The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...

[Saved-By-Grace]

LOL! Once again you display your utter failure to understand rather simple concepts.


ROFLOL! Duh! Can you spell "construct?"
I didn't.

Read what YOU wrote at #27

"And you are equally wrong about the meaning of μονογενής. The Greek word is a construct, two words stuck together to form one new word. Mono = one. Genas = generated, or begotten."

I know what a compound word is, which is what the Greek "μονογενής", is which is from "μόνος and γένος". "μόνος" = "only, alone, isolated, by itself", etc. In Jude 25 we have, "μόνῳ θεῷ", which is for the "only God". And. "γένος", = "class, kind, race, stock", etc. You are confusing "γένος" with "γέννητος", as the word used to form "μονογενής". Thayer, and Moulton and Milligan, have clearly shown that "μονογενής" comes from "μόνος and γένος". M&M state very clearly in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, that, had John wished to show any "begetting", then he would have used "μονογέννητος". This is what they have to say here, "μονογενής is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique” (unicus), not “only-begotten,” which would be μονογέννητος (unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense". Are you claiming to know better than these, and others who are authorities on Greek? I have included this, because time and again you assume that I am the one who lacks Greek knowledge, when in fact the evidence shows that it is you who are very much mistaken! You will also note, that in the Old Latin, before Jerome's Vulgate, it read "unicus" = "only, unique". It was then changed by Jerome to deal with the ongoing Arian controversy about Jesus Christ, to "unigenitus", from where the KJV gets the "only-begotten". Now show from Greek authorities, where I am wrong.

 

[Logos1560]

Would one example where a verbal and formal equivalence was not used when it was possible to be used be a problem for this broad-sweeping assertion?

I don't see why.

If there is even one example where the KJV did not use a "verbal and formal equivalence technique" when it was possible for one to be used, it would suggest that the assertion was not true in every case where it was possible.

At 1 Timothy 3:10, the pre-1611 English Bibles, including the 1538 Coverdale’s New Testament and 1582 Rheims New Testament from the Latin, have the rendering “minister,” which the makers of the KJV altered and expanded to what could be considered a non-formal-equivalent rendering “use the office of a deacon.”

The KJV itself usually translated the same Greek verb diakoneo used in 1 Timothy 3:10 and 3:13 as “minister” (8 times) or “serve” (7 times).

 

[HankD]

I have had only 3 semesters of Koine Greek but I side with brother Cassidy.

Actually I have gone through the posts and I am still a little confused (not unusual for me in my old age).

I believe Tom is supporting the traditional/orthodox doctrine of the "eternally begotten" Son of God in His essential relationship with the Father.
And I choose "only-begotten" over "one and only" or simply "only" without the "begotten"

God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born or conceived"

That is why in the Nicene Creed : The Son is begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

But IMO this is also a declaration of His uniqueness among the other sons of God - He is eternal in this relationship, we are body, soul and spirit creations of God requiring the new birth. He is eternal God come in the flesh out of the bosom of the Father to "exegete" Him (the Father).
Which is to fulfill the "functionality" to us as the Second Person of the Trinity (ὁ λόγος - The Word)
in addition to being the Savior of the world.

 

[robycop3]

No. I am showing that he doesn't have a clue what "doctrine" means. Or what proves or falsifies an assertion.

I believe I have more than a clue. A doctrine is something that's taught. And the KJVO myth is taught in more than one congregation or org.

And in matters of faith/worship, SCRIPTURE is our final earthly authority.

 

[TCassidy]

"And you are equally wrong about the meaning of μονογενής. The Greek word is a construct, two words stuck together to form one new word. Mono = one. Genas = generated, or begotten."

Actually, what I really said, before you edited it out, was:

See Thayer, where he says when "used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God." Thayer also says it is a word that refers to only children of parents.

In His unique relationship to the Father, Christ is an "only child."

Now, back to the OP. I think it has been adequately demonstrated that the OP is founded on an incorrect a priori assumption as no KJVO has said "the KJV says the KJV is the only word of God in English."

 

[TCassidy]

NO authority to believe or spread that myth, and to prove it false one more time.

So, as scholarship cannot point to a bible passage that proves the historic transmission of the text of holy writ, scholarship has no authority to opine that the bible has survived the two millennia from the 1st century until now?

It is insufficient, according to you, for me to state, "I know that God has preserved His word because I have a copy of it right here in my hand?"

 

[TCassidy]

Can you clarify what this textual evidence is for, if not for John 1:18?

The antiquity of the Byzantine Textform.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I have had only 3 semesters of Koine Greek but I side with brother Cassidy.

