"the only Son, who is God" Beck
"the only Son, Diety Himself" C.B. Williams
"the only Son, who is the same as God" Good News Bible
"God the only Son" Expanded Bible
"The one and only Son, who is himself God" HCSB
"The only Son, who is truly God" CEV
NAB: "The only Son, God," NAB
"God the only Son" Common Edition
"God the Only Son" Twentieth Century NT
"God the only Son" NRSV
This is clearly a strong case of trinitarian bias and Scripture manipulation in order to promote an extra-Biblical theology unknown off in the 1st Century. Many cry loudly when a translation adds the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1c (even though the "a" is commonly added to anarthrous nouns). The manuscripts we have, have either "son" or "god" but not both. John also has two different readings at John 21:15 where some manuscripts and versions have "Simon, son of Jonah" or "Simon, son of John." However, no one thinks to combine the two to read "Simon, son of John, who is Jonah."
I also don't like the monogenes huios translation of "the only son." (RSV) The Greek already has words for "only," and they are monon/monos.
All of the above seeks to water down what clearly points to generation. I think that there is strong evidence that the original reads ‘an only-begotten god,’ or even, an ‘only-generated God,’ which is why mainstream trinitarian Christians rail against this reading, and which is why it is very likely to have been changed to monogenes huios during later centuries by scribes with this Trinitarian bias, since it clearly proclaims Christ to be a god that has been derived, generated or originated by another. A lesser god in other words.
By translating monogenes as "unique" or "only" and combining "God" with "Son" you can now turn a Scripture that is deadly to your Christology and give it a 180 degree turn to your benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment