1 Timothy 3:16

[Reasonable]

The King James says God manifest in the flesh while others say who, whom, etc. Is the KJ correct or are the other translations?

[Bill the Cat]

Reasonable, it is a good idea to post the whole verse using the [ verse] [/ verse] tags. Post both versions too. It'll help those of us who had to remove their Bible program :whack:

[yhwhbible]

The reading "God was manifested in the flesh" is indigenous to the later Byzantine/Majority text. The older Alexandrian and the Latin does not have this reading.
-Heinz
http://www.yhwhbible.ca.tc/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jehovahbible/

[Thomas2003]

Dear Reasonable,

Here is the verse

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. 1 Timothy 3:16

The only place this Scripture has been changed is in 6 Alexandrian manuscripts without any evidence of historical authenticty for the change. Of course, these are the scholars union manuscripts - not the originals as this gentlemen eludes. They are simply "older" because no one used them, thus they didn't need to be copied, since they weren't worn out like authentic copies of the Holy Scriptures. And it does exist in Alexandrian texts - just not the 6 the liberals have decided represents the "historical Jesus."

Gregory of Nyssa quotes the Authorized Version reading before their manuscripts were written and Ignatius cites it two hundred years before these 6 manuscripts were created. It is exists in all manuscripts from 3 continents except for these late changes by a few philosophers/Arians.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Reasonable]

Today @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209227#post209227)
Thomas2003:

Dear Reasonable,

Here is the verse

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. 1 Timothy 3:16

The only place this Scripture has been changed is in 6 Alexandrian manuscripts without any evidence of historical authenticty for the change. Of course, these are the scholars union manuscripts - not the originals as this gentlemen eludes. They are simply "older" because no one used them, thus they didn't need to be copied, since they weren't worn out like authentic copies of the Holy Scriptures. And it does exist in Alexandrian texts - just not the 6 the liberals have decided represents the "historical Jesus."

Gregory of Nyssa quotes the Authorized Version reading before their manuscripts were written and Ignatius cites it two hundred years before these 6 manuscripts were created. It is exists in all manuscripts from 3 continents except for these late changes by a few philosophers/Arians.

Cordially,

Thomas

Thanks for the response Thomas. I think you have an uphill battle in proving your point because there are scores of Trinitarian scholars who disagree. It seems to be stretching it to say the older mss are less accurate than the newer ones. And the whole argument rests on opinion, not fact.

The only decent argument I have heard for "God" being in there is because of the ECF's, some of which you mentioned. But I don't put much faith in that argument. Jesus is God, Jesus was manifest in the flesh so God was manifest in the flesh. I can say that all day long and not mean or even endorse "God" being at 1 Tim 3:16. It's irrelevant that the ECF's said "God manifest in the flesh" because all Trinitarians confess that and very few would confess the "God" belongs at 1 Tim 3:16.

Does anyone have any evidence besides personal opinion that the older mss are less accurate than the newer ones?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209343#post209343)
Reasonable:

Thanks for the response Thomas. I think you have an uphill battle in proving your point because there are scores of Trinitarian scholars who disagree. It seems to be stretching it to say the older mss are less accurate than the newer ones. And the whole argument rests on opinion, not fact.

The only decent argument I have heard for "God" being in there is because of the ECF's, some of which you mentioned. But I don't put much faith in that argument. Jesus is God, Jesus was manifest in the flesh so God was manifest in the flesh. I can say that all day long and not mean or even endorse "God" being at 1 Tim 3:16. It's irrelevant that the ECF's said "God manifest in the flesh" because all Trinitarians confess that and very few would confess the "God" belongs at 1 Tim 3:16.

Does anyone have any evidence besides personal opinion that the older mss are less accurate than the newer ones?

I see unsupported assertions about "scores of Trinitarian scholars who disagree" and "very few would confess the "God" belongs at 1 Tim 3:16." but I don't see a single source quoted to back up this assumption.

