A simple question with a simple answer.

[Imagican]

Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.


Let's move ahead just a little:


Genesis 1:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.


So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?


Blessings,


MEC

 

[daq]

Understanding what you are implying it should likewise be noted that when it says, "Elohim said", it implies by default that what He spoke came forth from Himself, (Word of Light came forth). Thus no one has seen Elohim at any time: the monogenes-only-begotten of Elohim, who was/is in the bosom of the Father, that one has exegesis-explained Him.

 

[Imagican]

See. And THAT'S the problem. So long as one refuses to answer the question with anything other than an attempt to 'talk around it', there IS no answer.

It's like the two separate creations offered in the first two chapters of Genesis. When one refuses to face the QUESTION with an answer, they are forced to offer something like, "well, that's just GOING BACK and explaining it in DETAIL. But that doesn't actually FIT. Too many OTHER WORDS that utterly refute that answer. So it's really NOT an answer.

Just as you have offered: "Well, according to doctrine that were created perhaps a BILLION years later, it CAN'T mean what it actually SAYS. That's NOT an answer. That is merely 'church rhetoric' that may or many NOT have any bearing on ANY potential TRUE answer. Just words.

If in the VERY beginning, God created LIGHT. Yet it wasn't until the fourth day that PHYSICAL 'light' was created through the creation of the SOURCES of physical light: Stars, Sun and moon, what was THE LIGHT that was created in the VERY beginning?

For you SEE, when this question is answered, it utterly destroys the entire premise of 'trinity'. It destroys the ENTIRE premise of The Word being Christ. It wipes out about 90 percent of the MISunderstanding of the Roman Catholic Church which has permeated ALL the major denominations for almost two thousand years now.

Simple question, let's SEE if someone can offer the SIMPLE answer. Remember, the principles offered by God through His Word are simple enough for a CHILD to understand. They are NOT as mysterious as the 'churches' would have the ignorant believe. God WANTS us to understand HIM, HIS SON, and the Word. While it TAKES a 'change of heart' from that of 'this world', it is actually a MORE SIMPLE understanding than MOST that the world has created.

What was 'the light' that was 'created' in the VERY beginning? Before the FOURTH day? I know. It's HARD to answer. Not because it's COMPLICATED. It's HARD because MOST that have been trained by the 'churches' instead of the BIBLE started you with the book of John in your Bible study INSTEAD of the book of Genesis. But it CAN be answered I PROMISE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[mmksparbud]

In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[4][5] In this sense, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio waves are also light. Like all types of light, visible light is emitted and absorbed in tiny "packets" called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics.
Light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So---there is visible light and invisible light, which is not something that was known back then, but the fact God created light before the sun is stated anyway. Up until the finding out of the invisible light spectrum that statement was felt to be a problem to explain--I was under the impression that that question was settle many years ago.

 

[Der Alte]

Understanding what you are implying it should likewise be noted that when it says, "Elohim said", it implies by default that what He spoke came forth from Himself, (Word of Light came forth). Thus no one has seen Elohim at any time: the monogenes-only-begotten of Elohim, who was/is in the bosom of the Father, that one has exegesis-explained Him.

I see some problems in this post. John 1:18, in the most reliable manuscripts, reads μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς/monogenes theos o on eis tov kolpon tou patros.

ESV the only God, who is at the Father's side,

ISV The unique God, who is close to the Father's side

NET The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father

 

[daq]

I see some problems in this post. John 1:18, in the most reliable manuscripts, reads μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς/monogenes theos o on eis tov kolpon tou patros.

ESV the only God, who is at the Father's side,

ISV The unique God, who is close to the Father's side

NET The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father

Your Greek is the same that I see but your translations ignore the implied meaning of monogenes:

Original Strong's Ref. #3439
Romanized monogenes
Pronounced mon-og-en-ace'
from GSN3441 and GSN1096; only-born, i.e. sole:
KJV--only (begotten, child).

