JOHN 1:18 --- The Outrageous Treatment of The "Only-BEGOTTEN" SON+

 Rabbula Gospel Miniature,  586 AD,  courtesy of  andrew.cmu.edu

Translators of the Word of GOD are doing an odd thing: they themselves are ATTACKING the HOLY WORD !

Even WORSE …

the church proper itself

SUPPORTS and PROMOTES

this apostasy.

 John 1:18 . . .

The Outrageous Treatment 

of the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON+ 

by the Alexandrian Camp. 

+  +  +

No man hath seen GOD 

at any time,

the Only-Begotten SON+,

Who+ is in the bosom 

of The FATHER,

HE+ hath declared HIM.

John the Baptist's Words, 

John 1:18

+  +  +

Translators of the Word of GOD are doing an odd thing:  they themselves are ATTACKING the HOLY WORD !

Even WORSE …

the church proper itself

SUPPORTS and PROMOTES

this apostasy.

If we look carefully at John 1:18 in our modern translations, we will see that "Only-Begotten" has been systemically mis-translated in those modern versions which adhere to the Alexandrian text base. 

HOWEVER ...

the Alexandrian texts are not to be blamed in this instance for "Only-Begotten"  is in all those very Alexandrian Greek texts in John 1:18. 

Yes, all the Alexandrian manuscripts, have MONOGENAS , "Only-Begotten" in John 1:18, as do the Byzantine texts.

Even more significantly:

There are NO variants listed,

in the Greek and Aramaic

and Latin texts !

NO VARIANTS

for MONOGENAS

are listed

in the NA26th edition apparatus.

This includes no listing of Patristic writers among the Early Christian apologists and no listing of any ancient versions which might have omitted "Only-Begotten." 

THAT should tell us that there should be “Only-Begotten” in every New Testament printed … for there is no textual justification for omitting it.

Yet... our modern translations based on the Alexandrian texts substitute all manner of terms in John 1:18 instead of translating MONOGENAS as "Only-Begotten" ... which is what the Greek, Aramaic, and Latin term it means.

SO… Why

have modern translators and publishing house committees --- scholars all --- taken such great liberties when handling the HOLY WORD of GOD ?

PERHAPS ...

they have inherited a spirit of license, a profane spirit, bequeathed to them in their agreement with the Westcott-Hort "spirit" which . . .

subjected Holy Scriptures to 

profane, 

worldly, 

and unsanctified 

hands, hearts, and minds…  

 WITH THE APPROVAL 

OF THE CHURCH.

Thus, once the profane spirit was loosened upon the Holy Scriptures, then perhaps translators now feel they may do ANYTHING they please with The WORD of GOD.

They translate as though

they were  accountable

only to the publishing house

~ not to The LORD !

[ Translators, this is not to demean your character nor your highly-skilled work, but to point out that the Anointing of The LORD is required when dealing with the Word of GOD. ]

And herein does the problem lie:

  Apostles and Prophets who have the Anointing should be the ones determining the right reading of the Anointed HOLY WORD of GOD, if there should be a question. 

They are the ones to whom the translators should yield, not the publishing houses.

The LORD JESUS told us this:

Howbeit when HE,

the SPIRIT of Truth,

is come,

HE will guide you into all Truth:

for HE shall not speak of Himself;

but whatsoever HE shall hear,

that shall HE speak:

and HE will shew you 

things to come.

John 16:13

NOW... If there is not anyone so Anointed, then . . .

it would be

the better part of wisdom

for publishing houses and translators to avoid laying unholy hands on the Holy Word of GOD.   ( And, ultimately safer for them, too. )

+  +  +

  

The next part, John 1:18 ... Translation or Interpretation?  Which Sell the Most ?

+  +  +