1 Timothy 3:16

[Salamander]

Do you understand Ed's original post, which I endorsed?

Yes, I most certainly do.

A full spectrum of light contains all the facets of light. A spectrum of light that does not include all the facets of light is less than a ful spectrum.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Mike Berzins]

Some might be fooled by the manner in which these statements have been presented; but notice how the 'non-KJV' text is intentionally misrepresented (at least 4 times in two paragraphs does NOT seem to be accidental): the NIV, NASB, RSV and many other versions actually have "He" (not "he"), where the capitalization of personal pronouns is the identification of Deity (one or more Persons of the Trinity). Because the cap 'H' denotes Diety, there is NO problem.

I agree that "He" can only represent Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead in I Timothy 3:16. The underlying Greek of the NIV, NASB, RSV and others is legitimately represented in the English by "He". Changing the uppercase 'G' (of "God") to a lowercase 'g' (god) would essentially have the same detrimental affect (as a small 'h' for "He"): negation of the true diety of the antecedent. Therefore, this verse is no less a prooftext of the deity of Jesus Christ with characters 'H-e' than 'G-o-d'. It could be actually considered more specific since "God" generally refers to The Father, not The Son. It was God the Son that became flesh, not God the Father.

Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ appeared in the flesh and was shown to be righteous by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and was announced to the nations. He was believed on in the world and was taken up into heaven. (NLT)​

If the author of the citation did not deliberately resolve to deceive the readers of the BB, I think they will graciously accept his apology along with the retraction of his argument (which is competely dependant upon the fallacy of "he").

NIV (as cited by biblegateway.com):
I Timothy 1:2 To Timothy my true son in the faith:
Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

I Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task.

The NIV capitalizes words that appear after a colon which is where "He" appears in I Timothy 3:16. You can no more infer the deity of Christ from the capitaization in this verse then you can infer the deity of "Grace" or even "If".

The NASB does not capitalize after a colon, but rather considers this section poetical and capitalizes the first word of each line:

16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

Again, one can no more infer the deity of "He" in this passage then one can of the word "Was".

Nice try. At least you came up with something different then when we last went over this. (Unlike RobyCop with his tired repetition of the discredited "godliness as antecedent" argument).

 

[Mike Berzins]

From this statement it seems that there may be unfamiliarity with the actual variants of this verse as found in the extant MSS leading to this textual controversy.

The Greek word theos (Strong's #2316, meaning "God" in English) is not found spelled out in uncial MSS, but rather the characters approximating 'OC' are found. These characters could be taken to spell the Greek word hos (Strong's #3739, which would mean "whom" in this context). However, a similar construction of 'OC' is also the technical abbreviation for theos (requiring a line above both letters and a line through the 'O' character, thus transforming it into a theta).

This was a common copyist practice, frequently repeated words and some names were truncated to conserve materials and time. For example, the construction of 'IC|XC' (with a bar above all) is the Greek abbreviation for "Jesus Christ". This type of abbreviation (and other contractions and 'shorthand') are still a principal problem confronting paleographers.

It seems that no unedited uncial witnesses earlier than probably the 8th (or 9th) century support "God", and also all ancient versions have "He/Whom" equivalents. Despite the earlier ambiguous Ignatius citation, no church father prior to the later portion of the 4th century clearly testifies to the "God" reading.

The Greek discussion here only goes to obfuscate the point that was made. Either the original taught the deity of Christ in this passage (like the King James Bible does) or it did not (like the New World Translation and many other translations do not).

If you think discussing scraps of paper that some men other than yourself have dug up and handled is somehow going to lead you to the very words of God, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Mike Berzins]

Conversely, if the accepted words are "God was manifest in the flesh" the doctrine of the Trinity is weakened.

Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. Oneness theology does also affirms the deity of Jesus it denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person, and was manifested as Father (in creation), as the Son (in redemption), and as the Holy Spirit (in regeneration). They would use the KJV rendering of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 as a prooftext.