Here is 1 Tim 3:16, in the Greek, with the word in question highlighted. This particular text has the reflexive pronoun, "oV/os" instead of "qeoV/theos. But that does not matter because as I said it is the reflexive pronoun which points back to the nearest noun in the proper gender, person, and case, which just happens to be "qeoV/theos" in vs. 15. Proving that the ECF were indeed right..
1 Tim 3:16 kai omologoumenwV mega estin to thV eusebeiaV musthrion:oV efanerwqh en sarki, edikaiwqh en pneumati, wfqh aggeloiV, ekhrucqh en eqnesin, episteuqh en kosmw, anelhmfqh en doxh.

[Ani Uriyah]

CLV: 1st Timothy 3:16 And avowedly great is the secret of devoutness, which was manifested in flesh, justified in spirit, seen by messengers, heralded among the nations, believed in the world, taken up in glory.



KJV: 1st Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: Elohim 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.



I was told by someone who went to see the “Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus” manuscript (from what KJV and some others were translated from), and to his surprise he saw that the area where “Elohim” (qeos) appears, there was evidence that another word was there. The “Alexandrian” manuscript (which is older, if I remember correctly) says “he” (os) a two letter (qe) difference. Surely everyone knows (at least every honest scholar knows) that 1st John 5:7 KJV wording was added to the manuscript; so who is to say that two letters were not added to the manuscript also (as the guy said there was evidence of another word being there)? You also have the “Westcott-Hort text from 1881” (and others) that say “he” instead of “Elohim” in 1st Timothy 3:16.



NRSV: 1st Timothy 3:16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.



NASB: 1st Timothy 3:16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.



ASV: 1st 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.



Now as you can see, the versions above have “He” instead of “Elohim.” Now let’s suppose for a second that it might have actually said “Elohim” (qeos), it is not proof Ha’Mashiyach is Elohim.



Elohim was manifested in the flesh. – Elohim was manifested in the flesh of Samson, when Samson took a jawbone of an ass and beat up a thousands men. Elohim was manifested in Moshe, when Moshe was on a mission to get the Yisraelites out of Egypt. Elohim was manifested in the flesh of Eliyahu and Elisha when they raised the dead, etc. The word “manifest” means to “reveal.” The true Elohim, the Father, was inside Ha’Mashiyach (John 14:10-11), and did many deeds of power, wonders, miracles, and signs through Ha’Mashiyach (Acts 2:22), so of course Elohim was manifested (revealed) in Ha’Mashiyach.

I changed the word from "God" to "Elohim", you can look up those versions for yourselves.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209659#post209659)
Ani Uriyah:

I was told by someone who went to see the “Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus” manuscript (from what KJV and some others were translated from), and to his surprise he saw that the area where “Elohim” (qeos) appears, there was evidence that another word was there. The “Alexandrian” manuscript (which is older, if I remember correctly) says “he” (os) a two letter (qe) difference. Surely everyone knows (at least every honest scholar knows) that 1st John 5:7 KJV wording was added to the manuscript; so who is to say that two letters were not added to the manuscript also (as the guy said there was evidence of another word being there)? You also have the “Westcott-Hort text from 1881” (and others) that say “he” instead of “Elohim” in 1st Timothy 3:16.

Oh, that's alright just ignore everything that is posted and post away as if nobody said anything

You were badly misinformed about the manuscript evidence. The indication of tampering comes in because in the mss. qeoV/Theos was often abbreviated QV. To alter the text would only require rubbing out the crossbar in the Theta, which would make it read OV, and as I said before is a reflexive pronoun and refers back to the nearest noun, in the correct person, gender, and case, which is. qeoV/Theos in vs. 15. So it would be entirely proper to write "Theos" in vs. 16, Greek grammar clearly shows "Theos" was intended

[Reasonable]

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209640#post209640)
OldShepherd:



I see unsupported assertions about "scores of Trinitarian scholars who disagree" and "very few would confess the "God" belongs at 1 Tim 3:16." but I don't see a single source quoted to back up this assumption.


