The KJV translators failed to correct some errors in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as they left them uncorrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV.
Do you dodge and avoid that fact?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Deity of Christ presented in English Bible translations
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
- Status
The KJV translators failed to correct some errors in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as they left them uncorrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV.
Do you dodge and avoid that fact?
At Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other English translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ.
John Wesley translated it as “the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Joseph Benson observed that Theodore Beza maintained “that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ” (New Testament, II, p. 472). Granville Sharp noted that Beza “insists, however, that these two titles do not refer to two distinct persons, because the article is omitted before the second” (Remarks, p. 22). In the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible, this note is given for Titus 2:13: “Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God.“ Francis Turretin (1623-1687) as translated by George Giger wrote: “He is called ‘the great God’ (Tit. 2:13)--certainly not the Father, but the Son because only one article is prefixed to the words God and Saviour (which would not be the case if they were two persons)“ (Institutes, I, p. 284). In his 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Annotations at this verse, Theodore Haak noted: “That is, of Jesus Christ, our great God and Saviour; for both these titles are here ascribed to Jesus Christ.” Concerning Titus 2:13 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this is stated: “To the confutation and confusion of all that deny the Deity of Christ, the Apostle here calleth him not only God, but the great God.” In a sermon printed in 1722, Edmund Calamy stated: “There being no article prefixed to Saviour, it follows, that the Great God, and the Saviour spoken of, must be the very same, even Jesus Christ, who is mentioned” (Thirteen Sermons, pp. 37-38).
A. T. Robertson noted that our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ "is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and soteros just as in 2 Peter 1:1 (Word Pictures, IV, p. 604). Concerning Titus 2:13, Granville Sharp stated: "This testimony, therefore, of the sacred text, in favour of our Lord's divine nature, ought not to be withheld from the mere English reader" (Remarks, p. 51). William Hendriksen wrote: "No valid reason has ever been found which would show that the (Granville Sharp) rule does not apply in the present case [Titus 2:13]" (Timothy and Titus, p. 375). Prince Hoare cited or reported that “the only sense in which the Greek Fathers understand that important passage, for instance, Titus 2:13, is that which is ascribed to it by Mr. Sharp” (Memoirs of Granville Sharp, I, p. 501). Thomas Burgess (1756-1837) wrote: “That Jesus Christ is ‘our great God and Saviour,‘ we know from the testimony of St. Paul (Titus 2:13), interpreted by the unanimous judgment of the Greek Fathers, and of all the Latin Fathers but one, concurring with an invariable idiom of the Greek language” (Tracts on the Divinity of Christ, p. 134).
Concerning Titus 2:13, Warren Wiersbe wrote: “This verse boldly affirms that Jesus Christ is God, for there is only one article in the Greek” (Be Faithful, p. 110). R. A. Torrey asserted that “in the correct translation of Titus 2:13 … our Lord Jesus is spoken of as, ‘our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Fundamental Doctrines, p. 78). Concerning the rendering “of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” James Boise asserted: “This is the simplest and most natural construction grammatically; one article with both genitives, and the pronoun limiting both” (Notes on the Greek Text, p. 570). Concerning Titus 2:13, R. L. Dabney asserted: “It should be ‘of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Systematic Theology, p. 190).
The 1611 edition of the KJV had a comma after God at Titus 2:13 [the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ]. The first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and 1795 still have a comma after God at Titus 2:13. Scrivener observed: “In regard to weightier matters, the comma put by 1611 after “God” in Titus 2:13 is fitly removed by 1769 modern, that ‘the great God and our Saviour’ may be seen to be joint predicates of the same Divine person” (Authorized Edition, p. 87). The 1743 and 1760 Cambridge editions edited by F. S. Parris had removed the comma at Titus 2:13 before the 1769 Oxford followed them. Concerning Titus 2:13, J. H. Murray maintained that the KJV “makes it as if two persons were spoken of, the Father and the Son; where the Son only, in the original Greek, is mentioned” (Help, p. 64). Concerning the KJV’s rendering at this verse, Gordon Clark observed: “This allows the objector to separate the great God from our Lord Jesus Christ” (Trinity, p. 16). James D. Price asserted: “Some versions, like the KJV and ASV, do not render this verse as referring to Christ as God” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). In 1829, Edward Burton contended: “In our authorized version, the words certainly do not necessarily imply that our Saviour Jesus Christ is the great God; but if we were to translate them, as we are equally authorized in doing, ’the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,’ it would be obvious to every reader, that the expression great God referred to Jesus Christ” (Testimonies, p. 113).
