King James Bible
“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.”
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity
Blogging Theology 
There are many more verses where Christian scribes added and removed verses. Here is a thorough examination for 1 Timothy 3:16,
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/29/1-timothy-316-did-god-become-manifest-in-flesh/
Majority of translators states “HE”, not “God”,
1. American Standard Version 1901
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; HE who was manifested in the flesh.
2. Common English Bible
Without question, the mystery of godliness is great: HE was revealed as a human.
3. Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Great beyond all question is the formerly hidden truth underlying our faith: HE was manifested physically and proved righteous spiritually
4. Douay-Rheims 1899
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, WHICH was manifested in the flesh,
5. English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: HE was manifested in the flesh.
6. NET Bible (©2006)
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: HE was revealed in the flesh.
7. Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: HE was manifested in the flesh.
8. Good News Translation (GNT)
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: HE appeared in human form.
9. Lexham English Bible (LEB)
And most certainly, great is the mystery of godliness: WHO was revealed in the flesh,
10. THE MESSAGE
HE appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible Spirit
11. Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, WHICH was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit
12. New Century version
HE was shown to us in a human body.
13. Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
And undeniably great is the mystery of godliness, WHO was revealed in flesh.
14. Revised Standard version
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: HE was manifested in the flesh
15. Douay-Rheims
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, WHICH was manifested in the flesh.
16. New English Translation (NET)
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: HE was revealed in the flesh.
17. New International Version (NIV)
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: HE appeared in the flesh.
18. New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: HE appeared in the flesh.
19. New American Standard Bible
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: HE who was revealed in the flesh.
20. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: HE was revealed in flesh.
21. English Standard Version
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: HE was manifested in the flesh
22. Revised Version 1881
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; HE who was manifested in the flesh.
23. The Voice (VOICE)
And I think you will agree that the mystery of godliness is great: HE was revealed in the flesh.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The following scholars condemn the reading from trinitarians translations in regards to 1 Timothy 3:16
Lutherian scholar John Albert Bengel:
“Theos of the rec. Text has none of the oldest MSS. In its favour, no version as early as the seventh century: and as to the fathers, ex. Gr. Cyril of Alex. And Chrysostom, quoted for theos, sec Tregelles on the printed text of N. T., in which he shows these fathers are misquoted. Theodoret, how ever does support it. Liberatus, Victor Tununensis (both of 6th cent.), affirm that Macedonius, under the EMPEROR ANASTASIUS, CHANGED OC INTO THEOS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT NESTORIANISM. AC corrected, G, read OC. So Memph. And Theb. The old Latin fg and Vulg. Have quod, referring to…, taken as a personal designation for the antecedent. The Syr. Peschito, and in fact all versions older than the seventh cent., have the relative NOT theos. D (A) corrected, alone of the uncials, favours O. THE SILENCE OF THE FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENT., THOUGH THEOS WOULD HAVE FURNISHED THEM WITH A STRONG ARGUMENT, IS CONCLUSIVE AGAINST IT.” (John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, page 268)
New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman:
“The passage in question, 1 Tim. 3:16, had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. For the text, in most manuscripts, refers to Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit.” As I pointed out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviate sacred names (the socalled nomina sacra), and that is the case here as well, where the Greek word God (QEOS) is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma (QS), with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so APPEARED TO BE FROM A LATER HAND (i.e., written by a later scribe). Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of the first letter, Q, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old vellum. In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (thetasigma) For “God” (QS), THE WORD WAS ACTUALLY AN OMICRON AND A SIGMA (OS), A DIFFERENT WORD ALTOGETHER, WHICH SIMPLY MEANS ‘WHO.’ THE ORIGINAL READING OF THE MANUSCRIPT THUS DID NOT SPEAK OF CHRIST AS ‘GOD MADE MANIFEST IN THE FLESH’ but of Christ “who was made manifest in the flesh.” According to the ancient testimony of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage.” (Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, page 113)
Professor of the New Testament, Reverend Benjamin B. Warfield:
“Expert palaeographers differ diametrically as to what the reading of A is, whether Theos or OC, and in the present worn state of the MS. Decision by renewed examinations is impossible. The same kind of controversy has been held as to the reading C, although apparently with much less reason; and although we have unclosed C also in doubting: parentheses we entertain no great doubt as to its support of OC. A large proportion of the versions so deliver their testimony as to make it indeterminable whether they read OC or O; they have been placed in both lists in-closed in brackets, as its existence has been doubted. Codex 73 has been personally examined by Dr. Schaff, and certainly reads OC. On applying genealogical considerations to this evidence, all the testimony that is at all certain for theos sifts out with the sifting out of the Syrian testimony. THIS READING APPEARS IN NO FATHER UNTIL LATE IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, IN NO VERSION UNTIL AT LEAST THE SEVENTH CENTURY, AND IN MSS. Until long after the Syrian text had become everywhere the virtual textus receptus. On Genealogical grounds, thus theos is at once set aside, and the choice rests between OC and O. It can scarcely be doubted that O is Western; while the attestation (A) C 17 gives OS the appearance of having the support of the neutral and Alexandrian classes. The doubt that hangs Genealogical evidence of groups corroborates this finding. AC or C alone is of the best groups attainable in this part of the New testament. The transcriptional evidence comes to our help by making it improbable that O CAN BE THE CORRECT READING and hence enabling us to account all the testimony for both OS AND O COMBINED AGAINST THAT FOR THEOS. THE RESULT IS TO CONDEMN THEOS HOPELESSLY.” (Professor of the New Testament Reverend Benjamin B. Warfield D. D. An Introduction to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1886), page 194- 195)
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/29/1-timothy-316-did-god-become-manifest-in-flesh/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dr. White discussed this textual variant issue in his book, “The King James Only Controversy”. pages 262-263
It is a matter of two words that look the same. The Uncial Greek manuscripts are in capital letters.
