Hi,

logos1560 wrote:
StevenAvery wrote:
It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, “the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior,” or separately, as of the Father and the Son, “the glory of the great God, and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” 
Is it interesting to see Steven Avery try to turn the opinion of John Calvin stating "it is uncertain" 
Sure, Calvin points out the technical grammatical ambiguity. 
Then Calvin declares the best understanding, similar to the Geneva and AV, and rejecting the "identity" attempt.

John Calvin
for Paul, having spoken of the revelation of the glory of “the great God,” immediately added “Christ,” in order to inform us, that that revelation of glory will be in his person; as if he had said that, when Christ shall appear, the greatness of the divine glory shall then be revealed to us.


Trying to use his honesty in analysis against Calvin is rather silly.


=======

There was a big push to mangle the pure text of Titus 2:13 after the true pure Bible texts, including:

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.

Were no longer being defended by many milquetoast Bible apologists.
Note that Rick Norris will not say that "God was manifest in the flesh .. " is preserved scripture and the "who/which/he" forms are corruptions.

We should always let scripture inform doctrine, and not work with confusions and corruptions. Else we could even end up with the wholesale corruption of claiming that the Lord Jesus Christ is a begotten God, another corruption that fits as Rick Norris "preserved scripture", yet is simply a junque reading.

Shalom,
Steven Avery


Last Edited By: StevenAvery Jun 3 12 9:15 PM. Edited 2 times.