The Absolute Equality of Jesus Christ With God The Father

[SolaScriptura]

After Jesus was created, all other things were made through (dia) him. So it is with those to be resurrected after him.

SS wrote concerning Heb. 1:8: "if we had the nominative instead of the vocative here, then it would read "God is your throne". The words are from Psalm 45:6-7, where in the Greek Old Testament, we also have "ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός...ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου", which are again in the vocative."
.......................................

The vocative for θεός is θεe. Unfortunately, the writers of the NT Greek most often did use the nominative as a vocative for "God."

Literally the NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.” The words for "is" are added at the translator's discretion.

Remember that Paul is really quoting from Ps. 45:6.

Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king’s marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Ps. 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”

So, according to this noted trinitarian Bible, the words of Ps. 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient Israelite king (probably King Solomon, it says).

So if Ps. 45:6 is properly translated, “your throne, O God ...” then that ancient Israelite King (Solomon?) was also literally called “O God” (or “O god”?). In fact, the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:

“The Hebrew king was called ... ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient pagans, but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”

The trinitarian Easy-to-read-Version also says in a footnote for this passage:

“God .... here the writer might be using the word ‘God’ as a title for the king.” (Cf. NIV Study Bible f.n. for Pss. 45:6 and 82:1, 6.)

(And the revised 1991 ed. of the NAB actually translates Ps. 45:6, 7 as “Your throne, O god.”) The NAB (1970 ed.) goes on to explain, however, that others have translated this verse as, “Your throne is the throne of God” and refers us to 1 Chron. 29:23 “where Solomon’s throne is referred to as the throne of the LORD [Jehovah].”

Now we’re getting closer to the most likely intention of Heb. 1:8. There is good evidence that the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 (as well as Ps. 45:6) should be “your throne is God forever” or “God is your throne forever.”

For one thing, the definite article (“the”) is used in the NT Greek with “God” in this scripture. Not even John (who does, rarely, use theos for Jesus) uses theos with the definite article for anyone except the Only True God - the Father. - See the DEF study.

Also, if we look at some respected trinitarian authorities, we also see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.

Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:

“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”

University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”

And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”

Famed trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either the trinitarian-preferred nominative use of God as a vocative or the nominative use (““God is thy throne” or "Thy throne is God) may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” - p. 339. - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, pp. 331, 339.

The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).

Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ...’ in either case it is applicable to the mediatorial throne only.”

Given the uncertainty about this scripture by noted trinitarians themselves, it should not be so frequently used by trinitarians as a "proof."

This is BLASPHEMY to say that Jesus Christ Who is YAHWEH is a created being!

 

[Hidden In Him]

The vocative for θεός is θεe. Unfortunately, the writers of the NT Greek most often did use the nominative as a vocative for "God."

I recall reading this somewhere before. Could you cite the evidences for nominative used as vocative for me? I'd like to read it again if you have it handy.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I recall reading this somewhere before. Could you cite the evidences for nominative used as vocative for me? I'd like to read it again if you have it handy.

Any good Greek grammar will tell you this

 

[tigger 2]

The Jehovah's Witnesses, in 2 of their Greek New Testaments, read:

1942 Emphatic Diaglott
and 1985 Interlinear

Also, in their New World Translation online, in Isaiah 9:5, for the Prophecy of Jesus Christ, they read "mighty God", with the captial G, and not g!

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/isaiah/9/

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/hebrews/1/

You don't seem to understand how the WT has translated Heb. 1:8. As with a number of trinitarians, they have rendered it "God is your throne forever."

Is. 9:6 is about a name that he is to be called. As with many translators, the parts of a name are capitalized. "Mighty God" as part of a name is capitalized, but is interpreted by the WT as "a mighty god." Other sources, including some trinitarian scholars have translated it with added words (as Israelite compound names often have) such as "Wonderful Counsellor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

 

[Hidden In Him]

Any good Greek grammar will tell you this

I'm asking for specific instances, and their frequency with respect to nominative being used as nominative.

Let him answer the question. It wasn't directed to you.

 

[Hidden In Him]

You don't seem to understand how the WT has translated Heb. 1:8. As with a number of trinitarians, they have rendered it "God is your throne forever."

