hi proverb2717,
Listen, I'm sure that you are a well intentioned believer, but you have just used the very example that onlybygrace pointed out.
You responded:
Begotten doesn't mean "only born" or "one and only"
It is a past participle (so says dictionary.com at least) or beget which means something like reproduce, sort of giving birth idea.
The idea of Jesus being the only begotten of the Father, is that Jesus is the only one who is God reproduced as a man because that is what the term implies. That Jesus is God who is reproduced as a man, so fully God, and at the same time fully man.
I think it is one of the most beautiful words in the English language actually, but that is my own opinion.
You see, you're still looking at the word 'begotten' as if that's the word that John wrote in the original manuscript. John wrote the word 'monogenes'. Now, to find out if the KJ or the NIV is correct you would need to research what the Greek word 'monogenes' means because that's the word that John wrote down. 'Begotten' was the word that a translator at some point decided was the best translation of 'monogenes', and maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
This is exactly why some of the newer translations are, in some ways, better. When the great KJ translators translated the KJ the words that they read in John 3:16 was not, "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son..." No, the KJ translators were reading the Textus Receptus which was a translation made by a man by the name of Erasmus in the 1500's of just a very, very few manuscripts. So, the truth is that what we read at John 3:16 in the KJV are actually the words that Erasmus translated and here's what one writer says of the Erasmus translation:
It is sad to report that such a noble undertaking was so badly handled (all the more so since it became the basis of Luther's German translation, and later -- with some slight modifications -- of the English King James Version). The speed with which the book went through the press meant that it contained literally thousands of typographical errors. What is more, the text was hastily and badly edited from a few late manuscripts. (If you'd like to some further research, here's a reasonably good explanation of the Erasmus' work:
Textus Receptus)
So, the point that I believe onlybygrace was making is that before you go hopping up and down and pointing fingers with this, "Oh, that's sacrilage that the NIV doesn't have exactly and all the same words as the KJV, you need to know what the Greek is and find out what word best describes the Greek words used. Don't look at the english words. The Scriptures were never, never, never, never, never written in english in their original manuscripts. The new covenant Scriptures were written in pretty much all Greek and so the issue is whether the translator picked the right english word to translate the intended meaning of the Greek. And in the newer translations at examples such as this one, is there a better word that people understand today that is a better word to translate the original Greek meaning?
Similarly, with missing verses or phrases from the KJ to the NIV. Don't get yourself all tied up that the english NIV doesn't say exactly what the english KJ says. Find the missing phrase or verse; go to the lastest or most reliable Greek manuscript copy that we have today and see if that word or phrase is there or not. There are several places in the KJ where it is known that verses were added based on manuscript notations that had been made by person or persons unknown. It is fairly well accepted, and is explained in the site reference I gave, that Erasmus did come to places where he didn't have any manuscript evidence to go on and just wrote down what he thought was the 'right' thing to say.
If you really want to know what is the best english translation of the Scriptures, well, to be honest you'll have to set out for an archeological excavation to find the original documents because the best that we have today are copies of copies of copies. Are some of those copies of copies of copies slightly different? Yes, they are. But friend, please understand that God's purpose in providing the written word to you is that you may come to know the truth and His Son as the only way of eternal life and there are very, very, very, very few translations of the Scriptures that fail at that task. God's word will go forth and accomplish that for which it was sent, in many, many languages and a single word or phrase that one would argue, "Well it should say 'begotten' not 'one and only' is doing more harm to the purpose for which God sent His word to His people Israel.
What you should do is tell all those lost people that you share the hope of eternal life with is this. Look, it doesn't matter that Jesus is described as 'begotten' or 'one and only', what matters is that you believe your Creator sent him to die for your sin and that through faith you may earn the reward of eternal life. That my friend and brother is the purpose of God's word. See to it, as best you are able, to make sure that everyone that you come into contact with understands that!
God bless you,
In Christ, Ted