Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 1:18 No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father]. [Prov 8:30] |
Subject: John 1:18 "only begotten God". |
Bible Note: Hi Tim, You wrote: Is. 9:6 calls Jesus the 'Mighty God'. Yet, Jer. 32:18 also calls Jehovah the 'Mighty God'. The same exact phrase is used in both verses. In fact Tim both Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 speak of Jehovah God as “mighty God.” Of course, if Jehovah is the Almighty God, he has to be a mighty God. But please, please don’t miss the point that only the superlatives and the infinites can dogmatically be limited to Jehovah, such as “the Most High.” Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. The term in the Hebrew, el gibbór, “mighty God,” is not limited to Jehovah, but the term el Shaddái, “God Almighty,” is. I asked a question the other day about John 1:18. Jesus being "a god" in John 1:18, differs from translation to translation. Why? From what Greek manuscripts are the most popular Bible translations from? Some translations say, “only begotten son” and some “only begotten god”. The phrase "monogenes theos" is found in manuscripts P66 and P75, as well as Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus (and a few other manuscripts). The reading, "monogenes theos" is found in the vast majority of Greek witnesses and ancient translations. This is a classic example illustrating the two lines of manuscripts. --http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/ Thus we have another question: Why lines of manuscripts? One supplanting in a rather ominous fashion, the true identity of the Almighty God, Jesus’ Father, and one promoting a totally different concept. This new concept of making Jesus not only the Father’s Son but Almighty God himself. Another question that must be answered is why ancient manuscripts began to change the original in regards to the Almighty God’s personal name. An honest investigation will contribute considerably to accurately understanding the true identity of our Heavenly Father and his beloved Son whom he gave as a ransom sacrifice for our sins. You answer that one question for me please Tim. Interestingly a few translations, in support of the Trinitarian “God the Son” concept, would invert the phrase mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´ and render it as “God only begotten.” But W. J. Hickie in his Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render mo·no·ge·nes´ hui·os´ as “the only begotten Son,” but at the same time translate mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´ as “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten God.”-Insight on the Scriptures John 1:18 reads: “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.” The apostle John obviously is here referring to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. However, Jesus is not only the only-begotten Son of God but also a god, the only-begotten god. No doubt John used the Greek word for god, theós, here rather than the word huiós, “son,” because he wanted to stress Jesus’ godship rather than his sonship, in keeping with the opening verse of his Gospel in which he says of Jesus, “and the Word was a god.” Interestingly, not a few modern Bible translations that read “only-begotten Son” have footnotes indicating that other manuscripts read “God” instead of “Son.” This is true of the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version and Weymouth. Moffatt reads: “the divine One, the only Son,” but a footnote acknowledges that “theós (’the divine one’) is probably more original than the variant reading huiós.” Rotherham renders the expression: “an Only Begotten God,” and Msgr. Knox’s version states in a footnote: “Some of the best manuscripts here read ‘God, the only-begotten,’ instead of ‘the only-begotten Son.’”(continued) |