Simon Brown.

Join me on this journey. Let's seek the truth together! 💡 Proverbs 8:34-36 Blessed is the man who hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my door posts. For whoever finds me finds life, and will obtain favor from Yahweh. But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul. All those who hate me love death.” Psalm 84: 11 For Yahweh God is a sun and a shield. Yahweh will give grace and glory. He withholds no good thing from those who walk blamelessly. 12 Yahweh of Armies, blessed is the man who trusts in you. 1 John 5:5 Now who is the one overcoming the world, except the one believing that Jesus is the Son of God.
Showing posts with label Bible Manuscripts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible Manuscripts. Show all posts

Tuesday, 1 September 2026

Quick Facts: 1 John 3:16 — Did the King James Bible Add “Of God”?


Bible study examining whether the King James Version added “of God” to 1 John 3:16 and whether the verse says God laid down His life.

A Bible-study image investigating the King James Version of 1 John 3:16 and its wording “the love of God.” The research compares Greek textual traditions and asks whether the original verse says that God laid down His life or that Jesus Christ laid down His life for us. Research by Simon Brown.

QUICK FACTS: 1 JOHN 3:16 — DID THE KING JAMES BIBLE ADD “OF GOD”?

Does 1 John 3:16 Really Say That God Laid Down His Life for Us?

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN 1 JOHN 3:16

There is a striking difference between the King James Version of 1 John 3:16 and most modern translations.

The King James Bible reads:

“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”

1 John 3:16 — KJV

Read naturally, this wording can give the impression that:

GOD LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US.

This is especially significant in the debate over whether Jesus is God, because the person who laid down his life for us was unquestionably:

JESUS CHRIST.

But does the Greek text of 1 John 3:16 actually say:

“THE LOVE OF GOD”?

That is where this investigation becomes very interesting.

WHAT DOES THE GREEK TEXT SAY?

Detailed Bible study infographic examining whether “of God” belongs in 1 John 3:16 and comparing the KJV with Greek textual evidence.

A detailed Quick Facts Bible-study infographic investigating the King James Version wording of 1 John 3:16. It compares the KJV with Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, the Byzantine Majority Text and the modern critical Greek text, examining the textual variant “of God.” The study asks whether John originally wrote “the love of God” or simply “the love,” and examines the biblical distinction between God who sent His Son and Jesus Christ who laid down His life for us. Research by Simon Brown.

Many important Greek textual traditions read:

Ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην...

The important words are:

τὴν ἀγάπην

tēn agapēn

Meaning:

“THE LOVE.”

There is no tou theou — “of God” — in this reading.

The Byzantine/Majority Text omits the words.

Stephanus' 1550 Textus Receptus omits them.

Elzevir's 1624 Textus Receptus omits them.

And the modern critical Greek text likewise does not contain them. (Textus Receptus Bibles)

That is extremely important.

BUT THERE IS AN IMPORTANT TEXTUAL VARIANT

In researching this more carefully, we should acknowledge something my original article did not explain.

The words:

τοῦ Θεοῦ

tou theou

“OF GOD”

do appear in Theodore Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament.

Scrivener's later reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the KJV also contains them. (textus-receptus.com)

Therefore, we should not accuse the King James translators of simply inventing the words “of God” and inserting them into the English Bible without any Greek textual basis.

They had a Greek textual tradition available to them that contained those words.

But this leads us to the much more important question:

DO THOSE WORDS BELONG TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF 1 JOHN?

That is the real issue.

COMPARE THE GREEK TEXTS

STEPHANUS 1550

Reads essentially:

“BY THIS WE KNOW THE LOVE, BECAUSE HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US...”

There is no:

“OF GOD.”

BEZA 1598

Reads:

“BY THIS WE KNOW THE LOVE OF GOD, BECAUSE HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US...”

Beza contains:

τοῦ Θεοῦ — “OF GOD.”

ELZEVIR 1624

Again omits:

“OF GOD.”

BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXT

Also omits:

“OF GOD.”

So even within editions belonging to the broad Textus Receptus tradition, there was disagreement over these two Greek words. (Textus Receptus Bibles)

This is not merely a difference between the King James Bible and modern translations.

There was a textual difference among the printed Greek editions themselves.

WHAT DOES THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE SHOW?

The reading “of God” has comparatively weak Greek manuscript support.

Even a source defending the KJV reading acknowledges that the surviving witnesses supporting it are “few and late.” That source nevertheless argues for retaining the words on contextual grounds. (kjvtoday.net)

This distinction is important.

There are really two separate questions:

1. Did the KJV translators have a Greek source containing “of God”?

YES.

Beza's Greek text contained it.

2. Does that prove “of God” was part of John's original text?

NO.

That question has to be decided from the textual evidence.

And the widespread omission of tou theou is precisely why most modern translations do not put “of God” into 1 John 3:16.

COMPARE THE TRANSLATIONS

KING JAMES VERSION

“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us...”

NEW KING JAMES VERSION

“By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us.”

WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

“By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us.”

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION

“By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us...”

BEREAN STANDARD BIBLE

“By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us...”

The difference is obvious. (Bible Hub)

Most of these translations do not say:

“THE LOVE OF GOD.”

They say:

“LOVE.”

WHO IS THE “HE” WHO LAID DOWN HIS LIFE?

