A quick correction of metaphysics Mike 7 corrupted verses
In a video presented by Metaphysics Mike on his YouTube channel, Titled “7 Times Trinitarians changed the Bible”. Mike gave 7 verses that he claimed had been changed by Trinitarians in order to support the trinity.
In this writing I wish to address some of the arguments and look at the 7 verses that he used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inKyhLUpbk4
Before I start I wish to make it known I am not in any way trying to attack Mike, I have actually enjoyed his videos, especially on the trinity and he has presented some thought provoking arguments in his debates. All I wish to do here is show a brother, and anyone that may watch that video, some errors in the arguments so we can grow and not use incorrect or weak arguments in our defense of the unipersonal God of the Bible.
I have written detailed writings on a number of these verses and will link to them here.
1) 1 Timothy 3:16
Mike claimed that the “oldest and best manuscripts” read WHO was manifest in the flesh, and then cited Vaticanus and Siniaticus as evidence for this.
We will get to the argument regarding oldest and best in just a moment, however, here it must be noted that Codex Vaticanus does NOT read WHO was manifest in the flesh in this verse as the manuscript does not contain 1 Timothy. Sinaiticus original does read “who” (ὃς). (Sinaiticus correction reads theos).
Mike then claims that the difference between who and God is not trivial as it changes the subject entirely. This is actually incorrect. while it could change the subject it does not necessitate that the subject would be changed. It would only change the subject if the who was a different who, other than God, in reference. This would have to be demonstrated. It is perfectly logical to use who and still be referring to the same referent as a named referent.
We also should look at the immediate context to see if we can ascertain an immediate referent.
1 Timothy 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The referent in the previous verse is God. A new referent is not introduced in verse 16 and so there is no reason to assume the referent has changed.
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.
Thus WHO and GOD are still the same referent, namely God. Even if the correct reading was who this would still be a referent to God unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. You can’t just say that the use of who changes the subject without first demonstrating a change of subject.
Mike says that its the KJV that “essentially translates this alone”.
Nearly every single English translation that preceded the KJV read God, excluding the Wycliffe Bible.
Tyndale 1531
And with out naye great is that mistery of godlines: God was shewed in the flesshe was iustified in the sprete was sene of angels was preached vnto the gentyls was beleved on in erth and receaved vp in glory.
Coverdale 1535
and without naye, greate is that mystery of godlynes. God was shewed in the flesh: was iustified in the sprete: was sene of angels: was preached vnto the Heythen: was beleued on in the worlde: was receaued vp in glory.
Matthews Bible 1537
And wythout naye greate is that mysterye of godlynes: God was shewed in þe fleshe, was iustified in the spirite, was sene of aungels, was preached vnto the gentils, was beleued on in earth and receyued vp in glory.
The Great Bible 1539
And without doute great is that mystery of godlynes: God was shewed in the flesshe, was iustifyed in the sprete, was sene amonge the Angels, was preached vnto the gentyls, was beleued on in the worlde, and receaued vp in glory.
The Geneva Bible 1560
And without controuersie, great is the mysterie of godlinesse, which is, God is manifested in the flesh, iustified in the Spirit, seene of Angels, preached vnto the Gentiles, beleeued on in the world, and receiued vp in glorie.
The Bishops Bible 1568
And without doubt, great is that misterie of godlynesse: God was shewed in the flesshe, was iustified in the spirite, was seene among the angels, was preached vnto the gentiles, was beleued on in the worlde, and was receaued vp in glorie.
While most modern versions do not read God in this verse, there are some modern versions that do. There are at least 30 versions that post date the KJV that read God in this verse.
The more well known of these would be John Wesley’s translation , Darby Bible, the NKJV, the amplified Bible and Youngs literal translation.
There are a number of lesser known modern versions that read God here, such as, but not only, The World English Bible 2000, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Modern Literal Version 2014
Mikes claims regarding the KJV are simply false.
Here is a link to my full writing on 1 Timothy 3:16
2) John 1:18
Now Mikes states that the reading found in the KJV is the correct reading. He now states “its not merely looking at the oldest or most reliable manuscripts but other Criteria that we have to talk about to be objective.”
This is an important statement, one that I will 100% agree with, in order to be objective we do have to look at other criteria, its how correct textual criticism is done. Manuscript evidence is of course a fundamental part of textual criticism but it is not the only thing we must look at when doing textual criticism. What is interesting about the statement though is that Mike did NOT look at any other criteria when addressing 1 Timothy 3:16. He simply appealed to the oldest and best manuscripts. Had he looked at other criteria, as presented in my full study on the verse, maybe his understanding of that verse would be different or at least not simply based upon manuscript evidence, one of which doesn’t even contain the verse.
