John 1:18

"I do not 'correct' posts, although I may occasionally suggest that a person may have intended something other than what was posted.

"'[Sic]' (pronounced as 'seek') is not concerned with any correction, but is the Latin adverb meaning 'thus' or 'as written' and is indicative that this is a verbatim reproduction, and not that of any error of transcription by the one denoting some variant, with the use of '[sic]'."

Signed, Language Cop, alter ego of EdSutton

 

Nevertheless, I will appreciate you if you point out any problem with my specific expression, instead of pointless sigh.

Me auctore ( my suggestion, Latin)

 

When I pointed out the lack of the manuscript support, I expected this kind of reaction because I knew well about the situation with Johannine Comma.
Certainly I have not checked any of the manuscripts in person, and moreover, I do not know any person or any individual who has checked all the manuscripts of Gospel John, which may be over 1,000 in some spots or less than 900 in some verses.
But I suggested such figures for understanding the great difference in supporting mss.
I have never seen any literature which indicate more than 5 mss supporting MV rendering, but often find only 5-6 supporters in the books like Majority Text by Art Farstad/Zane Hodges, and found the aricle as follows:

Die einzige Stelle, an der Joachim Schmitsdorf eine NA-Lesart zu verteidigen versucht, ist Joh 1,18 (BuG, S.30, FN a). Wo der TR mit dem Mehrheitstext bezeugt: „der eingeborene Sohn, der im Schoß des Vaters ist“,
bringen einige wenige alexandrinischen Handschriften (NA 27 nennt nur 5 HSS: P66, Sinaiticus 1. Hand, Vaticanus,C und L) die Lesart: „der / ein eingeborene(r) Gott [monogenes theos], der im Schoß des Vaters ist“.
Bruder Schmitsdorf beschönigt den griechischen Wortlaut von NA ähnlich wie die modernen Übersetzungen
und übersetzt „der einzige Gott“; es heißt aber nicht monos, sondern monogenes = einzig-gezeugt /eingeboren.
Abgesehen davon ergäbe die Bezeichnung des Sohnes als „einziger Gott“ auch keinen lehrmäßig gesunden
Sinn! Wie sollte das Wort Gottes dann den Vater bezeichnen, der an dieser Stelle ja vom Sohn unterschieden
wird?


Gott’ nennen kann“ (S. 215). Nirgends findet sich in der Schrift eine Vorstellung von einem „eingeborenen Gott“
– dafür aber in den perversen Systemen der Gnostiker und ihrer Nachfolger, zu denen die Arianer gehören.

(http://www.das-wort-der-wahrheit.de/downloads/sttrbibelugem.pdf)

This is about the Reliability of the Textus Receptus, and it points out the same point which I did " Nowhere the Only begotten God" is found in the Bible else than this spot where MV try to insert.

Also, it says " NA brought no more mss supporting for " Only Begotten God" than 5 mss ( p66, B, Aleph, C, and L) but you may include p75. Where did you get 33?

In any case, I hope you admit the supporters for " Only Begotten God" are scarce.

I don't say the rule of majority works all the time.
But, there must be sufficient reasons to reject the majority too.
Moreover, you never explained against the Johannine Style of Only Begotten Son, and the absence of the case for Only Begotten God.

Also, you never explained about the great problem with the 2 Gods in one verse, which appears nowhere in the Bible else than in this verse of MV.

As for Acts 8:37

the following answers quite well, though you may say I do the typical job " copy and glue"

It also is found in the Greek Codex E (eighth century) and several Greek manuscripts (36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 610, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1678, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others).
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_ac8_37.html

Basically, it is a nonsense if anyone believe that the Bible was written without verse 37, because it sounds like Philip became a dumb without answering the question by Eunuch if we don't have verse 37.

Therefore there is much more stronger evidence comes from the Bible itself, despite the minority of the supporters.

