Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Obviously, I was asking, thus the reason I posed the question.
-
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!
Studies of the Original Texts
- Thread starter TheOliveBranch
- Start date
Obviously, I was asking, thus the reason I posed the question.
yes that is entirely possible, but since we don't have the original we don't know which is correct.
John Burgon says that the mss in question actually has "God" and not "he". The difference as I think you know is a single stroke of the quill.
Burgon says that the stroke can be seen by holding the mss up to the light. Those with whom he was contending said that it was not there put what he saw on the opposite side of the page.
Burgon measured it and proved (as far as he was concerned) that the stroke was part of the original and not coming through from the opposite side. I forget exactly which of his writings this is in but I can try to find it if you wish. This controversy continues to this day.
Personally I have my own belief which I am sure you know
HankD
Pastor Larry and any others who are interested, in the back of John Burgon's The Revision Revised is a dissertation on 1 Timothy 3:16 :
"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH", shown to be the true reading of 1 Timothy 3:16
A dissertation.
It is covered from pages 424-501 of The Revision Revised.
It is a scholarly work dealing with the dozens of ancient witnesses supporting the TR reading of the passage.
He deals with this passage on pages 98-106 of the same work as well.
HankD
"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH", shown to be the true reading of 1 Timothy 3:16
A dissertation.
It is covered from pages 424-501 of The Revision Revised.
It is a scholarly work dealing with the dozens of ancient witnesses supporting the TR reading of the passage.
He deals with this passage on pages 98-106 of the same work as well.
HankD
Lacy Evans said:
Now I gotta laugh, but I won't because it's still not funny!
What in my statement was worthy of laughing? It only stands to reason that if a bunch of JWs can cobble together an English "Bible" that supports their theology, then they can just as easily cobble together a Greek Testament of readings that supports their theology.
In fact it's probably easier, since most people can't read Greek and therefore aren't terribly familiar with either the TR or the NA text, and probably wouldn't look too closely at the critical apparatus anyway, assuming there is one. Then they can wave that text around and give it the illusion of authority because "the Greek" says such and such. I've seen it done, online at least if not in person.
Now I gotta laugh, but I won't because it's still not funny!
What in my statement was worthy of laughing? It only stands to reason that if a bunch of JWs can cobble together an English "Bible" that supports their theology, then they can just as easily cobble together a Greek Testament of readings that supports their theology.
In fact it's probably easier, since most people can't read Greek and therefore aren't terribly familiar with either the TR or the NA text, and probably wouldn't look too closely at the critical apparatus anyway, assuming there is one. Then they can wave that text around and give it the illusion of authority because "the Greek" says such and such. I've seen it done, online at least if not in person.
Lacy Evans said:
then I am truly sorry, I reread your posts and I see now that maybe Goliath might have had a brother named Goliath. I can accept that. stranger things have happened. Just look at george Foreman's boys. Sorry.
BTW, who says "Goliath" was even a proper name? Maybe it was a nickname. It means "splendour" and would not be inappropriate for a great warrior of great stature.
then I am truly sorry, I reread your posts and I see now that maybe Goliath might have had a brother named Goliath. I can accept that. stranger things have happened. Just look at george Foreman's boys. Sorry.
BTW, who says "Goliath" was even a proper name? Maybe it was a nickname. It means "splendour" and would not be inappropriate for a great warrior of great stature.