by Sea Breeze 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Which modern English version do you say includes the word “Lord”?
21st Century KJV
New King James Version
Modern English Version (2013)
I'm sure there a few more I missed.
I'm curious as to whether of not you believe if how the early church leaders quoted verses should affect a person's view on verses disputed by Unitarians such as yourself?
Do you believe quotes from disciples that the apostles trained have any bearing on bible readings you dispute?
The oldest manuscripts containing some or all of the text of 1 st Corinthians
Papyrus 46 ad 175 -225
Codex Vaticanus ad 325-350
Codex sinaiticus ad 330-360
So no one can say with 100 % certainty what Paul wrote or that the manuscripts had not been altered or someone else had put their own interpretation on his work in the 150 + years since no one has the originals to compare it too .
So all the different translations can't all be right but they all can be wrong.
Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (late 4th century) disagree with 90% of extant manuscripts. They have faded and have been written over several times over the centuries, making it impossible to know what was originall written on them. Most scholars agree they had at leaast 4 different redactors. They disagree with each over 7000 times! They are loaded with scratchouts, and scratch-outs of the scratchouts. All of this makes it imposible for them to be reliable.
Millions of Christians have good reason to not accept their authiority.
Manuscripts that are far older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus correcty render the vers as "Lord".
(Etheridge) The first man who is of the earth is dust, the second man the Lord from heaven.
(Murdock) The first man was of dust from the earth; the second man was the Lord from heaven.
(Lamsa) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the LORD from heaven.
(KJV) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
The ‘truth’ in WTS world seems to be whatever the people in charge interpret. That’s why doctrines are unreliable at best.
jmho
ttwsyf
Sea Breeze you thought you had found something surprising in early Watchtower literature but you failed to note the context where they repeated their familiar stance in full: that Jesus is God’s first creation, separate from and subordinate to God, was a man while he was on earth, and that the incarnation doctrine is false. Instead of taking the correction, you go off on a tangent about “Lord” in 1 Cor 15:47 that JWs didn’t have a problem with anyway. Modern versions don’t have Lord in this verse because it’s not in the critical Greek text based on the earliest manuscripts - NIV, NLT, RSV, NWT, GNB, NASB, and on and on. The “modern” versions you provide as proof are translations earlier than the King James or based on the King James and its Greek text. What are you doing here?
Modern versions don’t have Lord in this verse because it’s not in the critical Greek text based on the earliest manuscripts
SLIMNBOYFAT: I listed several modern versions that have it. Millions of Christians do not accept the authority of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus because of reasons previously mentioned, like redactions, write-overs, missingng text and the thousands of times they disagree with each other. Because of this, millions of Christians are more comfortable with the majority text, or the text thst has been handed down to us through the centuries.
There are 5800 NT manuscripts. Only about 10% seem to possibly agree with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 90 % agree with the Majority Text, which manuscrips enjoy near total agreement between each other.
As a Unitarian, do you believe quotes from disciples that the apostles trained have any bearing on bible readings you dispute? For instance :
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. - 1 Timothy 3: 16
The "Critical Text" reads "He" in place of "God"
But the early Christians all quoted this verse as "God was manifest in the flesh".
So, as a Unitarian, would you allow such evidence to be considered? Or does your belief in Unitarianism cause you to reject the testimony of the earliest Christians?
The earliest copy of 1st Timothy dates to the 3rd century, so no one can say with 100% certainty that what the original said because we don't have a copy to compare.
So again all those references can't all be right but they all can be wrong.
@TouchofGrey
I think the amount of NT manuscripts is unprecedented in the ancient world. Christians have more reason to believe that the content of the original autographs was handed down intact more than any other ancient writing. If the NT bible can't be known, then nothing in history can be known.
There are only a few disputed text variants. Looking at how the earliest Christians quoted those "disputed" texts should resolve any doubt.... unless you are a heretic, in which case no amount of evidence or reasoning will convince.
3739. ὅς, (hos, hé, ho)
[ 16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He (3739) was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’]
[ 7 Little children, let no one mislead you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as that one is righteous. 8 The one who practices sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, to break up the works of the Devil.]
[14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.]
[ 9 By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him.]
[ 11 And this is the witness, that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in his Son. 12 The one who has the Son has this life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this life.]
[ 31 But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.]
[13 I write you these things so that you may know that you have life everlasting, you who put your faith in the name of the Son of God.]
[21 After eight days, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus (2424) , the name given by the angel before he was conceived.]
2424. Iésous – Jesus, the transliteration of the Hebrew term, 3091 /Lṓt ("Yehoshua"/Jehoshua)
3091. Yehoshua - (Jehoah is Salvation)
Sea Breeze, if you prefer the Byzantine text to the modern critical text produced by scholars fair enough, there are some who take that position. And yes I agree that quotations from early church fathers is one of the strands of witnesses that can be useful for recovering the early text. Scholars who argue for “God was manifest in the flesh” in 1 Tim 3:16 are in the minority, but even if it is to be preferred, it could be compatible with JW theology because Jesus was the one who revealed the invisible God because he is the exact representation of his Father. But once again you are ranging quite wide in a scattergun approach to salvage some point from the thread. They are all interesting topics for sure but it’s noticeable each time you don’t have the courtesy to acknowledge the previous point before going on to the next claim.
