HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- 1 Timothy 3:16 is a common verse that KJVO like to use to attack modern English versions. The argument is not new, but this week, the KJVO rallied behind this graphic that says, "SEE THE BIG DIFFERENCE".
The KJVO say that by using the word "He" instead of "God", modern versions are attacking the deity of Jesus Christ. I want to quickly point out the hypocrisy of the KJVO because when I did my video on Revelation 1:8 where the KJV leaves out "God" and the modern English versions do have it there, presenting a clear statement that Jesus is God, they argue that the KJV is perfect and should not have "God" there. The sad reality is that many simply do not care about the evidence. Whatever the KJV says must be the only acceptable reading and as was the case this week with me, you will be called a bible-denier, a heretic, and even a devil. Yep, apparently, I am a devil beyond hope for salvation because I hold to the same view of preservation and inerrancy that the KJV translators held to.
But let's focus on this graphic. It points out that modern versions use "he" rather than "God". Then it states, "The BIG QUESTION is WHY?" But it never answers the question. And I think an even bigger question is, why? Why does this graphic or the people who rallied behind it not give an answer at least explaining why there is a difference in readings here. If you will stick with me in this video, I want to show you some extreme irony. The BIG DIFFERENCE between "God" and "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is incredibly small. I will take a few minutes to show you this, but it is something that will go a long way to demonstrating that issues like this are not dividing issues. Let me show you.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
DONATE: forthemaster.o... or
/ jonathanburris or
www.buymeacoff...
WEBSITE: jonathanburris...
PODCAST: podcasters.spo...
FACEBOOK: / dr.jonathan.burris
TWITTER: / thepastorburris
EMAIL: drburris@icloud.com
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
The King James translators were not KJV Only. The original KJV had a "Preface to the Reader" where they wanted the READERS ( NOT SCHOLARS ) to understand what they were attempting with their translation. Most KJV Bibles today don't have that Preface
Edgar J. Goodspeed published the Preface in a small book with updated spelling. In his Introduction to that book, he says that he has been trying to get KJV publishers to put the Preface back in KJV Bibles. He lists some of the excuses the publishers give for not doing it. One of the excuses is that it is too academic. Another excuse is that it is too controversial. Maybe it has only become controversial with the rise of KJV Onlyism.
You are correct. I believe much of the issue would be muted if the preface was included with KJVs.
My Cambridge turquoise has the preface to the reader in it along with the translators footnotes-all publishers should put them back in their KJVs.
One reason why they don't include it is because its difficult to read. I ordered 2 books on it, one is a commentary and the other is a modern simplified version of it, going to give them to a few relatives I have that are KJV only.
Isn't it strange that KJV Onlyists CLAIM that they don't find the language of the KJV difficult to read but they would find the language of the Preface difficult? They are both using the King James era English. Also, the Preface, by its nature, should go at the front of the Bible. They also could put it at the back of the Bible. Then it would be available to those interested in it, especially if they never knew the KJV translators wrote it. The Kindle E-book version of the Noah Webster Bible put his Introduction at the back, but it at the front in paper print editions.
@@honsville
@@DayStarPoet well if I'm being honest, the preface was difficult for me to read. Now I found all the cool parts about the margin notes, and even the worst translations are the word of God. But there was much in there I had no idea what they were talking about.
But, I also ordered the books forgotten preface and it is amazing, loved it, couldn't put it down.
One thing I appreciate about this content is that it very conservative, yet it does not allow for emotional attachment to long-held traditions simply because they are tradition. It forces the hearer to wrestle with the fact that he/she may be wrong, even if that's what they've been taught and believed their entire lives. I had to relinquish my emotional attachment to tradition worship. When I did that, things faired a whole lot better for me in Bible study. It allowed me to open my mind to study things like this.
On another note, have you read much by Mark Ward? I'm assuming you have, but I just wondered. His book "Authorized" (along with sound textual criticism content like this) was instrumental in helping to me let go of that emotional attachment I was talking about.
Mark 7:7-8
7. in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."
