Attacks on the Deity of Christ - Part I

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    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”!
     
  2. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    While I don't think this was an "attack on the deity of Christ," this is an indication of why I prefer the tradional body of texts.
     
  4. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  5. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    The UBS and NA both have "Christon" here:
    1 Corinthians 10:9 mêde ekpeirazômen ton Christon, kathôs tines autôn epeirasan kai hupo tôn opheôn apôllunto.

    This isn't an issue of a textual variant, just translational things.

    The ESV still has Christ,
    1 Corinthians 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,
     
  6. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! :eek:

    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.
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,135
    Likes Received:
    320
    Yes it is "easy to conclude" your assumption being biased in that direction as am I. However it could have been an "honest" mistake and not deliberate.

    1 Timothy 3:16 on the other hand is not even a scribal mistake but a result of the ravages of time. This is elaborated upon by John Burgon in his book The Revision Revised on pages 424-501.

    So, over all, in this case (1 Timothy 3:16) there is stronger evidence of your accusation of a deliberate wrong choice by the RSV translation committee than for the 1 Corinthians passage.

    Or, they may simply reject Burgon's explanation as wrong, though he says to examine the mss itself (as he has apparently done) would prove what he says to be true.

    HankD
     
  8. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NET Bible has Christ, along with these translational notes:
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    What seems to be the problem?


    1Co 10:9

    (ALT) Neither shall we be tempting [or, testing] Christ, just as also some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents. [Numb 21:5,6]

    (ASV) Neither let us make trial of the Lord, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents.

    (CEV) And don't try to test Christ, as some of them did and were later bitten by poisonous snakes.

    (Darby) Neither let us tempt the Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by serpents.

    (DRB) Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted and perished by the serpent.

    (EMTV) nor let us tempt Christ, just as also some of them tempted Him, and were destroyed by the serpents;

    (ESV) We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

    (GB) Neither let vs tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted him, and were destroyed of serpents.

    (GNT) μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν, καθώς καὶ τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλοντο.

    (HCSB) Let us not tempt Christ as some of them did, and were destroyed by snakes.

    (KJV+) Neither3366 let us tempt1598 Christ,5547 as2531 some5100 of them846 also2532 tempted,3985 and2532 were destroyed622 of5259 serpents.3789

    (KJV-1611) Neither let vs tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

    (KJVA) Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

    (LITV) Neither test Christ, as some of them tried Him, and perished by serpents.

    (MKJV) Nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted Him and were destroyed by serpents.

    (UPDV) Neither let us make trial of Christ, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents.
     
  10. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "change" is much older than that. "Kurion" is in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and several other manuscripts, ancient translations, and early church father quotes. I can list most of them, just as you have done for the "Xriston" reading.

    True. However, they would be wrong to make a textual choice based on what fits their theology better, based on what "sounds better" to them. And we would be wrong to make a textual choice based on the same reasons.

    "Clearly"? If it was so clear, there would be no question at all.
     
  12. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! :eek:

    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!
     
  13. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
     
  14. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
    </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!
     
  15. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great observation of the deliberate tampering of the text, icthus. I agree with your conclusions.

    And as far as the NIV readings of the other passages like 2Pet 1:1, I have addressed this in another thread and no one seemed to want to comment.

    Taken in context the KJ reading in 2Pet is extremely strong reading in support of the deity of Christ and is consistent with the "whole" testimony of scripture.

    This is what I wrote... "This passage is very clear with very basic understanding of the scripture...the way we obtain "like precious faith" is the imputed "righteousness of God" via the GOD-MAN "our Saviour Jesus Christ."

    We must remember the Bible is a Complete Revelation (the Whole must be taken in context for proper interpretation).

    No error on the part of the translators here or in any such case!
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, and would you like me to post thirty or forty verses from the NIV that "show" the diety of Christ? I am assuming that you are attempting to show this as an "intended" corruption; am I correct? If so, who does the fault lie on?
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying there are no translational errors in the KJV whatsoever? Or that these particular instances just happen to be correctly translated?
     
  19. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do hold to an error free position for the AV. But in this instance I am refering to the Scriptures that were addressed...2Pet, Titus...etc.

    I am not sure I follow your statements in the first post were they directed at me?

    Philip said..."Oh, and would you like me to post thirty or forty verses from the NIV that "show" the diety of Christ? I am assuming that you are attempting to show this as an "intended" corruption; am I correct? If so, who does the fault lie on?"

    Was this addressed to me?

    Thanks!
    Max
     
  20. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not know that we were addressing every single instance where a supposed problem occurrs in translation...we can if you would like, but i prefer to address them one at a time.

    Thanks again,
    Max
     

Share This Page

Loading...