This is one of the easiest questions in the investigation.

Jesus said:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

John 10:11

Jesus continues:

“Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.”

John 10:17

The person who laid down his life was:

JESUS CHRIST.

So 1 John 3:16 is describing the sacrificial love demonstrated when:

JESUS LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US.

GOD SENT HIS SON

John explains this relationship beautifully in the following chapter:

“By this God's love was revealed in us, that God has sent his only born Son into the world that we might live through him.”

1 John 4:9 — WEB

Notice carefully:

GOD SENT.

and:

HIS SON WAS SENT.

John continues:

“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

1 John 4:10 — WEB

God demonstrated His love by sending His Son.

His Son Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.

PAUL MAKES THE SAME DISTINCTION

Paul writes:

“But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Romans 5:8 — WEB

Notice Paul's language:

GOD SHOWED HIS LOVE.

How?

CHRIST DIED FOR US.

Interestingly, Beza himself apparently connected 1 John 3:16 with Romans 5:8. (kjvtoday.net)

But Romans 5:8 actually preserves a very clear distinction:

GOD

and:

CHRIST WHO DIED.

Therefore, even the expression “love of God” does not necessarily mean that the following pronoun must identify God as the person who died.

That grammatical point should be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the textual question remains:

DID JOHN ACTUALLY WRITE “OF GOD” IN 1 JOHN 3:16?

The evidence gives us good reason to question that reading.

GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD

Peter preached:

“This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.”

Acts 2:32 — WEB

And again:

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.”

Acts 5:30 — WEB

The apostolic distinction is straightforward:

JESUS DIED.

GOD RAISED JESUS.

This is why I believe translations should be particularly careful not to introduce wording that can obscure that distinction.

DOES THIS PROVE THE KJV TRANSLATORS WERE DELIBERATELY PROMOTING THE TRINITY?

NO — AND I WANT TO BE PRECISE ABOUT THIS.

My objection is to the reading, not an accusation that I can prove the motives of the King James translators.

Because Beza's 1598 Greek text contains tou theou, there was a textual basis available to the translators for “of God.”

Therefore I cannot legitimately claim:

“The KJV translators knowingly invented these words to deceive Christians into believing Jesus is God.”

The historical evidence presented here does not prove that.

What I can say is:

I BELIEVE “OF GOD” IS NOT THE ORIGINAL READING OF 1 JOHN 3:16.

And because the KJV includes those words, I believe its rendering at this point gives readers a misleading wording compared with the better-attested shorter reading.

That is a textual argument we can actually investigate.

AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION ABOUT MY ORIGINAL ARTICLE

My original article also included a section criticizing KJV Onlyism and discussing Erasmus, the Apocrypha, Pope Leo X and other historical matters.

I want to make something very clear:

THOSE CLAIMS DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH ME.

I was quoting material published by Evangelical Outreach in an article titled:

“KJV ONLYISM IS NOT GOOD.”

The article states, among other things, that the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha; that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest; that he dedicated his Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X; and it makes additional claims concerning Erasmus, his manuscripts and his statements concerning Mary. (Evangelical Outreach)

These were:

CLAIMS MADE BY THE AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE,

not historical claims that originated from my own research.

This distinction matters.

AND THERE IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT

The source I quoted is itself written from an evangelical Christian perspective that accepts Trinitarian Christianity.

Therefore, I was not quoting an anti-Trinitarian source attacking the KJV because of the Trinity.

I was showing that criticism of KJV Onlyism also comes from Christians who themselves accept traditional Trinitarian theology.

That makes the quotation relevant historically to my old article.

However:

THIS PRESENT ARTICLE IS NOT AN INVESTIGATION OF ERASMUS.

Nor is it an investigation of every criticism that Evangelical Outreach makes concerning the King James Bible.

Those claims deserve to be examined separately.

A FUTURE INVESTIGATION

Rather than simply repeating those claims, I intend to investigate them individually in a separate article.

We can ask:

Did the original 1611 KJV contain the Apocrypha?

What exactly was Erasmus' relationship with the Roman Catholic Church?

Why did he dedicate his Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X?

Which Greek manuscripts did Erasmus actually use?

What happened with the final verses of Revelation?

What did Erasmus really write about Mary, and what was the context?

How much did Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza actually influence the Greek textual tradition behind the KJV?

Those are historical questions.

They deserve documentation from primary and scholarly sources rather than being assumed true merely because another Christian writer says so.

That will make an excellent separate investigation.

BUT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT 1 JOHN 3:16

And here the evidence is much more focused.

The KJV reads:

“THE LOVE OF GOD.”

Beza 1598 contains:

τοῦ Θεοῦ — “OF GOD.”

But Stephanus 1550 omits it.

Elzevir 1624 omits it.

The Byzantine/Majority Text omits it.

And the modern critical Greek text omits it. (Textus Receptus Bibles)

Therefore the issue cannot simply be dismissed as:

“Modern Bibles removed the words.”

The disagreement existed within the Greek textual tradition itself.

SO WHAT DID JOHN MOST LIKELY WRITE?

The shorter reading gives us:

“By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us...”

The identity of the one who laid down his life is:

JESUS CHRIST.

God:

SENT HIS SON.

Jesus:

LAID DOWN HIS LIFE.

