Only begotten

[The Archangel]

So,

We then should see the verse translated with the words:

"gave his one, only, covenant, unique, begotten natural born son"

Anymore ideas that would show that the NIV might need to be strengthen on this verse?

Actually, it not just the NIV that would need to be strengthened on this verse. Many translations (even my favorite ESV) don't translate this as accurately as it should be translated. In my opinion, because of the beloved-ness of the verse, we can see that sacred cows are alive and well in many things Christian.

NIV: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

A few things:

1. "So" is commonly understood to mean "so much." So many think this verse is saying "God loved the world so much." This is incorrect, the original word, translated "so," is οὕτως and it means "in this manner."

2. "Whosoever" is misleading, implying anyone who wishes. Now, this is not a debate about election and reprobation. But, those who argue against election cannot use this verse. The word translated "whosoever" is actually a participle. The text is this: πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων. It literally says πᾶς (ALL) ὁ (THE) πιστεύων (ONES BELIEVING). There is no mention or of inference of how they got to be believing.

3. And of course the aforementioned μονογενῆ discussion.

The HCSB, actually, is the only commercially available Bible that I'm aware of that translates this well. Here it is:

For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
​

This translation comes the closest to the Greek and, in doing so, it kills many sacred cows that needed to die. Still, I'd like to have seen "unique son," but what can you do?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

So,

We then should see the verse translated with the words:

"gave his one, only, covenant, unique, begotten natural born son"

Anymore ideas that would show that the NIV might need to be strengthen on this verse?

The one verse cannot in itself contain this language...however...the theology of the gospel does contain all of it...

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

When paul gives the historic facts of the gospel...he ties in the phrase...according to the scriptures scriptures plural.....as Jesus taught

25Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself
4

44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

.

 

[percho]

Actually, it not just the NIV that would need to be strengthened on this verse. Many translations (even my favorite ESV) don't translate this as accurately as it should be translated. In my opinion, because of the beloved-ness of the verse, we can see that sacred cows are alive and well in many things Christian.

NIV: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

A few things:

1. "So" is commonly understood to mean "so much." So many think this verse is saying "God loved the world so much." This is incorrect, the original word, translated "so," is οὕτως and it means "in this manner."

2. "Whosoever" is misleading, implying anyone who wishes. Now, this is not a debate about election and reprobation. But, those who argue against election cannot use this verse. The word translated "whosoever" is actually a participle. The text is this: πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων. It literally says πᾶς (ALL) ὁ (THE) πιστεύων (ONES BELIEVING). There is no mention or of inference of how they got to be believing.

3. And of course the aforementioned μονογενῆ discussion.

The HCSB, actually, is the only commercially available Bible that I'm aware of that translates this well. Here it is:

For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
​

This translation comes the closest to the Greek and, in doing so, it kills many sacred cows that needed to die. Still, I'd like to have seen "unique son," but what can you do?

Blessings,

The Archangel

A question?

In your understanding of the Greek, for I know no Greek, Is there anything
in μονογενῆ relative to reproduction esp. when taken with Matt. 1:18
And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,

or

are the two verses even related?

 

[TCassidy]

Of course, the "only-begotten" text is found in the the 381 text and the 325 text is different. I don't know which version is posted in Greek on Wikipedia. It looks like it's the 381 text (because monogenes is in the text). But, without comparing the 325 Greek text to the 381 Greek text, I can't be certain.

I quoted the 325 Greek text. The context seems to indicate "only begotten" in the sense of "begat" but the parenthetical statement supports the "one genus" argument. I think they may have realized the wording was ambiguous and added the parenthetical statement to clarify. If so then they are saying the "one genus" understanding is the correct one.

 

[JesusFan]

One and only...only....all refer to unique.

There Greek word is monogenēs. It has the meaning of unique and in relation to a parent child relationship. the mono is the unique part, genes is the begotten part. We see this in the NASB and the KJV. With the ESV and NIV, we see "only Son" and "one and only Son." Having "Son" there shows that it's referring to the parent child relationship, and the only is the unique.

Correct, as the Apostle was trying to clue us in that the One called Jesus was in a relationship to God that was unique to Him alomne, as by His very nature, essense, he was/is of the same "stuff" as His father, as due to Unique status as the "only begotten" son of the father!

 

[percho]

Correct, as the Apostle was trying to clue us in that the One called Jesus was in a relationship to God that was unique to Him alomne, as by His very nature, essense, he was/is of the same "stuff" as His father, as due to Unique status as the "only begotten" son of the father!

Was Jesus begotten of God with the egg of the virgin Mary?

Has anyone else who has been begotten of God been so begotten in a woman?

 

[The Archangel]

A question?

In your understanding of the Greek, for I know no Greek, Is there anything
in μονογενῆ relative to reproduction esp. when taken with Matt. 1:18
And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,

or

are the two verses even related?