[ESV]
To be honest, I think this is one of the weakest arguments on the KJV-Only side. God is literally mentioned in the previous verse, and even the youngest of readers know how antecedents work. The meaning is exactly the same regardless of whether it says "he" or "God," so it's a very negligible point.
I totally agree.
Especislly since Oç (hos), according to Strongs, means “who” or “which.”
Either of those words make perfect sense in the verse.
As Pastor Jonathan has been showing us on his videos, the KJV onlyist strain gnats and swallow camels in many instances.
@@michaelshannon6558Correct, the 1582 Catholic English translation Douay-Rheims Bible uses “which” and reads “And manifestly it is a great sacrament of pietie, which was manifested in flesh, was iustified in spirit, appeared to Angels, hath been preached to Gentils, is beleeued in the world, is assumpted in glorie.… ”.
@@rrsafety Right. The Vulgate is in general agreement with the ὅς variant. And the Vatican would not deliberately mute the deity of Christ. (Anyone who thinks that they would do so is being ridiculous. Say what you will about Catholic doctrine on faith and works, but they are strong on the Trinity.)
Great content and teaching just as we’ve come to expect. I’m left trying to figure out how a whiteboard could have made this any clearer. 😂
Pastor Jonathan, thanks for another informative video. I share this verse from the NLT.
New Living Translation 1 Timothy 3:16 "Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory." In the footnote it says , "Greek He, who other manuscripts read God." Thanks again.
What I don't understand is how the KJO's ignore simple reading comprehension methods based on context (I do understand Greek because it was my minor in seminary) but will focus on only the English in the KJV. The person which is being referred to in vs. 3:16 is the God of the church mentioned in the preceding verses. The same God that makes His church the "pillar and ground of the truth." Then there is the description of that person. Who 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." Those descriptions apply to the God mentioned in the previous verses, regardless of whether the noun in verse 16 is Theos (God), or 'os (He). Any Christian who has read their Bible KNOWS exactly Who fits those descriptions. There was only one person in all of humanity who can meet those qualifications: the God-Man, Jesus Christ. It baffles me how Biblical hermeneutics, knowledge of simple English grammar, and logic are thrown out the window by these brothers.
How can a man can go to Bible College, be taught proper hermeneutical skills of interpretation, only to discard them over this one issue? I pray that the Lord would open their eyes that they are causing unnecessary schisms and strife within the body of Christ and grant them repentance. One Paul had to reprove men for doing the same thing in several of his letters to the churches. I love my KJV brothers because I believe they love the Lord and love the Gospel, yet, like the Pharisees and religious elite in Jesus' day, they "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." When are we going to learn that eating our own does NOT glorify Christ? It appears that they have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. I say this not to make myself out to be better than any of them, but to lovingly beg them to stop deriding people who love Christ, love His word, love the Gospel, want to see His kingdom built, desire that His people be strengthened in their faith, and sinners brought to repentance and saving faith in our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Faith founder. Great God, , and savior jesus christ. Two personalities !
HOW , CAN YOU USE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR CHRIST JESUS . AT THIS LOCATION.
BUT FIGHT AGAINST CALL JESUS A GOD at john 1:1 ?
@@randallwittman2720 Not sure I'm following your logic. I have never denied the deity of Christ at John 1:1, in fact I affirm it as has every orthodox faith throughout Church history since the time of the apostles. I just want to understand your view of the passage before I comment any further on it. I don't like making knee jerk statements until I am convinced I really understand the view point of the other person regarding a particular text.
I'm an American. I speak English. Or at least the Arkansas version of English. I don't speak Greek. But I just found your U-tube page. I like what I hear. Jesus is God. He forgave my sins a long time ago. Why do we fuss and fight over minor stuff?.
Cos the trinity is pagan. Jesus Himself referred to "my God".
@@AndrewFosterSheff69 The Trinity is Biblical, not pagan.
I’m not a kjv onlyist but tend to lean towards the Majority Text on this one. Good video. Here’s a quote from Chrysostem. Ignatius also makes reference to it in his writings to the Ephesians I believe.
