The ever changing "literal" NASB

[The Journey]

Eric,

The Word of God is inerrant. But, God does not promise us an inerrant translation into English. God does not promise us an inerrant translation into Spanish. God does not promise us an inerrant translation into French. God does not promise us an inerrant translation into {insert one of the hundreds of languages used today}. The fact that so many manuscripts are available that span thousands of years is proof that God preserved His Word. It is difficult for anyone to look at all the manuscript evidence and conclude that we do not have the words as penned by the original authors. When the manuscript evidence is clearly presented even opponents of the Faith have to admit that the Bibles we have are faihful to those authors who originally penned the works. We have more evidence for the veracity of the Bible manuscripts than any other work in history.

The fact that humans have to use their brains and translate those manuscripts into modern languages does not take away anything from that work of preservation.

I would recommend as a hobby every believer take some time to learn Greek and buy Greek NT manuscripts. Start translating!! Learn the ins and out of why various words and phrases are chosen. Think. Sit up at night and ponder how to properly translate John 1:18. Is "monogenes theos" or "monogenes hurios" correct? How do you translate a word like "monogenes" into English? There are no exact English words.....and to feels that internal intellectual tension as you attempt to work through your own translation you can appreciate what those KJV translators felt so many times.

It just might change your whole way of thinking.

Steve

[The Journey]

P.S.

In respone to Will's post on John 1:18.

The whole point of John 1 was that the new "message" is the messenger. In verse 18 John marvels that a man has not been sent but God himself to reveal Himself to us. "Monogenes" is literally "one of the same kind" or "one of the same stuff" although "unique" and many other English words essentially convey the same meaning. Jesus was "one of the same stuff" as the Father who he had come to reveal....that is what makes John 1:18 so amazing. To the Greek audience they would have understood that one of "them" was coming to tell us about themselves. Even John's use of "The Word" was pregnant with Greek philosophical overtones.

The same meaning is conveyed by Paul when he wrote that Jesus was of the very same "nature" or "form" as God in Phillipians.

"monogenes theos" is present is very early manuscripts. P66 dates around 100 AD.

Doesn't P66 give some weight to "theos" being the correct reading?

[EricH]

Eric,

The Word of God is inerrant. But, God does not promise us an inerrant translation into English. God does not promise us an inerrant translation into Spanish. God does not promise us an inerrant translation into French. God does not promise us an inerrant translation into {insert one of the hundreds of languages used today}. The fact that so many manuscripts are available that span thousands of years is proof that God preserved His Word. It is difficult for anyone to look at all the manuscript evidence and conclude that we do not have the words as penned by the original authors. When the manuscript evidence is clearly presented even opponents of the Faith have to admit that the Bibles we have are faihful to those authors who originally penned the works. We have more evidence for the veracity of the Bible manuscripts than any other work in history.

The fact that humans have to use their brains and translate those manuscripts into modern languages does not take away anything from that work of preservation.

I would recommend as a hobby every believer take some time to learn Greek and buy Greek NT manuscripts. Start translating!! Learn the ins and out of why various words and phrases are chosen. Think. Sit up at night and ponder how to properly translate John 1:18. Is "monogenes theos" or "monogenes hurios" correct? How do you translate a word like "monogenes" into English? There are no exact English words.....and to feels that internal intellectual tension as you attempt to work through your own translation you can appreciate what those KJV translators felt so many times.

It just might change your whole way of thinking.

Steve

Steve,

I agree with you. The word is inerrant, but only in the original autographs. My statements were not directed at you in particular, but as a general statement to keep the discussion civil

[Guest brandplucked]

Just for the record folks. The classical doctrine of inerrancy, inspiration, and infallibility applies to the original autographs. You do not need to feel backed into a corner to believe that you do not hold to inerrancy if you are not willing to identify a current version that matches up word for word to the originals.

Love in Christ

Eric

Hi Eric, I believe you are misinformed about the "classical" doctrine of inerrancy. The idea of "originals only" is a relatively new phenomenon. It did not appear until all the contradictory and corrupt modern versions began to come on the scene.

Furthermore, being backed into a corner is precisely where your position leads you. You cannot in all truth and sincerity say: The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant word of God", simply because you do not believe such a thing exists. There never was a Bible (a single book) composed of the originals. You do not believe there is a "hold it in your hands, and read, and believe every word", inerrant, complete and infallible Bible on the face of this earth, but rather all we can hope for is a constantly changing series of ballpark approximations that constantly contradict each other both textually and in meanings.

Here are some facts about the historic confessions of inerrancy, along with some modern thoughts, showing how we have departed from what the church once believed.

The "Historic Position" regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Bible.

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language is the inerrant, complete, pure, perfect and inspired words of God, appeal to their alleged "historic position" to support their views. They tell us that "only the originals" were inspired and that no existing texts or Bible translation is now the inerrant word of God.

