Featured New NASB Update

Sorry, Sir, but NKJV is in the family of KJV, and the ESV has "only Son!"

The fact pattern Sir is translatiional updates go from "only begotten" to "one and only" or "unique" or "one of a kind." No body goes from "one and only" to "only begotten." Which bibles outside of the KJV family and updated since 2000 still have "only begotten?"

Your ship is taking on water, and your pumps are failing. How long can you tread water?

 

Interesting to me that the most formal translations still continue to see it only begotten!

 

Twaddle.

The NASB will no longer promulgate the mistranslation. So your modern support is all within the KJV family. But outside the family (LEB, ESV, NET, NIV, and CSB) the mistranslation has been fixed.

 

Wow, your post is ignorant and not based in reality. At all! Language changes, you realize this right? We do not speak KJV English today. No matter how much you would want to argue that we do, we do not. That is not our language. By your reasoning, we shouldn't translate the Bible into other languages either because there are good translations already available in languages they do not speak.

It is ridiculous.

Then you apply false motives to people who work in translation. GODLY men and women. It's disgusting!

Also, your evolution comment? Where do you come up with this stuff?

You are precisely the reason people see KJVO as a cult, because you are.

 

So that means will be sticking to my Nas 1977!

 

I do, and see only begotten as better fitting the Context of John!

 

ext of John writing!

Just wish they would read 1611 Preface, as the translators themselves never claimed for 1611 what KJVO do!

 

Really? Unique and Only actually fit better.

 

I just see John as describing Jesus as the Logos of God in a way that makes him unique due to him being Only Begotten of the Father, and so eternally God, not created/made!

 

You might want to do some research on the definition of begotten....

 

In the contect of how those who were trying to define the Deity of Jesus, it was their term to safeguard Him from being as a created being!

 

Which is interesting, because begotten implies created.

 

Not per either John or them!

 

Well we are arguing John didn't use the term begotten so....

 

Context would fit his own way that He expressed Jesus as being better though!

 

Which has nothing to do with begotten. Nor does the Greek word mean that.

 

Very interesting!
ttps://www.dennyburk.com/deep-in-the-weeds-on-monogenes-and-eternal-generation/

 

Very interesting here!
ttps://www.dennyburk.com/deep-in-the-weeds-on-monogenes-and-eternal-generation/

 

Interesting, but only one opinion.