Hello, my name is Christopher Thomas. Some of you might know me from the Confessional Bibliology Group on Facebook or the Confessional Bibliology website. And today, this is the first of the Confessional Bibliology Roundtable, in which we'll have various speakers come in and talk on textual issues that are of interest to the confessional view of scripture. Today, we have Pastor Christian McShaffrey of Pottisolo's Church. Dr. Jeffrey Riddle, and Pleon Musharki, who's over in England right now. The way this will work is Christian McShafferty will give his presentation. It'll be on John 118 and the textual variants found there in the critical text and in the Texas Receptives, along with the consequences of them. At the end of this, all three men will engage in a round table over the questions that we've received before this presentation began. Now I do have a form that some of you may have seen that allows questions to be asked as the presentation is ongoing. And if we have the time, because this is only going to go for an hour and 15 minutes, we'll go ahead and put those up as well. And hopefully we'll get some good conversations and good information out of this. I believe we will. All right. I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Christian. Just a second here. Very good. Thank you, Chris. It's good to be invited to present on John 1.18 today. I've prepared material of 20 to 30 minutes on the verse, and I hope it'll generate some good discussion and thought. Let's begin by hearing God's Holy Word from John 1.18. Θεὸν οὐδεῖς ἐὰ ὁρᾶρικὰ παῦπεται, ὁ μὲν ἐγὼν εἰς οἰὰς, ὅν εἰς τὸν καλπὸν τοῦ πατρός, akenos exegesata. First, a literal translation, God no one has ever seen, the only begotten Son, who, being in the bosom of the Father, the same has declared or made known. The authorized version reads, no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Throughout Christian history, John 118 has stood as a classic proof text for the begottenness or the eternal generation of Jesus Christ. He has been worshipped and confessed as the only begotten Son of God since the earliest of times. This confession was officially adopted in creedal form in 381 at the Council of Constantinople, It is also echoed in most, if not all, Protestant confessions. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Now sadly, modern Bible translations have confused many on this essential point of orthodoxy, and they will probably continue to do so until the modern racket of consumer-driven Bible publishing is brought to a final end. As for John 1, verse 18, there are two Greek words which reveal the importance of Christological orthodoxy, but also the irresponsibility, I think, of modern translators. The first word is monogenes, and the second is quios. My aim in this video is, first of all, to explain why the Greek word monogenes is best translated as only begotten, because I'm convinced that establishing that as the proper translation actually helps settle the textual debate. But we'll come back to that in due time. So first, monogonase defined. The word monogonase is, of course, a Greek word. It's a compound word. The first part, mono, comes from the root monos, which means one, only, sole, singular. It's really simple enough. And this word, its essential meaning has even well-established itself into our own English language. I mean, anyone who's ever worked with audio equipment knows that mono means sound from a single source, as opposed to stereo. And other examples would include English words like monotheist, only one god, monologue, only one person speaking, monopoly, only one business controlling supply chains. And the same usage is seen in the New Testament. Its base meaning is essentially the same. It means only. Here are a few examples from the New Testament to establish the fact. Matthew chapter 4, verse 4. Man shall not live by bread alone. Mano. Matthew 4, verse 10. Speaking of God. Him only. Mano. Shalt thou serve. Luke 5, verse 21. Who can forgive sins but God alone? Monos. So I think the conclusion is clear enough. Mono means only or alone. The second part of the word, genes, comes from the root verb genao, or the noun genos, which are words related to derivation, origin, birth, family, race, etc. And again, the basic meaning of this word is also carried over into our own language, with some of the more obvious examples being the science of genetics or the online hobby of studying your own genealogy. So a most basic wooden rendering of the word would be single descent, or more smoothly, only begotten. That's what monogenes means. And that, of course, has been the accepted translation since the time of Tyndale, who was a master of bringing biblical phrases like this directly into our English language. even coining new terms like Jehovah, Passover, Atonement, Scapegoat, Mercy Seat. Monoghanese, it clearly means, and has always meant, only begotten. But today's critics now challenge. They actually reject that classic rendering, suggesting that the root meaning of monoghanese is actually more about kind or class. But it needs to be said that even if that's true, the translation that has been traditionally received still stands. Because according to Scripture, you know, that paradigm, each according to its own kind, it tells us that kinds and classes are still connected to birth or descent within a particular species. But nevertheless, as I said, the modern versions have abandoned this compound phrase, only begotten, and have instead adopted a translation that communicates really only half of the word. Take, for example, John 3.16 in the English Standard Version, We read, for God so loved the world that he gave his only son. Now, that's a decent translation, but it's at best an under-translation because the inspired word is not mano, but monogenes. So, we could then ponder the question, why? Why do modern versions under-translate one of the inspired words of the living God? Now, here somebody's going to suggest that it's an anti-Christ conspiracy, intended to soften the Bible's teaching on Christology, but that does seem to be an overstatement to me, because the ESV does allow the word begotten to stand in other verses. One example would be Psalm 2, verse 7. The Lord said to me, that is, Jehovah speaking to the Son, you are my Son, today I have begotten you. And other examples in the ESV would be Acts 13.33, Hebrews 1 verse 5, Hebrews 5 and verse 5. So modern translators are not necessarily against the begottenness of the Son, they're just against translating monogamous as only begotten. And if you look at the lexicon or the dictionaries and the commentaries, you'll see that modern scholars even engage in etymological gymnastics in order to defend that under-translation. I mean, they act as if the presence or absence of a single nun indicates a transition to a different root word altogether. But I don't want to count nuns today. Let me rather explain what I think is the real reason that only begotten is now opposed as a translation. And that'll shift our conversation from translation, of course, to text. Weos or theos? That is the question. Now, in my introduction, I said there were two words in John 118. that demonstrate the irresponsibility of modern translation. And having considered the most natural translation of monogamies, we need now to look at the second word which is wios or son. Now the word son does not appear here in most modern versions of the Bible because they are not translated from the text of the Greek New Testament that was historically used by and received by the Church of Jesus Christ. Instead, these translators based their text on the reconstructed text of the Critics. It was produced in the late 19th century. It's known as the Critical Text, and it does not present the Bible reader here with a monogamous weos, an only begotten Son, but rather it presents the reader with a monogamous theos, an only begotten God. Now I've heard and I've seen the fact that many Christians hear that at least upon first hearing as a seeming proof of the divinity of Christ but the concept of an only begotten God is actually anything but Christian and it needs to be said. Those who are familiar with the pagan classics already know this. An only begotten God, what in the world is that? Well that's the Greek goddess Athena. which was begotten out of the head of Zeus, or maybe it's the half-god Hercules who was begotten of Zeus through a mortal woman. Begotten gods are a very common thing in ancient pagan mythology. On the other hand, having one true god with an eternally begotten son who is consubstantial with the father, that is a distinctly Christian doctrine. Again, it is a doctrine that has been believed and confessed by the Church for centuries. So, why then the debate? And we all know, I trust, it's due to a textual variant. Some ancient manuscripts read, Monoganes Weos, Only Begotten Son. Others read Monoganes Theos, Only Begotten God. There are also less significant variants that involve the presence or the absence of the definite article there, but They do not ultimately impact the meaning of the verse or even the debate here. I'm personally convinced that the Weos reading is indeed authentic, and I'd like to defend that claim by offering a brief survey of the internal and external evidence, as well as offering some theological considerations. So first, the internal evidence. The word monoghanes and the phrase monoghanes weos are favorites to the Apostle John. or what we would call typically Yohannin. And every Bible reader knows this. Think about the examples. John 1, verse 14. We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1, verse 18. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. John 3, verse 16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. John 3.18— He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 1 John 4.9— In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world. The main point being If John did write monogenes theos here in John 118, it would be the exception, a new term, something he had never written before and would never write again. And we could say that's indeed possible, but not necessarily likely. Another piece of internal evidence is the logic of the verse itself. No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Follow the thought. No one has seen God at any time. God is invisible. My children used to recite this from the children's catechism. God is a spirit and has not a body like men. The first person, therefore, mentioned in this verse is clearly Jehovah, or God the Father. The second person in the verse is the one who reveals or makes known or declares the first, and this person is obviously visible, for we read in verse 14, the word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And again, he did this with a distinct purpose, to make known, to reveal, to declare that which no man has ever seen, being the Father. The logical and theological construct of this verse only works with Father and Son. If the word Son is changed to God, it immediately becomes unintelligible. Think of it. No man has seen God, but God, who is in the bosom of God, has declared God. What in the world kind of sense does that make? It makes no sense at all to the Trinitarian Christian But it does make sense, perfect sense, to Arians, both modern and ancient, who deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. One example would be the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're quite happy with the proposed Thaos reading here because it strengthens their theological-driven mistranslation of John 1-1, and the word was A-God. So that is some of the internal evidence. Consider also some of the external evidence. The variant reading, monogenes theos, only begotten God, is attested, and we cannot deny that, in some very early manuscripts. Codex Vaticanus has it, so does P66 and P75, and these witnesses are ancient, admittedly. If oldest is your best, if that's your paradigm, if that's what makes your text-critical methodology so meaningful, then this is probably your reading. You have an only begotten God. But here, I would say not so fast, because the evidence for monogamous wias is almost as ancient as the evidence against it. Both readings trace back to the second century AD. So, how do we know which is authentic? Can we even know? And I do think we can, because it's abundantly clear which reading was accepted by the Church. That is, by the people of God who actually lived at the time, as well as those who lived after. The vast majority of later unciels and minuscules support the Wios reading. The majority of lectionaries support it. The majority of ancient versions support it. Just look at the apparatus in the Novum Testamentum and you will see that the evidence in favor of weos, son, is in fact overwhelming. Even Metzger's committee faced division on this verse due to the preponderance of evidence in favor of the received reading. But let me come back to this important, but it's often neglected and ignored, this important concept of actual usage in the church. Twice as many church fathers have weos than theos, and one of the church fathers, Eusebius of Caesarea, actually alerts us to a possible explanation for how the variant reading theos arose in the first place. Writing of heretics that had modified the text of scripture in order to defend their false doctrines, Eusebius wrote, quote, they have boldly falsified the sacred scriptures they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. They cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 28. Now, there have been many heretical groups throughout history that have falsified and sought to correct the Sacred Scripture. Eusebius mentioned several of them by name in his writings, but there's one group that deserves particular attention when weighing the variant in John 118, and that group would be the Valentinian Gnostics. Here we have to remember that during the first few centuries of church history there were many groups that were heretical, and many of them that went under the name Gnostic. Gnostic is a very broad term, and they believed all sorts of crazy things, but there was one thing upon which all Gnostics could agree, and it was this. God and flesh do not meet. God and flesh cannot touch. The unknowable, ineffable God could never be incarnate. And here, we have to declare that the testimony of the New Testament disagrees, especially the prologue of John's Gospel. It was, it is, perfectly incompatible with the fundamental doctrines of Gnosticism. But at the same time, the Gnostics liked high-minded things. They liked highly poetic style. They generally liked the writings of the Apostle John. So it seems, I'll speculate, that they had a choice to make here. They either change their doctrine or change John's text. And really, it's