And God:

RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD.

That distinction appears repeatedly throughout the New Testament.

CONCLUSION

I believe the King James Version contains a textually questionable reading in 1 John 3:16 when it says:

“THE LOVE OF GOD.”

I would therefore not use the KJV wording as evidence that:

GOD HIMSELF LAID DOWN HIS LIFE.

At the same time, careful research requires me to acknowledge that the KJV translators did not simply invent “of God.”

The words occur in Beza's 1598 Greek text.

The deeper question is whether they were actually written by John.

And when we compare the wider Greek textual evidence, there are strong reasons for accepting the shorter reading:

“BY THIS WE KNOW LOVE, BECAUSE HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US.”

Who laid down his life?

JESUS CHRIST.

Who sent him?

GOD HIS FATHER.

Who raised him from the dead?

GOD.

And what did John say he wanted us to believe?

“Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

John 20:31

That is why this investigation should ultimately be about what John actually wrote, rather than defending one English translation at all costs.

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

John 1:1

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?


Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 23 August 2026

Quick Facts: Jude 1:5 – Who Saved Israel Out of Egypt, the Lord or Jesus?

 

Quick Facts Jude 1:5 study comparing the disputed Greek readings Lord and Jesus with Codex Sinaiticus and Exodus 12:51 identifying Yahweh as Israel’s deliverer.

A detailed Bible research infographic examining the textual variant in Jude 1:5 between “Lord” and “Jesus.” It compares ancient manuscript evidence, Codex Sinaiticus, Bible translations and textual scholarship with Exodus 12:51, which explicitly identifies Yahweh as the One who brought Israel out of Egypt.

QUICK FACTS: JUDE 1:5

WHO SAVED ISRAEL OUT OF EGYPT — THE LORD OR JESUS?

Jude 1:5 contains a genuine and important textual variant.

Some modern Bible translations read “Jesus”, while others read “the Lord.” Because the difference can affect how the verse is understood theologically, this is a passage where we should follow the example of the Bereans:

Acts 17:11 — Berean Literal Bible

“...receiving the word with all readiness, every day examining the Scriptures, whether these things were so.”

So rather than beginning with a doctrine, let's examine the evidence.

TWO DIFFERENT READINGS OF JUDE 1:5

Some modern translations essentially read:

“JESUS...SAVED A PEOPLE OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.”

The ESV, for example, uses “Jesus.”

This reading has naturally been used as evidence that Jesus personally existed before His human birth and was active during the Exodus.

But many other translations have:

“THE LORD”

rather than:

“JESUS.”

So which reading did Jude originally write?

THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT ALL AGREE

This point is extremely important.

The textual evidence for Jude 1:5 contains several readings, principally:

Ἰησοῦς — Iēsous — “Jesus”

and:

κύριος — kyrios — “Lord”

There are also other manuscript variations.

Therefore, we should not claim that “Jesus” was simply invented by modern translators. There really are ancient Greek witnesses supporting that reading.

At the same time, “Lord” is also an ancient manuscript reading.

This makes Jude 1:5 a genuine textual-critical question rather than a case where every ancient manuscript says “Lord” and modern translators simply changed it to “Jesus.”

That distinction makes our argument much stronger because we're presenting the evidence accurately.

WHAT ABOUT CODEX SINAITICUS?

One particularly important witness is Codex Sinaiticus, one of our oldest surviving Greek biblical manuscripts.

In Jude 1:5, Sinaiticus supports the reading:

κύριος — LORD

rather than:

Ἰησοῦς — JESUS.

That is significant evidence for the “Lord” reading.

But Sinaiticus alone cannot determine the original wording. Other important ancient witnesses support “Jesus.”

So we must look beyond one manuscript.

EVEN TEXTUAL SCHOLARS HAVE DISAGREED

The history of the critical Greek New Testament demonstrates just how difficult this verse is.

Earlier editions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament preferred “Lord.”

The more recent Nestle-Aland 28th edition instead prints “Jesus.”

Bruce Metzger reported that the textual committee had previously preferred “Lord”, even though “Jesus” had very strong manuscript support.

Metzger himself actually argued that normal textual-critical principles favored “Jesus.”

This is important because it means the evidence is more complicated than simply saying:

“LORD IS THE ORIGINAL AND JESUS IS A FALSE TRINITARIAN TRANSLATION.”

There is a real textual dispute.

But that still leaves us with another extremely important question.

EVEN IF JUDE WROTE “LORD,” WHO SAVED ISRAEL?

For that answer, we can go directly back to the Exodus account itself.

Exodus 12:51 — World English Bible

“It happened the same day, that Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.”

Who does Exodus explicitly identify?

YAHWEH.

This is not an inference from Jude.

This is the Exodus narrative itself.

Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt.

THE OLD TESTAMENT REPEATS THIS

The same truth appears repeatedly.

Exodus 20:2

“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

And again:

Deuteronomy 5:6

“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

The identity of Israel's deliverer is therefore explicit:

YAHWEH, THE GOD OF ISRAEL.

That is the biblical background against which Jude 1:5 must be interpreted.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF JUDE ORIGINALLY SAID “THE LORD”?

Then Jude's statement fits the Old Testament account naturally:

JUDE:

The Lord saved the people out of Egypt.