"The strength of the external evidence favoring oV, along with the considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard oV as the original text."
Jesus As God, Murray Harris, pg 268.

(BTW, if you have this book you can turn to page 274 and see the impressive number of scholars and how they view the Christological texts. Dr. Harris tallies how each scholar feels about different texts. It appears he has a firm hold on modern-day scholars and what they believe regarding the different verses.)

See also Morey's book, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, page 299 for his quote of 1 Tim 3:16. And of course you can open just about any Bible version you have to 1 Tim 3:16 and see what they have to say. These were translated by scholars.


Here is 1 Tim 3:16, in the Greek, with the word in question highlighted. This particular text has the reflexive pronoun, "oV/os" instead of "qeoV/theos. But that does not matter because as I said it is the reflexive pronoun which points back to the nearest noun in the proper gender, person, and case, which just happens to be "qeoV/[font=georgia][size=3]theos" in vs. 15. Proving that the ECF were indeed right.

Harris covers this point as well. I also agree the ECF's were right in asserting Jesus was 'God manifest in the flesh.' I'm just saying this does not mean they were quoting 1 Tim 3:16 or trying to say they believed theos belongs there. Many Trinitarians today say the same thing as the ECF's but they are not saying it to prove an argument on 1 Tim 3:16.

BTW, thanks for argument for theos being at 1 Tim 3:16. Harris covers it but I didn't grasp what he was arguing against until you made your argument. He does admit that having the pronoun instead of theos is somewhat more ackward in the construction.

[David O]

I trust those KJV guys a lot more than the others who have taken on translation of the Bible. It matches the test for spirits in 1 John 4 this way, which is significant.

[BlueFalcon]

Does anyone have any evidence besides personal opinion that the older mss are less accurate than the newer ones?

Yes. In Mt. 27:49 many of the "older" MSS add to the v. the following: "But another grasping a spear thrust it into his side, and water and blood came out." This is obviously a harmonization to Jn. 19:34, and appears in the "older" and supposedly more reliable MSS, e.g., Aleph B C L Gamma. One may chose to defend this harmonization as authentic (although it appears in no English versions that I know of), but a more realistic position is that the "newer" MSS, including the Byzantines and their minuscule MSS, do in fact have the "older" text in this passage. This shows that the date of a MS is not necessarily the best indicator of the date of the text that appears within it.

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[Magdalenbrother]

For a technical dicussion of the manuscript evidence:
http://www.logos.com/products/info/apparatuses

The argument that os refers to God in the preceding verse is shaky at best. First of all, ho (= neuter sg.relative pronoun) is a possible reading and in that case it would refer back to musterion, which is a neuter noun. This is the option chosen by St Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, the official translation of the RCC:

Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum
quod manifestatum est in carne

Quod in Latin is the equivalent of ho in Greek.

Second, even if we accept hos(masc. sg. relative pronoun), there are two examples in the NT where the pronoun doesn't refer to the immediate antecedent but to a contextual antecedent in the mind of the reader. The first example is in Acts where "the church of God which he redeemed with his blood" refers to Jesus (God has no blood!). The second is in Hebrews 5:6, where the author put next to each other the word "Melchizedec" and a relative clause wich describes JESUS: "who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications etc. "

I wonder why mainstream Christians love to sport the reading supporting their thesis, viz., that God was manifested in the flesh. Have they reflected on the very odd idea that according to that (obviously tinkered with) version God was also justified in the Spirit?

Can God be justified ????

There is another problem as well, related to chronology:

"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."

If "received up in glory" is an allusion to the Ascension, how are we to understand the preaching to the Gentiles and the spread of faith in the world ? Was Jesus preached to the goyim before the Ascension?

Finally, even if we were to accept the "orthodox" reading, can anyone prove that the title God here is meant metaphysically and not just metaphorically? This is obviously a piece of religious poetry, not an extract from De Trinitate.