The modern versions affirm Christ's deity (KJV-only retardation part 3)

[Steven Avery]

Whether "God" or "Who" is used in the text, Trinitarians are happy.

Demonstrating nicely that you are totally ignorant of the debate history.

 

[Steven Avery]

hortian - someone who gets duped in seminary into being "happy" with any Vaticanus ultra-minority corruption, as long as:

a) it is different than the TR-AV Reformation Bible text
b) they can happily not really know what is the pure word of God.

 

[FSSL]

Demonstrating nicely that you are totally ignorant of the debate history.

Yes. I am ignorant. But I can afford to be!

I have thousands of dollars invested in primary sources on these debates. I don't have to schlep phrases through the Google toolbar.

So, I can happily sit here with the richness of primary sources and bask in my ignorance.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes. I am ignorant. But I can afford to be!  I have thousands of dollars invested in primary sources on these debates.

Please share some of the major primary sources you have on the debate histories on the heavenly witnesses and 1 Timothy 3:16. 

e.g the issue above was how Trinitarians, Unitarians or others have related to "God was manifest in the flesh". 
What are your fav primary sources? 

Thanks!

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

e.g the issue above was how Trinitarians, Unitarians or others have related to "God was manifest in the flesh". 

No it wasn't. You're taking one point out of many and artificially elevating it to the very thing itself. Don't do that. It makes you dishonest.

 

[Steven Avery]

No it wasn't. You're taking one point out of many and artificially elevating it to the very thing itself. Don't do that. It makes you dishonest.

The exact point was the debate history of the verses. Read the thread.

For those with some thinking and learning desire, you can really tell a lot about the historical debate.  Most of which occurred on these two verses from about 1690 (e.g. Richard Simon and Isaac Newton) to 1885 (e.g. Charles Forster and Henry Thomas Armfield and John William Burgon).

If FSSL paid good money for some fine resources, I simply would like to know what they are.  Maybe I have them, maybe I will get them, if his claim was true.

 

[Ransom]

The exact point was the debate history of the verses. Read the thread.

Are you mentally challenged? I started the thread. "The modern versions affirm Christ's deity." It is not, and never was, intended to be exclusively about 1 Tim. 3:16, despite your ignorant and futile efforts to misrepresent it as such.

Get lost, Stevie. Your one-track mind has derailed again.

For those with some thinking and learning desire, you can really tell a lot about the historical debate.

Or, we can just do what you do: search the snippet view on Google Books and pretend we've actually read the material.

 

[Steven Avery]

" It is not, and never was, intended to be exclusively about 1 Tim. 3:16, despite your ignorant and futile efforts to misrepresent it as such.

Why do you rant so much when you have no point to make?

It does seem like the multi-version crew prefer to be ignorant about the debate history, including the doctrinal positions.

 

[Ransom]

Why do you rant so much when you have no point to make?

Why do you blabber so much when your points are always wrong?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Understand, Scott, I actually come on these forums for the rare time when there is somebody with some savvy on an issue. Something interesting to share, or a desire to learn.

e.g. Maybe some one really cares about Bible textual history on a verse like :

1 Timothy 3:16 
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.

Including how it has been involved in the Christological controversies.  Trinitarians with a high Christology defended the pure Bible text against the Newton, Wettstein et al attempt to foist the corruption (which later became the alternate corruption of the Greek solecism.)

One of the ironies was that some of the high Christology folks would not defend the pure Bible, and then tried to compensate by mistranslations on other verses (the Granville Sharp verses.)  You can learn a lot by understanding the history.

=================

Or the topic could be Luke writing to Theophilus in 41 AD, or whether the virgin birth was connected to any special aspect of the blood of Jesus.  Or 100 other topics.

====

As for your tude .. who knows, maybe you will grow up some day.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

As for your tude .. who knows, maybe you will grow up some day.

Steven[/color]

Look everyone. Avery has discovered a new word..... "tude". Everyone, look how intelllectual he's become!!!

Look... look.... look....

It really is comical the how Avery is actually trying to tell Ransom to grow up!!!!

 

[Ransom]

Look everyone. Avery has discovered a new word..... "tude".

Cool. Is it 1992 already?

It really is comical the how Avery is actually trying to tell Ransom to grow up!!!!