Is. 9:6 is about a name that he is to be called. As with many translators, the parts of a name are capitalized. "Mighty God" as part of a name is capitalized, but is interpreted by the WT as "a mighty god." Other sources, including some trinitarian scholars have translated it with added words (as Israelite compound names often have) such as "Wonderful Counsellor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

Tigger, if you could, what would be your response to the question I posed at the bottom of Post #40?

 

[tigger 2]

Tigger, if you could, what would be your response to the question I posed at the bottom of Post #40?

Have you read my posts #39 and #44?

 

[SolaScriptura]

You don't seem to understand how the WT has translated Heb. 1:8. As with a number of trinitarians, they have rendered it "God is your throne forever."

and you don't understand Greek grammar! the vocative can ONLY be translated as a direct address, and therefore can ONLY read, "Your throne O God"

As I have already shown, in their Greek New Testaments, even the Jehovah's Witnesses translate the literal English under the Greek text, as "but with reference to the Son: the throne of you the God...". The Unitarian New Testament by Dr Noyes, also reads, "but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”. Again, the Unitarian Greek scholar, Dr Winer, in his Greek grammar, says of this verse, “The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking the place of the vocative…H. i.8” (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.227)

These words are from Psalm 45:6-7, where even the Jews translate the Hebrew as "Thy throne O God", https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tehillim-psalms-chapter-45

 

[SolaScriptura]

You don't seem to understand how the WT has translated Heb. 1:8. As with a number of trinitarians, they have rendered it "God is your throne forever."

Is. 9:6 is about a name that he is to be called. As with many translators, the parts of a name are capitalized. "Mighty God" as part of a name is capitalized, but is interpreted by the WT as "a mighty god." Other sources, including some trinitarian scholars have translated it with added words (as Israelite compound names often have) such as "Wonderful Counsellor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

The Hebrew "’êl Gibbôr" is used in Isaiah 10:21, which is EXACTLY how it is used in 9:6. EVERY translation in chapter 10 translates the Hebrew as "mighty God". It is only because of bias against Jesus Christ being Almighty God, that people lie and translate 9:6, by anything else than "mighty God".

Why would "’êl Gibbôr" be translated in 9:6 as "a mighty god", when used for Jesus Christ; and when it is used for the Father in 10:21, it reads "mighty God"? This perversion of the Truth, is also seen in John 1:1, where those who are enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ, and are ignorant of Greek grammar, try to pervert the Truth here, by mistranslating the last sentence as "and the Word was a god". The Jehovah's Witnesses, in their Greek Emphatic Diaglott version, read in the right-hand English translation, "and the Logos was God". Again, the Unitarian New Testament by Noyes, reads, "and the Word was God".

 

[stovebolts]

After Jesus was created

Scripture states that Jesus was begotten, not created. John 3:16
Scripture also says that all things were created through (dia aka instrument)Him.
Colossians 1:16

 

[JLB]

The words "Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς" in verse 8 are vocative used in direct address, "Your throne O God"

Likewise in verse 9, the words in the Greek, "ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου", are also in the vocative, in continued address by the Father to Jesus Christ, and should be rendered in English as "O God, Your God", where again Jesus is called "God" by the Father. In both verses the noun "θεός", has the definite article in the Greek, "ὁ", which cannot be translated as "a god", or "divine", as some would do.

My main point was to show that the Son, …

You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.


The Son created the heavens and the earth, being YHWH, the Lord God, the Alpha and Omega, King of kings and Lord of lords.






JLB

 

[SolaScriptura]

Scripture states that Jesus was begotten, not created. John 3:16
Scripture also says that all things were created through (dia aka instrument)Him.
Colossians 1:16

The Greek "μονογενής", never has the meaning "only begotten", this is the influence of the later Latin, in Jerome's Vulgate, where he wrongly translates the Greek with "unigenitus". The Old Latin Version rightly uses, "unicus". Had John wished to show any "begetting", then he would have used the correct Greek word, "μονογέννητος". "μονογενής", is a compound word, from "μόνος and γένος", with the literal meaning, "one of a kind", or, better, "unique".

