The KJV "Only Begotten" is inaccurate

The always-existing Jesus was indeed begotten twice on earth. First, He was conceived in Mary's womb, same as all other people were conceived in their mothers' wombs, the difference being that the HOLY SPIRIT brought about Jesus' conception by His power. When Jesus was resurrected, His Father said, "Today, I have begotten you". This is repeated in various Scriptures, as is the fact that WE are Spiritually begotten & born again by the power & authority of Jesus.

Though I'm definitely NOT KJVO, I'll defend the KJV when it's right. And rendering "monogenes" as "begotten" in the KJV is certainly not wrong. The Hebrew "yalad", rendered "begotten" in Psalm 2:7, is clear. Don't believe it? Just ask any Jew who knows Hebrew. Surely you can easily find a synagogue in London.

 

Actually, it appears BOTH are right. It's another of those cases that, when the KJVOs comment about it, they incorrectly holler the MV renderings take away from Jesus' Deity.

 

I think a simpler and more likely explanation is simply a linguistic understanding. As ichthus points out, monogenes comes from mono and genos, literally "one of a kind." It was mistakenly thought to be a compound of mono and gennao, "only begotten."

As James White points out in The Forgotten Trinity, the clue to the proper etymology is in the spelling of the word. If the latter construct were the correct one, it would be spelled with two nu's: monogennes (White, p. 201-02n27).

 

The Greek word μονογενης is found in the LXX in the following places:

Judges 11:34. When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only child; besides her he had no son or daughter.

Psalms 22:20 20. Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.

Psalms 25:16. Turn to me and be gracious to me, For I am lonely and afflicted.

Psalms 3517 17. Lord, how long will You look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only life from the lions.

Wisdom 7:22. for Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me.
For in her is a spirit
intelligent, holy, unique,
Manifold, subtle, agile,
clear, unstained, certain,
Not baneful, loving the good, keen,
unhampered, beneficent, (NAB)

Odes 14:13 Oh Lord, the only-begotten Son,
(The Book of Odes is found in the Codex Alexandrinus but not in the Vaticanus and is not included in the either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant Canon)

The Greek word μονογενης is found in the New Testament in the following places:

Luke 7:12. Now as He approached the gate of the city, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a sizeable crowd from the city was with her.

Luke 8:42. for he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying. But as He went, the crowds were pressing against Him.

Luke 9:38. And a man from the crowd shouted, saying, "Teacher, I beg You to look at my son, for he is my only boy,

John 1:14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:18. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 3:16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:18. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Heb. 11:17. By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;

1 John 4:9. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

Friedrich Büchsel contributed the article on this word found Kittel (vol. IV, pp. 737 – 741 and he writes in section B. The Use in the New Testament, “It means “only-begotten.”

(All Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995, unless otherwise noted.)

 

Compare:

Gen. 22:2. He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." NASB

The issue here is highly complex. For excellent discussions on the translation issues here, see the commentaries on the Gospel of John at John 1:14,

Archibald J. H. Bernard, Gopspel According to St. John
Raymond E. Brown, The Gopspel According to John, I-XII
Leon Morris, The Gopspel According to John
Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gopspel According to St. John

 

Although much of your data here is accurate, your premise is faulty. Jesus was NOT a Greek, and probably taught in Aramaic. Therefore, to look to the Hellenistic origin and uses of the word μονογενης is absurd. Instead, one must go to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament where we find a word that can mean both “unique, only-begotten” and “beloved” and study how this word was interpreted and translated in the Septuagint. When we do that, we find that this Hebrew word is sometimes translated using the Greek word μονογενης, and at other times it is translated using the Greek word αγαπητος.

To say that “The KJV followed the Latin here, and therefore has misrepresented what the Greek actually says!” misrepresents the facts. We do not know why Jerome used the Latin word "Unigenitus" in the place of "unicus." He may have done so for theological reasons or he may have done so based on a careful assessment of the relevant Hebrew texts. But, of course, Jerome’s reason has nothing at all to do with the proper translation of μονογενης into English. When we look at the literature on the Gospel According to John, we find that there are top notch language scholars on both sides of this highly complex issue and we need to be a bit more humble than to say that the KJV “misrepresented what the Greek actually says!”

 

But the problem is then not with the term, but with someone's wrong interpretation of the term. Some people are going to get the wrong interpretation, no matter what terms are used.

 

My point, and the term I'm referring to, is that "only begotten" should not be rejected simply because someone somewhere will misinterpret it. I agree that there are more accurate translations of "monogenes", but I think "only begotten" is still perfectly acceptable if rightly understood.

 

Yes, it may pose difficulty. But sometimes, even simple words and terms are easily misunderstood.

 

You are merely speculating here, as are many others on the Internet. The reality is that we do not know with any certainty why the translators of the KJV translated "monogenes" as they did. Many translators today translate it just as did the translators of the KJV and they certainly don’t translate it that way based on Jerome’s Latin Vulgate!

I have, of course, read about this matter and it has no relevance of any kind whatsoever to our discussion. John’s use of the word took place BEFORE processional Trinitarian theology was even invented. Whatever concept John was trying to express using the word "monogenes," his choice of that word was independent of subsequent theologies and heresies.

We need to translate the Scriptures correctly even if doing so may have some part in causing some people to be confused. The bottom line is the concept that John wished to express in Greek, and Bible scholars do NOT agree on what that concept was. Very much study has gone into this question, and there simply is no consensus of opinion, one way or the other. The evidence from the Old Testament in not conclusive, and neither is the evidence from the New Testament. It is very possible that John used the word "monogenes" differently than did Luke, as has been proposed by some scholars of the Gospel According to John and 1 John, and therefore we cannot look at Luke and say that John did not have the concept of begotten in mind. Nor can we rule out the possibility that Luke had the concept of begotten in mind.

Have you read the article in Kittel that I referenced? Have you read Rudolf Schnackenburg’s comments on John 1:14 found in volume one, pp. 265-273, in his commentary on the Gospel According to John?

 

Uh, since God is not a "kind", I would have to give honour where honour is due, the KJB translators use of the word "only begotten" best fits the accuracy of the Truth.

I cannot believe what I read in here sometimes, well, MOST of the time when considering the logic expressed here.

 

Certainly, and that would then leave confusion as having an open door to continue to confuse, with that type of logic at work, you should resort back to the KJB, coupled with prayer, and of course, genuine salvation does seem to help when discernement is needed.

 

Certainly, and that would then leave confusion as having an open door to continue to confuse, with that type of logic at work, you should resort back to the KJB, coupled with prayer, and of course, genuine salvation does seem to help when discernement is needed. </font>[/QUOTE]I am genuinely saved and absolutely certain that you are devoid of the truth on this subject.