1 Timothy 3:16

[franklinmonroe]

...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.

Hypothetically,* God has supernaturally guided the publishers of the NIV, NWT, and others to print "He" which providentially denotes the Deity of Christ in their texts (despite that it is not their standard typographic practice). The Lord is sovereign over typesetting! Obviously, it is a divine miracle since every version that renders this verse with a masculine singular pronoun has it capitalized! :godisgood:

(*I fully acknowlege that I have adapted this presuppositional solution from the proponents of another Bible version.) :laugh:

 

[Salamander]

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

Start a new topic on the Johanine Comma please.

Nothing "dishonest" about the inclusion of it. Just becuase there are no other MSS "dug-up" doesn't mean it is dishonest to include it.

What is dishonest is to demand that MSS lost in a fire be presented and then demand that the editions to the KJB have followed anything other than the 1611.

 

[Salamander]

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

No, it only means there is a suitable witness to the fact that "God" is exactly right and "He" might be misleading.

 

[Salamander]

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

Didn't the doctor advise you about answering your own posts before? Yes.

 

[Salamander]

[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]

You just got finished introducing even more confusion to the text.

Best revert back to your ":flower: KJV:flower: "

 

[franklinmonroe]

...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?

OK, here we go -- Even if the word were set in English text as "he", its' antecedent would still be "Christ Jesus" (v.13). In the NIV verse 16 continues to state that "[Christ Jesus] appeared in a body". What is the purpose of that statement, if not to prove that Christ Jesus became flesh, that is, He transformed from 'some other' state of being into one of humanity? It would not make sense to mention that a human "appeared in a body" (as David Lamb wrote previously "so was every man, woman and child ever born.").

Now, (since this verse does not stand alone) allow me to lead through a logical progression: What 'other' state of being does the Bible teach? Spiritual. What are the forms of 'spiritual beings' that the Bible teaches? The Triune God, heavenly creatures (including fallen angels), and eternal souls. Does the Bible teach in other passages that Christ Jesus was an angel? No. Does the Bible teach in other passages that Christ Jesus was a created soul? No. Does the Bible teach in other passages that Christ Jesus is the Second Person of the Godhead? Yes! Therefore, 1 Timothy 3:16 confirms that the man called Jesus is also God.

The key of the phrase is not the nominative, but rather, "became flesh". The other statements in the verse ("was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory") could conceivably be attributed to others: there are many accounts of people seen of angels, false messiahs have been preached and believed, and we know both Enoch and Elijah were 'taken' (did not see death). The other difficult claim to project upon some one other than Jesus would be "justified in the Spirit", but it would be attempted.

 

[franklinmonroe]

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?

I prefer to defend God's truth and sound logic, not individual versions. At least, that is my intent.

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?

Thanks, but not right 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.

As has been discussed, by accepting the word "God" here there is no need for an antecedent, and thus nothing which points to "Christ Jesus"; which why some have come to an erroneous interpretation of 'Oneness'. As you suggested, it requires other scriptures with consistent hermenuetics to prevent the Oneness theology from gaining a foothold here.

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

No, of course not. But we don't have the autographs, and practically speaking, there is no puncuation or capitalization in the extant MSS. The words come from the MSS (mostly through translators), but the interpretations come from Holy Spirit to those whom are God's children.

 

[Salamander]

As has been discussed, by accepting the word "God" here there is no need for an antecedent, and thus nothing which points to "Christ Jesus"; which why some have come to an erroneous interpretation of 'Oneness'. As you suggested, it requires other scriptures with consistent hermenuetics to prevent the Oneness theology from gaining a foothold here.

That is not true at all. Jesus Christ is God. God is not just the Father. So your arguement lacks.

 

[franklinmonroe]

That is not true at all. Jesus Christ is God. God is not just the Father. So your arguement lacks.

Could you be specific as to what part "is not true at all"? I'll make it easy for you, was it --

1. As has been discussed, (was it not discussed?)
2. by accepting the word "God" here there is no need for an antecedent, and thus nothing which points to "Christ Jesus";
(is this grammatically untrue?)
3. which why some have come to an erroneous interpretation of 'Oneness'. (the above grammatical construction didn't contribute to their interpretation?)
4. As you suggested, (was it not suggested?)
or
5. it requires other scriptures with consistent hermenuetics to prevent the Oneness theology from gaining a foothold here. (scripture is not proved or disproved by other scripture?)​

 

[EdSutton]

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 (sic), 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 (sic) 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").

With all respect for everyone in this thread, the use of upper case and lower case in the English language is also two-fold, both "cultural" and "interpretational".

Since the autographs of the Scriptures were mostly written, originally, in two language - one of which had no upper-case, in the case of Hebrew, apparently, in the OT (I have no clue as to Aramaic/Chaldee); and all upper-case in the case of Greek of the NT, this differentiation, in the English langauge, where the reference is to deity, is "imposed' on the underlying text, rather than "demanded" by this same text.

I am in full agreement, at the same time, with the practice of 'designating' the words of LORD and GOD; Lord and lord; and God and god; in the translation of the various OT words of 'yahweh', 'elohim', and 'adonai' (or their variants) for 'informational' purposes in the OT renderings, for us English readers. I am considering this practice as an attempt (by this differentiation) to show that there are three differing words in one language, being rendered by a language that only allows two to cover the situation. This, incidentally, is no different than the Greek, which has but two words (with 'kurios' and 'theos'), as does the English (with 'lord' and 'god'), for this same 'situation'.

So the 'questions' of "God" vs. "god" (as well as "Lord" vs. "lord"), and "He" vs. "he" in the NT are "interpretative" and/or "cultural", as I mentioned, at the start of this post.

But that is entirely different from the 'question' of "God" vs. "He" in I Tim. 3:16. Here, the question is "textual"?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Quote from Salamander:

Start a new topic on the Johanine Comma please.

Nothing "dishonest" about the inclusion of it. Just becuase (sic) there are no other MSS "dug-up" doesn't mean it is dishonest to include it.

What is dishonest is to demand that MSS lost in a fire be presented and then demand that the editions to the KJB have followed anything other than the 1611.

To the first sentence above, "Why?" Hasn't there been enough 'veterinary treatment" on this already?

(This is a veterinarian workin on a horse with a special 'horse tool'. The horse is much better, now!)



I am not the one who made the original charge of "dishonesty", nor am I the one who made the mis-informed (or deliberately misleading - Take your own choice, here!) statement that:

There are no variations in the MSS the KJB translators used,

This statement, first-off, obfuscates the distinction between "MSS" and "texts". The "TR" (from the first edition(s) of Erasmus, then Stephanus, Beza, etc., through the latest) is/are not a MSS, but a text. The various English editions such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Great, Geneva, Douai/Rheims, etc. are also not MSS but texts, as well.

Secondly, from what I understand, no two MSS (OT and/or NT) are exactly identical, as to every single "jot and tittle", in any instance, including Abschrift, the "Dabs1", a deliberately and intentionally carefully copied copy of Codex "D" (Claramontanus).

Even my being the resident Language Cop on the BB, and intentionally proof-reading every post before I actually post it, does not preclude me from making 'typo(s)', all the time. How much more difficult would that be were I, in fact, doing all this time, and that in longhand?

Yet you were the one who made the statement that there were "no variations in the MSS the KJB translators used."

Simply put - Prove it!

I am not going to dignify the pejorative statement made in the second paragraph of your post, by further commenting on it.

What is dishonest is to demand that MSS lost in a fire be presented and then demand that the editions of the KJB have followed anything other than the 1611.

I have made neither any such statement, nor demand(s). (I cannot say about any others without re-reading all the posts.) So this cannot apply to me.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

a partial answer to a quote from Salamander:

To the first sentence above, "Why?" Hasn't there been enough 'veterinary treatment" on this already?

(This is a veterinarian workin on a horse with a special 'horse tool'. The horse is much better, now!) [snipped rolleyes smilie]

Since a smilie I posted in my last post somehow "magically" disappeared in the last 8 hours or so (the "Atlanta Falcons

quarterback syndrome", maybe??), I thought I would repost a version of the smilie, since one above sentence would make no sense apart from it. It should really be reading thus:

(This is a veterinarian working on a horse with a special 'horse tool'. The horse is much better, now!)

Ed

 

[Salamander]

Quote from Salamander: To the first sentence above, "Why?" Hasn't there been enough 'veterinary treatment" on this already?

(This is a veterinarian workin on a horse with a special 'horse tool'. The horse is much better, now!)



I am not the one who made the original charge of "dishonesty", nor am I the one who made the mis-informed (or deliberately misleading - Take your own choice, here!) statement that: This statement, first-off, obfuscates the distinction between "MSS" and "texts". The "TR" (from the first edition(s) of Erasmus, then Stephanus, Beza, etc., through the latest) is/are not a MSS, but a text. The various English editions such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Great, Geneva, Douai/Rheims, etc. are also not MSS but texts, as well.

Secondly, from what I understand, no two MSS (OT and/or NT) are exactly identical, as to every single "jot and tittle", in any instance, including Abschrift, the "Dabs1", a deliberately and intentionally carefully copied copy of Codex "D" (Claramontanus).

Even my being the resident Language Cop on the BB, and intentionally proof-reading every post before I actually post it, does not preclude me from making 'typo(s)', all the time. How much more difficult would that be were I, in fact, doing all this time, and that in longhand?

Yet you were the one who made the statement that there were "no variations in the MSS the KJB translators used."

Simply put - Prove it!

I am not going to dignify the pejorative statement made in the second paragraph of your post, by further commenting on it.

I have made neither any such statement, nor demand(s). (I cannot say about any others without re-reading all the posts.) So this cannot apply to me.

Ed

Ok, go wash your hands.

 

[Salamander]

a partial answer to a quote from Salamander: Since a smilie I posted in my last post somehow "magically" disappeared in the last 8 hours or so (the "Atlanta Falcons

quarterback syndrome", maybe??), I thought I would repost a version of the smilie, since one above sentence would make no sense apart from it. It should really be reading thus:

(This is a veterinarian working on a horse with a special 'horse tool'. The horse is much better, now!)

Ed

Ed, you should really introduce yourself to Ed; whether that's Mr. Ed or Mr. Ed Edwards makes no real difference, just introduce yourself to somebody!

BTW, The KJB.

 

[franklinmonroe]

In 1 Timothy (KJV), the term "God" occurs in about 19 verses; "Jesus" with "Christ" (and "Lord" in some constructions) in about 16 verses. But "God" occurs in the same verse with the term "Christ Jesus" only two times, "Lord Jesus Christ" only twice, and "Jesus Christ" only once (as a nominative).

Lest some one think that the verse breaks are significantly skewing the outcome, I assure you that I tried to objectivly look before and after each verse where the two terms are found and I think these five verses are very much representative. For example, "God" does appear in verse 1:11 and "Jesus" in 1:12 but there is a separation between them in the literary flow of thought, which would neither support nor erode my point. However, if "God" (v. 1:17) and "Jesus" (v. 1:16) had not been divided by versification, it seems there might have been a sixth example I could use; but I confess I haven't comprehesively anaylzed the entire book for evidence yet.

But in each of these five verses "God" is clearly considered a distinct personality from "Jesus". For example, "God" is described as our Savior, contrasted in the same verse with "Jesus" as our hope; ; "God" is our Father, next to "Jesus" our Lord; and according to one verse there is one "God", while compared with the man "Jesus" as the one mediator (you get the idea, and the KJV verses are directly below).

1Tim. 1:1 -- Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;

1Tim. 1:2 -- Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Tim. 2:5 -- For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Tim. 5:21 -- I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

1Tim. 6:13 -- I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and [before] Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;​

In the context of the entire letter, it is plain that Paul's focus is NOT to prove the Deity of Christ (although I think there may be some examples). Paul seems to be more inclined to show them as separate persons. I would challenge any one to display for the BB: five (or more) passages from the book of 1 Timothy (excluding 3:16) where there Deity of Christ is clearly taught (that is, where "Jesus" is called "God" in some manner, such as a pronoun for one substituted with the identity of the other).

 

[EdSutton]

BTW, The KJB.

Meaning what, here? Explain, please. BTW, You don't have to explain the pejorative crack in your last post about "washing the hands", for I do get that one, as well as the reference to Mr. Ed, but I don't see how Ed Edwards figures in any of this at all.

Even though your caricature(s) are innaccurate, here.

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

About the time that the American Indians discovered
Colombus, it was considered in all Christendom (mostly
Europe, but some West Asian) that the world was
flat. The reason given was: the Bible says it is
and any idiot can see that it is flat.

Fast Forward to 1969-1973 when Ed Edwards
is teaching in school. I say, "the world looks flat".
The kids in class say "NO WAY!". I don't mean that
'the world is flat' just that 'the world looks flat".
The kids in class say "NO WAY JOSE!".

'He' is 'Christ' in 1 Timothy 3:16 in every Bible I checked,
Including the invalid ones.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... In the context of the entire letter, it is plain that Paul's focus is NOT to prove the Deity of Christ (although I think there may be some examples). Paul seems to be more inclined to show them as separate persons. I would challenge any one to display for the BB: five (or more) passages from the book of 1 Timothy (excluding 3:16) where there Deity of Christ is clearly taught (that is, where "Jesus" is called "God" in some manner, such as a pronoun for one substituted with the identity of the other).

No one has accepted the challenge and successfully shown evidence that Paul intended to teach the doctrine of the Deity of Christ throughout 1 Timothy. To prevent some one from misunderstanding my previous post, I do believe that 1 Timothy 3:16 shows the Deity of Christ (even with "He") but the total context of the book shows that Paul consistantly uses "God" to identify The Father (which tends to support that the correct original word in the phrase could be the singular masculine pronoun).

Furthermore, there are only two primary topics in Chapter 3: the requirements of the office of "bishop" (vs. 1-7); and the requirements of the office of "deacon" (vs. 8-13). Paul closes his teaching by saying that he hopes to "come to thee" (v.14), but if he is delayed that Timothy may know how "thou oughtest to behave" in church (v.15), a reference to the preceding instructions he gave regarding the two offices. "The house of God" is further described as being both the "church of the living God", and "the pillar and ground of the truth". The concluding verse (v.16) is connected to proper organization in God's house with the word "and"; what is connected?

It is connected with no "controversy" concerning the great mystery of godliness. The underlying Greek word for the KJV text "without controversy" is homologoumenos (Strong's #3672) meaning: by consent of all, confessedly, and without controversy. The word occurs only this once in the NT. The six statements about Christ that follow are probably an early chorus, a creed or confession. Paul is teaching that the bishop and the deacon (the congregation may not be in this context) should agree unanimously upon these six elements of the "mystery of godliness" (which is essentially Christology).

Paul does teach the Deity of Christ here; but if he wrote theos to represent Christ, it is unexpected and contrary to all other referrences he makes in this epistle to the two separate Persons, The Father and The Son. We still see this distinction in this chapter to some extent with "faith in Christ Jesus" (v.13) and "the house of God" & "church of the living God" (v.15). Notice how easily Paul could have paired "the house of God" with a construction like 'church of Christ' to show "Christ" as equivalent to "God".

 

[Salamander]

No one has accepted the challenge and successfully shown evidence that Paul intended to teach the doctrine of the Deity of Christ throughout 1 Timothy. To prevent some one from misunderstanding my previous post, I do believe that 1 Timothy 3:16 shows the Deity of Christ (even with "He") but the total context of the book shows that Paul consistantly uses "God" to identify The Father (which tends to support that the correct original word in the phrase could be the singular masculine pronoun).

Furthermore, there are only two primary topics in Chapter 3: the requirements of the office of "bishop" (vs. 1-7); and the requirements of the office of "deacon" (vs. 8-13). Paul closes his teaching by saying that he hopes to "come to thee" (v.14), but if he is delayed that Timothy may know how "thou oughtest to behave" in church (v.15), a reference to the preceding instructions he gave regarding the two offices. "The house of God" is further described as being both the "church of the living God", and "the pillar and ground of the truth". The concluding verse (v.16) is connected to proper organization in God's house with the word "and"; what is connected?

It is connected with no "controversy" concerning the great mystery of godliness. The underlying Greek word for the KJV text "without controversy" is homologoumenos (Strong's #3672) meaning: by consent of all, confessedly, and without controversy. The word occurs only this once in the NT. The six statements about Christ that follow are probably an early chorus, a creed or confession. Paul is teaching that the bishop and the deacon (the congregation may not be in this context) should agree unanimously upon these six elements of the "mystery of godliness" (which is essentially Christology).

Paul does teach the Deity of Christ here; but if he wrote theos to represent Christ, it is unexpected and contrary to all other referrences he makes in this epistle to the two separate Persons, The Father and The Son. We still see this distinction in this chapter to some extent with "faith in Christ Jesus" (v.13) and "the house of God" & "church of the living God" (v.15). Notice how easily Paul could have paired "the house of God" with a construction like 'church of Christ' to show "Christ" as equivalent to "God".

I Timothy 2:5

"one God, the man Christ Jesus"

He is God. He is Saviour. He is the mediator between God and man. He is Jesus.

See? Nothing hard about that!:sleeping_2:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I Timothy 2:5

"one God, the man Christ Jesus"

He is God. He is Saviour. He is the mediator between God and man. He is Jesus.

:thumbs: Exactly what my ESV says!