ΟΣ = hos / ‘ος = “who” or “which” or “he who”
_
ΘΣ = θεος / Theos abbreviated. The scribes wrote Theos in a short form, called the Nomina Sacra (the sacred name) with a line over it and abbreviated form.
It is easy to see how the Scribes saw the letters wrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=q7H_2eQC91kC&q=1+Timothy+3%3A16#v=onepage&q=he%20who%20was%20manifested%20in%20the%20flesh&f=false
But there is no Trinitarian corruption, since many other verses teach the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
LikeLike
There are NO other verses that teach the Trinity Ken
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes there are; you even admitted that John 1:1-5 and 1:14 taught that. Remember? 😉
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html
LikeLike
Lol they do not teach the Trinity = one God in three co-equal divine persons
LikeLiked by 6 people
The passages teaches the Deity of Christ (the Word was God by nature), the eternality of Christ (the Word, the Son) and 2 of the 3 persons of the Trinity. “the Word was with God” (with the Father) and verse 14 teaches the incarnation. All of those teaches point to the Trinity, when one studies other verses about the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Man Paul you stay up late….lol
It’s 6:25 pm in California and I believe you are 7 hours ahead.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Ken. It’s a much more nuanced issue than Paul and some commentators here care to admit.
It is so good that we have such an abundance of manuscript evidence to be able to look at variants like this- it makes the Christian cases ouch stronger.
Compare that to the Islamic burning of all variations by their caliph and we are left with very little evidence to discuss.
Muslims don’t normally realise that the Christian “problem” of variants is actually a very positive thing and provides grounding for trustworthiness compared to the de facto acceptance of Islamic inerrancy without foundation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is interesting to me is what the entirety of verse 16 seeks to communicate, namely what the author describes as the “mystery of our religion..”:
“He was revealed in flesh,
vindicated in spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed in throughout the world,
taken up in glory.”
Jesus the Messiah while being man is vindicated or ‘justified’ either in the spirit or by the spirit (of God).
The reason i say ‘of God’ is that the previous verses indicate God as distinct from this confession. Jesus is ultimately glorified not by his own power but through the power of God which would naturally make him subordinate to that which is above him.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You can’t blame people for simply ‘having a go’, even if was quite naughty of them to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol
LikeLike
Hi Paul
What is the great mystery of a human being coming into the world? And why does this person need to manifested?
If Jesus was an ordinary man why does the text say “manifested” or “appeared” I mean how else could a man appear
You look at every translation and see that it’s quite odd to say it is a great mystery that a man is coming into the world.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m sure you agree with the Jehovas witnesses it was an angel “manifested”. LOL.
LikeLike
I doubt it 😦
LikeLike
I expected something shocking, but I didn’t found anything shocking. What is shocking in this? There are many other verses left that proof the deity of Jesus.
By the way: bible translater admit that there are two versions, but it doesn’t change the message. Christians do not claim that the NT manuscripts does not contain differences, but that does not change the message. Christians care about the message, not the 100% perfectness of the text. Muslims however really do have a problem by saying that the quran is 100% unchanged and perfect. Scientific research and also the hadith proof that the quran has changed and that there are several version.
LikeLike
Attempts to deliberately corrupt the Bible are shocking, perhaps you care less then others do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Paul
What I would like to know from you is how they (so called dodgy scribes) changed all the manuscripts from all the different countries and languages all at the same time.
This is just a thought…
Who is the HE that was manifest in the flesh? If it just a man born into the earth what is the great mystery of Godliness?
I think the verse fits well with the one in John.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word is God so it stands to reason that this is talking about in 1st Timothy 3:16.
LikeLike
Yes I’m sure you agree with Jehovas witnesses about the message. Right?
LikeLike
Paul, I am disappointed in you… The only thing I find shocking here is that you are shocked at the fact that Christians don’t find, the wanton fraud & corruption of the scripture, shocking. 🙂
The ones who deny the obvious and lash out because of pridefulness know full well that the trinity is a falsehood. Yet they accept it because it would be more difficult for them to admit it than continue to argue. It ironic because there life in this world and the hereafter would be much easier if they accepted it.
