1 Timothy 3:16

[Ehud]

Which is correct.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJB

And we all agree,22 our religion contains amazing revelation:23 He24 was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,25 seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world,
taken up in glory. NET Bible

1 Timothy 3:16 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. ASV

By common confession, great is (A)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (B)revealed in the flesh,
Was (C)vindicated in the Spirit,
(D)Seen by angels,
(E)Proclaimed among the nations,
(F)Believed on in the world,
(G)Taken up in glory. NASB

Ehud.

 

[TCGreek]

Which is correct.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJB

And we all agree,22 our religion contains amazing revelation:23 He24 was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,25 seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world,
taken up in glory. NET Bible

1 Timothy 3:16 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. ASV

By common confession, great is (A)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (B)revealed in the flesh,
Was (C)vindicated in the Spirit,
(D)Seen by angels,
(E)Proclaimed among the nations,
(F)Believed on in the world,
(G)Taken up in glory. NASB

Ehud.

One question I will ask of you: Are you familiar with Textual Criticism, involving variant readings?

 

[TCGreek]

You forgot this piece from your quoting of NET. I thought you should do the NET justice:

The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ï vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “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.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

 

[Keith M]

Which is correct.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJB

And we all agree,22 our religion contains amazing revelation:23 He24 was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,25 seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world,
taken up in glory. NET Bible

1 Timothy 3:16 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. ASV

By common confession, great is (A)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (B)revealed in the flesh,
Was (C)vindicated in the Spirit,
(D)Seen by angels,
(E)Proclaimed among the nations,
(F)Believed on in the world,
(G)Taken up in glory. NASB

Ehud.

God is the correct translation of the Greek theos which appears in some texts. He who is the correct translation of the Greek hos found in other texts. Since we no longer have the original autographs we cannot say with 100% certainty whether theos, hos or even another word is the original as it was written by the author. Therefore, since God and He who are correct translations of their respective Greek texts, it is impossible to say that one English reading is right and the other is wrong. The answer to the question "Which is right?" is "Both."

 

[Ehud]

Is this guy for real.

since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity

This is confusing. The text according to proper rules of hermeneutics would proclaim Christ’s deity "Great is the Mystery of Godliness"
I am not sure what else this verse would be proclaiming. If any thing He in place of God could refer to Mohammad, or Joseph Smith. This statement seems to weaken the deity of Christ not exalt it. Very strange.

How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written,

Is this guy for real he believes it was put there by confusion, or some one intentionally tampered with the text to exalt Christ? How dare some one (the devil) exalt Christ.:laugh:
then he states

To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating,

This is what he accused those who inserted God of doing.

So He believes God is the wrong translation.

 

[David Lamb]

If any thing He in place of God could refer to Mohammad, or Joseph Smith. This statement seems to weaken the deity of Christ not exalt it. Very strange.

The fact that the Bible nowhere mentions Mohammad or Joseph Smith would seem to negate the idea that "He" could possibly refer to either of those men.

Also, there are several statements made about "God" or "He" in 1 Timothy 3.16:

1. manifested in the flesh: In the sense that they had human bodies, Mohammad and Joseph Smith were "manifested in the flesh", but in that very general sense, so was every man, woman and child ever born.

2. Justified in the Spirit: How would that apply to Mohammad or Joseph Smith?

3. Seen by angels: Were Mohammad or Joseph Smith in any sense "seen by angels"? I don't know, but scripture says nothing about it if they were.

4. Preached among the Gentiles, and 5. Believed on in the world: Yes, these two are true of Mohammad, Joseph Smith, and every other founder of false religion.

6. Received up in glory: Surely you don't really believe that Mohammad or Joseph Smith were "received up in glory"?​

Perhaps it is important to remember that Paul wrote 1 Timothy (and his other epistles) as letters. No chapter and verse divisions - the letter would be read right through. By the time he gets to what we call 1 Timothy 3.16, he has already stated that:

he is an apostle by the command of the Lord Jesus Christ,

the Lord Jesus Christ is his (and Timothy's) hope,

grace, mercy and peace come from the Lord Jesus Christ,

the Lord Jesus Christ had enabled him, in spite of his previous violence toward the church, to be an ambassador for Christ,

faith and love are to be found in the Lord Jesus Christ,

the Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,

the Lord Jesus Christ used him, Paul, "as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life",

the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and men,

the Lord Jesus Christ is the Object of faith.​

So suppose some English translations say "He" rather than "God". The pronoun "He" presumably refers to someone Paul has already mentioned in the letter by name. Who could it be? Well, who has been mentioned so far?:

Paul - but he would refer to himself as "I", not "he",

Timothy - but he would be "you" not "he",

Hymenaeus and Alexander - who, unless taken separately, would be "they", not "he"

Adam,

Eve - not a "he" but a "she",

The devil,

and God the Father and God the Son.​

But of which of those are these six things true?:

manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.​

Surely only God the Son.

I am not arguing for one translation over another (I am not competent to do so). I'm just saying that, in my opinion, whether "God" is used, or "He", the word can only refer to Jesus Christ.

 

[Bro. Williams]

I am going with "God" brother, and stickin' to my guns.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I am going with "God" brother, and stickin' to my guns.

Amen- 'He' IS God! :thumbs:

 

[Bro. Williams]

Amen- 'He' IS God! :thumbs:

Who do you mean by he?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Who do you mean by he?

