1 Timothy 3:16

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Lorelei, Jun 4, 2003.

  1. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can anyone explain why 1 Timothy 3:16 uses the word "God" where the other translations use "He". Do you think there is any significance to the difference?

    I appreciate any thoughts you all might have.

    ~Lorelei
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best I can tell, the best mss have a relative clause with a pronoun. The word God isn't there. It was added later for clarification. Context is pretty clear, so the difference is of no exegetical significance.

    Incidentally, isn't this a hymn from the early church that Paul is quoting?
     
  3. Arubian Baptist

    Arubian Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    It depends on how you look at it, some say that the best mss don't have it. But I wonder what is the definition of the best? How do you know which is best? On their age?

    If I have a counterfeit $20 bill from the year 1920 and a real $20 bill from the year 1990.

    Does the age factor makes it real money and the "best" and reliable money?

    The opinion of mine person is of course contrary to most of the people here on this board.

    I see a watered down verse in these other versions.
    But that is just my opinion.

    One thing I know, when Jehova witnesses come to my door, I always use that verse to show them that the verse is an undisputable proof that Jesus is God.

    I only how the other people on this forum use this verse to explain that Jesus is God, my best guess is that they probably will use other ways and verses to try to prove that point.

    At least I can say, that in case a jehovawitness comes to your door, and you have no King James Bible, but another version, do not try to use 1 Timothy 3:16. They probably chew you alive
     
  4. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you both for your responses. You sure do get quick responses in this forum! [​IMG]

    The clarity of this verse is why I question it. If it is true that the word God was added for "clarification" then this bothers me. Though the intentions may have been good, the outcome is not. This "clarification" may have opened the door to more false doctrines, such as oneness pentecostalism. This is one of their favorite verses to show that Jesus is merely God the Father manifest in the flesh. While I know that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, I know He is not the Father. There are many verses in which the KJV seems to be the reason for thier misinterpretation of scripture, or so I am finding out. I want to know what the Holy Spirit inspired men to say, not what men want to "clarify" on the Holy Spirit's behalf!

    I do not see how one can accuse the Newer translations of watering down things, when their manuscripts existed before those that the KJV was based upon. Maybe it wouldn't seem watered down if the later mss didn't feel the need to thicken the Holy Spirit's words? Just a thought.

    So, to clarify the answer to my original question, the oldest manuscripts do not say "God", but say "He"? Is this correct?

    ~Lorelei
     
  5. Arubian Baptist

    Arubian Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    So actually you allready took a stand before the question...you never offerd the other possibility.

    But stil..it is just mine opinion, I am glad that I could have help you to affirm your already known position.

    About the oldest MSS..I shall just qoute myself
    [​IMG]
     
  6. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    The early Greek manuscripts were written in Uncial script (which just means capital Greek letters all running together).

    The difference in the reading "God" and "He" is actually a 2 small lines:

    OC == He

    --
    0C == God (also need a horizontal line through the 0)

    Could be somebody accidently left out the lines. Could be somebody added them thinking somebody else left them out.etc etc...

    Metzger says:

    I'm not saying I agree with all that..but those are the main reasons modern versions translated from UBS or NA Greek texts have "He" instead of "God".

    -kman
     
  7. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to clarify, the Greek cited by kman, above, should look (assuming you have the appropriate screen fonts) like this:

    ΟC = He
    --
    ΘC = God

    Haruo
     
  8. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    {Post not on topic}

    [ June 04, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lorelei said:

    Can anyone explain why 1 Timothy 3:16 uses the word "God" where the other translations use "He".

    As has already been adequately explained, the difference between "he" and a common abbreviation for "God" in Greek is two strokes of the pen. There are plenty of perfectly mundane reasons why this variant has crept in:
    </font>
    • it was missed, because of carelessness, poor eyesight, poor lighting, or some other circumstance</font>
    • it was hidden by a crease in the exemplar</font>
    • it was mistaken for a defect in the paper</font>
    Alternatively, if "he" is the preferred reading, then the opposite would hold: a defect on the page was misread as a penstroke, and so forth.

