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

[Ransom]

KJV-onlyists sure do love to lie. You just can't be a KJV-onlyist without a pack of 'em.

This is another lie from Bibleburner: the modern versions (which he calls "Vatican," which is ironic considering that the KJV itself has closer ties to the Roman church than any evangelical translation made i the last 100 years).

Like all KJV-only arguments, this one is extraordinarily weak. KJV-onlyists are adept at misdirection. They take us to places where questions of Jesus' divinity are, by and large, peripheral, and exploit certain turns of phrases or word choices to claim that the Bible "denies" something, whereas, if you read the parallel passage in the KJV, it doesn't exactly affirm it, either. KJV-onlyism reaches out doggedly for anything, however tenuous, to put forth its false accusations against the word of God in contemporary English. Bibleburner is nothing, if not superficial.

In fact, the only complaint of his that has anything approaching real merit is his cavil against 1 Tim. 3:16:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,
    vindicated by the Spirit,
        seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
    believed on in the world,
        taken up in glory. (ESV)

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. (KJV)

The only difference in sense is the pronoun "he" vs. "God." It's pretty well known, of course, how this variant probably came to be. Some manuscripts read "ΟΣ" (he), while others read "ΘΣ" (a common short form for "ΘΕΟΣ," "God," taking the first and last letters and adding an overline to indicate the abbreviation. It's easy enough to see how a theta could be mistaken for an omicron; the difference between the two words is two short pen strokes.

"ΘΣ" (or "ΘΕΟΣ") seems to me more likely to be the proper reading, since I feel it better explains the existence of the "ΟΣ" reading than the other way around. But does "ΟΣ" constitute a denial of Christ's divinity? Not even slightly. First of all, the creed about Christ being manifested in the flesh comes immediately after the introductory sentence, "Great . . . is the mystery of godliness." This passage is about God; specifically, Paul is teaching us something about having right reverence toward God, and we do so by believing that "He was manifested in the flesh." This is, without question, Jesus Christ; there is no one else in Pauline theology of whom he speaks so highly.

Also, this creedal statement makes no sense unless it is referring to a divine person. If Jesus Christ were actually the offspring of Mary and Joseph (as Bibleburner also tried to argue, falsely, that the modern versions teach), then why tell us that he was manifest in the flesh? Of course he was. If Jesus was a mere human, then being manifested in a human body is nothing special: it's just a wordy way of saying he was born. Of course, if Jesus was God incarnate, then "He was manifested in the flesh" is a very significant statement indeed.

So, far from denying Christ's deity, 1 Tim. 3:16 strongly affirms it. We only need to read and understand the passage properly, and avoid the superficial cherry-picking arguments of the KJV clowns.

On to the next verse . . .

 

[Ransom]

Does Matthew 5:22 in the modern versions deny Jesus' deity? Well, Bibleburner would have us believe so. Here's the difference between the KJV and ESV, again:

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (ESV)

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (KJV)

The key difference is the phrase "without a cause" as found in the KJV. As the argument goes, the ESV's rendering would make Jesus a sinner since it appears to denounce all anger outright, and Jesus was often angry with someone.

However, like the claims Bibleburner made for 1 Tim. 3:16, this one withers upon scrutiny. (This is always the remedy for KJV-only sophistry: think it through. They don't.) What does it even mean to be angry "without a cause"? Everyone who is angry has a cause: resentment, righteous indignation, racial prejudice, envy, you name it. Jesus had a cause to be angry. So did the Pharisees who plotted to murder him. The difference is, Jesus' cause was righteous, while the Pharisees' was wicked.

The only people who are literally angry without a cause are mentally ill. Years ago, I remember frequently seeing a large street person who wandered around downtown with a very unhappy expression on his face, and he would punch every newspaper vending box he passed. I can't imagine that any newspaper box did anything to provoke him. He simply wasn't quite right in the head.

Also, we need to read this passage in context. It is immediately preceded by:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’"  (Matt. 5:21)

To this Jesus responds and says that even anger will prompt a severe divine judgment. But it's clear he's not talking about mere anger, but the kind of anger that leads to murderous intent.

Here is a case where the variant reading that omits "without a cause" seems better, because it explains its addition. Suppose some scribe read this passage and thought just like Bibleburner did: "Hey, this seems wrong. Wasn't Jesus angry sometimes?" So he added a few explanatory words to avoid his confusion, perhaps without thinking too hard about what he was doing.