John Dick (1764-1833) included Titus 2:13 as an example of verses “in which the name of God is given to our Saviour, but the evidence does not appear to common readers, in consequence of the manner in which they have been translated” (Lectures on Theology, I, p. 316). John Dick gave “our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” as “a translation more conformable to the original” (p. 317). I. M. Halderman wrote: “Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Apostle Paul speaks of Him as ’our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (correct reading) (Titus 2:13)” (Bible Expositions, I, p. 456). Augustus Strong regarded Titus 2:13 to be “a direct, definite, and even studied declaration of Christ’s divinity” (Systematic Theology, p. 307). William Evans listed Titus 2:13 as a place where Jesus Christ is called God (Great Doctrines of the Bible, p. 58). Likewise, Michael Bere cited Titus 2:13 as a place where Jesus is called God (Bible Doctrines for Today, Book I, p. 170). In its note for this verse, the Holman KJV Study Bible noted: “The reference to Jesus as God and Saviour is a strong affirmation of His deity” (p. 2045). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, John Philips stated: “Both phrases refer to the same individual. Here we have a clear affirmation of the deity of Christ. He who is ‘the Great God’ is also ‘our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 288). E. W. Bullinger quoted from Titus 2:13 once as follows: “of our great God and Saviour” (Figures, p. 505), and he maintained that the latter clause of this verse is a “hendiadys: One person being meant, not two” (p. 669). J. L. Dagg advocated that the rendering at Titus 2:13 be amended to “our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Edward Bickersteth presented or rendered it as “our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Rock of Ages, p. 44). Concerning Titus 2:13, Ralph Wardlaw wrote: “To avoid all ambiguity, and to express the precise sense of the original, they ought to be rendered, ‘the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Discourses, p. 76). Timothy Dwight asserted concerning Titus 2:13: “In the Greek it is the Great God even our Saviour Jesus Christ, or our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 526).
John Wesley translated it as “the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Joseph Benson observed that Theodore Beza maintained “that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ” (New Testament, II, p. 472). Granville Sharp noted that Beza “insists, however, that these two titles do not refer to two distinct persons, because the article is omitted before the second” (Remarks, p. 22). In the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible, this note is given for Titus 2:13: “Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God.“ Francis Turretin (1623-1687) as translated by George Giger wrote: “He is called ‘the great God’ (Tit. 2:13)--certainly not the Father, but the Son because only one article is prefixed to the words God and Saviour (which would not be the case if they were two persons)“ (Institutes, I, p. 284). In his 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Annotations at this verse, Theodore Haak noted: “That is, of Jesus Christ, our great God and Saviour; for both these titles are here ascribed to Jesus Christ.” Concerning Titus 2:13 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this is stated: “To the confutation and confusion of all that deny the Deity of Christ, the Apostle here calleth him not only God, but the great God.” In a sermon printed in 1722, Edmund Calamy stated: “There being no article prefixed to Saviour, it follows, that the Great God, and the Saviour spoken of, must be the very same, even Jesus Christ, who is mentioned” (Thirteen Sermons, pp. 37-38).