Also, the Greek preposition "διά", does not always have the meaing of "through", as in instrument. it is used in Creation for God the Father in Hebrews 2:10. It does have the meaning of "together with", as in "jointly", as it is used in Galatians 1:1. Genesis 1:1 says, that "in the beginning God Created...". Is this limited to Jesus Christ only? Did not the Father and Holy Spirit also Create?

 

[SolaScriptura]

My main point was to show that the Son, …

You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.


The Son created the heavens and the earth, being YHWH, the Lord God, the Alpha and Omega, King of kings and Lord of lords.






JLB

Indeed, Creation is the Work of the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit

 

[stovebolts]

The Greek "μονογενής", never has the meaning "only begotten",

You’ll have to dumb this down a bit for me. What is the correct meaning?

The Greek "μονογενής", never has the meaning "only begotten", this is the influence of the later Latin, in Jerome's Vulgate, where he wrongly translates the Greek with "unigenitus". The Old Latin Version rightly uses, "unicus".

Ok, I’m following so far.
What does the Latin unicus mean then? And what I does it’s Greek counterpart properly translate to?

. Had John wished to show any "begetting", then he would have used the correct Greek word, "μονογέννητος". "μονογενής", is a compound word, from "μόνος and γένος", with the literal meaning, "one of a kind", or, better, "unique".

And I believe John used the proper word. Furthermore, I don’t believe the word you gave here properly describes Jesus.

Also, the Greek preposition "διά", does not always have the meaing of "through", as in instrument. it is used in Creation for God the Father in Hebrews 2:10. It does have the meaning of "together with", as in "jointly", as it is used in Galatians 1:1. Genesis 1:1 says, that "in the beginning God Created...". Is this limited to Jesus Christ only? Did not the Father and Holy Spirit also Create?

The word God is Elohim, which is plural. In other Ancient cultures, Elohim denoted the head of the Pantheon. I believe Moses is conveying that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were part of creation.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Have you read my posts #39 and #44?

Well yes, just not sure if you understand what I'm asking yet.

My question again was this: If Jesus himself said, "Call no man father upon the earth,"and we are thus not supposed to call men our spiritual "father," why would God be encouraging us to do so in this verse by such a meaning? Your statement in Post #44 stated Isaiah 9:6 "is about a name that he is to be called," implying that Hebrews 1:8 should be read that way as well. If it's a name He is to be called, and Jesus said we should call no man by that name (as a spiritual title), why would God be saying to call him by that name here?

 

[JLB]

Indeed, Creation is the Work of the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit

I agree all of the Godhead were involved in Creation.


The Godhead was also involved in the plan of salvation, the death burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, however it was the Son of God who was crucified.


Likewise it is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord God, YHWH, who will return with the saints, on the Day of the Lord, to destroy the wicked and take His place as King over the earth In Jerusalem.


Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
Yes, you shall flee
As you fled from the earthquake
In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.
Zechariah 12:5





JLB

 

[tigger 2]

Well yes, just not sure if you understand what I'm asking yet.

My question again was this: If Jesus himself said, "Call no man father upon the earth,"and we are thus not supposed to call men our spiritual "father," why would God be encouraging us to do so in this verse by such a meaning? Your statement in Post #44 stated Isaiah 9:6 "is about a name that he is to be called," implying that Hebrews 1:8 should be read that way as well. If it's a name He is to be called, and Jesus said we should call no man by that name (as a spiritual title), why would God be saying to call him by that name here?

I'm pretty sure I briefly mentioned earlier the following interpretation by other sources, including trinitarian.

And another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name at Is. 9:6 is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two well-known Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3

Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’” - TLB. - - “They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.” - NLV.

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;

[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a few trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

 

[tigger 2]

and you don't understand Greek grammar! the vocative can ONLY be translated as a direct address, and therefore can ONLY read, "Your throne O God"

As I have already shown, in their Greek New Testaments, even the Jehovah's Witnesses translate the literal English under the Greek text, as "but with reference to the Son: the throne of you the God...". The Unitarian New Testament by Dr Noyes, also reads, "but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”. Again, the Unitarian Greek scholar, Dr Winer, in his Greek grammar, says of this verse, “The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking the place of the vocative…H. i.8” (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.227)

These words are from Psalm 45:6-7, where even the Jews translate the Hebrew as "Thy throne O God", https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tehillim-psalms-chapter-45

As I've already noted above, the Vocative for "God" is thee, but the nominative (theos) is used more often in address instead of the vocative. So as admitted by most NT Greek authorities, theos at Heb. 1:8 can be understood as either in address ("O God") or as a nominative ("God is ..."), and many Bibles and commentaries show one (or both) interpretations. Please actually read post #39 before you respond to it.

