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!
MT said:1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
WEB said:7 For there are three who testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one.
prunch said:7 actually there are three who bear witness 8 —the Spirit, the water and the blood—and the three are to one effect.
NKJV said:For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
If you have a question you might try a search of the BB to see if the subject has been discussed before. For example, look here --I'm only aware of two, the WEB and the NKJV, and have no idea how they compare but I'm sure there are also others.
I thought this comment on the website was good.You can add the FarAboveAll Bible, which includes a translation of the Robinson-Pierpont MT (although it appears it's still a work in progress).
http://faraboveall.com/050_BibleTranslation/01_BibleTranslationIndex.html
I thought this comment on the website was good.
A good quick test of whether you have a good Bible is to look at 1 Timothy 3:16. If it reads God was manifest in the flesh, then you very probably have a good translation based on the Majority or Received text. If it reads He was manifest in the flesh, then your translation is not based on the Majority or Received Text. If it reads e.g. Christ came in a body, then it is not a translation of any manuscript at all, and is just the result of some-one fooling around on holy ground. Without God was manifest in the flesh, the Christian has been robbed of a rare and precious statement of perhaps the most tremendous truth in the Bible, that his Saviour Who walked this earth as a man and gave His life for him, is in fact a manifestation of God!
Zoooooooom! Right over his head. Again!You are carrying things too far there. Just because a translation doesn't have the word "God" in that particular text is not committing theft. It is very clear in the majority of English translations that Christ is being referenced. Besides, there are other passages that communicate the same message:John 1:14; Philippians 2:7,8; 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7.
And in 1 Timothy 3:16 doesn't sarx mean body in that context?
The NLT has "revealed in a human body.
Weymouth has :"appeared in human form."
Both convey the very same thing as "flesh" does.
Well, don't hold it against him.Zoooooooom! Right over his head. Again!
It can be no one else but Christ.NLT: "Christ was revealed in a human body." Not one shred of manuscript evidence to support "Christ" (Χριστὸς).
That's Weymouth. See above.WAYMOUTH: "Christ appeared in human form." Again, not one shred of manuscript evidence to support the reading "Christ" (Χριστὸς).
Tell you what, you can rely on your experts and I will rely on mine. Most textual New Testament scholars differ with your opinions regarding this.There are two choices. "Θεὸς" or "ος."
(There is one variant so rare as to be dismissed as a simple scribal error. "ο" meaning "which.")
NA/USB lists 5 uncials, Aleph, A, C, F, and G, in support of "ος."
However, 4 of those, A, C, F, and G, have been challenged as containing the cross hatch making the ο a Θ.
And the corrector's Θ added to Aleph has been examined using modern ultraviolet and infrared spectroscopy and it was determined the correction corresponded to the date of the original manuscript.
Contrast that with the over 300 manuscripts which read "Θεὸς" and it become pretty clear. "Θεὸς" is the original, inspired, reading.
Zoooooom! Right over his head again.It can be no one else but Christ.
That is the difference. You are forced to accept the opinion of your "experts" while I can look at the photo-reproductions of the actual manuscripts and read what it actually says.Tell you what, you can rely on your experts and I will rely on mine. Most textual New Testament scholars differ with your opinions regarding this.
NET Footnote said:24tc 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). [snip]
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.
There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh ... God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.
I did a computer-aided search of the MLV mentioned in Post#5 (thread link because it is based on the Byz Text) for "reward". The results --I saw some video on MLV. It showed a passage where "rearward" was translated as "reward". This is a problem. The Hebrew word is NOT reward. ...