-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions From A KJV-Onlyist
- Thread starter Baptist in Richmond
- Start date
Lacy Evans
New Member
I've been reading it since I was five. Hooked on phonics worked for me.
Lacy
Lacy Evans
New Member
The KJV that is. I doubt it was a 1611.
Lacy
Lacy
Anytime words change meaning the translation becomes inaccurate. The only way the KJV can be rendered accurate is to understand the meaning of the words when it was translated or revised.
For example I hsve never heard anybody use the word conversation the same way it is used in 1 Peter 3:1, "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;"
If someone were to read that verse with the modern day understanding of conversatioon that verse would mean that men who are disobedient could be won by their wives talking. That certainly does not agree with what the passage actually teaches.
Or how about James 2:3, "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:"
What is gay clothing then and now?
In the text it actually refers to shiny clothes. Shiny clothes meant the person was a little wealthier and probably washed them more often. The person may have had more than one set of clothes too. If a person only had one set of clothes they would have not been washed but maybe twice a year. They may have also had silver in them too.
For example I hsve never heard anybody use the word conversation the same way it is used in 1 Peter 3:1, "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;"
If someone were to read that verse with the modern day understanding of conversatioon that verse would mean that men who are disobedient could be won by their wives talking. That certainly does not agree with what the passage actually teaches.
Or how about James 2:3, "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:"
What is gay clothing then and now?
In the text it actually refers to shiny clothes. Shiny clothes meant the person was a little wealthier and probably washed them more often. The person may have had more than one set of clothes too. If a person only had one set of clothes they would have not been washed but maybe twice a year. They may have also had silver in them too.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Yeah, Phillip. Try "mansion" in John 14. According to today's understanding of the word, we should expect to receive the title to Graceland when we walk through the pearly gates (The Lord knows I've heard enough sermons on how fine our mansions will be). But the funny thing is, the Greek word just means 'dwelling place' or 'home', which is what 'mansion' meant way back when King James wanted to put his namesake on a Bible.
Go figure.
In Christ,
Trotter
Go figure.
In Christ,
Trotter
Lacy Evans
New Member
KJV: Ruth 4:1 Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
You guys are right. My 8th graders would really have a time with this. "Why is Boaz calling his kinsman a "ho"?
Come on guys, how often do we need to "update" the language. That's what preachers are for. I find difficult words in much of what I read.
The Bible shows us how to deal with archaic words. Learn them!
1 Samuel 9:9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
Seems you folks have learned them without a great deal of problem. I could make just as big of a case (subjective though it may be), that the lack of poetic flow and elegance in the MVs render them harder to read and thus inferior. How many of you quote John 3:16, or the Lord's Prayer in the NIV?
Lacy
You guys are right. My 8th graders would really have a time with this. "Why is Boaz calling his kinsman a "ho"?
Come on guys, how often do we need to "update" the language. That's what preachers are for. I find difficult words in much of what I read.
The Bible shows us how to deal with archaic words. Learn them!
1 Samuel 9:9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
Seems you folks have learned them without a great deal of problem. I could make just as big of a case (subjective though it may be), that the lack of poetic flow and elegance in the MVs render them harder to read and thus inferior. How many of you quote John 3:16, or the Lord's Prayer in the NIV?
Lacy
Thing is, Lacy, that the AV was written in the best English of its day. However, that "day" was 400 years ago. An analogy: The Model-T was perhaps the best-engineered car of its day, known for its durability & reliability. However, that day was from 1908-1927. The advances in English have made the KJV a "Model-T Bible".
Who the michelle are you referring to, that has such beliefs? </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, let me state that Michelle is obviously talking about a group of people that -- well, I guess they exist, but I haven't seen any on this board. Ask yourself what is an "MVO"? As far as I know, there aren't any here. Second, if there are any MVO's, I wouldn't know what they would believe, so I don't know how Michelle would know what they believe.
Michelle, Where in the world did you get "MVO" since all the MV people believe the KJV is The Word of God, so they are not 'onlys'; but where do you get those other beliefs.
The "only begotten" is the KJV "translation" of the Greek which has also been translated accurately in the M versions.
Where in the WORLD do you get the rest of that garbage. This sounds like an underhanded blow to me. Would you care to explain?
Actually, you have provided an "EXCELLENT" example by using the word "ho". That is now a mainstream word among the kids, no joking and if you work around kids, you know that.
The second statement: "That's what preachers are for." is false doctrine. Since when do I have to go to my pope to receive my message from God? ....straw-man argument if I have ever heard one. If you didn't get to erase that before the "edit" bell sounded, please tell me that you didn't really mean that statement.
Lacy Evans
New Member
I must be a terrible debater because the point I was trying to make is that we should bend to the Word and not vice-versa. If we have to write a new version every time a new slang word comes out, or every time 8th graders start using an English word in a non-standard way, we will need a new version every week. (Instead of the current trend of one per year.)
That sounds very good but there is a difference between a "preacher" and a "pope". I suppose I should have used "teacher", or perhaps "dictionary". Learning the definition to an unfamiliar word is hardly "receiv[ing] my message from God?" My youngest son knew that "ye" meant "ya'll" when he was five. (He heard the preacher explain it!)The second statement: "That's what preachers are for." is false doctrine. Since when do I have to go to my pope to receive my message from God? ....straw-man argument if I have ever heard one. If you didn't get to erase that before the "edit" bell sounded, please tell me that you didn't really mean that statement.
It suprised me that a MVer would take this direction in a debate. To which "pope" did you have to go to learn the "original Greek".
Lacy
Lacy Evans
New Member
I like EVO. Every Version Only. (Any Version Only would be too confusing since AVO is the exclusive property of the KJVOs.) Or for the more discriminating MVer AEVO (Almost every version only)
Love Lacy
Love Lacy
I must be a terrible debater because the point I was trying to make is that we should bend to the Word and not vice-versa. If we have to write a new version every time a new slang word comes out, or every time 8th graders start using an English word in a non-standard way, we will need a new version every week. (Instead of the current trend of one per year.)
That sounds very good but there is a difference between a "preacher" and a "pope". I suppose I should have used "teacher", or perhaps "dictionary". Learning the definition to an unfamiliar word is hardly "receiv[ing] my message from God?" My youngest son knew that "ye" meant "ya'll" when he was five. (He heard the preacher explain it!)The second statement: "That's what preachers are for." is false doctrine. Since when do I have to go to my pope to receive my message from God? ....straw-man argument if I have ever heard one. If you didn't get to erase that before the "edit" bell sounded, please tell me that you didn't really mean that statement.
It suprised me that a MVer would take this direction in a debate. To which "pope" did you have to go to learn the "original Greek".
Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Lacy, You are not a terrible debater. I probably did not understand what you were trying to get across. I often read very quickly and often miss some salient points that can change the entire meaning. I humbly appologize for that and I was probably a bit out of line for speaking to you the way I did referring to your pastor as a "pope".
I must say that I do agree with you that the number of translations is getting somewhat ridiculous. In reality (and I'm not sure this is good at all), I believe the different versions are probably "market driven" more than "God driven". But, I'm not sure this has not been true at some level in the past.
In answer to your question or remark, do we need to print a new translation every time an eigth grader learns a new slang word -- no. This is too often, how about when they learn three slang words?
Like I said, I think it is getting a bit out of hand, but when reality of supply and demand occur, in a free enterprise system, the person or company who can differentiate their product will be able to take market-share. This is what is happening with all of the Teen and Youth Bibles. We also see it with the Tim Lahaye Prophetical Bibles. If you will remember, if I have this correct, Tim Lahaye and his partner had three books planned. Essentially, I believe he covered the beginning of the tribulation from the Rapture, The tribulation and the end of the Tribulation into the millineum. Once they realized the books were best-sellers, it only made sense to stretch the number out and milk the product for what it could be made worth. Is this wrong? Probably not, but when it comes to Bibles, we see the same marketing schemes.
Even with the King James Version companies will differentiate by adding a special dictionary, maps, prophetical charts, study guides, larger-print, different easier to read fonts.
You and I may disagree on whether or not an MV is accurate, but I must say that you are right when it comes to "how often does a new translation need to hit the shelf". I believe even the revisors of the KJV knew that a certain amount of upgrading is due every so often due simply to language changes.
I do agree with Dr. Bob; however. When a Sunday School class gets to where they are spending half of the lesson looking up words or having them explained, it is probably time for a new translation.
Maybe we can agree to disagree on the issue of Modern Versions because I do respect the attitude I have seen in your post and it is not typical of a lot with whom I have debated; I thank you for that and may God bless you for it.
Your son is a very lucky child to have you and your pastor teaching as he grows up. Luckily, I was the same way, having been in the Nursery of church from the first few weeks after I was born until I was grown. I too can read a KJV very easily, but let me give you just a bit of testimony. When I was in about the third grade I was a voracious reader. I did get bored; however, trying to read the KJV, and as most kids that age, I listened to the preacher or got in trouble when I got home.
The translation Good News for Modern Man came out in paperback for about a quarter apiece (or some other ridiculous price). I don't know if you have ever seen it, but with its sketches and super easy language, I literally devoured the New Testament stories--reading things I had either missed in Sunday school or didn't get. Now, it is my understanding it is a weak translation--I cannot say I do not know enough about its history; but I can say this, as I child, I would spend my time in church devouring the book (apparently my mother didn't have a problem with that, compared to reading something else to keep from listening to the boring preacher). For the first time in my life, I found the Bible was fascinating. I consumed it all. I was not saved back then, but I was laying a groundwork for understanding Biblical doctrine that carried me through until today (I'm 46 now.) Even today, I find it so much easier to read my ESV (which I like because it is a more literal translation than the NIV). I can read an entire book at a sitting, while if I read a KJV, even though I did grow up with it, memorizing many verses. I still have difficulty getting past one chapter in a sitting. Now, people may call me lazy, but after a long day of concentrating hard at work, I find my MV much easier. I must say that I am VERY picky at what MV I choose. I reject many.
Well, it is getting late, I just wanted to respond and say I was sorry for misjudging your remarks and also wanted to give you part of the reason behind my faith.
God bless and have a great Lord's day.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Dittos in regard to Bro Lacy. While it is obvious that I disagree totally with his resurrection of scripture theory, I must admire the spirit with which he argues it.
Pastor Lacy:I must be a terrible debater because the point I was trying to make is that we should bend to the Word and not vice-versa. If we have to write a new version every time a new slang word comes out, or every time 8th graders start using an English word in a non-standard way, we will need a new version every week. (Instead of the current trend of one per year.)
When the AV was written, its translators bent the Word to the language; otherwise, why make a translation at all? And the AV was in the most modern English of THAT time, and NOT the English of Wycliffe's time.
That sounds very good but there is a difference between a "preacher" and a "pope". I suppose I should have used "teacher", or perhaps "dictionary". Learning the definition to an unfamiliar word is hardly "receiv[ing] my message from God?" My youngest son knew that "ye" meant "ya'll" when he was five. (He heard the preacher explain it!)
Ah, but does he use "ye" in everyday conversation or in writing an English paper in school? It was everyday usage 400 years ago, but how about NOW?
It suprised me that a MVer would take this direction in a debate. To which "pope" did you have to go to learn the "original Greek".
Very possibly the same one the original Greeks themselves went to.
When the AV was written, its translators bent the Word to the language; otherwise, why make a translation at all? And the AV was in the most modern English of THAT time, and NOT the English of Wycliffe's time.
That sounds very good but there is a difference between a "preacher" and a "pope". I suppose I should have used "teacher", or perhaps "dictionary". Learning the definition to an unfamiliar word is hardly "receiv[ing] my message from God?" My youngest son knew that "ye" meant "ya'll" when he was five. (He heard the preacher explain it!)
Ah, but does he use "ye" in everyday conversation or in writing an English paper in school? It was everyday usage 400 years ago, but how about NOW?
It suprised me that a MVer would take this direction in a debate. To which "pope" did you have to go to learn the "original Greek".
Very possibly the same one the original Greeks themselves went to.
KJV Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.
NKJ Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by you, brother.
Which is better?
HankD
NKJ Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by you, brother.
Which is better?
HankD
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
In 1611 "bowels" was best - it suited the meaning.
Today, imho, "hearts" says it best.
Today, imho, "hearts" says it best.
Lacy Evans
New Member
The first time I heard Mark Lowrey sing "I left my bowels in San Francisco", I laughed so hard I nearly cried and almost ran my Suburban off of the highway.
Lacy
“I don't know ANYBODY HERE that preaches from the AV1611. I know a few that preach from the 1769 and the New KJV. If someone did preach from the AV1611 they probably wouldn't keep their audience very long since most wouldn't be able to understand it.”