BDB - Strong's Greek Definition for #3439
3439 // monogenhv // monogenes // mon-og-en-ace' //
from 3441 and 1096 ; TDNT - 4:737,606; adj
AV - only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1; 9
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters
(viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Strong's Greek Definition for # 3439

Perhaps there has been some tomfoolery as the KJV, (T/R) has huios-son for Theos-Elohim:

John 1:18 KJV
18. 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 Westcott and Hort 1881
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

John 1:18 Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

However what does that matter?
It does not change the meaning of what is being said.
However for some reason it seems none can agree on a standard rendering:

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

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

Holman Christian Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

International Standard Version
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NET Bible
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
No one has ever seen God. God's only Son, the one who is closest to the Father's heart, has made him known.

Jubilee Bible 2000
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

King James 2000 Bible
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

American King James Version
No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

American Standard Version
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .

Douay-Rheims Bible
No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Darby Bible Translation
No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared [him].

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

Webster's Bible Translation
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Weymouth New Testament
No human eye has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the Father's bosom--He has made Him known.

World English Bible
No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

Young's Literal Translation
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.



WHY does no one want to render it for what it truly says?
Is it because what it says refutes the trinitarian "eternal Son" doctrine?

John 1:18 Transliterated
18. theon oudeis heoraken popote monogenes theos ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exegesato.

"No one has seen Elohim at any time: the only begotten of Elohim, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has exegeted-explained-declared Him."

 

[RevelationTestament]

That is a good question Daq.
I say it thusly:
The Son was and is the express revelation of the Father to us. He did everything He saw the Father do, and did likewise.

 

[Der Alte]

Your Greek is the same that I see but your translations ignore the implied meaning of monogenes:

Original Strong's Ref. #3439
Romanized monogenes
Pronounced mon-og-en-ace'
from GSN3441 and GSN1096; only-born, i.e. sole:
KJV--only (begotten, child).

BDB - Strong's Greek Definition for #3439
3439 // monogenhv // monogenes // mon-og-en-ace' //
from 3441 and 1096 ; TDNT - 4:737,606; adj
AV - only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1; 9
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters
(viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Strong's Greek Definition for # 3439

Online Bible FAQ
Q:The Online Bible Strongs is not the same as my Exhaustive Strongs Concordance. Why is that?
A: We used the Strong's system but the actual Greek and Hebrew to implement the numbers. By doing this we corrected about 15000 errors in the Strong's concordance.

http://www.onlinebible.net/faqs.html

Rebuilding Strong’s time-honored concordance from the ground up, biblical research experts John Kohlenberger and James Swanson have achieved unprecedented accuracy and clarity. Longstanding errors have been corrected. Omissions filled in. Word studies simplified. Thoroughness and ease of use have been united and maximized.

Zondervan​

μονογενής ( Hes. +; LXX ; Joseph. ; loanw. in rabb. ) only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34 ; Tob 3:15 ; 8:17 ) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son ( Jos. , Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17 . Of an only son ( Plut. , Lycurgus 31, 8; Jos. , Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12 ; 9:38 . Of the daughter ( Diod. S. 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42.—Also unique ( in kind ) of someth. that is the only example of its category ( Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 ei|" k. monogenh;" oJ kovsmo" ejstiv. monogenh` k. movna ejstivn =‘unique and alone’; Pla. , Timaeus 92 C ). Of the mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. m. is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M. , RSV et al .; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213-19; FCGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284-87). But some ( e.g. WBauer, Hdb. ) prefer to regard m. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1 J to only - begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on genna`sqai ejk qeou` (J 1:13 al .); in this case it would be analogous to prwtovtoko" (Ro 8:29 ; Col 1:15 al. ). to;n uiJo;n to;n m. e[dwken J 3:16 ( Philo Bybl. [100 AD ] in Euseb., Pr. Ev. 1, 10, 33: Cronus offers up his monogenh;" uiJov"). oJ m. uiJo;" tou` qeou` vs. 1 8; cf. J 1:34 v.l. to;n uiJo;n to;n m. ajpevstalken oJ qeov" 1J 4:9 ; cf. Dg 10:2. On the expr. dovxan wJ" monogenou`" para; patrov" J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335-65 (Engl.). Cf. also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. monogenh;" qeov" (considered by many the orig. ) an only-begotten one, God ( acc. to his real being), or a God begotten of the Only One, another rdg. oJ monogenh;" uiJov" is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology dia; paido;" aujtou` tou` monogenou`" jIhsou` Cristou`. —On the mng. of monogenhv" in history of religion cf. the material in Hdb. 3 25 f on J 1:14 (also Plut. , Mor. 423 A Plavtwn. . . aujtw`/ dhv fhsi dokei`n e{na tou`ton [ sc. to;n kovsmon ] ei\nai monogenh` tw`/ qew`/ kai; ajgaphtovn ; Wsd 7:22 of sofiva : e[sti ejn aujth`/ pneu`ma noero;n a{gion monogenev". — Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Aggelo" I ’25, 24-33; RBultmann J, 47, 2; 55 f ; FBüchsel, TW IV 745-50. M-M. *