EXODUS:

Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of Egypt.

The identification is straightforward:

THE LORD = YAHWEH

in reference to the Exodus deliverance.

BUT WHAT IF “JESUS” IS ACTUALLY THE ORIGINAL READING?

This is the harder question, and it should not be avoided.

If Ἰησοῦς (“Jesus”) is original, then Jude 1:5 becomes genuine evidence used by scholars who believe Jude identifies Jesus with the divine Lord active in Israel's Exodus.

That would be a serious argument for pre-existence.

However, one disputed textual variant should not be interpreted in isolation from the rest of Scripture.

We would still need to ask how this reading relates to the explicit Old Testament statements that:

YAHWEH DELIVERED ISRAEL.

And we would need to examine whether Jude intended to identify Jesus personally with Yahweh, whether “Jesus” arose through textual transmission, or whether some other explanation best accounts for the evidence.

The manuscript question must therefore come before building doctrine upon the verse.

JUDE'S NORMAL WAY OF NAMING JESUS IS ALSO INTERESTING

Elsewhere in Jude, the writer normally uses expressions such as:

“JESUS CHRIST”

rather than simply “Jesus.”

That observation was one of the considerations historically raised in discussions over the reading of Jude 1:5.

It does not prove that “Jesus” cannot be original.

But it is legitimate internal evidence to consider alongside the manuscripts.

SIR ANTHONY BUZZARD'S VIEW

Bible teacher Sir Anthony Buzzard argued in correspondence concerning this passage that “the Lord” should be preferred.

His argument included the fact that Exodus explicitly identifies YHWH as the One who delivered Israel and that Jude elsewhere normally says “Jesus Christ.”

His conclusion was therefore that Jude 1:5 should not be used to identify Jesus as the Yahweh who brought Israel out of Egypt.

That represents one side of the textual and theological debate.

Other textual scholars, including Metzger in his personal dissent, have preferred “Jesus.”

So readers should know that serious scholars have disagreed over this verse.

THIS IS WHY ACTS 17:11 MATTERS

We should not choose “Jesus” merely because it supports the pre-existence or deity of Christ.

But neither should we choose “Lord” merely because it supports a Unitarian interpretation.

Instead:

EXAMINE THE MANUSCRIPTS.

EXAMINE THE CONTEXT.

EXAMINE THE OLD TESTAMENT SOURCE.

EXAMINE THE REST OF SCRIPTURE.

That is exactly the Berean approach.

THE UNDISPUTED FACT

Whatever conclusion we reach about the original reading of Jude 1:5, one statement is beyond dispute:

Exodus 12:51 says:

“YAHWEH BROUGHT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.”

The Old Testament repeatedly identifies Yahweh as Israel's deliverer.

Therefore, anyone using the variant “Jesus” in Jude 1:5 as a proof text must explain how that reading relates to those explicit statements.

It cannot simply be assumed that:

“Jude says Jesus; therefore Jesus is Yahweh.”

That is a theological conclusion that requires further argument.

QUICK FACT CONCLUSION

Jude 1:5 is not as simple as some presentations make it appear.

There is an ancient textual variation:

JESUS

versus:

THE LORD.

Codex Sinaiticus supports:

THE LORD.

Other ancient witnesses support:

JESUS.

Earlier critical Greek editions preferred Lord, while the current Nestle-Aland text prefers Jesus.

Therefore, the strongest case is not to pretend the manuscript dispute doesn't exist.

Instead, return to the Scriptures Jude was referring to.

And there we find:

Exodus 12:51

“YAHWEH BROUGHT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.”

So before anyone uses Jude 1:5 to prove that Jesus personally existed during the Exodus—or that Jesus is Yahweh—we should first establish which reading Jude originally wrote and then interpret that reading in harmony with the biblical context.

DON'T BUILD A MAJOR DOCTRINE ON A DISPUTED WORD WITHOUT FIRST EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE.

That is not unbelief.

THAT IS BEING A BEREAN.

OLD RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Translations of Jude 1:5 — Who Saved Israel Out of Egypt: The Lord or Jesus?

https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-false-translations-of-jude-15-who.html

Research by Simon Brown
wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

Hebrews 1:10 – Did God Really Say to the Son, “You Laid the Foundation of the Earth”?


Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, 16 August 2026

1 Timothy 3:16 – “God Was Manifest in the Flesh” or “He Who”?

 

1 Timothy 3:16 infographic comparing the KJV phrase “God was manifest in the flesh” with the Greek ὃς (hos), meaning “who” or “he who,” using Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and Greek manuscript evidence.

This detailed infographic examines the textual variant in 1 Timothy 3:16. It compares the King James Bible reading “God was manifest in the flesh” with the Greek reading ὃς (hos), meaning “who” or “he who,” and presents evidence from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Greek lexicons, interlinear texts and Colossians 1:15.

QUICK FACTS: 1 TIMOTHY 3:16

DOES THE ORIGINAL GREEK REALLY SAY “GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH”?

Some Bible translations of 1 Timothy 3:16 contain a striking statement:

“God was manifest in the flesh.”
— 1 Timothy 3:16, KJV

At first glance, this appears to be powerful evidence that Paul directly identified Jesus as God manifested in human flesh.

But there is a major textual problem.

