Which is better, the NKJV or the Niv 2011?

It was a joke Bro

 

While I use the NKJV, among other versions, including the originals, I lament that this version, for some reason, departed from the KJV and the greater textual authority on a very important verse on the real human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Luke 1:35, the NKJV reads:

"And the angel answered and said to her, TheHoly Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."

The KJV:

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"

Notice the two small words, "of thee" (ἐκ σοῦ, literally, "out of you"), which was removed by translators who were "Docetic" in their Christology, who denied that the "human nature" in Jesus Christ, was actually derived from Mary. They taught that , “Christ had no real human birth, for he passed through Mary, just as water passes through a tube” (Dr Sydney Cave, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ, p.80). Matthew 1:16 says exactly what Luke says here, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ". Singular in number, and feminine in gender, which excludes Joseph as the biological father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 1:16 has also been tampered with in some versions. The KJV reading of Luke 1:35, though not having strong Greek manuscript support (which are the work of copyists anyway), is found in the writing of the Greek Church fathers very early, before the oldest Greek manuscript. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), Irenaeus (130-200), Hippolytus (170-236), Athanasius (296-373) etc,; of the Latin Church, Tertullian (160-225), Cyprian (200-258), Hilary (315-367), Ambrose (339-397), Jerome (342-420), and Augustine (354-430), etc. No doubt that it was part of the original text of Luke. Yet, we have the inaccurate remark in the Textual Commentary (edited by the Liberal Bruce Metzger, and others), by the United Bible Society, and the textual basis for a few English versions, which says of the two words in Luke, "are apparently an early addition"! How "early" is their early, as the above Church fathers knew of and quoted it as Luke's words.

 

you rely too much on a Greek text! The Geneva Bible has it, as does Wycliffe's; Lachmann's Greek text has it. Titian's Diatessaron, (c170) has it, as does the Old Latin version. Interestingly, according to Hippolytus, the heretic Valentinus, who actually rejected that Jesus derived His human nature from Mary, knew of "out of you" in Luke 1:35. You simply cannot dismiss or ignore the very strong evidence of the ECF, whose own copies of this Gospel had the words. Matthew 1:16 says the same as Luke does here, which I believe is conclusive that it is the original. Especially since the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript has corrupted Matthew 1:16, which makes Joseph the biological father of Jesus Christ! A fact that shows early opposition to this very important Doctrine, with the Apostle John wrote against (the opposition) in his First Epistle.

On the reliability of the Greek manuscripts, we have a very interesting case of John 7:53-8:11, which is found in the Codex Bezae of the 5th century, while the older Greek manuscripts omit this passage. Yet, a hundred years earlier, Jerome wrote that this passage was found in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts", which have obviously been lost, or destroyed.

 

in textual criticism, you reject the actual sources for the very Greek "texts" that you rely on, the manuscripts, versions, Patristic quotes, etc. What makes you think that the Greek texts that you use, are any better than the other evidence that I refer to? Most of the Greek texts remove "θεός" in 1 Timothy 3:16, where the evidence for it as part of the original has been shown to be the case by the masterful John William Burgon, who, together with Scrivener, and Kenyon, were the foremost of textual scholars the Church has ever had! Burgon's work on this has never been refuted, because it CANNOT! http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/1tim3_16_burgon.pdf As Josh McDowell says, Evidence that demands a verdict.

 

No they don't.

 

please tell on here the number of Greek "texts" that have θεός here. If you know what I mean?

 

Laparola Greek New Testament [Link]

NA28
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον·
ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν,
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.


Byzantine
Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον·
θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν,
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.


Variant readings, 1 Timothy 3:16 (Münster)

ὃς] Alex: א* A* 33 442 1175 Cyril Cyril according to Ps-Oecumenius Didymus NR CEI Riv (TILC) Nv NM Alex/Cæs: Origenlat Alex/Byz: C* West: F G Jerome Byz: (256) 365 2127 l60 (l597) l599 syrpal syrh(mg) goth eth Epiphanius Eutheriusaccording to Theodoret Liberatus Theodorelat

ὃ] West: D* itar itb itc itd itdem itdiv itf itg itmon ito itx itz vg Augustine Ambrosiaster Hilary Pelagius Victorinus-Rome Byz: (061) Marius Mercator Quodvultdeus Severian Theodotus-Ancyra Varimadum

ὃς or ὃ] Alex: copsa copbo Cæs: arm West: Ephraem? Byz: syrp syrh

θεὸς] Alex: א2 A2 P Ψ 6 81 104 181 326 330 451 459 1241 2492 Didymusdub Alex/West: 1739 1881 Alex/Byz: C2 075 0150 Cæs: geo2 West: D2 614 629 630 1852 2200 2495 vgms Byz: K L (88) 263 424 436 1319 1573 1877 1912 1962 1984 1985 Byz Lect slav Apollinaris Chrysostom Diodore Euthalius Gregory-Nyssa Ps-Dionysius Theodoret ς ND Dio

 

About 97% of the extant Greek MSS have θεός (theos) in 1 Timothy 3:16 SFAIK.

