What Difference Does It Make?

[JonC]

See the link in #38, and then share your thoughts

I believe using the word to mean "unique" is a bit intellectually dishonest. It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the verse.


Jesus was before me. Jesus is in the bosom of the Father. He is the true Light. All things were created through Him. He was in the beginning with God and He was God.

Oh....AND He is unique. ??

Sane with Abraham and Isaac. Saying that Isaac was Abraham's unique son does not make sense.

I agree with the article that translating the word as "only begotten" is not right. But begotten is correct. This is the point. Isaac was Abraham's begotten son and he was going to offer him.

 

[Dave G]

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.

If you'll re-read my post, I just did.
In addition, the subject goes far deeper than this thread would allow for space, and I also have no wish to cover ground that's already been covered in past threads.
I will, however, briefly give you a passage or two to consider.

As for whether or not they are omissions or additions...
Again, the words themselves are what the doctrines are founded upon.

Let's take, for instance, the deity of Christ Jesus the Lord. <---- BTW, why call Him Lord if He is not God?
Would you say that this statement supports it, or erodes it?

" Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, ESV )

Now let's look at the 1599 Geneva:

" Let the same mind be in you that was even in Christ Jesus,
Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God:
But he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man.
He humbled himself, and became obedient unto the death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, Geneva 1599 ).

Which one erodes the deity of Christ, and which one reinforces and declares it?

 

[SavedByGrace]

I believe using the word to mean "unique" is a bit intellectually dishonest. It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the verse.


Jesus was before me. Jesus is in the bosom of the Father. He is the true Light. All things were created through Him. He was in the beginning with God and He was God.

Oh....AND He is unique. ??

Sane with Abraham and Isaac. Saying that Isaac was Abraham's unique son does not make sense.

I agree with the article that translating the word as "only begotten" is not right. But begotten is correct. This is the point. Isaac was Abraham's begotten son and he was going to offer him.

As I have shown μονογενης never has the meaning BEGOTTEN

 

[JonC]

If you'll re-read my post, I just did.
In addition, the subject goes far deeper than this thread would allow for space, and I also have no wish to cover ground that's already been covered in past threads.
I will, however, briefly give you a passage or two to consider

As for whether or not they are omissions or additions...
Again, the words themselves are what the doctrines are founded upon.

Let's take, for instance, the deity of Christ Jesus the Lord. <---- BTW, why call Him that if He is not God?
Would you say that this statement supports it, or erodes it?

" Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, ESV )

Now let's look at the 1599 Geneva:

" Let the same mind be in you that was even in Christ Jesus,
Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God:
But he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man.
He humbled himself, and became obedient unto the death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, Geneva 1599 ).

Which one erodes the deity of Christ, and which one reinforces and declares it?

I know you think you did, but you didn't.

The issue is you are pulling out verses.

If I do that then I can say the KJV Jn 1:18 denies that Jesus is God. Obviously it doesn't.

Likewise, Jesus' divinity is proclaimed throughout the other text-types.

Now we do get to an interesting part.

You seem to be implying that one verse is correct because it more clearly proclaims Jesus' deity.

That could also mean it was altered from the original text to do so.

Just because a verse seems clearer to us, or mentions a truth absent another text-type, does not mean it is correct to the original.

 

[Conan]

The manuscript count percentages.

ο μονογενης υιος 99%

ο μονογεννης υιος 0.6%

μονογενης θεος 0.3%

ο μονογενης θεος 0.1%

Thank you for the evidence.

 

[37818]

No. If you translate the word "to become" then that is on you. But it means unique, offspring.

From what I understand, the word μονογενης is a compound word of:
μόνος
and
γίνομαι.

γίνομαι is never by itself translated offspring, as far as know. Please show me a case.

 

[JonC]

As I have shown μονογενης never has the meaning BEGOTTEN

You have posted that. You have not proved it.

I could likewise say that John 1:18 proves the word means "begotten" because that is how John uses it in the text.

The question here is whether the word has any meaning at all (you'd say it doesn't because John had already demonstrated Jesus' uniqueness, I say it does because the point is begotten of the Father just like Isaac was Abraham's begotten son).

The importance, of course, is in the relationship within the Hebrew culture.

 

[Dave G]

I know you think you did, but you didn't.

You say I didn't. I say I did.
Right there we don't agree...and can two walk together except they be agreed ( Amos 3:3 )?

No, and I'm sorry that we don't.

You seem to be implying that one verse is correct because it more clearly proclaims Jesus' deity.

What I'm saying is, that there's more going on behind the scenes than I think you're willing to look at.
But. since you're not persuaded in that direction, there's little point in talking about it, is there?

 

[Dave G]

@JonC

Going a bit deeper...

Taking the passage in Philippians 2:5-8 and comparing it to the Greek ( which one of three, you choose ), how well did the ESV do, for example ( in as close to a word-for-word fashion ), compared to the Geneva? Would you say that the ESV is more of a Dynamic Equivalency, or a Formal Equivalency?

In other words, did the translators actually translate it, or did they summarize it?
Did they faithfully carry it over, as completely as possible, from the Greek to the English, or did they "kind of"?

It's important Jon, because I want God's words and not man's words;
God's words and not man summarizing God's words.

Now, since we don't agree, I'll take my leave of this thread and cease further comment.
I can see that it's not important to you, even though it is to me.

May God bless you, sir.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The manuscript count percentages.

ο μονογενης υιος 99%

ο μονογεννης υιος 0.6%

μονογενης θεος 0.3%

ο μονογενης θεος 0.1%

Manuscripts are only COPIES made by anyone who could copy! These included some from the party of the arch heretic Arius!

The early Church Fathers who were BEFORE the Greek manuscripts read GOD, as does the 2 OLDEST Greek manuscripts!

Numbers mean ZERO, because they could ALL be wrong!

 

[SavedByGrace]

You have posted that. You have not proved it.

I could likewise say that John 1:18 proves the word means "begotten" because that is how John uses it in the text.

The question here is whether the word has any meaning at all (you'd say it doesn't because John had already demonstrated Jesus' uniqueness, I say it does because the point is begotten of the Father just like Isaac was Abraham's begotten son).

The importance, of course, is in the relationship within the Hebrew culture.

My article PROVES what I have said and you have not been able to disprove it

 

[37818]

Numbers mean ZERO, because they could ALL be wrong!

This argument can throw out our 100% readings between variants, leaving us no viable evidence.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This argument can throw out our 100% readings between variants, leaving us no viable evidence.

Nonsense

 

[37818]

Nonsense

Your argument, manuscripts common content means zero is nonsense.

Numbers mean ZERO, because they could ALL be wrong!

 

[Deacon]

The differences in John 1:8 results from the difference of/in (LOL) a single letter in most manuscripts (both Son and God were often abbreviated to save space on rare and valuable papyrus or velum).

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. (bolding added)

Dave G, you said made your decision long ago.
It appears that you are simply undergirding your "long ago" decision and collecting proof texts.
You are not continuing to look into the difficulty.
That's one of the reasons that there is a KJV problem; once an opinion is formed, whether it's right or wrong, some people find it easier to stick resolutely to their first impression.

Re: Romans 3:22

1) Finding a textual problem and convincing yourself that it provides enough evidence to discard the whole can be compared to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

2) Supporting textual decisions based on doctrine can be compared to putting the cart before the horse.
Texts come first; doctrine is derived from Scripture, not Scripture from doctrine.

Where "of" in Romans 3:22 has some textual support... many (most) modern translators feel that there are stronger evidences that using "in" is the proper way to understand the passage.
While there are some doctrinal implications, neither presents a major doctrinal problem.

So...
What Difference Does it Make? ... very little really.

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your argument, manuscripts common content means zero is nonsense.

EVIDENCE FOR THE READING "μονογενης θεος":

Manuscripts: (Greek)

The Codex P66 (about 200 A.D.)
The Codex P75 (early 3rd cent.)
The Codex Sinaticus (4th)
The Codex Vaticanus (4th)
The Codex Ephraemi (5th)
The Codex Regius (8th)
The minuscule manuscript 33 (9th)

Ancient Versions:

Diatessaron (2nd) - Armenian Edition
Apostolic Constitutions - (4th)
The Syriac Peshitta - (5th)
The Syriac Harklean - margin (7th)
The Ethiopic (6th) - Roman Edition

Patristic: (Early Christian Writers)

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D.130-200) - Greek
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) – Greek
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (260-340) – Greek
Alexandria, Bishop of Alexander (died, 328) - Greek
Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria (313-398) - Greek
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (315-367) - Latin
Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403) - Greek
Basil, "the great" of Cappadocia (330-379) - Greek
Gregory of Nyssa (330-395) - Greek
Ambrosiaster, Rome and Spain (f.375) - Latin
Jerome (342-420) - Latin
Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais (370-414) - Greek
Cyril of Alexander (died, 444) - Greek

Heretics:

Valentinus of Egypt (2nd cent)
Theodotus (2nd)
Ptolemy (2nd)
Heracleon (2nd)
Origen of Alexandria (185-254)
Arius of Alexandria (250-336)

THIS is what is called EVIDENCE!!!

 

[JonC]

From what I understand, the word μονογενης is a compound word of:
μόνος
and
γίνομαι.

γίνομαι is never by itself translated offspring, as far as know. Please show me a case.

There are many cases. One that comes to mind is Thayer's insistence that the word refers to an only descendent or only child of one's parents. He insists it is used o ly of sons and daughters that are "unique" or sole children of two parents. In John 1 it woukd mean only begotten of God.

Now, as far as the Greek language is concerned we know the word means "begotten" because Josephus uses it in context of Josephus’ reference to Izates being "begotten".

Bulman also insisted it speaks of "behotten" and noted that the problem with saying it refers to unique or one of a kind is that would be an empty modifier. He views the focus being on generation (begotten of God).

I could keep on, but why?

 

[SavedByGrace]

There are many cases. One that comes to mind is Thayer's insistence that the word refers to an only descendent or only child of one's parents. He insists it is used o ly of sons and daughters that are "unique" or sole children of two parents. In John 1 it woukd mean only begotten of God.

Now, as far as the Greek language is concerned we know the word means "begotten" because Josephus uses it in context of Josephus’ reference to Izates being "begotten".

Bulman also insisted it speaks of "behotten" and noted that the problem with saying it refers to unique or one of a kind is that would be an empty modifier. He views the focus being on generation (begotten of God).

I could keep on, but why?

the Greek compound word "μονογέννητος", is the ONLY word that literally means ONLY-BEGOTTEN, and is the Latin unigenitus

μονογενής is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique”, and the Latin is unicus. But NEVER ONLY-BEGOTTEN!

But some just don't want to accept these FACTS!

 

[37818]

I could keep on, but why?

You make the claim. But do not actually present a precise case.

Abraham had two sons. Isaac was not his sole son. But was his sole son of the promise.

Translation is some times problematic, Hebrews 11:17, . . . offered up his only begotten [son,] . . .

. . . offered up his one of kind [son,] . . .

. . . offered up his unique [son,] . . .

 

[JonC]

You make the claim. But do not actually present a precise case.

Abraham had two sons. Isaac was not his sole son. But was his sole son of the promise.

Translation is some times problematic, Hebrews 11:17, . . . offered up his only begotten [son,] . . .

. . . offered up his one of kind [son,] . . .

. . . offered up his unique [son,] . . .

Actually Bulman's observation made a good case. "Unique" would be an empty modifier. It would have to be followed, and it isn't.

And then there are those scholars, a few I mentioned, that while divided over certain qualities of the word were in agreement that at a minimum it referred to "begotten".

Bullard noted this quality when he wrote that the "uniqueness" was generational (begotten of God". The γεν stem denotes generation (not necessarily birth, but descendent).

But that does not prove my point any more than your opinion proves yours.


In the context of those passages there are no differences in doctrine. The difference is only that one can better support their interpretation with one over another.


Isaac is Abraham and Sarah's only begotten child. As noted, the word was used to describe an only son or daughter of parents. Josephus used it to describe the only son among other siblings.

So we know, at least, that the word was used as "begotten" at the time. It becomes, then, a matter of interpretation that is useless because the accounts are the exact same doctrine.