Render monogennes as "very own"

I would like to say this about that.

As far as,
monogennes/ monogenes
in John 3:16, with reference to the other verses, saying, “Traditionally, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was supported by an appeal to the five Johannine texts in which Christ is identified as monogenes; John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18,1 John 4:9).

"As early as Jerome’s Vulgate, this word was understood in the sense of ‘only begotten’ (unigenitus), and the tradition was continued by the Authorized Version.

THE AUTHORS BELOW ALSO SAY, per the O.P.; "Many modern versions incorrectly affirm that monogenes with reference to Christ only means “unique” or “one of a kind” rather than “only-begotten.”

So, does their statement "that monogenes with reference to Christ only means “unique” or “one of a kind”, include saying "very own", as the O.P.?

We'll have to ask them.

I think it looks like they would include it.

In fact, this is so easy, I will actually let
Kent Brandenburg and Thomas Ross tell you, from their

"Syllabus for Bible Texts and Versions,
Manuscript Evidence, and God’s Promises of Preservation", pg 289;

The Greek spellings (mono¿ß) came the same right over from the WORD doc.

"Why monogenes
is Correctly Translated “only begotten” in the KJV
and Incorrectly Translated in many Modern Versions.

"Compare the following modern Bible versions to the KJV.

"There is no textual difference, only a translational one:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (NRSV)

"Many modern versions incorrectly affirm that monogenes with reference to Christ only means “unique” or “one of a kind” rather than “only-begotten.”

"However, this idea of the modern versions is false and is a serious attack on the classical doctrine of the Trinity, e.g.:

"The Lord our God is but one only living and true God . . . in this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided:

"the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;

"the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;

"all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him.[1]

[1] The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, 2:1, 3.

con't

 

"What is the basis for believing that monogenes means “only begotten,” as in the KJV and in classical Trinitarianism, and not merely “unique” or “one and only”?

“Arius . . . identified gennetos [gennhto/ß], meaning “begotten,” with the distinct Greek term genetos, meaning ‘created.’” (pg. 43, The Three-Personed God, William J. Hill).

"The identification of the two-word groups is certainly erroneous, as a study of relevant Greek literature demonstrates their distinction.

"Nor does monogenes simply mean unique rather than only begotten, for the alternative Greek word monodikoshas existed from at least the days of Plato to express the former idea (cf. Philo, On the Creation 35, “[it] has a unique/single nature,” mo/nwsin monadikh\n e¶contoß fu/sin).

"monogenh/ß is derived from mono¿ß, “only,” and genna¿w [cf. gennhto/ß], “to beget.”

"The concept that monogenh/ß simply means that the Son is “unique” is false.

"The fact that the classical derivation is at least as natural as its upstart alternative which derives the noun from gi÷nomai or ge÷noß, that the verb genna¿w (which is unquestionably “to beget”) is clearly employed in Scripture for the Son’s relation to the Father, not the noun monogenh/ß only, the existence of the alternative noun monadikoß to express the idea of “unique,” and the consent of other passages of Scripture that teach eternal generation (Micah 5:2, etc.) demonstrate that the old derivation is correct.

(added: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2)

“Traditionally, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was supported by an appeal to the five Johannine texts in which Christ is identified as monogenes (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I Jn 4:9 (see O.P.).

"As early as Jerome’s Vulgate, this word was understood in the sense of ‘only begotten’ (unigenitus), and the tradition was continued by the Authorized Version.

"However . . . [many today] reject this understanding and believe, instead, that the idea behind the word is more along the lines of ‘only’ (RSV) or ‘one and only’ (NIV).

"One of the main arguments is that the -genes suffix is related to the verb ginomai rather than gennao, thus acquiring the meaning ‘category’ or ‘genus.’

"Unfortunately, this argument requires a selective reading of the evidence. It ignores the wealth of lexemes that have the -genes suffix.

"After searching Thesaurus Linguae Graecae . . . a comprehensive collection of all extant Greek literature up to the 6th century AD, [it is estimated] that there are approximately 120 such words in the Greek vocabulary.

"Of these, 30% are not listed in Liddell and Scott, but the lexicon’s glosses of 55% contain such words as ‘born’ and ‘produced.’

"For example, neogenes is glossed as "newly produced," and theogenes, "born of God."

"A mere 11% involve meanings related to ‘kind’ (e.g., homogenes means ‘of the same genus’), while the remainder of usages have miscellaneous meanings.

"The sheer preponderance of the evidence would indicate that monogenes in the Johannine literature could very well mean ‘only begotten.’” (Lee Irons, “The Eternal Generation of the Son”).

"Furthermore, “even if genes comes from genos, the family relationship concept may be maintained. . . . meanings for genos [include] . . . ancestral stock, descendant . . . a relatively small group with common ancestry, family, relatives . . . a relatively large people group, nation, people . . .