not so much a speculation, because Eusebius reports that they chose the latter option, to change, to correct the text of God's Word. And we have no reason to doubt the testimony of Eusebius. Westcott and Hort did. They, of course, were the architects of the modern, reconstructed New Testament. And when fellow critics would raise the objection, saying, no, no, no, monogamous theos is a gnostic term, That's a Gnostic term that arose from corrupt Alexandrian texts. They quickly counter, and they were able to quickly counter with this, no such evidence exists. We have no such evidence. Now maybe they didn't, but we do. We do now. Definitive evidence was discovered in 1945 in the Nag Hammadi Library in Upper Egypt. In the Gnostic title, titled Trimorphic Protanoia, we read this. Then the perfect son revealed himself to his eons, who originated through him, and he revealed them and glorified them and gave them thrones and stood in the glory with which he glorified himself. They blessed the perfect son, the Christ, the only begotten God. Now an eon, by the way, is an order of spirit or spiritual rank that emanates from God in the Gnostic system. And the text goes on to name several such eons, but it comes to this notable conclusion. Armadon, Nusanios, Armazel, etc., all these eons. Now, those eons were begotten by the God who was begotten, the Christ, and these eons received, as well as gave glory. Thus, the Gnostics drove a wedge between the eternal Logos in John 1.1, and this only begotten God in John 1.18. If this is indeed the origin of the Monogenes Theos reading, then its intent was clearly to deny the eternal deity of Christ, not to defend it. And here's the bottom line, here's the theological crisis. If you allow one god to be begotten, there is no reason why many more may not be. You might even end up with a panoply of gods, like the ancient Greeks and Romans and Gnostics. Now, whether the variant reading Monogenes Theos did originate with the Valentinian Gnostics might continue to be debatable, but that the phrase, only begotten god was a historically attested Gnostic reading is now beyond debate. Furthermore, that this odd reading was known to and officially rejected by our fathers in the faith is equally undeniable. Consider the creeds. A very compelling argument for the Huyas reading, the Sun reading, is this. That those who were closest to the evidence and who actually engaged in the original debates, they received and adopted the Huyas reading as authentic. All the earliest controversies in the Church were over the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation. The big questions were, did God truly become man? Was Jesus the eternal Logos? Was he the Son of God by eternal generation? Are the Father and the Son indeed consubstantial, or of one substance? Those were the questions, and the Church, our Church, looked to John 1.18 for its answer. and they even adopted it officially in creedal form. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds. And yes, the Greek term there is monoganei. That's the First Council of Constantinople. Every generation of believers since has confessed Jesus Christ as monoganeis rios. and the overwhelming evidence supports this confession as being perfectly biblical. Yet here we are, and that's the point of this conference. Here we are in the current year, and the phrase has been stricken from most modern versions. I want to suggest two possible reasons to close. First would be undue allegiance to minority readings. Undue allegiance to minority readings. No matter how many manuscripts we have, no matter how much evidence of actual use in the ancient church is presented and proven, reasoned eclectics seem always to side with minority readings. One of the main reasons they do this is because they assume that older is better. But again, that particular canon of text criticism does not work with this verse, because the received reading of John 118 is as ancient as can be. The other main reason for preferring minority readings is probably the operative one here. Difficult readings are best. Difficult readings are better. No question. Monoghanes Theos is a very difficult reading. It very well may be the most difficult reading in the entire New Testament. It is probably difficult enough to be counted as heresy. But difficulty does not equal authenticity. It cannot Think of it this way, the monogamous weos reading was equally difficult to the Gnostics, the sun reading. So, who was more likely to smooth out the difficulty? The Christian scribes who feared God and trembled before the threat of Revelation 22, 18-19, or a group of insane heretics? Giving first preference to minority readings is, in my opinion, inexcusable. because it's an indication that a critic has undue allegiance to the outdated canons of Westcott and Hort. And I know there will be some who cry foul on that point, saying, well, we're not wed to Westcott and Hort. We've made so many discoveries since then. But you know what? That true observation, and it is true, it actually cuts both ways. Again, one of those many discoveries was the Nag Hammadi Library, which confirms the longstanding suspicion that the only begotten God reading was indeed Gnostic. Now thankfully, and I do want to be fair to all the honest critics out there, I am very happy to report that some recent eclectics are now rejecting the Thaos reading. For example, consider the Tyndale House Greek New Testament. It's a critical edition. It leans toward Alexandrian readings, but the received reading of John 118 has there been restored. We have to keep watching this front. It'll be very interesting to see which reading is adopted finally in the Editio Critica Maior when it is completed. Even more interesting than that will be to see this, whether evangelical text critics will admit that they have been wrong in affording such unflinching allegiance to minority readings. Actually, while I'm no fan of the CBGM, it might actually help here. as it continues to challenge some of the old canons of West Cottonport, and as it also seems to afford greater value, at least on occasion to majority readings. But that's something the critics are going to have to work through. I'm not a text critic. I said that in the introduction promo last week. I'm not a member of the Guild. It's just a hobby for me. But that doesn't mean anyone should neglect my testimony, because I love the Word of God, and I believe the Word of God. Like everyone who is watching, I trust. So let me share one personal pastoral concern to close. I said there were two conclusions that I wanted to offer. The second reason I think the phrase only begotten song was stricken from modern versions is this. Irresponsible translation. Irresponsible translation. Even a first semester Greek student could look at the phrase monogonos theos and conclude Well, that literally means only begotten God. But most modern translations are not that honest. They will not translate it literally. Because, as Dean Bergan pointed out over a hundred years ago, it's just too embarrassing. They're ashamed of their reading. And rightfully so, I say. Credo, confessional Christians, they don't want to hear about an only begotten God. And the modern translators know it. So what they do is they finesse their translations to avoid offense. Some, like the NIV, even take great pains so as not to appear heterodox. It reads, but the one and only