- This topic is empty.
- Posts
T8,
Kerwin, are you not concerned that most translators say: ‘HE’ instead of God?
I go by feelings and frankly the common translation does not sound correct because if I were to right the same words about Jesus I would do it in the order of what happened and not randomly.
Jesus was taken up in glory before the message of salvation was preached to the Gentiles not afterwards.
Then there is the fact that Paul did not say he was speaking of Jesus. His statement instead was the mystery of godliness is great.
The mystery of how to be like God in true righteousness and holiness is great. I has been manifesting in the flesh since it first manifested in Jesus, angels have been witnessing it, this mystery has been preached to the Gentile and you can still hear it from Scripture if you have ears to hear, many have continued to take it up in glory.
Without Jesus who is the pioneer and perfecter of the true faith it would not be.
I do not trust translators though they seem to be right the vast majority of the time. That I attribute to God more than to the translators credibility.
I find it a weaker message to translate it the traditional way but accept for hiding the importance of the mystery of godliness it seems consistent with Scripture though the meaning some give it is not.
Kerwin, there has been times when I was reading our present bible text and a word was there that I instantly know was wrong and exactly what the right word should be, I even checked it out in the original GREEK and found I was right, like where is was written “though he terry long with them” I know that word though should be “WILL’and it should have read “will he Terry long with them’, as the unjust judge was doing. Another time where Paul was saying we were not saved by the works of “the” law, I know there was a mistake there in using the definite article (the) because that would make it about the ten commandments, and I know we should strive to keep the commandments of God, so I researched it, and found the original Greek, DID NOT CONTAIN the definite article “the” in the original scripture. So that changed the complete meaning of what was being said, Paul was not talking about the commandments at all , but about how law (force compliance ) workd in our lives, and no flesh can be justified by (forced compliance) to the ten commandment, be cause forcing a person to obey them never made the heart of the person right with GOD, SO BY WORKS OF LAW WHICH IS TO SAY BY THE (WAY LAW WORKS) no flesh could ever be justified before God.
The spirit does guide us and show us the truth even if it is improperly written in our present text. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
What about this Kerwin.
First off, one must understand the nomina sacra (sacred names). These are abbreviations, in early manuscripts, of certain names and titles.
In ancient manuscripts 1 Timothy 3:16 had the word “os” which looks like: “OC” and means “he”.
The nomina sacra of God looks like OC but instead it has a horizontal line through the middle of the O and a long horizontal line over both letters.
In one old manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) it seems to be the nomina sacra, but analysis of the manuscript shows that the two horizontal lines were added centuries later.
Many late manuscripts have the nomina sacra, but all manuscripts earlier than about 800AD instead have OC “He”
So “He was manifest in the flesh” is supported by all ancient manuscripts, whereas “God was manifest in the flesh” appears after 800 AD.”
T8.
I believe some of that led to misunderstanding but clearly there was already a misunderstanding present if and when the manuscript was defaced. Whoever defaced it may have done it because they thought is was a name or little that required emphasizing or that should be hidden. I put very little importance in a nomina sacra of a language of a pagan people.
My objection to the traditional translation and its derivatives is that it seems flawed in inserting a subject that is not present and ignoring the one that is, disregarding the timeline, taking the emphasis off the mystery of godliness and placing it on Jesus.
As far as the gospel in practicality it does not make a significant difference as God was manifest in the flesh of Jesus Christ and it was witnessed by angels, Jesus Christ was preached to the Gentiles, and Jesus was taken up in glory. The word “he” makes it more generic but does not really change anything unless you want to substitute something else for Jesus.
The actual Koine Greek word has the definition that is more “who, which, what, that” so “he” is in the eye of the beholder and even then it is deemed by the beholder as the best guess at the intent of the Koine Greek word.
Hi GB,
Are you sure that is is guidance by the holy Spirit that guides your understanding or is it your long experience in reading scripture?
Nick …….Back at you, I could say the same about you, but i chose not to cast desperations, you decide for yourself if it is of the spirit of truth or not, and live with that, questioning my sprituality and knowledge of scriptures is hardly a job you seem capable of. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
I go by feelings and frankly the common translation does not sound correct because if I were to right the same words about Jesus I would do it in the order of what happened and not randomly.
Perhaps you missed the point. In ancient manuscripts 1 Timothy 3:16 has the Greek word “ὃς” which means “he” or “who”.