The term "God" does occur in verse 15, but only as an adjective, NOT as the nominative --

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

"Christ Jesus" is the antecedent of "He" (v.13). "He" maintains a clearer distinction between the Father and the Son, and thus corroborates the multi-Person Godhead.

Of course in this passage, "He" maintains a clearer distinction between God and Jesus Christ than "God" does, because the deity of Christ is removed. The New World Translation says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was a god". Of course this makes a good argument against oneness doctrine as well, but it is still wrong.

This line of reasoning that says we must consider the heresy on the other side of the issue - that is, oneness theology, is a valid concern. If you will undertake a study of the key passages that prove the deity of Christ, as well as the passages that refute the doctrine of "oneness", I trust that you will find that the KJB simultaneously answers both of these heresies in a much better manner than any other version.
(See John 1:18 for example.)

 

[franklinmonroe]

...The NIV capitalizes words that appear after a colon which is where "He" appears in I Timothy 3:16. You can no more infer the deity of Christ from the capitalization in this verse then you can infer the deity of "Grace" or even "If".

First, you did not specify the NIV (or any particular version) in your first post. Now, after your fallacy was exposed you specify a version to excuse your misrepresentation of the issue. The NIV does not capitalized pronouns of Deity as a matter of style, and I intentionally did not limit the discussion to any one specific version.

Second, the KJV also frequently capitalizes the first word occurring after a colon (often due to its' versification). The very same verse (1 Timothy 1:2) but now from the KJV --

Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.​

Identical punctuation and capitalization treatment, yet you were not implying that the KJV may have capitalized "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 simply because it follows a colon, so you have held the NIV to a double-standard. Do you plead ignorance, or dishonesty here?

Third, the NIV does not always capitalize the first word following a colon. I will provide just one example (Romans 2:9-10, NIV from blueletterbible.org) --

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.​

...The NASB does not capitalize after a colon, but rather considers this section poetical and capitalizes the first word of each line:...

You conveniently ignore the fact that the NASB always does capitalize pronouns of Deity as a matter of style and that would be the overriding reason that the word "He" begins with an uppercase letter. I offer only one example of the NASB's consistent application of capitalization for pronouns of Deity (1 Timothy 2:19, NASB) --

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,​

In the above example, "I" (simply because of capitalization) is not a reference to Deity; pronouns must be recognized in proper context. Again, one can infer the deity of "He" in this verse ("Christ Jesus" is the antecedent) exactly as "He" can be inferred in 1 Timothy 3:16.

Notice that the ASV does not format 1 Timothy 3:16 as poetry, nor uses the colon (but rather a semicolon) --

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.​

Was your post an attempt at more deception? I find your half-truths to be wholly false, and your errors will not be tolerated here.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The Greek discussion here only goes to obfuscate the point that was made. Either the original taught the deity of Christ in this passage (like the King James Bible does) or it did not (like the New World Translation and many other translations do not).

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that the passage may, or may not, teach the Deity of Christ with either "God" or "He". So, now you attempt to misdirect our attention towards the NWT. Of course, no one was discussing the NWT before now; and you misinform us again.

How does the NWT deny the Deity of Christ at 1 Timothy 3:16? It seems that the NWT has (unwittingly) capitalized "He" --

Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory.’​

The JWs have butchered many verses (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, etc.), but have legitimately rendered this one. Even if there were no MSS variants here, they would have done something to obfuscate His true identity and character; so, the JWs (and likewise heretical interpreters) are really irrelevant to our BB discussion.

If you think discussing scraps of paper that some men other than yourself have dug up and handled is somehow going to lead you to the very words of God, you are sadly mistaken.

Really? What is the source of the words of God you have? If they weren't written upon paperlike material before you got them, we'd like to know by what means you received them. Or, perhaps you meant that the words of God were on scraps but just not dug by men. Were your scraps dug up by, uh, monkeys? Were they delivered to you by aliens from another planet?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike Berzins:
...The NIV capitalizes words that appear after a colon which is where "He" appears in I Timothy 3:16. You can no more infer the deity of Christ from the capitalization in this verse then you can infer the deity of "Grace" or even "If".