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Lexicon of NT Greek online

Liddell, Scott, Jone lexicon of Classical Greek.
μονο-γενής, ές,
I
1. and Ion. μουνο-, (γένο&#962 the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, παῖς Hes. Op. 376, Hdt. 7.221, cf. Joh_1:14, Ant.Lib. 32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th. 426.
2. unique, of τὸ ὄν, Parm. 8.4; εἷς ὅδε μ. οὐρανὸς γεγονώς Pl. Ti. 31b, cf. Procl. Inst. 22; θεὸς ὁ μ. Sammelb. 4324.15.
3. μ. αἷμα one and the same blood, dub. l. in E. Hel. 1685.
4. Gramm., having one form for all genders, A.D. Adv. 145.18.
5. name of the foot, Heph. 3.3.
II
1. Adv. - νῶς, φέρεται μ. ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ grows only in one place, Peripl.M.Rubr. 56, cf. 11.
2. in a unique manner, Aët. 15.13,14.​

Perhaps there has been some tomfoolery as the KJV, (T/R) has huios-son for Theos-Elohim:

John 1:18 KJV
18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

KJV used later manuscripts. The most reliable manuscripts read θεὸς rather than υιος

John 1:18 Westcott and Hort 1881
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

John 1:18 Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

However what does that matter?
It does not change the meaning of what is being said.

θεὸς certainly says something different than υιος!

However for some reason it seems none can agree on a standard rendering:

Because anti-Trinitarians reject any text that proves them wrong.

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

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

Holman Christian Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

International Standard Version
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NET Bible
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
No one has ever seen God. God's only Son, the one who is closest to the Father's heart, has made him known.

Jubilee Bible 2000
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

King James 2000 Bible
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

American King James Version
No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

American Standard Version
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .

Douay-Rheims Bible
No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Darby Bible Translation
No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared [him].

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

Webster's Bible Translation
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Weymouth New Testament
No human eye has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the Father's bosom--He has made Him known.

World English Bible
No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

Young's Literal Translation
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.

WHY does no one want to render it for what it truly says?
Because what it says refutes trinitarian doctrine:

Wrong! Anti-Trinitarians refuse to accept the most reliable manuscripts.

John 1:18 Transliterated
18. theon oudeis heoraken popote monogenes theos ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exegesato.

"No one has seen Elohim at any time: the only begotten of Elohim, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has exegeted-explained-declared Him."

The Hebrew word Elohim does not occur in any valid manuscript of the NT. That is an invalid interpolation.

 

[RevelationTestament]

The Hebrew word Elohim does not occur in any valid manuscript of the NT. That is an invalid interpolation.

From the manuscripts I have seen the plural form of Theos is used for Elohim. Unfortunately, from the rest of the NT is difficult to determine if El or perhaps some other word was used originally.

 

[RevelationTestament]

WHY does no one want to render it for what it truly says?
Is it because what it says refutes the trinitarian "eternal Son" doctrine?

I will note that there are plenty of other scriptures referencing the only begotten Son.

 

[timewerx]

Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.&


Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.


Let's move ahead just a little:


Genesis 1:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.


So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?


Blessings,


MEC

sounds exactly the accreting nebula theory to me.

 

[Der Alte]

I will note that there are plenty of other scriptures referencing the only begotten Son.

What do the most of reliable manuscripts say?