The earliest and strongest Greek manuscript evidence does not read θεός (theos), “God.”

Instead, the reading accepted in most modern critical Greek texts is:

ὃς — “WHO” / “HE WHO”

That difference is extremely important.

The question is therefore not what later theology says the verse means.

The question is:

WHAT DID THE GREEK TEXT ACTUALLY SAY?

THE TEXTUAL VARIANT

There are several ancient readings of 1 Timothy 3:16.

The two most important for this discussion are:

θεός — THEOS — “GOD”

and

ὃς — HOS — “WHO”

The KJV follows the reading θεός, producing:

“God was manifest in the flesh.”

However, the critical Greek text followed by most modern scholars reads:

ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί

Literally:

“Who was revealed/manifested in flesh.”

The person described by the passage is understood to be Christ, but the Greek text itself does not call Him θεός — God at this point.

That is the crucial distinction.

QUICK FACT NO. 1

THE WORD “GOD” IS NOT IN THE CRITICAL GREEK TEXT

Look at the Greek text and lexicons.

The word appearing at the beginning of the statement is:

ὃς

Strong's Greek 3739.

It is a relative pronoun meaning:

“who”

It is NOT:

θεός

the Greek word meaning:

“God.”

Therefore, when 1 Timothy 3:16 is reconstructed with the reading ὃς, Paul does not actually write:

“God was manifested in flesh.”

He writes:

“Who was manifested in flesh…”

This is not a small translation difference.

The underlying Greek word itself is different.

QUICK FACT NO. 2

CODEX SINAITICUS SUPPORTS “WHO,” NOT “GOD”

This becomes particularly important when we examine ancient manuscripts.

Codex Sinaiticus, one of our oldest surviving substantially complete Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, supports the reading:

ὃς — WHO

not:

θεός — GOD

Therefore, Sinaiticus does not provide the statement:

“God was manifested in the flesh.”

The manuscript instead supports the relative pronoun “who.”

This is strong evidence that the familiar KJV wording cannot simply be assumed to represent the earliest recoverable form of the text.

QUICK FACT NO. 3

CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS PROVIDES FASCINATING EVIDENCE

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is especially interesting in the history of this textual variant.

The manuscript has traditionally been cited as evidence that an earlier reading was subsequently altered so that it could be read as θεός — “God.”

This matters because the abbreviated manuscript form for θεός could visually resemble ΟΣ, particularly when additional strokes were added.

Bruce Metzger discussed this famous textual problem in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

The manuscript evidence led the UBS critical text to prefer:

ὃς — “WHO”

rather than:

θεός — “GOD.”

Whatever theological conclusions someone ultimately reaches about Jesus, textual criticism must first establish what the author most probably wrote.

And the strongest critical-text tradition does not put the word “God” here.

QUICK FACT NO. 4

COMPARE COLOSSIANS 1:15

There is an easy way to understand the Greek word ὃς.

Look at another passage written by Paul:

COLOSSIANS 1:15

The Greek begins:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου…

Meaning:

“Who is the image of the invisible God…”

Here again we find the relative pronoun:

ὅς — “WHO”

Nobody needs to translate ὅς in Colossians 1:15 as “God.”

In fact, the verse immediately distinguishes the person described by “who” from God, whose image He is.

This helps demonstrate something very simple:

ὅς / ὃς DOES NOT MEAN “GOD.”

The Greek word for God is:

θεός

These are different Greek words.

SO HOW DID “GOD” ENTER SOME BIBLES?

This is where we need to be careful.

It is historically inaccurate to say that all modern Trinitarian translations read “God was manifested in the flesh.”

In fact, many major modern translations reject the KJV's “God” reading precisely because modern textual criticism considers ὃς (“who”) better supported.

The KJV and some translations based upon the later Byzantine/Textus Receptus tradition contain “God.”

Other translations follow the earlier manuscript evidence and translate the passage along the lines of:

“He who was manifested in the flesh…”

or:

“He appeared in the flesh…”

Therefore, the real issue is not simply:

Trinitarian Bible versus Unitarian Bible.

The deeper issue is:

WHICH GREEK READING IS EARLIEST AND BEST SUPPORTED?

And that is exactly the sort of question every serious Bible student should ask.

DOES THIS VERSE CALL JESUS GOD?

If ὃς is the original reading, the answer is straightforward:

NO.

1 Timothy 3:16 describes Christ, but it does not explicitly call Christ θεός — God.

There is an enormous difference between saying:

Christ was manifested in flesh

and saying:

God was manifested in flesh.

The first identifies the person being described.

The second adds an explicit identification of that person as God.

That explicit identification disappears when θεός is removed from the text.

THIS ALSO FITS PAUL'S CLEAR LANGUAGE ELSEWHERE

Rather than building doctrine upon a disputed textual variant, we should compare Paul's undisputed statements.

Paul writes:

“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him.”
— 1 Corinthians 8:6, BLB

Notice Paul's distinction:

ONE GOD — THE FATHER

and

ONE LORD — JESUS CHRIST

Paul also writes:

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5, BLB

This statement occurs in the very same letter.

Paul identifies:

one God

and then distinguishes from that God:

the man Christ Jesus, God's mediator.

Whatever interpretation we ultimately adopt, these undisputed passages deserve enormous weight when interpreting a disputed reading in 1 Timothy 3:16.

