The inconsistency of John 1:18

[Laureate]

The King James renders John 1:18-19 as….

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

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

There are a number of issues with this translation, for starter’s it should read ..,the Jews sent Priests Of Levi…, not Priests And Levi…

The problem here is literally a matter of being Lost in Translation, for in Hebrew the word ‘And’ & ‘Of’ is often represented by a Waw being prefixed to a word, however the ‘And’ in Hebrew is sometimes represented by the word כי (Kai/Kee);

Kai also happens to be the Greek word for ‘And’, however the Greek often translates the Hebrew Waw ‘And’ as if it were the Kai ‘And’ which does not render’Of’, and subsequently neither does a Kai (rendering of Waw) offer a third generation translator the option of rendering a Waw as ‘Of’, for they do not see the Waw, they only see the (previous translator’s translation of Waw as) Kai.

This misrepresentation of Waw can also be found consistently throughout the New Testament where a verse renders …the Prophets And the Law…where instead it should read….the Prophets Of the Torah…

Another discrepancy is where it reads …he hath declared him… the word ‘him’ is in italics which indicates that a translator (unlawfully) Added a word in order to render an (intellectually) ineffable passage appear intelligible, any attempt on their behalf to produce a literal rendering would likely appear unintelligible or ambiguous, i.e.,

…the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared.

Notwithstanding, a rearrangement of a few words provide a more feasible resolution, i.e.,

…the Only Begotten Son has declared, that he is in the Bosom of the Father.

The Greek syntax is awfully peculiar, especially when translating a passage into the English language, and even this adjustment lacks a contextual rhythmic flow, wherefore I conclude…

When the Jews Sent Priests of Levi from Yerusalem to ask John, Who are you?

No Man had ever Seen Alohym before the Only Begotten Son, (who was in the Bosom of the Father), himself Declared that, he was the Testimony of John….

Saying, I am the Voice of the One Crying מדבר ‘in the Wilderness’, Make straight the Way of Yahuah, as the prophet Yeshayahu spoke.

If John [Yowhan, lit,, the Grace of Yah] was indeed the Father, and Yeshuah was indeed speaking from the Bosom of John, then the words of this passage are twofold, in that they prove to be true for both John and Yeshuah;

For John [Yowhan ‘the Grace of Yah’] was the Voice מדבר ‘In the Wilderness’, which is to say, he was the Voice speaking מדבר ‘In the Word’, aka the Son;

Simultaneously the Son [who is the Word], he was the Voice of One [namely John] who was crying in the wilderness;

Likewise when John Identified the Son of Alohym, implicatively, the Son was simultaneously declaring with the very same utterance, that John was the Father;

For only the Father can Identify the Son of Alohym, and only the Son can Identify the Father, subsequently, No Man can Declare who the Son of Alohym is, without also implying that they them self are the Father, and visa-versa, No Man can identify the Father without also indicating that they them self are the Son;

What is true for one is true for the other, if you see one, then you must have seen the other, for no one can come unto either one without the other sending (prompting) them, this is regardless to anyone’s awareness of who they are.

 

[Laureate]

When we consider the segment which reads,

….No man hath ever seen God at any time…, we are faced with an irreconcilable inconsistency with other existing texts, which beg to differ.

Isaiah 6:5 ….for my Eyes have Seen the King, the Host of Yahuah.

The word …seen… here, pertains to one’s Perceptive Ability, this not only applies to something that one happens to lay (competent) Eyes on, it includes a Realization of what it is that one Is Looking at, and this concept is found consistently throughout the New Testament.

Hebrews 13:2

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained Angels unawares.

John 5:37-38

…the Father.,..Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape…,for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

John 14:7

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have Seen him.

And of course this concept is carried over from the Torah.

Isaiah 26:11

Yahuah, when your hand is lifted up, they will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed….

Isaiah 6:9

….indeed you can See, but do not Perceive.

Ezekiel 12:2

Son of Adam, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which have Eyes to See, but See not; they have Ears to Hear, but Hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

The Sight consistently being referenced here pertains to a Comprehensive Insight, for when one does not Comprehend what it is that they are Beholding they are Cognitively Blind to it, wherefore the prophet says, Bring forth the Blind that have Eyes…

 

[Laureate]

Yet when we adjust the reading (neither adding nor subtracting, but rather presenting an alternate reading), to render, No man had ever seen Alohym before…, we are presented with something both plausible and harmonic with that distinct generation of that particular dispensation.
Which leaves us with…

No man had ever seen/perceived Alohym before, the Only Begotten Son who is in the Bosom of he Father, he (has) Declared…

And this is the Record/Testimony of John when…,

Scrutiny now falls on the Greek words which render …he has Declared. And this is…, which also may render, …himself (has) Declared, that he was…, giving us…

No man had ever seen/perceived Alohym before the Only Begotten Son (who is in the Bosom of the Father), himself has Declared that he was the Testimony of John when the Jews sent Priests of Levi to ask him, Who are you?

