22 Jun '11 08:521 editOriginally posted by robbie carrobieSorry for the double post. My computer is wigging out!!
yes i can see from your post that it must be the case, another Christian that cannot actually comment on the actual content of the post, what is it, like some kind of mental block that you guys have. Interesting phenomena, i wonder what its called?
22 Jun '11 08:52Originally posted by robbie carrobie'He was made manifest in the flesh.' In place of “he,” the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for “God,” made by a small alteration of the Greek word for “he.” However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading “God.” Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine.
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?
22 Jun '11 08:521 editOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i can see from your post that it must be the case, another Christian that cannot actually comment on the actual content of the post, what is it, like some kind of mental block that you guys have. Interesting phenomena, i wonder what its called?
22 Jun '11 09:07Originally posted by robbie carrobieInteresting phenomena, i wonder what its called?
yes i can see from your post that it must be the case, another Christian that cannot actually comment on the actual content of the post, what is it, like some kind of mental block that you guys have. Interesting phenomena, i wonder what its called?
22 Jun '11 09:143 editsOriginally posted by Conrau Kwhat is this? have you referenced the actual codex sinaiticus? Why are you producing a Greek text that has nothing to do with it? Why have you not produced any other Greek texts which do interpolate the word theos instead of hos? what is more if there is no 'theos', in the verse making the claim that it should be rendered God dishonest. You are perhaps unaware Conrau, for i have examined through an interlinear various sources of Greek text and the majority render the term God, even though the Greek term was inconclusive. 'th?' 'hos', Here is one which simply interpolates the term theos.
He was made manifest in the flesh.' In place of “he,” the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for “God,” made by a small alteration of the Greek word for “he.” However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading “God.” Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced pport of the Trinity but nor do I have any idea what you are talking about either Robbie.[/b]
22 Jun '11 09:22Originally posted by Proper Knobno, this seems to be different, it seems that there is an inability to simply read and comment upon the actual content of a post, vain attempts are made to obfuscate with irrelevant assertions, 'did you copy and paste this, 'are you unable to think for yourself', divesgeester, chesspraxis etc. What has that got to do with the actual content, zilch, zero, centre of a doughnut. I wonder what is called, inabilitytocommentuponthetextaritus? who can say.
[b]Interesting phenomena, i wonder what its called?
It's the same condition which renders you unable to absorb any material which conflicts with your worldview.[/b]
22 Jun '11 09:52Originally posted by robbie carrobiehave you referenced the actual codex sinaiticus?
what is this? have you referenced the actual codex sinaiticus? Why are you producing a Greek text that has nothing to do with it? Why have you not produced any other Greek texts which do interpolate the word theos instead of hos? what is more if there is no 'theos', in the verse making the claim that it should be rendered God dishonest. You are pe ...[text shortened]... erlinear/NTpdf/1ti3.pdf
theos ephanerothe en sarki (God was made manifest in the flesh)
22 Jun '11 10:162 editsOriginally posted by Conrau Kyes this is brilliant, there is indeed, in fact if you look at some of the Greek texts in the interlinear (you could probably read them right off, but i cant, i did make an attempt to learn to read and write Koine, but i lost interest despite the alphabet being quite beautiful to my eye) instead of 'hos', we find terms like th?, which is essentially unintelligible, at least to me anyway and in other versions, they interpolate theos. I wonder if you would be as kind as to try to translate the actual Codex Siniaticus from the original. You can find it here - regards Robbie.
have you referenced the actual codex sinaiticus?
Ok.
Why have you not produced any other Greek texts which do interpolate the word theos instead of hos?
Ok, I didn't see that there was disagreement in the manuscript tradition.
what is more if there is no 'theos', in the verse making the claim that it should be rendered God d id ho rather than hos). The interpreter has a hard time explaining what the hos refers to.
22 Jun '11 10:33Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe codex reproduces exactly what I had above, although there are no accent or breathing marks and this particular spelling uses lunate sigmas. I shall have a look around for what other codices have.
yes this is brilliant, there is indeed, in fact if you look at some of the Greek texts in the interlinear (you could probably read them right off, but i cant, i did make an attempt to learn to read and write Koine, but i lost interest despite the alphabet being quite beautiful to my eye) instead of 'hos', we find terms like th?, which is essentially ...[text shortened]... w.codexsinaiticus.com/en/manuscript.aspx?book=47&chapter=3&lid=en&side=r&verse=16&zoomSlider=0
22 Jun '11 11:07Originally posted by robbie carrobieway to go, you once again have been able to make a straw man argument out of a reasonable sentance or staement. The point here is that the Sinai doex has not been proven to be more reliable than the texts already in use.
what the heck is this? more mere unsubstantiated opinion. The textual integrity of the Codex Sinaiticus being questioned on what basis? that there are other earlier documents (not specified) that contain inaccuracies (again not specified) and you have the audacity to claim that an explanation is pretty slim? what a piece of pure nonsense, the fac ...[text shortened]... e Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
http://www.sinaiticus.com/
22 Jun '11 11:27Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy don't you guys leave the Greek to the Greeks and just look at
what is this? have you referenced the actual codex sinaiticus? Why are you producing a Greek text that has nothing to do with it? Why have you not produced any other Greek texts which do interpolate the word theos instead of hos? what is more if there is no 'theos', in the verse making the claim that it should be rendered God dishonest. You are pe ...[text shortened]... erlinear/NTpdf/1ti3.pdf
theos ephanerothe en sarki (God was made manifest in the flesh)
22 Jun '11 11:47Originally posted by Dowardfeels bum to make sure hes not dreaming?
way to go, you once again have been able to make a straw man argument out of a reasonable sentance or staement. The point here is that the Sinai doex has not been proven to be more reliable than the texts already in use.
22 Jun '11 11:591 editOriginally posted by RJHindsbecause as has been pointed out if we leave the translation to the Greeks unscrupulous individuals shall take liberty with the text, as in this instance, somehow turning 'hos', that is 'who', into, 'theos', that is God. When we get to examine the Greek text for ourselves we realise that in not a few instances, this has occurred. Now we are Christians, we are not merely interested in general knowledge, but accurate knowledge, for ours is a God of truth, therefore its important to establish the textual integrity of a verse by looking at the original languages for this yields are great variety of flavours and lends itself to accurate translation.
Why don't you guys leave the Greek to the Greeks and just look at
the English, which we can all understand. Is it not clear that Jesus
is the "only begotten" Son of God? That fact alone should testify of
his God nature. He was also the son of man. Notice it says He was
"begotten" not "created". Let us not be changing the word of God
to suit our own purposes. Read it as it is, not as you would like it to
be.
Son of God
Back to Top