"God was manifest in the flesh" - the single most important Christology verse in the New Testament
In the post-discussion (Steven Anderson and James White) text discussion at:
Dr. James White Full Interview 'NWO Bible Versions' - August, 2014
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.
Steven Anderson shows the James White two-faced position
James White denies ever saying that "God was manifest in the flesh " is the better reading in 1 Timothy 3:16. Here is what his book states on page 261:
"There is much to be said in defending the KJV rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 as 'God was manifest in the flesh.' In fact, I prefer this reading and feel it has sufficient support in the Greek manuscripts."
And another poster says James White made the same point in discussion with Donald Waite.
James White prefers the 1 Timothy 3:16 Pure Bible text "God was manifest in the flesh .."
The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (1995)
James Robert White
1 Timothy 3:16 - p. 261
There is much to be said in defending the KJV rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 as "God was manifest in the flesh." In fact, I prefer this reading and feel it has sufficient support in the Greek manuscripts. I also can agree with the majority of the comments made on the topic long ago by Dean Burgon. 20
(20) See Dean John William Burgon, Proof of the Genuineness of God Manifested in the Flesh in various editions of his works.
James White lauds the arguments of John William Burgon, unto preferring the pure Bible text "God was manifest...".
Also James White writes the same position on the verse here:
Now, personally, I prefer the reading "God," and can argue for it on textual grounds.
Note that James White never does actually argue for the pure Bible version on textual grounds . In fact, James White generally argues for the reading he does not prefer, the corruption. This shows you the depth of modern version confusion, they will end up arguing against their own Bible text position, like version pretzels.
James White on the Codex Alexandrinus evidence
So James White does not remember his own vacillating positions on the Bible text even on one of the most important Bible texts!
An interesting extra point is that James White signed in on Codex Alexandrinus (without showing much familiarity with the observation history):
I Just Could Not Resist - Oct 31, 2006
it sure looks like it reads "God" to me!
"One of the major textual variants in the NT"
And some accurate comments from James White, from the article above.
one of the major textual variants in the NT
a major variant (and it is, as far as meaning is concerned)
No pretending here that the ungrammatical who/which, even morphed by "smoothing" mistranslation to he, means the same as "God was manifest in the flesh".
And as Thomas Hubeart pointed out, when noting the James White ship-jumping:
"God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16)
"Probably not least of concern to Dr. White was the superior theological position of "God was manifest" to "who was manifest"--the latter of which, as Clarke noted, making little sense."
John William Burgon - "I also can agree with the majority of the comments" - (James White)
The Burgon book reference is to a reprint of the material that is in Revision Revised, as discussed here.
[TC-Alternate-list] Dean Burgon - "The woman taken in adultery: and, God was manifested in the flesh" - November - 2010
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/3679 - Steven Avery (correction pp. 235ff. -> start on p. 235)
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/3682 - psaulm119
Discussing the excellent John William Burgon material.
God was manifested in the flesh
Shown to be the True Reading of 1 Timothy III.16
John William Burgon
There are 75+ pages, 424-500 (note also 98-106, the earlier section) and a similar section on the Pericope Adultera.
James White -
Why not accept the superb Burgon argumentation on the Mark ending, the Pericope Adultera and other pure Bible texts?
After all, with many of the variants, like the Mark ending, the preponderance of evidence is far greater than with 1 Timothy 3:16. If you like, we can give you 50-100 important variants where Burgon argued for the text in the AV against your NIV-NAS text. Then you can switch on all of them!
Overall, it would be very nice if James White really understood the John William Burgon emphasis on early church writers and manuscripts and internal evidence on dozens of other verses (The Seven Notes of Truth.) Many Reformation Bible variants, rejected by James White, are far stronger in clarity and strength of evidences than 1 Timothy 3:16. Yet on all the other variants afawk James White stays in the hortian fog. And does not mention the John William Burgon exposition. John 1:18 is a good example, along with the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus in the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae. (On the Pericope, the overall strength of evidence is more closely matched to 1 Timothy 3:16. And for Bible believers, both are definitely fully 100% the pure word of God, not just by personal "preference".)
Understand, though, that we can not match any retainers from Lockman as a "consultant". Or other little goodies and trips and royalties you get in your current public position as the #1 enemy of the purity, excellence, majesty and perfection of the King James Bible.
Your emphasis has to be on simply knowing the pure word of God. You may lose some perks, going that route.
SUMMARY - THE CONTRADICTION & CONFUSION
James White prefers the pure Bible reading : God was manifest in the flesh,
However he defends the corruption: who/which/he (not God)
The reasons he prefers - "God was manifest in the flesh"
a) sufficient support in the Greek manuscripts.
b) agree with the majority of the comments made on the topic long ago by Dean Burgon.
Yet, UBS-4 gives this verse corruption an "A" ("The letter A indicates that the text is certain.")
This is rather a unique situation, worth noting. And James White defends the corruption frequently, in the book above, in talks like the Jack Moorman debate, and in this book.
Translation that openeth the window: reflections on the history and legacy of the King James Bible
A Critique of the King James Only Movement p. 199-216
As we saw earlier, John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 are doctrinally significant variations. (p. 213)
So would James White ever be consistent? Will he defend what he prefers? Will he apply the same standard of acceptance of superb John Bugon material to many other variants (even the ending of Mark) where the evidence is even that much stronger ?
Once they get enveloped in the Hortian Fog, vision is very limited.
And logic and sense are lost in the Wonderland.
Also, some people have their status and position, and lucre, fixed.
Error becomes so imbued, institutionalized, that they may not even realize where they are slaves to sin.
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord,
and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God,
that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.
"James White, why don't you agree with the excellent argumentation of John William Burgon on these verses like you do on 1 Timothy 3:16".
Steven Avery - April 10, 2014
Pure Bible - June, 2014
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.