However, as we shall see from the following Confessions of Faith regarding the inspired word of God, the historic position supports the King James Bible believer's view, that is, that we presently possess an inspired and inerrant Bible. Nowhere in any formalized Confession of Faith regarding the Holy Bible will you ever see such common phrases as used by the Inerrant Bible Deniers of today like "only in the originals" or "only in the autographs". These expressions, which in fact deny the existence of an inerrant Bible, do not begin to appear in the formalized Confessions until well into the 20th century, when the multitude of conflicting and contradictory bible versions began to gain ground in the seminaries which had abandoned faith in an inerrant Bible.

A student of the Confessions of Faith knows that various articles were placed in the Confessions when certain problems arose over doctrine. Some of the early Confessions of Faith said nothing about the inspiration of the Bible. Yet it would be unfair to say that they did not believe that the Bible was inspired of God. The historical Confessions of Faith have a definite bearing on the Bible version issue.

The Westminister Confessions of 1646 is probably the most famous Confession of Faith ever written. It says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." This is of course not a Baptist Confession, but it has had great influence among Baptists. This Confession says that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..." How could anyone make such a statement, unless they believed that they had reliable copies of the originals and reliable translations?

The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 says, "God saw to it that His word, which is with power unto salvation to everyone who believes, was entrusted to writing not only through Moses, the prophets and apostles, but also He has stood guard and watched over it with a fatherly concern to the present time that it not be destroyed by the cunning of Satan or by any other human deceit." If these people had no reliable text and no reliable translation, how could they make such a statement? If their Greek and Hebrew texts were not pure, and they had no pure translation, why would they make such a foolish statement?

The Midland Confession, 1655, was adopted unanimously by the messengers of the churches meeting at Warwick, England. This group of Baptists said, "We profess and believe the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the word and revealed mind of God, which are able to make men wise unto Salvation, through faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, and that they are given by inspiration of God, serving to furnish the man of God for every good work; and by them we are (in the strength of Christ) to try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth. II Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20." We hardly see how the critics of the KJV can find any comfort in that statement of faith. Those who adopted the Midland Confession of 1655, believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures, they believed they had those Scriptures, and they believed that by those Scriptures they could "try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth." In 1655, you can well know what English version they used, and they had never heard of the Westcott & Hort text, and we can thank the Lord for that.

The Standard Confession of 1660 (Baptist), said, "That the holy Scriptures is the rule whereby Saints both in matters of Faith, and conversation are to be regulated, they being able to make men wise unto salvation, through Faith in Christ Jesus, profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." While they mention no version, and said nothing about the originals, yet they believed that they had the holy Scriptures. We are confident that they were using the KJV.

The Second London Confession of 1677 (Baptist) says, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience. . ." We ask, how can the Holy Scriptures be a certain and infallible rule if we have no infallible Bible? To hear Dr. Rice and others tell it, all versions have errors in them, and if this be so, we are left in a tragic situation. The Second London Confession of 1677 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore authentical; so as in an controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." The Baptists of 1677 believed that the Scriptures were inspired of God, and that "By His care and Providence kept pure in all Ages." They believed that the Church in all ages could appeal to the pure Scriptures. That is quite different than some of our modern fundamentalists who talk about inspiration, but who are constantly finding errors in the Bible.

Which Bible were the Baptists of 1677 using? It surely wasn't the NASV, ASV, RSV or the Living Bible. Don't you suppose that it was the King James Bible of 1611?

The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith was adopted in 1742 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This Confession was printed for the Baptist by none other than the famous Benjamin Franklin. It states, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. . . " It further says, "Under the name of holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these. . . " They then list the 66 books of our English Bible, and end that paragraph by saying, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." It is clear that they were talking about an English Bible, and we do not have to guess as to which one they were talking about. Further on in this article they state that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament were "inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in as controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them." It is clear that they are talking about something they had at that time, and could appeal unto.

They did not appeal to the "pure Word of God" preserved in heaven. No doubt God's Word is pure in heaven. However, we cannot appeal to something that we cannot see. No doubt the "originals" were pure and uncorrupted, but we cannot appeal to the "originals", because they are not available. We dare anyone to prove that any mortal man ever saw all of the originals on this earth. We know it cannot be done. If we do not have the pure Word of God today, it is extremely doubtful that anyone on this earth ever had all 66 books of the pure Word of God!! What kind of a God do we serve? Would He leave us in such a mess?

Other Baptist Confessions Of Faith

In 1888, the Baptist Union of Great Britain adopted a doctrinal statement which contained the following: "The following facts and doctrines are commonly believed by the churches of the Union, The Divine Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scripture as the supreme and sufficient rule of our faith and practice; and the right and duty of individual judgment in the interpretation of it." This is their entire statement so far as the inspiration of the Bible is concerned. They mention nothing about the "originals" or any particular version of the Bible. However, there can be no doubt as to what version ranked supreme with them at this time.

