Originally posted by robbie carrobieutter nonsense
Interesting from a textual point of view that the term God in 1st Timothy 3:16 is actually an interpolation, a corruption of the Greek verse for he.
In 1859 Tischendorf found what was the oldest known complete copy of the Christian Greek Scriptures in a monastery at the base of Mount Sinai, the Codec Sinaiticus, how did it read at 1 Timothy 3:16 ...[text shortened]... ced to support the Trinity doctrine.
Dithpicable! what have you to say for yourselves now?
2 edits
-Removed-Do you have a comment on the actual content or are you content to obfuscate? you should be thanking us for the free education rather than trying to condemn us in the way that you have. I have expressed many of my own opinions on this forum over the years, where a reference is suitable and can express the intent better than i can, i proffer that. Now if you would like to comment on the actual content, we may have something to discuss, otherwise, i see it was a waste of time. Yes i copied and pasted it, source: Jehovahs Christian Witnesses.
1 edit
Originally posted by Dowardoh really, on what basis is it utter nonsense, for you have as far as i can discern have not provided one, being simply content to utter these unsubstantiated personal opinions. Does the codex sinaticus not exist? did it not pre-date previous manuscripts, does it not state at 1 Timothy 3:16, not 'God', but 'he'. Have there not been other spurious interpolations added to the scriptures in the past by unscrupulous individuals to support the trinity doctrine? indeed, which one of these claims are you attempting to deny and on what basis?
utter nonsense
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiepredating other manuscripts is not definitive proof that the translation is correct. There are plenty of earlier documents that have been rejected necause other parts of the text do not agree with known texts. Also the explaination given is pretty slim
oh really, on what basis is it utter nonsense, for you have as far as i can discern have not provided one, being simply content to utter these unsubstantiated personal opinions. Does the codex sinaticus not exist? did it not pre-date previous manuscripts, does it not state at 1 Timothy 3:16, not 'God', but 'he'. Have there not been other spurious ...[text shortened]... y doctrine? indeed, which one of these claims are you attempting to deny and on what basis?
Originally posted by DowardThe point being is that it is consistant with the rest of the Bible's explinations of who Jesus is in relation to his Father.
predating other manuscripts is not definitive proof that the translation is correct. There are plenty of earlier documents that have been rejected necause other parts of the text do not agree with known texts. Also the explaination given is pretty slim
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's so hard to think for myself. I am converting to JW myself. (Turns off brain, turns on mouth and doorbell ringing finger)
Do you have a comment on the actual content or are you content to obfuscate? you should be thanking us for the free education rather than trying to condemn us in the way that you have. I have expressed many of my own opinions on this forum over the years, where a reference is suitable and can express the intent better than i can, i proffer that. No ...[text shortened]... see it was a waste of time. Yes i copied and pasted it, source: Jehovahs Christian Witnesses.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75actually I think you missed the point altogether. Saying "he" was manifested does not negate the trinity doctrine in the least, nor does it in any way undemine the rest of the scriptures that explain the relationship. John 1:1-4, 14 still makes a powerful statement about the divine nature of Christ. The Sahidic Coptic text does nothing to undermine this point.
The point being is that it is consistant with the rest of the Bible's explinations of who Jesus is in relation to his Father.
(cut and pasted): Dr. Layton explains:
The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This
pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article
in English: "is divine" ) or an entity ("is a god" ); the reader
decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT
predicate equivalence with the proper name "God"; in Coptic, God is
always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence
of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.3
So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not
necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have
written "a god." He was not equating the Word with the proper name
God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a
qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton
says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication
in the immediate context to help us?
----
So you see, you still must deal with the John 1 passage.
Originally posted by DowardI missed no points here at all.
actually I think you missed the point altogether. Saying "he" was manifested does not negate the trinity doctrine in the least, nor does it in any way undemine the rest of the scriptures that explain the relationship. John 1:1-4, 14 still makes a powerful statement about the divine nature of Christ. The Sahidic Coptic text does nothing to undermine this point ...[text shortened]... context to help us?
----
So you see, you still must deal with the John 1 passage.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75However you never post any original thought either 🙂 It's always cut n paste from some JW source. (((((((🙂))))))))))
I never post anything I don't agree with. The point here though is do you read them or just scoff as usual and remain in the dark?
So do trinitarians go to hell or annihilation? And vise versa ? I think coming to God is the most important thing to do first.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71You really aren't paying attention as I and Robbie and even Rajj reason every which way we can come up with to make you guys think with common sense on this. I really hardly ever paste if your actually paying attention. Go back and look if you care too.
However you never post any original thought either 🙂 It's always cut n paste from some JW source. (((((((🙂))))))))))
So do trinitarians go to hell or annihilation? And vise versa ? I think coming to God is the most important thing to do first.
Manny
And hardly any of my questions ever get answered, so you way off on your opinion here.
And again Manny...I am not a judge and do not judge you or anyone else. I don't know how many times I've said that. I guess you don't understand that.
The only reason I even post anything here is to try to help anyone that is truely interested in learning what the BIBLE teaches. The trinity is NOT a bible teaching and has never been.
But then again you'd actually have to read our postings not only from the WTS but all the other links we've posted here. I guess you don't which truely amazes me as the proof is in printed in black and white.
I can promise you as a friend that when and if that day ever comes that something snaps in your mind and you actually see the trinity for what it is, you'll never view the Bible in the same way. Then, so many things will suddenly make sense to you.