Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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.Keith M said: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.
David Lamb said: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".
C4K said:Yes, indeed "He" was![]()
Bro. Williams said:Who do you mean by "he"?
Ehud said: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.
Amen, Brother KeithM -- Preach it! :thumbs: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.
David, I appreciated your carefull and complete analysis.David Lamb said: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.
C4K said: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
TC said:This dead horse is getting beat again?
Shakes head, and slowly walks away.
TCGreek said:1. Who are the Fathers?
2. What are the dates on the 250 MSS?
Askjo said: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.
You forgot: CFR, the Purple TeleTubby, and Big Bird.Mr.M said: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:
Ed Edwards said:You forgot: CFR, the Purple TeleTubby, and Big Bird.![]()