“And wonder not that Paul saith in another place, GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH ... after saying, was manifested in the flesh, he adds, was seen of angels." Chrysostom (347-407 AD), John, Homily 15.
I think that’s a fair conclusion for this variant.
Another great explanation, Thanks!!!!
This was an interesting fact that I was unaware of. Thanks for shining a light on that.
Well i see you're getting attacked.. i appreciate the time you took to explain it!
The phrase ‘He was made manifest in flesh’ applies to Jesus, apparently from the time of his baptism in the Jordan River. (Matthew 3:17) At that moment, Jesus of Nazareth became God’s Anointed One, or Messiah. Though his origin was in heaven, Jesus was a perfect flesh-and-blood human and often referred to as “the Son of man.” (Matthew 8:20)
This comment is almost a word for word quotation of a footnote from the Jehovah's Witnesses version of the Bible on 1 Timothy 3:16. Jehovah's witnesses do not believe Jesus is God, YHVH.
From the JW website:
"was made manifest in flesh: This phrase applies to Jesus, apparently from the time of his baptism in the Jordan River. (See study note on Mt 3:17.) At that moment, Jesus of Nazareth became Jehovah’s Anointed One, or Messiah. Though his origin was in heaven, Jesus was a perfect flesh-and-blood human and often referred to himself as “the Son of man.”-Mt 8:20; see Glossary, “Son of man.”"
Regarding the KJV-only stance-which is often bundled with hardline legalism-I highly recommend the novel Wisdom Hunter by Randall Arthur. It seems to be the premiere novel illustrating the destructiveness of the legalistic mindset. It's an international bestseller. Many call it a “classic.” I understand that the author was even fired from his Independent Baptist mission agency because of the novel. I think the book was even banned at Bob Jones University.
Bob Jones is not. KJV Only school. I doubt it would be banned there. If you want, I can ask. I have several friends who are students there.
Awesome teaching on such a topic, as always, Pastor Jonathan. You know, I can imagine Jesus just shaking his head (sHh 😉) and doing a “face plant” (🤦🏻♂) as we Christians succumb periodically to satan’s scheming, and fight over such issues. Just silly IMHO.
One of which is the pagan trinity.
If Jesus is God, who is "my God" that Jesus HIMSELF directly referred to before AND after he ascended to stand AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD? ...
John 20:17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to *my God*, and your God. [KJV]
Revelation 3:12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of *my God*, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of *my God*, and the name of the city of *my God*, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from *my God*: and I will write upon him my new name. [KJV]
@@AndrewFosterSheff69 Uh-huh. Read your Revelation 3:12 citation. Now I have some questions and / or points for you:
1.) Quick point: It is my thought that perhaps you just don’t understand and / or accept that our triune Godhead is Father / Son / Holy Spirit. Please look at the entirety or “big picture” of Scripture.
2.) Question: Do you have actual SOURCES / CITATIONS for saying that the Trinity, or the triune Godhead is “pagan?” Book titles, links, website URLs, etc. would be fine. After all, this is something relatively new to me, and YOU are saying that what I have been taught / believed in all these years is “wrong,” so it is UPON YOURSELF to provide backup to your points, NOT for ME to “go search for it, it’s out there.”
3.) Question: Are you of the “Oneness” camp? You seem to “speak KJV” at least as a preference. I have been in that camp myself, having been baptized at a UPC church in Louisiana. I do not see however that, my salvation depended on the words SOMEONE ELSE used over me, even though someone else justified it to me.
Something else may come to mind; I shall make note of it if that occurs so that I may bring it back to you for clarification. Thank you very much in advance.
@@AndrewFosterSheff69 I’ll label this one as “4.) Question:”
Given the scene at Jesus’ baptism by John in Matthew 3:13-17, how do you explain that it appears God Almighty is speaking Himself in, or through ALL THREE “persons” or “manifestations” - or whichever proper word we can agree upon - of the “Trinity” (triune Godhead) AT ONE TIME?? 🤔
1:27 1:30 the logos of God
Jonathan Burris, stop taking shortcuts, and read Burgon's study on this variant, and notice especially the testimony of the men who examined Codex Alexandrinus at this point in the text.
