1 Timothy 3:16

[tigger2]

1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh") -

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.


Although the KJV (and those few translations which still use the flawed Received Text - see 1 John 5:7 KJV for another example) translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with God as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: he (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Becks translation), he who (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), who, or which.

Even the Douay (published 1582 - older than the 1611 KJV version) has which was manifested in the flesh. All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word (who) here instead of (God). Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where OS (OC or , who) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (, god). Since the new reading suited . the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts " though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved the true reading. " p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined " the 1990 ed., pp. 696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose [who or he who] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

it is supported by the earliest and best uncials. And, Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports [God]; all ancient versions presuppose [or OC, who - masc.] or [which - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading . The reading arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as C, or (b) deliberately.... - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (C being a common form for the ancient Greek letter S at that time). Most often at this time the word for God () was written in abbreviated form as C. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above C. So no copyist should have mistaken (or OC) for C, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for , of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit C [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetsteins day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with C (God) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [who], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a B rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [Jesus is God] use of . - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [mystery] the reading of Western documents. - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun (who) in this scripture and tells us:

The textual variant [god] in the place of [who or he who] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the majority text school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that mystery () being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun () is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text. [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: He who was revealed in the flesh . - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; Gods Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; Barclay, etc.

[tam]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit C [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Whether it is deliberate or accidental, this is an excellent example of how scribes (including copyists) can copy error into the text, especially when they do not know what is true themselves, and/or are biased.



Jeremiah 8:8

How can you say, 'we are wise for we have the law of the LORD', when actually, the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely.




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Yahu]

1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh") -

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

So, what difference does it make? What point are you trying to make?

[tigger2]

What difference does it make?

Trinitarians continue to use this as one of the 'proofs' of their 4th century doctrine. In reality 1 Tim 3:16 is mistranslated in the KJV and its Received Text.

[JehovahsWitness]

What difference does it make?

Trinitarians continue to use this as one of the 'proofs' of their 4th century doctrine. In reality 1 Tim 3:16 is mistranslated in the KJV and its Received Text.

Absolutely correct. What is the scripture that says "my people will be destroyed by lack of knowledge"? People are sadly being mislead because they do not have the instruction and information that would help them see. The Trinity is one of the abhorrent teachings of Christendom because it veils the True God in mystery making Him unknowable, and unlovable.


#QUESTION: If jesus is not God then why does the bible say "god becomes flesh" (1 Tim 3:16)?

The King James Version of 1 Tim 3: 16 reads: GOD was manifest in the flesh, in referring to Christ Jesus.

But in the Alexandrine codex, the contraction for God, formed by two Greek letters C, appears originally to have read C, the word for who. Obviously, this meant that Christ Jesus was not God.; Other older manuscripts confirm this rendering of who or which as being correct.

Bruce M. Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament concludes: No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century . . . supports [the-os]; all ancient versions presuppose or ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading [the-os].

Today, most translations concur in omitting any reference to God in this text.

FURTHER READING
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospe ... m3_16.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.fr/ ... h-kjv.html

Non-Witness
http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html