John 1:18

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Psalm145 3, Aug 4, 2001.

  1. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    King James
    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.

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

    Is this verse suppose to read "only begotten Son" or "only begotten God"?

    These two words do not mean the same thing. One of them is NOT the Word of God. The Greek word underlying this verse is "huios"(Strong's ref. #5207).

    How in the world does these new versions translate this word as deity?

    It is not possible to have an "only begotten God." This is an example of the Gnostic error that teaches Christ was one of the many "gods" that were "emanations."

    It must read "only begotten Son" to be doctrinally correct.

    The King James Bible is theologically superior.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Greek word underlying this verse is "huios"(Strong's ref. #5207).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Actually the Greek word underlying this verse is more likely theos, although there is a legitimate textual variant here.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How in the world does these new versions translate this word as deity? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Because the word theos means God and because John is testifying about the Deity of Christ, something that is not as clear in the TR/KJV. The MVs make it explicit that Christ is God.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is not possible to have an "only begotten God." This is an example of the Gnostic error that teaches Christ was one of the many "gods" that were "emanations."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Only if you fail to understand that monogenes (the Greek word) refers to uniqueness or "one of a kind"-ness. The KJV translates the same word as "only" in Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. Only in reference to Christ (and Isaac in Heb 11:17) does it include "begotten." The idea of the word is only, unique, one of a kind.

    The point of John 1:1-18 is to show that Jesus Christ was not merely a man or a form of God but that he was the only God. Thus John 1:18 concludes the passage by saying that the only God was manifested in the flesh.

    Interestingly, I talked to a Muslim just this week who claimed that "son of God" was not a title to deity. (They misunderstand the Hebrew idiom "son of.") The Muslims can agree with John 1:18 in the KJV but not in the NIV or the NASB.

    [ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  3. Will

    Will
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2000
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the Netbible notes to the passage, "(1:18) The textual problem monogenhV" qeov" (monogenh" qeo", "the only God") versus oJ monogenhV" uiJov" (Jo monogenh" Juio", "the only son") is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in some MSS, since Ì66, one of the earliest MSS (2nd-3rd century), uses the contraction qMs; the alternative would have been uMs. The external evidence is difficult to evaluate objectively because it is so evenly split between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings and one's view toward the relative importance of these two texttypes will probably decide one's evaluation of the external evidence."

    For the full discussion go to http://www.bible.org/index.htm
     
  4. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
    It must read "only begotten Son" to be doctrinally correct.

    The King James Bible is theologically superior.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You are presenting the same argument that the cults use in arguing against the Bible, or arguing in favor of their own corrupt versions, that theology must define the translation. Rather, theology must be derived from what the text says, not vica versa. If a text like Jn 1:18 presents a problem in interpretation (I don't believe it does; both Son and God are true of Christ)then we must interpret Scripture with Scripture to arrive at the proper theological interpretation.

    You argument also presents evidence that a similar mindset may have befallen scribes who wished to smooth out theological diffculties in in order to alleviate any such interpretive difficulties.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You argument also presents evidence that a similar mindset may have befallen scribes who wished to smooth out theological diffculties in in order to alleviate any such interpretive difficulties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well said Chris. I believe this is the point of Bart Ehrman's book, The Orthodox Corruption of the Text. It could be that this very variant was the result of "monogenes theos" being too difficult and thus changed to "monogenes huios." (The reaons why the more difficult reading is to be preferred provided it is not too difficult.) I don't have Metzger's TExtual Commentary here with me. I would be interested to know what it says.
     
  6. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    huios (Strong's ref.# 5207) and theos (Strong's ref.# 2316) are two completely different words. Which word was God-breathed in John 1:18? One of them is the preserved Word of God and the other isn't.

    One text is the Bible, the other isn't. Is the Bible infallible or not? I believe the Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word. Those of you who do not believe we have God's Word perfectly preserved today are lost at sea with no authoritative Bible.

    Proverbs 22:20,21 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?
     
  7. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
    huios (Strong's ref.# 5207) and theos (Strong's ref.# 2316) are two completely different words. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Who said they weren't? The problem is that in Gk they appear very similar (which can't eb reproduced here). Huios looks something like uios and theos looks similar to 0eos. A careless scribe could make a mistake or a "conscientious" scribe may have thought uios to be a mistake. The point is, there is evidence for both and neither variant is wrong theologically.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those of you who do not believe we have God's Word perfectly preserved today are lost at sea with no authoritative Bible.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is a non sequitur. I do not believe that we have God's Word perfectly preserved today because there is no evidence to support that. Neither am I lost at sea with no authoritative Bible.
     
  9. Theopolitan

    Theopolitan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're BOTH the correct readings!!
    :D
     
  10. Wayne Rossi

    Wayne Rossi
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    This affirms my belief that preservation falls under the realm of doctrinal soundness of the Bible, not nit-picky exactitude. God has not allowed anything of real substance or doctrinal change to mar the Scriptures, and because we can say that we're a lot better off than most religions (like trying to make sense out of the holy works of Buddhism or Zoroastrianism). Hand of God? I think so.

    Is "only begotten God" or "only begotten Son" any less true than its comparitor? Jesus is both God and begotten of the Father, God and Son. All told, "only begotten God" is a more meaningful statement because it states a fundamental part of the Trinity: Jesus is God, begotten of God the Father. I don't claim to perfectly understand the Trinity, but I do know that both of these statements are equally true. Jesus is God, the Son, eternally begotten of God, the father.

    -Wayne
     

Share This Page

Loading...