Again, I value your opinion, but I don’t see how spending hours scouring manuscripts and reading uncials (which I struggle with), and trying to make out the details of sometimes difficult to make out sections is taking shortcuts. Again, I have a great deal of respect for you and your work. But we are not enemies here. And the hardcore KJVO that I am trying to reach outright rejects textual criticism entirely. I covet your prayers as I have several IFB pastors who are now beginning to open their minds. I desire your prayers and I thank you for what I have been able to learn from you in your books, videos, and commentary.
As a biblical Unitarian it does matter and they don’t mean the same thing.
Respectfully, there is no such thing as a Biblical Unitarian.
@@pastorburris Respectfully, there is no such thing as the trinity. And please don’t quote the Johannine Comma.
The disputed portion of 1 John 5:7 is not genuine. Are you up for a formal public debate on the subject?
@@pastorburris
Dale Tuggy is a Biblical Unitarian who debates. I suggest you reach out to him. I would rather hear a debate on “There is no such thing as a biblical Unitarian” or “the use of singular pronouns in language.” Keep me posted.
I’ve heard plenty of Tuggy debates. The last few were really disappointing presentations from him.
So both answers are yes, it always comes down to two. Welcome to the devil club.😉👿🤔
My encouragement is to be very careful. The issue becomes much clearer when you we consider spurce text. For example, the use of the Alexandrianan is likely are product of the idea that older manuscripts are better. In otherwords, the entire argumwnt hinges ona manuacript from egypt, that was curated by gnostics in the early centuries. The KJB guys are confident with their source text being the textus rexeptus, wgoch came from cheistians in anrioch. The contention from modern scribes (textual critics/scholars), is that the textus recptus while making up tye majority text, is newer and therefore not as accurate. This fallacy is ignores the apiritual component, which embkdies persecution amd Satan's attack on the word. It ignores satan's, "Yeah hath God said," from Genesis 3. Many manuscripts are corrupted, and some with be corrupted, even by addind Theos to it to cast doubt on the TR, such as gow the egyptian texts include it in Revelation 1:8, while it is absent in the Textus receptus. Also, the textus recpetus does not substitue God for He,the word for God just isn't in that verse. My admonition is to be very careful. I trust that you are jot a snake, that your intentions are good and that you are to prevent division. However, while there are millitant KJB onlist out there who lack the spirit of God, attacking every non KJB user out there,i believe your a cgampioning a subtle change to the scriptures that is intended to sow discord among the breathren. Please, fast and pray through this topic amd ask God for wisdom. There is more foing on here that just a copyist error in greek manuscripts. There is an agenda to cause people to question the Word of God in order to destroy their fatih in it and in God.
If it "doesn't matter" then why not use the proper noun, God? Especially, since modern translators routinely replace pronouns with a proper nouns for clarity.
Because the goal is to be consistent with what was originally written. And we do not have complete clarity here. Therefore, both are acceptable.
@@pastorburris If both are acceptable then "God" is better. 1. The autograph is unknown or unclear here. 2. Translators have used proper nouns in place of pronouns. So, they could do so here without compromise. 3. "God" removes any ambiguity in the context.. 4. It should make all parties happy after all it doesn't matter.
You don’t get to pick what is better based on preference. We want to know what the author wrote. Period. Full stop.
So how many different Bibles are used in your church? Is there a Bible you stand on or y'all just loosy goosey. Oh! Everyone in you church speaks Greek. That's why you waste time on this video.
Oh yes. Ive heard it all before! Come on folks! Of the locations on all the manuscripts, the ink bleeds through ONLY ON THIS SPOT, ON THIS SCRIPTURE, ON THIS SHEET OF MANUSCRIPT! BTW. I OWN A BRIDGE, SLIGHTLY USED IN ARIZONA. I CAN MAKE YOU A REALLY GREAT DEAL! 😅😅😅
Did I say “only on this spot”? That’s called conflation. It’s also false witness. You can see other examples on the screen in this video. Do better, you are embarrassing yourself.
