John 1:18 the only begotten Son

[Will J. Kinney]

JOHN 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible translators.
The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby, Young's, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Luther's German Bible, the NKJV, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21. Even the RV and ASV, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that this false reading was introduced.

2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [Son].

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

5. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", buy yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

6. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

7. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

8. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

9. "God's only Son" New English Bible

10. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are two gods and one of them is inferior to the other. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18, which precede anything we have in Greek, read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,

"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:

"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,

"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:

"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

. The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

In spite of some Greek lexicons, like Thayer's, which insist the meaning of monogenes is "unique" or "one of a kind", there are many others like Kittel's, Liddel and Scott and Vine's that tell us the word does mean "only begotten". It is significant that Thayer did not believe that Jesus Christ was God.

In Kittel's massive work Volume 4 page 741 the writer says: "In John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son. (notice he does not accept the false reading of 'God' in 1:18, and he states this on the previous page). In John monogenes denotes the origen of Jesus as the only begotten."

Even the modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, says that monogenes means "only begotten", and not unique. The word for unique or one and only is monodikos and not monogenes.

The translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can also be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

Some who criticize the KJB tell us that the word means "unique" and they refer to Hebrews 11:17 where we are told: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." They point out that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar. However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

The King James Bible is correct as always, and the divergent and contradictory readings in most modern versions are wrong.

Will Kinney

[changed because terms such as Bible correctors/doubters will not be tolerated]

[ November 26, 2002, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

[Daniel David]

Will, it would behoove (I love that word) you to shorten your posts a little. Rarely do people try to read such long posts.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Several points of easy refutation.

1. The difference between Son and God is a textual variant, and the weight of the evidence falls towards the reading God.

2. The KJV is weaker on teh deity of Christ in this verse because hte KJV calls him Son where the MVs call him God (which in fact he is). Therefore, this verse could be used to undermine the deity of Christ if you use the KJV. Only in the MVs is the deity of Christ underscored. There is no hint of two Gods. John 1:1-18 is making it clear that the Word was God.

3. The word monogenes means unique or only and it is translated that way everywhere it is used, except in reference to Christ. Christ is the unique Son of God. He was not begotten, he is eternal. He has never come into existence as begotten would imply; he has always been in existence.

The MVs most certainly are more clear on the deity of Christ and his eternality.

 

[rsr]

To echo Pastor Larry, from the NET Bible notes on John 1:14:

38tn Or "of the unique one." Although this word is often translated "only begotten," such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham's only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means "one-of-a-kind" and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (tevkna qeou', tekna qeou), Jesus is God's Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

Gen 16:15, 17:23, 17:25, 17:26, 25:12 and 28:9, all of which are "God's words", prove you wrong.

 

[Zebedee]

I think those modern "scholars" have a point when they say only begotten= unique. Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham, as it says in the kjv, but his unique son, ie the son who was born by promise.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Is the King James BIBLE (used for some reason in this thread) distinct from the King James VERSION of the Bible?

Is there a reason for rewriting "version" with "bible" or is this subliminal trying to get everyone to accept this translation as THE real Bible?

Just trying to get inside your head. Thanks.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Mr. Griffen, you ask: "Is the King James BIBLE (used for some reason in this thread) distinct from the King James VERSION of the Bible?
Is there a reason for rewriting "version" with "bible" or is this subliminal trying to get everyone to accept this translation as THE real Bible?
Just trying to get inside your head. Thanks. "

The King James Bible was not called the KJ Version or Authorized Version when it first came out nor was it referred to by these names till other versions came on the scene, i.e. the Revised Version and the American Standard Version.

The KJB was simply known as The Holy Bible.

Later, people began to call it the King James Version to distinguish it from the other versions.

If I were to say the Holy Bible nowadays, no one is sure what I am referring to. There are many other bibles out there today that are called Such and Such Bible, so I and many others refer to the King James as the KJB.

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

God's Only Begotten Son
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

"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" (John 3:16).

One of our favorite Christmas Scripture verses is I John 4:9: "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him." The marvelous incarnation in human flesh of the only begotten Son of God is not the end of the story, of course. The next verse explains that we have life through Him because God "sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (I John 4:10). Our heavenly Father gives us eternal life instead of the eternal hell that we deserve because His only begotten Son died in our place for our sins. "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (II Corinthians 5:21).

