A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by BRUCE M. METZGER

by possible-san 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  debator

  HI possible san

  You are a different culture from me and obviously put great store by certain writing protocols but I feel that in a debate forum all writers have to answer for their comments. We have the right to question people's assumptions on here.

  I would like to think I simply do not agree out of politeness that would be doing niether myself or the poster any favours.

  Hi ding

  While "God the father" appears in the bible "God the son" never appears in the bible this for me is why I think trinitarians are very dishonest, adding there own doctrine to the bible.
• 

  possible-san

  debator.

  Although I appreciate your reply, I'm feeling that it is unrelated in the topic concerning "Textual criticism."
  I introduced that material (METZGER's book) here.
  
  I feel that the level of this thread becomes low whenever you answer.

  In this thread, PSacramento's post is the most good/honest.
  He has answered in the standpoint of "Textual criticism."
  
  He is always sincere/honest.
  I think that you had better imitate him.

  possible
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  debator: How I discovery as to why evangelists believe in trinity and other religions dont, evangelists read the KJV and I just found out yesterday that the original greek in the KJV is different from the original greek in the NWT, NIV and others.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/200447/1/NIV-RSV-ASV-part-of-the-Anti-Christ and watch the youtube vids.

  My greek interlinear (not the kingdom) in 1 Tim 3:16 says: And 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.

  As cattails puts it:- "[Textus Receptus / Stephanus / Byzantine Majority / Orthodox Church] codices are more recent than the Wescott & Hort (NWT NIV and others) sources [Alexandrian (Nestle, et al. texts based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)] which by the way in the last century older texts have been found which support the Wescott & Hort recensions."

  So the W & H version (NWT) would have the Greek word for He instead of God (theos)

  Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. (NIV)

  No wonder why there is so much confusion, but there are points in the old testament that imply trinity and others in the new testament that dont, could some points in the bible regarding God just be a title like a fireman or a baker? This is still all to confusing for me no thanks to Late Walter Martin lol.

  English (KJV)		Strong's	Root Form (Greek)	Tense
  And		g 2532	κα? kai
  withoutcontroversy		g 3672	?μολογουμ?νως homologoumenos
  great		g 3173	μ?γας megas
  is		g 2076	?στ? esti
  the mystery		g 3466	μυστ?ριον mysterion
  ofgodliness:		g 2150	ε?σ?βεια eusebeia
  God		g 2316	θε?ς theos
  wasmanifest		g 5319	φανερ?ω phaneroo
  in		g 1722	?ν en
  the flesh,		g 4561	σ?ρξ sarx
  justified		g 1344	δικαι?ω dikaioo
  in		g 1722	?ν en
  the Spirit,		g 4151	πνε?μα pneuma
  seen		g 3700	?πτ?νομαι optanomai
  of angels,		g 32	?γγελος aggelos
  preached		g 2784	κηρ?σσω kerysso
  unto		g 1722	?ν en
  theGentiles,		g 1484	?θνος ethnos
  believed on		g 4100	πιστε?ω pisteuo
  in		g 1722	?ν en
  the world,		g 2889	κ?σμος kosmos
  received up		g 353	?ναλαμβ?νω analambano
  into		g 1722	?ν en
  glory.		g 1391	δ?ξα doxa
• 

  PSacramento

  The trinity is a human ( man made) doctrine, an attempt to understand that nature of God and the nature if the realtionship between God, Jesus and the Holy spirit, nothing more and nothing less.

  One can accept it or not, it ( the doctrine) is NOT biblical but then again, the vast majority of all man-made doctrines are NOT, they are interpreations of parts/themes of the bible.

  Jesus was the ONLY begotton Son of God and NO begotten does NOT equal or mean created, Jesus is Unique above all creation because Jesus was NOT created but begotten and since he was Begotten of God, Jesus's very nature is God, it can be nothing else.

  Just as we beget a child and that child is US ( Human) and we create something ( like a piece of art) and iti s just THAT ( something created) and NOT US.

