John 1:18

The Only Begotten Son:


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

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


1 John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him


Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,


Where is the example of the Only Begotten God?

Which manuscript support it?

 

You cannot answer me.

Often Bible expressions are repeated, but if you follow MV in 1:18, you will find such expression nowhere in the Bible, else than in that verse 1:18

Isaiah 34:
16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them


You couldn't comment on John 14:14

 

NIV
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. ( Already 2 gods in this sentence)

NASB
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. ( One god explained another god!)

In case of KJV, the Father and Son relationship is very clear.

KJV
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.


This is a matter of Father and Son, full of Love and Obedience in their relationship between Father and Son.

The Only Begotten God is not found in the Bible, except the MV's expression in Jn 1:18 which is based only on 5 manuscripts against more than 900 mss.

 

It is only by a few erroneous manuscripts. In John 1:18, most of the Mss over 900 state Only Begotten Son.

I asked where Only Begotten God appears else than John 1:18.

Apparently, you brought the good example again where MV's are wrong !

KJV is correct in John 1:18 again:

1. Supporting Manuscripts : Most of them over 900 support KJV
Scarcity of Supporting mss for MV's except
Roman Catholic Texts, most erraneous Aleph. More than 99% support KJV

2. Johannine Style : Only Begotten Son appears in other verses ( John 3:16, 3:18, 1 John 4:9) and the contents are almost the same as the other verses. Only Begotten God never appears in other spots.

3. Relationship of Father and Son is clear in TR-KJV

4. MV's teach polytheism there.
The deity of another god is clear in MV's, another god in addition to the god in the previous clause, then the only and one god, which means 2 gods without unity.
KJV shows the Deity of Son as it shows 1 Tim 3:16

MV's do not show the Deity of Son, but the deity of another god!


As in the verse of John 14:14, again MV's are wrong !



Most of MV's omit Acts 8:37 too, which was omitted in order to defend the Infant Baptism.
Without Acts 8:37, Philip must have been a dumb to the eunuch asking the question in verse 36.

 

You can answer in that logic after you insert any words into the Bible.
You can insert "God the Father asked the people to pray to the virgin Mary", then if anyone ask you " where is such expression in the Bible" you can point out what you inserted, "Right here!"

The Only Begotten God is not the expression by John. It may have come from polytheists!

You are bringing the good examples where MV's are wrong !

 

Askjo,

It has been pointed out to you time and time again but you refuse to listen- there is NO PROOF of Gnostic influence on MV's or their underlying texts. Kindly refrain from repeating what is plainly a LIE. We all know from whom LIES emanate. The Bible strictly cautions us as Christians not to lie to one another.

To repeat this untruth out of ignorance is one thing- to constantly repeat it after having been shown otherwise is disobedience to God's command.

 

We have to think about the word " the Only Begotten Son".

When was He only begotten?

1) First it was accomplished at the time of Incarnation.
2) Secondly it was finalized at the time of Resurrection:

Acts 13:33

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee

The Bible tells us that This day is the day of Resurrection since Son of God has no beginning, no end days ( Heb 7:1-5), and He was begotten to come into this world, first by Incarnation ( John 1:14) , then His birth was confirmed by His Resurrection( ac 13:33)


It is obvious that KJV is correct in John 1:18.

 

YOur words are eager to return back to you, as the words tend to return to the source, to the mouth that spoke them.

You can find " Only Begotten Son" in 3 other verses, but " Only Begotten God" in nowhere else than you would like to insert !

 

Most defenders of modern versions strongly denied it. You are one of them.

 

Something simply ain't addin' up, here!

Since this picture does not seem to be exactly "adding up" I want to examine it, just a bit closer, if I may.

Let me see if I've got this exactly right, here.

Both Askjo and Eliyahu have stated that they are not actually "KJVO" by their own way of defining that term. (And, in fact, Eliyahu does seemingly disagree with some OT renderings, but apparently prefers ONLY KJV NT renderings of the verses, at least for the most part that I have seen, and upon which he has commented.) I do not recall where Askjo has ever suggested otherwise than ONLY the KJV readings are to be preferred, at least recently, however, I guess it is possible that I may have missed one, somewhere. (I certainly have absolutely no intention of wasting several days by checking more than 7500 posts by these two individuals over a 10 year collecting posting history for the two individuals, however.)

