Featured Monogenes

You could have simply answered the question and explained what you mean, but you did not. You could have represented yourself but instead chose to claim someone misrepresented you. Apparently typical behaviour of the anti-only-begotten my way or the highway crowd.

As far as addressing arguments we already had about 11 pages of that in which you dismissed any that differed from your "this can only mean that" mantra.

 

No, you evaded the question in my # 20. "LOL" now I remember why I previous!y had you on 'ignore", to which you shall return.

 

I think it is clear he is stating what I have in the past. Jesus is "unique" among all beings. Even within the Godhead. In the incarnation Jesus became μονογενες. No one is like Him. Not even the Father. Jesus is unique among all. I believe this is the meaning of John's usage in John chapter 1.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Thanks. You prove it is not hard to give a cogent explanation without evasion.

 

That O.P. needs to be rewritten in English.

• When the Word of God became flesh, that's when the eternal Word became the Son of God - when he took on a human nature by the power of the Holy Ghost.

• He is the only begotten Son of God because he is the only man whose FLESH was born of the Holy Ghost.

That's both ends and the middle of it.

 

"The preincarnate Word is referred to as the Son."

Great. Give us one verse where the pre-incarnate Word is identified, back then, as the Son, and the case is closed.

 

First coming to mind is Hebrews 1:8, which is a reference to Psalm 45:6.
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 45:6 - Authorized (King James) Version

 

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Simply a retrospective identification given that by the author's time of writing, that God of Psalm 45:6 had been revealed in his human nature as the Son of God.
That's like the N.T. expressions which substitute the day of Christ for the O.T. the day of the Lord because by then the Lord had been revealed as Christ.

It's the Psalms which clearly placed the sonship of the Word of God as occuring in time: Psa_2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
There are no this day 's in eternity past.
And of course we read the fulfillment of the prophesied begetting of the Son in the gospels, in time, in Israel, under Rome.

 

The Word is referred to as the Son in John 1:18. Genesis 12:7.

 

Right, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, declared the Father unto us in the gospels.
That has no bearing on a begetting of the Son out in eternity past.

 

So am I to understand you deny the the LORD God who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 12:7 was the Son of God according to John 1:18?

 

Look at this thread, all who say theology is not important in Bible translation!!

Most degrees in this subject do not include theology courses, including SIL and BBTI. But ours requires the whole spectrum of systematic theology in addition to the language and translation courses.

"And now, back to your regularly scheduled theological mayhem."

 

Hunh? There were many theophanies connected to the Word of God in the O.T. where he appeared as a SPIRIT. What's that got to do being born as FLESH?! - which is what the term Son of God refers to in scriptures.

The guys who are unwittingly messing with the deity of Christ are precisely the ones who have the Sonship [not the Son] as being in eternity past because begotten then implies a beginning, and no amount of mental gymnastics can ever avoid that.

Christ's flesh had a beginning - when it was begotten. Christ's spirit does not have a beginning.
If we would just stick with the plain English scriptures we'd have a lot more clarity.

 

The confusion was precisely caused by men who used such courses to mess with the clear language of the book.
[note that I'm not against such courses]. Just read the first 2 paragraphs of the OP. What I'm saying is that the source of such confusion began precisely in the circles which you point to as salvific from confusion.

 

Would you explain what you mean by "the Sonship [not the Son]" or how you are distinguishing between Son and Sonship? Thanks .

 

You seem to be saying that systematic theology is good but it's bad.

All I said is that theology is important in Bible translation, so we have systematic theology courses in our M.A. on Bible Translation. I'll stick to my guns.

We use a good Baptist theology, Erickson. Have you read it? Also, I'm pretty sure our systematic theology proofs (me, too) have their their theology down well enough to correct any errors by Erickson.

As for the first two paragraphs in the OP, I didn't read them and won't, because I don't consider Van to be qualified in this or any other area related to Bible translation. I dare you to ask if he's ever read through a systematic theology.