The only god who is

[JustAskin]

…Translational…
(Sorry)

[Lightenup]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 11 2010,02:03)

Hi all, Can I just ask, in passing: Is 'the only begotten Son, which is in the bosim of the Father…' correct grammar? Should it not read '…who…' or is their some significance in the specific word used. Or maybe just a transliteral error? Like I said, only passing through.

JA,

Here is John 1:18 in many translations:
NET ©
No one has ever seen God. The only one, 1  himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 2  the Father, has made God 3  known. 4

NIV ©
No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

NASB ©
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NLT ©
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart; he has told us about him.

MSG ©
No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.

BBE ©
No man has seen God at any time; the only Son, who is on the breast of the Father, he has made clear what God is.

NRSV ©
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

NKJV ©
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him .

Here are the NET Bible translator notes on the verse:

Quote

NET © Notes 1 tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text. tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14. 2 tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1). 3 tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity. 4 sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

What the notes say is that the word for “son” is not in the original Greek text and the word for “God” IS the word in the original text.  So, concerning yourself with whether “which” is the best grammar is your least problem.  Take out the word “Son” and replace it with “God.”

Jesus is the only begotten God. (That is what a literal Son of God would be-a begotten God.)  God begets God.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Which manuscripts are you discussing??

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Tradition says God became incarnate as Jesus.
But Jesus is the Son of that God.

[Lightenup]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,03:11)

LU, Do you read in Revelation where an angel twice says to John: 'Worship God' The angel, in the presence of God and the Lamb (Jesus Christ), said only 'Worship God'. I have offered Revelation to act as the extreme time example. Do you not read 'God desires Worship from such like as them' elsewhere between Matthew to Jude also? Please show these examples and why you do not think they are valid renderings of 'Worship God and Him alone', 'Worship God, and only to Him give sacred service'

Read:

Quote

Rev 22:3-9 3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; 4 they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. 5 And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. 6 And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. 7 “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.” 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.” NASU

Do you see that 4-5 verses before the angel said to “worship God,” the angel refers to the Lamb, as “Lord” and “God?”

Do you know that the Lamb is the Lamp of God that will illumine the city and it was Jesus who one who sent His angel. Read here:

Rev 22:16
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
NASU

Rev 21:23
23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
NASU

So, can you see who the angel is calling “God” in this passage where he says to “worship God?”

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 11 2010,18:27)

Hi LU, Tradition says God became incarnate as Jesus. But Jesus is the Son of that God.

Nick,
The begotten God, the Son of God, became incarnate as Jesus, not the Most High God, the Father.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
So God was not in Jesus but only the arm of God in your theology??[2Cor5]

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 11 2010,19:03)

Hi LU, So God was not in Jesus but only the arm of God in your theology??[2Cor5]

Nick,
The Father's Spirit came to fill Jesus and so in that way the Father was “in” Jesus, also the Father's words and actions were in the mind of Jesus as He sought the Father's guidance.

The Father can be “in” us too, in the same way the Father was in Jesus. Jesus can be in us also by the Spirit.

The “Arm of the Lord” became Jesus when the Son of God took on flesh and became not only the root of David but the descendent of David as well.

Rev 22:16
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
NASU

The Father is never mentioned as the root and descendent of David, only the Son of God is.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
So the arm of God was not the Spirit of God.
To you Jesus was a demigod encased in flesh and inhabited by another God?

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Jesus really died.
He was conceived as was a man and died as men do.

[terraricca]

LU

do you read your own quotes??past and present??

it seems you contradict yourself and are very unstable in your believes,

this happen wen we go ashtray and look for our own truths and not Gods truth.

wake up and see

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ April 11 2010,21:39)

LU do you read your own quotes??past and present?? it seems you contradict yourself and are very unstable in your believes, this happen wen we go ashtray and look for our own truths and not Gods truth. wake up and see

terraricca,

Well, I haven't changed my mind recently about things. Maybe you are just not fully understanding what I believe.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 11 2010,19:57)

Hi LU, So the arm of God was not the Spirit of God. To you Jesus was a demigod encased in flesh and inhabited by another God?