son who is himself God, to which we all have to say what? All that from two words? But the one and only son who is himself God from two words. That's what you call irresponsible translation. If monogamous theos is your reading, then I say own it. Translate it. Deal honestly with your preferred text like the New American Standard Bible did. It actually says it, the only begotten God. Anything less, anything else, in my opinion, is at least a little dishonest. The sacred duty of Bible translators is not to explain, not to finesse, not to offer commentary, but to translate inspired words from one language into another. Modern Christians should therefore no longer tolerate the kind of games that have been played and are being played with the text of Scripture. They should rather call for a return to the old ways, a return to the sacred text that was used by, edited by, received by, translated by the Church of the Living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth. For it is only in this that we will find the inspired, infallible, and self-attesting truth that saves our souls. Namely, no man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Amen and Amen. Okay, Christian, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Who is unmuted? Yeah, let me mute everyone again. There we go. All right, can everyone hear me? Wave your hands if you can hear me. All right, excellent. And Christian, you should be live as well. Yes. And Jeff? Can you hear me? Yep. And Puyon. Yes. All right. Now, here's what I'd like you to do, all three of you. Go ahead and introduce yourselves, what your church is, what you've served in ministry, and then after that, Christian, do you have the questions? Yes. We received a couple. Excellent. And after you do the introductions, just go ahead and read off question one and then you can deal with it. I'm going to go ahead and mute myself now. I'll make this short because we did introductions in the introductory video, but I'm Jeff Riddle, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Louisa, Virginia. I'm Priyan Mirshahi, pastor of Providence Baptist Chapel, which is a Reformed Baptist Church in Cheltenham, England. And I'm Christian McShapry, the pastor of Five Solas OPC in Reidsburg, Wisconsin. To the questions, actually I don't know if I have them. I have question number one. It says it's for the speaker. Would you say that the reading Son in John 118 is thematically more consistent with the rest of the Gospel of John, where it is the Son who is sent by the Father to reveal him? And of course we have some scriptures there from John 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, and 17. Is the reading Son more thematically consistent with the rest of the Gospel? I would say absolutely, without a doubt. The Father-Son theme is predominant in John's Gospel. Jesus calls God Father twice as many times in John than in the Synoptics. Also the title, Ha-Hui-As, the Son, it appears more frequently in John's Gospel. But there's also another thematic element that could be considered, it's the son being sent by the father. That's very common language in the Gospel of John, and we read about it in chapter 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14. And this sending or the mission that the son received was, I think, explained in John 1 18. He was sent to declare the father. and that mission of the Son to make known the Father and his love is a recurring theme in John's narrative. We know that once Christ completed that mission, he entered back into the fellowship that he had enjoyed with his Father from eternity. But then we have another aspect added, and it should not surprise us that this mission theme progressively unfolds to include the Holy Ghost and also us. John 13, verse 20, for example, says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. So we have Father, Son, Us, but only because of the Holy Spirit, of which we also read when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and ye also shall bear witness." So, as we apply that to the debate at hand, the question is, to what do we bear witness? I mean, is it a Christian version of Hercules, or is it this one true God? Father, Only Begotten Son, the Holy Ghost. Now, more could be said here, but I think, yes, John 1.18 is most consistent with this overarching theme of Father and Son, mission and testimony in the Gospel of John. I'll follow up just on that. And I mean, first of all, just say, Christian, thank you so much for that presentation. I thought it was excellent. And I really appreciated that. You did a great job and a succinct way of summarizing things. With respect to the issue of whether or not the reading at John 118 should be the only begotten son or the only begotten God. Yes. I mean, there is a theme of sonship, you know, throughout the gospel of John. And I, I recently, a couple of years ago, preached through the gospel of John and I think it did about a hundred messages through it. And I remember it was one of the things I was struck by, you know, as, as I, as I was preaching through, um, and I was, as you were speaking, I was thinking about that. And, um, I know when I got to John 6 69, It's Peter's confession. It's actually another passage that's textually disputed, where the sonship theme is muted in the modern critical text. But Peter's confession is, and we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the son of the living God. And likewise in John 11, You've got the confession of Martha as well, confessing Christ. This is in John 11, 27. She saith unto him, Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. And when you go to the end of John, John famously has an explanation of its purpose, a purpose statement. in John 20 verse 31, but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. So the theme of the Sonship of Christ is preeminent in John's Gospel. And you know, you were talking about the external evidence, and I did a Word magazine podcast on this a couple years ago. What is it? I think it's Word Magazine 56. And I went and looked back at that again and you surveyed some of it and you know when you look at the extant Greek evidence for the reading either Monogenes Theos or Ha Monogenes Theos, there are only eight extant Greek manuscripts that have that witness to this. Now, there's some versional evidence. It's in the Syriac Peshitta, but it's only P75, the second corrector of Sinaiticus, and 33 that have Ha Monogenes Theos. It's only P66, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the original hand of Ephraimi Rescriptus, and Codex L that have Monogenes So it's really only a handful of manuscripts that have this, in my view, spurious reading. And, of course, Metzger in his commentary talks about the fact that it's there in P75, it's there in P66. But Westcott and Horton made the decision to go with Only Begotten God long before the papyri were ever discovered. And it does make you wonder, you know, were they driven by an effort to undermine basically an Orthodox view, an Orthodox Christology that seems to be preeminent in John. And, you know, there was a lot of And I don't want to go all conspiracy theory and sometimes KJV only's in particular are criticized for going after Westcott and Hort. But let's face it, you know, the 19th century, there was a whole lot of Aryanism, modern Aryanism that was afoot. And so, you know, it's not surprising perhaps that there were these