GOD IS NOT A MAN

The Old Testament makes another important statement:

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent.”
— Numbers 23:19

Jesus repeatedly called Himself:

THE SON OF MAN

and the New Testament repeatedly identifies Him as God's Son.

This is why we should not casually turn a disputed manuscript reading into a declaration that Paul wrote:

“GOD BECAME A MAN.”

First we must establish whether Paul actually used the word God.

The earliest manuscript evidence gives us very serious reason to conclude that he did not.

WHAT ABOUT TRINITARIAN COMMENTARIES?

Some historic Trinitarian commentators naturally interpreted the KJV/Textus Receptus wording theologically.

Matthew Henry, for example, discusses the passage as:

“God was manifest in the flesh.”

The Geneva tradition similarly interpreted the verse through the reading “God.”

But commentary is not manuscript evidence.

A commentator can only interpret the text placed before him.

Therefore, the question must go one step further:

WAS “GOD” ACTUALLY WHAT PAUL WROTE?

That is where textual criticism becomes essential.

AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION

I want this research to be as accurate as possible.

It would be too strong to claim that we can prove that a particular Trinitarian scribe deliberately changed 1 Timothy 3:16 specifically to invent the Trinity.

The manuscript evidence demonstrates a textual alteration/variant involving ὃς and θεός.

Whether every alteration was deliberate, accidental, or doctrinally motivated is a separate historical question.

Bruce Metzger himself discussed both accidental and deliberate possibilities.

Therefore, the strongest argument is not:

“WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO CHANGED IT AND WHY.”

The strongest demonstrable argument is:

THE READING “GOD” IS NOT THE READING PREFERRED BY THE EARLIEST AND STRONGEST MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE.

That fact alone is significant.

We do not need to exaggerate the evidence.

WHAT HAVE WE DISCOVERED?

The evidence can be summarized very simply:

1. Some later Greek manuscripts read θεός — “God.”

2. The Textus Receptus adopted that reading.

3. The KJV therefore translated:

“God was manifest in the flesh.”

4. Important earlier manuscript evidence supports ὃς — “who.”

5. Modern critical Greek editions therefore generally print ὃς, not θεός.

6. Consequently, 1 Timothy 3:16 cannot safely be used as proof that Paul explicitly called Jesus God.

That final point is the heart of this Quick Facts investigation.

THE BEREAN TEST

Acts records something wonderful about the Bereans:

“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all readiness, every day examining the Scriptures, whether these things were so.”
— Acts 17:11, BLB

That is the approach I want to follow.

Don't believe something merely because a Unitarian says it.

Don't believe something merely because a Trinitarian says it.

Don't believe something merely because an English Bible translation prints it.

CHECK THE EVIDENCE.

Compare the manuscripts.

Examine the Greek.

Compare Scripture with Scripture.

And then decide what you believe.

FINAL CONCLUSION

Does the strongest early textual evidence for 1 Timothy 3:16 say:

“GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH”?

NO.

The critical Greek reading is:

ὃς — “WHO”

not:

θεός — “GOD.”

Therefore, whatever someone believes about the Trinity from other passages, 1 Timothy 3:16 should not be presented as an undisputed statement in which Paul explicitly calls Jesus “God.”

That claim depends upon a disputed later textual reading.

And once the earlier Greek evidence is examined, the supposed statement:

“GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH”

is no longer the secure proof-text it first appeared to be.

Paul's undisputed teaching remains extraordinarily clear:

“Yet to us there is one God, the Father…”
— 1 Corinthians 8:6, BLB

and:

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5, BLB

That is why 1 Timothy 3:16 deserves to be studied from the Greek manuscripts themselves rather than used as a shortcut to establish a doctrine.

Research by Simon Brown

wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com

Related articles:

1 Timothy 3:16 infographic comparing the KJV phrase “God was manifest in the flesh” with the Greek ὃς (hos), meaning “who” or “he who,” using Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and Greek manuscript evidence.

Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 12 August 2026

Quick Facts: Did Jesus Really Say “I Am Alpha and Omega” in Revelation 1:11?

 

Quick Facts infographic examining whether Jesus really said “I am Alpha and Omega” in Revelation 1:11, comparing the KJV, Berean Literal Bible and early Greek manuscript evidence.

A detailed Quick Facts infographic examining the textual evidence for Revelation 1:11. It compares the King James Version with the Berean Literal Bible and highlights commentary and manuscript evidence concerning the disputed words “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.”

QUICK FACTS: DID JESUS REALLY SAY “I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA” IN REVELATION 1:11?

PART ONE — WHAT DO THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS SAY?

Research by Simon Brown

There is a surprisingly simple textual problem in Revelation 1:11 that every Christian Bible student should know about.

For centuries, readers of the King James Version have read words that appear to have Jesus saying:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…”

— Revelation 1:11, KJV

This verse has therefore sometimes been used as evidence that Jesus personally declared Himself to be “the Alpha and Omega.”

As the screenshot reproduced in this article demonstrates, some Trinitarian teachers and websites have specifically included Revelation 1:11 among the verses they use to support that claim.

But there is a major problem:

The words “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” are absent from important early Greek manuscript witnesses.

That is why these words disappear completely from the Berean Literal Bible and many other modern translations.

So what happened?

Let us look at the Quick Facts.

QUICK FACT 1 — WHAT DOES THE KING JAMES VERSION SAY?

The King James Version reads:

“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book…”

— Revelation 1:11, KJV

Notice those opening words:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.”

If these words were part of the original text of Revelation, they would obviously be important.

But now compare the same verse in the Berean Literal Bible:

“Saying, ‘What you see, write in a book and send to the seven churches: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamum, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’”

— Revelation 1:11, BLB

Something very important is missing.

The BLB does not say:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.”

It simply begins:

“What you see, write in a book…”

Why such a dramatic difference?

QUICK FACT 2 — THE DIFFERENCE COMES FROM THE GREEK TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

This is not simply a case of modern translators deciding that they did not like the words.

The longer reading found in the KJV belongs to a later Greek textual tradition.

The clause:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”

is absent from important early Greek manuscript witnesses and consequently does not appear in the standard critical Greek text followed by many modern Bible translations.

That is why translations such as the Berean Literal Bible, NIV, ESV and NASB do not contain these words in Revelation 1:11.

So the important question is not:

Which English Bible do I personally prefer?

The important question is:

What did the earliest recoverable Greek text of Revelation 1:11 actually say?

According to modern critical textual scholarship, the evidence strongly supports the shorter reading:

“What you see, write in a book…”

without:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.”

QUICK FACT 3 — WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO SIMPLY TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT

This is why the screenshots reproduced in this article are important.

Readers can examine the evidence for themselves.

As shown in the screenshot from the Trinitarian website GotQuestions, their article states:

“Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; and 22:13.”

Notice particularly:

Revelation 1:11.

It is specifically included as evidence that Jesus proclaimed Himself “the Alpha and Omega.”

But now compare that statement with what recognised Bible commentaries themselves say about the text of Revelation 1:11.

QUICK FACT 4 — EVEN TRINITARIAN BIBLE COMMENTARIES ACKNOWLEDGE THE TEXTUAL PROBLEM

This is not a textual issue invented by people who reject the Trinity.

It has long been recognised by mainstream biblical commentators, including Trinitarian scholars.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states concerning Revelation 1:11:

“The oldest manuscripts all omit this clause.”

What clause?

The very words:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges likewise describes the words “I am … the last” in this location as:

“Not genuine in this place.”

That is extremely important.

On one side, we have Revelation 1:11 being presented as evidence that Jesus proclaimed Himself “the Alpha and Omega.”

On the other side, textual scholarship acknowledges that the very words needed to make that argument are absent from important early manuscript evidence.

That is the textual problem every reader deserves to know about.

Read more »
Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 4 August 2026

Acts 20:28 – What Does the Original Greek Really Say?

 

Acts 20:28 Quick Facts infographic examining the original Greek, manuscript evidence, Bible translations, and textual variations in Acts 20:28.

This Quick Facts study explores Acts 20:28 by comparing the original Greek text, Codex Sinaiticus, modern Bible translations, and manuscript evidence. Learn why many translations include footnotes and why careful examination of the text is essential before drawing conclusions.

Acts 20:28 — Quick Facts

Do All Greek Manuscripts Really Say "God Purchased the Church with His Own Blood"?

One of the verses frequently cited in support of the doctrine that Jesus is God is Acts 20:28. But does the manuscript evidence really support that conclusion?

Quick Facts

  • The manuscripts of Acts 20:28 contain textual variations, including readings such as "church of God" and "church of the Lord."

  • Several modern Bible translations include footnotes informing readers that different ancient manuscripts preserve different readings.

  • Some translations also render the verse:

    "the church of God, which he obtained with the blood of his own Son,"
    or include this understanding in the footnotes.

  • The Greek expression τοῦ ἰδίου (tou idiou) literally means "of his own" and can be understood as referring to his own Son, depending on the context.

  • Because of these manuscript differences, many Bible scholars acknowledge that Acts 20:28 is a textually disputed passage.

  • The Codex Sinaiticus contains the reading "God" (Θεοῦ), while other manuscripts contain "Lord." This is one reason why modern translations often include explanatory footnotes.

Why the Footnotes Matter

Before building a doctrine on Acts 20:28, always read the translator's footnotes.

Acts 20:28 Quick Facts infographic examining the original Greek, manuscript evidence, Bible translations, and textual variations in Acts 20:28.

Acts 20:28 Quick Facts infographic examining the original Greek, manuscript evidence, Bible translations, and textual variations in Acts 20:28.

Many readers never notice that Bible translators themselves acknowledge alternative manuscript readings and possible translations.

What Does This Mean?

Acts 20:28 is one of several passages where the manuscript evidence is not entirely uniform. For that reason, the verse should be studied carefully alongside its textual notes, the original Greek, and the wider teaching of Scripture before using it as proof of any doctrine.

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica... examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." — Acts 17:11

Read more »
Posted by Simon Brown. at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, 24 November 2017

1 John 5:7 – The Johannine Comma The Most Famous Textual Variant in the New Testament?

1 John 5:7 – The Johannine Comma The Most Famous Textual Variant in the New Testament?
Correction: Its absent from 100%

1 John 5:7 – The Johannine Comma

The Most Famous Textual Variant in the New Testament?