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was adopted in 1833, and it states, "We believe the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." Please note that they mention no "originals" and no version. There was one version that ruled supreme in the English language of 1833 and it was the King James Bible.

It should be apparent that if the Baptists of 1833 had a "supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried," it could not have been the originals, since not one of them had seen even the original manuscript of even one book of the Bible! Their "supreme standard" had to be a Bible, to which they had ready access.

Notice this personal confession of faith by a man named Mr. Kinney (no known relation) and the date when he wrote it. LeBaron W. Kinney wrote in 1942, "When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering, and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God. We believe that no other English Version will ever take its place. Every one of the various English versions claims to be nearer the original than the others. This could not be true of more than one of them." (Hebrew Word Studies, Acres of Rubies" page 9, published by Loizeaux Brothers).

The Confessions of Faith give little or no comfort to the critics of the KJB. The KJB was the English Version that reigned supreme from the time of the London Confession of 1677, the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, the Baptist Bible Union of 1923, and all of the other Confessions in between and afterward.

It all boils down to how big of a God we serve. Did He have the power and desire to preserve the word in written form for us today, so that we are not left in the dark concerning what is the word of God? Is His power so weak or His Divine purpose so unsure, that we must now search out all the manuscripts, all the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the versions, in order to say that we do have the word of God mixed in with all the errors. If we are reduced to this state, may the Lord help us, for we are in absolute confusion unmatched in human history. If we are still looking for the word of God, and do not have an infallible Bible, it should be obvious to all, that we never will have such a Bible. This means that God has not kept His promise, and where do we stand, if we have such a God?

Regarding the practical outworking of the doctrine of the preservation of God's words, the modern version proponents either believe the true words of God are "out there somewhere" in all the variant manuscripts but we are not sure which ones they are; or they reduce "preservation" to the idea that the general, overall message is in all "reliable translations", though the particular words and numbers, many whole verses and the meaning of much of Scripture remains uncertain or even lost. Neither view really means that "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" has actually been divinely preserved through history to the present day.

Instead of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:36), the modern versionist really thinks along the lines of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but most of the general sense of what I said won't pass away."

In contrast to the historic Confessions of Faith regarding the Holy Bible, let's now look at some quotes and polls from the Evangelical community of today.

The following quotes come from men prepared the way for and later adopted the textual theories of Westcott and Hort, whose Greek text forms the basis of most modern New Testament versions, as the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book."

In 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "MORE THAN EVER, AND PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED."

In 1910 Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, IF THERE EVER WAS ONE THAT DESERVES TO BE SO CALLED, is FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE."

In 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following judgment: "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW the original form of the Gospels, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL."

In 1960 H. Greeven also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism - "In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; THE ORIGINAL TEXT, according to its nature, must be and REMAINS A HYPOTHESIS."

In 1963 R. M. Grant adopts a still more despairing attitude - "The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible."

Modern Evangelicalism

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were not made by Fundamentalists; they were made by key Evangelical leaders.

"A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" (Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways... What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

A Recent Poll

Amazing Statistics - I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book.

In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled...Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come A FALLING AWAY FIRST, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition..." 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

Will Kinney

[Guest brandplucked]

P.S.

In respone to Will's post on John 1:18.

The whole point of John 1 was that the new "message" is the messenger. In verse 18 John marvels that a man has not been sent but God himself to reveal Himself to us. "Monogenes" is literally "one of the same kind" or "one of the same stuff" although "unique" and many other English words essentially convey the same meaning. Jesus was "one of the same stuff" as the Father who he had come to reveal....that is what makes John 1:18 so amazing. To the Greek audience they would have understood that one of "them" was coming to tell us about themselves. Even John's use of "The Word" was pregnant with Greek philosophical overtones.

The same meaning is conveyed by Paul when he wrote that Jesus was of the very same "nature" or "form" as God in Phillipians.

"monogenes theos" is present is very early manuscripts. P66 dates around 100 AD.

Doesn't P66 give some weight to "theos" being the correct reading?

Hi Journey, thanks for you thoughts. Actually, the reading from P66 is abherrent theology, which actually destroys the doctrine of the Trinity. In all probability it was an early Arian (denying the full deity of the Son of God) manuscript. P66 is only a partial manuscript and it contains many readings not found in any Bible. P66 often differs from others like P75, and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In fact, all these differ quite radically from each other, let alone the vast majority of texts. There never has been any bible in any language that I am aware of that read "the only begotten God" until we get to the 20th century nasb.

