Featured The new LSV(Literal Standard version)

The Csb started out to be MT based, but when the editor of project died, moved to CT base.

 

No, it was its predecessor --the HCSB. At no point did the CSB start out to be MT-based.

 

As you rightly pointed out here, it was the HCSb, but I tend to see it as basically the Csb as before the revision!

 

On page 4 of the Preface it states:

John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him]." That is not a TR or M reading.

I have no problem with "only begotten God"(or "only begotten son" for that matter), yet I have to wonder what is the incontrovertible evidence which tips the scales one way or the other for the LSV. No other translation criteria are cited other than the very vague statement given above.

 

They might have been better off going the Nkjv way, translate it as the MT does, and then footnote the alternatives!

 

Makes me wonder if it isn't just shorthand for "we generally use TR and M, except when we would rather use something else."

 

That sounds about right.

 

Begotten is archaic, but can be updated using "fathered" if the action is male, or "born" if the action is by a female. However, I doubt that "the only fathered One" would be well received. Arguments for "begotten" actually are based not on study (its a mistranslation from the Latin) but on provincialism, if it was good enough for those in the past, it is good enough for me.

 

And good enough for those such as on BGAD and Dr Robertson!

 

Utter falsehood, the BGAD indicated "begotten" was inadequate for a translation of monogenes. One and only or unique are the translations considered "adequate."

 

Actually, allowed/permitted/ as per the Bible researcher!

 

Lol, a truly eclectic edition!

 

God permits sin, does not make it right.

BAGD clearly says "begotten" is not right, as unique or only are adequate and the meaning of monogenes.

 

No, says can be still used!

 

Beating a (subjective) dead horse. This is your opinion and your opinion only. You cannot definitively claim context for context is better.

 

That is not exactly what it says....

 

My Lexicon is the BAGD edition, and this author states it far better than I ever could!
The Only Begotten Son (ο μονογενης υιος)

 

Ah, I am talking about BDAG, not BAGD. I'm not even familiar with BAGD.

 

The edition before the latest one, think published 1979!

 

Is BAGD the same as BDAG?