But here also is a place where we can turn the tables on the KJV-onlyists, who are guilty of a double standard. Jesus adds, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." And yet, we read:

But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee. (Luke 12:20 KJV)

Uh-oh! Jesus portrays God as saying the very words that can send someone to hell! The KJV makes God a sinner!

No doubt Bibleburner will come up with some explanation or excuse as to why God is exempt. But if he does so, then he reveals the double standard. KJV-onlyists are quick to explain away apparent inconsistencies in the KJV, but not charitable enough to extend the same benefit of the doubt to other translations. Hypocrisy, thy name is KJV-onlyism.

In closing, let's also note that this verse doesn't deny Christ's deity. It affirms it. What else gives him the right to reinterpret the Law and pronounce dire consequences for disobeying his stricter interpretation? Only the authority he derives from his divinity explains how easily he explains the Law's true intent.

On to the next verse, shortly . . .

 

[Ransom]

On to the next KJV-only lie concerning Jesus' deity. Bibleburner claims,

Luke 23:42 since they omit 'Lord.'

And here's the variant:

And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (ESV)

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (KJV)

Once again, this is a non-issue.

First of all, let's note that the Greek word kurios ("Lord") is not reserved for deity, but is the usual word for a master or ruler. Including kurios is not, in itself, proof of Jesus' deity. The Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with calling Jesus "Lord," for example, though they deny that he is Jehovah. So its inclusion or omission really doesn't prove the point one way or another.

However, this verse still remains a reminder of Jesus' deity. How? Again, let's use that tool that is so foreign to the KJV-only thought process, context:

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,[d] saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:39-43)

We have Jesus crucified between two criminals. As Matthew 27:44 tells us, they were both reviling him. Yet, at some point in the day, one of the thieves has a change of heart, rebukes the other thief, and asks Jesus, "remember me when you come into your kingdom."

Obviously, this man recognized that Jesus was no ordinary condemned man. He had done nothing to merit crucifixion. Perhaps the man recognized Christ as truly sinless, perhaps not; I think it can be inferred that he did, from his last request - would the man who holds the keys to the kingdom of God be a sinner?

The thief recognizes that Jesus is about to receive a kingdom. Who, but a lord, receives a kingdom? Does an intelligent reader need it to be spelled out explicitly? And all three men are dying. It is clear that the thief means something more than a mere earthly kingdom. And, in fact, Jesus promises him a place in Paradise. God alone has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:7); God alone has the authority to admit a thief on a cross to everlasting life.

And so, for a third time, we see that a verse claimed by the KJV nuts as a denial of Jesus' deity, is really a powerful affirmation of his deity, and the KJVers are again guilty of a false accusation against the Word of God.

 

[Steven Avery]

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.

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,
    vindicated by the Spirit,
        seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
    believed on in the world,
        taken up in glory. (ESV)

The only difference in sense is the pronoun "he" vs. "God."

This is a major difference, and that is even after mangling the Greek to a mistranslation by the ESV.  The Greek critcial text actually says "who".

[quote author=Ransom ]It's pretty well known, of course, how this variant probably came to be. [/quote]

One excellent possibility is simply fading of the distinctive overwrite line from the nomina sacra. 

The Greek with the "who" translation however is a solecism, since it lacks a real antecedent.  Which led to the absurd hymn theory where the unknown antecedent is in the earlier part of the hymn not quoted! 

(Apparently Scott has dropped his earlier blunder that "God" is the antecedent in the CT.)

Also the Greek mss favor the pure Bible text by about 99% to 1%.  Also the ECW heavily support the pure Bible text.

There really is no difficulty here.
And there should be no controversy.

The only reason for an alternative today is either an opposition to the declaration "God was manifest in the flesh ... " historically from Isaac Newton, Socinians and various unitarians. And in modern times, the knee-jerk opposition to any pure Bible text by the contras.  The two reasons overlapped a bit. And George Vance Smith made it clear that there was a doctrinal (negative) purpose to much of the opposition to the pure Bible text. 

And Scott's apologetic trying to work with the corrupt text after the mistranslation is a nothing.  The issue is not "godliness", it is the direct declaration from Paul that:

"God was manifest in the flesh"

in Jesus Christ!

Although there are hundreds of errors and corruptions in the CT, this one mangling alone is more than sufficient reason to put away the modern versions and move to the pure Reformation Bible (TR) text.

Thanks you Lord Jesus for the clarity, majesty and power of your word.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Steven Avery 

 

[FSSL]

Although there are hundreds of errors and corruptions in the CT, this one mangling alone is more than sufficient reason to put away the modern versions and move to the pure Reformation Bible (TR) text.

