But God, I’m Only Eighteen: John

---

Account Options

As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1. To beget means to make someone have one's nature. I too have pondered about the original version of John 1: In my mind there is one possibility that could explain the variations. The advent of the versions can be reasonably attributed to understandable scribal interventions from the passing of time. If the original reading was as follows, it would support the criticism that later editors merely tried to clarify the passage:.

No one has seen God at any time.

The only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him. My suggestion is to remove any qualifier of "only begotten"- monogenes , which I am suggesting were all later additions.

This would rationalize the existence of the textual variations. Furthermore, removing the qualifiers would accord with John 1: The original language of John 1: Even some of the church fathers disagreed as to its likely wording. Moreover, the different text types both western and eastern underlying John 1: P66 and P75 ca.

What was the original wording of John 1: The answer seems to depend on which manuscript text one prefers. I appreciate all that is said here, but I think the slight emphasis and attention paid to the 2nd century ANF Vol 1 and 2 of the Early Church Greek Fathers, is why so many sit on the fence. Some posted comments above point out that some use both "only begotten God" and "only begotten Son", but I think many fail to recognize that: This is how they all spoke that I have read.

Relying on year removed Sherlock Holmes approach to textual criticism, and ignoring the ANF witness near the fountain head, or paying little heed, is why we cannot see it. Again, as the gentleman pointed out above in Ignatius of Antioch's epistle to the Philippians, he called the Christ the "only begotten Son", well how do you know he was not uniting in doctrine John 3: This is how Ignatius letters longer versions read in my view. Irenaeus quotes John 1: If so then referring to Jesus as "only begotten" refers to his incarnation and virgin birth and not to some mythical and nonsensical "eternal begetting" that has been made up whole cloth to support Trinitarianism.

The manuscript evidence is ambivalent but the scriptural precedent is not that "only begotten God capital "G" " is a Binitarian corruption. I say "Binitarian" since the corruption appears centuries before the Trinity had been invented. The scriptures are protected from error by the presence of multiple repetitions of its message in various places throughout the scriptures themselves.

In God We Doubt by John Humphrys

It is an intrinsic application of "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Because there are multiple repetitions of "only begotten son of God" but nothing else to corroborate "only begotten God" it is, scripturally speaking, established that the correct translation is "only begotten son".

NT textual critics such as Aland, Metzger, Hort and others base their art on faulty assumptions, bias against the majority text, and principles that necessarily mean they will select the deviant texts rather than the mainstream. They overlook the fact the the New Testament was written in the midst of the Christian Community and propagated by that community.

The Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit relegated the preferred texts of the critics to oblivion. No where else in the Bible does the phrase "only begotten God" appear, but John often uses the phase "only begotten Son". To a normal student of the Bible that would indicate, together with the manuscript evidence that "only begotten Son" is the correct reading. But no, not to the 'scholars'! The errant difficult reading is to be preferred over the sensible one! Thank you for your interest in this question.

Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site the association bonus does not count. Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead? Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. I was reading my New King James version of the Bible and found a footnote for this verse: Richard 6, 12 46 This may is a duplicate: The NET has much more thorough notes on this one: Brown Sep 13 '15 at We shouldn't willy-nilly change the meaning of a word, or restrict its spectrum, just because we feel it is "best translated" that way.

According to Dan Wallace: Greek witnesses Codex A - Alexandrinus 5th C. Heraclean Syriac 18th C. This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article ho and those without it the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland: D Adysh manuscript A.

D Late Greek Minuscule A. Picture a guy floating downstream on a raft on a hot summer day.

Chapter 14

This guy is floating blissfully and ignorantly toward certain destruction! So you yell to warn him. You throw him a rope. But he rejects it and keeps floating toward certain death. You would think that everyone would eagerly grab the life preserver that God has thrown out through the gospel John 3: Why would anyone want to keep heading for eternal destruction?

In our text, John shows us: The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

BibleGateway

In the Bible, light is used symbolically in two main ways: Paul says 1 Tim. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth , trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Second, light refers to the spiritual illumination or understanding that we get when we are born again, whereas darkness refers to our natural spiritual blindness before we are saved 2 Cor.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God…. John has told us 1: Carson explains John 1: It shines on every man, and divides the race: But some receive this revelation 1: He is telling us rather how the process works.

Men choose the darkness and their condemnation lies in that very fact…. They refuse to be shaken out of their comfortable sinfulness. As we saw in 3: Have you ever been in the presence of a very godly man, so that his very presence made you uncomfortable? Sproul The Holiness of God [Tyndale], pp. He had played with Nicklaus before, but he was in awe of playing with President Ford and Billy Graham.

His friend followed the angry pro and watched him take out his driver and beat ball after ball in fury. The friend said nothing, but just sat on a bench and watched. After a few minutes, the pro had calmed down.

I just had a bad round. How much more would we all have felt condemned to be in the presence of Jesus Christ! Have you had that experience with Jesus Christ? First, John presents the negative reaction:. First, sin is far deeper than outward deeds; sin is a matter of our affections or desires. Loved indicates that this was not a cool, rational decision: We love darkness rather than light. This leads to a second significant truth about sin: Our sin problem is far deeper than we ever imagined.

The Bible does not teach that we are basically good people who need to overcome a few flaws in our character. All of these approaches to sin are too superficial from a biblical standpoint. This phrase also shows us a third truth about sin: The reason that people reject Christ is not primarily intellectual, but moral. Unbelievers do not love darkness rather than light because they have thought it through carefully and concluded that darkness makes more sense.

No, unbelievers love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. The light exposes their evil deeds and convicts them of their true moral guilt before the holy God. But, frankly, they like sinning! Aldous Huxley, the famous atheist of the last century, once admitted that his rejection of Christianity stemmed from his desire to sin. He wrote Ends and Means [Garland Publishers], pp. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had not; and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.

The philosopher who finds no meaning for this world is not concerned exclusively with the problem of pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to…. For myself … the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. His main problem is that he loves his sin and he stands guilty before the holy Judge of the universe. But I am saying that they are usually not the real issue.

This phrase shows us a fourth truth about sin: But most people are not evil. Just look at all the good people in this world!

The Bible acknowledges that there are unbelievers who are relatively good people. The human race would have self-destructed millennia ago if everyone acted as badly as they could. God restrains outward evil through civil government, through social disapproval, and through the fear of shame and the desire to look good to others. But God looks on the heart. But the situation of loving darkness rather than light is far worse than just loving sin:. They hate the One who out of love offered Himself on the cross so that every sinner might not perish but have eternal life simply by believing in Him!

• Out of the Alamo
• Goût des mots (Le) (Sciences Humaines) (French Edition)
• Daoist Nei Gong: The Philosophical Art of Change
• Yesterdays Gone: Season Two
• True Stories From A Policemans Notebook
• Gods Green Book: Seven Bible studies about the environment