Mike states that it is true that the term only begotten God does appear in some of the earliest manuscripts, however, there are many reasons to believe that this is not the original, for starters every one of those text reading Theos is of the Alexandrian text type and it is during this period in Alexandria that there was debate over high Christology.
Again this is true, however, what Mike fails to make note is that those two manuscripts that he appealed to for 1 Timothy 3:16 are both of the Alexandrian line. So Mike ignores the other criteria for that verse and now makes an argument in support of the reading in John 1:18 based on text type despite using that same text type to support his argument in 1 Timothy 3:16.
This is an inconsistent argument on both fronts, other criteria and text type.
Vaticanus and Sinaticus both read only begotten God in John 1:18.
Mike also appeals to Church fathers in support of the reading Son, this would be some of the “other criteria” Mike had referred to. I would suggest he also look at the church fathers quotations of 1 Timothy 3:16 to be consistent.
3) Jude 1:5
Here Mike argues for the correct reading. The Lord, rather than Jesus, however, some of the information he presented is inaccurate.
Mike claimed that the oldest manuscripts read Jesus led the people out of Egypt. He included Codex Sinaiticus in the list of manuscripts that contain this reading. This is yet again FALSE. Sinaiticus reads The Lord led the people out of Egypt, which is the variant that Mike (correctly )states is the original.
Furthermore, the oldest manuscript of this particular verse is actually P72 which dates to between the mid 2nd -mid 3rd century 100-200 years before both Vaticanus and Sinaticus. It reads God Christ, thus this is the oldest reading for this verse.
4) Titus 3:6
Mike presents 3 verses that have a variant but nobody actually follows or believes is the original reading.
Mike claims that there are some later manuscripts that read God our saviour in this verse.
NO version of the Bible I can find reads God and saviour in this verse. Thus nobody has asserted this is a true reading.
The only manuscripts that I can find that even include this reading are later Byzantine lectionaries that are almost certainly only for lectionary reading by the pastor. With absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever as to this reading its witness to this reading is almost zero, its really a moot point as it in no way affects any Bible version.
5) Hebrews 13:20
Mike states that most manuscripts say through our Lord Jesus and then claims that there are others that read our God Jesus.
Again I can find no version of the Bible that reads this way.
There may be some Greek manuscripts that read this way but on a quick look I can only find Codex Claromontanus which is a poorly copied manuscript that does not carry much weight, certainly not on its own with such a reading. A few later Latin Vulgate manuscripts may read this way, this in no way has any sway within textual criticism.
It really is another moot “corruption” that has zero bearing on the Biblical text.
6) John 1940
Mikes last verse of the 3. Most manuscripts read they took the body of Jesus. Mike appeals to codex Alexandrinus which reads the body of God. This is the ONLY manuscript that reads this way and no translation follows this reading.
These 3 “corruptions” really are not even considered within textual criticism as being original readings. No translation follows the reading of any of these 3 variants. None of these corruptions have changed the text.
7) The Johannine Comma, (1 John 5:7)
This one was an obvious one for Mike to assert. It is rejected by most scholars as being authentic so its not a surprise this was included in the 7 corruptions.
I have written massively on this verse (verses as 1 John 5:8 is also included)
Not only do I not believe this is a trinitarian verse, I think it perfectly supports the unitarian position, if you understand the verse rather than reading it in a trinitarian mindset. I believe the evidence for its inclusion far outways the evidence against it, which is almost entirely baseless and misrepresented.
Mike claims the reading is only found in later Latin manuscripts…..this isnt even close to being factually correct.
I shall link to my extensive work on this verse here
Does John 1:5:7 prove the trinity
Mike asks why is it that all of the main discrepancies are all surrounding trinitarianism. Well, this is true, if you ignore the Longer ending of Mark, The woman caught in Adultery, Acts 8:37 for example, none of which are trinitarian support passages.
We cannot ignore the fact that Mike has attributed these corruptions as being done by triniarians. This is pure conjecture. For instance, it could just as easily be stated that Oneness proponents created these corruptions, if you are just going to claim it as so without evidence.
However, when we look at the evidence we get a totally different picture, like in the case of John 1:18 where only Begotten God is almost certainly a Gnostic reading.
Conclusion.
There are most certainly variants within scripture, this is undoubtedly true. However, Mike has presented a very one sided , incomplete, misleading and in some cases factually inaccurate presentation on these 7 verses.
Again, all I wish to do here is help unitarians in their defense of the unitarian God but in order to do so we must present accurate argumentations so as when we deal with trinitarians we do not present arguments that studied trinitarians can easily show false. This weakens our own argument.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Join our Patreon membership
here
0 Comments