To examine the verity of a rendering I often consider the reading on a loop, where I place the last sentence first, and when the given sequence flows intelligibly, I often conclude, a complete thought has been captured;

When the Jews Sent Priests of Levi from Yerusalem to ask John, Who are you?

No Man had ever Seen Alohym before the Only Begotten Son, (who was in the Bosom of the Father), himself Declared that, he was the Testimony of John, when the Jews Sent Priests of Levi from Yerusalem to ask him, Who are you?

 

[daq]

This passage-verse is a mess for multiple reasons. The first problem arises with the word monogenes, (G3439 μονογενης), which early scholarship decided was a compound word formed with monos+gennetos, (G3441+G1084), which would mean something like only-begotten, only-born, and so on. But then another group of scholars came along saying it is probably not monos+gennetos but rather more likely monos+genos, (G3441+G1085), which does not mean the same thing and is something more like only-kind or one of a kind. So which one is it? something like one and only begotten or something more like one and only kind?

The next problem is the very next word in the text, which in the western textual family is theos, but in the eastern or Byzantine text type is huios, (see the majority-morph text types here). Because of this we now have a potential for at least eight different renderings even without any bias entering into the reading.

The next problem is G2859 kolpos, (κολπος), which strangely, people seem to want to render howsoever they please while ignoring the fact that it means the bosom: simply look at the first five translations at the following link here.

The next problem is εκεινος, which literally means "that one", but since it is treated as a pronoun it often gets ignored and not even translated because pronouns so often end up becoming redundant when translating from Greek into English. This is a problem because of the word form which follows, that is, εξηγησατο, so the final clause is two Greek words, εκεινος εξηγησατο.

In addition to all of these difficulties one must remember that the whole rendering must make logical sense, contextually speaking, and likewise, because of all of these difficulties it seems to me that translators and translator teams often find an opportunity in this single sentence-statement to insert their own biases into the text, resulting in so many variations in English translations. As for the final clause you may find it helpful to look at how εξηγησατο is parsed here.

 

[Laureate]

Thank you for the links.

I agree, so many presume they know what is being conveyed, and incorporate lose associations predicated on existing exegesis.

The adding or omission of elements is problematic, and the incorporation of interpretations being presented as if they were translations is more disturbing.

For me context is everything, which alone determines how I render a passage.

I also take into consideration that the Greek syntax is an attempt to relate a Hebraic syntax, which in many instances helps to capture the actual conveyance.

Of course having a fluid insight of the overall scriptures helps to prevent scribal contradictions or inconsistent renderings from seeping into one’s translations.

Always remember, those which actually get something viable, that they will always receive more viable information, meanwhile others will no doubt increase confusion or stagnate growth, presuming that they have received enough to ascertain and declare the certainty of a matter before sufficient evidence has been presented, scrutinized and properly accounted for.

The Bosom can refer to one’s interior (Heart) or exterior (Cradled in one’s Arms), I see the passage as referring to both, in that I know that Abvraham is the Arm of Yahuah, and I also know that John was Abvraham.

Though Yeshuah delivered everything that the Father gave him unto us (verbiage wise), he also declared that he had much more to convey which that dispensation was not ready to receive, and in John 16 he also declares the time will come when he no longer will speak to us concerning the Father in Proverbs/Parables, but shall show us plainly of the Father, wherefore it is not a matter of receiving more information concerning the Father, so much as it is perfecting the understanding of what we have already received, that is where I place my scrutiny of the matter.

 

[daq]

In the very first letter of the otot of the shamayim we have a depiction of some of these things, such as the Son in the bosom of the Father, written in the heavens by the finger of Elohim. The first letter is a great symbol which looks like the English letter V, and it is essentially a very simple depiction of a great set of horns, which are symbolic of the Father. At the top of one horn there is a smaller ayil, a ram, (the ibex). The ram is staked at the top of one of the great horns but most of the ram is caught within the thicket of the great horns. This is symbolic of the Father and the Son because the most part of the ram is within the two great horns, and since the two great horns are the only thing seen, (no body), the ram is in the bosom of the two great horns which are symbolizing the Father. And not only that, but the head of the ram is also a little outside the two great horns: thus the Son is ever in the bosom of the Father, and is yet proceeding from the Father.

Note also that the Ayil is staked right into the heart. Moreover the point at the bottom of the great horns is the Pleiades, the seven stars, and this star cluster is the beginning of the great vine of the otot running through the heavens, written by the finger of Elohim. The Pleiades star cluster looks like a cluster of grapes and is also the cornerstone of the next sign, the letter bet, (which as you know is a pictograph of a house). Depictions of the Ayil, in this form, the ibex, are scattered all over the Negev, emanating from what is today called Har Karkom.

 

[Laureate]

In the very first letter of the otot of the shamayim we have a depiction of some of these things, such as the Son in the bosom of the Father, written in the heavens by the finger of Elohim. The first letter is a great symbol which looks like the English letter V, and it is essentially a very simple depiction of a great set of horns, which are symbolic of the Father. At the top of one horn there is a smaller ayil, a ram, (the ibex). The ram is staked at the top of one of the great horns but most of the ram is caught within the thicket of the great horns. This is symbolic of the Father and the Son because the most part of the ram is within the two great horns, and since the two great horns are the only thing seen, (no body), the ram is in the bosom of the two great horns which are symbolizing the Father. And not only that, but the head of the ram is also a little outside the two great horns: thus the Son is ever in the bosom of the Father, and is yet proceeding from the Father.

