[B-Greek] John 1:18

Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Fri Nov 6 00:37:33 EST 2009


One of the difficult problems we have here is that most of words and
phrases are based on the human point of view. We are constrained
linguistically and metaphysically since we don't have God's
perspective and language. Would the word 'begotten' as applied to
human beings have the similar meaning in the Godhead (between Father
and Son)?

Oun Kwon.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com> wrote:
>
> (I am resending my last post [with a modification] as it went to the list with the text interpersed with some codes.)
>
>
>
>>> LJ: Is not GENHS in MONOGENHS cognate with GENNAW (used in v. 1:13).>> Why cannot it mean "only-begotton"?
>
>> Only insofar as GENNAW "generate/beget" derives from the root GEN-> "come-to-be" or "kind/kindred"> -GENHS derives directly from GEN-
>
>> Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
> LJ: Doesn't the expression hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS indicate a filial-son relationship between MONOGENHS QEOS and PATROS (v. 18)?
>
> Further, on your understanding of MONOGENHS, how would you translate MONOGENHS in MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS (v. 14)? Note again the juxtaposition of this word with PATROS.
>
> The context provides further support for MONOGENHS as "only-begotton": In v. 12 we are told that to those who believed in him he gave the power to become the "children of God"--in a spiritual sense, of course, as everyone would agree. Doesn't this imply that there was a time when Jesus was the only one born of God in a spiritual sense? Wouldn't it then provide the context for understanding MONOGENHS as "only-begotton" in vv. 14 and 18?
>
>
> Leonard Jayawardena
>
>
>



More information about the B-Greek mailing list