The New Internation Version (NIV) Bible completely removes the word "Godhead"

[OzSpen]

"only Begotten" unique inthe sense that Jesus was "Begotten" in Mary by the power of the God Almighty. No other place in the bible does anyone approch that level.

Based on the etymology of the Greek word, monogenes, the KJV got it wrong by translating "only begotten" and the NIV is correct with "one and only".

I have provided the Greek exegesis, but you are not listening.

Bye, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz buddy, when someone has their mind made up to be a "right-fighter" they will go to any lengths to win their point. We all know it means that Jesus was the only one ever BORN the Son of God (we as "sons" of God were adopted into His family). So just let her go her way and think she's won. We have the truth and she's got her "win".

You are correct.

I'm leaving the discussion as exegesis of the Greek word doesn't seem to make an impact on those whose minds are made up.

Oz

 

[lamikin]

And the KJV is not it. What is "it" is the 5,000 manuscripts that depart from one another by only 7/10ths of one percent. You may think a departure represents imperfection, but compared to the number of transcripts we have for Homer's The Illiyad (only 64 manuscripts, none complete), any one of the works of Shakespeare (the highest total of complete manuscripts for any one play is three, and none of them agree to within five percent of one another) or any number of ancient works you'd care to name, the Bible is a dead lock for accuracy. We don't need an English translation as a "corroborating source" when it isn't as accurate from 400 manuscripts as the ESV or NASB are with the 5,000. The manuscripts themselves are so far and above anything researchers depend upon for any other confirmation in literary works, the only reason the Bible isn't considered absolutely infallible with the mountain of evidence proving its reliability is that the world will never say anything so flattering about the Bible.

What are the materials available today? We have to understand that of the manuscript evidence available today, we have no New Testament manuscripts that are complete. We only have pieces, fragments, chapters, books etc.

Until 1995, no first century manuscripts of the New Testament had been discovered. Three tiny fragments of uncial codex which were acquired in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 and donated to Magdalen College in Oxford, England had been preserved in its library in a butterfly display case. Dated c.A.D. 180-200 in 1953, both sides of the Magdalen Papyrus (the largest piece is 1 5/8 by 1/2) exhibit Greek script from the 26th chapter of Matthew.

In 1994, these fragments came to the attention of the German biblical scholar and papyrologist Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede (Director of the Institute for Basic Espistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany).

He painstakingly redated the scraps, Dr. Thiede placed them at A.D. 66- the only known first century N.T. text extant. (Carsten P. Thiede & Matthew D'Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, (New York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 124-125).

Using an eipflourescent confocal laser scanning microscope, Dr. Thiede found that fragment 3 (recto) revealed the TR(Textus Receptus)/KJB reading from Matthew 26:22, "hekastos auton", every one of them rather than "heis hekatos", each one [in turn one after the other] as all the various critical texts read! (These results were presented at the 21st Congress of the International Papyrologists' Association in Berlin August 25, 1995 and met with "unanamous approval".

Those fragments document the antiquity of the TR(Textus Receptus)/KJB text to the time of Peter, Paul, John the Apostle, as well as some of the 500 witnesses of our Lord's resurrection.

And what is interesting is Dr. Thiede is not a TR supporter. He was motivated because as a papyrologist, he had hard evidence in hand.

There are 88 Greek papyri manuscripts that are of newspaper type quality, usually rolled but somtimes in book from. Most papyri consist of small fragments and do not exhibit text. Of the 88, only an estimated thirteen (15%) support Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph which are the two foremost manuscripts supporting the radical new Greek text of modern bibles. About seventy-five (85%) support the Greek Recieved Text of TR upon which the King James was founded.

We have 267 Greek Uncials (text written in capital letters, aso called "majuscules", dsignated "MSS"), none of which is complete. Pages, chapters, and even books are missing. Of course some are in much better condition than others. Only nine of these support the Wescott-Hort critical text upon which the new radical Greek text was based (merely 3%) whereas 258 (97%) support the Greek Recieved Text.

There are 2,764 Greek cursive manuscripts (written in small letters, designated by "mss"), often called "miniscules". Thus most of the Greek witnesses to the true text of the New Testament are the Greek cursives. Merely twenty-three (1%) sustain the Westcott-Hort readings which are the Greek foundation of nearly all the modern translations while 2,741 (99%) uphold the Received Text.

We also have 2,143 Greek lectionaries (from a Latin root meaning "to read", manuscripts containing Scripture lessons which were read publicly in the churches from at least A.D. 400 until the time of the invention of printing. All (100%) of them support the Reeived Text which underlies the King James Bible.

This gives us a total of 5,262 Greek witnesses to the true text of the New Testament of which 5,217 or ninety-nine percent are in agreement. This group dates from the fifth century on. The remainder not only disagree with the 99% majority but disagree among themselves.

So I have to disagree with you on you accessment of the KJV.

 

[lamikin]

Based on the etymology of the Greek word, mysogenes, the KJV got it wrong by translating "only begotten" and the NIV is correct with "one and only".

I have provided the Greek exegesis, but you are not listening.

Bye, Oz

Oh I'm listening , but there is not much to listen to.

Monogenes is a two part word in which mono means 'only' or 'one' and genes means 'begotten', 'born', 'come forth'.

Buchsel, in his definitive treastise on the meaning of the word 'monogenes' said:

It means only-begotten
(The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. iv, p. 739)

 

[OzSpen]

Oh I'm listening , but there is not much to listen to.

Monogenes is a two part word in which mono means 'only' or 'one' and genes means 'begotten', 'born', 'come forth'.

Buchsel, in his definitive treastise on the meaning of the word 'monogenes' said:

It means only-begotten
(The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. iv, p. 739)

It is too bad that you didn't read on further to p. 741 of Buchsel's Greek exposition of monogenes in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4 where Buchsel's word study is not as assured as you are making it out to be. He wrote:

It is not wholly clear whether monogenes in John denotes also the birth or begetting from God; it probably does, John calls Jesus ho gennetheis ek tou theou [the one born of God], 1 John 5:18. Though many will not accept this, he here understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting. For him to be the Son of God is not just to be the recipients of God's love. It is to be begotten of God. This is true both of believers and also of Jesus. For this reason monogenes probably includes also begetting of God (p. 741).

In his footnote at this point, he states,

One should not refer the monogenes to the virgin birth of Jesus..., for the pre-existent as well as the historical Jesus is the son of God (p. 741, n 20).

While Buchel does prefer the translation of monogenes as referring to the begetting from God, he tempers it with, "It is not wholly clear".

Arndt & Gingrich in their Greek lexicon also are not as sure as you want it to be. They state that the meaning of monogenes is of an only son or daughter (Heb 11:17; Luke 8:42) - also unique in kind. "In the Johannine literature monogenes is used only of Jesus. The meanings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.... But some ... prefer to regard monogenes as somewhat heightened in meaning in John and 1 John to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on gennasthai ek theou [born of God] (John 1:13 etc)" (p. 529).

On the basis of the study of these Greek exegetes, it is NOT definitive that monogenes should be translated as "only begotten" and for someone to say that the NIV's translation of "one and only" Son in John 3:16 is wrong, does not line up with what the exegetes are concluding.

If Buchel can conclude that it is "not wholly clear" and Arndt & Gingrich say that in the Johannine writings, the meanings of "only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here", but "some prefer" the "somewhat heightened" meaning in John's writings of "only-begotten or begotten of the Only One", indicates that those intensely involved in Greek exegesis are not absolutely convinced that the one and only meaning of monogenes in John 3:16 is "only begotten".

Bye, Oz

 

[IisJustMe]

What are the materials available today?

Stop right there. I told you want materials we have today. I gave you the exact number of them. That is all you need. The idea that the KJV is a "new revelation" in English is completely ludicrous. Your reasoning is faulty and ignores the facts as I've stated them. Your argument is partly false premise, partly ergo proctor hoc, partly nonsequitur and completely invalid.

 

[lamikin]

It is too bad that you didn't read on further to p. 741 of Buchsel's Greek exposition of monogenes in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4 where Buchsel's word study is not as assured as you are making it out to be. And yet on pg. 739 he can say monogenes means "only Begotten".

ROFL !!!!!

I found this article on monogenes:

THE ONLY BEGOTTEN – “MONOGENES”

In the bible you have many persons called the sons of GOD. Adam was the son of God by creation, as are the angels called the sons of God. The bible tells us that all humanity in a sense are the offspring of God. Christians are the sons and daughters of God. But the bible declares repeatedly that Jesus Christ is the "only begotten" Son of God. This shows that Jesus is the Son of GOD, in a manner no other person can be. It actually shows that he is OF the substance of GOD, and truly Divine; Because the term "only begotten" shows that Christ is not a son by title, or a son by creation, but is truly the filial Son of GOD. What amazes me today is that many people, on both side of the aisle are attacking the "begottenness" of Christ. Some who deny the divinity of Christ attack it, and some who uphold the divinity of Christ attack it! I tell you friends the "Begotteness" of Christ is the only doctrine that ensures that Christ is divine by substance and nature! Why would people attack the cornerstone of Christianity? The very doctrine that the church is built upon? Even some bibles today are removing the word "Begotten" from their pages. What I want us to do today is to investigate the begottenness of Jesus Christ, and understand the truth for ourselves. and to do this we must first look at the phrase "Only Begotten"

The term ‘only begotten’ in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word Monogenes (Srong’s – 3439). Those who promote the doctrine that denies the literal sonship of Jesus Christ (1st John 2:22) tell us that ‘monogenes’ only means ‘unique’. Who is correct? Let us investigate and see who bares the weight of evidence..

Monogenes is from the greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’. The Strong’s Concordance defines it as “only-born”; but let’s investigate a little deeper

The first article of Monogenes is 3441 monos mon'-os which is defined as: remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:--alone, only.

The Second article is 1085 genov genos ghen’-os which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In the New Testament, and in the writings of Ante-Nicene Christians, the term Monogenes takes the more stable denotation of its root ‘ginomai’ (1096).{which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is reckoned as ‘only begotten’.

And what is the specific meaning of monogenes in the New Testament? It is used only in reference to sons or daughters, in view of the literal relationship that exists between parent and offspring. It is used repeatedly by Christian writers who lived closest to the age of the Apostles to denote the filial relationship between God and Christ. And it is the cornerstone for the pre-temporal generation of the Son from the Father doctrine, which was held universally among Christians prior to 400 AD (Modalists being exempted) and was held almost universally until the last two hundred years.

Now if ‘monogenes’ simply means ‘unique’ as the propagators of the antichrist doctrine declares, then we should find it used in this manner in scripture, but it is not. Please notice that every time ‘monogenes’ is used it is specifically points to the ‘only born’ child of a person. In the following passages I have underlined where the term "monogenes" appears.

Luke 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 8:42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

1John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Also see John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Hebrews 11:17

Will you ask: “And what of Hebrews 11:17, If monogenes means only begotten, then of whom was Ishmael sprung?” Truly Isaac and Ishmael were both begotten, but only Isaac was the Son of the promise; and for this reason Paul added, “In Isaac thy seed be called”. For an example, if I say, “This is my only born child that lives with me”, you would not think I have lied, if I afterward would tell you his brother lived in a far country. Thus the question is not was Isaac begotten, but in what since was he ‘only’, and it is hence: he is the lone child of the promise.

Hebrews 11:17-18 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Now we must also consider the fact that ‘monogenes’ isn’t the ONLY Greek word that is translated BEGOTTEN in reference to Jesus Christ. The other word is ‘gennao’.

Gennao (1080 in the Strong’s) and it retains the following meaning. To procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate. It is translated as such in the scriptures:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, make, spring.

And it is used in the following instances in reference to Jesus Christ..

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (Also see Hebrews 5:5).

1John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Also in the Hebrew Old Testament we see that Christ is declared to be the ‘Begotten’ Son of GOD. Here begotten is from the Hebrew word yalad and it bears the following definition: -- to bear young; to beget. And it is translated in this manner: bear, beget, birth, born, bring forth. It is used in reference to Christ in the book of Psalms.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Jesus often spoke of two previous momentous events, his birth (Being brought forth from God) and then his coming to the world.

John 16:27-28 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out (1831 exerchomai ) from God. I came forth (1831 exerchomai) from the Father, and am come (2064 erchoma) into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

John 8:42 “If God were your Father, ye would love me; For I proceeded forth (1831 exerchomai) and came from God neither came I of myself, but He sent me”.

In the above passages we see the use of two distinct Greek words. First Christ states that He Came Forth or Proceeded forth from God. In both instances he uses the word exerchomai. Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon defines ‘exerchomai’ in this manner: “To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of”.

Then we see after Christ was ‘born of’ God we see that he ‘Came into the world’. The greek word for ‘Came’ is ‘erchoma’ and it simply means to “To come from one place to another”. This is also the explanation Christ gave to Pilate also.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Clearly Jesus was begotten by God long before he came to the earth. God did indeed send His begotten Son.

1John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (See John 16:28).

You may also note that Christ taught that his life is indeed derived from the Father.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

The Bible teaches that the Father is the source of all things, including the life of his Son. As we inherit life from our parents, Christ inherited his life from the Father. Not only his life, but his Divinity, Power and Authority is all derived from the Father, because Christ is truly the BEGOTTEN Son of GOD (Colossians 2:9, 1:19 Matthew 28:18, 1st Corinthians 15:27)

WHEN WAS CHRIST BEGOTTEN?

Colossians 1:15-16 Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Here Jesus is declared the Firstborn of every creature. What does this phrase mean? Firstborn is translated from the Greek word prototokos, and it simply means: first-born --first begotten.

We also see that prototokos is a conjunction of two root words. Protos and tikto (tikto is it’s alternate). Protos simply means: foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, first (of all), former.
The second article is tikto which means: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literally or figuratively:--bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.

Thus we see in these verses that Paul is telling us that Christ was ‘Begotten First or Born Before all creation’, because all of creation was created by God through Christ (Ephesians 3:9). This is also the explanation given to us concerning this verse in the Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things”. Wigram’s Greek Lexicon tells us the following: “Or it may be; born before all creation”. This truth is also testified to in Proverbs 8:24-25, “When there were no depths, I was brought forth (born); when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth (born)”. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary has this to add: “first-born of every creature-- (Heb_1:6), "the first-begotten": "begotten of His Father before all worlds" [Nicene Creed]… Translate, "Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature," as the context shows, which gives the reason why He is so designated. "For," &c. (Col_1:16-17) [TRENCH]. Matthew Henry’s Commentary states the following: “He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made;”

This also destroys the Jehovah Witnesses’ doctrine that Christ was the first created angel; for we see that Christ was the active agent in the creation of all things, both in heaven and in earth, including angels. And what of the following verse? Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

The word ‘Beginning’ is from the Greek Arche. Arche is some times translated power and principality. And it is thus here, for it declares Christ to be the "agent" or "efficient cause" of Creation. This perfectly fits our understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things, but we are told that Christ was brought forth in a very different manner, for he is called the ONLY BEGOTTEN (MONOGENES) OF GOD, a phrase that would be utterly inappropriate to apply to any created being.

HOW WAS CHRIST BORN?

The bible tells us that Jesus is truly the begotten Son of GOD. It teaches that he was born before creation. How was Jesus born? I'm not sure it is important if we know how, as long as we believe he is truly the Son of GOD. But the scriptures does give us some insight.

Jesus is called the Word (Logos) of GOD. A person's Word is his thoughts revealed. Our thoughts originate in our hearts (minds).

I think this is what the bible alludes to when it says.

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

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Joh 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

While studying some of the writings of the pre-nicean church "fathers" I noticed that they repeatedly quoted the following verses to prove that Christ was indeed begotten. The true meaning of these verses are almost lost today because of the sloppy modern translations.

2004 Babylon Forsaken Ministries

P.S. Had to shorten it because it was too long and had to post this since I don't have enough posts to post a link.

 

[Skala]

ROFL !!!!!

I found this article on monogenes:

Now if ‘monogenes’ simply means ‘unique’ as the propagators of the antichrist doctrine declares, then we should find it used in this manner in scripture, but it is not. Please notice that every time ‘monogenes’ is used it is specifically points to the ‘only born’ child of a person. In the following passages I have underlined where the term "monogenes" appears.

The article is wrong. Monogenes is used to refer to Isaac being the "only begotten" son of Abraham (Heb 11:17, see below), but as we all know, Isaac is not the only begotten son of Abraham. Ishmael was born before Isaac, and also, Abraham had many sons after Isaac.

