Featured What Difference Does It Make?

If you'll re-read my post, I just did.
In addition, the subject goes far deeper than this thread would allow for space, and I also have no wish to cover ground that's already been covered in past threads.
I will, however, briefly give you a passage or two to consider.

As for whether or not they are omissions or additions...
Again, the words themselves are what the doctrines are founded upon.

Let's take, for instance, the deity of Christ Jesus the Lord. <---- BTW, why call Him Lord if He is not God?
Would you say that this statement supports it, or erodes it?

" Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, ESV )

Now let's look at the 1599 Geneva:

" Let the same mind be in you that was even in Christ Jesus,
Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God:
But he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man.
He humbled himself, and became obedient unto the death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, Geneva 1599 ).

Which one erodes the deity of Christ, and which one reinforces and declares it?

 

As I have shown μονογενης never has the meaning BEGOTTEN

 

Thank you for the evidence.

 

You say I didn't. I say I did.
Right there we don't agree...and can two walk together except they be agreed ( Amos 3:3 )?

No, and I'm sorry that we don't.

What I'm saying is, that there's more going on behind the scenes than I think you're willing to look at.
But. since you're not persuaded in that direction, there's little point in talking about it, is there?

 

@JonC

Going a bit deeper...

Taking the passage in Philippians 2:5-8 and comparing it to the Greek ( which one of three, you choose ), how well did the ESV do, for example ( in as close to a word-for-word fashion ), compared to the Geneva? Would you say that the ESV is more of a Dynamic Equivalency, or a Formal Equivalency?

In other words, did the translators actually translate it, or did they summarize it?
Did they faithfully carry it over, as completely as possible, from the Greek to the English, or did they "kind of"?

It's important Jon, because I want God's words and not man's words;
God's words and not man summarizing God's words.

Now, since we don't agree, I'll take my leave of this thread and cease further comment.
I can see that it's not important to you, even though it is to me.

May God bless you, sir.

 

Manuscripts are only COPIES made by anyone who could copy! These included some from the party of the arch heretic Arius!

The early Church Fathers who were BEFORE the Greek manuscripts read GOD, as does the 2 OLDEST Greek manuscripts!

Numbers mean ZERO, because they could ALL be wrong!

 

My article PROVES what I have said and you have not been able to disprove it

 

Nonsense

 

The differences in John 1:8 results from the difference of/in (LOL) a single letter in most manuscripts (both Son and God were often abbreviated to save space on rare and valuable papyrus or velum).

Dave G, you said made your decision long ago.
It appears that you are simply undergirding your "long ago" decision and collecting proof texts.
You are not continuing to look into the difficulty.
That's one of the reasons that there is a KJV problem; once an opinion is formed, whether it's right or wrong, some people find it easier to stick resolutely to their first impression.

Re: Romans 3:22

1) Finding a textual problem and convincing yourself that it provides enough evidence to discard the whole can be compared to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

2) Supporting textual decisions based on doctrine can be compared to putting the cart before the horse.
Texts come first; doctrine is derived from Scripture, not Scripture from doctrine.

Where "of" in Romans 3:22 has some textual support... many (most) modern translators feel that there are stronger evidences that using "in" is the proper way to understand the passage.
While there are some doctrinal implications, neither presents a major doctrinal problem.

So...
What Difference Does it Make? ... very little really.

Rob

 

EVIDENCE FOR THE READING "μονογενης θεος":

Manuscripts: (Greek)

The Codex P66 (about 200 A.D.)
The Codex P75 (early 3rd cent.)
The Codex Sinaticus (4th)
The Codex Vaticanus (4th)
The Codex Ephraemi (5th)
The Codex Regius (8th)
The minuscule manuscript 33 (9th)

Ancient Versions:

Diatessaron (2nd) - Armenian Edition
Apostolic Constitutions - (4th)
The Syriac Peshitta - (5th)
The Syriac Harklean - margin (7th)
The Ethiopic (6th) - Roman Edition

Patristic: (Early Christian Writers)

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D.130-200) - Greek
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) – Greek
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (260-340) – Greek
Alexandria, Bishop of Alexander (died, 328) - Greek
Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria (313-398) - Greek
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (315-367) - Latin
Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403) - Greek
Basil, "the great" of Cappadocia (330-379) - Greek
Gregory of Nyssa (330-395) - Greek
Ambrosiaster, Rome and Spain (f.375) - Latin
Jerome (342-420) - Latin
Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais (370-414) - Greek
Cyril of Alexander (died, 444) - Greek

Heretics:

Valentinus of Egypt (2nd cent)
Theodotus (2nd)
Ptolemy (2nd)
Heracleon (2nd)
Origen of Alexandria (185-254)
Arius of Alexandria (250-336)

THIS is what is called EVIDENCE!!!

 

the Greek compound word "μονογέννητος", is the ONLY word that literally means ONLY-BEGOTTEN, and is the Latin unigenitus

μονογενής is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique”, and the Latin is unicus. But NEVER ONLY-BEGOTTEN!

But some just don't want to accept these FACTS!