Also, I explained the Johannine Comma is absolutely correct despite the scarcity of the supporting mss.
Without it, verse 8 encounters a big dilemma with Greek grammar, such gender disagreement can be found nowhere. ( You may point out 1 Cor 13:13 which are about the abstract noun!) Moreover, Father Word Holy Spirit is another Johannine Style. I think we debated about this enough.

As for Rev 22:19- Is your name written in the Book of Life or in the Tree of Life?
Sometimes, TR represents only a few manuscripts but often it has good reasons for that. In other words, TR is based on the most reliable mss in most cases, though I don't say even TR is inerrant.

 

Ed,

I don't consider J.P. Green as KJVO or a KJV supporter. He used BHS for OT, which is called " Hitler's Bible" by Messianic Jews.

I may do some "copy and glue job" because I have to explain and show the supporting theses. But I may be one of a few people here who have been actually doing the real translation work.

About 3-4 years ago, when I participated in this thread for the first time, I explained my job in detail. I have been translating the Bible from the original language into Korean, and finished the NT portion and was in OT. Since then I have not made much progress but I am still continuing the translation work, and find much more problems with the existing translations, which are not from the view of the MV.

On the other hand, I have noticed most of the posters are just copying and gluing, and arguing based on the information and judgment by others. However, in my case I have read thru the Bible in Greek and much part of Hebrew in person and found many problems for myself.
Therefore you may have to look at yourself too when you criticize me for " copy and glue job" God knows and He may laugh at both of us, you and me! if we argue about this matter too much.

 

Interestingly, Rudolf Ebertshauser connect the MV reading in John 1:18 to Gnostiker.

Nirgends findet sich in der Schrift eine Vorstellung von einem „eingeborenen Gott“
– dafür aber in den perversen Systemen der Gnostiker und ihrer Nachfolger, zu denen die Arianer gehören. Sie​

kannten niedrigere, geschaffene „Götter zweiten Grades“ und stuften den Herrn Jesus Christus so ein.

http://www.das-wort-der-wahrheit.de/downloads/sttrbibelugem.pdf
​

 

Do you have any evidence for this? It sounds like a wild accusation.

 

Yet YOU have NEVER PROVED IT.

Unfortunately you just cannot wrap your mind around the fact that there are NO FACTS to support your "Gnostic Bible" assertions. You cannot in your mind separate the "Gnostic Gospels" - which in fact do exist but not as any part of any MV - from the true Gospels which never have been altered by the Gnostics.

I will defend your (and my!) right to use the KJV to the day I die, but I will NOT defend erroneous and blasphemous lies about ANY Bible translation.

 

Eliyahu, there are some Germans who oppose your viewpoint, too:

Bernhard Weiss (Textkritik der vier Evangelien [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899], 20): "Dass Jh 1, 18 mit ℵBCL (Trg WHtxt) μονογενης θεος zu lesen, ist aus äusseren und inneren Gründen wiederholt so schlagend nachgewiesen (vg. Meyer-Weiss, Joh. S. 75 f.), dass die Festhaltung des ο μονογ. υιος sich nur aus dem Unvermögen erklärt, die richtige Lesart zu verstehen." My free translation: "That John 1:18 reads 'only begotten God' with ℵBCL (and Tregelles and Westcott and Hort) is so repeatedly and consistently proven on external and internal grounds that any adherence to "the only begotten Son" can only be explained by one's inability to understand the right reading."

But personally I prefer the advice of another German, H.A.W. Meyer (Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of John [trans. from the 5th German ed. by W. Urwick; rev. and ed. by F. Crombie; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1891], 41): "B. C.* L. ℵ. 33. Copt. Syr. Aeth. and many Fathers: θεός. Dogmatic gloss in imitation of ver. 1 whereby not only υἱός, but the article before μονογ. (which Tisch. deletes), was also (in the Codd. named) suppressed. The omission of υἱός (Origen, Opp. IV. 102; Ambrose, ep. 10) is not sufficiently supported, and might easily have been occasioned by ver. 14."

In other words, some tried to conform "Son" of 1:18 to "God" of 1:1.