By Simon Brown

For centuries, 1 John 5:7 has been one of the most debated verses in the New Testament. The longer reading found in the King James Version states:

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

This passage has often been used as one of the strongest biblical arguments in support of the doctrine of the Trinity.

But an important question remains:

Did the Apostle John actually write these words?

Or were they added centuries later?

As Christians, we should follow the example of the Bereans.

"Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21

And as the Apostle John warned:

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God."
— 1 John 4:1

If a passage has been questioned by scholars for hundreds of years, it deserves careful examination.

Educational poster explaining the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7, comparing the original Greek text with the later added Trinitarian wording and examining the manuscript evidence.

This infographic examines the Johannine Comma found in some versions of 1 John 5:7. It compares the original Greek manuscripts with the later expanded reading and explores the historical, textual, and manuscript evidence behind one of the most famous additions to the New Testament. Discover why many modern Bible translations either omit the passage or place it in a footnote. Read the full research at https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/

What Is the Johannine Comma?

The disputed words are commonly known as the Johannine Comma.

The longer reading says:

"...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..."

Modern Bible translations usually omit these words because most textual scholars conclude they were not part of John's original letter.

Instead, most modern translations simply read:

"For there are three that testify:"

followed by verse 8:

"the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree."

Why Do Most Modern Bibles Omit the Longer Reading?

One of the main reasons is the manuscript evidence.

The Johannine Comma is absent from the overwhelming majority of ancient Greek manuscripts, including the earliest and most important witnesses.

It is also absent from many early Bible translations, including ancient Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic and Slavonic manuscripts.

Many respected textual scholars therefore conclude that the longer reading was not part of the original text written by John.

Bruce Metzger, regarded as one of the world's leading New Testament textual critics, concluded that the passage entered the Greek tradition through a marginal note that was later copied into the text.

The Evidence from Greek Manuscripts

The evidence is striking.

The longer Trinitarian wording is missing from virtually all early Greek manuscripts.

It only appears in a handful of very late Greek manuscripts, most of which date from the Middle Ages or later.

This explains why many modern Bible translations omit the passage or place it in a footnote.

The NASB Lexicon

An interesting example is the NASB Greek Lexicon.

When examining 1 John 5:7, the lexicon simply translates:

"For there are three that testify."

The additional Trinitarian wording does not appear because it is absent from the Greek text being translated.

The Interlinear Greek Text

The same pattern can be seen in many Greek interlinear Bibles.

The Greek text simply reads:

"For there are three that testify."

There is no reference to:

  • the Father

  • the Word

  • the Holy Spirit

within the Greek manuscript tradition on which these editions are based.

What Do Bible Commentaries Say?

Even many conservative Bible commentaries acknowledge the textual problem.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary notes that the disputed words are absent from the oldest Greek manuscripts and appear to have entered the Latin tradition before eventually finding their way into some Greek copies.

Likewise, the Pulpit Commentary concludes that the passage was almost certainly introduced from a marginal note into the Latin Vulgate before later appearing in a small number of Greek manuscripts.

These observations come from commentators who generally hold orthodox Trinitarian beliefs, yet still recognize the textual evidence.

Dr. James White

Dr. James White is a well-known evangelical scholar and defender of the Trinity.

Despite strongly defending Trinitarian theology, he acknowledges that the longer reading of 1 John 5:7 was not part of the original Greek text.

His acceptance of this conclusion demonstrates that rejecting the Johannine Comma does not require rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity itself. Many Trinitarian scholars also agree that the passage is not original.

Why Was It Included in the King James Bible?

The King James Bible was translated from the Textus Receptus.

The earliest printed editions of the Textus Receptus did not contain the Johannine Comma.

Later editions included it after pressure was placed on Desiderius Erasmus when a Greek manuscript containing the passage was produced. Most scholars believe this manuscript was very late.

Because the King James translators relied largely on these later editions of the Textus Receptus, the longer reading entered the King James Version.

Does Removing the Comma Affect Christian Faith?

For many Christians, the answer is no.

Even many Trinitarian scholars freely admit the passage is almost certainly not original while continuing to believe in the Trinity based on other passages.

Likewise, Christians who reject the doctrine of the Trinity argue that removing the Johannine Comma simply restores John's original words.

Either way, the question is one of textual history, not merely theology.

The Importance of Honest Scholarship

Whatever our theological position, Christians should seek the original words of Scripture.

If later additions entered the biblical text, we should not be afraid to acknowledge them.

Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation.

As Jesus said:

"Seek, and you shall find."
— Matthew 7:7

My Conclusion

After studying the manuscript evidence, the Greek text, early Bible translations, and the conclusions of numerous textual scholars—including many who themselves believe in the Trinity—I have concluded that the longer reading of 1 John 5:7, known as the Johannine Comma, was not part of John's original letter.

In my view, the evidence strongly supports the shorter reading preserved in the earliest Greek manuscripts.

For me, this demonstrates the importance of testing every teaching against Scripture and carefully examining the historical evidence rather than accepting traditions without question.

Whether readers ultimately agree or disagree with my conclusion, I encourage everyone to study the evidence personally and prayerfully.

As Jesus said:

"Seek, and you will find."
— Matthew 7:7

— Simon Brown

Related articles:

Posted by Simon Brown. at 6 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)