Franklin Monroe:
First, you did not specify the NIV (or any particular version) in your first post. Now, after your fallacy was exposed you specify a version to excuse your misrepresentation of the issue. The NIV does not capitalized pronouns of Deity as a matter of style, and I intentionally did not limit the discussion to any one specific version.

Mike Berzins:
I chose the NIV as an example because you brought it up. When I discussed this issue with you some months ago, I did not recall you as being a liar. You just said the NIV capitalized pronouns as an identification of deity. Here is your post again, with the relevant parts underlined:

Originally Posted by franklinmonroe
Some might be fooled by the manner in which these statements have been presented; but notice how the 'non-KJV' text is intentionally misrepresented (at least 4 times in two paragraphs does NOT seem to be accidental): the NIV, NASB, RSV and many other versions actually have "He" (not "he"), where the capitalization of personal pronouns is the identification of Deity (one or more Persons of the Trinity). Because the cap 'H' denotes Diety, there is NO problem.

Mike Berzins:
Have you become a liar, or are you a living example of what Peter S Ruckman has said, “When you mess with the book, God messes with your mind”?

So the NIV does not capitalize pronouns that refer to the deity. Therefore nothing at all can be inferred about the deity of Christ from the phrase “He appeared in a body.” Why don’t you just admit that nothing can be inferred about the deity of Christ from this passage in the NIV? (or explain how it does without lying and slander).

Franklin Monroe:
Second, the KJV also frequently capitalizes the first word occurring after a colon (often due to its' versification). The very same verse (1 Timothy 1:2) but now from the KJV --
Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Identical punctuation and capitalization treatment, yet you were not implying that the KJV may have capitalized "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 simply because it follows a colon, so you have held the NIV to a double-standard. Do you plead ignorance, or dishonesty here?

Mike Berzins:
There is no double standard. If the word “He” is not capitalized as a reference to deity, then it has absolutely no basis to be used as a proof of deity. And in the NIV “He” is not capitalized in order to signify deity (At least that is what you said this time; maybe next time you will revert back to saying something else, and then accuse me of dishonesty.)

In regards to “God” being capitalized: We don’t need to wonder if the capitalization is merely because of its placement after the colon. Throughout the bible, when a “little g” god is in view, the word is always qualified. Sometimes it is by saying “gods” plural. Other times it says “a god”. Or the bible qualifies it by saying “the god of this world”. Nowhere does the bible say “god” is this or “god” is that, using the little “g”, without some sort of modification. Whenever you see the word “God”, lacking any context to suggest otherwise, you can be sure from the consistent testimony of the scriptures that it refers to the capital “G” God, even if the word “God” appears somewhere where it would be capitalized anyway.

Franklin Monroe:
Third, the NIV does not always capitalize the first word following a colon. I will provide just one example (Romans 2:9-10, NIV from blueletterbible.org) --
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Mike Berzins
So what? If the NIV does not capitalize the pronouns in regards to deity, the point is moot. Capitalized or not; there is no implication that “He” = deity, in the NIV.


Franklin Monroe

Originally Posted by Mike Berzins
...The NASB does not capitalize after a colon, but rather considers this section poetical and capitalizes the first word of each line:...

Franklin Monroe
You conveniently ignore the fact that the NASB always does capitalize pronouns of Deity as a matter of style and that would be the overriding reason that the word "He" begins with an uppercase letter. I offer only one example of the NASB's consistent application of capitalization for pronouns of Deity (1 Timothy 2:19, NASB) --
I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
In the above example, "I" (simply because of capitalization) is not a reference to Deity; pronouns must be recognized in proper context. Again, one can infer the deity of "He" in this verse ("Christ Jesus" is the antecedent) exactly as "He" can be inferred in 1 Timothy 3:16.

