1 Timothy 3:16

Best I can tell, the best mss have a relative clause with a pronoun. The word God isn't there. It was added later for clarification. Context is pretty clear, so the difference is of no exegetical significance.

Incidentally, isn't this a hymn from the early church that Paul is quoting?

 

It depends on how you look at it, some say that the best mss don't have it. But I wonder what is the definition of the best? How do you know which is best? On their age?

If I have a counterfeit $20 bill from the year 1920 and a real $20 bill from the year 1990.

Does the age factor makes it real money and the "best" and reliable money?

The opinion of mine person is of course contrary to most of the people here on this board.

I see a watered down verse in these other versions.
But that is just my opinion.

One thing I know, when Jehova witnesses come to my door, I always use that verse to show them that the verse is an undisputable proof that Jesus is God.

I only how the other people on this forum use this verse to explain that Jesus is God, my best guess is that they probably will use other ways and verses to try to prove that point.

At least I can say, that in case a jehovawitness comes to your door, and you have no King James Bible, but another version, do not try to use 1 Timothy 3:16. They probably chew you alive

 

So actually you allready took a stand before the question...you never offerd the other possibility.

But stil..it is just mine opinion, I am glad that I could have help you to affirm your already known position.

About the oldest MSS..I shall just qoute myself

 

The early Greek manuscripts were written in Uncial script (which just means capital Greek letters all running together).

The difference in the reading "God" and "He" is actually a 2 small lines:

OC == He

--
0C == God (also need a horizontal line through the 0)

Could be somebody accidently left out the lines. Could be somebody added them thinking somebody else left them out.etc etc...

Metzger says:

I'm not saying I agree with all that..but those are the main reasons modern versions translated from UBS or NA Greek texts have "He" instead of "God".

-kman

 

Just to clarify, the Greek cited by kman, above, should look (assuming you have the appropriate screen fonts) like this:

ΟC = He
--
ΘC = God

Haruo

 

{Post not on topic}

[ June 04, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Lorelei said:

Can anyone explain why 1 Timothy 3:16 uses the word "God" where the other translations use "He".

As has already been adequately explained, the difference between "he" and a common abbreviation for "God" in Greek is two strokes of the pen. There are plenty of perfectly mundane reasons why this variant has crept in:
</font>

• it was missed, because of carelessness, poor eyesight, poor lighting, or some other circumstance</font>
• it was hidden by a crease in the exemplar</font>
• it was mistaken for a defect in the paper</font>

Alternatively, if "he" is the preferred reading, then the opposite would hold: a defect on the page was misread as a penstroke, and so forth.

Do you think there is any significance to the difference?

It does not affect the meaning of the passage (all possible antecedents for "he" point back to God anyway), so it is most likely a harmless and theologically insignificant honest mistake.

 

Not sure how this clears up anything about what Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3. It is clear in 1 Tim 3 that the pronoun "He" refers to "God." No matter which reading you choose, it is clear that God in flesh is being talked about 1 John 4:3 contributes to that in no way. It is but another attempt to hijack Scripture to support the indefensible.

 

Ransom, I don't think I like your constant logical, factual, historically accurate arguments. You are removing the satanic conspiracy right from under the KJVO side. What will they debate with now? Great, no more debate between the sides, Ransom is back. Thanks a bunch buddy.

 

The KJB says God was manifest in the flesh;the rest says he appeared in a body,he who? It is missing the Theta,no reference to God! 1st John 4:3 says that anybody who denies that God was manifest in the flesh is of the AntiChrist,period.

[ June 04, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: MV-neverist ]

 

{Post not on topic}

[ June 04, 2003, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

The KJB says God was manifest in the flesh;the rest says he appeared in a body,he who?</font>[/QUOTE]He is "God." The context is clear, if you look at what Paul is saying beginning at v. 13 and carrying through his thought. The only people who would miss this are those who take Scripture out of context. Come to think of it, that may be why this is such a big problem for you. The history of your side in taking things out of context to prove a point is astounding. Nevertheless, in the context of 1 Tim 3, this verse is explicit as Paul wrote it. There was no need to change it to God to make it clearer.

No one is denying that God was manifest in the flesh. We argue that from all over Scripture, including this verse. So as I originally said, 1 John 4:3 has no bearing here whatsoever because it is not relevant.

 

MV-neverist said:

The KJB says God was manifest in the flesh;the rest says he appeared in a body,he who?

Everyone agrees that "he" is God. If you think it has to be someone else, it's up to you to identify him and prove it from context.

 

If it was an 'omission' as you claim, wouldn't 'God' be showing up in the earlier manuscripts and the patristic fathers and 'He' in the later manuscripts? But the real evidence is opposite of that, so it doesn't make sense that it is an 'omission.' Rather, it points to an addition.

It is clear from the context and the preceding verses who appeared in the flesh. I can't believe that some could understand Elizabethan English yet not be able to understand basic context.

Neal

 

I appreciate any thoughts you all might have.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]"He" is not in the text.