    Do you think there is any significance to the difference?

    It does not affect the meaning of the passage (all possible antecedents for "he" point back to God anyway), so it is most likely a harmless and theologically insignificant honest mistake.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sure how this clears up anything about what Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3. It is clear in 1 Tim 3 that the pronoun "He" refers to "God." No matter which reading you choose, it is clear that God in flesh is being talked about 1 John 4:3 contributes to that in no way. It is but another attempt to hijack Scripture to support the indefensible.
     
  11. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom, I don't think I like your constant logical, factual, historically accurate arguments. You are removing the satanic conspiracy right from under the KJVO side. What will they debate with now? Great, no more debate between the sides, Ransom is back. Thanks a bunch buddy.
     
  12. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJB says God was manifest in the flesh;the rest says he appeared in a body,he who? It is missing the Theta,no reference to God! 1st John 4:3 says that anybody who denies that God was manifest in the flesh is of the AntiChrist,period.

    [ June 04, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: MV-neverist ]
     
  13. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    See, this was an honest question about how the different translations came up with their wording for that verse. I had no "stand" on why this verse was different, because I didn't know. That is why I asked the question.

    Did I have a stand as to whether I preferred the KJVO or prefer modern translations, yes, but that has nothing to do with my honest question wondering why it was different.

    My post you are referring to was a response to the fact that it "was added in later." Your response offered no real reasoning for the difference other than you than you think it is evil, for which you provided no evidence.

    So please, don't take my question and turn it into a battle. Answer it or refrain please.

    ~Lorelei
     
  14. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, that is similiar! Either way, it does not change anything doctrinally, you are all right on that point. I guess now it's down to which came first the chicken - or the egg O!

    Thanks all that explains a lot!

    ~Lorelei
     
  15. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    {Post not on topic}

    [ June 04, 2003, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJB says God was manifest in the flesh;the rest says he appeared in a body,he who?</font>[/QUOTE]He is "God." The context is clear, if you look at what Paul is saying beginning at v. 13 and carrying through his thought. The only people who would miss this are those who take Scripture out of context. Come to think of it, that may be why this is such a big problem for you. The history of your side in taking things out of context to prove a point is astounding. Nevertheless, in the context of 1 Tim 3, this verse is explicit as Paul wrote it. There was no need to change it to God to make it clearer.

    No one is denying that God was manifest in the flesh. We argue that from all over Scripture, including this verse. So as I originally said, 1 John 4:3 has no bearing here whatsoever because it is not relevant.
     
  17. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    MV-neverist said:

    The KJB says God was manifest in the flesh;the rest says he appeared in a body,he who?

    Everyone agrees that "he" is God. If you think it has to be someone else, it's up to you to identify him and prove it from context.
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I, for one, believe the "conspiracy theory". Of course, it's just not the conspiracy that onlies believe.

    I see huge, concerted attackes on the deity of Christ in the 350-550AD era. If I were a scribe or pundit, I would work hard to add in those extra lines to MAKE SURE that nobody could confuse "he" and "God".

    I would add "Lord" to Jesus Christ, and "Lord Jesus" to Christ, and "Christ" to Lord Jesus as often as possible to refute that Aryan heresy.

    Yep. I believe it was a conspiracy to defend our precious Lord's deity.

    *****
    Does that seem far-fetched? Today we have folks doing exactly the same thing! They are adding to the fundamentals of the faith, adding new doctrinal believe in "onlyism". Why? They are doing such from a good motive, to keep the Word pure.

    But a conspiracy nonetheless. :eek:
     
  19. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it was an 'omission' as you claim, wouldn't 'God' be showing up in the earlier manuscripts and the patristic fathers and 'He' in the later manuscripts? But the real evidence is opposite of that, so it doesn't make sense that it is an 'omission.' Rather, it points to an addition.

    It is clear from the context and the preceding verses who appeared in the flesh. I can't believe that some could understand Elizabethan English yet not be able to understand basic context.

    Neal
     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate any thoughts you all might have.

    ~Lorelei
    </font>[/QUOTE]"He" is not in the text.
     

Share This Page

Loading...