LikeLike
@Paul: there are enough manuscripts to find out what has been added/changed or whatever. We all know what these additions are so we all know if this has really changed the bible. I know no christian who care about this, because there is no reason to be concerned about this. At the other hand: muslims, who claim that the quran is written by God (christians say: it’s inspired) should really care about the real history of the quran.
I can a little bit understand that you denied christianity, but I really do NOT understand that you converted to islam. I read so many proofs that the history of islam is so different from what muslims say, that it’s for me incomprehensible that an intelligent person converts to islam.
LikeLike
Much ado about nothing.
The context does not make sense if it refers only to a mere human. A human was “manifest”? mere human’s are born, not manifest, but god can manifest in human form.
plus, later in 4:10 it identifies the living God as the saviour – jesus is the saviour, hence jesus is the living god. You guys are getting desperate.
jay Smith’s recent revelations about the ubiquity of different extant qurans with significant variations is getting to you all!
LikeLike
You say Jesus was God? Then who was he praying to – himself?
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is such a childish objection, or you are being wilfully obtuse.
Besides you are clearly trying to change the subject – 1 Tim 4:10 clearly states that the living god is the saviour and jesus is clearly identified as the saviour, hence jesus is the living god.
that puts 1 tim 3:16 in context. Humans don’t “manifest” unless you believe in some kind of new age islam.
LikeLike
So your saying that God does not and has never granted salvation without the death of Christ? That would mean that the entirety of the human race prior to Christ was never able to have any kind of relationship to God, worse still that God knew this and the consequences of such an absence in their lives but allowed it to go on.
We have known for a very long time now that the human story is one that stretches back to at least 100,000 years (homo sapiens), civilisations first establishing in the last 10,000 years. To say that God only in the last 2,000 years has provided a means to have this relationship makes a nonsense of the mercy of such a God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course it was deliberate.
LikeLike
Patrice
I’m saying that 1Tim 4:10 shows that the living god is identified as the saviour, and that jesus is the saviour, which puts 1 tim 3:16 in context.
I think you are moving the goalposts here. The text says that “He” was manifest, which only makes sense if the “He” is god since mere humans don’t manifest. Hope that clears it up.
LikeLike
Treys living God prays to himself and kills himself
LikeLiked by 4 people
1 Timothy 4:10 does not say that Jesus is the saviour and neither does 3:16 as is shown in the text itself. Manifest does not mean one who appears but:
“readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain:”
Christ was clearly perceived by the eye as he was a human being and the understanding which may make more sense in this case would be his vindication by or in the spirit of God (n.b God as distinct from Jesus)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Burhanuddin
Are you always that bitter and hateful? Your salats aren’t helping.
Patrice
“1 Timothy 4:10 does not say that Jesus is the saviour and neither does 3:16 as is shown in the text itself. ”
Jesus is called “saviour” throughout the bible and in 1 tim 4:10 the living god is identified as the saviour. Not sure how that isn’t clear.
“Manifest does not mean one who appears but:
“readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain:””
I’m not sure what your point is here. Humans still don’t manifest.
“Christ was clearly perceived by the eye as he was a human being and the understanding which may make more sense in this case would be his vindication by or in the spirit of God (n.b God as distinct from Jesus)”
You’ve gone straight back to ignoring an obvious reference to the living god as the saviour who is identified as jesus.
LikeLike
Human beings manifest all the time, in fact many things manifest! since they are clearly seen and understood. Therefore Jesus ‘manifesting’ is no surprise to anyone with a good pair of eyes, the only person who would struggle with this might be Hans Moleman 😉
Furthermore you are ignoring the obvious difference the texts you yourself have referred to distinguishing between God and Jesus, if Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and the God is defined as Triune then would such a distinction make sense? The NT may very well declare Jesus the saviour and God in other places as well but that does not mean they are one and the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trey
The truth will set you free.
Jesus is the living God, but not when he was dead. He was a dead living God.
LikeLike
You Muslims are obtuse! See, God in his infinite power and ability to manifest himself,simply assumed the form of a man while not being a man even though he is 100% man and 100% not man. When you dumb Muslims ask who was Jesus praying to, you dummies don’t realize that he in his 100% human nature was praying to his God, But only his human nature has a God or at the least a God he prays to (well 100% of his human nature does have a God in fact) but his 100% God nature doesn’t have a God because he is in fact God. Again, for the sake of clarity, he isn’t part man and part God, how absurd! He is 100% man and 100% God. So he is human 100% of the time and God 100% of the time. What’s so hard about that. You big dummies😜
LikeLiked by 1 person
Patrice
Humans manifest in the flesh? Humans manifest flesh? It’s not an easy sell!
“Furthermore you are ignoring the obvious difference the texts you yourself have referred to distinguishing between God and Jesus, if Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and the God is defined as Triune then would such a distinction make sense? The NT may very well declare Jesus the saviour and God in other places as well but that does not mean they are one and the same.”
hmm…that’s a bit of a contortion. Are you saying that when jesus is referred to as god in the NT then it might mean he is a different god?
LikeLike
biblicalmonotheist
how about making a point?
1 Tim 4:10 clearly identifies the living god as the saviour, and jesus is clearly identified as the saviour throughout the bible. The writer is clearly stating that jesus is the living god. How obvious can it get?