It's almost as comical as him trying to Steve-splain to me what my own thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Ransom]

Understand, Scott, I actually come on these forums for the rare time when there is somebody with some savvy on an issue. Something interesting to share, or a desire to learn.

No, you come on here to try and hijack or control the conversation. And to bring it around to one of the few shibboleths you like to pretend you know something about.

Your problem isn't that I don't understand. It's that I understand you and your motives all too well.

 

[Steven Avery]

It's almost as comical as him trying to Steve-splain to me what my own thread is supposed to be about.

On the first page I carefully showed you why you were wrong on one key verse, 1 Timothy 3:16. 

Later FSSL claimed - "Whether "God" or "Who" is used in the text, Trinitarians are happy."

At least FSSL had the integrity to say the alternative was "Who". However, his claim was historically inaccurate. His response was that he has spent thousands of dollars on books.  That is the higher level of the contras here.  Scott just rants.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

On the first page I carefully showed you why you were wrong on one key verse, 1 Timothy 3:16. 

No, you didn't. You asserted that I was wrong. Since you do not understand Greek, you are incompetent to show me that I was wrong.

By claiming knowledge you merely pretend to have, you triggered my BS (Boastful Statements) detector and discredited yourself, as usual.

 

[Steven Avery]

No, you didn't. You asserted that I was wrong. Since you do not understand Greek, you are incompetent to show me that I was wrong. By claiming knowledge you merely pretend to have, you triggered my BS (Boastful Statements) detector and discredited yourself, as usual.

Except that I have gone over my own studies of the historical aspects of the debate, covering the Greek and Latin and English issues, with a scholar with solid skills on the grammatical.  And the modern versions scholars even let on that there is no real antecedent in the CT text.  That was why they manufactured the bogus hymn theory.

And, when there is a dialog, the issues are really not very difficult.  Even FSSL gave the proper "who" translation, which closes most of the diversion.

Once you have that correct literal translation of the solecism, the issues are not in Greek, they are identical in English. And the proclamation "God was manifest in the flesh..." has been destroyed by the CT corruption.

Low Christology groups like the JW and the biblical unitarians understand this well. If you declare to them "God was manifest in the flesh..." they will insist that it is not scriptural or true, and they will insist upon using the corrupt texts.  Similar with the JW on their pushing for Jesus being "the only begotten god" - John 1:18.  You took an untenable position in the OP.

Then the modern multi-version apologists try another tact.  They try to insist upon an (occasional) modern version mistranslation coming from Granville Sharp as a type of compensation.  Thus, they end up doubly foolish.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

FSSL, I am curious if you know anything at all about the historic debate over 1 Timothy 3:16?

I responded to your overly exaggerated viewpoint that this passage, alone, changed your mind. Why? Because you are an avowed Oneness nonTrinitarian who seems to need the proper noun "God." We know about oneness heresy and their reliance on this passage. They twist it to say that God is Jesus Christ--leaving out the Holy Spirit and the Father.

Having translated the entire book of 1Timothy and many of Paul's books, I am pretty well informed.

Could you provide us a grammatical-historical understanding of 1 Timothy 3.16? Tell us what this passage means. THEN we can look at the historical debates that occurred after the fact. I'm "game".... are you? I would even set up a formal debate on the subject if you want to just go "toe-to-toe" with me on it.

What profit is there in debating what other people thought of the passage when you have not established what it means in the first place?

quoted since Steven attempts to imply I agree with him...

 

[Ransom]

Except that I have gone over my own studies of the historical aspects of the debate, covering the Greek and Latin and English issues, with a scholar with solid skills on the grammatical.

Oh! Well, if you have gone over your own studies, then who am I to question you?

Good grief, you have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

Bet you're not even going to name this "scholar," are you? Anonymous authority = lies.

 

[Steven Avery]

Bet you're not even going to name this "scholar," are you?

Not at this time, because we are planning to write on the topic.

As for studies of the historical debate, if anybody else had done a study on 1 Timothy 3:16, I would be happy to give them credit.  The seminarians these days end up clueless, which is why I  when FSSL talked about his thousands of dollars of books that tell him nothing.

 

[Steven Avery]

quoted since Steven attempts to imply I agree with him...

I simply pointed out that you properly gave "who" as the translation alternative.  Beyond that, I doubt that we agree on anything on the topic.