Perhaps you should rely on what the text says and not what your feelings say. If not, then scripture is not there for reproof and correction in your case. It is there to cherry pick that which you want to be true and ignore that which you do not want to be true. In short let it tickle your ears when you feel like it.
T8,
It is deceptive to claim that the Koine Greek word “ὃς” which means only “he” or “who”. It is a half truth at best. The definition according to Bible Hub “who, which, what, that”. Someone who translated from the Koine Greek chose “who” for their own reasons. It is a subjective call unless there context to reveal which it should be. There is no such context to 1 Timothy 3:16 is either speaking of God or for that matter Jesus. The subject of the passage is the mystery of Godliness.
If you want to force Jesus or God into the context then you need to flip clauses around to make it sound right for the simple reason Jesus ascended to heaven before he was preached to the Gentiles.
Note 1: http://biblehub.com/greek/3739.htm is a link id you desire to check what I said about the definition. Use another source if to verify that Bible Hub knows what they are speaking of if you feel that is needful.
Note 2: In my opinion I am being technical as any of the three translations can all be interpretative in a way that they do not oppose the message of gospel.
Your Bible Hub, like many lexicons, lumps the relative pronouns ὅς, ἥ, and ὅ together. If you look a little closer at each one, though, you will find that ὅς is a masculine, singular pronoun. This means that, when referring to a person, it means “who” (masc.) or, in other words, “he who” or even just “he.”
The neuter relative pronoun ὅ would mean “which” rather than “who.”
————–masc. fem. neuter
sing. nom. – ὅς —- ἥ —– ὅ
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ancgreek/paradigmsU/paradigmtables3BOM.html#par27 (#33, Relative Pronoun)
Tigger,
Your Bible Hub, like many lexicons, lumps the relative pronouns ὅς, ἥ, and ὅ together. If you look a little closer at each one, though, you will find that ὅς is a masculine, singular pronoun. This means that, when referring to a person, it means “who” (masc.) or, in other words, “he who” or even just “he.”
The neuter relative pronoun ὅ would mean “which” rather than “who.”
I believe I see what you are saying but I do not see how that it a difference. Biblehub does lump them together but the interlinear tell me ὅς is masculine and singular as well as nominative but so is mystery which is the subject of the noun clause “mystery of godliness” and “mystery of godliness is the subject of the sentence. I doubt that it is referring to a person.
The mystery of the banking system is this. The Rothschilds own many central banks, supply money to other banks, and collect exorbitant interest.
Now how exactly does the Rothschilds equal the banking system in the statement above? It is not an identification but an association.
The mystery of godliness is not necessarily the one being identified as ‘he/god/it/whatever’. Rather it is making an association, not an identification. Just the same as my example does.
Kerwin, I believe musterion is in the neuter case, not masculine. Therefore ὅς is referring to someone else.
Tigger,
You are correct that musterion is neuter and from what I understand that makes a strong case it is speaking of something or someone else.
T8,
You do have a point but notice you did not use a pronoun because if you chose to use a pronoun then you would not know who you were speaking of. So writing God is manifest in the flesh is clearer to the reader than he is manifest in the flesh.
T8…….God is manifested in all of creation as far as that goes. “FOR THE HIDDEN ATRIBUTES OF GOD ARE SEEN OR MANIFESTED BY THE THINGS CREATED”.
peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
Gene,
Ro. 1:20, NASB:
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
KJV: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
So where are the triune attributes of the divine nature or Godhead found in the creation that have been clearly seen from the beginning?
We see the SINGLE Sun, the SINGLE moon, man with a SINGLE head and heart. Where do we clearly see the trinity in creation?
Gene,
Ro. 1:20, NASB:
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
KJV: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
So where are the triune attributes of the divine nature or Godhead found in the creation that have been clearly seen from the beginning?
We see the SINGLE Sun, the SINGLE moon, man with a SINGLE head and heart. Where do we clearly see the trinity in creation?
I just finished a debate on whether Jesus is Almighty God. I took the stance that he is not. My arguments come straight from the Bible, especially the Greek text, as I don’t rely solely on English translations.
You can see the debate here:
http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Bible-Does-NOT-say-that-Jesus-is-Almighty-God-in-the-flesh./1/I read your debate and noticed your opponent ran off. Please come here and help out in the debate on the Trinity. While most have ran off here too, there is still a few still promoting the Trinity.
Would appreciate your help.
Blessings.
@t8,
I will gladly help you out. It’s presently 11:20PM where I am, and I have work in the morning, but I will jump into this as soon as I can. =)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