I don't think the verses would be related. It is an interesting question, however. In looking at Matt 1:18, we see the word the ESV translates "birth" (which I think your translation translates the same way).

The word is genesis which comes from the word ginomai which means to become. So, the word isn't related to monogenes as far as I can tell without diving too terribly far into it.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[percho]

I don't think the verses would be related. It is an interesting question, however. In looking at Matt 1:18, we see the word the ESV translates "birth" (which I think your translation translates the same way).

The word is genesis which comes from the word ginomai which means to become. So, the word isn't related to monogenes as far as I can tell without diving too terribly far into it.

Blessings,

The Archangel

My mistake Arch. I meant 1:20 conceived.

 

[Rippon]

The HCSB, actually, is the only commercially available Bible that I'm aware of that translates this well. Here it is:

For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
​

This translation comes the closest to the Greek and, in doing so, it kills many sacred cows that needed to die. Still, I'd like to have seen "unique son," but what can you do?

The HCSB is not the only one that gets it right. Other ones are: The NET Bible, NJB, God's Word translation and ISV. The footnote in the ESV gets it right. It should be put in the text.

I am disappointed that the 2011 NIV did not do justice with its rendering and the NLTse should have gotten it right --but let it pass.

I wonder how many foreign language translations capture the real meanings in that famous verse?

 

[Rippon]

Actually, it not just the NIV that would need to be strengthened on this verse. Many translations (even my favorite ESV) don't translate this as accurately as it should be translated. In my opinion, because of the beloved-ness of the verse, we can see that sacred cows are alive and well in many things Christian.

NIV: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

A few things:

1. "So" is commonly understood to mean "so much." So many think this verse is saying "God loved the world so much." This is incorrect, the original word, translated "so," is οὕτως and it means "in this manner."

2. "Whosoever" is misleading, implying anyone who wishes. Now, this is not a debate about election and reprobation. But, those who argue against election cannot use this verse. The word translated "whosoever" is actually a participle. The text is this: πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων. It literally says πᾶς (ALL) ὁ (THE) πιστεύων (ONES BELIEVING). There is no mention or of inference of how they got to be believing.

Thanks Arch. I have made threads or contributed to threads making some of your points (sans the language skills).

Are you viewing this thread JoJ?

 

[The Archangel]

My mistake Arch. I meant 1:20 conceived.

AGhhhhhh! All that work and you sent me to the wrong address!!!

Τηε ροοτ ιν μον (OK! turn off the Greek font!)

The root in monogenes is genos. The word used in Matt 1:20 is a different word--it is, I think, what the KJV translators assumed was the root in monogenes--the word is gennaο.

Ηοωεςερ TURN OFF THE GREEK FONT!!!!

However, the appearance of gennao is a passive participle and the passive participle of gennao is generally taken to refer to conception, specifically to the baby in the womb.

So, is there a type of relation between the words? Sort of--but, I'd say only semantically (they talk around the same things). Specifically, I'd say they are different.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[percho]

AGhhhhhh! All that work and you sent me to the wrong address!!!

Τηε ροοτ ιν μον (OK! turn off the Greek font!)

The root in monogenes is genos. The word used in Matt 1:20 is a different word--it is, I think, what the KJV translators assumed was the root in monogenes--the word is gennaο.

Ηοωεςερ TURN OFF THE GREEK FONT!!!!

However, the appearance of gennao is a passive participle and the passive participle of gennao is generally taken to refer to conception, specifically to the baby in the womb.

So, is there a type of relation between the words? Sort of--but, I'd say only semantically (they talk around the same things). Specifically, I'd say they are different.

Blessings,

The Archangel

So what do you think of my concept that even thought he isn't the only human begotten of God he is the only human begotten of God by woman?
Could that be the only of a kind/kindred Son (which also implies birth IMO) of God written of in John 3:16.

Did God beget a man child within the egg of Mary? Was Jesus actually begotten?

BTW I know about as much about genetics as I do Greek.

Have you ever given any thought to the DNA of Jesus?

 

[agedman]

There is one physical characteristic that the second Adam had that the first did not.......


.......


.......

a belly button.

 

[Amy.G]

There is one physical characteristic that the second Adam had that the first did not.......


.......


.......

a belly button.

:laugh: Good one!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

3. And of course the aforementioned μονογενῆ discussion.

The HCSB, actually, is the only commercially available Bible that I'm aware of that translates this well. Here it is:
For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

This translation comes the closest to the Greek and, in doing so, it kills many sacred cows that needed to die. Still, I'd like to have seen "unique son," but what can you do?

Actually, I think the jury is still out on whether monogene comes from gennao or genea. Just because Don carson says a thing, it does always mean it's so. But certainly, to call the Lord Jesus the 'One and Only Son' of God is not right for the simple reason that He isn't. 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3:26).