 

[Der Alte]

From the manuscripts I have seen the plural form of Theos is used for Elohim. Unfortunately, from the rest of the NT is difficult to determine if El or perhaps some other word was used originally.

Which manuscripts for instance? The NT was written in Greek. There are no Hebrew words for God in the NT.

 

[daq]

Online Bible FAQ
Q:The Online Bible Strongs is not the same as my Exhaustive Strongs Concordance. Why is that?
A: We used the Strong's system but the actual Greek and Hebrew to implement the numbers. By doing this we corrected about 15000 errors in the Strong's concordance.

http://www.onlinebible.net/faqs.html

Rebuilding Strong’s time-honored concordance from the ground up, biblical research experts John Kohlenberger and James Swanson have achieved unprecedented accuracy and clarity. Longstanding errors have been corrected. Omissions filled in. Word studies simplified. Thoroughness and ease of use have been united and maximized.

Zondervan​

μονογενής ( Hes. +; LXX ; Joseph. ; loanw. in rabb. ) only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34 ; Tob 3:15 ; 8:17 ) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son ( Jos. , Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17 . Of an only son ( Plut. , Lycurgus 31, 8; Jos. , Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12 ; 9:38 . Of the daughter ( Diod. S. 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42.—Also unique ( in kind ) of someth. that is the only example of its category ( Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 ei|" k. monogenh;" oJ kovsmo" ejstiv. monogenh` k. movna ejstivn =‘unique and alone’; Pla. , Timaeus 92 C ). Of the mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. m. is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M. , RSV et al .; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213-19; FCGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284-87). But some ( e.g. WBauer, Hdb. ) prefer to regard m. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1 J to only - begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on genna`sqai ejk qeou` (J 1:13 al .); in this case it would be analogous to prwtovtoko" (Ro 8:29 ; Col 1:15 al. ). to;n uiJo;n to;n m. e[dwken J 3:16 ( Philo Bybl. [100 AD ] in Euseb., Pr. Ev. 1, 10, 33: Cronus offers up his monogenh;" uiJov"). oJ m. uiJo;" tou` qeou` vs. 1 8; cf. J 1:34 v.l. to;n uiJo;n to;n m. ajpevstalken oJ qeov" 1J 4:9 ; cf. Dg 10:2. On the expr. dovxan wJ" monogenou`" para; patrov" J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335-65 (Engl.). Cf. also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. monogenh;" qeov" (considered by many the orig. ) an only-begotten one, God ( acc. to his real being), or a God begotten of the Only One, another rdg. oJ monogenh;" uiJov" is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology dia; paido;" aujtou` tou` monogenou`" jIhsou` Cristou`. —On the mng. of monogenhv" in history of religion cf. the material in Hdb. 3 25 f on J 1:14 (also Plut. , Mor. 423 A Plavtwn. . . aujtw`/ dhv fhsi dokei`n e{na tou`ton [ sc. to;n kovsmon ] ei\nai monogenh` tw`/ qew`/ kai; ajgaphtovn ; Wsd 7:22 of sofiva : e[sti ejn aujth`/ pneu`ma noero;n a{gion monogenev". — Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Aggelo" I ’25, 24-33; RBultmann J, 47, 2; 55 f ; FBüchsel, TW IV 745-50. M-M. *

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Lexicon of NT Greek online

Liddell, Scott, Jone lexicon of Classical Greek.
μονο-γενής, ές,
I
1. and Ion. μουνο-, (γένο&#962 the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, παῖς Hes. Op. 376, Hdt. 7.221, cf. Joh_1:14, Ant.Lib. 32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th. 426.
2. unique, of τὸ ὄν, Parm. 8.4; εἷς ὅδε μ. οὐρανὸς γεγονώς Pl. Ti. 31b, cf. Procl. Inst. 22; θεὸς ὁ μ. Sammelb. 4324.15.
3. μ. αἷμα one and the same blood, dub. l. in E. Hel. 1685.
4. Gramm., having one form for all genders, A.D. Adv. 145.18.
5. name of the foot, Heph. 3.3.
II
1. Adv. - νῶς, φέρεται μ. ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ grows only in one place, Peripl.M.Rubr. 56, cf. 11.
2. in a unique manner, Aët. 15.13,14.​

My post was not promoting either Strong's or the BDB and that is why I quoted them both. As for the points you have made then essentially what you are saying is that you have a "special meaning" for the word monogenes which only applies when it is used concerning the Son of Elohim?