So let's get to ONLY a couple of the specifics, which I believe, if cleared up, should explain this, for me anyway. Let's start with Jn. 1:18, the specific subject of this thread. And, considering that we are dealing with the Greek NT, I'm going to consider ONLY the Greek NT MSS, and not any of the derived and collated texts from these MSS, including any TR or CT texts, neither any other versions, nor 'interpretations' of said MSS for the readings. I believe Eliyahu is saying that we should reject the "MV" reading of "[ὁ] μονογενὴς υἱός" ([o] monogenEs theos) and hold to that of "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς" (o monogenEs uios), as this is supported by a large majority of MSS, and as support for the "red" reading is to be found in ONLY 5 MSS. (Actually, there are a few more including p66; p75; א; B; C*; L; 33, but who's gonna quibble over a couple of MSS? )

FTR, I happen to agree with this assessment, and that the text of Jn. 1:18 is properly that of the "blue" reading.

I am to be considered as an advocate of the Majority text (MT), which is what is purported to be advocated here.

However, it would seem that this ONLY applies in certain instances for both Askjo and/or Eliyahu, and I quote one instance.

I believe that Askjo holds the same position on Acts 8:37, as well.

However, the supporting Greek MSS for the 'inclusion' of Acts 8:37, as the reading is found in the TR, is roughly in the same proportions as that for the reading of "[ὁ] μονογενὴς υἱός" in Jn. 1:18, so it would seem that consistency would demand the same treatment, no??

Unh- unh! Not here, apparently. The Greek MSS which 'add' Acts. 8:37 (at least the ones of which I'm aware) in some form or another include E, 104, 945, 1739, 1877, 630, 88c, and 629. (Remember these last two MSS, as they will likely show up again, just as a highly disliked relative at mealtime, I think.) Even a strong defender and Bible translator generally extremely highly supportive of the KJV readings and underlying texts, Jay P. Green, Sr., admits the lack of Greek support for this verse, and did not include it in the main text in the KJII (which version he 'translated'), explaining why this was not included. (I have the KJII, FTR.) And such ardent MT supporters, as the late Mr. Hodges and Dr. Farstad showed that the TR was reading against the vast majority of these some "900 texts" here, as well, especially the Byzantine texts. Mr. Pierpont and Dr. Robinson have also showed this same thing. (I also have Hodges/Farstad MT, again FTR.)

Yet here, both Eliyahu and Askjo are supporting a reading that is clearly in the minority, while castigating another for doing exactly the same identical thing. Where is the consistency, here??

But, this gets even better, folks. Let's head to our old friend, I Jn. 5:7-8. The Greek MSS. support for the so-called 'Johannine Comma' is ONLY about half of that for the 'minority' renderings of 1:18, and Acts 8:37. As far as I am aware, Greek MSS support for the 'comma' is limited to a grand total of four MSS, #s 61, 635, 629, and 88. Of these four, #61 is now known to be a deliberate and intentional forgery, which is even dated after the initial publication of Erasmus's text, and was ONLY created to support the 'comma' to begin with. ONLY 629, to my knowledge, may have this in the body of the text itself, as this is found only in the margin of both 88 and 635, and was apparently 'back-translated' from the Vulgate, in those two MSS. (I told you MSS 629 and 88 would show up again!) Again, Green, Hodges/Farstad, and Pierpont/Robinson show the absolute dearth of Greek MSS support for the later TR reading, here. So Askjo and Eliyahu would also agree, given that there is virtually no Greek MSS support, that this verse should not be in the text, yes?

Uh- Wrong!!

In fact, both have argued that with the lack of Greek MSS support, and the fact that the vast majority of support for this verse comes from the VUL, this verse still obviously belongs in the text.

And one more - the reading of "book of life" (TR) vs. "tree of life" as found in Rev. 22:19. The number of Greek NT MSS that are definitely known to predate Erasmus' text(s), that support the reading of "book of life" here, as found in the KJV is a grand total of exactly zero. That's "None!", as in Zilch!, Nil!, Nada!, folks. (But we do find this reading in the VUL, of course.) Of the four Greek MSS, that are claimed to support this, in any manner, of which I'm aware, two are dated XVI century, meaning they are of the same time as Erasmus or later (2049 & 2067mg ); one MS cited as in support by Hoskier (#57), actually does not even include Revelation; leaving a total of one (#296) that might even possibly be realistically earlier than Erasmus, and even that conclusion is likely questionable, as many scholars seem to date 296 in the XVI century, as well. I do not recall as to whether either Askjo or Eliyahu actually made a strong argument for this TR reading, as the genuine article, but I do recall that Eliyahu, at least suggested it. As I said, I'm not checking any >7K posts. However, I have seen some on the BB who strongly argued for the reading of "book" here, even if the current two do not.

So let's get this straight. We must reject the minority Greek reading of "only begotten God" in John 1:18 because of the lack of Greek MSS support, and the fact that this is mostly supported by the textual tradition of the Roman Catholic church, via the Vulgate of the Catholic church. At the same time, we must accept the minority Greek readings of Ac. 8:37; I Jn. 5:7-8; and Rev. 22:19 because of the lack of Greek MSS support, and the fact that this is mostly supported by the textual tradition of the Roman Catholic church, via the Vulgate of the Catholic church. I find this logic lacking and confusing, to say the least.
One thing appears fairly obvious. Both seemingly have absolutely ZERO problem with using the old "bait and switch" routine, in using this technique ONLY to support any "'KJV/TR' reading" which differs from any "'MV/CT' reading", while using the same identical technique to oppose any "'MV/CT' reading" vs. any "'KJV/TR' reading".

As Lt. Columbo would say, when something didn't quite "add up" when he was interviewing a suspect,

"Do you see the problem, here?"

Ed

 

Nothing beats a little "guilt by association" and some implied 'guilt by insinuation', I guess.

Ed

 

And with good reason. It isn't true. Why would you want them to affirm an untruth?

 

You see, you denied it.

 

Of course I denied it. Why would I lie about it?

 

(sic)

"[SIGH!]

It seems easier to denote this entire post with '(sic)' rather than noting all the multiple places where this designation is appropriate!"

Signed, Language Cop



Out of curiosity Eliyahu, exactly how have you managed to find enough time (and money) by yourself to check the readings of more than 900 Greek MSS, considering that Hodges/Farstad and their associates and all assistants managed to hit 400, which is roughly the same number as claimed by both the Pierpont/Robinson crowd, and the Aland/Black/Metzger crowd?

And considering that Language Cop notes that English is not your native language, that really is some accomplishment, he says!

My own take is that the number is more likely some 'slash and glue' job, in the alternative.

Ed

 

Yes, English is not my primary language at all. Please correct me any time. I will accept the correction.
But it sounds like an additional argument because I have noticed much worse errors by other posters which are overlooked without argument. This kind of argument is placed only when you argue with a person so vehemently, IMO.

 

I have little complaint about your assessment here.
Have you seen my post on Acts 14:23?
What are really wrong in KJV are not criticized by the modern version supporters.

I disagree with KJV in Ephesians 4:11 which translates poimen as Pastor.
Also I disagree with KJV in Acts 14:23 as well.
Most of the modern versions leave the Pastor in Eph 4:11 to support the clergy system. But the Bible teachings are that " ye are all brethren" and therefore there is no clergy system, but there are only 2 offices in the church, which are Elders and Deacons and the elders were also called Overseers ( Acts 20:28)

They follow KJV where KJV is wrong! ( I pointed out Mark 2:26 too)

Therefore this type of wordings must have been dealt with, instead of the arguments based on the Roman Catholic texts ( either B or A).

The argument can be about the difference between Majority Texts and TR, not from the view of Minority Texts.

I will respond to the other part of your posts later.