Notice that the ASV does not format 1 Timothy 3:16 as poetry, nor uses the colon (but rather a semicolon) --
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
Was your post an attempt at more deception? I find your half-truths to be wholly false, and your errors will not be tolerated here.

Mike Berzins
There has been no deception yet, other than that which was clearly shown to be perpetrated by you. I hope that your repeated projection of your dishonesty on to me is a sign that your conscience is still functioning somewhat.

I will grant you that since the NASB makes an attempt at capitalizing pronouns that refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, that it would be reasonable to assume that the “He” would be capitalized for this reason as well, regardless of it’s position in the poetry. More can be said on this, but as you correctly stated, I did not begin this by mentioning any particular version. So to try and focus the discussion, I will stick to the NIV.

The NIV does not capitalize “He” because of the deity of Christ. So how exactly does it show forth the deity of Christ in this passage? If it does not, then we are back to my original point that there are very significant differences between the so-called valid versions.

Franklin Monroe

Originally Posted by Mike Berzins
The Greek discussion here only goes to obfuscate the point that was made. Either the original taught the deity of Christ in this passage (like the King James Bible does) or it did not (like the New World Translation and many other translations do not).
Franklin Monroe:

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that the passage may, or may not, teach the Deity of Christ with either "God" or "He". So, now you attempt to misdirect our attention towards the NWT. Of course, no one was discussing the NWT before now; and you misinform us again.

How does the NWT deny the Deity of Christ at 1 Timothy 3:16? It seems that the NWT has (unwittingly) capitalized "He" --
Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory.’
The JWs have butchered many verses (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, etc.), but have legitimately rendered this one. Even if there were no MSS variants here, they would have done something to obfuscate His true identity and character; so, the JWs (and likewise heretical interpreters) are really irrelevant to our BB discussion.

Mike Berzins:
As I have shown above, the phrase “God was manifest in the flesh” clearly shows that, well, God was manifest in the flesh. It does prove the deity of Christ. He, even with a capital H, does not prove anything, because the NIV does not capitalize pronouns that refer to deity. And for the exact same reason, the capital H in the NWT does not in any way suggest the deity of Christ. So the NWT and the NIV are in agreement when they both do not teach the deity of Christ in this particular passage.

Franklin Monroe:

Originally Posted by Mike Berzins
If you think discussing scraps of paper that some men other than yourself have dug up and handled is somehow going to lead you to the very words of God, you are sadly mistaken.

Franklin Monroe:
Really? What is the source of the words of God you have? If they weren't written upon paperlike material before you got them, we'd like to know by what means you received them. Or, perhaps you meant that the words of God were on scraps but just not dug by men. Were your scraps dug up by, uh, monkeys? Were they delivered to you by aliens from another planet?

Mike Berzins:
God has already placed them within your reach, and conveniently put them in a book for you. You don’t have to take someone else’s word about the various scraps of paper that are periodically discovered and whether the readings found therein are valid, or spurious. You can actually get the very words of God, hold them in your hands, and God will show you personally that they are his words.

But lets not just banter back and forth with assertions that the other disagrees with. How about discussing this point: There are very significant differences between the versions you describe as valid, in regards to passages that have to do with the deity of Christ, such as I Timothy 3:16.

 

[ccrobinson]

God has already placed them within your reach, and conveniently put them in a book for you. You don’t have to take someone else’s word about the various scraps of paper that are periodically discovered and whether the readings found therein are valid, or spurious. You can actually get the very words of God, hold them in your hands, and God will show you personally that they are his words.

You do realize that the KJB was translated from these "various scraps of paper" that you are eager to criticize others for using, right? I lack the kind of education that others have worked hard to attain, so I'm hardly an authority, but I'm pretty sure the KJB didn't just appear out of nowhere.

