Featured Two principle NT issues.

I am aware of that information, but that really has nothing to do with my point. I was addressing the issue of tense in regard to why translators would choose "during" while others would choose "being ended." The participle γινομένου is present tense while γενομένου is an aorist. That has nothing to do with which reading is the correct one or even what the evidence is. It is a matter of knowing Greek verb\participle forms, meanings, and usages.

 

Does Son/God rendering. or during/having ended really affect what the scriptures are teaching to us though to a substantial degree?

 

Obviously, but that is true of every word in the Bible. It is common knowledge.

When you say MLV I take it you mean Modern Language Version?

Is that the same one as "Modern Language Bible the New Berkeley Version" edited by Gerrit Verkuyl?

Or do you mean MEV = Modern English Version?

Could you prove a link to the MLV? I would like to make sure I am looking at the correct one.

I would agree that the original reading is the goal, but that was not what I was addressing. It is possible to address other topics, nuances, related, aspects of the text. For example I could examine text I know is not the original to better understand a point of grammar. Even understanding the errors help us understand the text better (its history, its development etc).

I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed out what I was addressing had nothing to do with the evidence for or against a reading. Which ever reading one may choose the correct translation of the word has nothing to do with that evidence. That is a matter of Greek grammar\syntax.

 

(1) "Son/God rendering" - Not in my opinion. Both doctrines are taught in the Scriptures.

(2) "during/having ended" - In this case it is a possibility. Some have argued it does. It is important in regard to contexts (i.e. temporal setting).

 

Would the main question arising in the second scenario be regarding if Judas actual partook of last Supper or not?

 

That is the argument some have made.

 

Thank you. I see my problem now: literal not language.

 

Any main differences between that and the Nkjv, as use same text sources?

 

the Berkeley edition was interesting, as had a Gideon NT version!

 

Either way keeps the deity of Jesus!

 

They did, but that did not seem to matter to the orthodox church fathers (Greek or Latin) who quoted "unique God" from John 1:18.

For example all of the following have "unique God" and some even have both "unique God" and "unique Son."
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (both wrote tomes against gnosticism and yet both men quoted John 1:18 with "unique God" favorably)
Didymus the Blind
Athanasius
Epiphanius of Salamis
Gregory of Nyssa
Cyril of Jerusalem
Basil
Hilary of Poitiers
Ambrose

In the works of Clement of Alexandria there is a fragment called Excerpts of Theodotus. Theodotus was a Valentianian Gnostic. One thing that makes this excerpt interesting is it use of both "only-begotten god" and "only-begoten son."

Both terms were used by the Valentianian Gnostics to refer to the Logos\Son.

 

I would say capital God, as in God, not a god!

 

Because basically the same term is used in John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9. Also μονογενής may stand on it own as a reference to the only-begotten Son John 1:14. The concept is still found the Johannine literature.

Yet again that has nothing with the points I was making in 156.

First, numerous orthodox church fathers (Greek or Latin) used the phrase knowing that was also used by Gnostics. They knew that a heretic could twist any Scripture to fit their needs if they wanted yet they still quoted john 1:18 with "unique God."

Second, the point was illustrated from the above Excerpts of Theodotus (a Valentianian Gnostic) which took "unique son" and did just that. The term "unique son" is by no mean heretic proof. Theodotus took the term "unique son" and used it for his own advantage.