Godhead three times in the New Testament.

As for Mr. White’s charge that all three Greek words are “completely different”, please note that all three have the base word Theos, which by itself means God. Not only does the KJB translate all three instances  (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20and Colossians 2:9) of these related words as GODHEAD, but so also do Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540, Matthew’s Bible (John Rogers) of 1549, the Bishop’s Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley’s 1755 translation, Webster’s 1833 translation, Young’s “literal” translation, the Amplified Bible 1987, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Version of 1998.

Mr. White complains about the translation of Godhead here in Colossians 2:9, yet the NKJV, which he recommends in his book as a reliable translation, also has Godhead in Colossians 2:9. Not only do all thirteen translations mentioned above have Godhead in Colossians 2:9, but so also do Whiston’s Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s translation 1755, Noyes N.T. 1869, Godbey N.T. 1902, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Revised Version 1885, American Standard Version 1901, Darby 1870, New English Bible 1970, Wycliffe 1395, Complete Apostle’s Bible, Analytical Literal Translation, Anderson N.T., American Bible Union N.T., Worrell N.T., English Jubilee Bible 2000, Hebrew Names Version, the World English Bible, Douay-Rheims 1592, the Douay 1950, Amplified Bible 1987, The Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, Green’s Modern KJV 2000, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, and Rotherham’s Emphatic Bible 1902. That is a total of at least 37 English bible translations that disagree with Mr. White’s “scholarly” opinions about what the word θεότητος means in Colossians 2:9.

 

Mr. White also shows his hypocrisy when he says the KJB translates three “completely” different words as Godhead. The NASB, for whom he used to work, has two very different words translated as deity – daimonion in Acts 17:18 and theotes in Colossians 2:9 – and another five very different words translated as Divine. In Acts 17:29 theios is translated as “divine nature”, in Romans 1:20 theiotes is “divine nature”, in Romans 11:4 kreematismos is translated as “divine response”, in 2 Corinthians the Greek word theos is translated as “divinely”, and in Hebrews 9:1 latreia is translated as “divine service”.

The word Godhead in orthodox Christian theology clearly implies the Trinity. If anyone studies their Bible, you know that Christ was God manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16 in the KJB, but not the NASB, ESV, RSV, NIV). The Lord also said in John 14:10 “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?…the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”

The Lord Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35) and God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts 10:38). In Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

People like James White have no inspired Bible or sure words of God. He will tell you that he believes “The Bible is the infallible words of God”, but if you ask him to show you a copy of this infallible Bible he claims to believe in, he will never tell you. I know; I have tried.  Men like James White set up their own minds as being the final authority and correct every bible version out there. Mr. White often corrects his own NASB and thinks it too has errors. Men like Mr. White don’t believe any translation can be the inspired words of God, and since the “originals” no longer exist, they have no inspired Bible and resent the fact that many of us believe we do. They want to be the Final Authority and have you come to them to find out what God really said. It is a big ego trip, easy to get into and very hard to get out of. I feel sorry for all the Christians who have been robbed of the true Holy Bible by unbelieving modern scholars like “Dr” James White.