Is this really your calling?
Brother, the division must stop. The divisiveness and separation caused by this issue is a cancer to the Church. It plagues the IFB and it is leading to the loss of many young people that take this falsehood of a perfect English translation outside of their local church and get hit with the truth from someone who does not love them and seeks to do them harm. We need a generation of believers with a real confidence in the word of God and properly equipped to defend their faith everywhere they go. It is my calling to preach the word. It is my calling to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. If we are to make disciples, we must help some unlearn what they have been wrongly taught.
I know you and I disagree. That too needs to change. I love the KJV. I have never stopped using it. I preach from it still. It is a great translation. Not all are good and some are outright perversions and corruptions. But my holding to the same position on preservation and inerrancy as the KJV translators, John R. Rice, Bob Jones, C.I. Scofield, Charles Spurgeon, the first Baptists in America, and many many more does not make me your enemy.
You ask, is this really my calling. My brother, I will consider it a great day when you come to accept that some other English versions, although not your preference, are the word of God. Does that really seem like such a bad thing? If you understand the historical view of preservation and inerrancy, it isn’t difficult at all. Merry Christmas Brother.
JOnathan Burris: "IT DOES NOT MATTER"
Also Jonathan Burris: "It matters so much I took time to make this 7:53 video, with graphics, and put it on RUclips."
Believing your insistent point that it does not matter, brother, WHY ARE YOU STEALING EVERYONE'S TIME in this Advent season?
My dear brother, I am “stealing” no one’s time. It is freely given. My point is clear. It does not matter theologically. The context of the verse is clear. My target audience is the KJVO, which you are not. When I say it does not matter, I am clearly talking about the bitter divisiveness over this and other variants. As I have said to you, I value your work and opinions. I have read Burgon and others. My target audience has not and will not. It is through showing how small the issue is from a literal standpoint that I wish to illustrate the absurdity of those who declare “He” a perversion. Thank you for giving your time. Merry Christmas.
Matthew 4. Jesus told Satan. "Worship GOD and Him only shall you serve"
That is not a refutation of the evidence I presented in this video. You do realize that there are MANY times in the scriptures that God is referred to as “he”, right?
In 1 Timothy 3:16 the term - ῾´Ος " is best translated as "who" not God or he. ῾´Ος predominantly means who, what, which or that in Greek, although that term has occasionally been translated "he" but, as far as I can find, it has only been translated as "God" one time in the KJV and a few other English Bibles and that one time is in 1 Timothy 3:16. I believe the Lexham English Bible, Mounce's Interlinear NT and the new Tyndale Interlinear NT offer the best translation of the verse as: " . . . who was manifested (revealed) in flesh was vindicated by the spirit . . ." Nevertheless, according to Bible Gateway, the vast majority of English Bibles translate ῾´Ος in this verse as "He."
I don't believe you're a devil, my friend. But you don't need Greek or Hebrew to answer this. When man made his copies, because of copyrights a certain Number of differences had to be made, because of copyright laws. And this was just another way of them trying to say God... You see how simple satan can divide us... Please don't feed his flame...! God Bless
This was not changed due to copyright. No scholar makes that assumption. Did you watch the entire video? I clearly present the reason why it is different in modern versions - it has nothing to do with a copyright. But I am pleased that you don’t think I am a devil. 😊
I think you're a good man, that satan has hook to waste your time, instead of talking about the Love of Jesus. I do not like using man's books, but if people can get the same out of them that I get out of the KJB, then God Bless them I am happy for them. But allowing satan to keep us talking about what is wrong instead of right, is Ludacris... With the new Hebrew and the new Greek today, we are no better than the Samaritans were 2000 years ago with the broken Hebrew they tried to speak. God Bless @@pastorburris