Featured What Difference Does It Make?

And "nice" means "stupid".

 

I am saying that "nice" means "stupid". The word meaning has, of course e, changed but it's root remains "ignorant".

Ok....so several scholars insist rhe word as used in John 1:18 means "begotten". Josephus uses it ti
o mean "begotten".

I am not saying it definitely means begotten here, as begotten is already established (there is no effect on doctrine).

I am, however, saying that you have not proven your case. It is a matter of interpretation. The doctrine remains the same.

The difference here is that you add "son" to the text in order to pretend the modifier is not an empty modifier while the scholars who believe it has to mean "begotten" at a minimum view the word to mean "unique" in a generational sense.


I have read those scholars I have referenced. My only experience with you is the BB. If pressed, I'd go with those scholars because of their qualifications.

You may have the same education and experience as those scholars, but I do not know your academic history or reputation.

 

Yes, they do. But they do not testify to your expertise (as opposed to those scholars I mentioned).

You and I have studied Greek at a graduate level, but that doesn't make us experts - and on this issue....especially when we have the word being used secularly to mean "begotten".

 

I'd think from the context, but I'm not a KJVO guy so don't ask me.

A better question is why we dismiss the possibility the word could mean "begotten " when we know of secular 1st century works using the word to mean "begotten" when describing genealogy.

The best rationale, I think, is Bulman. The word cannot mean "unique" because it would be an empty modifier. One can add "son", but if "son" is implied in the actual text then the word has to mean "only begotten" by context. And the modifier is no longer an error - it is generational.

 

"Nice," is an Old English word which means "stupid", from a Latin word meaning "ignorant".

The plain truth is that an empty modifier, as you suggest, simply does not work.

In 1st century Jewish secular text the word is used to mean "begotten" (in genelogy).

You should know about context and words rather than working through the Bible as a code book.

 

Josephus.

 

Not in reference to Genesis. In reference to secular history (genelogy).

Josephus uses it as "begotten" (not unique, but in reference to a child with siblings).


The issue I have with your argument is not your use of the word. It is that you deny the word can be used as "begotten" when it has been (secularly) and so many scholars (experts in the language) insist it means "begotten" at the minimum.

It is intellectually dishonest, and an attempt to avoid conflict about your interpretation. Rather than arguing for your view you attempt to argue all of those e perts hold an impossible position.

An honest argument would be for your position. You do not do this except to erroneously argue the other interpretations are impossible.

If you knew about the language that woukd not be your argument.


Too many experts in the field have stated that the word can mean "begotten". Some argue against that interpretation, most for it, BUT none of them against the possibility of either.

That is how we can know, without a doubt, that you do not know what you are talking about. You have decided on an interpretation and put blunders on lest you have to develop a legitimate argument for that position.

This is a type of ignorance we see around here quite a bit.

 

The irony here, @SavedByGrace , is you present the same definition but by addition (and perhaps denying the verse identifies Jesus as God).

You add "son" which is either "begotten" or "adopted".

 

Some here have fallen into a word study fallacy. The only true way to find out the meaning of a word is to study the use of the word synchronically. I’ve mentioned previously that the word “nice”, if one does a word study as is often done on the BB, means “stupid”. The history of a word and it’s etymology do not determine a word’s meaning or use within a specific context.

With μονογενης there are two main interpretations – it means “unique”, “one of a kind”, or it means “only begotten”.

Part of the issue, and disagreement, involves its etymology. If this compound word (μονογ and ενης) is derived from monos (only) and genos (kind) then it means “unique”. If this word is derived from monos (only) and gennao (begat) then it means “only begotten”.

Unfortunately there is no consensus among scholars, and we cannot really know as a fact how the word originated.

Etymology

In support of the word meaning “only begotten”, the ending ενης commonly is used in compound words to indicate “begotten”. Some examples include αγεηνς (unnoble birth), δυσγενης (low born), ευγενης (well born), παλιγενης (born again), and πρωτογενης (first born).

So we know, without a doubt, that the ending ενης often means “begotten” (I am unaware of ενης being used to mean “kind” or “type”, but allow for that possibility.

Usage

The etymology of a word is only the first step in determining a word’s meaning. We also need to look at how the word is used, and the context in which this word is used.

Luke 7:12-13 - Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only (μονογενης) son of his mother, and she was a widow . . .

In this context, μονογενης means “only begotten” (the dead man was the only begotten son of his mother….not the unique son of his mother).

Luke 8:41-42 - And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus’ feet, and besought him that he would come into his house: for he had one only (μονογενης) daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying.

Again, here Jairus comes on behalf of his only begotten daughter (he only has one daughter, not a one of a kind daughter but he had begat only one daughter).

This is the same in 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 (μονογενης) of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Here Jesus is the only begotten of the Father (not the only unique of the Father, or the only one of a kind of the Father).

Anhanasius uses the word to mean "begotten" in contrast to adopted (a narutal born child).

Josephus uses the word to mean "begotten" in his historical secular genelogy.

Hesiod, in Theogony, uses the word to mean "only begotten".

Aesop uses the word to mean "only begotten child".

Aeschylus uses the word to mean "only begotten".

Scholarship

Charles Irons (Fuller Theological Seminary) argues that the word means “only begotten”. He notes that Plato (Critias) uses the Greek word to mean “only begotten”.

Bulman insistes that the word means “only begotten” because of the context. The context is generation. If the word means “unique” or “one of a kind” then it is an empty modifier and one must add to Scripture (“son” is implied in “begotten” but not in “unique”). He also notes that ενης refers to “generation” in other Greek words.

Thayer argues that the word refers to a descendent or child (regardless of gender), and therefore the appropriate interpretation is “only begotten”.

Büchsel interpreted the word to mean "only begotten" in the context "of sole descendent".

Dahms observes that when used in reference to persons the word always points to generation (begotten).

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that we cannot dismiss “only begotten” simply because we do not like it. It is a legitimate interpretation of the word. People cannot disprove this fact. They cannot prove an opposing position.

They can argue for an opposing position. They should argue an opposing position. But anything more is dishonest.