 

[Salamander]

[/b]

You do realize that the KJB was translated from these "various scraps of paper" that you are eager to criticize others for using, right? I lack the kind of education that others have worked hard to attain, so I'm hardly an authority, but I'm pretty sure the KJB didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Not. No "various scraps of paper" as you would like to have others believe. There are no variations in the MSS the KJB translators used, they are in full agreement as to the word of God should be, well, unless you don't want the word of God in complete agreement.

To assume, as you have, that all versions are from the same "various scraps of paper" is very dishonest.:tear:

 

[ccrobinson]

If you think discussing scraps of paper that some men other than yourself have dug up and handled ...

When this comment was made, I followed pretty much the same train of thought that franklinmonroe did. If that's not what was meant, it would have been nice to have clarification of such.

I know the path of least resistance is to assume dishonesty, but you would be incorrect in that assumption. I wasn't referring to specific manuscripts at all. If Mike was, then it should have been clarified.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... You just said the NIV capitalized pronouns as an identification of deity...

No, I did NOT state that, and in fact, I have specifically stated just the opposite. My reference to the NIV had to do with your first post where (almost) every "he" had a lowercase 'h' (but I apologize if the NIV became lumped together with the NASB and it's capitalization of pronouns for Deity). I was merely generalizing by giving some examples (I couldn't list them all and no single term really covers it). This does not excuse the fact that your post used "he" when no version I have found actually has "he" ("which", "thing", "Who", "Christ", but mostly "God" or "He"). What version or versions was cited in your first post that has "he"?

...but as you correctly stated, I did not begin this by mentioning any particular version. So to try and focus the discussion, I will stick to the NIV.

Why don’t you just admit that nothing can be inferred about the deity of Christ from this passage in the NIV? (or explain how it does without lying and slander)...

...If the word “He” is not capitalized as a reference to deity, then it has absolutely no basis to be used as a proof of deity. And in the NIV “He” is not capitalized in order to signify deity...

Now you want to narrow the discussion to only the NIV. I do not. You presuppose that this verse must stand alone as a prooftext for the Deity of Christ. I do not.

...Throughout the bible, when a “little g” god is in view, the word is always qualified...

...you can be sure from the consistent testimony of the scriptures that it refers to the capital “G” God,...

(Some examples below from the KJV.)

• 2 Chronicles 32:15 -- Now therefore let not Hezekiah deceive you, nor persuade you on this manner, neither yet believe him: for no god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people out of mine hand, and out of the hand of my fathers: how much less shall your God deliver you out of mine hand?
• Judges 9:46 -- And when all the men of the tower of Shechem heard [that], they entered into an hold of the house of the god Berith.
• Isaiah 44:17 -- And the residue thereof he maketh a god, [even] his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth [it], and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou [art] my god.
• Daniel 11:36 -- And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
• Habakkuk 1:11 -- Then shall [his] mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, [imputing] this his power unto his god.
• Philippians 3:19, KJV -- Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

How about discussing this point: There are very significant differences between the versions you describe as valid, in regards to passages that have to do with the deity of Christ, such as I Timothy 3:16.

I have made no claims of what versions are "valid", nor commented "in regards to passages" having to do with the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory. (1 Timothy 3:16, AMP)​

 

[Salamander]

When this comment was made, I followed pretty much the same train of thought that franklinmonroe did. If that's not what was meant, it would have been nice to have clarification of such.

I know the path of least resistance is to assume dishonesty, but you would be incorrect in that assumption. I wasn't referring to specific manuscripts at all. If Mike was, then it should have been clarified.

The point I made was the KJB DID come from specific MSS and none of the variants.

I'm at least going to make one accountable to that truth.:thumbsup:

 

[Ed Edwards]

The point I made was the KJB DID come from specific MSS and none of the variants.
I'm at least going to make one accountable to that truth.:thumbsup:

Actually I'm holding you accountable for your aledged 'truth'.
What does this mean that makes it true?

... the KJB DID come from specific MSS and none of the variants.

What are the 'specific MSS'?
Which are the 'variants'.

