a. The only begotten God (Modern Versions)
b. The only begotten Son (KJV)
Does a or b give a better witness to the deity of Christ?
John 1:18
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Olivencia, Apr 12, 2009.
Page 1 of 6
-
God showed Himself thru His Son, and therefore KJV is much more logical.
I don't say MV's deny the deity of Jesus in that verse.
Kolpon should be Bosom, not the side.
I think more than 900 manuscripts support KJV, and only a few (like B, A, Aleph, p66, p75) have theos and support MV's. These 5 mss are nothing but the local texts. Were all 900 mss corrupted? -
Saying the KJV is more logical is simply a red herring. Both are equally logical. I asked if a or b gave a better witness to the deity of Christ.
-
Of course KJV is more logical and therefore it shows the Deity of Jesus more clearly. -
Actually, more ancient versions support omitting John 7:53-8:11 than reading "only begotten Son" in John 1:18. In the latter passage, the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Old Syriac all appear to support "only begotten Son." Besides the Peshitta (apparently), as far as I can tell, only the Egyptian Coptic and the Ethiopian versions support "only begotten God," but such a situation is not surprising if one supposes that those versions owe their origin to the local Egyptian text, which obviously, according to the oldest manuscripts of exhibiting that type of text, also read "only begotten God." I also must mention that most church fathers, except the early Egyptian ones, support "the only begotten Son," which is also a Johannine reading (see 3:16, 18).
-
Can anyone confirm which manuscripts else than A, B, Aleph, p66, p75 have monogenes theos in Jn 1:18?
I have never heard about Monogenes Theos else than here by MV's.
Also, MV's do not distinguish between " Only Begotten" and " The Only and One"
The Only and One can apply to a Son who is left after another brother was killed by an accident.
The Only Begotten applies to a Son who is the only one from the birth.
Also, the word " monogenes" relates to the Birth because it is the combination of Mono + Genes which came from gennao verb which represents the birth.
Therefore " Only begotten" is the most accurate translation.
Now, we have to look at the verse closely,
KJV
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
NIV
18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
( quoted from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201;&version=31;)
NIV
The former clause talks about " God the Father", then it sounds like that another God sitting beside God the Father has made Him known.
Doesn't this contradict " the One and Only" because it sounds like 2 Gods in one sentence? It talks about 2 gods!
KJV
No one has seen God the Father, but the Son in His Bosom has shown God the Father. This coincides with the rest of Gospel John, especially 14:9-10. In this case, it doesn't talk about 2 Gods, but only one God, in whom Son stayed. Son was in God the Father and both were One. -
-
But in case of John 1:18, only about 5 mss " only begotten God"
while more than 900 mss have " Only begotten Son" as far as I know.
Only begotten God, is it found elsewhere? -
More important thing is that the verse sounds like polytheistic if God exists beside another God. -
The KJV in John 1:18 shows the deity of Christ more clearly than the modern versions??
Let's see the modern versions call Christ "God" while the KJV calls Him "Son".
Whatever...can't make you see what you don't want to. -
-
No, it shows more than one Person is referred to as God (welcome to Trinitarianism).
-
KJV exactly coincides with John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? -
John 1:18 KJV
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 1:18 NWT (JW)
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotton god who is in the bosom (position) with the Father, is the one that has explained him.
JW is similar to Arians. According to Ante Nicene Fathers, they said, “Only begotten God” had become common with the Arians. We know that Jesus Christ was God, and that Jesus Christ was "begotten" by means of the incarnation, does NOT equal "begotton God. God the Son, Jesus Christ, became the "only begotten Son" through the incarnation.
If you prefer, "God," you have the problem with that because you follow JW's belief. Not only JW, but you also follow the Gnostic's belief. -
To Eliyahu:
Because the only and one God is a multi-personal Being. Thus there is no contradiction.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To Askjo:
Begotten here means unique so your pointless assertion does not apply. -
Have you seen any other verse which states Only Begotten God ?
I ask this because the Only and One God is not the exact translation from MOnogenes Theos. -
-
JW's hate the debate based on KJV.
They have little problem with MV's, especially about the deity of Jesus. -
In this verse, MV's are describing either 2 gods!
The Only Begotten Son is a typical Johannine Style as we read John 3:16
Where is the Only Begotten God in the Bible? -
I asked you the question,
Have you seen any other verse which states Only Begotten God ?
I ask this because the Only and One God is not the exact translation from MOnogenes Theos.
--> In answer to your first question, yes. John 1:18.
In answer to your second question I never asserted otherwise. Monogenes means unique in this passage.
They have little problem with MV's, especially about the deity of Jesus.
--> Another reckless and uneductaed assertion. John 14:14, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 and Revelation 14:1 all prove your argument is nonsense.
CAN YOU TRY LIMITING YOUR RESPONSES TO JUST ONE AT A TIME INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE POSTS. I KNOW VERY WELL KJV ONLYISTS LIKE TO RAMBLE ON AND ON BUT TRY :)
----------------------------------------------
Oh by the way Askjo the NWT used by the JW's agrees with the KJV in John 14:14 where the "Me" in reference to the prayer to Christ is absent.
Page 1 of 6