The Only Begotten of the Father

Consider, though, the significance of this revelation that Jesus Christ is the Father's "only begotten" Son. This unique phrase is used with reference to the Lord Jesus just four other times, and all five verses contain vitally important truths concerning Christ.

(1) "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

This is the key verse of the Incarnation, assuring us that the man Jesus, who dwelt among us for a time, was also the eternal Word who was "in the beginning with God" and that He "was God" and that "all things were made by Him" (John 1:1_3). He was God the Creator manifest in the flesh.

(2) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him" (John 1:18).

The Father is omnipresent, and therefore invisible to mortal eyes, but as Jesus said: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). Men have seen and heard the Father in the person of His only begotten Son. Whenever God has been seen by men, it has been through the Son who has revealed Him.

The Only Begotten Son

But why was it important for the Holy Spirit who inspired these five great verses to stress that the Lord Jesus was the incarnate only begotten Son of God? Many modern English translations of the New Testament apparently do not consider it important, for they render the phrase merely as "only son." It is so rendered in the Living Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the God's Word translation, the Twentieth Century New Testament, the New Living Translation, the Moffatt, Goodspeed, and Williams translations, and many others. The New International Version renders it "one and only son." There are still a few, however—the best-known being the New American Standard and the New King James—that render it correctly (as in the King James Version) as "only begotten Son."

The Greek word for "only begotten" is monogenes, the very form of which clearly denotes "only generated." As monotheism connotes only one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated—or, more simply, only begotten. It does not mean "one," or even "one and only." It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek original) called the "only" son of God.

The fact is, that to call Him the only Son of God would make the Bible contradict itself, for He is not the only Son of God, and certainly not the "one and only" Son of God. Angels are several times called the sons of God (e.g., Job 38:7) since they had no fathers, being directly created by God. Likewise, Adam was called the son of God (Luke 3:38), because he was directly created. The same applies even to fallen angels (Genesis 6:2), and even to Satan (Job 1:6), because they also were created beings. The term is also used in a spiritual sense, of course, for those who have become "new creations" in Christ Jesus by faith (II Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10; etc.). In this sense, we also are "sons of God" (e.g., I John 3:2) by special creation—not physically but spiritually.

But it is never applied in this sense to Christ, for He is not a created son of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists teach), but a begotten Son of God—in fact, the only begotten Son of God. He never had a beginning, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). In His prayer to the Father in the upper room, He spoke of "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5).

In that wonderful Old Testament Christmas prophecy about His coming human birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), we are told that His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." His human body was, indeed, "brought forth" from "she which travaileth" (Micah 5:3). But long before that, He had been everlastingly going forth from "the bosom of the Father." As noted in John 1:18, He was still "in the bosom of the Father," even while He was on Earth manifesting the Father.

These truths are beyond our full comprehension, of course, for they are all part of the great mystery of the Tri-une Godhead. Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), for as He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Eternally Begotten

He is not just the only begotten Son of the Father, for He is also the eternally begotten Son of the Father. He is eternally "in His bosom," yet always "going forth" to "declare" the Father—once as the creating Word, occasionally in pre-incarnate theophanies, also through the Holy Spirit conveying God's written Word (which had been "eternally settled in heaven" [Psalm 119:89]) down to man through divinely chosen prophets, then ultimately appearing as the incarnate Word to live forever as the God/man.

The doctrine of "eternal generation" was what the older theologians called this great truth. He did not become the only Son by His virgin birth. He was the only begotten Son from eternity, "set up from everlasting" (Proverbs 8:23).

The First Begotten from the Dead

But that is not all. He was not just the only begotten Son in the beginning, He soon also became the "first begotten of the dead" in time (Revelation 1:5). He was "declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). When Paul at Antioch preached on the resurrection, he declared that God "hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33).

He is the only begotten Son eternally and now the first begotten Son by resurrection, "the first fruits of them that slept" (I Corinthians 15:20). What a wonderful Savior is Jesus Christ, our Lord!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
God's Only Begotten Son
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

The difficulty is that, no matter how many letters you have after your name, Jesus was never begotten; he always was. The word means "unique," or "one and only." It should be translated that way. It is far less confusing.