So not only is Isaac not the first born, he's also not the 'only' born of Abraham.

Thus is is proven that monogenes can mean "unique" or "important", too. Here's the verse in question:

Heb_11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Edit: I notice the article mentions this, but it contradicts itself.

Here it says that monogenes can mean "only" (in a special, unique sense):

Will you ask: “And what of Hebrews 11:17, If monogenes means only begotten, then of whom was Ishmael sprung?” Truly Isaac and Ishmael were both begotten, but only Isaac was the Son of the promise; and for this reason Paul added, “In Isaac thy seed be called”. For an example, if I say, “This is my only born child that lives with me”, you would not think I have lied, if I afterward would tell you his brother lived in a far country. Thus the question is not was Isaac begotten, but in what since was he ‘only’, and it is hence: he is the lone child of the promise.

But earlier it said the opposite (emphasis mine):

Now if ‘monogenes’ simply means ‘unique’ as the propagators of the antichrist doctrine declares, then we should find it used in this manner in scripture, but it is not. Please notice that every time ‘monogenes’ is used it is specifically points to the ‘only born’ child of a person.

 

[ronshua]

Greetings Saints , I'm new to your forum . Had to express my happiness seeing ABBA YAHweh's truth is not hidden for long . NO , NON-SCRIPTURAL "godhead" in one major translation version , AaliYAH .
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

* For GODHEAD see DIVINE, DIVINITY



Peace .

 

[lamikin]

The article is wrong. Monogenes is used to refer to Isaac being the "only begotten" son of Abraham (Heb 11:17, see below), but as we all know, Isaac is not the only begotten son of Abraham. Ishmael was born before Isaac, and also, Abraham had many sons after Isaac.

So not only is Isaac not the first born, he's also not the 'only' born of Abraham.

You have totatlly missed the point of the article and that is:


Will you ask: “And what of Hebrews 11:17, If monogenes means only begotten, then of whom was Ishmael sprung?” Truly Isaac and Ishmael were both begotten, but only Isaac was the Son of the promise; and for this reason Paul added, “In Isaac thy seed be called”. For an example, if I say, “This is my only born child that lives with me”, you would not think I have lied, if I afterward would tell you his brother lived in a far country. Thus the question is not was Isaac begotten, but in what since was he ‘only’, and it is hence: he is the lone child of the promise.

Hebrews 11:17-18 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

 

[Reformed Baptist 1689]

In sharp contrast, modern Bibles are corrupt and; therefore, produce corrupt teachings. Just the fact that the NIV translators completely removed the critically important Word, “GODHEAD” from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 is reason enough to run away from the NIV as fast as you can.

Perhaps you would like to explain how and why the greek word θεῖος must be translated as 'godhead.' Can you trace the etymology of the term to establish that this is what it means?

 

[Skala]

You have totatlly missed the point of the article and that is:


Will you ask: “And what of Hebrews 11:17, If monogenes means only begotten, then of whom was Ishmael sprung?” Truly Isaac and Ishmael were both begotten, but only Isaac was the Son of the promise; and for this reason Paul added, “In Isaac thy seed be called”. For an example, if I say, “This is my only born child that lives with me”, you would not think I have lied, if I afterward would tell you his brother lived in a far country. Thus the question is not was Isaac begotten, but in what since was he ‘only’, and it is hence: he is the lone child of the promise.

Hebrews 11:17-18 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

I didn't miss the point, I just pointed out that the article contradicts itself.

Also, the fact that Isaac is called the monogenes of Abraham proves that the NIV's wordage that Christ is the "one and only" son is viable.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't miss the point, I just pointed out that the article contradicts itself.

Also, the fact that Isaac is called the monogenes of Abraham proves that the NIV's wordage that Christ is the "one and only" son is viable.

That is briefly but well said. And the Greek exegetes from Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon and Kittel's Theological Dictionary agree with you.

The "one and only" Son is just as accurate as "only begotten" Son. So the NIV is not leading people astray with its translation and neither is the KJV leading people astray with its translation. Both translations are consistent with the meaning of monogenes, but the other NT examples suggest "one and only Son" is closer to the other meanings of monogenes referring to a unique son.