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“Jesus is the living God, but not when he was dead. He was a dead living God.”
My beliefs have given me peace – yours seem to have given you hostility..
LikeLike
Trey
No. Humans can not manifest? How come you manifest as an arrogant Christian supremacist?
LikeLike
Poor Trey
“god can manifest in human form.” But the Father cannot. The HS cannot.
Your “God” may be living when he is dead but he is not omnipotent.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“Poor Trey
“god can manifest in human form.” But the Father cannot. The HS cannot.
Your “God” may be living when he is dead but he is not omnipotent.”
Don’t hate bro. Manifest love, not hate.
LikeLike
LOL. I’m not you “bro” patronizing wannabe missionary. Manifest your kind of “love and peace” that condemns everyone to hell who does not agree with your absurd beliefs?
Thanks but no thanks.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin
“LOL. I’m not you “bro” patronizing wannabe missionary. Manifest your kind of “love and peace” that condemns everyone to hell who does not agree with your absurd beliefs?
Thanks but no thanks.”
So full of hatred.
LikeLike
How would you know? Who gives you the right to judge? Pathetic.
If there is anything wrong I said refute it.
Your pretending “love” is a smokescreen.
Quote Trey “You guys are getting desperate.
jay Smith’s recent revelations about the ubiquity of different extant qurans with significant variations is getting to you all!”
Hmm very lovey dovey, thank you very much.
LikeLike
Trey,
I was just trying to be funny my friend. I know, I know, I shouldn’t quit my day job, but still I try the Lord knows I try to be funny.
Happy Thursday everybody
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I was just trying to be funny my friend. I know, I know, I shouldn’t quit my day job, but still I try the Lord knows I try to be funny.
Happy Thursday everybody”
Haha. I don’t know – maybe with a little more practice and a less hateful environment you might be a contender.
LikeLike
Of course they do how else would they ‘readily perceived by the eye’ if not as flesh and blood creatures? It is rather clear that Jesus is a man and as a man what made him unique was the spirit of God that dwelt within him and gave the ability to do his miracles and was the source of his teaching, in this way i agree with the testimony of St Peter who told the crowds:
“You that are Israelites,listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death,because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.” – Acts 2:22-24
LikeLike
Can any expert Christian apologists please explain how the “blood sacrifice” of Jesus atoned for Mans sins yet we are then told that he “conquered death” and came alive again. Surely this was not a sacrifice it was merely a temporary plaster?
LikeLike
That would mean that the entirety of the human race prior to Christ was never able to have any kind of relationship to God, worse still that God knew this and the consequences of such an absence in their lives but allowed it to go on.
That is why God set up the sacrificial system in the Old Testament – Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus, I-2 Kings – the sacrifices of lambs and sheep were prophesies and foreshadowings of the future Messiah. the offering of the sacrifice and the priest confessing the sins onto the sheep or goat or lamb and then it being slaughtered, along with heartfelt repentance and faith, were how people before Christ came to know God. Abraham believed in the Lord and His promise of the one to come from his own body (The Messiah). (Genesis 15:1-6; Romans chapter 4; John 8:56-59)
The Jews developed that theology, so that when John the Baptist came onto the scene and said “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), they understood that Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system and the true passover lamb.
LikeLike
However this system was only put in place within the last few thousand years and only for a very small number of people!
The rest of the human race (the vast majority) were left without a guidance from their creator as well as the creators forgiveness for their sins. Moreover Genesis 15:1-6 certainly does not say anything about the Messiah only that he (Abraham) will be given an heir and that he will have many descendants. Jesus fulfils this prophecy the same way any Jewish person, past, present, or future would, by existing!
Just like Isaiah 53 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
The word “Messiah” is not there, true; but the Jews developed that concept of the one who would be the “seed” that would be a champion and defeat the serpent (Genesis 3:15) and be the seed of Abraham who would bless all the nations (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10) and be the seed of David (Psalm 2; Isaiah 11; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-7; Psalm 89; Isaiah 53) who would bring peace. Don’t blame me, that was Jewish thought and theology; and that is why many 1st century Jews accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah.
Isaiah 53 starts in 52:13 – 15, “My servant” will act wisely so as to succeed and accomplish the goal . . . Jesus is using that when He says, “The Son of Man came not be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28
LikeLike
I don’t agree that god can only operate within the same time framework as his creation. I don’t view this objection as particularly problematic. Is the muslim god limited by time?
LikeLike
Of course Abraham will bless all the nations because it will be through his descendants that the nation of Israel will be established. Their purpose was indeed to be a ‘light to the world’ as a community set apart by God. But that has nothing to do with the Messiah being Jesus as if the purpose of the Messiah was to bring peace on earth, he has failed miserably. This is one of the reasons that many Jewish people continue to reject Jesus as Messiah of Israel.
LikeLike
And Simeon, a Jewish man waiting for the Messiah, said that baby was the Messiah who would be the light to the nations. (Luke 2:32, quoting Isaiah 42:6)
LikeLike
ὃς = not just “he”, but “he who” or “the one who”
“manifested in the flesh” points to John 1:14 and 1:18
“Vindicated in the Spirit” shows that with God the Father, the Son and the Spirit are there – points to all three persons of the Trinity involved in the work of redemption.
“Taken up in glory” points to John 17:5, where Jesus is praying to the Father and asking Him to restore Him, the Son to the same glory that He had with the Father before creation, in eternity past.
1 Timothy 3:16
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον
ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ
LikeLike
Attempts to deliberately corrupt the Bible are shocking, . . .
I already showed the similarity in the Greek uncial texts between the nomina sacra ΘΣ and the ‘os / ‘ος / ὃς – when capitalized. ΟΣ
It is easy to see how scribes could mistake that.
So, you should stop saying “deliberately”.
Dr. White discussed this textual variant issue in his book, “The King James Only Controversy”. pages 262-263
It is a matter of two words that look the same. The Uncial Greek manuscripts are in capital letters.
ΟΣ = hos / ‘ος = “who” or “which” or “he who”
_
ΘΣ = θεος / Theos abbreviated. The scribes wrote Theos in a short form, called the Nomina Sacra (the sacred name) with a line over it and abbreviated form.
It is easy to see how the Scribes saw the letters wrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=q7H_2eQC91kC&q=1+Timothy+3%3A16#v=onepage&q=he%20who%20was%20manifested%20in%20the%20flesh&f=false
But there is no Trinitarian corruption, since many other verses teach the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
LikeLike
Furthermore, the word Messiah is clearly used in Psalm 2:1-12, where He is also the Son of God and will rule and draw followers from all the nations, and He will defeat those who don’t repent.
The word messiah is also clearly used in Daniel 9:24-27 as the one who will bring atonement for sin, and be cut off and killed before the second temple is destroyed.
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
(context in Daniel 9:1-2, Daniel is meditating on the Scriptures in Jeremiah about the 70 years of exile coming to an end, and then the angel expands that time from 70 years to 70 periods of seven years. The word “years” is key in Daniel 9:1-2).
Later:
24 “Seventy weeks [ seventy periods of seven years = 490 years] have been decreed for your people and your holy city,
to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,
to make atonement for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy and
to anoint the most holy place.
25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks [ 49 years, the temple was rebuilt] and sixty-two weeks [ 434 years] ; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks [ after 483 years, brings us to the time of Jesus Christ] the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,
and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”
Daniel 9:24-27
Jesus decreed and prophesied about the “abomination of desolations” that would come and destroy the temple in 70 AD. (Matthew 24:1-2; 15 )
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
Matthew 24:1-2
“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
Matthew 24:15
LikeLike
There is no reference to “the messiah”
The word עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ Ad-mashiakh or “anointed one” is translated as “Messiah” but it should not be in this case since it is not a reference to Messiah but a reference to one who is anointed. There is no definite article (Hey ~ ה) before the word (משיח ~ Moshiach) nor in the word נָגִ֤יד nagid Prince.
Remember there are two anointed subjects, one after 7 weeks and another after an additional 62 weeks.
The first “anointed” individual identified as a prince/leader in Daniel 9:25 is King Cyrus, who came 7 weeks of years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Then from Cyrus’ Decree to rebuild Jerusalem, “it will be built again” for an additional 62 weeks (434 years). But “in troubled times,” Daniel 9:25, meaning under the foreign domination of the subsequent Persian, Greek and Roman rule. The Greek is mentioned in Daniel 11:2 and Roman alluded to in Daniel 1:30 where the word (כתים ~ Kittim) refers to the Roman capital of Constantinople)
Then in the 69th week (483 years) after the destruction of the first Temple and 1 week (7 years) before the destruction of the second Temple, an anointed one is cut off.
The fact that there is no definite article indicates that this can refer to several different anointed subjects. King Agrippa the last King of Israel (Kings are considered anointed as it says in 1 Chronicles 11:3) who was killed during this time. It also refers to the last High priest (priests are anointed as seen in Leviticus 4) and the sacrifices (indicated in Leviticus 8:10-11). All three subjects were considered anointed and were cut off during the final week before the destruction of the second Temple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look carefully at what Rashi actually wrote there, nowhere he recognised the divine messiah who died and rose from the dead, providing final atonement for mankind in the book of Daniel. He identifies “the anointed one” as the Judean King Agrippa, who was ruling at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. then Rashi makes future prophecy about the coming of God’s kingdom through the Messiah.
LikeLike
Also,
Daniel 9:24-26 clearly uses the term Messiah and links Him with bring atonement for sin
Daniel 9:26 says “Messiah will be cut off” (killed)
Isaiah 53:8 says the suffering servant will be “cut off” from the land of the living” (killed)
Therefore, Isaiah 53 is also about the Messiah, the Suffering Servant
Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all those prophesies.
the second temple was destroyed after the Messiah’s death (Daniel 9:26)
The second temple was destroyed in 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus’ crucifixion
Therefore Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the suffering servant of Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 53.