efforts to you know, contend for these readings that would undermine, you know, we might say a more orthodox view, Trinitarian view of the traditional reading. And as you also pointed out, I mean, interesting enough, now we've got a backlash sort of that's going on, and I'll stop yakking, and I, you know, if you haven't gotten this little book, edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain called Retrieving Eternal Generation. Recently there's been a dispute and debate about the concept of the eternal generation of the Sun and this passage is relevant for that as well. This book is a collection of articles but there's one within it written by Charles Lee Irons called A Lexical Defense of the Johannine Only Begotten. And at the very end of that, of this chapter, he talks about the problems with the ESV's translation of John 118. And he says the second problem with the ESV's translation of John 118 is that it could easily be misused as a proof text for modalistic monarchianism or the Jesus-only heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism. If Jesus is the only begotten God, well, there might have been some people in the 2nd century as well as in the 19th century who would have seen that as a primitive Christian view of Jesus as either, you know, a representation of God at one point in time and a denial of the Trinitarian God. And so anyways, there is a lot at stake with this theologically. And I think one thing, you know, I'll stop talking, related to this ongoing conversation we're going to have starting today and the next week and next week, I think the Trinity is going to come up. It's going to come up next week with First John 5-7. It's going to come up probably with Pouillon's discussion of why the traditional text is a preferred text for apologetics as opposed to the modern critical text. And, you know, as you said, none of us are in the guild, but we're all pastors. And I think we understand that the need to defend the faith and to have a text that we can preach from, we can teach from, and we can teach doctrines that defend the deity of Christ and the Triune God. So anyways, thank you so much for the presentation. I really appreciated it. Well, you're welcome. Thanks for those thoughtful comments on the question. Puyon, did you have anything to add to that first question? Oh, we need some moderation. I've got it. You're live, my friend. Okay, well, thank you, Christian, for that wonderful presentation. I think that those of us who have heard these things and those of you brethren who have been listening to Christian's presentation you would see that what a fundamental text this is and how serious it would be to mistranslate it and I would say that the concentrated point has been on the term for God or Son but also we should give due concern over the translation of only begotten as well because for example ESV translates it as only but only begotten it is what the Greek says and it is speaking of the nature of the person that is referred to and it is the begottenness of the son and so it has with it a theological, it's not just the God or the son that gives us the theological teaching here but the begottenness or the only begottenness as well as speaking of the eternal generation of the object of that phrase which is God or the Son and God cannot be generated but the Son was, the Son was given the scripture says and the question I think that those who hear these messages should ask themselves is a serious question that I have to grapple with is that who gives the editors this inspired editorial authority to choose a minority and unorthodox view of this reading and that is quite a serious point who gives them that this editorial authority inspired editorial authority that even in the marginal readings they are not honest about the volumes or the sheer amount of the evidence that there is manuscript evidence that 99.5% of the Greek manuscripts favour and have exactly the only begotten son reading. So who gives them the authority to choose that minority reading and then give the impression that this is the right one and but think about it on a theological point that Christian mentioned is that if the God part, the deity of Jesus Christ our Lord was begotten in the womb of the Virgin Mary then he is not eternally pre-existent and in that event Christ couldn't be God the Son one of the three persons of the Trinity And here it is that we see the precision of the Old Testament prophecies, for example Isaiah 9 and verse 6 where it says, unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, Jehovah the son was given not born but in any case why follow seven manuscripts or eight manuscripts of demonstrably inferior quality against the over a thousand evidences the original and therefore true reading is certainly the only begotten son that is what I wanted to say but the thought that who gives the inspired editorial authority to those who select a minority and as it has been demonstrated unorthodox view of this reading. That's something that you have to grapple with when you come to the issue of the text. That's all I've got to say about that. Well, thank you, Chris. Should we go to the second question we received here in the chat? I have a thumbs up. And it actually follows up on that question of where is the authority to establish the Word of God? And this question is about evidence. It's a long question. I'll read it in full, and then we can take a few minutes and explore some of the answers that would come. Would you recommend that all manuscripts, papyri, etc., that are found, which are not included in the textus receptus, be ignored? Which route do you believe translators would have taken in the past if they were put in our current situation? With a high view of God's Word, missing a word in any translation would be a scary thing. Thus, over time, As the later manuscripts have added materials, as removed by translations using the critical text, which were believed to be added by the incorporation of side notes and such, does that not actually strengthen the argument for the preservation of those manuscripts believed to be earlier than those found in the Textus Receptus? Long question. Let me try to break it down and offer a few thoughts. Thanks, by the way, for those who are watching for sending questions in advance. It gives us some time to think, but this one wasn't sent very early. It's about evidence, so let me say first of all this. I do not believe any evidence should ever be ignored by anyone, but there are problems that we face when examining and interpreting the evidence that we have. The first problem is this. No one can escape the power and influence of their own presuppositions. Big word, stated simply, what we believe affects always what we see. Now I live up in Wisconsin, near the Wisconsin Dells, and you can see there proof of the global flood and a young earth. It's carved into stone. People take tour boats to go and look at these cliff walls that have been dug out by currents of water. I see it and I rejoice. But the atheist, the fool who says in his heart there is no God, due to his epistemological commitment, sees something completely different. Same evidence, different conclusion. So the first problem with evidence is this. There is no such thing as bare, naked evidence. We always bring our presuppositions to bear upon it. Secondly, this gets to the second part of the question