Oz

 

[HantsUK]

That is briefly but well said. And the Greek exegetes from Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon and Kittel's Theological Dictionary agree with you.

The "one and only" Son is just as accurate as "only begotten" Son. So the NIV is not leading people astray with its translation and neither is the KJV leading people astray with its translation. Both translations are consistent with the meaning of monogenes, but the other NT examples suggest "one and only Son" is closer to the other meanings of monogenes referring to a unique son.

Oz

I am not able to comment on the Greek. Despite reading the lengthy discussion, cannot see any significant differences between these two translations (John 3:16). This discussion has made a mountain out of a molehill! Both are good - provided you understand the old word 'begotten'.

But 'begotten' is an antiquated word that most English speakers will not understand, or at best, just have a vague understanding. Using 'begotten' is more likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding.

Those who grew up with the AV (Authorised Version), or who have studied and love Shakespearean English, fail to realise that most English speakers today will struggle with the language of the AV, especially the OT.

 

[Skala]

I am not able to comment on the Greek. Despite reading the lengthy discussion, cannot see any significant differences between these two translations (John 3:16). This discussion has made a mountain out of a molehill! Both are good - provided you understand the old word 'begotten'.

There is no difference. It sounded to me like typical KJVOnlyism nonsense

Those who grew up with the AV (Authorised Version), or who have studied and love Shakespearean English, fail to realise that most English speakers today will struggle with the language of the AV, especially the OT.

Just have one question: Who authorized it?

 

[OzSpen]

I am not able to comment on the Greek. Despite reading the lengthy discussion, cannot see any significant differences between these two translations (John 3:16). This discussion has made a mountain out of a molehill! Both are good - provided you understand the old word 'begotten'.

But 'begotten' is an antiquated word that most English speakers will not understand, or at best, just have a vague understanding. Using 'begotten' is more likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding.

Those who grew up with the AV (Authorised Version), or who have studied and love Shakespearean English, fail to realise that most English speakers today will struggle with the language of the AV, especially the OT.

You are correct that "begotten" is hardly a word that we know in the 21st century. The key to understanding it is to understand monogenes from John 3:16, that first appears in John's Gospel in 1:14,

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only [monogenes] Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (ESV).

Monogenes is a word to indicate the close relationship of the Son with the Father. Many of the interpreters down through the centuries have seen monogenes as referring to the relation of the Logos to the Father, apart from the incarnation and this extends right back to eternity. It does not refer to the incarnation and Jesus being begotten in the flesh.

I don't think that it does us much good to try to understand this relationship of the Son, as monogenes, to the Father. Three is a mystery associated with it. I think that we should leave it as the mysterious relationship of the Second Person of the Godhead, the Son, to the Father, in the Godhead.

I like the way that R. C. H. Lenski has put it in his commentary on John's Gospel:

To base the Fatherhood and Sonship on the human birth from the Virgin's womb contradicts John's statement, "The Word became flesh," the Word that in eternity was with God and that himself was God.... We dare not overlook the fact that the mighty terms Logos, Life, Light, which run through [John 1:1-14], are in the same class with the terms that fill v. 14, Logos, Glory, Only-begotten, Father, Grace and Truth, all of which reach back to eternity, and all of them are so interlocked that not one can be singled out and dated from some point in time (Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel 1943. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., p. 80).

I am happy to leave with with the mystery of the relationship of the Father with the Son, but to say that "only begotten" is contrary to "one and only" Son, does not fit with the etymology of monogenes and with the uniqueness of the relationship between the Father and the Son.

In Christ, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There is no difference. It sounded to me like typical KJVOnlyism nonsense

Just have one question: Who authorized it?

This is a reasonable overall summary of some of the main issues in the 'Authorized King James Version' in Wikipedia - and who authorised it.

Oz

 

[revrobor]

Just have one question: Who authorized it?

It was "authorized" by King James to eliminate the feuding among several groups who were working on English translations.

 

[Skala]

It was "authorized" by King James to eliminate the feuding among several groups who were working on English translations.

So in other words, his authorization isn't binding on me, since I'm neither from his time, nor place.

 

[revrobor]

So in other words, his authorization isn't binding on me, since I'm neither from his time, nor place.

That's correct. Although I'm sure there are some KJVOnlyers that believe God "authorized" it.