I do know a person who has preached from the AV1611, and no one knew the difference. Both he and I own facsimile copies of the AV1611. It reads exactly like the 1769 version – word for word. The only difference is the spelling has been standardized. Most people are not aware that spelling was not standardized until the 1800’s. When looking at people that hold a KJV only position, you must divide them into their proper categories.
First there are people that hold to the Peter Ruckman position, these people believe that the KJV contains revelation not in the originals. They advocate using the English translation as the source for producing a bible in a foreign language. This is crazy.
Second there are people that hold a KJV only position, and will argue that the KJV translators are/were better equipped and able to translate, and therefore trust the KJV because of the translators. These people also trust the KJV because of the text it came from. These are people like Gail Riplinger (sp) – author of new age bible versions. These people tend to make up the largest group of KJV only folks. They will for example use John 14:2, the reference is to “mansions” other versions translate it as “dwelling place”, or “abode”. The fact is that this is an issue of translation opinion, not a textual difference. All Greek texts are the same.
Third, are people who are primarily concerned with the textual differences between the TR and the modern texts. This is my concern. A case in point is John 1:18.
The text as it reads in the 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.” At issue here is one word, “Son”. This Greek word,(huios) means son, and is translated as such in the KJV. However in the modern Greek texts used to translate the NASB, NIV, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses NWT, this Greek work is omitted and replaced with the Greek word (theos) which means God. A simple change of a single word that has vast theological implication.
What was the authority for rendering the word God instead of son? The support for this change lies in only two manuscripts found in Alexandria Egypt and two fragments (p66 & p75). In addition 3 quotes from early church fathers support this. What evidence is there that this is incorrect? Over 170 quotes from early church fathers – all predating the manuscripts, and the unified body of textual evidence from every text type outside of Alexandria. By the way, the Arian heretics, that taught Jesus was a lesser begotten God were centered in Alexandria. The heritic, by which the Arians were named, was the pastor of a church in Alexandria. All three of the church fathers who quote this resided in Alexandria, and all three quotes are late quotes. All of the early quotes refute this rendering.
P66 is the earliest manuscript that supports the “only begotten God” reading. It is dated in the early 3rd century.
Here are the quotes from the 1st and 2nd century:
Ignatius (1st Cent. - Disciple of John, Bishop of Antioch, Syria)
** "And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians, II. This Epistle is not considered authentic by some scholars.
Irenaeus (2nd Cent. - Disciple of Polycarp, {disciple of John}, Bishop of Lyons, Gaul {France})
"For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]." For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, XI
"He is by no means unknown: for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel: "No man hath seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him.]"{8}... But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father's brightness, and explained His purposes (**as also the Lord said: "The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him];" and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great); not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel." [Italics added] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XX
The (italicised) portion above is clearly a later addition to the text of Irenaeus. The brackets were placed by the translator to mark this interpolation. The structure of the sentence shows clearly that the text originally did not contain this portion. Irenaeus had just quoted John 1:18 using "only begotten Son." Furthermore, the addition is in error by saying "as also the Lord said" when in fact it was John the Apostle who was writting his own words as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Clement (2nd Cent. - Lived in Alexandria, head of Alexandrian school)
"For how shall he not be loved for whose sake the only-begotten Son is sent from the Father's bosom, the Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant; the Lord Himself distinctly confessing and saying, "For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me;"" Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, ch. III
"For the Word is "the power and the wisdom of God." Again, the expounder of the laws is the same one by whom the law was given; the first expounder of the divine commands, who unveiled the bosom of the Father, the only- begotten Son." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book I, ch. XXVI
"“No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” — calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V, ch XII
Tertullian (2nd Cent. Wrote in Latin, lived in Carthage {N. Africa})
"With us however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father's bosom." Tertullian, Against Praxeas, VIII
"It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him." Tertullian, Against Praxeas, XV
Prior to the 3rd century the early church had no history of rendering John 1:18 as the “only begotten God”. This history perfectly corresponds to all manuscript evidence in existence in rendering John 1:18 as the “only begotten son”. By placing God in this passage, one is forced to defend a double god – the god in heaven, and the begotten god. This is rendering teaches Arainism – afterall, it was the Arians that corrupted it!