"This family relationship concept can be seen, for example, in Revelation 22:16 where our Lord describes Himself as the “offspring of David.”

"The word translated “offspring” is genos” (“The translation ‘only-begotten’ referring to the Son of God,” in “What I Would Like To See in A Bible Version for Study Purposes,” Myron J. Houghton, Faith Pulpit, Ankeny, IA: Faith Theological Seminary, July/August 2006)—and could not one derive genna¿w itself from an earlier root from which also came ge÷noß?

"Those who contend that monogenh/ß simply means “unique” should consider the fact that century after century of Greek patristic writers, who thought, spoke, and wrote in Greek from their youth, unanimously affirmed, based on monogenh/ß, that the Son is “only-begotten” and eternally generated. How many of the modern opponents to eternal generation fluently speak—not to mention think—in Greek?

"Is their Greek really so much better than that of the delegates to the Council of Nicea and the other ancient Councils, so that they can correct the unanimous ancient affirmation of Trinitarian orthodoxy that the Son is eternally begotten?

“t must surprise the student to learn that Athanasius and a hundred Greek bishops, whose mother tongue was Greek, knew less Greek than we do, and in particular did not know that monogenes is derived from ginomai rather than from gennao. Even so, the two verbs are themselves derived from an earlier common stem.

"At any rate, the genes in monogenes derives immediately from genos. This word as a matter of fact suggests begetting and generation, as much as if it had been derived from gennao.

"Genos means first of all race, stock, kin.

"Genei uios means a natural as opposed to an adopted son. Genos also means direct as opposed to collateral descent” (pg. 120, The Trinity, Gordon Clark. 2nd ed. Jefferson, MR: Trinity Foundation, 1990).

 

The Following comes from my blog: Only Begotten, Unique or Only Son?

John 3:16, A.V. and NKJV. ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…….’
John 3:16, NIV. ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son……..’
John 3:16, NASB (1995) margin. ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his unique son……’
John 3:16, ESV and NRSV. ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son…….’

A discussion with a colleague over the meaning of the Greek word monogenes has led me to consider the question more deeply. Is the Lord Jesus the ‘Only begotten,’ the ‘Unique’ or just the ‘only’ Son of God?

For hundreds of years, there was no discussion about the matter. All the English translations from Tyndale through to the Authorized (King James) Version render monogenes as ‘Only begotten.’ The assumption has been that the word is made up of monos, meaning ‘only’ and genao, meaning ‘to beget.’ So far so simple; more recently, however, scholars have been suggesting that, rather than genao, the word is derived from genea, meaning a ‘kind’ or ‘type.’ Hence monogenes should be translated ‘One-of-a-kind’ or ‘unique.’ The New American Standard Bible, although it has kept ‘only begotten’ in the text, gives a marginal reading of ‘unique’ and the NIV gives the reading of ‘one and only,’ which does not really mean quite the same as ‘unique’ but perhaps puts an emphasis of ‘specialness’ on the word. The Gideons in Great Britain were so unhappy with this translation that when they adopted the NIV for use in their Bibles and New Testaments, they negotiated to have the term ‘only begotten’ substituted.

In recent times, however, the American writer Don Carson has written a book {1} in which he suggests that monogenes has no special meaning but can be translated simply as ‘only.’ The problem with this is that Jesus is not the only son of God. ‘For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:26). Every Christian has been adopted into God’s family and is, male or female (!), His son (Gal. 4:4-7). Yet this has not prevented the ESV, under Carson’s influence, from translating monogenes as ‘only.’

The first thing to say as we come to look at this matter in some detail is that monogenes is not a divine title as some of the KJV-only supporters claim. The word is used three times by Luke to describe the children of ordinary folk (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). However it is only used in reference to people, which seems significant; the word monos, the regular word for ‘only’ or ‘alone’ is used many times in the N.T. for both people and things, so it seems to me that monogenes must have a usage that distinguishes it from ‘only.’

Luke 7:12. ‘And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only [Greek: monogenes] son of his mother.’
Luke 8:42. ‘…..For he had an only [Greek: monogenes] daughter about twelve years of age.’
Luke 9:38. ‘Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look upon my son, for he is my only [Greek monogenes] child.’

In these verses, ‘unique’ doesn’t seem to fit the bill, but ‘only’ does, and so the NKJV has translated. But why does Luke not simply use monos instead of monogenes? I think the reason is that adoption was very popular in the ancient Roman world. A wealthy Roman or Greek who had no son, or a sickly one who might not survive, would often adopt a young relative to keep his lineage and inheritance intact, even if, in some cases, the youngster’s parents were still living. The most famous examples of this are Julius Caesar, who adopted his great-nephew Octavian who later became the Emperor Augustus, and Augustus himself who adopted his step-son, Tiberius. It seems likely that Luke uses the term monogenes to make it clear that the children spoken of were natural sons or daughters, the only begotten of their respective parents.