 

Thank you very much for your Info. I think many German theologians are liberal.

Wo ist Monogenes Theos wiederholt? Ausserdem Bibel?

The ultimate question is " Is God begotten?"

I know " Son is begotten"

Can we see 2 God's shown in one verse, in any other verses in the Bible? That is the question.

 

Of course he denied it. He denied it because it isn't true.

Are the words we're using too big for you? Why do you have trouble comprehending this?

 

The lie changed the World. That is very simple.

 

Trying to reason with people who have none is a waste of time. I'll shake the dust off my sandals here and move on.:wavey:

 

To get to the point shortly, I want to tell you this.

The modern versions cannot survive without Vatican Text B.

If Vatican Text B disappeared or were proven to be too much erroneous, modern versions would have no ground at all.

I already showed how much erroneous Aleph is. It has so many errors that it cannot be considered as a real Bible read by the Believers, though it may be called an exercise book.

Then Only Vaticanus B is left.

Didn't you hear that some verses are erased, some are cut out, some books like Timothy disappeared, or some part of Hebrews after 9:14 are torn out?

Beware of Roman Catholicism !

1. They pray to Mary, excusing that they just respect her.
But the prayer to her means that 1.3 billion people pray to Mary from millions of places in the world. How can she accept the prayers from all over the world and understand all the medical problems, financial problems unless she became a god or a goddess in their minds?
RCC is the religion of polytheism which prays to the dead saints and to Mary.

2. RCC performs Infant Baptism which brings the billions of unbelievers into the Christian world so that the churches become the assembly of the Unbelievers and fake Christians. That is why they elimintated Acts 8:37

3. RCC deny the eternal effect of the Jesus' Sacrifice at the Cross, and therefore they perform the Mass every week, asking the forgiveness of sins again. They don't know all the sins were forgiven already at the Cross, and that's why they don't mention the eternal effect of Cross Once for ALL.

4. They are rebellious when they claim Transubstantiation because they claim they are drinking the Blood of Jesus. The Blood of Jesus was not intended to be drunken by human, but was offered to God, as the Sacrifice and as an absolute Obedience.
They strongly confess that they themselves are rebellious to God by drinking the Blood!

Do you want to be a "Devout" follower of the Roman Catholic which has preserved and manipulated Vaticanus?

 

:laugh:
Do you feel better now?

 

Askjo, it would certainly be nice if you would make up your mind. In this post you contradict what you said in another post about the beliefs of Gnostics. Let me help refresh your memory...

Apparently you're confused, Askjo. How is it Gnostics can deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ but then supposedly change "Son" to "God?" Using "God" indicates Jesus' deity - it certainly doesn't deny it.

Those Gnostics sure did a lousy job of "corrupting" Scripture with their "knowledge," didn't they?

Askjo, you've been making the claim modern Bible translations are Gnostic for a while, but you have never shown one credible shred of evidence to prove your assertion. Would you care to defend your claim that modern translations are Gnostic?

 

Askjo, defenders of TRUTH deny modern Bible translations are Gnostic. We're still waiting for you to produce one bit of crddible evidence to support your false claim.

 

Askjo denies EVERYTHING that doesn't support the erroneous KJVO position.

 

Keith M, Gnostics did not believe the Christ was human.

Gnostics separated Jesus and the Christ in the Greek NT. Modern versions followed what Gnostics tampered the Scriptures reflecting to their belief saying the Christ was not human. John 1:18 on "only begotten God" is a Gnostic perversion.

"Son" refers to the sinless human being on the earth. "Son" refers to the Wiord that was made flesh (Verse 14). God is a Spirit (John 4:24)

 

You are sorely mistaken. It's not a lie to deny that the MVs are gnostic, or connected with gnosticism. That is just plainly false. Sorry. That's just the way it is.

 

It is your unbelief in regard of Gnostics who tampered the Scriptures in Greek manuscripts.

Eliyahu quoted:

Sorry. You are one of defenders of no TRUTH deny modern Bible translations are Gnostic.