Major Doctrines affected by Modern English Translations

It doesn't seem that it is to me, Dr. Bob. We know that Christ is a part of the Godhead.

 

Dr. Bob said "Each translation follows a different Greek text, but NO DOCTRINE is impacted here in my opinion."

I agree. Doctrine comes not from from words themselves, but from interpretation of words. Words do not directly become doctrine, they first pass through our eye and our brains, and we comprehend and interpret those images of ink words into concepts and ultimately doctrines. Both the renderings you provide from John 1:18, although using different "words", still result in the same correct doctrine when properly interpreted. Jesus is begotten, Jesus is Son, Jesus is God.

Those that think differences like this affect doctrine arrive at that conclusion only because they have wrongly interpreted on or the other reading, resultin in a perceived difference - when the difference is only the result of their own misunderstanding and misinterpretation and nothing else.

 

Dr. Bob, I hope I am not out of line here by saying this, but in reference to a single verse:

Here is another issue to consider. You have to take the Gospel as a "whole" and not just look at a single verse. Every doctrine that I know of that Baptists believe are backed up by more than one location in the Bible.

If I am not mistaken this was one of the criteria for the Southern Baptist Faith and Message beliefs. (Just using this as an example.)

I think most people will agree that one verse can always be pulled out of context.

Just a thought.

 

How can the adjective "begotten" modify the noun "God"? (Unless you are a Mormon). If you weren't [snipped] on defending your MV position, you would never let this go, methinks.

If I walked into the room and started talking about a "begotten" God, you'd associate me with Mormons, Benny Hinn, etc.

The Father begat the Son, Jesus Christ. His diety, however, was never begotten. He is co-eternal with God, God himself for all eternity. That is a fundamental doctrine. The NASB renders it incomprehensible.

Lacy

[ October 06, 2004, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Lacy said "How can the adjective "Begotten" modify the noun "God"? (Unless you are a Mormon). If you weren't so hell bent on defending your MV position, you would never let this go, methinks."

Youthinks wrong. Begotten doesn't modify God, it describes him. Jesus is God, Jesus is begotten. Simple.

Lacy said "If I walked into the room and started talking about a "begotten" God, you'd associate me with Mormons, benny hinn, etc. "

It depends what you meant when using that term.

Lacy said "The Father begat the Son, Jesus Christ. His diety, however, was never begotten. He is co-eternal with God, God himself for all eternity. That is a fundamental doctrine."

I agre he is co-eternal with God, God himself for all eternity. But fundamental doctrine is NOT that God "begat" him, but that God "begets" him. Significant difference, one that deals with the eternal Sonship of Christ. If "begotten God" means his deity had a beginning, then "begotten Son" means his Sonship had a beginning for the exact same reason. Both are wrong interpretations - you cannot attack one reading for false doctrine without attacking the other. If "begotten Son" does not mean his Sonship had a beginning, then neither does "begotten God" mean his Godship had a beginning.

 

The English does nothing to strengthen any doctrine because it is not quite as specific as the Greek, etc. But all the doctrines are still there if you read the Bible in its historical context.

 

Yet another empty statement. There's no such thing as an "MV position", except where conjured up in the minds of KJVOists.

There are only two positions: the single-translation-onlyist (including KJVOism), and those who disagree with the single-translation-onlyist. One of those positions is scripturally supportable. One is not.

 

Lacy, without going to the Greek, your argument does not hold water, considering that the word "Son" describes Him well.

If I have a son, then obviously somewhere along the way, I obtained a baby boy.

Obviously NOTHING is taken away from the diety of Christ or God the Father.

 

Pillip, you forget that Lacy holds to the false doctrine that a translation has authority over its Greek source texts. So, according to her, regardless of what the Greek says, or if her translation says something different than the Greek it was translated from, we're to adhere to her translation, and not the source text.

 

Johnv and Phillip, your argument is moot in this case. As Dr. Bob said, both translations are accurate, it is the Greek manuscripts that differ. Dr. Bob asked for an intelligent discussion. That implies that people have the right to have differing viewpoints. Dr. Bob closed his post "in my opinion." He has a right to his opinion. In my opinion, his opinion is errant. I agree with Lacy's position. God has no beginning and therefore could not have been begotten. Jesus (in His humanity) had a beginning and was begotten, thus making Him a Son. Anyone know why the Greeks MSS differ here? (I am a KJV man, but not KJVO in the sense so often denigrated on this board, so I don't believe it's a Satanic attack on the Godhead)

 

Pastorgreg, I agree that the TR wording in this case better fits our doctrinal understanding. However, I don't see how the MSS wording compromises this doctrine at all ("better said" does not equate to "the only acceptible way to say it").

But the bigger point here is, which rendering is most accurate to what the writer initially wrote? Since the earliest copies of the MSS precede the TR considerably, the original texts likely were written as per the MSS rendering. However, since neither the MSS nor the KJV compromise or change any doctrine at all, both renderings are, imo, acceptible.

 

PastorGreg said "God has no beginning and therefore could not have been begotten. Jesus (in His humanity) had a beginning and was begotten, thus making Him a Son."

If "only begotten Son" does not have to mean his Sonship had a beginning, then "only begotten God" does not have to mean his Godship had a beginning. His Sonship did not have a beginning, he was Son before the incarnation.

 

Phillip,

[personal attack snipped] My position is that a good English version is just as good as a good Greek version. and that a my perfect English version is better than her imperfect Greek one.

lacy

[ October 06, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Why do you presuppose that His Sonship had no beginning?

 

LACY, YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT I'M A MALE, AND I FIND YOUR COMMENT TO BE INFANTILE, RUDE, STUPID, BELITTLING, UNCHRISTIAN, AND UNFORTUNATELY, IN LINE WITH YOUR DEMEANOR TOWARDS PEOPLE. I DEMAND AN APOLOGY, AND WILL ALSO REPORT YOUR COMPLETELY UNCHRISTIAN COMMENT TO THE MODERATORS. I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS KIND OF UNHOLY TREATMENT BY YOU. KNOCK IT OFF.

 

PastorGreg said "Why do you presuppose that His Sonship had no beginning?"

Because that's a defining aspect of the Trinity (what was it before the incarnation, "The Father, the other guy, and the Holy Spirit"?), because eternal Sonship has always been defended by orthodox Christianity, because scripture says "the Son" created all things (Col. 1:13,16; Heb. 1:2), because scripture says God "sent his Son" not "sent someone who became his Son", because he is "son" in the Old Testament (Prov 30:4).

Again, if "begotten Son" does not mean his Sonship had a beginning, "begotten God" does not mean his Godship had a beginning. Orthodox Christianity and Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was always the Son, eternally begotten. At the incarnation, Jesus as God became a man but he was the Son from eternity.

 

Where do you find anything resembling this concept in scripture. This is a man-made, doctrine that defies logic.

If the older Greek manuscripts were copied by an incompetent scribe while Godly, scholarly, holy men faithfully transferred the Word through the Old Latin, then which is more accurate?

Textual criticism is a crap shoot, based on presumptions that cannot be verified. You believe in the MVs because of your "faith", not any science(falsly-so-called.) I believe the KJV is God's inspired Word because of it's abundant fruit. Both our positions are faith based. But my evidence can whup your evidence.

lacy

 

Actually, your position (that only one translation is perfect and authoritative) is not a scripturally supportable doctrine. Hence, it is a false doctrine. Scripture does, however, require us to confront and denounce false doctrine.

Of course, if you could prove your position scripturally, than I'd change my tune. So please, provide scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism. I'm waiting, as I have for several months now.