Saturday, February 25, 2017

Was Timothy Considered a Jew?: Continued Discussion


Omar Meza Solano said...

Hi Edgar, I want to ask you a favor where can I download this dictionary?
I would appreciate if you can give me some link where I can download the data that gives about Revelation 3:14 I find it very interesting

the BAGD , A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker (Editor), William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, to make some changes in their revision, the BDAG.
On page 138 that the interpretation that ARXH means that
Christ was created at Rev 3:14 has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable].
It cites the JTS article "Christ as ARCH of Creation,"
by C.F.BURNEY, JTS XXVII. Burney considers the Hebrew ReSHit [beginning]

Edgar Foster said...

Hi Omar,

BDAG is a copyrighted work, but you might be able to find a copy online, although I'm not advocating that approach. I have a hardback copy of the book, but do not have the computerized form. I'm familiar with the changes that you talk about: the entry for ARXH was upgraded.

Normally, I could take a photo with my camera and upload to this blog, but my computer is still down. And unfortunately, my tablet does not take good pics for some reason.

Anthony Burton said...

Edgar, I was wondering your thoughts on some modern evangelical scholars translating John 1:18 "one and only God" or "unique god" rather than "only-begotten god". Monogenes has etymology in ginomai and genao which makes this seem a very dishonest translation.

The Orthodox Nicene Binitarian/trinitarian theologians of the 4th century never argued that monogenes meant merely "unique" but had to invent the doctrine of eternal generation, that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Myself and a friend are in a discussion with some trinitarians on the translation of monogenes. It sounds a frightful bit like polytheism rather than monolatry if we accept the modern trinitarians biased translation, implying that Jesus is a unique God, a "one and only god" distinct from the Father.

Sincerely, Anthony

Edgar Foster said...

Hi Anthony,

I don't want to stretch out the thread too long under this heading, but in reply to your question, scholars have gradually moved toward the idea that monogenes can/does mean "unique" or "one of a kind." One of the latest articles I've read about the subject is by Denny Burk, where he argues for the older understanding of monogenes, although he also try to substantiate the eternal generation of Christ. Nevertheless, I think he makes some good lexical points. See

Best regards,


Omar Meza Solano said...

Hello Edgar, thanks for responding I would appreciate if you could enable me an online copy of that work in case you can find it or if you can upload a capture here in your blog

Maybe you can post the written comment of arche and the update of the same and if you can put some other references of the subject ...... thanks in advance, I benefit a lot your blog