Your overstatement is revealing your nonTrinitarian theology.

 

[Ransom]

You're wasting your time, Avery. I automatically discount arguments from "experts" whose degree is from Google University.

 

[Steven Avery]

Scott, it is good that you dropped your earlier antecedent blunder.

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

btw, if anyone really wants to pursue these issues, iron sharpeneth (not likely here) I recommend either PureBible on Facebook, NT Textual Criticism (James Snapp) on Facebook, or the Pure Bible Forum.  CARM is also possible, understanding that the threads there vanish after a while.  A couple of other lesser known come to mind, as well.

Good threads on the incredibly significant 1 Timothy 3:16 can be educational, edifying and helpful.

I'm not saying it is hopeless here, we simply need to find posters who really want to delve into the scriptures. 

To the credit of the forum, at least there is not a history of overbearing moderation or thread deletion or purging or censorship.  We also don't have the repetitive spam posting problem.

And I do appreciate the attacks.  It works as a spur and a reminder that a good collaborative paper on 1 Timothy 3:16 is needed.

Steven Avery

 

[subllibrm]

.... we simply need to find posters who really want to delve into the scriptures.

Pretty much what you and BibleProtector have been asked to do and yet both of you continue to jump all over the map.

To be honest with you, it reminds me of discussing scripture with a Jehovah's Witness. When backed into a corner, change the subject. It is called compartmentalized thinking. Kind of like a verbal game of whack-a-mole.

 

[Ransom]

Scott, it is good that you dropped your earlier antecedent blunder.

Are you illiterate, Stevie, or just delusional?

I think I know better than anyone else what I have or have not "dropped."

 

[Steven Avery]

.... we simply need to find posters who really want to delve into the scriptures.

Pretty much what you and BibleProtector have been asked to do and yet both of you continue to jump all over the map.

My emphasis is on 1 Timothy 3:16 as historically it has been part of a huge dialog on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Especially starting from the time of the publication of the Isaac Newton paper.  Are you familiar with the history?

And on showing that the pure Bible:

God was manifest in the flesh...

is correct and the problems with the corruption (actually there are two distinct corruptions) versions.  There were excellent papers on the topic by John Berriman and Ebenezer Henderson even before John William Burgon in Revision Revised in 1881 countering the Hort support of the "who" corruption.  Not all that much has been added to the debate (hymn theory began around 1810) since then.

The Emphasized Version came out with an actual literal attempt of translating the corruption version from the Critical Text:

And, confessedly great, is the sacred secret of godliness, - Who was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, was made visible unto messengers, was proclaimed among nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

While the solecism is masked by the lack of grammatical gender in English, at least you have an honest literal attempt at giving the CT in English from Rotherdam. And there have been a number of interesting comments on the grammar.  And there was a decent paper by Stephen Frary in 2003 a few years back.

I'm curious as to why you attack this approach? 

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

And if Scott still blunders and actually thinks that the Critical Text only has "God" for an antecedent, then his ignorance is competing with his arrogance.  Based on his post on this thread, he had wisely dropped that claim.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

You notice how silent Bibleburner has been on this thread? He makes his "is too" assertions, and someone with at least two functioning brain cells shoots them down. Of course, being a consummate liar, Bibleburner can't admit he is an unreconstructed boob; hence his avoidance of this thread.

Anyway, on to the next citation, Romans 14:10:

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. (KJV)

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. (ESV)

Here we have a textbook example of the "monkeys flinging poo" proof: throw out any old thing and hope that due to the sheer volume of crap you fling, something will stick. There's nothing about Romans 14:10 that either affirms or denies Christ's deity. One variant reading says that Christ shall judge; the other says God shall judge. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny Christ's deity, affirm that he is Jehovah's delegated judge of mankind.

In context:

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
    and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. (Rom. 14:10-12)

The ESV's reading has this going for it: parallelism. Everyone will stand before the judgment seat of God. Every tongue shall confess to God. Everyone will be accountable to God. The minority reading makes good aesthetic sense.

Second, the ESV also affirms that Christ will be the judge of the world:

The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son. (John 5:22)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. (2 Cor. 5:10)

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thess. 1:5-10)

We know how to read the KJV-onlyists, though. When they're falsely accusing the Bible in one place, we're not supposed to be paying any attention to any other places. That's how the lie works.