Who do you mean by 'God'? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[TCGreek]

1. Ehud, it has been clear in another thread that you believe that those who use another version than the KJB, are not reading the same Jesus you are reading.

Ehud said: "The Jesus of the other versions is not the same Jesus of the KJB. The Jesus of the other Versions let’s you have contemporary Christian music, and the pastors children play devils music, and have worldly bands. And know the church looks and smells like the world."

2. Is this another effort of yours to prove that point?

3. Are you aware of the text-types? Are you aware of what we call Textual Criticism?

4. If it was the translators effort in the NASB or any other version to undermine the deity of Christ, then they could have gone all through the NT and remove all the references to his deity. But they didn't.

5. Have some respect for textual criticism. Even the revered KJB is not without textual criticism. I suggest that you do your homework.

 

[David Lamb]

I am going with "God" brother, and stickin' to my guns.

I am not sure whose message you were replying to, but if it was mine, could I stress that my purpose in that message was not to argue that "He" was correct and "God" not. Rather, I was making the point that even if a translation uses "He", the contect shows that the word refers to the second Person of the Trinity.

Incidentally, I looked up 13 different versions. 9 have "God", 3 have "He" and one has "Christ".

 

[Bro. Williams]

Who do you mean by 'God'? :smilewinkgrin:

God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Yes, indeed "He" was

 

[Askjo]

Theos is God, not "he." Some earliest fathers witnessed the readings, "theos." According to more than 250 cursive manuscripts, Theos is found in all but 2 or 3. The KJV superiority! :thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

OK, try this'n on fer size:

Matthew 3:13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.



Now, is it plain who suffered WHOM? Yet we hear no argument about who was HE & who was HIM. This is less plain in the KJV than 1 Tim. 3:16 is. Modern versions have "Him" capitalized.

 

[TCGreek]

Theos is God, not "he." Some earliest fathers witnessed the readings, "theos." According to more than 250 cursive manuscripts, Theos is found in all but 2 or 3. The KJV superiority! :thumbs:

1. How about telling us who the fathers are?

2. How about letting us know the dates on those 250 MSS?

3. The relative pronoun hos is witnessed by more than 2 or 3 MSS.

4. When we are dealing with Textual Criticism, quantity is secondary to quality. Quantity can only mean that an inferior reading was multiplied 100 times.

 

[av1611jim]

1. How about telling us who the fathers are?

2. How about letting us know the dates on those 250 MSS?

3. The relative pronoun hos is witnessed by more than 2 or 3 MSS.

4. When we are dealing with Textual Criticism, quantity is secondary to quality. Quantity can only mean that an inferior reading was multiplied 100 times.

Concerning #4:

Who determines "quality" first of all and secondly it is not necessarily true that "quantity can ONLY mean that an inferior reading was multiplied 100 tiimes".

It is also not necessarily true that "oldest is best" as I have heard umpteen times. Yes, yes, yes...I know the assumptions. I maintain that those assumptions are not necessarily true; i.e. since it is older it is more likely to be the true reading; simply for the fact that that view does not consider that these "older and better" MSS may have been recognized early in history as being themselves inferior and set aside in favour of the better readings, which is why they (the older MSS) are still around (lack of use!).

Concurrently the best MSS were WORN OUT from usage and NEEDED to be recopied several times to PRESERVE the true readings.

 

[TCGreek]

Concerning #4:

Who determines "quality" first of all and secondly it is not necessarily true that "quantity can ONLY mean that an inferior reading was multiplied 100 tiimes".

It is also not necessarily true that "oldest is best" as I have heard umpteen times. Yes, yes, yes...I know the assumptions. I maintain that those assumptions are not necessarily true; i.e. since it is older it is more likely to be the true reading; simply for the fact that that view does not consider that these "older and better" MSS may have been recognized early in history as being themselves inferior and set aside in favour of the better readings, which is why they are still around.

Concurrently the best MSS were WORN OUT from usage and NEEDED to be recopied several times to PRESERVE the true readings.

1. Who are the Fathers?

2. What are the dates on the 250 MSS?

 

[Keith M]

Concerning #4:

Who determines "quality" first of all and secondly it is not necessarily true that "quantity can ONLY mean that an inferior reading was multiplied 100 tiimes".

It is also not necessarily true that "oldest is best" as I have heard umpteen times. Yes, yes, yes...I know the assumptions. I maintain that those assumptions are not necessarily true; i.e. since it is older it is more likely to be the true reading; simply for the fact that that view does not consider that these "older and better" MSS may have been recognized early in history as being themselves inferior and set aside in favour of the better readings, which is why they (the older MSS) are still around (lack of use!).

Concurrently the best MSS were WORN OUT from usage and NEEDED to be recopied several times to PRESERVE the true readings.

Although the "more is better" theory is reasonable, we cannot say with certainty that it is absolutely true. And although the "older is better" theory is also reasonable, we cannot say with certainty that it is absolutely true. Thus we see two theories supporting the authenticity of certain readings, yet we cannot say with absolute certainty which is true. Therefore, whether we follow the "more is better" theory or whether we follow the "older is better" theory, it all comes down to personal belief. It really doesn't make much difference whether theos or hos is the original reading. What is important is that the original message is there. The versions which use texts having hos are not making false claims that someone else was manifest in the flesh, etc. It is quite obvious just who the subject really is, so theos or hos could be right. Since both refer to the same subject, what's the problem? It seems someone is making an issue of what is really not an issue at all. There is no "other gospel" presented here, no matter whether theos or hos was in the original.