LikeLike
Daniel 9 cannot be referring to Jesus. I am currently writing an article on the book of Daniel where I discuss the Christian abuse of Daniel 9. It should be finished soon, inshaAllah.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I already demonstrated above that it is about Jesus the Messiah.
LikeLike
Ken, this decimates Fai’s claims since it shows that even the rabbis interpreted Daniel 9 messianicly:
https://books.google.com/books?id=D09DAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Messianic+Prophecies+of+Christ+gloag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM992x_rTMAhWHMyYKHRmHCJoQ6wEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=In%20Daniel%20is%20delivered%20to%20us%20the%20end&f=false
LikeLike
And here is how Rashi interpreted Daniel 9:
9:24 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492#v=24&showrashi=true
Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed: on Jerusalem from the day of the first destruction in the days of Zedekiah until it will be [destroyed] the second time.
to terminate the transgression and to end sin: so that Israel should receive their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them THROUGH THE KING MESSIAH. The number of seven weeks is four hundred and ninety years. The Babylonian exile was seventy [years] and the Second Temple stood four hundred and twenty [years].
9:26 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492#v=26&showrashi=true
And after: those weeks.
the anointed one will be cut off: Agrippa, the king of Judea, who was ruling at the time of the destruction, will be slain.
and he will be no more: Heb. וְאֵין לוֹ, and he will not have. The meaning is that he will not be.
the anointed one: Heb. מָשִׁיחַ. This is purely an expression of a prince and a dignitary.
and the city and the Sanctuary: lit. and the city and the Holy.
and the people of the coming monarch will destroy: [The monarch who will come] upon them. That is Titus and his armies.
and his end will come about by inundation: And his end will be damnation and destruction, for He will inundate the power of his kingdom THROUGH THE MESSIAH, and until the end of the wars of Gog the city will exist.
cut off into desolation: a destruction of desolation.
9:27 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492#v=27&showrashi=true
And he will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week: לָרַבִּים, for the princes, like “and all the officers of (רַבֵּי) the king,” in the Book of Jeremiah (39:13).
will strengthen: Titus [will strengthen] a covenant with the princes of Israel. for one week: He will promise them the strengthening of a covenant and peace for seven years, but within the seven years, he will abrogate his covenant.
he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering: This is what he says in the first vision (8:26): “and in tranquility he will destroy many.” Through a covenant of tranquility, he will destroy them.
and on high, among abominations will be the dumb one: This is a pejorative for pagan deities. i.e., on a high place, among abominations and disgusting things, he will place the dumb one, the pagan deity, which is dumb like a silent stone.
high: Heb. כְּנַף, lit. wing, an expression of height, like the wing of a flying bird.
and until destruction and extermination befall the dumb one: and the ruling of the abomination will endure until the day that the destruction and extermination decreed upon it [will] befall it, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH.
befall the dumb one: Heb. תִּתַּ, reach; and total destruction will descend upon the image of the pagan deity and upon its worshippers.
12:11 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16495#v=11&showrashi=true
And from the time the daily sacrifice was removed: in order to place a silent abomination in its stead, are days of one thousand two hundred and ninety years since the daily sacrifice was removed until it will be restored in the days of our King Messiah, and this calculation coincides with the calculation of (8:14): “evening and morning, two thousand and three hundred” from the day of their exile to Egypt until the final redemption: Egyptian exile 210; From their Exodus until the First Temple 480; First Temple 410; Babylonian exile 70; Second Temple 420; Totaling 1590. The daily sacrifice was removed six years before the destruction, which equals 1584. Add 1290, and the total sum is 2874; like the numerical value of בֹּקֶר עֶרֶב [574] plus 2300 [2874].
12:12 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16495#v=12&showrashi=true
Fortunate is he who waits etc.: Forty five years are added to the above number, for our King Messiah is destined TO BE HIDDEN AFTER HE IS REVEALED AND TO BE REVEALED AGAIN. So we find in Midrash Ruth, and so did Rabbi Eleazar HaKalir establish (in the concluding poem of the morning service of the portion dealing with the month of Nissan): “and he will be concealed from them six weeks of years.”
LikeLike
Here are more from Rashi and Daniel.
The following references are taken from The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm). All capital and underline emphasis ours.
2:44 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16485#v=44&showrashi=true
And in the days of these kings: in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence.
the God Of heaven will set up a kingdom: The kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, IS THE KINGDOM OF THE MESSIAH.
it will crumble and destroy: It will crumble and destroy all these kingdoms.
7:13 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490#v=13&showrashi=true
one like a man was coming: That is the King Messiah.
and… up to the Ancient of Days: Who was sitting in judgment and judging the nations.
came: arrived, reached.