But anyway, if Christ's deity is tied to Christ's judgment, then once again, the modern versions are shown not to deny, but to uphold Christ's deity, and the KJV cult is again exposed for the lying clown car of fools that they are.

 

[Steven Avery]

Scott, why would Matthew, or anybody, wade through your rant?
You lose any sincere readers in the first sentences.

And you have to try to say something sensible and intelligible if you are going to request a response.
You flunked totally on 1 Timothy 3:16.

Es suficiente.

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Your overstatement is revealing your nonTrinitarian theology.

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

Would you share what materials you have read and who you agree or disagree with?  And why?

Thanks.

Steven Avery

 

[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?

 

[Ransom]

You lose any sincere readers in the first sentences.

Insincere readers such as yourself seem very interested, however.

 

[Ransom]

Next up on Bibleburner's list of Bible verses that supposedly support his false accusation that the modern versions deny Christ's deity: Philippians 2:6:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . . (KJV)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped . . . (ESV)

This is another head-scratcher, as neither version (taking the verse in isolation) seems either to support or deny Christ's deity. Obviously this is just one more cowflop from Bibleburner's "monkeys flinging poo" strategy. It's also a case of failing to see the forest for the trees. To understand verse 6, we need to see the entire Carmen Christi in its context:

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:1-11)

Basically, it's a bit of practical encouragement, but one which is backed up by some pretty deep theology. Paul is telling the Philippian Christians to practice humility, putting others' interests above their own. He points to Jesus as the example of humility: he was in the "form of God," but did not regard equality with God as something that needed to be "grasped": that is, clung to. He willingly let go of it and took on the form of a "servant" and a "human," even unto the point of death.

It's obvious that in context, "the form of God" and "equality with God" are meant to be equivalent. And what Paul means is clear: Christ is by nature God, but he willingly let go of his divine privileges in order to save mankind. Having done so, God the Father has exalted him and raised him again to his rightful glory.

The modern versions get it right again: the Carmen Christi does not deny Christ's deity. It affirms it. In fact, Paul's argument assumes it. Bibleburner is all wet, as usual.

 

[Ransom]

And now we are at the end of Bibleburner's grocery list of verses where the modern versions supposedly deny the deity of Christ: 1 John 5:7.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. (1 John 5:6-9 KJV)

This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. (1 John 5:6-9 ESV)

The variant here is the so-called Comma Johanneum, the Trinitarian reference to three witnesses in heaven, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost (vv. 7-8).

The provenance of this textual variant is pretty well-known. It appeared in no extant Greek manuscripts at the time that Erasmus was compiling his Greek text (though it was found in many Latin witnesses), and so he left it out of his first two editions. When accused by a critic of negligence for omitting the Comma, Erasmus simply retorted that no manuscript he had access to had contained it, and he could not be accused of any impropriety for neglecting to do what he was unable to do. When a manuscript containing the Comma was presented - Codex Montfortianus - Erasmus subsequently included the passage in the influential third edition of his Greek New Testament, and consequently it has remained a significant reading in the Textus Receptus. However, Erasmus included a note to the effect that the manuscript had created specifically to discredit him.

That said, it is expressly dishonest to claim that a version of the Bible "denies" some doctrine or other merely because it does not include a reading that did not exist in any Greek witness 500 years ago. That is the very epitome of inauthentic. The word of God is not subject to textual traditions that are a quarter of the age of the New Testament text itself.

Second, I will note that the Comma Johanneum is not "missing" from this passage. It makes perfect sense without. Note the progression of the thought: Jesus came "by water and blood," and the Spirit also testifies to Christ (v. 6). Therefore, there are three witnesses: Spirit, water, and blood, and their testimony is greater than any human's. When we read 1 John 5, the inclusion of the Comma just reads like an unnecessary insertion. It doesn't actually add anything to John's argument (and, conversely, leaving it out doesn't actually cause the text to lack anything).

This is actually an obscure passage, and its meaning is difficult. Remember that it was written in a day in which early "Gnostics" were mixing Greek philosophy with Christianity and (amongst other things) denying that Jesus Christ was truly human. To this, John counters, "This is he that came by . . . blood." In other words, Jesus was a true human being, with a mortal life. As John had written earlier in his letter: "every spirit that does not confess Jesus [has come in the flesh] is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist" (1 John 4:3).

