1 Timothy 3:16

Bob, please give me name of manuscripts saying, "He."

 

Edward Hills says: the early Church father Ignatius (who lived around 100 A.D.) quotes this text "God manifested in the flesh." http://www.geocities.com/georgebruns/hillsfive.html

 

So much drivel form educated fools.

It has been said the modern pervesions don't change the word of God, but this thread is proof that the new versions DO water down the Word.

God gave us his word, this word needed no "updating", but the unconverted, unregenerated men saw fit to attempt to destroy the Word with their idea of what they think God meant.

Hogwash!, The KJV is adequate for the English language, and God has likewise preserved his word in other languages also. No the KJV isn't the only bible for all languages, but is is the power of God in English, if you have not experienced this power that is your loss.

I'll accept 1 Timothy 3:16 as it is in the KJV, to those who don't know Christ godliness is a mystery.

 

Thanks for bringing this up FFF.


I checked Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament and he
has the following to say (fyi I find Scrivener to be a reliable source of info).
Note: I translated the Greek into English..I don't
claim to of done this correctly; inserted my translation into <>

Also he mentions Hippolytus (ca. 235 AD):

I think Metzger would argue that those references are too "free" to be considered as conclusive evidence. Also they don't usually put alot of weight upon Early church father testimony because frequently it is loose, sometimes they quote on both sides of a variant, and there is some possiblity of modification in the quotes occuring through the centuries of copying the church father writings.

(Again, I'm not defending Metzger's nor Alands position on those things..just relating what I think they would say)


-kman

 

Where is this proof?? Did I miss something??? I must have because I have seen no proof of any watering down. Paul most likely wrote "He was manifest in teh flesh." For a modern version to read that, it has not been watered down. The only drivel here is from people who do not seem to be able to read the context in which this verse is found.

So you are questioning the spiritual status of those who believe that the evidence says that God inspired "He was manifest in the flesh"? Those who changed it to "God" are telling us what they think God meant. And they are right. That is what God meant. But that is not what God said, most likely. We on this side are more concerned with what God said than anything else.

 

Ernie Brazee said:

It has been said the modern pervesions don't change the word of God, but this thread is proof that the new versions DO water down the Word.

I made a challenge earlier that no KJV-onlyist took up: If the "he" in 1 Tim. 3:16 is not God, who is it?

If you make the claim that the Word is changed, then you do the homework and back your claims up.

Stop lollygagging around and get some substance behind your hot air.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]A better verse to compare to 1 Tim. 3:16 is 1 John 3:5. There is nothing inherently evil about "He was manifested."


Andy

 

{Post not on topic}

[ June 05, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

{Post not on topic}

[ June 05, 2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Let's start wrapping this up. Thread will be closed by midnight tonight eastern.

 

Well, we don't know. The corrupt MSS that modern versions came from put "he" there, so they should be able to tell us who "he" is. Who is "he?"

 

HomeBound contributes exactly nothing to the debate by saying:

Well, we don't know. The corrupt MSS

If we don't know, we don't know that those MSS are "corrupt," do we? Your assumption is unwarranted by the evidence you have presented, which is to say, none.

that modern versions came from put "he" there, so they should be able to tell us who "he" is. Who is "he?"

I say, and everybody on this board says, "he" is God. It's the KJV-onlyists who say this verse is a watering down of the Scriptures.

1 Tim. 3:16 is watered down if and only if if "he" refers to someone other than God. So who is it? Cough up his ID and prove it from context.

Until you have successfully done this, the only intellectually honest thing to do with these claims of "watering down" or "corrupt MSS" is to regard them as so much KJV-only codswallop.

 

Read the passage with a little comprehension and you will see!

Neal

 

Just for fun, check the Wiclif translation from 1380. I just did......

 

Guess there was no preserved Word of God in English in Wycliffe's time.

 

Know of a link to it?

Neal

 

{Post off topic}

[ June 05, 2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

{Post off topic}

[ June 05, 2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

{Post off topic}

[ June 05, 2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]