KJV used later manuscripts. The most reliable manuscripts read θεὸς rather than υιος

θεὸς certainly says something different than υιος!

Because anti-Trinitarians reject any text that proves them wrong.

Wrong! Anti-Trinitarians refuse to accept the most reliable manuscripts.

The Hebrew word Elohim does not occur in any valid manuscript of the NT. That is an invalid interpolation.

The point was that "only begotten Son" is pretty much the same as "only begotten of Elohim" because of what is previously stated in the passage in context, (monogenes is likewise found in verse fourteen). And actually if monogenes itself can be rendered as "only begotten Son", (as it is in some translations) then "monogenes huios" is redundant anyways. As for "Elohim" I never said it was found anywhere in the Greek but neither is the word "God" because it is English, (lol). You say God whereas I say Elohim because that is indeed what theos refers to in a multitude of places where TaNaK is quoted in the NT writings. Not that it always means "God" because 'elohim may sometimes also mean angels, (as in Psalm 8:5 using 'elohim which is quoted in Hebrews 2:7 using angelous) or may sometimes mean gods as in rulers, or may even sometimes be used to mean "godly" as it is used in Malachi 2:15, ("an 'elohim-godly seed").

 

[RevelationTestament]

Which manuscripts for instance? The NT was written in Greek. There are no Hebrew words for God in the NT.

What the blazes r u talking about Der Alter? You don't know the difference between the Greek Theos and the Hebrew Elohim?

me: From the manuscripts I have seen the plural form of Theos is used for Elohim.

I know you know what I am talking about so stop with the condescending baloney.
I don't have access to any original Greek manuscripts so how about we rely on just a plain old Greek interlinear like Biblehub.com.
Go to John 10:35 If he called them gods(elohim), unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
where Jesus is quoting Psalms 82 we know He would have spoken the Hebrew Elohim. In the Greek the plural form of Theos, or theous (θεοὺ&#962 is used, and it occurs with some rarity in the NT. So it appears to me that the NT does not refer to Elohim much. Theos or Theou seems to refer to El. It seems the Greek NT follows the Septuagint convention of substituting Kurios for YWHW and Adon, so we can't tell the difference there at all - one of the things which has become frustrating for me as I have learned more about scriptural translation. I was hoping the Peshitta Matthew might reveal secrets there, but alas, I think we need more textual evidence to make such a determination without divine intervention.

 

[daq]

What the blazes r u talking about Der Alter? You don't know the difference between the Greek Theos and the Hebrew Elohim?
I know you know what I am talking about so stop with the condescending baloney.
I don't have access to any original Greek manuscripts so how about we rely on just a plain old Greek interlinear like Biblehub.com.
Go to John 10:35 If he called them gods(elohim), unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
where Jesus is quoting Psalms 82 we know He would have spoken the Hebrew Elohim. In the Greek the plural form of Theos, or theous (θεοὺ&#962 is used, and it occurs with some rarity in the NT. So it appears to me that the NT does not refer to Elohim much. Theos or Theou seems to refer to El. It seems the Greek NT follows the Septuagint convention of substituting Kurios for YWHW and Adon, so we can't tell the difference there at all - one of the things which has become frustrating for me as I have learned more about scriptural translation. I was hoping the Peshitta Matthew might reveal secrets there, but alas, I think we need more textual evidence to make such a determination without divine intervention.

Perhaps start here:

Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV
4. Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Transliterated
4. Shma`, Yisra'el! YHWH 'Eloheynuw YHWH 'echad!

Mark 12:29 ASV
29. Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one:

Mark 12:29 Transliterated
29. Apekrithe ho Iesous hoti "Prote estin, "Akoue, Israel, Kurios ho Theos hemon Kurios heis estin

1) YHWH 'Eloheynuw YHWH 'echad
2) Kurios ho Theos hemon Kurios heis estin

 

[Imagican]

oh my. Another discussion turned into what sounds 'Greek' to me. LOL.