Note also that the Ayil is staked right into the heart. Moreover the point at the bottom of the great horns is the Pleiades, the seven stars, and this star cluster is the beginning of the great vine of the otot running through the heavens, written by the finger of Elohim. The Pleiades star cluster looks like a cluster of grapes and is also the cornerstone of the next sign, the letter bet, (which as you know is a pictograph of a house). Depictions of the Ayil, in this form, the ibex, are scattered all over the Negev, emanating from what is today called Har Karkom.

View attachment 340283

Aliyah אליה lit., renders, the Tail of a איל Ram, indicating that Aliyahu is the Last Prophet [seeing how the Word of Alohym is being depicted as a Lamb, contextually a Ram]

Those which did not Recognize and Accept Malachi Sent from on High, they made Alohym out to be a Liar, and subsequently he hands such over to their own delusions, wherefore those which did not Receive and Accept Malachi were not in a position to Receive and Accept Meshiakh.

First we accept Grace, then by it we are predisposed to Receive the Anointing of Malachi, H’meshiakh, who declares the Grace which Points you to him is greater than himself.

 

[Laureate]

One day Rûakh H’Kodesh asked me to consider what a Hebrew rendering of the name Lazarus might be, then of course I was instantly prompted by the invitation to search and find the only logical possibility in my mind, לאזרח to signify the Resurrection, the Raising (of the Dead), ergo Lazarus in the Bosom of Abvraham was the Resurrection in the Bosom of the Father, of course Lazarus did not come in his own name, we know that Yeshuah is לאזרח The Resurrection, and it was he who said, …of those who are born of women, there has not Risen one who is greater than John…

Of course the name לאזרח also conveys a few other pertinent things.

 

[Yahudim]

To a citizen? Or perhaps, naturalize? Maybe I'm tired and just not connecting. Forgive me.

 

[Laureate]

To a citizen? Or perhaps, naturalize? Maybe I'm tired and just not connecting. Forgive me.

Yes! The word לאזרח conveys, a Native Born (one born in the land), and also those who have become Naturaized Citizens, yet in this context לאזרח is synonymous with קדשים a Saint of the Kingdom (set apart from the world), reckoned as a member of the House/Temple of Alohym.

Ephesians 2:19-22
Now therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners [contextually, no longer a Goiyem/Gentiles], but Fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the Household of Alohym;
And (that is Because you) are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Yeshuah H’meshiakh himself being the Chief Corner Stone;
by whom the entire building is fitly framed together growing into a Holy Temple in Yahuah, by whom you have also been Assembled (to be a Habitation) for the Spirit of Alohym (Rûakh H’Kodesh) to abide in.

The word לאזרח also renders Bay (Laurel), to signify Oracle(s) of the Word of Alohym, a concept which my own Sephardic progenitors paganized, superimposing (who knows what), on divine matters, many a babe have likewise been tossed out with the bath water, due to the mishandling of others, sigh.

When the (young) Branches (children) would dance the חולה Hhula in a circle they would constitute a L-Aureate (sprigs of אזרח woven together to form a Wreathed Crown);

The Aureate is the ‘Halo’ which rests upon the Saints which have received Victory over the World, and those which take hold of the Covenant of Grace.

Aureate also renders, ‘Gold Crown’ as the one placed upon Aaron ben Levi [ארון Laurel בן sprigs woven (into) לוי a Wreath] the first appointed (Poet/Prophet) Laureate [Spokesman] of Ishrael (the Son of Alohym).

Isaiah 61:3
To appoint unto them that [אבל] Mourn in Zion, to give unto them פאר Beautiful Headdress for ashes, the oil of joy for אבל Mourning, the garment of תהלה Praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called Trees of Righteousness, the planting of Yahuah, that he might be פאר Glorified.

I love how Aaron Ben Levi is an acronym for אבל, which not only renders Mourn, but Meadow as well, thus he was a Laurel planted in a Meadow [lit., Grass growing beside a course of water, raised for Fodder, to feed a Flock, etc.], we get overtones of psalm 1-3 laced within here.

Wherefore Yeshayahu 61 is simultaneously conveying To appoint unto those who are a אבל Meadow [Pasture/Pastor] in Zion, to give unto them פאר a Beautiful Headdress for ashes, the oil of joy for אבל the Meadow [Pasture/Pastor which feeds my sheep], the garment of תהלה

תהלה not only renders Praise and Glory, it is one of the Hebrew words that also renders Laurel, and Laureate.

So many things have been Lost in a Fixed Translation.

O’ and the חולה is the Dance of the Elect, signified by the Virgin and Bachelor (Young Men) mentioned in the following verse;

Jeremiah 31:13
Then shall the Virgin rejoice in The Dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow.

 

[Yahudim]

I really need to work on my language skills. Thanks for being so patient with me.