  God, Our Father is God, for God can be nothing else.

  The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God and as such is God, for it can be nothing else.

  The Son of God is the only begotten of God and as such, is God ( like a human is human) and can be nothing else.

  For a brief time Jesus was fully man and still retains that in his current form also, fully man ( all that man is) and fully God ( all that God is).
• 

  myelaine

  dear debator...

  though Jesus is called the Son of God on earth...in heaven He is not...His appearance is One like the Son of Man...in the views we get of heaven Jesus is seen as One like the Son of Man and He is called the Lamb (also see Acts 7:55-56) in the scripture that you quoted Jesus was not called the Son of God...He was called the Lamb.(and I'm not convinced that it is a view of heaven)

  ...I'm just saying that in heaven Jesus is not called the Son of God which is what you had stated..."Not just while on earth Jesus remains Gods son in heaven too."

  love michelle

  p.s. an implied inferiority exists in your mind if you keep "seeing" Jesus as the Son of God even in heaven.imo.
• 

  booby

  PSacramento - I agree wholeheartedly. Not that my agreement means anything, but I do. I always get a kick out of the big deal they make about the "a" in John 1:1. In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. If as you say and I think it is accurate to do so, if Jesus was begotten what difference if it says Jesus or the Word was a god or god. Like you point out our child can be referred to as human or a human, means same thing.
• 

  PSacramento

  Booby,

  Well, I agree and disagree.

  I disagree because "a" god is NOT consistent wth what the GOJ's writer(s) wanted to say based on the whole of the GOJ, it is not a correct rendition of what they wanted to convey.

  John 1:1 does NOT mean that Jesus was THE God ( God the father) but it does not mean that Jesus was "a" god ( which suggests more than one god or suggest that there are others of Jesus's "type"), what "John" was saying was that ALL that GOD was, Jesus was.

  Your analogy of the "a" human is incorrect ONLY in the sense that there are many humans and we are basically the same ( exactly the same in nature), but that is NOT the case with Jesus, there is ONLY one Begotten Son of God ( flesh of his flesh sort of speaking) and while human is the name given to a species, God is not a "name given to a species", God shares "his nature" ( holy spirit) with only his Son.

  God begot Jesus and VIA Jesus, all else was created, as such, while all of creation shares the same creative process ( via Jesus), Jesus is unique from is because he was never created.
• 

  booby

  So then there. You are saying that there can be many "sons" of God but not of his ilk. That means then that all the angels are some sort of hybrid freaks?
• 

  Leolaia

  It isn't simply a matter of "older MSS are better" with respect to 1 Timothy 3:16. (1) In a number of the MSS containing theos (such as A and C), it is a correction of an earlier hos written by a different hand, (2) This alteration was very easy to make because the only difference in spelling is a single line through the omicron, OC -> ΘC plus a nomen sacrum mark; the corrector may have thus thought himself to be restoring a line that had been worn out or omitted, (3) In general the tendency for copyists was to add nomina sacra than to remove them, (4) The passage was not cited as a prooftext during the Arian controversy of the fourth century AD (a notable silence, as the scriptures were thoroughly sifted for prooftexts during this period), (5) all early versions (Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitta, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, a very diverse group) had a relative instead of theos, which is not what would be expected if theos was the earlier reading in the Greek, (5) the principle of lectio difficilior favors hos because it is the more difficult reading liable to correction, and (6) the passage is the beginning of a quoted hymn similar to the one in Philippians 2:6 which also begins with hos. It is for reasons such as these that nearly all modern commentators and translators regard hos as the earlier (i.e. more original) form.
• 

  PSacramento

  So then there. You are saying that there can be many "sons" of God but not of his ilk. That means then that all the angels are some sort of hybrid freaks?

  LOL !

  No, just that Jesus being unique because he was begotten and not created is not the same as his companions the angels that were created via Jesus.