Here is a comparison (more complete than what you saw earlier) that shows the evolution of this bogus reading. Notice that hardly any of the modern versions agree among themselves. As for your definition of monogenes, this is highy disputed, as can be seen by what others have said and how the various versions render the word. Not even the nasb agrees with your definition. Please try to notice how the doctrine of the Trinity is actually destroyed by this reading. I also encourage you and others to read the link provided at the end by Scott Jones on the meaning of monogenes.

God bless,

Will K

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."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, Luther's German Bible 1545, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Even the RV and ASV, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced.

2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son".

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

10. "God's only Son" New English Bible

11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are two gods and one of them is inferior to the other. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the only God.

Jesus Christ is by nature very God of very God. John 1 says "the Word was God". Notice it does not say the Word was THE God. God is triune yet one. If it had said "the Word was THE God" it would be a theological error. All that God is in the three Persons is not limited to the Word, but the Word (Jesus Christ) is by very nature God.

What the ESV teaches is a confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not "THE ONLY GOD" who makes known the God no one has seen. Jesus Christ is God by nature, but He is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost.

We now have two more late$t and greate$t ver$ion$ coming on the scene. The ISV or International Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

The ISV reads: " No one has ever seen God. The UNIQUE God, (Other mss. read Son) who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Again, we have two Gods. One nobody has ever seen and then the "unique" God! Does this mean the God no one has seen is just an ordinary, run-of-the- mill, garden variety god, while the other one is totally unique?

But wait, the newest of them all is the up and coming Holman Christian Standard Bible, and it says: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him." Hey, this one went back to the reading of "Son" instead of "God". What gives here?

Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18, which precede anything we have in Greek, read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,

"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:

"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,

"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:

"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

In spite of some Greek lexicons, like Thayer's, which insist the meaning of monogenes is "unique" or "one of a kind", there are many others like Kittel's, Liddel and Scott and Vine's that tell us the Greek word monogenes emphatically means "only begotten" and not "one and only". It is significant that Thayer did not believe that Jesus Christ was God.

In Kittel's massive work Volume 4 page 741 the writer says: "In John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son. (notice he does not accept the false reading of 'God' in 1:18, and he states this on the previous page). In John monogenes denotes the origen of Jesus as the only begotten."

Even the modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, says that monogenes means "only begotten", and not unique. The Greek word for "unique" or "one and only" is a very different and specific word - monodikos - not monogenes.

The translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can also be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

Some who criticize the KJB tell us that the word means "unique" and they refer to Hebrews 11:17 where we are told: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." They point out that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar. However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

The King James Bible is correct as always, and the divergent and contradictory readings in most modern versions are wrong.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D. Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561 We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571 Article II The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646 In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Will Kinney

For another great article written by Scott Jones dealing with the modern mistranslation of monogenes, please go to this site.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm

And for Scott's article showing the assault on the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:18 please go to this site.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/begotten_son.htm

Excellent long article on John 1:18 by Jesse Boyd here http://www.biblebelieversbaptist.org/monogenes.htm

[Jay Barker]

Dear Will,

Hi, I'm new to the board.

Before I engage on this issue, I would like to know what precisely your position is lest I be accused of engaging a 'straw man' version of your position.

It seems like you are saying you believe the KJV to be THE perfect and inerrant (or infallible if you choose) Word of God in English. Is this correct?

Secondly, what are your thoughts on the perfection of the Received Tesxt?

Thank you,

JB

[Guest brandplucked]

Dear Will,

Hi, I'm new to the board.

Before I engage on this issue, I would like to know what precisely your position is lest I be accused of engaging a 'straw man' version of your position.

It seems like you are saying you believe the KJV to be THE perfect and inerrant (or infallible if you choose) Word of God in English. Is this correct?

Secondly, what are your thoughts on the perfection of the Received Tesxt?

Thank you,

JB

Hi Jay, thank you for the questions you have posed. I appreciate the spirit with which you ask them. Yes, I do believe the King James Bible is the providentially preserved, complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God in the English language.

In fact, I believe it is the only inerrant Bible on the earth today.

May I recommend this short article I wrote about "Is King James onlyism scriptural?"

Here is the site on my webpage:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/KJBonly.html

As for the Received Text, as you may well know, there really is no such thing as a settled "Majority" text, and the UBS or Nestle-Aland text continues to change every few years and is by no means a settled text.

I believe God providentially guided the KJB translators to give us both the correct texts and the correct English translation of these texts. This is my position on the Bible version issue. What I have consistently found to be true is this. Those who promote the modern bible versions, all of which disagree with each other in both texts and meanings, and in fact continue to change from edition to edition, ...none of them believe that any Bible or any single text is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture - simple as that.

What is your position on the inerrancy of Scripture? If you believe the Scriptures are complete and inerrant, where can we get a copy of them to compare them with all the conflicting and contradictory versions that are on the market today?

Thank you for your interest in this vital subject.

In His grace, accepted in the Beloved,

Will

[Ovedya]

Closed. How many "KJV Only" threads do we need?