about what ancient translators would do if they were put in our current situation. And I'm not entirely sure what that means, but You know, what's our current situation? Maybe we have more evidence today than they had then. I can't grant that. The most foundational question here is this. How do we know what they had and what they didn't have? How do we know what the editors of the ecclesiastical text held in their hands? I mean, it's possible. I'm not saying it's likely and I'm not saying it's the case. But it's possible that they had as much, if not more, manuscripts than we have today. And people are going to laugh at that suggestion, but I would encourage our listeners here to study one of the most eye-opening charts I've ever seen online. It's called, How Many Manuscripts Have Been Destroyed? And you can find it at textusreceptusbibles.com and it records just a part of the body of evidence that has been destroyed by war, And it is unthinkable to think about how much we've lost over the past five to a thousand years. So maybe our fathers in the faith had as much, if not more, than we do today. But more to the point is this. When you think about evidence, counting scraps of paper is not textual criticism. And that's not science. I very much like what Dr. Gurry said in a video a while back. He said, we only need one good one. That is, one good manuscript to have a good text. And with that observation, I completely agree. Last part of the question I can't answer because I can't grant the assumption that there was a tendency of scribes to add material to the text of Scripture, or even to let it sneak in. I mean, the questioner admitted that the work of text criticism or translation is a scary thing, and I agree. So I don't think that any Christian Any saint who fears God would be careless, or flippant, or subversive in their sacred work. On the other hand, as Eusebius reported, the heretics had no scruples at all in altering the sacred text. So, what that tells me is this. Ancient can't mean authentic. Earlier cannot mean better. Because, what as Ken Ham would say, you know, were you there? Were you there? This is all speculation. So it's a good question. It's a deep question. I'd invite others to weigh in on it because that's about all I would have to say. I've said in some discussions with people who are practitioners of modern text criticism and reasoned eclectics, you know, that, yeah, we're not afraid of the evidence. They would like to say, oh, you just want to bury your head in the sand and you don't want any historical study of early Christian documents and so forth. I mean, I don't think that at all. I mean, my perspective would be something like, you know, Francis Schaeffer, who wrote about dealing with science and creation and so forth that you were talking about earlier, I think in a book that was called No Final Conflict. I just believe that in the end, that whatever evidence is uncovered, it's not going to be something that's going to disprove the authority and the authenticity of the confessional text or the traditional text. Even with regard to this passage, you know, in the original edition, first edition of Metzger's textual commentary, I think you pointed out one of the five members of the committee, the five people who were at that time creating the modern critical text, Alan Wickren did not agree with the monogamous theos reading. And in the first edition of the textual commentary, there's a minority report in which he disagrees. And they gave it, you know, they rated the readings and they gave the monogamous theos reading a B reading. He said it should have been a D reading. And he didn't argue that it was a theological interpretation. He said it was simply a transcriptional error that related to the nomena sacra. So, um, the, you know, the word that us in the, in the nomena sacra would be Theta Sigma and we us son would be Upsilon Sigma. And he said, you know, someone just had, you know, monogamous Huyas with an Upsilon Sigma and they inappropriately copied it as monogamous Thaos, Theta Sigma. And so, you know, he said it was just a simply a transcriptional error that resulted in this minority reading. And then it was, it was, you know, not copied and not continued in the dominant tradition. So that might be an example of somebody looking at the external evidence and actually using it to reinforce or affirm the traditional reading or giving a plausible explanation for how these minority readings developed as opposed to championing these minority readings that were either introduced for theological reasons or out of transcriptional error and saying that they're the authentic text. There's a place for the study of manuscripts and so forth. I just don't want those people to attempt to reconstruct the text that is used by believers in churches. Maybe back to what Pouillon said, who gives them authority to dictate to us what our text should be? And so there's a place for the study of these things, but We would have the problem, we've talked about this before, what we have now is basically anarchy with these multiple translations. They're all coming up with something different. We haven't talked about the new New American Standard Bible is going to have a completely different rendering for John 1.18. And there's even another aspect of this verse that we haven't talked about, and that is that the modern translations have tended to change the word bosom also, and whether to come up with some kind of dynamic equivalent for that at the father's side, or apparently the New American Standard Bible that's coming out in 2020, the revision is gonna say in the father's arms. So there's no end to the variations and differences and supposed improvements that some people will try to take with the text. And at some point, I think we've got to build a line that says, no, don't mess with our scriptures anymore. You can't improve upon it. You can't take away from it. Stop messing with our scriptures. And so I hope that responds to the question, but there it is. I may just add to that briefly is that the question was also asked about the if do you believe that the translators would have taken in the past if they were put in our current situation. The point is that we know from their writings and from what they say in the introduction to the authorised version the long edition, not the short edition, the two page edition, but I think the 30 page edition of it, they make it clear that their view was a theological one concerning the text of the scriptures and also its method of translation. It wasn't based on evidence, it was a theological one derived from the the revelation of God, of himself. So the view of the doctrine of providential preservation of the scripture wasn't coming out of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Westminster Confession had not been produced yet, but they already had that doctrine. So this was not something new to them. and so they would lead, that view of theirs would lead if they were alive today to hold on consistently with that theological view if it is following that reason that this doctrine is birthed from a commitment to the revelation of God about himself and about his word and not from an evidential and secular science viewpoint. again it's not about counting how many manuscripts we have in favour of us or not, it is the doctrine of scripture, it's a theological concept and the ultimate