I just ran across in The Unseen Realm, 2015 by Heiser, Michael S.:
The Greek word often translated,* by the phrase “only begotten” in some sort of “birthing” sense. The confusion extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, mono (“only”) and gennao (to beget, bear”). Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather from the noun genos (“class, kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” without connotation of created origin.
The validity of this understanding is borne out by the NT itself in Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenes. If you know your old testament you know that Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham . . .
—
I think the “unique” would fit nicely the poem from Phillipians, but I wanted to see how this fits with Isaac and Abraham. So, looking up the command to Abraham to sacrifice his “only” son in the Septuagint:LXX online, I found the word used at Gen 22:2 is not monogenes. I’m not sure which word is used; I’m guessing autou or autov. In the Hebrew I believe it’s yachyd.
—
So I’m asking is it possible to translate/understand yachyd or an autov declension as “unique”? I suppose yachyd as “first” as ranking goes, could be understood that way, but autov?
* my note: [e.g., KJV, NJKV;( but not NRSVUE which uses “only”)]
Sure, with spiritual and symbolic language almost anything is possible. Isaac was one of a kind because this, Genesis 22, is why circumcision began. Isaac was also begotten by Abraham. Hence Isaac is both one of a kind, and begotten.
They say the writings of the Early Church Fathers created the Rule of Faith; which means the Scriptures accepted are the highest authority for theology and the Church theologians (the mind of the Church) can interpret the Scriptures however it sees fit (by most likely a democratic vote). That means the modern mind of the Church can invent new words and new meanings of words unrestricted from the constraints of the Early Church Fathers and earlier theologians since they are not the Apostles of the Scriptures, if they allow themselves too.
I think it’s scientifically impossible for anything to beget something that is not of its own kind or class. A goat cannot beget a dog, ect. A goat is not a dog, hence they are unique to each other. I see no distinction between homogeneous and monogeneous, monogenes John 3:16 in this context. God is unique to humans, and humans are unique to God. God can only beget God, and humans can only beget humans. The special case being the Mother of God/the Virgin Mary and Jesus. Hence we have the mystery, not-understandable Trinity theology of Jesus being both human and God because homogeneous and monogenes are interpreted as synonymous ideas.
….well those who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t circumcised. Look what happened to them. Fire and brimstone. I guess Lot couldn’t convince anyone there to get circumcised. Lot was circumcised I guess, he was a family member of Abraham Genesis 17:13.
Perhaps Paul knew of other versions of stories in the Septuagint(s)? than what we know today? Hence he was taught and learned that Isaac was the monogenes of Abraham. Hebrews 11:17
I apologize for the minor but enormous almost catastrophic biblical trivia error, but I might be able to use some words and ideas to maneuver around it like a game of billiards in a smokey bar room. Ok, there’s a big problem here with the parallels between Abraham-Ishmael-Isaac and the Father-Son-Satan. Was Ishmael really the firstborn of Abraham or not? Was Jesus the only Son of God, the firstborn of creation and the firstborn of the dead? It’s a unique situation that still to this day causes political turmoil beyond the comprehension of human suffering and wars.
Is not the household of Abraham basically considered to be its own race? They are unique and set apart from all other races:households because they were the first family to circumcise? Who gets the birthrights, authority and the land? That’s almost the entire basic theme of the Bible, the separation between God and mankind, and the separation between Jew and Gentile.
Paul then declares Galatians 3:28 because he was convinced he saw that Jesus had been risen from the dead which blew his mind. Long story. There is no longer any separation between God and mankind, nor Jew and Gentile because we’re all circumcised somehow, in flesh or by spirit.
Even Ishmael, Genesis 16:12 the wild donkey of a man and the ancestor of the Arabs and mostly Muslims, who still to this day don’t always get along too well with the Jews/ancestors of Isaac. Paul’s idea did not really fix the problem at all.
The newly released Zondervan Compact Greek Lexicon has included Unique under μονογενης. (John 3:16) Unique is not a word used in the 1611 KJV.
Unique is not yet a defined word in the 1828 Webster dictionary and Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, (and Unique is not a yet word used in the Latter Day Saint scriptures), as a result the word Unique is also not included in the later Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. It is however a loan word from the French language.
From what I can match up in the 1828 Webster, Peculiar looks to be the closest to Unique. Peculiar is defined in both the 1828 Webster dictionary and Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible but the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon does not use the word Peculiar within the definition of μονογενης-Only Begotten
Zondervan: ISBN 9780310099499
Webster: ISBN 9780912498034
Young: ISBN 9781565638105
Liddel & Scott: ISBN 1843560267
The earliest known use of the word “unique” in English according to the OED was in 1601, and the KJV was commissioned only three years later, hardly enough time for the word to have become commonly used.
You might even say that at the time of the KJV use of the word “unique” would have been…well…unique.
BWAHAHAHA…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)