I'm not really interested in who believes they are able to RE translate the bible MORE accurately than has already been done.

The question was/IS: The LIGHT. If it wasn't PHYSICAL 'light' that was created in the VERY beginning, what was/IS that 'light'?

And then I would like to move on to the NEXT question: If the 'light' that was formed in the VERY beginning, was NOT 'physical light' and it apparently never existed BEFORE it was introduced, isn't that the FIRST of God's 'creation'. I mean RIGHT after the HEAVENS and the EARTH were created, (stated VOID and without FORM), God INTRODUCED 'light'. But not PHYSICAL light. Wouldn't the formation of the "light" BE the 'beginning of the 'creation of God'?

Plural, singular, these are really insignificant when reading these words:

God said, "Let there be light". As far as the definition offered to the Hebrews, God is UTTERLY singular in that there is ONLY 'one God', and NO OTHER Gods beside Him. What men have tried to add TO that since then is pretty irrelevant to what matters MOST: God's WORD, not the word of MEN.

I don't speak Greek. Do you suppose that it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to KNOW God because He required me to speak or understand Greek? Or, let's be even more specific: Is GREEK the language OF GOD?

Ok. So if Greek isn't the language of God, just a language used to record his word, why weren't those that translated the language to English competent enough? It seems rather FOOLISH to even CONTEMPLATE that God would allow His Word to be hidden from men for the past TWO thousand years until YOU good folk came along to 'get it right'. Pretty presumptuous in my opinion.

So many have such a difficult time discerning what has already been translated that it seems like DENIAL to insist that it has NEVER been translated correctly to begin with. Instead of trying to ALTER it, wouldn't it make MORE sense to first start trying to UNDERSTAND it as OFFERED? For how would one even BEGIN to determine which words were MEANT to be used in translation UNLESS 'THEY' believe that somehow THEY are MORE inspired than the men that have ALREADY DONE IT.

And wouldn't INSPIRATION delivered through the Holy Spirit be a more authentic means of discernment concerning God's Word REGARDLESS of language? I mean REALLY guys and gals, if it's a matter of FAITH that we find TRUTH, how does one suppose that they can take such a secular approach to something SPIRITUAL?

Do you TRULY believe in God? Do you TRULY believe that God is powerful enough to have created EVERYTHING pertaining to mankind and his environment? Do you TRULY believe that God desires a relationship with His creation: MANKIND? Then how is it that one could possibly THINK that God made his message SO DIFFICULT for MEN to understand? It is MEN that have created this CONFUSION, not God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Norah63]

Jesus is the light of the world.

 

[Imagican]

THANK YOU Norah!!!!!!!!!!!

When I asked the question, I didn't think that it would be THAT difficult to get an answer.

That is EXACTLY what we are told. That Jesus IS the LIGHT OF THIS WORLD.

Since we KNOW He is NOT the Sun, obviously it is in reference to a DIFFERENCE meaning.

And all we need to DO to figure out the meaning is READ. Jesus CAME to declare God. To INFORM the 'creation' that God is the 'creator'. Not just to the Hebrews/Jews, but to ALL mankind.

So, we can basically ascertain from His purpose exactly what 'the light' IS: it is TRUTH. Jesus IS the TRUTH. And all things that pertain to TRUTH are THROUGH Christ who has DECLARED to us: HIS FATHER: Our God and Heavenly Father AS WELL.

Thanks again Norah. I appreciate your being able to answer simply and plainly.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[southcountry]

This is a good question.

What is light? The light we observe is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Is it really the "last word" when it comes to describing our reality? I dont think so.

Even scientists can not fully explain how a radio can self-propagate itself through a vacuum. There must be something there for it to ride on, but they fail at understanding it. This is the first "light" that God created. One that doesnt have a set speed of 186,000 miles per second. Its a canvass spread out for all the mountains and islands to be hung upon. It is a "sea" of energy.

Genesis 9:13
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.


Ezekiel 1:28
As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


Psalm 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: 3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: 4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: 5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.


Psalm 18:15
Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Amos 5:8
Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name:

Amos 9:6
It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name.