authority again, it is a presupposition that the Lord keeps his word and the question that always bothered me has God left his church in the dark without a complete scripture or do we have to scratch in the dark and scratch in the dirt try to find and it's always we are in this balance of uncertainty and James tells us in James 1 and verse 8 of a man who is double-minded and James says that the double-minded man is unstable in all his ways and that is what I find sincerely speaking of the way that the textual critics of our day are dealing with the scripture they don't know and this has to be something and again I say it with love and sincerity, they are not certain if we have the word of God, any text is under question, any word is under question, it all depends on what may come, tomorrow they might find something in some old library, So that goes against the presuppositional view of the text of the scripture and they must borrow, we must borrow the worldview that says that speaks against the Bible self-authenticating view and so again I would ask you who are listening and watching this to really think about your theological position your presuppositional position over this matter rather than evidential position evidential position is very uncertain because the future is uncertain and the minds and the hearts of those who are investigating and who are making the decisions in some gatherings and back offices somewhere it is very uncertain. And their theological position and the state of their heart before the Lord. So, that's something I want to just add to that. Two follow-ups to that. You know, the Charles Lee Irons article on defending the traditional translation of monogamous is only begotten. He makes the point that, and Christian alluded to this in his presentation too, that it was only in the 19th century that you had this idea put forward that monogamies didn't come from the verb genoto, to beget, but it came from the verb genomai, to be or to become. And it became all the rage to begin to understand monogamies as unique And he makes the point, I think it's a great argument in there, that that's kind of a false dichotomy between the two origins, because actually Gena'o and Genomai have a common root. And he makes a great point in that article about how, you know, the term monogamies means only begotten. He gives countless examples of how it doesn't mean unique or only in the context of how it's used in the Gospel of John and other places in the New Testament. And so we had a fad that came along for about 100, 150 years, where all of a sudden monogamies was the unique or the only. And actually now that's beginning to tail off. to a certain degree. And so, as Puyana was saying, if we don't have presuppositions and we don't have a theological framework, we're vulnerable to these trends and fads that come and go. And that might be with respect to translation, it might be with respect to the text. And so if we are conservative traditional Christians, you know, that means we're trying to conserve something. We're committed to a tradition. And how is it that we have evangelicals who aren't trying to conserve the tradition that are attempting to undermine it. I noticed in the chat several people were saying, rightly, well that's the way the academy works. You don't get tenure by writing papers and dissertations about how the tradition is right and it ought to be maintained and upheld. You have to come up with something novel, something new, and you don't sell a new translation with a new and improved rendering, that makes it apparently, you know, more marketable as opposed to, no, it's the same old translation. It's the same old text that has been preserved and doesn't need to be tampered with and changed and tinkered with every couple of years. So I think probably most of us in this group having this conversation you know, it's kind of preaching to the choir, but maybe it's good just to reinforce it among ourselves at least. Well, Jeff, I have a non-choir question that came in in the email, and it's actually a challenge. What about Hebrews 11, 17? Doesn't it prove the unique reading? I skipped this in my presentation, but I don't mind talking about it probably for our last five to ten minutes, and then we'll wrap things up. Hebrews 11 verse 17, By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac, and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. So I assume the question is, how can Isaac be called a monogamist when he obviously had a brother? And the argument there is that it probably must mean unique. He's a special son. This has been a common objection for a long time. I mean, John Calvin had to address this in his commentary before any of us were even thought of being born. And he just explains it in terms of, you know, after Ishmael's apostasy, he was cast out of the family as one dead, thus making the true son as if he was the only begotten. I think that's a perfectly reasonable explanation. But if that's not, feel free to send me another email. He is the only begotten son. Isaac is the only begotten because Ishmael was reprobated, excommunicated, and he had no place amongst the family after that. I agree with your interpretation. Yeah, it's a standard interpretation. So how about for our last five minutes, we're speaking to the choir and singing with the choir. The comments have been very entertaining. Let's speak to those who are hearing these things for the first time and who are not entirely persuaded. What is our purpose in bringing them up and what would we like them to do with this presentation? That question is to us, or you're saying, Christian? Well, we do have to wrap it up, so I thought maybe we could make an evangelistic or apologetic appeal to close. Well, we could tie it into this. We have one question that I skipped over in the chat, and maybe this would be a good tie-in with a closing statement. I wonder about how the switch to theos keeps out the sun-ness out of the text. So it's the age-old question, even if there is some discrepancy here in John 118, we have the sun-ness testified throughout the New Testament. So how does the loss of this one particular word, whether it be through text or translation, impact the Gospel in any way? Is this just a scholarly matter of interest or is it truly evangelical? And for me, I can start here, I do think it's a matter of evangelical trust, that if God has revealed to us his word, and if the Only Begotten has come to make known the Father, then we need to receive that testimony. And perhaps the question is correct. We don't lose son-ness if we adopt the monogamous theos reading necessarily, but we add something. We add something foreign to the testimony of Scripture, and something that's been regarded as heretical since the ecumenical creeds, that there is the concept of begotten gods out there. We confess only one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And to introduce the concept of begottenness of deity, I find it loathsome and unacceptable. And if somebody is really interested in finding out what is the theological import spend some time researching the variant reading and see the kind of groups that argue most intently for it. You'll probably be surprised. I would just say, you know, if the question is, you know, do we necessarily have to, can't we, do we have to defend this This particular variant, can't we, you know, argue for the