Featured The common ground is not.

Yes, John 1:18 seems to have provided no common ground of understanding.

Here are the four variants: (Translating monogenes as unique One)

1. ho monogenês (the unique One)

2. ho monogenês huios (the unique Son)

3. monogenês theos (unique God)

4. ho monogenês theos (the unique God)

Because "unique Son" is commonly found elsewhere, and unique God is found nowhere else, some (Dr. Wallace) argue the text was corrupted early by copists to the more common rendering.

The argument from Greek grammar (substansive + substansive) for the addition of "Himself God" is way above my pay grade. (See NET or CSB)

A simple word meaning for word meaning substitution translation gives us:

No one has ever seen God. The unique God, within the bosom of the Father, that One revealed Him.

 

Common ground disappeared beginning in 1881.

 

No the fact is God the Son was a uniquely divine incarnation. So God in three persons does not equate to three Gods.
Nothing in unique God challenges God the Son's eternal Sonship.
John 1:14 does not say Jesus became God's Son.
Luke 1:35 does not say Jesus became God's Son. Only that the child will be called the Son of God because He is uniquely divine.

No one has ever seen God. The unique God, within the bosom of the Father, that One revealed Him.

 

I'm not seeing the problem...
or perhaps it's because I don't recognize anything Greek outside the TR, so I limit my textual sources to it.

To me, "μονογενής", transliterated into English as, "monogenēs" means:

"mono" = "only" or "one",
"genes" ( present day Greek renders it as "genos" ) = generated, offspring.

gene | Origin and meaning of gene by Online Etymology Dictionary
G3439 - monogenēs - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)
G3439 μονογενής - Strong's Greek Lexicon
Strong's Greek: 3439. μονογενής (monogenés) -- only begotten
Interlinear Bible: John 1:18 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Therefore, "one-and-only" Son, or "only-begotten" Son.
Some would say "unique", but to me that is taking liberties with the text and translating it using a synonym in the English,
and not using the most accurate meaning of the word.

I sympathize with you, and I have many.
In fact, the entire Bible is a big deal to me.

 

1) Please do not make the unique persons of God into multiple Gods. That view is absurd, and denies the trinity.
2) I provided an accurate translation of John 1:18. It does not use the word "Son."
3) I have provided the texts that refer to God the Son before His incarnation multiple times. Please stop pretending your questions have not been answered again and again.
4) The translation provided for John 1:18 does not suggest the Second Person of Trinity was not called the Son prior to the incarnation. Such a claim is bogus nonsense.
5) I think this thread is not about proper translation of John 1:18, but rather your hobby horse denying the eternal sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

Fine, I find the arguments for unique God persuading.

 

Actually once Eramus made his Greek Text!

 

You got that right. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgatist (pre-King James Version Onlyist) could not stand the Bible from the Original Greek taking the place of the secondary Latin, just like KJVOnlyist today.

 

ONLY-BEGOTTEN
μονογενής
monogenís

The Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.

The Scriptures speak of “the only-begotten son” of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus’ “only-begotten daughter,” and of a man’s “only-begotten” son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11, 12; 8:41, 42; 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses mo·no·ge·nesʹ when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”—Jg 11:34.

The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Loʹgos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time , he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9.

Paul referred to Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son” (Heb 11:17), even though Abraham also fathered Ishmael by Hagar as well as several sons by Keturah. (Ge 16:15; 25:1, 2; 1Ch 1:28, 32) God’s covenant, however, was established only through Isaac, Abraham’s only son by God’s promise, as well as the only son of Sarah. (Ge 17:16-19) Furthermore, at the time Abraham offered up Isaac, he was the only son in his father’s household. No sons had yet been born to Keturah, and Ishmael had been gone for some 20 years—no doubt was married and head of his own household.—Ge 22:2.

So from several viewpoints in regard to the promise and the covenant, the things about which Paul was writing to the Hebrews, Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten son. Hence, Paul parallels “the promises” and the “only-begotten son” with “‘your seed’ . . . through Isaac.” (Heb 11:17, 18) Whether Josephus had a similar viewpoint or not, he too spoke of Isaac as Abraham’s “only son.”—Jewish Antiquities, I, 222 (xiii, 1).

 

in Greek that would be Κανείς δεν έχει δει ποτέ τον Θεό. Ο Μοναδικός, μέσα στους κόλπους του Πατέρα, που Τον αποκάλυψε».

 

in greek that would be Κανείς δεν έχει δει ποτέ τον Θεό. Ο μοναδικός Θεός, μέσα στους κόλπους του Πατέρα, που Τον αποκάλυψε

 

Why would John choose this reading here and nowhere else? Doesn't make sense to me.

Does not sound like something John would say at all.

 

he should learn greek