 

[Scott J]

[ November 27, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Scott J]

The word 'begotten' requires us to play unnecessary word games. Your contention that it makes Christ's deity more apparent in vs. 18 is just a further demonstration that you are blinded by your bias.

The dictionary definitions of 'begotten' are:

1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; -- commonly said of the father.

Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget. --Milton.

2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] --Shak.

3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.

...or some variation there of. Translating the word as "unique" or "one and only" is very much in tune with what all of those you quote taught. What do you think their opinions were on KJVOnlyism? (Just asking a silly question in tune with a silly false doctrine)

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry, you stated: "The difficulty is that, no matter how many letters you have after your name, Jesus was never begotten; he always was. The word means "unique," or "one and only." It should be translated that way. It is far less confusing."

There are many who disagree with you, including the Greek speaking people themselves as well as most of Church history.

You have no bible you defend, but pick a verse out of the NIV one moment and then switch to the NASB and then something else. Bible Rummager.

Some may be interested in reading sections of Christian Creeds having to do with the only begotten Son of God. For those who care, here they are.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD,
BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.
The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561

We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571

Article II
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689

In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and 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.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

So, Larry, are you now defending the NIV? Which NIV? I thought you preferred the NASB, but it doesn't say "only" Son, but rather only begotten Son.

Do you also defend this verse in the NIV?

The orthodox view of the Person of Jesus Christ is that He is the only begotten Son by eternal generation, eternally proceeding from the Father.

There are also other verses found in the modern bibles that undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the KJB that Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV or the JW bibles that He had an origin? Yes.

In Micah 5:2, the King James Bible says: “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.”

Other versions that read like the KJB are the NKJV, ASV, NASB, Darby, Spanish, Hebrew-English of 1917 and 1936, the Geneva Bible, and the Catholic Douay. The NIV says, "whose ORIGINS are from of old, from ANCIENT TIMES." The JW bible says, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."
Why do the NIV and the JW bibles say “origins”? Christ did not have a beginning, but He Himself is the beginning, the source of all that exists. Revelation 22:13 tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Compare these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ with those found in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

The JW’s teach that Christ is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, that He is less than God the Father. The word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."

The KJB says his goings forth are from everlasting. Yet the NIV says his origins are from ancient times. Ancient times may be long, long ago, but it is not the same as everlasting.

The Hebrew word olam can be translated as “ancient” when applied to created things or people as it is in Psalm 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark”, or as in Isaiah 44:7, “since I appointed the ancient people”, but when the word is applied to God, it is rendered as “everlasting” as in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.”

The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this word as “everlasting” 60 times, as eternal or eternity 8 times, as “forever” 202 times, but as “from ancient times” only twice - one of them here in Micah 5:2 where they apply it to our Lord and Redeemer!

Or, how about this verse, Larry?

1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE?" This is a reference to Psalms 2:7 and the verse is quoted three other times in Scripture. Here in Hebrews 1:5, 5:5 and Acts 13: 33. It refers to the day when God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead, not to His incarnation, for Jesus was the only begotten Son BEFORE His incarnation and obviously before His resurrection.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary:

this day have I begotten thee-- (Psalms 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (4) By actual possession, as heir of all . I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).The context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb. 1:4). The "bringing the first-begotten into the world" (Heb. 1:6), is not subsequent, as ALFORD thinks, to Heb. 1:5 but anterior to it ."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament:

"This day have I begotten thee. What day is referred to in the prophecy? Acts 13:32, 33 answers the question by quoting this very passage and declaring that it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead and God, who raised him, thus demonstrated that he was his Son.

The Expositor's Greek Testament:

" Today" is evidently intended to mark a special occasion and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated and it is as King the person addressed is God's Son. Thus Paul applies it to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:33.

Hebrews 1:5 reads the same in the KJB, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV but the NIV says: "You are my Son, Today I have become your Father".!!! This is heresy and is found in no text on the face of this earth. If there was a day when God became the Father of Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ was not the Son of God before that day. There is only one other version I have seen that renders this phrase "today I have become your Father" and that is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and they do not believe that Jesus Christ is eternal God. So too does the NIV agree with the NWT in Micah 5:2 by stating that Christ had "origens" and was "from ancient times", rather than the correct reading that Christs "goings forth are from everlasting".