So how does the Sonship of the Lord Jesus differ from our sonship? Well, we are sons through adoption. '...But you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba Father!"' (Rom 8:15). Our Lord, on the other hand is eternally begotten of God (Psalm 2:7). Therefore, if we want to express Christ's relationship to the Father accurately, we would have to say that He is the 'only begotten Son' because that is what He is. :smilewinkgrin:

BTW, I agree with you about 'God so loved the world.' 'Thus' or 'In this way' is better.

Steve

 

[Rippon]

Actually, I think the jury is still out on whether monogene comes from gennao or genea. Just because Don Carson says a thing, it does always mean it's so.

He's probably right more often than not.

But certainly, to call the Lord Jesus the 'One and Only Son' of God is not right

That's a troubling statement Steve. Of course he is the One and Only Unique Son of God. It's stressing His singularity.

for the simple reason that He isn't. 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3:26).

Genesis 22:2 : Then God said, 'Take your son,your only son,whom you love --Isaac...'

Of course Abraham had another son,Ishamael. But he was not the true son --the son of promise. That's why the Scripture states "your son,your only son."

The same principle applies.

 

[percho]

Actually, I think the jury is still out on whether monogene comes from gennao or genea. Just because Don carson says a thing, it does always mean it's so. But certainly, to call the Lord Jesus the 'One and Only Son' of God is not right for the simple reason that He isn't. 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3:26).

So how does the Sonship of the Lord Jesus differ from our sonship? Well, we are sons through adoption. '...But you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba Father!"' (Rom 8:15). Our Lord, on the other hand is eternally begotten of God (Psalm 2:7). Therefore, if we want to express Christ's relationship to the Father accurately, we would have to say that He is the 'only begotten Son' because that is what He is. :smilewinkgrin:

BTW, I agree with you about 'God so loved the world.' 'Thus' or 'In this way' is better.

Steve

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Eternally begotten? Is that a biblical oxymoron?

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Would you not think from this statement that the day of resurrection is spoken of as a day of birth as here also? "And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Is this not the one who was the only begotten of God by a woman and also presently the first and only as the firstborn from the dead?

 

[The Archangel]

Actually, I think the jury is still out on whether monogene comes from gennao or genea. Just because Don carson says a thing, it does always mean it's so. But certainly, to call the Lord Jesus the 'One and Only Son' of God is not right for the simple reason that He isn't. 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3:26).

So how does the Sonship of the Lord Jesus differ from our sonship? Well, we are sons through adoption. '...But you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba Father!"' (Rom 8:15). Our Lord, on the other hand is eternally begotten of God (Psalm 2:7). Therefore, if we want to express Christ's relationship to the Father accurately, we would have to say that He is the 'only begotten Son' because that is what He is. :smilewinkgrin:

BTW, I agree with you about 'God so loved the world.' 'Thus' or 'In this way' is better.

Steve

Steve,

First off...let me say how much I enjoy reading your posts.

Secondly, let me say that I am not knowingly following Carson in this. There was some input by my seminary professors (who may or may not have been influenced by Carson). But, after researching this on my own, I came to the conclusions I have posted here.

As you might imagine, I don't think the jury is still out on genos and gennaο and monogenes.

Your point about us (as believers) being adopted sons and daughters of God is well-taken. Now, I think it's possible those who were brought-up in the shadow of the King's English might understand the expression "only-begotten" better than we Yanks. But, the fact is this: The same word applied to Christ in John 3:16 is applied to Isaac in Hebrews 11:17. Therefore, the word cannot mean simply "only-begotten." Rather, it is better to understand the word as meaning something like "the son of the promise."

Blessings in Christ,

The Archangel

 

[percho]

One more time I know, no Greek.

Is this Greek word "genea" a term as in a created being from nothing or does it from it's root thought, be it kind, nation, tribe, offspring, family or whatever relate back to being generated? Birth, Born, that must be preceded by begotten as in conceived?

 

[percho]

Steve,

First off...let me say how much I enjoy reading your posts.

Secondly, let me say that I am not knowingly following Carson in this. There was some input by my seminary professors (who may or may not have been influenced by Carson). But, after researching this on my own, I came to the conclusions I have posted here.

As you might imagine, I don't think the jury is still out on genos and gennaο and monogenes.

Your point about us (as believers) being adopted sons and daughters of God is well-taken. Now, I think it's possible those who were brought-up in the shadow of the King's English might understand the expression "only-begotten" better than we Yanks. But, the fact is this: The same word applied to Christ in John 3:16 is applied to Isaac in Hebrews 11:17. Therefore, the word cannot mean simply "only-begotten." Rather, it is better to understand the word as meaning something like "the son of the promise."

Blessings in Christ,

The Archangel

I agree that it has deeper meaning than just being begotten and I also believe it means the same in both passages with Issac the promised son and only of Sarah being the type of the one seed of Abraham the Christ.

Jesus was the seed of the promises that is received by inheritance.