Featured Monogenes

Rebuttal By Van of inked article:
The Only Begotten Son
by Michael Marlowe


1) "I will argue that the rendering “one and only” is semantically reductionistic and theologically inadequate." It is never a good start when an argument begins with obscure and undefined words. "Semantically reductionistic" seems to be the claim monogenes has within is semantic range "begotten." That is not an argument, that is a claim. "Theologically inadequate" again claims unique or one of a kind (not one and only) do not convey the intended message. Again not an argument, but a claim.

2) "When used in reference to a son, it cannot mean “one of a kind,” because the parent is also of the same kind." God the Father was never "incarnate" thus Jesus is the "one of a kind" Son of God.

3) "In Luke’s Gospel, the word is used in reference to an only child in 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is said that when Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac he was offering up τον μονογενή, “his only-begotten” (11:17), because although Abraham had another son, God had said that only in Isaac shall Abraham’s seed (σπερμα) be named." Again "unique or one of kind" works in every biblical usage. And note how Abraham had fathered two sons (so "only begotten" obviously is a mistranslation here.)

4) "There are a few places where the word has been understood to mean, “one of a kind” or “incomparable.” Obvious truth set forth to pivot to none biblical sources. Shoddy to say the least.

5) "The problem here is that Longenecker does not give us any reason to think that the semantic component “begotten” is absent." Here we an argument from silence, the absence of an argument is said to support the opposing view. Twaddle

6) "It is probably right to emphasize the mono “only” here, as Longenecker does, but there is no good reason to say that the genes must mean “kind” without any connotation of “begotten.” There is absolutely no "connotation" of "begotten" in "kind." It is a classification not a process.

7) "Apparently Moody never looked at the passage to which he refers, which explicitly describes how a succession of solitary Phoenixes are begotten and born, by some autogenic process. The passage even decribes how the Phoenix disposes of the bones of its parent. It is “one of its kind” only in the sense that there is just one living at any one time. As we noted above, Clement’s whole interest in this mythological bird lies in its death and rebirth." LOL, an "autogenic" bird is a "one of a kind."

8) "John 1:14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." (1881 ESV) Thus the error of the past is used to deny the modern scholarship of the current ESV, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

9) " And so we see that in every occurrence John is using the word as a biological metaphor, in which Christ is the “Only Begotten Son” of the Father." On the contrary, in every case in John modern scholars say John was using "monogenes" to indicate the person's unique or one of a kind status.

10) "He (John) is saying that Christ is the second of a kind, uniquely sharing the genus of the Father because he is the only begotten Son of the Father, as in the KJV, ERV, and NASB." Note here how a word meaning "one of a kind" or unique is redefined to mean "second of a kind." Twaddle

11) "In the 2nd ed. of the BAGD lexicon (1979) it is said that “the meanings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences” in the Johannine literature (p. 527), but the lexicon also presents the traditional view, in which the word is understood to mean “only-begotten.” Thus contrary to assertions by others BAGD indicates "only begotten" is less than "adequate."

12) "Finally, it must not be supposed that all translators who have preferred “only” over “only begotten” are deliberately undertranslating the word μονογενής for theological reasons. Many translators simply wish to keep their translations simple and idiomatic, and the word “begotten” does not commend itself to those who are trying to translate the text into a familiar and contemporary style of English." Here we have an attack on the integrity of the modern scholars, saying they mistranslated monogenes to dumb down text. Twaddle

Bible Research > Interpretation > The Only Begotten Son

 

Why not Dan B Wallace? Why not the NIV translators? Why not the ESV translators? Why not the WEB translators? Why not the LEB translators? Why not the NLT translators.

I could post 2 plus 2 is 4, and Y1 would post taint so.

BTW, BAGD indicates "only begotten" is inadequate, because unique or one of a kind is adequate.

 

Why do all the mentioned translators including Dan B. Wallace say the preferred translation is unique or one of a kind?

 

Utter falsehood. Of course many sources say unique or one of a kind. Read the thread and stop ignoring truth.
4) "There are a few places where the word has been understood to mean, “one of a kind” or “incomparable.” Obvious truth set forth to pivot to none biblical sources. Either/or, either/or....

The BDAG lexicon allows for the meaning ‘only begotten’ for μονογενής but seems to view this meaning as secondary. In addition, they note that in the Johannine literature “The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.”

BTW, BDAG indicates "only begotten" is inadequate, because unique or only appears adequate. in all its occurrences.

 

I missed where Dr. Wallace made that statement.

"Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18)" (NET footnote)

 

Yes I copied and pasted your post, vaguely attributing it to a prior post. For you to claim I was trying to take credit away from you is perhaps funny, but then I thought it was kind of you to present the unvarnished truth.

 

Moderator

Please close this thread, as I have responded to the substantive posts left unanswered in the prior thread.