A. T. Robertson noted that our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ "is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and soteros just as in 2 Peter 1:1 (Word Pictures, IV, p. 604). Concerning Titus 2:13, Granville Sharp stated: "This testimony, therefore, of the sacred text, in favour of our Lord's divine nature, ought not to be withheld from the mere English reader" (Remarks, p. 51). William Hendriksen wrote: "No valid reason has ever been found which would show that the (Granville Sharp) rule does not apply in the present case [Titus 2:13]" (Timothy and Titus, p. 375). Prince Hoare cited or reported that “the only sense in which the Greek Fathers understand that important passage, for instance, Titus 2:13, is that which is ascribed to it by Mr. Sharp” (Memoirs of Granville Sharp, I, p. 501). Thomas Burgess (1756-1837) wrote: “That Jesus Christ is ‘our great God and Saviour,‘ we know from the testimony of St. Paul (Titus 2:13), interpreted by the unanimous judgment of the Greek Fathers, and of all the Latin Fathers but one, concurring with an invariable idiom of the Greek language” (Tracts on the Divinity of Christ, p. 134).
Concerning Titus 2:13, Warren Wiersbe wrote: “This verse boldly affirms that Jesus Christ is God, for there is only one article in the Greek” (Be Faithful, p. 110). R. A. Torrey asserted that “in the correct translation of Titus 2:13 … our Lord Jesus is spoken of as, ‘our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Fundamental Doctrines, p. 78). Concerning the rendering “of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” James Boise asserted: “This is the simplest and most natural construction grammatically; one article with both genitives, and the pronoun limiting both” (Notes on the Greek Text, p. 570). Concerning Titus 2:13, R. L. Dabney asserted: “It should be ‘of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Systematic Theology, p. 190).
The 1611 edition of the KJV had a comma after God at Titus 2:13 [the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ]. The first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and 1795 still have a comma after God at Titus 2:13. Scrivener observed: “In regard to weightier matters, the comma put by 1611 after “God” in Titus 2:13 is fitly removed by 1769 modern, that ‘the great God and our Saviour’ may be seen to be joint predicates of the same Divine person” (Authorized Edition, p. 87). The 1743 and 1760 Cambridge editions edited by F. S. Parris had removed the comma at Titus 2:13 before the 1769 Oxford followed them. Concerning Titus 2:13, J. H. Murray maintained that the KJV “makes it as if two persons were spoken of, the Father and the Son; where the Son only, in the original Greek, is mentioned” (Help, p. 64). Concerning the KJV’s rendering at this verse, Gordon Clark observed: “This allows the objector to separate the great God from our Lord Jesus Christ” (Trinity, p. 16). James D. Price asserted: “Some versions, like the KJV and ASV, do not render this verse as referring to Christ as God” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). In 1829, Edward Burton contended: “In our authorized version, the words certainly do not necessarily imply that our Saviour Jesus Christ is the great God; but if we were to translate them, as we are equally authorized in doing, ’the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,’ it would be obvious to every reader, that the expression great God referred to Jesus Christ” (Testimonies, p. 113).
John Dick (1764-1833) included Titus 2:13 as an example of verses “in which the name of God is given to our Saviour, but the evidence does not appear to common readers, in consequence of the manner in which they have been translated” (Lectures on Theology, I, p. 316). John Dick gave “our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” as “a translation more conformable to the original” (p. 317). I. M. Halderman wrote: “Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Apostle Paul speaks of Him as ’our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (correct reading) (Titus 2:13)” (Bible Expositions, I, p. 456). Augustus Strong regarded Titus 2:13 to be “a direct, definite, and even studied declaration of Christ’s divinity” (Systematic Theology, p. 307). William Evans listed Titus 2:13 as a place where Jesus Christ is called God (Great Doctrines of the Bible, p. 58). Likewise, Michael Bere cited Titus 2:13 as a place where Jesus is called God (Bible Doctrines for Today, Book I, p. 170). In its note for this verse, the Holman KJV Study Bible noted: “The reference to Jesus as God and Saviour is a strong affirmation of His deity” (p. 2045). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, John Philips stated: “Both phrases refer to the same individual. Here we have a clear affirmation of the deity of Christ. He who is ‘the Great God’ is also ‘our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 288). E. W. Bullinger quoted from Titus 2:13 once as follows: “of our great God and Saviour” (Figures, p. 505), and he maintained that the latter clause of this verse is a “hendiadys: One person being meant, not two” (p. 669). J. L. Dagg advocated that the rendering at Titus 2:13 be amended to “our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Edward Bickersteth presented or rendered it as “our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Rock of Ages, p. 44). Concerning Titus 2:13, Ralph Wardlaw wrote: “To avoid all ambiguity, and to express the precise sense of the original, they ought to be rendered, ‘the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Discourses, p. 76). Timothy Dwight asserted concerning Titus 2:13: “In the Greek it is the Great God even our Saviour Jesus Christ, or our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 526).
