Pls help me with KJVO 1 Tim 3:16 argument

[Slowlearner]

I’m trying to answer a King James Version Only believer who says the Catholic Bible is corrupted. One example he gives is that in 1 Tim. 3:16 the word “he” is used instead of “God.”

From NJB, 1 Timothy 3:16:

16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed:** He** was made visible in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

(About the same thing in DR-Challoner and RSV-C.ed).

From King James Version:

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: **God **was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I have responded to him by pointing out that the meaning in Catholic bibles is clear: that is that “he” must refer to “God.”

What I can’t respond to is the following argument: Paul used the word “God” or theos as evidenced in the great majority of greek manuscripts containing the word “God” whereas only a very small number of manuscripts use “he.” In addition, some of the Church fathers referenced “God” when referring to or quoting this verse. (This according to him and some KJVO websites that purport to quote the Greek and are written by men who claim to have read the actual mss.)

To KJVO believers, this verse is a lynchpin of arguments that modern bibles are watered down and dilute the divinity of Christ. They say 1 Tim 3:16 provides a clear statement of Christ’s divinity and, thus, any changes that make this less clear are work of heresy.

Is there any authoritative Catholic reference or source on this issue?

 

[adriancombe]

This is a question of manuscript variants. There is no authoritative Catholic doctrine of manuscript variants.

What this person is trying to do is justify KJVO by attributing gnostic leanings to scribes. See here for a more advanced form of this sophistry:

studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

The writer is saying 'well obviously the ‘he’ is replacing the ‘God’ to deny the incarnation. This is just insane. There are plenty of NT proof texts for the Incarnation and the Divinity of Christ. You will likely not be able to get through to this person on this point, they are just taking what their pastor/teacher gave them as truth. Their goal is to represent the KJV as the only good translation.

A better way to approach this person is showing the same errors in the KJV translation are the same used in the book of Mormon:

infidels.org/library/modern/curt_heuvel/bom_kjv.html

 

[John7]

I didn’t see adriancombe’s post, but will post this anyway…

The Greek word after ‘mystery’ is Ὃς / os , translated ‘who’/‘which’/sometimes ‘he’ is a relative pronoun that looks like the ending of Theos / God . Tell them its just a Greek text variant issue, that the NJB uses manuscripts that read os in that part of the verse, whereas the manuscripts that the KJV uses read Theos in that same part of the verse.

He/God was manifested in the flesh…

Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί NJB (and NA27/UBS4 Greek New testaments)

θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι KJV (and Byzantine texts)

 

[Cachonga]

It’s been my experience that most KJV Only people won’t listen to anything that contradicts what they believe about the KJV (not quite “stick the fingers in the ears and go blah, blah, blah”, but close). Still, I have found some very good information here (I heartily recommend the power point download, as it does discuss 1 Tim 3:16 directly, along with other good information). Just a quick FYI - the link does go directly to the KJV Only information, but the site itself does contain “anti-Catholic” material as well (along with other information about Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses, among other things).

It might be interesting to ask this person which version of the KJV he/she/it is using (see the power point for more details on that).

 

[Slowlearner]

Thanks folks.

Here’s what I’ll say:

You say my bible is corrupted because of 1 Tim. 3:16. Well my guys say it is an issue of which manuscripts were used to create the translation and that the word “God” is likely an error that crept in – with good intentions – to deal with heresy.

I’m going to believe my guys when they say my bible is good, not your guys.

Who are my guys? They are the Catholic Church. Our current Pope is the successor to Peter, and our Bishops are successors to St. Paul and the apostles. My Church has been around nearly 2000 years teaching the trinity. My church authored the Nicene Creed to refute the heresies in 325 A.D. and 381 A.D. My church has nearly 2000 years of work teaching the gospel. My church is not perfect, but it has perfectly maintained the teachings that it received directly from Jesus. My church’s teachings are summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so I, and anyone interested, can know the teachings.

Who are your guys? Who is your Church? Were can I find the teachings?

If he says his teachings are in the KJV (likely with a smug smile), I’ll ask him to show me the book, chapter, verse that mentions the KJV.

Then, if he doesn’t go bonkers, I’ll show him the powerpoint presentation.

 

[MBS1]

Two things I would mention. Ask him what he thinks of the fact that the NIV - one of THE most popular Protestant translations of scripture uses “he” instead of God, as does the New American Standard Bible; and the Revised Standard Version. The New Living Translation translates it as “Christ”. Does he then disparage Protestants too and say Protestant bibles are corrupted too?

