1 Timothy 3:16

[Mexdeaf]

Amen, Bro. Keith M! Preach it!! :thumbs:

 

[rbell]

Of all the arguments that one could make regarding KJV superiority, etc., this one seems pretty weak to me. Am I missing something?

What else would "He" refer to? Scooby-Doo?

Of course it's God...

I'm not KJVO, but if I were, and were making the argument, this would be way down on my list.

 

[Askjo]

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.

Do you deny that these Gnostics altered the reading? On other thing, if the Greek is who, how can the English be "He"? The point is the creation of an entirely new reading, not translation.

 

[Bro. Williams]

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".

Brother I was just replying to the OP, which I should have quoted. My apologies for the confusion.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Yes, indeed "He" was

Who do you mean by "he"?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Who do you mean by "he"?

Obvious - the only "he" who

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

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?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally Posted by Keith M:

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.

Amen, Brother KeithM -- Preach it! :thumbs:

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

The milage of others will vary.

From this I find that the purpose of this Forum:
Bible Versions & Translations of the Baptist Board (BB)
is to discuss among Baptists what the Holy Bible means.

 

[franklinmonroe]

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...

...I'm just saying that, in my opinion, whether "God" is used, or "He", the word can only refer to Jesus Christ.

David, I appreciated your carefull and complete analysis.

 

[TC]

This dead horse is getting beat again?

Shakes head, and slowly walks away.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Obvious - the only "he" who

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

Oh, it was "God", wouldn't it be easier to just say, "God"?

 

[Ed Edwards]

This dead horse is getting beat again?

Shakes head, and slowly walks away.

Doing as Father Joseph did would be wise:

Gen 39:12 (KJV1611 Edition):
And shee caught him by his garment, saying,
Lie with me:
and he left his garment in her hand,
and fled, and got him out.

 

[av1611jim]

1. Who are the Fathers?

2. What are the dates on the 250 MSS?

Huh? I addressed ONE point of your post. I was interested in only ONE point; to which I made a comment.

Why go off on this other stuff I have no interest in?

I ain't playing.:BangHead:

 

[Keith M]

Do you deny that these Gnostics altered the reading? On other thing, if the Greek is who, how can the English be "He"? The point is the creation of an entirely new reading, not translation.

Askjo, obviously you missed the point of my post by a country mile. I said nothing about gnostics altering any readings. Why go there? It has nothing to do with my point. Try reading the post again. This time maybe instead of just using the quote button you can read for comprehension. Oviously you didn't even try to comprehend what I said before, or else you have a serious comprehension problem.

Since we don't have the original autographs neither you nor anyone else can say with any certainty that theos or hos is the original reading. Or have you been hiding the originals under your bed all this time?

:laugh: :BangHead: :tonofbricks:

 

[HankD]

If no one has mentioned it and if anyone is interested, John Burgon devoted almost 100 pages in his book The Revision Revised on this passage.

He believes the word in question contains a theta and "God" is the only proper conclusion to come to considering the known witnesses (at the time of his writing).

HankD

 

[robycop3]

The critix could have a point if there were any other possible antecedents to 'he'. But the prior word 'godliness, plus the overall context pretty well limits the antecedents to "GOD".

 

[Mr.M]

I think in the end, we can all agree that this is a conspiracy easily traceable to the Trilateral Commission, The Pope and George W. Bush. :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

1. Frankly, I have no axe to grind with those who prefer the theos reading.

2. I am one who engages in textual criticism at a intermediate level.

3. From my understanding of the data, I chose the relative hos.

4. If you believe, like many scholars do, that this is a hymn or a hymn fragment, in six rhythmic lines, then you would not have a problem appreciate the beauty of this structure. An antecedent of hos is not needed if you welcome the hymn fragment, which is clearly referring to the God-man, Jesus Christ.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I think in the end, we can all agree that this is a conspiracy easily traceable to the Trilateral Commission, The Pope and George W. Bush. :thumbsup: :laugh:

You forgot: CFR, the Purple TeleTubby, and Big Bird.

 

[av1611jim]

You forgot: CFR, the Purple TeleTubby, and Big Bird.

And don't forget the Purple Dino Barney!