The context of Titus 2:13 concerning the appearing clearly indicates that there is a reference to one person--our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
John Ankerberg and John Weldon maintained that “even the context of Titus 2:13 shows that one Person, not two, was in Paul’s mind, for Paul wrote of the ‘glorious appearing’ of that Person” (Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). Gordon Clark noted: “The subject matter is the glorious return of our Lord. One person returns; not the Father, but the Son. Hence the great God and Jesus is the same person” (The Trinity, p. 17). Clark added: “It is difficult in Greek to separate ‘of us’ (our) from ‘the great God’” (Ibid.). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark observed: “A more doctrinal argument is that only Christ appears--the second coming is not a coming of the Father; therefore the great God who appears must be Christ” (p. 224). In his commentary on Titus, John MacArthur asserted: “Our great God and Savior is one of the many plain declarations in Scripture of the deity of Jesus Christ.“ MacArthur also noted that “both of the singular pronouns in the following verse [14] (‘who,‘ hos, and ‘Himself,‘ heauton) refer back to a single person” (p. 120). MacArthur added: “Perhaps most importantly, the New Testament nowhere speaks of the appearing or Second Coming of God the Father but only of the Son” (p. 121). John Gill wrote: “He is called ‘the great God,‘ whose glorious appearing, and not the Father’s, saints are directed to look for; besides, this great God, is explained of Jesus Christ our Saviour in the next clause, Titus 2:13” (Complete Body, pp. 240-241). Reformer Francis Turretin noted: “Epiphaneia is never attributed to the Father, but always to Christ. He, whose advent we look for, is said to have given himself for us (Tit. 2:14), which applies to Christ alone” (Institutes, I, p. 284). Consider also 2 Timothy 1:10--”appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” James Buswell noted: “It is clear from the entire New Testament that it is Christ whose glorious appearing is expected: Christ Jesus is our great God and Saviour” (Systematic Theology, p. 104). Concerning this verse in his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, H. Harvey noted: “The following context, in the relative clause (verse 14), ’who gave himself for us,’ plainly relates only to Christ, but naturally requires us to take the whole preceding expression, ’our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,’ as its antecedent” (pp. 139-140). Concerning this verse in his commentary, Robert Horton asserted: “The qualifying description of verse 14, which refer to Jesus Christ, completely overbalances the sentence if Christ is to be separated from ’the great God’” (p. 186).
John Ankerberg and John Weldon maintained that “even the context of Titus 2:13 shows that one Person, not two, was in Paul’s mind, for Paul wrote of the ‘glorious appearing’ of that Person” (Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). Gordon Clark noted: “The subject matter is the glorious return of our Lord. One person returns; not the Father, but the Son. Hence the great God and Jesus is the same person” (The Trinity, p. 17). Clark added: “It is difficult in Greek to separate ‘of us’ (our) from ‘the great God’” (Ibid.). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark observed: “A more doctrinal argument is that only Christ appears--the second coming is not a coming of the Father; therefore the great God who appears must be Christ” (p. 224). In his commentary on Titus, John MacArthur asserted: “Our great God and Savior is one of the many plain declarations in Scripture of the deity of Jesus Christ.“ MacArthur also noted that “both of the singular pronouns in the following verse [14] (‘who,‘ hos, and ‘Himself,‘ heauton) refer back to a single person” (p. 120). MacArthur added: “Perhaps most importantly, the New Testament nowhere speaks of the appearing or Second Coming of God the Father but only of the Son” (p. 121). John Gill wrote: “He is called ‘the great God,‘ whose glorious appearing, and not the Father’s, saints are directed to look for; besides, this great God, is explained of Jesus Christ our Saviour in the next clause, Titus 2:13” (Complete Body, pp. 240-241). Reformer Francis Turretin noted: “Epiphaneia is never attributed to the Father, but always to Christ. He, whose advent we look for, is said to have given himself for us (Tit. 2:14), which applies to Christ alone” (Institutes, I, p. 284). Consider also 2 Timothy 1:10--”appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” James Buswell noted: “It is clear from the entire New Testament that it is Christ whose glorious appearing is expected: Christ Jesus is our great God and Saviour” (Systematic Theology, p. 104). Concerning this verse in his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, H. Harvey noted: “The following context, in the relative clause (verse 14), ’who gave himself for us,’ plainly relates only to Christ, but naturally requires us to take the whole preceding expression, ’our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,’ as its antecedent” (pp. 139-140). Concerning this verse in his commentary, Robert Horton asserted: “The qualifying description of verse 14, which refer to Jesus Christ, completely overbalances the sentence if Christ is to be separated from ’the great God’” (p. 186).
