John 1:18

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Greek word underlying this verse is "huios"(Strong's ref. #5207).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the Greek word underlying this verse is more likely theos, although there is a legitimate textual variant here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How in the world does these new versions translate this word as deity? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the word theos means God and because John is testifying about the Deity of Christ, something that is not as clear in the TR/KJV. The MVs make it explicit that Christ is God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is not possible to have an "only begotten God." This is an example of the Gnostic error that teaches Christ was one of the many "gods" that were "emanations."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you fail to understand that monogenes (the Greek word) refers to uniqueness or "one of a kind"-ness. The KJV translates the same word as "only" in Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. Only in reference to Christ (and Isaac in Heb 11:17) does it include "begotten." The idea of the word is only, unique, one of a kind.

The point of John 1:1-18 is to show that Jesus Christ was not merely a man or a form of God but that he was the only God. Thus John 1:18 concludes the passage by saying that the only God was manifested in the flesh.

Interestingly, I talked to a Muslim just this week who claimed that "son of God" was not a title to deity. (They misunderstand the Hebrew idiom "son of.") The Muslims can agree with John 1:18 in the KJV but not in the NIV or the NASB.

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

From the Netbible notes to the passage, "(1:18) The textual problem monogenhV" qeov" (monogenh" qeo", "the only God") versus oJ monogenhV" uiJov" (Jo monogenh" Juio", "the only son") is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in some MSS, since Ì66, one of the earliest MSS (2nd-3rd century), uses the contraction qMs; the alternative would have been uMs. The external evidence is difficult to evaluate objectively because it is so evenly split between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings and one's view toward the relative importance of these two texttypes will probably decide one's evaluation of the external evidence."

For the full discussion go to http://www.bible.org/index.htm

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
It must read "only begotten Son" to be doctrinally correct.

The King James Bible is theologically superior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are presenting the same argument that the cults use in arguing against the Bible, or arguing in favor of their own corrupt versions, that theology must define the translation. Rather, theology must be derived from what the text says, not vica versa. If a text like Jn 1:18 presents a problem in interpretation (I don't believe it does; both Son and God are true of Christ)then we must interpret Scripture with Scripture to arrive at the proper theological interpretation.

You argument also presents evidence that a similar mindset may have befallen scribes who wished to smooth out theological diffculties in in order to alleviate any such interpretive difficulties.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You argument also presents evidence that a similar mindset may have befallen scribes who wished to smooth out theological diffculties in in order to alleviate any such interpretive difficulties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said Chris. I believe this is the point of Bart Ehrman's book, The Orthodox Corruption of the Text. It could be that this very variant was the result of "monogenes theos" being too difficult and thus changed to "monogenes huios." (The reaons why the more difficult reading is to be preferred provided it is not too difficult.) I don't have Metzger's TExtual Commentary here with me. I would be interested to know what it says.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
huios (Strong's ref.# 5207) and theos (Strong's ref.# 2316) are two completely different words. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said they weren't? The problem is that in Gk they appear very similar (which can't eb reproduced here). Huios looks something like uios and theos looks similar to 0eos. A careless scribe could make a mistake or a "conscientious" scribe may have thought uios to be a mistake. The point is, there is evidence for both and neither variant is wrong theologically.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those of you who do not believe we have God's Word perfectly preserved today are lost at sea with no authoritative Bible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a non sequitur. I do not believe that we have God's Word perfectly preserved today because there is no evidence to support that. Neither am I lost at sea with no authoritative Bible.

 

They're BOTH the correct readings!!

 

This affirms my belief that preservation falls under the realm of doctrinal soundness of the Bible, not nit-picky exactitude. God has not allowed anything of real substance or doctrinal change to mar the Scriptures, and because we can say that we're a lot better off than most religions (like trying to make sense out of the holy works of Buddhism or Zoroastrianism). Hand of God? I think so.

Is "only begotten God" or "only begotten Son" any less true than its comparitor? Jesus is both God and begotten of the Father, God and Son. All told, "only begotten God" is a more meaningful statement because it states a fundamental part of the Trinity: Jesus is God, begotten of God the Father. I don't claim to perfectly understand the Trinity, but I do know that both of these statements are equally true. Jesus is God, the Son, eternally begotten of God, the father.

-Wayne