1 Tim 3:3 Corrupted in the modern versions?

So much wrong with what he has said. They were not Satanist. This lie was started by Gail Riplinger when she confused two different Westcott. The Bishop(Brooke Foss Westcott) who worked on the Greek text named after him and William Wynn Westcott, who was heavy in the occult.

Also the ESV and NIV are not based on the Westcott and Hort text. The NA27 is not the same thing and the WH text. The very first NA text used the WH text, but also looked at other Greek texts. Whoever wrote that is conflating people and Greek texts. They are either unaware of the differences, or being completely unfair and dishonest, like Riplinger.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The addition found in the textus receptus has nothing to do with what you have bolded
The TR has the additional phrase μη αισχροκερδη, "not greedy of filthy lucre".

1 Timothy 3:3

μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην, ἀλλʼ ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον, (NA28)

μη παροινον μη πληκτην αλλα επιεικη αμαχον αφιλαργυρον (Westcott Hort 1881)

not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (NIV)

not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (ESV)


μη παροινον μη πληκτην μη αισχροκερδη αλλ επιεικη αμαχον αφιλαργυρον (textus receptus 1550MR)

not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (AV1873)

Bruce Metzger writes:

After πλήκτην the Textus Receptus, as well as many minuscules, inserts μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ. The words are a gloss derived from Tt 1:7 and are not present in א A D F G K L P 5 33 38 104 181 218 263 323 424c 436 442 460 462 618 623 635 920 1149 1738 1827 1837 1838 1906* 1944 2004 2125 itd, vg syrp, copsa, goth arm eth al.
United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 573.
​

Rob

​

 

It's utter KJVO nonsense.

Westcott and Hort Resource Centre - FAQs

You can see for yourself how they have quote mined and downright lied about them.

 

So let me guess - you mentioned you were a street evangelist who occasionally has a Mike's Hard Lemonade, and this guy went to town on you for drinking.

He may be wrong, but you're still looking for justification and validation.

 

The orthodox Baptist view is that a fraction of the populous is predisposed to substance abuse, and within that fraction are those inclined to alcoholism. So in light of not causing a brother to stumble we avoid alcohol so as to avoid leading someone astray.

1 Timothy 3:3 "not given to wine" is a sound accurate translation, the NASB has not addicted to wine. The word appears to carry more meaning than just spending time with wine, but also includes the idea that the behavior has deleterious effects upon the person.

.

 

This had to come from a KJVO site, the part of them Critical Greek text used by modern versions is totally corrupted/satanic!

 

They just have misguided zeal, as they are so wrong on their views regarding the Kjv, but should be using their efforts to stress that scriptures themselves are what is all important, not just if their version or not!

 

Southern Baptist Convention > On Alcohol Use In America

And there is no need to claim orthodox does not mean adherence to accepted and traditional views. Open any dictionary.

 

I have been attending Baptist Churches for close to 60 years. So I probably have celebrated communion hundreds of times. All of them served grape juice, not wine.

I presented the orthodox view, presented in most of the churches where I regularly attended. The link to the SBC was simply to show one of many "avoid alcohol viewpoints held within the Baptist ranks. Note that no pro-alcohol link has been posted.

 

Isn't it the point of translations to bring the meaning of the original to the target audience? The "actual words" can't be put in an English translation.

There are indeed manuscripts which are older than B and Aleph, but since these two are nearly complete New Testaments --Aleph having more content than B, they deserve much more attention and credit.

According to your man Robinson, the current NA edition is 99.5% the same as W&H's edition.

I'd say this man was a true Evangelical

Bickersteth was a solid Evangelical. He supported the Society For The Propagation Of The Gospel. He also traveled to Japan several times to spread the Word. His son was a missionary there.

As far as I know he died the latest into the 20th century --1906. And he had the most children --16, from one wife!

Dean Stanley.

A solid biblical scholar.

The only Baptist in the company. He was a good conservative. He even ministered at New Park Street Chapel. Does that ring a bell? C.H.S. did later on.

At one point Charles Spurgeon was contemplating going to what we would call seminary. He had arranged to have an appointment with Dr. Angus. However there was a mix-up. After waiting a considerable time Spurgeon walked out. Dr. Angus was in the house, but wasn't informed.

I found that he had gathered just 64 Greek readings of the N.T. text after the ERV was released.

Roberts was a Presbyterian. He was the father of 14 children.

I have a great deal of respect for him --much more than I have for Dean Burgon. Scrivener was a scholar's scholar.

Alford was a very learned man. In 1868 he had published the New Testament for English Readers In Four Volumes.

Yes, another Presbyterian.

I respect Tregelles very much. He came from my background --the Plymouth Brethren. He was an industrious scholar while not having the luxury of his N.T. peers. Tregelles labored as an ironworker. for six while doing textual criticism in his spare time. He also composed a number of "Hymns for the poor of the flock."

There was one Methodist in the group, but I lost track of his name.

 

I think that the majority viewpoint would be no alcohol allowed, but mine is can, but in moderation, and better if decided not to have any!