Forever Settled
Active Member
To be a false teacher today is fairly easy the cults have already done the heavy lifting......the false teachers just borrow the cults arguments.
Last edited:
Forever Settled
Active Member
You are very fast......... must be nice having all your cut and paste organized by subject.
Because you may choose to throw out wildly and improperly an unproven allegation or assertion does not mean that it is true. You are not very convincing in what you allege.
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
Is it just as fairly easy for KJV-only advocates to teach their modern, human, non-scriptural reasoning concerning the KJV?
They just borrow fallacies instead of presenting any positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, scriptural case for their modern KJV-only view.
They can hide behind invalid questions that assume as true KJV-only premises that have not been proven to be actually true.
They can easily throw out wild, unproven allegations that would bear false witness against believers in God and in the Scriptures.
Forever Settled
Active Member
Organized by notepad?wordpad?
or spreadsheet?
By Dumpster.
Since I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Greek Text and English translations from it, it is not my responsibility to defend them.
Of course, that does not mean that I should accept the KJV-only use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards [an abomination to the LORD] in their inconsistent allegations. Inconsistent KJV-only claims have not been applied soundly and justly.
The truth remains that other English Bible translations sometimes more clearly present the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ than the KJV does. The evidence concerning 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 has not been refuted by KJV-only diversionary tactics and use of unjust measures [double standards].
Of course, that does not mean that I should accept the KJV-only use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards [an abomination to the LORD] in their inconsistent allegations. Inconsistent KJV-only claims have not been applied soundly and justly.
The truth remains that other English Bible translations sometimes more clearly present the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ than the KJV does. The evidence concerning 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 has not been refuted by KJV-only diversionary tactics and use of unjust measures [double standards].
Do you check the claims and allegations of the two KJV-only posters in this thread or do you agree with them?
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
I hope that he will check the factual evidence and agree with us.
But even more importantly, consider the written warning in 2Peter 2-3 & Jude concerning those that wrest the Scriptures as they are deceivers and antichrists!Forever Settled
Active Member
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Forever Settled
Active Member
I understand you cant admit it........think what that admission would do to book sales !
https://www.amazon.com/Unbound-Scri...ateway&sprefix=The+unbound+scr,aps,226&sr=8-1
Thanks for describing your invalid and diversionary questions that try to assume as true premises that have not been proven to be actually true.
I have freely shared many facts concerning the KJV and other English Bibles.
I have probably spent much more time and money in my study and research than could ever be made from the sale of any books. I invest years of time in checking the facts as accurately as possible before I write.
I work a full-time job to support my family.
I have probably spent much more time and money in my study and research than could ever be made from the sale of any books. I invest years of time in checking the facts as accurately as possible before I write.
I work a full-time job to support my family.
If anyone cares to read the rules specific to this forum, referring to modern versions generically as "perversions," not to mention having an occultic or antichrist agenda, is against the rules. The thread is closed and any attempt to resurrect it in its current form will be deleted. Feel free to disagree with renderings that you believe are incorrect, but broad-brushing modern version as satanic will not be tolerated.
- Status