Hebrews 11:17. ‘By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten [Greek: monogenes] son.’

There is the obvious problem here that Isaac was not the only son of whom Abraham was the natural father. At that time he was also the father of Ishmael, and later he had various other children through Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4). So ‘only’ will obviously not really do as a translation, Gen. 22:2 notwithstanding. ‘Unique’ or ‘one-of-a-kind’ might be OK, since Isaac was unique in that he was the heir, both of God (Gen. 17:19) and of Abraham (Gen. 25:5). But for that very reason, I think that ‘only begotten’ works better since Isaac was Abraham’s legitimate son. “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac’ (Gen. 17:19). Moreover, in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1, Keturah is described as a concubine (v.32) and only Isaac is described as being ‘begotten’ of Abraham (v.34). Nowhere in the Bible that I can see is Ishmael described as being ‘begotten.’ The term seems to be reserved, in the O.T. at least, for a legitimate heir.

I was proposing to look also at the use of monogenes in the Septuagint, the early Church Fathers and in other Greek literature. However, the work has been done very well for me by Michael Marlowe in this article. The Only Begotten Son (ο μονογενης υιος) I will only add, as Marlowe does, that the early creeds, especially the Nicene and Athanasian, establish the doctrine of the Trinity on the Son being begotten in eternity by the Father.

Here is the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance, (homoousion) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: ‘There was once when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or, ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

From what we have seen, it is surely clear that to translate monogenes as ‘only’ is both inaccurate and reductionist. To translate it as ‘unique’ is somewhat better, but does not really fit in all cases. Moreover, the Lord Jesus Christ is the unique Son precisely because He is the Only begotten. We are sons of God by adoption and by second birth. Our Lord was begotten of the Father before time was.

In my view, there is a real danger of the doctrine of the Trinity being lost if the Church abandons its understanding of Christ being the Only begotten. I accept that ‘begotten’ is not a word in common English usage today, and if another can be found that means the same thing I am not opposed to using it. However, I cannot think of such a word, and therefore believe that we must stick with ‘only begotten’ and teach people what it means. ‘Test all things. Hold fast to that which is good’ (1 Thes. 5:21).

• 
  Note.

{1} Exegetical Fallacies by Don Carson (Baker, 1984).

 

"those who say" is the problem. They believe in heresy.

Their intention in modern days is seen in this substitution.

What is the big rush to change Christ being "the Only-begotten", to some other indication of a lesser value? What is the motivation for the abandonment of the more clear and God-honoring words that exalt the Lord Jesus as God?

I say they are condemned.

"In recent times" and his Greek is superior to all those who have gone before him? How about, he is just to be condemned like the Nicene Creed suggests?

Exactly, and losing the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ seems from all indicators to be the initiative of "those who say", or "suggest" that a lie is a bright idea to change the Word of God to.

I am not a fan of all the lies recorded in Modern translations.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Why else would all Modern Bibles delete most of I John 5:7?;

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

While the evidence to retain all of I John 5:7 is ancient and overwhelming?

See my post here for the evidence to retain all of I John 5:7:
I John 5:7

See more evidence for the inspiration and preservation of 1 John 5:7, as well as Selected Texts Where the Deity of Christ is Attacked or Denied in Modern Bible Versions Because of Corruptions in the Greek Critical Text, with a Brief Defense of the Received Text Readings in These Texts, here.

And why did they eviscerate any number of other passages to downgrade Jesus to a being less than God? as seen in the article above?

And why would they delete the word, "Godhead", from the only three occurrences of it in the New Testament?


Because they have an ulterior motive. The translators, committees, publishers, etc. didn't and don't believe in The Deity of Christ, so they got rid of Jesus being God, at every chance they got.

You can view a couple of dozen Modern translations of I John 5:7, here, on the left side; 1 John 5:7 - Overcoming the World

The Nicene Creed called them out,
as you know as "those who say:
‘There was once when he was not;’
and ‘He was not before he was made;’
and ‘He was made out of nothing,’
or, ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’
or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’
—they are condemned

For hundreds of years, there were saved, God-fearing men and women of God who unhesitantly declared Jesus to be God at the helm of the translation activity of the Word of God.

Webster's Bible Translation
"For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

Geneva Bible of 1587
"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Bishops' Bible of 1568
"For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one."

Coverdale Bible of 1535
"(For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen: the father, the worde, and the holy goost, & these thre are one.)"

Tyndale Bible of 1526
"(For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one)"

I recommend that the translators, committees, publishers, etc. that didn't and don't believe in The Deity of Christ just need to be condemned like the Nicene Creed suggests.

‘Test all things. Hold fast to that which is good’ (1 Thes. 5:21)

Praise Jesus.

 

This?

I had been thinking how good it would be to use your O.P. and say, for example,
in John 3:16, ". . . For God so loved the world, that he gave his very God of very God own Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . ."

...instead of just "very own Son"...

What do you think?