The Virgin Conception in The Gospel of John

[Van]

You have completely missed the whole point of the OP! Apart from the singular reading "ἐγεννήθη", which I believe was corrupted at a very early time. There is also the fact, that in verse 13 we have "ἀνδρός", which is singular, masculine, which removes any reference to the "male/father", which corresponds with Matthew 1:16, "μαριας εξ ης εγεννηθη ιησους ο λεγομενος χριστος", "Mary out of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ", which again excludes any human father for Jesus. Also, Luke 1:35, "ἐκ σοῦ" (out of you), which also has been removed from most modern versions, again excludes any reference to a human father.

I see that I forgot to mention another very important fact in the OP. The next phrase, "not of blood", is not a good rendering of the Greek, where the word translated "blood" (αιματωv) is plural, and should read, "bloods"; "a peculiar phrase, with a reference, perhaps, to both parents" (Dr S Green; Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p.203)

"ex haimatôn, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; ek thelêmatos sarkos, from sexual desire; ek thelêmatos andros, from the will of the male" (Dr A T Robertson; Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol.V, p.12)

As I said, your premise is ludicrous. Calling me names demonstrates the weakness of your claim. If it was corrupted, you must also claim all the other plurals pointing to "who" being plural must also be corrupted. Ludicrous.

No one is claiming "blood" is singular, but "bloods" being plural is irrelevant to your claim. When we are born anew by the will of God, biology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The only evidence I see in John for the virgin birth is John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

interestingly, that in the Greek verse 12 ends, "εις το ονομα αυτου", which is singluar and leads into the next sentence. verse 14 starts with the Greek conjuction or conjuctive partice, "καί" (and), which is connecting this verse to the previous. naturally, verse 13 is the Virgin Conception, with the singular reading, and verse 14 details the Incarnation of God the Word, Who became flesh, from the Virgin Mary. end of verse 12, through to verse 14, is very smooth in the Greek as referring to Jesus Christ. With the plural reading, the masculine "male", and plural, "bloods", in the Greek of verse 13, is not grammatically correct

 

[SavedByGrace]

As I said, your premise is ludicrous. Calling me names demonstrates the weakness of your claim. If it was corrupted, you must also claim all the other plurals pointing to "who" being plural must also be corrupted. Ludicrous.

No one is claiming "blood" is singular, but "bloods" being plural is irrelevant to your claim. When we are born anew by the will of God, biology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

it is clear from your response here, and elsewhere, that you are greatly lacking in knowledge in Greek grammar and usage!

 

[Van]

it is clear from your response here, and elsewhere, that you are greatly lacking in knowledge in Greek grammar and usage!

Right, and I am a low down Yankee prevaricator...

As I said, your premise is ludicrous. Calling me names demonstrates the weakness of your claim. If it was corrupted, you must also claim all the other plurals pointing to "who" being plural must also be corrupted. Ludicrous.

No one is claiming "blood" is singular, but "bloods" being plural is irrelevant to your claim. When we are born anew by the will of God, biology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

so what? the Patristic evidence that I have given in the OP, is older than any of the surviving mss, and this reading was certainly in the Greek New Testament in the first century. Another good example for the mss evidence, is the Pericope Adulterae, of John 7:53-8:11. The oldest "extant" Greek mss is the Codex Bezae, which is probably 5th or 6th century. Yet, almost 100 years earlier, the scholar Jerome, whose work is the Latin Vulgate, said od this very passage, that, it was found, "in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin" (C. Pelag, ii.17). Note, "MANY" Greek mss., which have either been lost, or destroyed in the destruction of the library at Alexandria. Like two other very important doctrinal passages, 1 Timothy 3:16, where "God" has been replaced by "He who"; and 1 John 5:7, the testimony of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, this passage in John was also corrupted.

There are around 1,000 extant Greek MSS of John's Gospel plus many fragments. None of them give the reading for which you are contending. To mention the Pericope Adulterae is to compare apples to oranges. The vast majority of the Greek MSS (900+, I believe) contain the P.A. This is even more pronounced in 1 Tim. 3:16 where 99% of the extant MSS have "God."
Three other quick points:

1. The Church Fathers are unreliable guides. The apostasy set in almost immediately after the passing of the Apostles (c.f. Acts of the Apostles 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:`3-`5; Jude 4).
2. The idea that the most ancient manuscript must be the most accurate is a myth, as a moment's thought will show. An old MS might have been copied only once, but very badly; a less old one copied 20 times, but faithfully.
3. Making John 1:12 apply to the Lord Jesus is not a proof of His divinity. John uses the phrase 'born of God' several times in his first letter, and 'born of the Spirit' three times in John 3:5-8, each time referring to mortal men.

This is my last post on this matter.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This is my last post on this matter

Good, as you don't seem to understand textual criticism!

 

[37818]

. . . naturally, verse 13 is the Virgin Conception, . . .

In your mind. I do not see such a thing. John 1:12-13, ". . . But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

[SavedByGrace]

In your mind. I do not see such a thing. John 1:12-13, ". . . But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

how much Greek grammar do you know?

 

[Yeshua1]

Good, as you don't seem to understand textual criticism!

Think MM understands it quite well!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Think MM understands it quite well!

you know that for a fact? his 3 quick points prove that he does not really know what he is talking about!

 

[Yeshua1]

how much Greek grammar do you know?

Enough to know that a vast majority would see this passage as referring to the saved in Christ being born again due to the will of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

you know that for a fact? his 3 quick points prove that he does not really know what he is talking about!

Each one of his points are true though, but would add that I do hold to the Critical Greek text being best, so point 2 not as solid for me!

 

[37818]

how much Greek grammar do you know?

I use Interlinear Greek grammar tools. Such as "Analytical Greek New Testament," by Barbara & Timothy Friberg, Baker Book House.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Each one of his points are true though, but would add that I do hold to the Critical Greek text being best, so point 2 not as solid for me!

well, that is your opinon. I disagree as one's "theology" does not mean that the text they quote from the Bible, is inaccurate. The fact that there are so many Greek and Latin church fathers, even earlier than our oldest Greek mss, who read the singular reading, is enough evidence to show it is genuine. Too much is made of the mss evidence, which are copies of copies, etc, etc, and we know that many are corrupt, hence we have Bibles that have notes that give variant readings.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I use Interlinear Greek grammar tools. Such as "Analytical Greek New Testament," by Barbara & Timothy Friberg, Baker Book House.

what Greek grammar books, this is not a grammar! This cannot tell you anything about the how a text should read, as it only analyses the words.

 

[Yeshua1]

well, that is your opinon. I disagree as one's "theology" does not mean that the text they quote from the Bible, is inaccurate. The fact that there are so many Greek and Latin church fathers, even earlier than our oldest Greek mss, who read the singular reading, is enough evidence to show it is genuine. Too much is made of the mss evidence, which are copies of copies, etc, etc, and we know that many are corrupt, hence we have Bibles that have notes that give variant readings.

The ECF are a mixed bag, as some were very good, while others such as Origen went off the deep end!

 

[Yeshua1]

I use Interlinear Greek grammar tools. Such as "Analytical Greek New Testament," by Barbara & Timothy Friberg, Baker Book House.

I use the various tools for the original languages in Logos, and the Intermediate grammar of Dr Wallace....

 

[Van]

Has anyone noted how the claim - you do not know what you are taking about - used by Calvinists to defend their doctrine, is now being used to defend another doctrine. Do we conclude that use of such ad hominem arguments indicate the position being defended is as bogus as a three dollar bill. Just saying...

 

[SavedByGrace]

Enough to know that a vast majority would see this passage as referring to the saved in Christ being born again due to the will of God!

the vast majority don't have to be right! 1 John 5:7 is absent from the vast majority of versions in many languages. Yet, I can prove without any doubt, from the Greek grammar of the passage, verses 6-10, that is is impossible that the words are not the part of the original Epistle! Yet, this evidence is ingored by translators and the text is not included! This shows that these versions are faulty in their handling of the truth in the evidence, especially when the evidence is internal!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I use the various tools for the original languages in Logos, and the Intermediate grammar of Dr Wallace....

are you the same as 37818?