 

Thanks, I am well aware of that. I was discussing with TCassidy about "Greek Texts" and not Greek manuscripts. Look at # 22-26, to follow what is being said. "Greek Texts" are those that are made by various scholars, who, either go back to the manuscripts, ancient versions, and Church fathers for their textual basis; or some augment an existing work. Like the Textus Receptus, and that of Robert Stevens, or Elzevir, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society, some of which are "critical" editions, which include the variant readings of the textual evidences from manuscripts, etc, etc.. These "texts" are often the basis for translations in any language. Like the NIV version, has for the OT, Biblia Hebraica, which is the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT. For the NT they used Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. Of these "Greek Texts", the greater majority do not have θεός in 1 Timothy 3:16, but have the corrupted ὃς, which the NIV has translated "He who".

Textual evidence cannot be restricted to a "text" that is produced by someone or an organization like the UBS. To arrive at the best reading for a Bible verse or passage, the manuscripts, ancient versions and Church fathers must be examined. Often the "theology" of those who produce such "texts", determined the reading. For example, in John 1:1, the Greek, "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος", which for a number of reasons, can only be translated into English as, "and the Word was God", has been changed in the New World Translation, produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, as "and the Logos was a god". This is done to agree with their "theology", as they deny that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, though they argue with no justification, that the Greek grammar supports them! Likewise, for 1 Timothy 3:16, "God" was accepted on the basis of the textual evidence in versions like the KJV, and Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, till the "Revision" of 1881-1885, when this very verse was challenged by one of the translators in England, Dr George Vance Smith, whose influence on the Revision Committee was felt, when he was successful in removing θεὸς in 1 Timothy 3:16, and all because he was a UNITARIAN, and denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity and the Atonement! What was this person doing on a Committee to translate the NT, which was supposed to be one of the greatest achievements of the Christian Church??? There is so much more, like the corruption of 1 John 5:7, which is the clearest and strongest Bible passage for the Holy Trinity, which I have shown, has to be part of the original, or else the Greek grammar is faulty, which is impossible!, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/1jn5.6-10.pdf

 

The great textual scholar, John Burgon has shown beyond any doubt, that the original reading was "θεὸς", which has been corrupted. Over 100 years later, and his research and conclusions still stand , http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/1tim3_16_burgon.pdf

 

Bruce Metzger counters: "...no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός. The reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of ος as ΘΣ, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision."
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2ed. 1994.

I won't argue further. Personally my view for what it's worth (being practically non-literate in Greek) is that this variant occurred quite early and cannot be fully resolved.

Rob

 

Ah, you quote from BM, who, among other things, believed, Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor!

Metzger, whom you quote says, "no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός", which is not at all true.

Ignatius, who lived between 35-108 A.D., the time of most of the Apostles, wrote:

"εν σαρκι γενομενοϛ Θεοϛ" (To the Ephesians, 8:2), "God having come in the flesh", which is clearly a free quote from 1 Timothy 3:16.

There are others who quote this from the Greek NT

If you are interested in the real textual evidence for this verse, then I suggest looking at John Burgon's work, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/1tim3_16_burgon.pdf

 

1) "BM, who among other things, believed..." ad hominem

2) "...no uncial (in the first hand)..."

Patristic literature was often corrected​

Rob

 

As I have said, the evidence provided by Burgon is beyond doubt, and was a far better textual scholar that Metzger or Daniel Wallace, or even Westcott and Hort. It is up to you personally who you believe based on the evidence.

 

Ah! Sorry! I misunderstood you. Your post #26 is somewhat unclear.
The textual evidence for 1 Tim. 3:16 is of an entirely different order to that of Luke 1:35.

 

yes, I was given an example where the textual evidence as in some "authorities" in incorrect

 

'God was manifest in the Flesh' A support document.
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbib...8A4508415DA/God-was-Manifest-in-the-Flesh.pdf
For me, 97% of the Greek manuscripts is sufficient.

 

About 30 years ago I had the privilege in examining the original Codex Alexandrinus at the British library in London, and with the aid of a microscope, did see the original reading as θ̅Ο̅ , and not as the modern textual "authorities" claim to be OC.