But while Jesus is not less than a true man, he is certainly more than that! Not only is he come by blood, but also by water. Water has an important symbolic meaning in John's writing. Jesus tells Nicodemus, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). John also records Jesus' teaching during the Feast of Tabernacles. There was a ceremony in which a pitcher of water was carried from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple and poured out on the altar. This, apparently, is the background to Jesus' crying out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'" (John 7:37-38). Blood symbolizes mortal life, and water symbolizes eternal life.

But John goes on to say this: "Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). Blood, water, and Spirit: mortal life, eternal life, and the presence of God, wrapped up in a single Person.  Once again, contra the cavils of Bibleburner, this is not a passage that denies Christ's divinity. It affirms it.

Finally, I'll note that this is a proof-text for the deity of Christ only insofar as it has been taken as an affirmation of the Trinity. If so, then why is it at best an affirmation of modalism? Note how fervently our resident Praxean, Avery, has defended the inclusion of the Comma. Yet he does not believe in the Trinity.

 

[Ransom]

To close off, let's look at a few other verses from the ESV that unreservedly affirm the deity of Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

Of course we're meant to understand that "the Word" is Jesus Christ, the subject of John's Gospel. Any reader gets that. You can't get much more unambiguous than this.

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18)

KJVers like to make a big to-do about this verse as well, even though it is actually a stronger affirmation of Christ's deity than the KJV's reading: "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Again, to any careful reader of the Bible, there is simply no way of misunderstanding that "the only God" who has made the Father known is Jesus Christ.

Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18)

Obviously, Jesus was unashamed to equate himself with God. He does this more than once. If the Jewish authorities had simply misunderstood his meaning, he had ample opportunity to correct them. They didn't, and he didn't.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:58-59)

Why were the Pharisees so eager to stone Jesus to death? When he said of himself, "I am," he was taking for himself the personal name of God: ego eimi, "I Am," the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH. If he were merely claiming to have been alive in Abraham's day or to have spoken with Abraham, they might have regarded him as crazy - but not as a blasphemer.

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:27-29)

I believe that John 20:28, Thomas' confession of Christ's lordship and deity, is meant to be the climax of John's Gospel. Everything he has written has led up to this moment: the apostle Thomas gets the implication of everything John has told us about Jesus up to this point. Again, if Thomas was mistaken, Jesus could have corrected him. Instead, he blessed him.

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Who is this God who bought the church "with his own blood"? Oh yeah, Jesus.

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Rom. 9:5)

Christ who is God over all? Amen indeed.

He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. (Col. 1:15-16)

Back to first principles: who created the heavens and the earth? An indirect reference to Christ's deity, but in no way unclear.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily . . . (Col. 2:9)

Bibleburner would have us believe that this verse also weakens the doctrine of the "Godhead," by which he means it doesn't use the archaic word "Godhead." Of course, "deity" is a direct synonym for "Godhead," so exactly nothing is lost. Col. 2:9 in the ESV says that Christ is fully deity.

waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13)

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1)

Clear and unambiguous. Certainly more so than the KJV is at these spots!

But of the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
    the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom." (Heb. 1:8)

Again, clear and unambiguous.

So where is this "denial" of the deity of Christ by the modern versions? I see only affirmations, over and over again.

Why is it that you can't be a KJV-onlyist without also being a liar?

 

[Steven Avery]

I responded to your overly exaggerated viewpoint that this passage, alone, changed your mind.

Wrong.  And I said that this corruption alone, a solecism denying the foundational doctrine of the incarnation,  would be enough to discard the modern versions.  You would not need the other thousands of corruptions.  At the time of my dumping the corruption versions 1 Timothy 3:16 was one of 100 factors. Including, and especially, studying the textual background and theories of the Westcott-Hort recension. 

And I asked specifically if you knew the history of the debate on the Timothy verse. Clearly you do not.
They would do much better teaching you that in seminary than letting you wallow in confusion.

Avery, has defended the inclusion of the Comma

The operative principle is simple.  The scripture speaks, and informs our doctrine.
We do not choose the scripture texts and translations to match our doctrines.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

I responded to your overly exaggerated viewpoint that this passage, alone, changed your mind.

Wrong.  And I said that this corruption alone, a solecism denying the foundational doctrine of the incarnation,  would be enough to discard the modern versions.  You would not need the other thousands of corruptions...

The overexaggeration. Whether "God" or "Who" is used in the text, Trinitarians are happy. Your knee jerk highlights a nonTrinitarian's special need for a verse they can twist when it says "God."

And I asked specifically if you knew the history of the debate on the Timothy verse. Clearly you do not.

That is why I offered a formal debate option. Because I know nothing about the debate! Doh!