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Larry, you stated: "The difficulty is that, no matter how many letters you have after your name, Jesus was never begotten; he always was. The word means "unique," or "one and only." It should be translated that way. It is far less confusing."

There are many who disagree with you, including the Greek speaking people themselves as well as most of Church history.

I don't think so. Jesus has always been. He did not come into existence. That is orthodox theology. To deny it to be an apostate. When people of old used "begotten" it had a distinct meaning that requires explanation. If you want to make that explanation, then use it. If you make it properly, will explain that it means unique, and you will be supporting the NIV's translation.

You have no bible you defend, but pick a verse out of the NIV one moment and then switch to the NASB and then something else. Bible Rummager.

I don't know what a Bible rummager is but it sounds like an attack. I defend God's word. I do use the NASB for preaching and when I preach John 1:18 and 1 John 3 passages that use "monogenes," I explain what he means. "Begotten" is a weak and confusing translation. The NIV translates it for what it means. It is more clear, clearly.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
So, Larry, are you now defending the NIV? Which NIV? I thought you preferred the NASB, but it doesn't say "only" Son, but rather only begotten Son.

I addressed this above. Yes I defend this verse in the NIV because the NIV translated it clearly. It is right and I always defend the word of God.

There are also other verses found in the modern bibles that undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the KJB that Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV or the JW bibles that He had an origin? Yes.

No one has yet to show one of these verses. If you study, all of the examples you use are conclusively answered. You are simply uninformed on this point.

You are certainly right that "He that has hears needs to hear." I hope you will take it to heart and quit attacking the word of God.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You are simply uninformed on this point.

Pastor Larry, I would have to disagree here. I don't think he is uninformed. He seems to prefer the darkness of his own false, preconceived notions to the light of the truth.

 

[Pastork]

Will,

I will not repeat the points made by Pastor Larry, with which I essentially agree. However, I would like to point out a couple of things:

1. Be careful using stuff from Henry Morris. He in not the best at handling Scripture, in my opinion. And by the way, I don't believe the PH.D. was earned in Biblical or theological studies. He did his doctroal work at the University of Minnesota (in hydraulic engineering, I think). I am not saying this should necessarily disqualify his opinion, but it does help to put that "Ph.D." after his name into better perspective as we contemplate how to take his points. For example, his certainty that monogenes should be tranaslated as "begotten" doesn't necessarily come from advanced study in Biblical languages or linguistics.

2. It is true that most of the older creeds use the 'begotten' language, but observe that they uniformly speak of Christ as being "eternally begotten" or "begotten, not made". This is because Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is God and as such the writers of these creeds knew that He must be co-eternal and co-equal to the Father. The reason they began including the monogenes language in the creeds is that it was being misunderstood (by Arians,e.g.) and they wished to make clear in their creeds what misunderstanding was to be avoided. They were not sure what "begotten" or "eternally begotten" meant. They only new for sure what it did not mean, namely that Christ had been "made" or had His origin as the Son in some point in time. They believed this was a mystery, but I think they misunderstood the term monogenes. However, I have no problem with holding to these creeds personally because I know what they were trying to do was be faithful to Scripture and rule out error, even if they couldn't positively explain what the term really meant (nor did they pretend to be able to explain it).

At any rate, I hope these comments from my memory of the history of the langage of the creeds have helped to put things in a little clearer persective.

Pastork

[ November 30, 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

[Gwyneth]

Oh Dear .........these L-O-N-G posts
The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Son of God to be born of a woman (BEGOTTEN)- the rest of us are born of The Spirit - is how I see it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Gwyneth:
Oh Dear .........these L-O-N-G posts
The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Son of God to be born of a woman (BEGOTTEN)- the rest of us are born of The Spirit - is how I see it.

I will have to ask my mother to be sure, but I think I was born of a woman also

... Point being, I don't think that is what any of these passages refer to. There is a way to say "born of a woman" in Greek and Paul used it in Gal 4:4. This is a word that means "unique" or "one of a kind."