Nick,
The Arm of God was not the Spirit of God.
The Arm of God was the Son of God.
The Arm of God was God by nature and like His Father in nature.
The Arm of God wasn't a demigod by nature because His Father was not a demigod by nature.

Is your son a demiman because he is not as old as you. Maybe when he grows up he will become a full man?? See how that demi stuff doesn't work.

Jesus was and is fully God by nature and became a man and died and rose again and is our God and His Father is His God and our Most High God.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 11 2010,19:59)

Hi LU, Jesus really died. He was conceived as was a man and died as men do.

Nick,
He was NOT “conceived as was a man.” A regular man has an earthly father unless he was the first man, Adam.

Jesus was supernaturally conceived without the agency of a human father.

A righteous man cannot die for the sins of even one man, let alone a world of men.

Ps 49:7-15
7 No man can by any means redeem his brother Or give to God a ransom for him

Jesus was more than a mere man, He was God as the Son of God and He was man as the Son of Man and descendent of David.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
He was an earthly man, not a superman.
Like Adam he had a heavenly father.
He was of an earthly mother too

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2010,16:25)

Quote (terraricca @ April 11 2010,21:39) LU do you read your own quotes??past and present?? it seems you contradict yourself and are very unstable in your believes, this happen wen we go ashtray and look for our own truths and not Gods truth. wake up and see terraricca, Well, I haven't changed my mind recently about things.  Maybe you are just not fully understanding what I believe.

LU

you right i do not understand what is not the truth of God,

and your believes i agree there are your own way not the way of Christ and his teachings.
even the apostles do not teach what you teach and believe.

so you are on your own.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 12 2010,06:18)

Hi LU, He was an earthly man, not a superman. Like Adam he had a heavenly father. He was of an earthly mother too

Nick,
Adam never knew God as “Father.” Adam was not a result of being begotten by God, he came as a result of being created by God. Adam did not exist before he was the first created man. Jesus existed long before He was born of Mary. His origins were from ancient times, He existed before Abraham was born. He was a supernatural being who helped create the world etc. He gave up His supernatural abilities and memory to become a man. You don't seem to appreciate all He gave up, or His past history.

A righteous man cannot redeem even one man from his sins. Don't you think you ought to get a better foundation? You are crumbling.

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ April 12 2010,08:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2010,16:25) Quote (terraricca @ April 11 2010,21:39) LU do you read your own quotes??past and present?? it seems you contradict yourself and are very unstable in your believes, this happen wen we go ashtray and look for our own truths and not Gods truth. wake up and see terraricca, Well, I haven't changed my mind recently about things.  Maybe you are just not fully understanding what I believe. LU you right i do not understand what is not the truth of God, and  your believes i agree there are your own way not the way of Christ and his teachings. even the apostles do not teach what you teach and believe. so you are on your own.

terraricca,
The disciples worshiped Jesus, that is something you refuse to do. You do not recognize Jesus as Lord, the apostles did. So don't tell me that the apostles don't teach what I teach and believe. Look at your self.

28:16 So 22 the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 28:17 When 23 they saw him, they worshiped him, 24 but some doubted. 25 28:18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, 26 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 13 2010,06:18)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 12 2010,06:18) Hi LU, He was an earthly man, not a superman. Like Adam he had a heavenly father. He was of an earthly mother too Nick, Adam never knew God as “Father.” Adam was not a result of being begotten by God, he came as a result of being created by God.  Adam did not exist before he was the first created man.  Jesus existed long before He was born of Mary.  His origins were from ancient times, He existed before Abraham was born.  He was a supernatural being who helped create the world etc.  He gave up His supernatural abilities and memory to become a man.  You don't seem to appreciate all He gave up, or His past history. A righteous man cannot redeem even one man from his sins.  Don't you think you ought to get a better foundation?  You are crumbling.

Hi LU,
Jesus was not a superman.
He was a son of adam[man]who was a son of God[Lk3]

the more advantaged you make him the less easy he is to follow.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Where did your new law arise from?
That we must follow the unenlightened apostles?

[Author]

Posts