Recall that actual knowledge of the 'specific MSS' used
by the KJV Translators was lost in a fire in England.
Recall that the re-translators (AKA: editors) of
the so called KJB of 1762 and 1769 did not have the same
'specific MSS' used by the real 1611 Edition Translators.


Please cite scholarly sources or announce your
basic Axiom from which you get the statement

... the KJB DID come from specific MSS and none of the variants.

I assume with you that the five basic statements
of the Fundamental Baptists are indeed true
(axiomatically /by faith/ )

 

[EdSutton]

I am saying that Theos is right one because during the Apostles's lifetime, Ignatius was there and said "God was in the the flesh."

Does that mean that Ignatius' works should now become a part of Scripture, as well? Even part of what Paul either wrote (or endorsed), [the epistle from Laodicea ( Col. 4:16)] is not a part of Scripture, in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, I believe.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Not. No "various scraps of paper" as you would like to have others believe. There are no variations in the MSS the KJB translators used, they are in full agreement as to the word of God should be, well, unless you don't want the word of God in complete agreement.

To assume, as you have, that all versions are from the same "various scraps of paper" is very dishonest.:tear:

No more 'dishonest' than citing I John 5:7, the so-called Johannine comma, as belonging in the TR, when it is found in the text in only one Gr. MS (61), one now known to have been 'constructed' (As the late Mr. Fred Rogers, an ordained Presbyterian minister might have said, "Can you spell 'forged'?") to 'force' Erasmus to include it his published text, when he said he would include that if one Gr. MS could be shown to have it in the text, I'd say. A 'variant' of this is found in the margin of 88 and 635, to be fair, here, but it is not found in the text body of any other Gr. MS, to my knowledge. I'd assume one can find it in the 'reverse engineered' text of Scrivener, the TR1894. I know it is not found in The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad).

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Actually I'm holding you accountable for your aledged 'truth'.
What does this mean that makes it true?

... the KJB DID come from specific MSS and none of the variants.

What are the 'specific MSS'?
Which are the 'variants'.

Recall that actual knowledge of the 'specific MSS' used
by the KJV Translators was lost in a fire in England.

[snipped]

Please cite scholarly sources or announce your
basic Axiom from which you get the statement

... the KJB DID come from specific MSS and none of the variants.

Ed Edwards, you realize the arguments of Salamander are really just a smoke-screen, here, right?

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

I axiomatically believe that all valid
English Versions individually and collectively
contain and are the inerrant, Divinely Preserved
Written Word of God, the Holy Bible.

Since these items use different words to MEAN
THE SAME THING, there is no difference of substance
between them. What do the sources say?

I axiomatically believe that all valid
source Versions of the New Testament
Languages: (Greek, Latin, Syrian, Coptic, etc)
individually and collectively
contain and are the inerrant, Divinely Preserved
Written Word of God, the Holy Bible.

But I can only read most of the English texts
that I have a copy of or to which I have a copy of,
for I am not skilled in (Greek, Latin, Syrian, Coptic, etc)

BTW, the Greek sources are pretty Roman Catholic
and Greek Orthodox in nature.
The Syrian branch of Christianity, the #1 Church
in 600AD was virtually destroyed by the rise
of the Mussllemen (or should that be 'Mohamid-dans'?)
with the reminants destroyed by
Gengis Kan & the Golden Horde.

The Coptic were no slackards either, having
virtually taken over what is now Lybia, Egypt,
and Ethopia by the early 600s and reduced to
people hiding in caves'(can you spell '1400 years
of Tribulation?).
But we don't use the Syrian Source Text
nor the Coptic Source Text because
RCC /Roman Catholic Church/ is puppet
master of such Protestant doctrines as
the King James Bible Only Movement.

Oops, I'll probably get fried

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards, you realize the arguments of Salamander are really just a smoke-screen, here, right?