“What I can’t respond to is the following argument: Paul used the word “God” or theos as evidenced in the great majority of greek manuscripts containing the word “God” whereas only a very small number of manuscripts use “he.” In addition, some of the Church fathers referenced “God” when referring to or quoting this verse. (This according to him and some KJVO websites that purport to quote the Greek and are written by men who claim to have read the actual mss.)”

Yes, this is true, but in what context is the word “God” used? Does it really say “God” was manifested in the flesh, or something else. The textus receptus is the Greek manuscript that the KJV is based on. Whether this is as accurate as other Greek manuscripts seems to be a hotly debated topic on-line, but that if another discussion. One site I found for this verse translates it directly from the textus receptus as “telling the mystery of piety to God was manifested in the flesh”. In fact, at Blue Letter Bible.com - a Protestant site - it is translated from the textus receptus as “He who was revealed in the flesh”. At Blue Letter their textus receptus doesn’t even have the word for “theos” here at all - they say it says “*hos phaneroo sarx” *rather than *eusebeia theos phaneroo. *So I guess it even depends on which textus receptus one is looking at - if that is possible.

Here is a question for him. Why does the KJV translate the Jewish Passover as Easter in Acts 12:4? Could it be the KJV is corrupted? For others just google “errors in the KJV translation” and you’ll see how hypocritical your friend is being. Good luck.

%between%%between% %between% %between% %between%

 

[Slowlearner]

Two things I would mention. Ask him what he thinks of the fact that the NIV - one of THE most popular Protestant translations of scripture uses “he” instead of God, as does the New American Standard Bible; and the Revised Standard Version. The New Living Translation translates it as “Christ”. Does he then disparage Protestants too and say Protestant bibles are corrupted too?

You lucky dog, you’ve clearly never met one of the KJVOs.

These guys are after everyone who doesn’t use the KJV. Their main adversaries are Protestants. You can simply google King James Version Only and you’ll come up with tons of websites. However, I recommend that you don’t waste your time. These folks are big conspiracy theory believers.

They believe that they have a true conspiracy theory because “it can’t be wrong to put the word God or Christ into the New Testament more often.” I’m starting to see, however, that in their zeal they have lost sight of the big picture.

 

[MBS1]

Actually, from what I can see on-line KJVO’s are a minority of Protestants. And you are right, it doesn’t appear they even have an interest in seeing another point of view.

 

[John7]

Also (continue from post #3)

found this from

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (573). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

“The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is **ὅς. *It is supported by the earliest and best uncials *(א Avid C Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον), the witnesses that read ὅ (D itd, g, 61, 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads θεός, with אe (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P Ψ 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. **Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; **and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός. The reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of ος as ΘΣ, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.”

Plus, if interested there is a page of NET Bible notes at the bottom of page of
net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Ti&chapter=3&verse=16#
on this issue. Look in the NET notes #3

 

[adriancombe]

Also (continue from post #3)

found this from

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (573). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

“The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is **ὅς. *It is supported by the earliest and best uncials *(א Avid C Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον), the witnesses that read ὅ (D itd, g, 61, 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads θεός, with אe (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P Ψ 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. **Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; **and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός. The reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of ος as ΘΣ, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.”

Plus, if interested there is a page of NET Bible notes at the bottom of page of
net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Ti&chapter=3&verse=16#
on this issue. Look in the NET notes #3

Thanks, that is great! Good info, maybe it’ll even get through to someone.

 

[Slowlearner]

Thanks everyone. This has been enlightening for me.

Brief report on my conversation. The guy was fairly well stocked with KJVO talking points. (When I said that most older mss have “he”, the guy replied that there were two old mss with “God,” which mss were ignored.) He was stumped, however, after he admitted he tore out the “apocrypha” from his KJVO bilbe. I asked him if the translators had made a mistake by including them. He couldn’t answer. Maybe he’ll chew on that.

When I finally said that neither he nor I could debate this because we can’t read Greek and have not looked at any of the manuscripts, and thus I’d leave him to trust his sources and I’d trust mine, he said that he had prayed about this and God told him the KJV was not corrupted. God regularly gives him signs and he follows God. I said, that was fine because I think KJV is fine version.

He was very passionate that the bible has been corrupted and said, “there are baptist churches were they don’t even talk about Jesus.” I acknowledged that the attack on the Word has been going on for 2000 years, but said I was less worried about the baptist churches than the world in general where most people don’t go to any church.

I told him my church has been teaching the Trinity and divinity of Christ since first Pope St. Peter and read him Nicene Creed, pointing out that we recite this every Sunday. He nodded and said amen several times as I read it and said he was moved by listening to it. I think this was the biggest point: to show that devote worship of Jesus could exist without a KJV bible.