Actually I have gone through the posts and I am still a little confused (not unusual for me in my old age).

I believe Tom is supporting the traditional/orthodox doctrine of the "eternally begotten" Son of God in His essential relationship with the Father.
And I choose "only-begotten" over "one and only" or simply "only" without the "begotten"

God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born or conceived"

That is why in the Nicene Creed : The Son is begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

But IMO this is also a declaration of His uniqueness among the other sons of God - He is eternal in this relationship, we are body, soul and spirit creations of God requiring the new birth. He is eternal God come in the flesh out of the bosom of the Father to "exegete" Him (the Father).
Which is to fulfill the "functionality" to us as the Second Person of the Trinity (ὁ λόγος - The Word)
in addition to being the Savior of the world.

"μονογενής", does NOT mean "only-begotten", but , "of a single kind", or "unique", which is what the Greek compound word actually means. The Greek lexicons of Liddell and Scott, Arndt and Gingrich, and the Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by Moulton and Milligan , far better Greek scholars that myself, and judging by what I read here, than Tom Cassidy, have very clearly stated that μονογενής does not have any idea of "begetting". As for the Nicene Creed, it contains subtle heresy on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, so I don't use it as a Biblical document.

" God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born or conceived", totally unbiblical language, NO Person within the Godhead was ever "begotten", as God. It is an impossibility.

 

[TCassidy]

NO Peron within the Godhead was ever "begotten", as God. It is an impossibility.

So the physical, human, body of Jesus was not "begotten" by the Holy Spirit? You deny the virgin birth? Do you think He was Joseph's biological son? Or as the Modernists taught in the last century, the illegitimate son of the German Soldier serving in the Roman Army of Occupation?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The antiquity of the Byzantine Textform.

In which case, by adding Willoughby manuscript - 250AD as a witness for the reading, "υἱός", is incorrect, because this fragment consists of only 6 lines from John chapter 1, which is from verses 50-51. If we are talking about verse 18, how to you claim that it supports this reading? So, according to the Greek manuscript evidence, "θεός" is the oldest reading. Interestingly, according to both Clement and Irenaeus, the heretic Valentinians, also knew of "θεός", instead of "υἱός", in John 1:18.

 

[TCassidy]

Can you show me which Greek lexical authorities, that the part of the compound word, "μονογενής", which includes, "γένος", where it is used for "begetting"?

γίνομαι
ginomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
Part of Speech: verb


be·get
bəˈɡet
verb
1.
(typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
"they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"
synonyms: father, sire, have, bring into the world, give life to, bring into being, spawn
"he begat a son"
2.
give rise to; bring about.
"success begets further success"
synonyms: cause, give rise to, lead to, result in, bring about, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, occasion, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, kindle, trigger, spark off, touch off, stir up, whip up, induce, inspire, promote;

 

[TCassidy]

In which case, by adding Willoughby manuscript - 250AD as a witness for the reading, "υἱός", is incorrect, because this fragment consists of only 6 lines from John chapter 1, which is from verses 50-51. If we are talking about verse 18, how to you claim that it supports this reading? So, according to the Greek manuscript evidence, "θεός" is the oldest reading. Interestingly, according to both Clement and Irenaeus, the heretic Valentinians, also knew of "θεός", instead of "υἱός", in John 1:18.

Once again you completely miss the point. As usual.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

So the physical, human, body of Jesus was not "begotten" by the Holy Spirit? You deny the virgin birth? Do you think He was Joseph's biological son? Or as the Modernists taught in the last century, the illegitimate son of the German Soldier serving in the Roman Army of Occupation?

can you please re-read what I have written, no Person WITHIN the GODHEAD, as GOD, not the God-Man, can ever be said to have been "begotten". The Nicene Creed is wrong to include the heretical teaching of "the eternal generation of the Son from the being of the Father", which is no where taught in the Bible. the Three Persons are 100% co-equal, co-essential and co-eternal, within the Godhead. The Father is NOT greater than the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is NOT greater than the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is NOT greater than the Holy Spirit, or the Son. These are IMPOSSIBILITIES. All Three Persons are referred to in the Bible as יהוה, the root meaning being"Eternal, Self-Existing", and therefore "uncreated".

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

γίνομαι
ginomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
Part of Speech: verb


be·get
bəˈɡet
verb
1.
(typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
"they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"
synonyms: father, sire, have, bring into the world, give life to, bring into being, spawn
"he begat a son"
2.
give rise to; bring about.
"success begets further success"
synonyms: cause, give rise to, lead to, result in, bring about, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, occasion, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, kindle, trigger, spark off, touch off, stir up, whip up, induce, inspire, promote;

"μονογενής", is NOT made up of "γίνομαι" in any part of the compound word. It is "μόνος and γένος", as Thayer, whom you quote, even rightly has it. I can see no instance in the LXX, where "μονογενής" denotes any "begetting", it always has the meaning of "being the only representative of the kind, the only child".

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Once again you completely miss the point. As usual.

so, to get clear on this. why have you added the Willoughby manuscript as evidence for "υἱός"? You keep saying that I have missed the point. can you tell me where?

 

[HankD]

"μονογενής", does NOT mean "only-begotten", but , "of a single kind", or "unique", which is what the Greek compound word actually means. The Greek lexicons of Liddell and Scott, Arndt and Gingrich, and the Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by Moulton and Milligan , far better Greek scholars that myself, and judging by what I read here, than Tom Cassidy, have very clearly stated that μονογενής does not have any idea of "begetting". As for the Nicene Creed, it contains subtle heresy on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, so I don't use it as a Biblical document.

" God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born or conceived", totally unbiblical language, NO Person within the Godhead was ever "begotten", as God. It is an impossibility.

I disagree and repeat - only begotten - in the case of the Logos refers to the eternal relationship of the God the Father and God the Son (Word) as He comes forth of the Godhead. It is unique in that He is the Only Begotten IN the Godhead, the Logos the Second Person of the Trinity.

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.

ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς eis ton kolpon tou patros

He came forth from within the Godhead.

John 1:14 And the Word became 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.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I disagree and repeat - only begotten - in the case of the Logos refers to the eternal relationship of the God the Father and God the Son (Word) as He comes forth of the Godhead. It is unique in that He is the Only Begotten IN the Godhead, the Logos the Second Person of the Trinity.

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.

ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς eis ton kolpon tou patros

He came forth from within the Godhead.

John 1:14 And the Word became 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.

"He is the Only Begotten IN the Godhead". If by this you mean from God the Father, then Jesus Christ CANNOT be equally God as the Father is. the fact that The Father "begets" the Son, and not vice-versa, can only mean that the Father, and not the Son, is primary within the Godhead as God. The Son then is reduced to the idea of Philo's understanding, that He is a "second, lower God". You may argue from theology about "only begotten", but it is very clear from the Greek usage, that "μονογενής", never means this, either from the LXX or New Testament.

 

[HankD]

"He is the Only Begotten IN the Godhead". If by this you mean from God the Father, then Jesus Christ CANNOT be equally God as the Father is. the fact that The Father "begets" the Son, and not vice-versa, can only mean that the Father, and not the Son, is primary within the Godhead as God. The Son then is reduced to the idea of Philo's understanding, that He is a "second, lower God". You may argue from theology about "only begotten", but it is very clear from the Greek usage, that "μονογενής", never means this, either form the LXX or New Testament.

I have looked into this in previous debates.
of course you are going to say those things which appear to support your view and cite those who agree as well.
the same for me. I disagree with your view, I have given my reasons.
Only Begotten - has a much wider scope than standard usage.
He is unique in that He was the only human being begotten of God in the womb of Mary as well as his relationship to the Father.

I don't ping pong back and forth in debates anymore as it turns out to be totally fruitless.

Neither make judgmental statements.

I might mention more depending on what I find in Kittels (which I did years ago here at the BB)

 

[Yeshua1]

There's one question a Freedom Reader can ask any KJVO, & he/she will be stumped, stymied, stuttering, not DARE answering it CORRECTLY. That question is:

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe and preach the KJVO myth???????????? It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!

The CORRECT answer completely quashes the KJVO myth! That answer is either NONE, or SOME OTHER PERSON'S AUTHORITY.

We Baptist Christians believe Scripture is the final authority on earth in all matters of faith/worship, and, since the KJVO myth isn't found in Scripture, it calls for a SECOND AUTHORITY to justify believing it.

Therefore, the KJVO myth CANNOT be true to a Christian. All Christians should abandon that myth(not the KJV itself) at once!

Another 2 questions would be which Kjvo would be the inspired version, 1611/1789, and what about the Geneva and Tynsdale, and Nkjv?

 

[Baptist4life]

I have only one response when roby goes off on his KJVO rants and accuses them of not having Scripture to backup their belief. Just ask him about Cain's wife. Absolutely zero Scripture for the crazy things he believes about God creating a separate race of people apart from Adam and Eve. Isn't that called "hypocrisy"? I wrote him off as "credible" on any topic several years ago.

You may check his weird belief in this thread:

cain's wife...