Featured New NASB Update

This author gets to the heart of the matter I think,t we think it means, but what did they try to say by using it!

 

Even with that perspective, let's grant for a second that he is right, that doesn't change the fact that it is not what the word means today. For that reason it should not be used. Begotten in today's English means created, to come about, in other words, not always been.

 

This article is just another "taint so" article, dismissing the compelling case against "only begotten" accepted by scholars across the board, from the LEB to the NIV.

The fact pattern Sir is translatiional updates go from "only begotten" to "one and only" or "unique" or "one of a kind." No body goes from "one and only" to "only begotten." Which bibles outside of the KJV family and updated since 2000 still have "only begotten?"

Your ship is taking on water, and your pumps are failing. How long can you tread water?

 

Should we take what it meant during the time they used it on formulating the doctrine of Deity of Christ, as it fits the scriptures themselves!

 

Should we not then do a better job in describing what they meant by using that term when formulating Deity of Christ? I am not against one and only, or unique, but only begotten per proper framework does not mean created or made!

 

Another utter falsehood, it is a mistranslation.

 

Those who crafted and framed how to formulate the Deity of Jesus would disagree with you, as that was term they chose to use!

 

The first formulation was in 325 --The Council of Nicaea. And they didn't use the term 'begotten' because they spoke and wrote in Greek.

 

They dod though at the official Council called to decide if Jesus was fully God or a mere created being!

 

They dod? What Council are you speaking of where they used the English word "begotten"?

 

The Council of Nicene

 

English dude, English.

 

Yet another utter falsehood. The Deity of Jesus is presented in scripture, Greek texts, and thus does not rely on English translation.