Ed

Of course, so I smoked back (see my past post) :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Mike Berzins]

No, I did NOT state that, and in fact, I have specifically stated just the opposite. My reference to the NIV had to do with your first post where (almost) every "he" had a lowercase 'h' (but I apologize if the NIV became lumped together with the NASB and it's capitalization of pronouns for Deity). I was merely generalizing by giving some examples (I couldn't list them all and no single term really covers it). This does not excuse the fact that your post used "he" when no version I have found actually has "he" ("which", "thing", "Who", "Christ", but mostly "God" or "He"). What version or versions was cited in your first post that has "he"?

You are missing the point. Whether it says "he" or "He" makes absolutely no difference in regards to the rendering given by the NIV (and others that do not capitalize the pronouns for deity.) If I gave the impression of dishonesty by putting "he" instead of "He", I apologize; that was not my intention. If the capitalization of the "He" does make a difference in the NIV, please explain that to me.

Now you want to narrow the discussion to only the NIV. I do not. You presuppose that this verse must stand alone as a prooftext for the Deity of Christ. I do not.

I do not say this verse must stand alone as a proof text for the deity of Christ. I say that the NIV does not teach the deity of Christ in this passage. Do you or anyone else disagree, and if so can you please explain?

Yes, I do want to limit the discussion to the NIV, because if we don't narrow the discussion, we will never get anywhere. The NIV illustrates my point perfectly. That point being that there are significant differences on important doctrinal passages, in versions that many consider valid.

(Some examples below from the KJV.)

• 2 Chronicles 32:15 -- Now therefore let not Hezekiah deceive you, nor persuade you on this manner, neither yet believe him: for no god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people out of mine hand, and out of the hand of my fathers: how much less shall your God deliver you out of mine hand?
• Judges 9:46 -- And when all the men of the tower of Shechem heard [that], they entered into an hold of the house of the god Berith.
• Isaiah 44:17 -- And the residue thereof he maketh a god, [even] his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth [it], and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou [art] my god.
• Daniel 11:36 -- And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
• Habakkuk 1:11 -- Then shall [his] mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, [imputing] this his power unto his god.
• Philippians 3:19, KJV -- Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

Every one of these examples, with the exception of Phillipians 3:19 , illustrate my point exactly about how the modifiers around the word "god" clearly indicate that it is a small "g" god.

Philippians 3:19 is interesting, but it does not take away that "God was manifest in the flesh" is proof that Jesus Christ was God Almighty manifest in the flesh. It simply indicates that if someone treats their lusts as "God" one can capitalize the word God because that man is putting his belly in the place of God (not in the place of "god"). If anything, it indicates that it was a Christian that was making his belly his God.

I have made no claims of what versions are "valid", nor commented "in regards to passages" having to do with the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory. (1 Timothy 3:16, AMP)​

Perhaps you did not say it in so many words, but you do believe the NIV is in some sense a valid translation of the scriptures don't you, and that the NWT is not?

And since you have not commented "in regards to passages" having to do with the doctrine of the Deity of Christ,would you care to do so now?

Does anyone here disagree that I Timothy 3:16 teaches the deity of Christ in a King James Bible but does not in a NIV? If so please explain.

And does anyone think the original manuscripts somehow simultaneously taught and did not teach the deity of Christ in this passage?

 

[Ed Edwards]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1 Tim 3:13-16 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing
and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves
in God's household, which is the church of the living God,
the pillar and foundation of the truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]'He' can mean Christ Jesus, God, the living God,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]the mystery of godliness,or Spirit.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]This is clearly the teaching in the NIV of the 'mystery of godliness'[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]-- the fact that One God is manifest in three persons[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]-- blessed Trinity: Father (God), Son (Jesus, the Christ),[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] and the Holy Spirit. AMEN![/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]I love the KJVs -- I use two different [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]KJVs on[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]a daily basis and one one a weekly basis, I even have[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]an American Bible Society, KJV1850 Edition, that my[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Carismatic Grandmother had (It is to fragil to use[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]at all).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The KJV is weak Trinitarian in this passage.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica](Both the NIV and the KJV are correct translations here).
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT]