Attacks on the Deity of Christ - Part I

The text: - 1 Corinthians 10:9

“Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents” – King James Version, and others.


Paul is here directly referring to the passage in Numbers 21:6, where we read:

“And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died”

A change was made way back when the King James Version was “Revised”, (or, so they called it), in 1881-1885, which resulted in the Revised Version. Instead of the original reading, “Christon”, it was changed to read “Kurion”. That is, from “Christ” to “Lord”. This change was followed by the following English versions, and others.

1. New International Version
2. Americam Standard Version
3. New American Standard Version
4. Weymouth’s New Testament
5. New Life Version
6. Good New Bible
7. Basic English Version
8. Williams New Testament
9. Amplified Bible
10. Becks New Testament

What of the change you might ask, as both readings no doubt refer to Jesus Christ?

With the latter reading being acceopted, “Lord”, when the connection is made to the reference in the Old Testament, where “Yahweh” (Hebrew, YHWH) is said to have sent the “serpents”. It is concluded that Paul has not Christ in mind, but Yahweh God, that is, God the Father!

However, with the reading “Christ”, there can be no mistake who Paul was referring to here, and by applying the Old Testament passage directly to Jesus Christ, Paul asserts the full Deity of Jesus Christ, by having us understand that Jesus Christ also is Yahweh!

If you were to give the Jehovah’s Witness a choice, there is no doubt they would take the reading “Lord” as being the original!

How do the readings stand in the textual evidence? The reading “Christ”, without any doubt has both the antiquity and diversity of the evidence on its side.

Among the Greek Manuscripts, we have the Papyri Manuscript, known as P46, which dates from around 200 A.D. that reads “Christ”! Add to this the Codex Bezae (5th/6th century); Augiensis and Boernerianus, two important Manuscripts of the 9th century.

Of the Ancient Versions, we have the Old Latin, which dates from the second century, and the reading “Christ” is found in almost all the Latin manuscripts for this version. It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, dating from the fourth century. Next, we have the Syriac Peshitta, 4th/5th century, or earlier. The Coptic, Sahidic, and Bohairic Versions, from the third century. The Georgian Version, of the 5th century. And, the Salvonic Verson, 9th century.

The evidence for “Christ”, as can be seen, clarly shows that this reading is the original. It is interesting here to note the remarks in the United Bible Societie’s , Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

“10.9 Christon {B}
The reading that best explains the origin of the others is Christon, attested by the oldest Greek manuscript (P) as well as by a wide diversity of early patristic and versional witnesses (Irenaeus in Gaul, Ephraem in Edessa, Clement in Alexandria, Origen in Palestine, as well as by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Syriac, Sahidic and Bohairic). The difficulty of explaining how the ancient Israelites in the wilderness could have tempted Christ prompted some copyists to substitute either the ambiguous Kurion or the unobjectionable Theon. Paul’s reference to Christ here is analogous to that in ver. 4.” - p. 560

Now, even though it is here admitted that “Christ” is the original reading, yet, the Committee of this Commentary, (hich text is the basis of versions like the NIV) gave it a “C” marking.. We are told on page xxviii of this same work, “The letter ‘C’ means that there is condiderable degree of doubt whether the text or apparatus contains the superior reading”!

 

I forgot to add the testimony of the Early Church fathers.

1. Irenaeus (130-200) Greek
2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)Greek
3. Origen, heretic (185-254)Greek
4. Marcion, heretic (died 160) Greek
5. Eusebius (260-340) Greek
6. Ambrose (339-397) Latin
7. Augustine (354-430) Latin
8. Epiphanius (315-403) Greek
9. Chrysostom (347-407) Greek

 

Hi C4K, this is an example of delebrate corruption of a text that asserts the true Deity of Jesus Christ. If the evidence states that "Christ" is the original, then what basis is there to reject this? Surely it has been done by those who do not accept the Deity of Jesus. Since that change was made in the Revised Version, which had no less than two Unitarians on their Committee, it is easy to conclude that they would have had a part in getting the chnage through, as they did for 1 Timothy 3:16!

 

Hi C4K, this is an example of delebrate corruption of a text that asserts the true Deity of Jesus Christ. If the evidence states that "Christ" is the original, then what basis is there to reject this? Surely it has been done by those who do not accept the Deity of Jesus. Since that change was made in the Revised Version, which had no less than two Unitarians on their Committee, it is easy to conclude that they would have had a part in getting the chnage through, as they did for 1 Timothy 3:16! </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, enough of the circular reasoning.

I guess now that our 1769 KJV doesn't have "of God" in 1 John 5:12, that means it's an "attack" on the Sonship of Christ!

No, no, no. I don't think any Mormon, JW, Arian, Modalist, etc. would ever use this verse to combat the deity of Christ, therefore it is *not* an attack on the deity of Christ.

I could say Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 are an attack on the diety of Christ in the KJV but that would be misleading. </font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, It is not my desire to support all the versions of the KJV, so your mentioning the 1769 edition is quite pointless, as it is later than the 1611 edition. Right?

secondly, you mention Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, and suppose that the translation as found in the KJV seems to show two Persons, and therefore takes away any reference to the Deity of Jesus Christ? Wrong again!

There is no reason why the KJV reading at both these places cannot be taken for Jesus Christ. Take, for example, Galatians 1:4, where the KJV has it: "according to the will of God and our Father"; and, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, "in the sight of God and our Father" If you have access to a Greek New Testament, note the position of the pronoun "our" in both these verses, and compare the Greek construction to that of the two examples you give. I don't see any Commentaries, or Greek grammars suggest that in the texts from Galatians and 1st Thess, "God" and "Father" are not the one and same Person, so why the problem with Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1? the answer is very simple, these two verses testify to the Deity of Jesus Christ! The KJV readings are perfectly rendered from the Greek, and also testify to the Deity of Jesus!

 

There is no reason why 1 Cor 10:9 in the NIV cannot be taken for Jesus Christ.

The NIV readings do so more strongly and conclusively. </font>[/QUOTE]How would you take "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 10:9 to refer to Jesus, seeing that Paul was quoting from the Old Testament, where the natural way would be to refer it to God the Father. It is only because we have the reading "Christ" here in the first place, that any conection to Jesus can be made! Would you use the reading "Lord" to argue with a cult that this proves that Jesus is God?

You say, "The NIV readings do so more strongly and conclusively". says who? There is no doubt in any honest mind, that the readings in the KJV refer to Jesus Christ, and, as I have shown, is not a problem in the grammar!