Current Events

July 23, 2012 - Setting up a little way for Bible defenders to share

Sunday, August 17, 2014

1 Timothy 3:16 - the James White dance

1 Timothy 3:16 - "God was manifest in the flesh" - the James White attack defense dance


"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

Steven Anderson:

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."

Clear enough! 
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 .."

More completely:

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)
Thomas Hubeart

"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 - Steven Avery (correction pp. 235ff. -> start on p. 235) - 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
A Dissertation
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.


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
James White.
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 ?

Not likely.

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.

Ephesians 6:10-12
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.


Earlier discussions:

"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

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

Steven Avery
Bayside, NY

Monday, July 23, 2012

Erasmus and the heavenly witnesses


1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

A little project is to begin to supply more sensible information about Erasmus and the heavenly witnesses.
(Note: later, I plan a little study as to why the heavenly witnesses is the "fulcrum verse" for pure Bible defense ! )

On the TextualCriticism forum recently I placed a little post:


Erasmus paraphrase of 1 John and the heavenly witnesses
Steven Avery - July 18, 2012

Here are the two pics that forum member receive, however they are not retained in the Yahoogroups Archive.

(short picture of Latin text)


A companion to rhetoric and rhetorical criticism (2004)
A Conversational Opener: The Rhetorical Paradigm of John 1:1  (1977)
Marjor├Če O'Rourke Boyle

In his paraphrase on that comma Joanneum (1 John 5:7) that provoked such inflated controversy, Erasmus defines succinctly the Persons of the Trinity in their economic roles.

"The Father is the author [auctor], the Son is the courier [nuntius], the Spirit is the prompter [suggestor]." (p. 71)



A fuller version of the Paraphrase discussion is planned to be placed on the
Pure Bible WordPress blog shortly (the url will be given here):

We are discussing this question a bit on the WhichBible forum (moderated by Shain and friends) :

A Gem Regarding 1 John 5:7

And for an example of modernist one-dimensional writing about Erasmus, you go to the censored BVDB  forum that is against the AV purity:

Remember That So-Called Erasmian Promise About 1 John 5:7?

And for invigorating discussion, we open up the PureBibleForum for those with a heart for God's pure word.


As with the WordPress Blog, the goal is to make the PureBibleForum very friendly within a day or so !

When a post is placed here, the
Pure Bible Blogger blog ... a complementary thread can be opened up on the forum, with all the advantages of forum writing. The goal is to coordinate the complimentary resources to make for easy reading and study, and iron sharpeneth learning and sharing.

(This is all in addition to the normal standbys, the excellent WhichVersion and TC-Alternate yahoogroups email forums.)


Plesae notice how these short Blogger posts are able to be used as friendly and helpful "Traffic Cops"
While the long posts and big discussions we can have elsewhere ... come here for a simple overview !

Thus, this blogger url :

Pure Bible blog

Is one for you to bookmark, return to and enjoy !
(And will generally be my "siggy" on forums.)

Incidentally, my thanks to all the unreasonable forums with poor moderation ... for encouraging these far
more helpful ways of sharing about the pure Bible.


Feel free to comment below -- and you can email me, Steven Avery, on all Bible and blog matters at the addy specifically designed for internet Bible discussion:

Steven Avery

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Welcome to the Pure Bible Blog !

Greetings friends, this is planned to be the central blog (either Blogger or Wordpress edition) for a wide variety of Pure Bible discussion.   Come back every day or three .. – this is planned as my central blog - and this is what you can hope to find !

Links to current discussions of special interest on forums like WhichVersion and TC-Alternate (Yahoogroups) and blogs like Kent Brandenburg and Roger Pearse and any fascinating discussions currently going on at web-forums and blogs and sites.  If you know of some worthwhile, please email me.

Discussions of some of my fav issues, like the Reformation Bible understanding and King James Bible defense.  This will include textual theory, trying to understand and explain the basic issues in a writing style that is clear and edifying and interactive to your feedback, questions and comments.

Guest and surprise writers.

Discussions of specific “test case” verses.  Including a special blog on the heavenly witnesses !

This next verse is how we plan to start the blog, a detailed look at a verse that has only come forth in my studies the last few days : 

Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus,
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Part of my textual philosophy is “proof in the pudding”.  A great many of the issues that folks struggle about in the Bible version discussion can be alleviated by simply looking closely at a few major variants, like Luke 23:34, Acts 8:37, Mark 1:41 and the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.  Often one variant explains 100 issues, and I believe a careful study of Luke 23:34 can help tremendously to see the basic pure Bible issue.

Before beginning I plan to have one  post that will show some of the quality forums and sites you may want to visit.  Then on to Luke 23:34 !

This blog is brand new, so we may be cautiously playing around a little with templates and styles (we did set up a special test blog for play and consult with the excellent “donationcoder” forum on overall ideas and guidance, your style suggestions are welcome). 

And your general comments below are welcome, with some initial moderation (= mild time lag) however in the long run extensive discussions will do better on the Pure Bible forum, Which Version and other venues.  Blogs are great for simple interaction, detailed discussion can use well-threaded and formatted and categorized forums.

Enjoy !  

Feel free to comment below -- and you can email me, Steven Avery, on all Bible and blog matters at a new addy specifically designed for internet Bible discussion:


Steven Avery