Featured Born or Fathered?

I'm fine with "born of the Father" to describe the lineage. If I have 25 chickens and 1 rooster and eggs start hatching, I know they were all born of my rooster. Likewise, if I have 3 ewes and 1 ram and all the ewes have babies I would say they were born of my ram, now my neighbor has sheep too but my lambs will be born of my ram.

Now in today's PC environment it may be considered an encroachment on the female to dare risk saying a man had a part in a birth, yet...but nothing gets born without the man's seed. Thus, they were born of the man. Sorry girls.

Edit: My children were born of me. I was more than a "sperm donor" who merely "fathered" them. They were born as part of a plan by me which consisted of a LOT of work before and after the event of "child birth".

 

" Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." ( 1 John 5:1, AV )

The difference is, in the Greek, there is no word for "Father" in 1 John 5:1.

To me, the translators of the NASB took liberties and translated G1080, "One-generating" as "Father" instead of the more accurate "Him that begat" or "the One begetting".
The Greek word " πατήρ ", or ""patér, which corresponds to Strong's G3962 and means, "father" is not found in this passage at all.
So, to translate the underlined as "Father", is not strictly accurate.

As for the NET, I happen to believe that that thing should be scrapped.

It's a Dynamic Equivalency translation that departs farther from the Greek than even the NASB does.

Again, not accurate enough, as I see it.

In this passage, the NET follows the Greek closer, but in others it falls far short of the Greek.
See 1 John 5:7 for example.

From my perspective, this is better, and more reflects how it should have been translated into more modern English.

To me, the choice to replace the "archaic" ( read, "abandoned in favor of something that was later adopted by most who speak English" ) "begotten" with "fathered" is not necessarily a no-brainer.

Having read and studied the AV for over 4 decades, I am very familiar with what "begotten" means.
If I can get used to seeing and using it, then anyone can.

Whether or not to go with "fathered" or "born" ( "born of God" is better, IMO ) in attempting to update to more modern English, potentially makes little difference in this case...
Spiritually speaking, the Father is the only One who does the "birthing" ( James 1:18 ), so for a woman to be involved is not relevant to the subject of the new birth.

I think that "fathered" fits better, and "born of God" even better than that.

 

That's exactly how God's children were born...as part of a plan by Him which consisted of a lot of work both before and after the event of the "child birth".

 

The cross reference of Luke 1:34-35:

" Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

In the Greek, the word " ἅγιος " or " hagios " ( Strong's G40 ) is found in both Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 as describing "in her being generated out of spirit" / "the one-being-generated out of you ".
It means, "holy".

Sources:
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat1.pdf
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk1.pdf

G40 ἅγιος - Strong's Greek Lexicon

 

The Nas, as usual, got the better word to translate as being into English!

 

Even though the Greek word for "father" is not in the verse ( 1 John 5:1 )?

Please tell me how a translator who takes the Greek word "γεννάω" ( Strong's G1080 ), that means "One-begetting" / "one-generating" ( rendered in the AV, ASV, Douay-Rheims 1899, and YLT as, "him that begat" / "him who did beget" ) is being accurate when they use the English word "Father" ( Greek " πατήρ", Strong's G3982 ) where "One-begetting" / "One-generating" should be?

In other words, how exactly is using the word "father" when the Greek word for "father" isn't even there, getting " the better word to translate as being into English"?

You see no problem with what the NASB translators did?

 

I'll use a hypothetical example for how I see the Lord treating those who are "loose" with His words:

A man who lived 650 years years ago studies all his adult life to become an interpreter in many languages.
He joins the team that accompanies Marco Polo to China, where they meet the Great Khan, and talks ensue...

In a slip of the tongue, he mis-translates the word "enemy" for the word "friend", and the Great Khan beheads half the expedition and throws the rest into slavery because he thinks they are come to spy out his realm.

Would you think that, given the ramifications of mis-translating even a single word incorrectly, that it's very important not to make a mistake?


That is how the Lord will treat those who mess with His words, Y1 ( Revelation 22:18-19 ) .

 

Not incorrect, but begot better of the 3 choices here!

 

The Nas and Esv and Nkjv are just as valid English translations as the Kjv is!

 

Doesn't the NAS have a footnote on the verse?

Lit one who begets

Meaning literally "one who begets".

 

Based on our opinion as mere men, I agree.

What is the correct word for " γεννάω" in the English?
" to beget, to bring forth "
Yes, I agree that we could use the word, "father" as the verb tense.

But not in the last half of 1 John 5:1, where the NASB and many others substitute the word "Father" for "one-begetting".
To me, they've just stepped over the line into Dynamic Equivalency and have taken liberties with their translating.

Not if they are less accurate when compared to the Greek and Hebrew, they aren't.

With respect, Dave, it's not as simple as that.
Did you even take into account the seriousness of the situation I was trying to develop with my analogy?

This isn't a "KJV Only" issue...it's a "faithfulness-to-the privilege-of-translating" problem.

Putting what they'd like the words to say into the main body of the text, and then asking the reader to rely on footnotes and margin notes for more information, is not doing enough to be faithful to the words themselves, is it?

Footnotes and margin notes notwithstanding, the translators should be doing their work with utmost care, and treating the words themselves as if they are holy....because they are.

After all, they are dealing with God's words, not man's words.
That's why it's called the Holy Bible.

 

Van,
I have no desire to hijack your thread.

What I'm trying to point out is the issue of accuracy in all points of the verse.
To say "fathered" is incorrect, is not what I'm doing.

I zeroed in on the use of "Father" in the last half of 1 John 5:1, and questioned the accuracy of it in both the NASB and NET based on the Greek word used there, and their choice of "Father" instead of "him-fathering" / "him-that-fathered" or something similar.

Note: "Him-that-begat" is still accurate, even if it has fallen out of use .

As for using "born" or "fathered" where " γεννάω" ( transliterated into English as "to beget, to bring forth" ) is present, then I would probably go with "fathered".


Lastly,
I see all translations in the English as needing improvement...with the AV needing the least when it comes to accuracy in the language of the day.
What's more, I'd like to see as an actual improvement over the AV, but it will probably never happen.

To me, it has to do with making money, and not necessarily arriving at a better translation in more modern English.
Coupled with the use of the CT among today's translators, which is even less-representative of the body of extant manuscripts available than the TR, I don't see a more accurate English translation ( that becomes widely accepted ) ever coming to pass.

Given what I've seen so far, the desire of most of today's translators is not to arrive at a better translation, but to satisfy the timetable and desires of the publishing companies, who are more interested in making money than in treating God's words carefully.

This is my last reply in this thread.
May God bless you sir.

 

You mean just like the original 1611 KJV? The 1611 came with the same kind of footnotes, the translators explaining in their preface why they did so.
The Translators to the Reader
Found in the section called "
Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each" , which is the next to last section in the preface.

 

Well, Psalms 2:7 a prophecy of Christ being resurrected from the dead,
". . . 'I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. . . ."'" -- NASB 1995 edition.
Then cited in Acts of the Apostles 13:33, ". . .that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’ . . ." -- NASB 1995 edition.

NASB 1995 edition (less foot notes).
1 John 5:1, ". . . γεγεννηκα . . . γεννησαντα . . . γεγεννημενον . . . ," translated as, ". . . is born . . . the Father . . . born . . ."

Acts of the Apostles 13:33, ". . . γεγεννηκα . . . ," ". . . BEGOTTEN . . . ."

 

The KJV translators themselves also had alternate readings in their margin notes though, correct?