eternal generation of the Son from other passages? Yes, we can. Obviously, you know, we could look at Matthew 5, 17, 18, Christ saying, you know, that every jot and tittle of the Word is important and that it won't pass away. And so every part of God's Word is significant. No, we're not dependent upon this verse alone. to construct our Christology, but it's still a part of God's Word, and it's a part that's been preserved, and every portion is significant. And we'll probably talk about this next week with respect to the Trinity and the Coma Ioneum. Yeah, can the Trinity be defended without the verse? Yes, but that doesn't downplay, downgrade the significance of that verse as a proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity. And I would say the same thing with respect to this verse for Christology, for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, for affirming that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father. It's not an insignificant matter, and I'm concerned about people who are willing to give up defense of one portion of Scripture, supposedly to defend the rest of the doctrines of Scripture. And so I think we're justified in defending the reading that is here. And it seems like, actually, with respect to the Tyndale House Great New Testament affirming now the traditional reading, it seems like this is one where the momentum is on our side for reclaiming this verse. In fact, it seems to be proving itself to be an evidence, I think, of the preservation of Scripture. Somehow I mean when when people who who affirm reason eclecticism are now affirming this traditional reading which had fallen out of favor for about a hundred years It's some evidence, isn't it of I think the providential work of God So brothers our goal is to go one hour and 15 minutes and we just came to that time and I want to say one thing, if you don't mind, in terms of encouraging my brethren who may view this and you are still thinking, you are still wondering and you wonder will just one word be such an important issue, is it so critical for us to be so picky at this and I would encourage you to come before the Lord with your open Bibles in your own devotions as you come to worship God in privacy of your own home and before the Lord and you go through in your mind the text of Isaiah that we are to tremble at the Word of God and that means that we tremble at every jot, every tittle every part of the word of God, every word is pure and I know that you believe it, I know that in your heart of heart the Lord, if you are one of his, the Lord has revealed that to you and God's word is precious to you and therefore in your heart of heart you tremble before it and that makes every word so important to you, you want to cherish it, you want to drink it up, you want to feed from it and then when you think about the fact of the Logos, Christ himself who is the incarnate word, you don't want to miss any part of him, you want to have everything of Christ, it goes back to Christ himself and And think about that my friends and think about what has been said, think about our presuppositions as we come to the Word of God and remember that we are not talking about words such as and, is, we are not talking about connecting words per se, we are talking about critical words and they are not just ones and twos, there are many hundreds of words that are theological and they're all part and parcel of our doctrine of Christ which is then connected to the doctrine of the word of God and as soon as we have error and instability introduced to any part of the text we then have instability or it destabilizes the whole concept of a scripture and so I encourage you and the fact that I think how dare I to tamper with just one word of God I must give an account to even just one word one syllable if it is tampered with so my friends I encourage you to consider these things take it seriously and the Lord will bless you in your study. I hate to add anything else because that was a beautiful statement. I appreciate your calling us to see this as a devotional. It's a matter of our piety, it's a matter of our faith in Christ and it struck me as you were talking that, you know, One of the statements that's made by people in the Reconstructionist side, the reason eclectic side from the evangelicals is, well, none of these issues with text affects any cardinal doctrines. Well, John 118 explodes that. Textual variations affect cardinal doctrines. This is the doctrine of Christ. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. This is the doctrine of the incarnation. This is the doctrine of the eternal generation of the sun, not to mention the doctrine of the preservation of God's word and the doctrine of the canon of scripture. And you said it beautifully. This is not insignificant. This is highly significant for God's people. Thank you. I guess I would just like to say in closing that thank you for that presentation, Christian. That was amazing, especially with the information in there. And Jeff, could you go ahead and hold up that book again so people can get a clear screenshot of it if they want? Retrieving the Eternal Generation. All right. Excellent. I would like to just go ahead and, if we could, close out the prayer and bring it to a close. Krishna, would you lead us? Absolutely. Brothers, let's pray. Almighty and ever-living God, we confess and worship you as the only true God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one God most blessed forever and ever. We thank you for the comfort and the hope that we have in the Holy Gospel that while no man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son of God has come into this world, that we might have life and life more abundant. We thank you also for the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ in all times and all places, and we thank you for how well she has served as steward of the divine oracles And we pray, O God, that our conversation today would touch many hearts and open many hearts to the truths of inspiration, infallibility, the self-attesting authority of Scripture and the importance of weighing modern translations against the things that we hold dear to our hearts. We pray, O God, that you would establish the work of our hands as we continue in our several tasks and vocations. And we thank you that while we are here meeting online, we will someday meet face-to-face in brotherly fellowship in the eternal realms of heaven, where we will all fall down before the Only Begotten, before the Lamb who was slain, before the Son who bore our sins on the cross and who was raised for our justification. Send your Holy Spirit into each one of our lives that we might stay encouraged, diligent, and applied to the tasks that you have been so gracious in assigning to us. All these things we ask in the wonderful, strong, and holy name of Jesus Christ our Lord, by the power of his Holy Spirit. Amen. I think this is a good way to end it. And I would just like to thank each one of you three for being with us today. And Christian, thank you again for the presentation. And for all of you out there who joined us, and for those who will see that as we put up the videos throughout the week, I hope you all have a blessed week and that you find this as powerful as I have. And next week, we have Dr. Jeffrey Riddle's presentation on 1 John 5-7 and how it affects the Trinity. I'm looking forward to that.