It is changes like these that have convinced me to take a KJV only position.
I do know a person who has preached from the AV1611, and no one knew the difference. Both he and I own facsimile copies of the AV1611. It reads exactly like the 1769 version – word for word. The only difference is the spelling has been standardized. Most people are not aware that spelling was not standardized until the 1800’s. When looking at people that hold a KJV only position, you must divide them into their proper categories.
First there are people that hold to the Peter Ruckman position, these people believe that the KJV contains revelation not in the originals. They advocate using the English translation as the source for producing a bible in a foreign language. This is crazy.
Second there are people that hold a KJV only position, and will argue that the KJV translators are/were better equipped and able to translate, and therefore trust the KJV because of the translators. These people also trust the KJV because of the text it came from. These are people like Gail Riplinger (sp) – author of new age bible versions. These people tend to make up the largest group of KJV only folks. They will for example use John 14:2, the reference is to “mansions” other versions translate it as “dwelling place”, or “abode”. The fact is that this is an issue of translation opinion, not a textual difference. All Greek texts are the same.
Third, are people who are primarily concerned with the textual differences between the TR and the modern texts. This is my concern. A case in point is John 1:18.
The text as it reads in the 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.” At issue here is one word, “Son”. This Greek word,(huios) means son, and is translated as such in the KJV. However in the modern Greek texts used to translate the NASB, NIV, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses NWT, this Greek work is omitted and replaced with the Greek word (theos) which means God. A simple change of a single word that has vast theological implication.
What was the authority for rendering the word God instead of son? The support for this change lies in only two manuscripts found in Alexandria Egypt and two fragments (p66 & p75). In addition 3 quotes from early church fathers support this. What evidence is there that this is incorrect? Over 170 quotes from early church fathers – all predating the manuscripts, and the unified body of textual evidence from every text type outside of Alexandria. By the way, the Arian heretics, that taught Jesus was a lesser begotten God were centered in Alexandria. The heritic, by which the Arians were named, was the pastor of a church in Alexandria. All three of the church fathers who quote this resided in Alexandria, and all three quotes are late quotes. All of the early quotes refute this rendering.
P66 is the earliest manuscript that supports the “only begotten God” reading. It is dated in the early 3rd century.
Here are the quotes from the 1st and 2nd century:
Ignatius (1st Cent. - Disciple of John, Bishop of Antioch, Syria)
** "And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians, II. This Epistle is not considered authentic by some scholars.
Irenaeus (2nd Cent. - Disciple of Polycarp, {disciple of John}, Bishop of Lyons, Gaul {France})
"For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]." For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, XI
"He is by no means unknown: for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel: "No man hath seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him.]"{8}... But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father's brightness, and explained His purposes (**as also the Lord said: "The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him];" and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great); not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel." [Italics added] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XX
The (italicised) portion above is clearly a later addition to the text of Irenaeus. The brackets were placed by the translator to mark this interpolation. The structure of the sentence shows clearly that the text originally did not contain this portion. Irenaeus had just quoted John 1:18 using "only begotten Son." Furthermore, the addition is in error by saying "as also the Lord said" when in fact it was John the Apostle who was writting his own words as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Clement (2nd Cent. - Lived in Alexandria, head of Alexandrian school)
"For how shall he not be loved for whose sake the only-begotten Son is sent from the Father's bosom, the Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant; the Lord Himself distinctly confessing and saying, "For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me;"" Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, ch. III
"For the Word is "the power and the wisdom of God." Again, the expounder of the laws is the same one by whom the law was given; the first expounder of the divine commands, who unveiled the bosom of the Father, the only- begotten Son." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book I, ch. XXVI
"“No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” — calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V, ch XII
Tertullian (2nd Cent. Wrote in Latin, lived in Carthage {N. Africa})
"With us however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father's bosom." Tertullian, Against Praxeas, VIII
"It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him." Tertullian, Against Praxeas, XV
Prior to the 3rd century the early church had no history of rendering John 1:18 as the “only begotten God”. This history perfectly corresponds to all manuscript evidence in existence in rendering John 1:18 as the “only begotten son”. By placing God in this passage, one is forced to defend a double god – the god in heaven, and the begotten god. This is rendering teaches Arainism – afterall, it was the Arians that corrupted it!
It is changes like these that have convinced me to take a KJV only position.