Again, The NWT reads "God is your throne." Your statement continuing to deny that is becoming a willing falsity.

As for Jewish Bibles:
The best-known Jewish translations by The Jewish Publication Society: Ps. 45:7

“Thy throne given of G-d is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” - JPS 1917, Margolis.

“Your divine throne is everlasting” - Tanakh, JPS, 1985.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm pretty sure I briefly mentioned earlier the following interpretation by other sources, including trinitarian.

And another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name at Is. 9:6 is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Goodness, Lol. I'm having a tough time distinguishing between your position and those of some others I am citing or reading. The JW position I was citing takes the entirety of Isaiah 1:8 as referring to the Messiah, and he stated something about it being the established position of his denomination. Are you Jehovahs Witness or Unitarian by any chance, or do you have your own beliefs?

 

[tigger 2]

SS wrote in #52 above:
"The Greek 'μονογενής', never has the meaning 'only begotten', this is the influence of the later Latin, in Jerome's Vulgate, where he wrongly translates the Greek with 'unigenitus'. The Old Latin Version rightly uses, 'unicus'. Had John wished to show any 'begetting', then he would have used the correct Greek word, 'μονογέννητος'. 'μονογενής', is a compound word, from 'μόνος and γένος', with the literal meaning, "one of a kind", or, better, "unique".
...................................
“Onlybegotten” (monogenes)

Anything that is “begotten” or “born” (or a “son”), then, is something that at one time did not exist and then was brought into existence. (E.g., Adam, the creation of God was called the “SON of God” - Luke 3:38.) This does not refer simply to Jesus’ earthly existence but also to his original heavenly existence as shown by 1 John 4:9 which refers to the time when Jesus was “in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” - (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24). At that time he was already “the only-begotten [monogenes] Son.” - 1 John 4:9, NASB, ASV, KJV. Even the highly trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 813, admits that Jesus was the Father’s “only-begotten Son” before he came to earth.

Since angels are called “gods” and “sons of God” in the Bible itself (see DEF-4, 5), Jesus cannot properly be called the “only” god or the “only” Son of God as some trinitarians want to translate monogenes (“only-begotten”) at John 1:18. But they (as trinitarians) still don’t like Jesus being described as “only-begotten” because they insist on his eternal existence (as God).

So some try to claim that the last half of the word monogenes is not from ginomai (“to come into being” [‘born’]) but from genos (“kind”). Hence, they claim, the term refers to “the only one of a class or kind.” Thus some trinitarian translations speak of Jesus as the “only Son” (see RSV, NEB, JB, AT quotes at beginning) rather than the “only-begotten Son” of God (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9) - KJV, ASV, NASB.

However, even if we accept the claim that genos is the correct source word for monogenes, we need to examine the claim of some trinitarians that genos does not include the meaning of “begotten”/”made.” The Greek word genos has “offspring” and “birth” as some of its meanings even in my trinitarian NT Concordances (Young’s Analytical Concordance of The Bible; Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible; and New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, p. 1640).

The very trinitarian W. E. Vine in his highly-regarded An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 805, admits that genos is “(akin to ginomai, to become), [and] denotes an offspring.”

Yes, even the trinitarian RSV and NEB (noted above as rendering monogenes as “only” in certain verses relating to Jesus - including Jn 1:18) were forced to use the proper meaning of “offspring” for genos itself at Rev. 22:16 - “I Jesus....am the root and offspring [genos] of David.” Compare Acts 17:28, 29 - “’For we indeed are his offspring [genos].’ Being then God’s offspring [genos], we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, silver or stone...” - RSV.

