Major Doctrines affected by Modern English Translations

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Assuming the GREEK is the Word of God (we all believe that, though would differ on the Greek text), then what MAJOR DOCTRINE has been attacked, hurt, undermined, challenged by a major English translation.

    I would like to discuss these very few verses intelligently. Sorry if this excludes some posters. [​IMG]
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    John 1:18 is the verse precipitating this thread.

    KJV1769 = "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

    NASB = No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

    Does one translation LOWER the deity of Christ? Of course not. We know that Jesus (the Son) is God and God is Jesus. Each translation follows a different Greek text, but NO DOCTRINE is impacted here in my opinion.
     
  3. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    It doesn't seem that it is to me, Dr. Bob. We know that Christ is a part of the Godhead.
     
  4. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  7. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    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)
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  16. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you presuppose that His Sonship had no beginning?
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    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.
     
  18. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...