After mentioning the plural verb White then suggests that there are non-Trinitarian systems. In other words, the presence of a plural verb here proves more than one divine person for White. This is why he segues into a discussion about non-Trinitarian systems. As I point out in the following post that is not a grammatical reality. Oneness Pentecostals do not deny that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son. They do not however say they are different divine persons sharing the same divine nature. It seems that neither Christ's "other" experience with God or His oneness with the Father amount to a difference in person.
Does White mean then that the Trinity cannot be adequately understood from the English translations alone? Does this mean that the layman is now unable to speak certainly of the Trinity unless he has a Hebrew or Greek exegete? Prior to the translation of the Scripture into English such an idea may have been interesting or even normal. Not anymore, Dr. White. The meaning of the Scriptures are not beyond the common man.
James White affirms that John 10:30 teaches:
Once you've watched Dr. White's video you are ready to proceed. Click here to read my reply on interpreting John 10:30.