8:14 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16491#v=14&showrashi=true
Until evening and morning, two thousand and three hundred: I saw an interpretation in the name of Rav Saadia Gaon for this matter, but it has already passed, and he interpreted further “until evening and morning,” that evening about which it says (Zech. 14:7): “and it shall come to pass that at eventide it shall be light,” and we are confident that our God’s word will stand forever; it will not be nullified. I say, however, that the עֶרֶב and בֹּקֶר stated here are a gematria, and there is support for this matter from two reasons: 1) that this computation should coincide with the other computation at the end of the Book, and 2) that Gabriel said to Daniel later on in this chapter (verse 26): “And the vision of the evening and the morning is true.” Now, if he had not hinted that the computation was doubtful, why did he repeat it to say that it was true? And the seer was commanded to close up and to seal the matter, and to him, too, the matter was revealed in a closed and sealed expression, but we will hope for the promise of our king for end after end, and when the end passes, it will be known that the expounder has erred in his interpretation, and the one who comes after him will search and expound in another manner. This can be interpreted [as follows]: namely, that עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר has the numerical value of 574, ע = 70; ר = 200; ב = 2; ב = 2; ק = 100; ר = 200. Added together, this equals 574; plus 2,300, we have 2,874.
and the holy ones shall be exonerated: The iniquity of Israel shall be expiated to bring an end to the decrees of their being trodden upon and crumbled since they were exiled in their first exile to Egypt, until they will be redeemed and saved with a perpetual salvation BY OUR KING MESSIAH, and this computation terminates at the end of 1, 290 years from the day the daily sacrifice was removed, and that is what is stated at the end of the Book (12:11): “And from the time the daily sacrifice is removed, and the silent abomination placed, will be 1,290 years,” and no more, for our king Messiah will come and remove the silent abomination. The daily sacrifice was removed six years before the destruction of the Second Temple, and an image was set up in the Heichal. Now that was the seventeenth day of Tammuz, when Apostomos burned the Torah, put an end to the daily sacrifice, and set up an image in the Heichal, as we learned in Tractate Ta’anith (26b), but for the six years that I mentioned, I have no explicit proof, but there is proof that the daily sacrifice was abolished less than a complete shemittah cycle before the destruction, for so did Daniel prophesy about Titus (9:27): “… and half the week of years [shemittah cycle] he will curtail sacrifice and meal-offering,” meaning that a part of the week of years before the destruction, sacrifices will be abolished. So it is explained below in this section. Let us return to the earlier matters, how the computation of “evening and morning, two thousand and three hundred,” fits exactly with the time commencing from the descent to Egypt to terminate at the end of 1,290 years until the day that the daily sacrifice was abolished: 210 years they were in Egypt. 480 years transpired from the Exodus until the building of the Temple. 410 years the Temple existed. 70 years was the Babylonian exile. 420 years the Second Temple stood. 1,290 should be added until the end of days, totaling: 2,880. Subtract six years that the daily sacrifice was removed before the destruction, for Scripture counted 1,290 years only from the time that the daily sacrifice was removed. Here you have the computation of “evening and morning, and 2,300” added to the computation. Fortunate is he who waits and reaches the end of days 45 years over 1,290 [years]. We may say that the king Messiah will come according to the first computation, and he will subsequently BE CONCEALED FROM THEM for forty-five years. Rabbi Elazar HaKalir established (in the concluding poem of the portion dealing with the month of Nissan): in the foundation of his song: six weeks of years, totaling 42. We may say that the three years that did not total a week of years he did not count. And I found it so in Midrash Ruth that the king Messiah is destined TO BE CONCEALED for forty-five years AFTER HE REVEALS HIMSELF, and proof is brought from these verses.
LikeLike
Daniel 9:24-27: Jewish Publication Society 1917
Verse 24: We are told here that there is a period of 70 weeks. We see no division of the weeks and so they are to be seen as a single unit.
Verse 25: Here we see two issues. First that there is a seven week period from “the going forth of the word” until an anointed one, who is also a prince appears. What he does is not said. Then there is a sixty two week period when the city is rebuilt.
Verse 26: Here we see that after the 62 week period an anointed one will be ‘cut off’, and that the people of the prince shall come to destroy the city.
Verse 27: This discusses the last week. Here we see that ‘he’ (most likely a reference to the prince in the previous verse) will make a covenant for 3½ years, and then break it and the destruction will then follow. This means that chronologically verse 27 follows directly after 26 with no break.
Here we see three persons mentioned in this passage. There is an anointed prince in verse 25 who comes after 7 weeks. Then there is an anointed person and a prince who appear after the next period of 62 weeks, they are not the same person.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Look carefully at what Rashi actually wrote there, nowhere he recognised the divine messiah who died and rose from the dead, providing final atonement for mankind in the book of Daniel. He identifies “the anointed one” as the Judean King Agrippa, who was ruling at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. then Rashi makes future prophecy about the coming of God’s kingdom through the Messiah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shamoun’s an idiot. Haha.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken said:
“I already demonstrated above that it is about Jesus the Messiah.”
No, you didn’t. And I will demonstrate conclusively that it cannot be about Jesus (pbuh). You will just have to wait until I am finished. 😉
LikeLike
Here is my article on the Book of Daniel:
http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-book-of-daniel.html
Specifically, here is the discussion of the Christian appeals to the book as allegedly prophesying the coming of Jesus:
Christian apologists insist that the Book of Daniel predicted the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him) as well as his crucifixion.[204] So is there evidence that certain parts of the Book of Daniel predict the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him)? An objective analysis of the text will show that the answer to this question is “no”.