According to certain trinitarians, then, the above scriptures plainly state that Jesus must be one of the kind [genos] of David [or of the David kind]- Rev. 22:16, and Christians and non-Christian Athenians must be of the God kind [genos] - Acts 17:28, 29. This is obviously ridiculous and the proper meaning of “begotten” or “made/produced” cannot be avoided in these scriptures! Christians (and the men of Athens whom Paul was speaking to) were made or created by God and are His genos (“offspring” or “begotten”) in that sense!

And, if we want a more neutral source, we could go to a secular authority - the ultimate authority for speakers of American English - Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged). In tracing the source of the prefix gen- this outstanding reference book tells us it comes from the Greek genos which comes from “the stem of [the Greek] gignesthai to be born.” We can see then that the Greek word genos literally must include the meaning of “birth,” “production,” “creation” [whether you choose to translate it as “race,” “kind,” etc. or not] and cannot mean an only kind (which has always existed)!

And, perhaps more important, that same highly-regarded authority tells us that the suffix -gen comes from the Greek suffix -genes [as in monogenes above] which means “born, fr[om] root of gignesthai to be born.” (Also see -gen in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.) Here we can see that the Greek suffix in monogenes actually comes from gignesthai (not genos which some trinitarians prefer but which also comes from gignesthai anyway) and it truly, properly means to be born. Gignesthai itself is simply the infinitive form (“to be born”) of gignomai (or ginomai) which are present tense forms of this same passive verb. - see pp. 168, 85, 86, and 97 in Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan, 1962.

Even the very trinitarian NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible agrees that genos comes from ginomai [or gignomai 3] which means “to come into being” - p. 1640. And respected trinitarian scholars Liddell and Scott tell us (under “monogenes”) that monogenes is from gignomai.. Then (under “gignomai”) they say that gignomai means “to come into being, Lat. gigni: 1. of persons, to be born .... 2. of things, to be produced” - An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press.

Notice what famed trinitarian scholar of New Testament Greek, Dr. Alfred Marshall, tells us about ginomai (also written gignomai):

“The verb now before us [ginomai], on the other hand, denotes the coming into existence of what did not exist before.... This verb is therefore not used of God, save as He is relatively to the creature, as in Heb. 11.6 [‘God... becomes (ginetai) the rewarder of those seeking Him.’].”

Dr. Marshall goes on to say that even though it seems necessary for translators to sometimes use verbs such as “is,” “are,” etc., for the ginomai/gignesthai verbs because of the peculiarities of English, we must remember that the idea of “come into existence” must still be understood!

“The discrimination between eimi and ginomai [or gignomai] is one of the most fruitful subjects of N.T. study, and the student should never ignore it.” - p. 106, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

Therefore, the scripture mentioned by Dr. Marshall (Heb. 11:6), for example, is sometimes translated in English as, “God ... is [ginetai] a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” - KJV and others. This must be understood, however, (because of the actual meaning of ginomai/ginetai), not that God rewards certain individuals throughout their entire existence, but that he becomes a rewarder of them some time after they have begun diligently seeking him.

In the same way, other related forms of this verb should retain this same understanding (“born,” “created,” “brought into existence”) even though the translator may use a more familiar rendering for English-speakers. So, even though some translators sometimes render genos as “race” or “kind,” it must, nevertheless, retain the meaning of a “race” or “kind” that has “come into existence” or the “race” or” kind” that one has been created in or born into and not something that has always existed. And it cannot be applied directly to God (for He has always existed), but only to his creation.

For example, the KJV renders genos as “kind” in only 3 places: Matt. 13:47; Matt. 17:21; and Mk. 9:29. But it must be with the understanding that these are “kinds” that have come into existence or been created. Matt. 13:47 says “like a dragnet cast into the sea and gathering [fish] of every kind [genous].” - NASB. This means, of course, “every created thing [“fish” is not in the original text] found in the sea.” And Matt. 17:21 says “this kind [which has come into existence] goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” - KJV. (Mark 9:29 is a parallel account.)

E. Robinson’s A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament gives the definition of monogenes as “only born, only begotten, i.e., an only child.”

W. E. Vine says about monogenes: “only begotten ([monos] and genos, offspring)” - p. 811.

W. J. Hickie’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1963 ed.) also gives: “only begotten.”

TBC