• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Difference Does It Make?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The manuscript count percentages.

ο μονογενης υιος 99%

ο μονογεννης υιος 0.6%

μονογενης θεος 0.3%

ο μονογενης θεος 0.1%
I am asking what doctrine is taught using one that is not taught in another.

That way we can examine if one Bible, like the NASB, ESV, NIV compared to the KJV is teaching a false doctrine or omitting a true doctrine (or vise versa).

Just pointing to words in manuscripts post-dating the autographs is meaningless to me.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
I am asking what doctrine is taught using one that is not taught in another.

That way we can examine if one Bible, like the NASB, ESV, NIV compared to the KJV is teaching a false doctrine or omitting a true doctrine (or vise versa).

Just pointing to words in manuscripts post-dating the autographs is meaningless to me.
The common text in John 1:18 reading "Son" directly supports the Sonship of who appeared being the LORD God being with the Father (John 1:2) other than God in another form or as a second God.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The common text in John 1:18 reading "Son" directly supports the Sonship of who appeared being the LORD God being with the Father (John 1:2) other than God in another form or as a second God.
So does "begotten". And Jesus is referred to as the Son as well.

Your argument is like me arguing the KJV denies that Jesus is God in that verse.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
So does "begotten". And Jesus is referred to as the Son as well.

Your argument is like me arguing the KJV denies that Jesus is God in that verse.
Not really.

NASB's reading being a fix for NWT.

The ASV used in the text, No man hath seen God at any time; * the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

*ASV footnote: Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten.
 

Dave G

Well-Known Member
Too often people get into the weeds and worry about whether the Gospels should match word for word, or if one manuscript added words to Luke to match what Matthew wrote. These people typically do not understand the Word of God and prefer to go down verses as if the Bible was a text book in college.
Doctrine is based on the very words themselves, Jon.
This, among other reasons, is why I trust translations in English like the Authorized;
and not more modern translations in English like the NASB, the ESV and so forth;

Because I see that the older ones were not only translated using God's preserved manuscripts ( and not things like Codex Sinaiticus ), they were translated much more faithfully by men that were seeking to preserve, as much as possible, a word-for-word ( not a thought-for-thought ) carry-over from the target language to ( in this case ) the English...modern or not.
 
Last edited:

Dave G

Well-Known Member
For example, those that believe, as I do, that faith is a gift from God, do so because of what the words say...
Not because of so-called "high points" like agreed-upon or even historical ( read, "because a large group of people over the centuries agreed that this is / was the right 'interpretation' of a passage or group of passages" ) doctrines.

Here is where I get the support for my faith ( trusting and believing God's every word, see Matthew 4:3-4, Luke 4:3-4 ) being a gift that originates with God, specifically Jesus Christ Himself:

" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report
." ( Hebrews 11:1-2 ). <----- Faith, described here as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and that God's people then do things by this God-given faith.

" But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
. ( Romans 3:21-23 ). <---- The faith "of" ( by or from ) Jesus Christ.

" We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. " ( Galatians 2:15-16 ).

" For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
( Galatians 2:19-21 ).

" [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
( Galatians 3:21-22 )

" Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,
and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"
( Philippians 3:8-9 ).
 
Last edited:

Dave G

Well-Known Member
You see Jon, "the Greek" ( whichever group of collated Greek manuscripts one uses to translate God's every word into English, and there are currently three ) doesn't state "faith IN Christ" in these passages...it states ( and is properly translated into English as ) the faith "OF Christ" because of one word:

"Ἰησοῦ / ιησου", which, when properly translated, does not mean " IN Jesus"...

It means "OF Jesus", or "FROM Jesus" ( Romans 3:22 Greek Text Analysis ).

With that in mind and as an example, contrast the "KJV" with the NASB in Romans 3:22:
" but [it is the] righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction,"

The NIV:
" This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

The ESV:
" the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."

And finally, the NKJV:
" even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe."


Not one of them has translated it into English properly and faithfully.

That is just one example of why this subject is important to me.
It's the words themselves, and what altering them does to the text, the doctrines, and ultimately, to the Gospel that I hold dear.

This, among other reasons, is why I do not generally trust the more modern translations in English, and why I will not use them;
Because of their unfaithfulness to the Greek itself.
Which "Greek" manuscripts are the correct and preserved ones is a subject for another day;
But my point is, most if not all of the more modern English translations incorrectly render this one Greek word...so why should I trust them to be accurate in other areas ( and I've already looked at other areas )?


My answer was decided long ago...and in answer to the OP, that's why it makes a difference.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Not really.

NASB's reading being a fix for NWT.

The ASV used in the text, No man hath seen God at any time; * the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

*ASV footnote: Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten.
So you think the KJV got it wrong by leaving out that Jesus is God?

Does not matter because the doctrine isn't changed at all.

That is my point. You are looking at words as codes, verse by verse, without having any documents you can say match the autographs, and claiming one is better even though there is absolutely no change in doctrine (in what is being communicated).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Not really.

NASB's reading being a fix for NWT.

The ASV used in the text, No man hath seen God at any time; * the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

*ASV footnote: Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten.
So you think the KJV got it wrong by leaving out that Jesus is God?

Does not matter because the doctrine isn't changed at all.

That is my point. You are looking at words as codes, verse by verse, without having any documents you can say match the autographs, and claiming one is better even though there is absolutely no change in doctrine (in what is being communicated).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Doctrine is based on the very words themselves, Jon.
Then it should be very easy to provide doctrines present in one but absent the other.

List them and let's consider whether they were omissions or additions.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
An only begotten God, does not acknowledge Sonship of the LORD God who is appearing to Abraham in Genesis 12:7 etc.
Yes, "begotten God" does acknowledge Sonship.

But here you are being a bit dishonest. You prove the KJV acknowledges Jesus is God by going to a different verse while "proving" your case by restricting other versions to one verse....and ignoring the word "begotten God".

Not only does "begotten God" acknowledge Sonship, but it acknowledges Sonship along with divinity (eternal).

So by your standards the KJV is a bit atheistic when this verse is concerned while the NASB would be too complex (not explaining to the audience what "begotten" means, or that Jesus was born a male).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The Greek translated "begotten" in μονογενης means "to become" God with God, without actually specifing Son.
No. If you translate the word "to become" then that is on you. But it means unique, offspring.

We see this in Hebrews as well, as Abraham offered up his begotten son.

That does not mean Isaac became Abraham's son when Abraham offered him. He was begotten of Abraham, and a male.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What do you mean by this?
The word for begotten comes from two words (unique, one of a kind, and stock, offspring).

In Hebrews we encounter this with Isaac being Abraham's "begotten" son.

Now, I'm sure that Abraham thought his son was unique....as human beings we are all unique (some more than others :Biggrin).

But to say the verse should be translated that Abraham offered Isaac, his unique son...is kinda off. The point of the emphasis in Hebrews is that Isaac was Abraham's begotten son (his biological son).
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
The word for begotten comes from two words (unique, one of a kind, and stock, offspring).

In Hebrews we encounter this with Isaac being Abraham's "begotten" son.

Now, I'm sure that Abraham thought his son was unique....as human beings we are all unique (some more than others :Biggrin).

But to say the verse should be translated that Abraham offered Isaac, his unique son...is kinda off. The point of the emphasis in Hebrews is that Isaac was Abraham's begotten son (his biological son).

See the link in #38, and then share your thoughts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top