According to Daniel 9:25, there would be 69 “sevens” (i.e. weeks), which in the context of the chapter refers to 69 periods of seven years each,[205] from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the “Anointed One”. In total, “seventy sevens” or 490 years were to pass before the Jews would be redeemed.[206] The prophecy also states that the “Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing”, which Christians interpret as referring to the crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him),[207] followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the placing of the “abomination that causes desolation” in the temple, which they interpret as referring to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[208]
However, the context simply does not allow for such an interpretation. In fact, the events described in Daniel 9 can be reliably traced to historical events which occurred during the struggle between the Jews and the Seleucids in the 2nd-century BCE, and not the 1st-century CE. As Hammer explains:
“…the final week (i.e. seven years) is the crucial period, starting with the murder of Onias III, the high priest (described as the removal of ‘one who is anointed’ in verse 26) in 171 B.C. Halfway through this period has occurred the desecration of the temple, when Antiochus ‘put a stop to sacrifice and offering’ (verse 27).”[209]
Furthermore, “The Jewish Study Bible” observes regarding the “Anointed One” that (emphasis in the original):
“[i]n the context of the other historical references…the anointed leader probably refers to either Zerubbabel or the high priest Joshua (Ezra 3.2; Hag. ch 1; Zech. 6.9-15, while the anointed one is most likely the high priest Onias III, killed in 171 BCE (2 Macc. 4.30-34).”[210]
Another reason the prophecy cannot be referring to Jesus (peace be upon him) is that the death of the “Anointed One” was supposed to happen 62 weeks (434 years) after the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem. The year of Jesus’ alleged death is not known with any certainty, though Christians generally settle for the year 30 CE. However, since Christians also cannot ascertain with certainty as to when the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem was even made, only through generous assumptions can they finagle the chronology of events to coincide (and only roughly at that!) with the approximate year of Jesus’ death! For example, Christian apologist Matt Slick admits:
“…there is much debate among scholars regarding the decree to which Daniel is referring. There does not seem to be an easy solution.”[211]
He and other apologists generally settle on the year 457 BCE as the most likely date of the declaration, but even with that assumption, the prophecy fails to complete the full 483 years required, since 483 minus 457 equals 26. In other words, the death of the “Anointed One” should have occurred in the year 26 BCE. But, the earliest date for Jesus’ death is assumed to be 30 CE![212]
Moreover, as Chris Sandoval notes, the Christian interpretation ignores the clear parallels between chapters 8 and 9, the former of which definitely refers to the tyranny of Antiochus IV.[213] Thus, the interpretation posited by Christians is rather fanciful.[214] It is clear that the correct interpretation is that the prophecy was referring to events in the 2nd-century BCE.
Finally, let us briefly discuss the appeals made by some Christian apologists to the famous Jewish commentator Rashi and his explanation of Daniel 9.[215] First and foremost, the apologists point to Rashi’s explanation of Daniel 9 in “Messianic” terms, and use that as proof that since Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed to be the Messiah, Daniel 9 must be referring to him since it is “Messianic”.[216] However, this view has serious flaws when we actually read Rashi’s commentary.
First of all, the “Anointed One” of Daniel 9:25 was identified by Rashi as Cyrus the Great, and not the king Messiah, while the “Anointed One” who was to be “put to death” was identified as Agrippa, who was king of Judea as the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE.[217] Thus, Rashi was only referring to events he believed were to occur before the coming of the king Messiah, not during his life or after (since the conquest of Jerusalem actually happened after the time of Jesus). The actual reign of the Messiah, according to Rashi, was to occur sometime in the future.[218] Moreover, since we know from the text that the time of the end was to occur very shortly after the second “Anointed One” was to be “put to death”, there is absolutely no possibility of applying this prophecy to Jesus anyway. Also, Rashi claimed that the “abomination that causes desolation” was to remain on the Temple grounds until “the days of the king Messiah”, but it is of course well known that the pagan altar that the Romans set-up after the conquest has long disappeared from history.[219]
Second, the Christian claim that the “Messiah” would bring “atonement” for sins (based on their flawed reading of Daniel 9:24) is simply a case of interjecting their theology into the text. They assume from the start that the Messiah came to die for humanity’s sins, and then assume that Daniel 9:24 must be referring to this. But when reading Rashi’s commentary, we see nothing about the Messiah “atoning” for humanity’s sins. In fact, he only mentioned the Messiah after the ending of “transgression” and “sin”! As Rashi stated (emphasis ours):
“…so that Israel should receive their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through the king Messiah.”[220]
We can see that the termination of “transgressions” and the ending of “sins” needed to occur first, after which the reign of the Messiah would begin. We can also see that there is no mention of the Messiah dying for the sins of the “world”, let alone for the sins of the Jews.[221] In fact, the subjugation of the Jews under Titus was supposed to serve as expiation for their sins. In other words, they had to “atone” for their sins by suffering under Roman persecution and exile. Thus, the apologetic claims are foolish and do not warrant serious consideration.
LikeLike