I’m so impressed with the tenacity in which you have studied this and so thoughtfully come to your conclusions. I’m a beginning French student (six years now) and I can only imagine how much work and study and pure thoughtfulness went into your thinking here. And I really appreciate the gentle nature of your conclusions, that both interpretations are acceptable, but you have a preference for which one is more likely to be the case. Further, I’m impressed with your followers here, in that they too have taken time to learn the Greek for which they can participate in this conversation. And, lastly, I love your sense of humor, ie., Go and sin no more, ha! Take good care.
I bet even a beginner would notice that john 1:1 isnt translated accurately But the churches or where you learn in school will force you to translate it wrong to support there bias views and what apostate christianity teaches
Was so clueless, don't understand and can't read this i was just tracing it with my fingers from left to right when i see/saw a text like this. Thank you for sharing. I subbed.
Thanks so much for this. I'm trying to grow my own theology channel and this is very helpful, as I'll be making a video on refuting Islam soon by explaining how Isaac is the son of the promise, and not Ishmael. One other thing I've noticed by looking into this recently, and I'd love your opinion on this, is how the word "son" ('ben' or 'huios') is not even in the text of Gen 22:1 in reference to Isaac. The Targum and LXX also does not have the word "son" in this passage. Nor is it in the Greek of Hebrews 11:17 in reference to Isaac. I find this very interesting in that Isaac is called the 'monogene' in connection with being "the only one whom it was promised", not necessarily as an "only son". Both Isaac and Christ, being miracle children of the promise (received by Isaac, but expounded by Christ), are the "only ones from their fathers" who's 'sperma' (seed - singular) will procreate God's family. Isaac from God, Christ from Isaac, and God's people from Christ. But what are you thoughts on the word "son" not actually being in Gen 22:1 or Heb 11:17? Does it take away emphasis on a literal "only son" and emphasize more of an "only one of the promise"? Thanks.
Great video man, helped explain this complex topic to a dummy like me 😅 I’ll be preaching on John’s prologue soon, and wanted to fresh up on my understanding of “monogenes Theos” Love God and love people, amen!
Μονογενής means only born. Strictly, the only child born , not the first of many (that would be πρωτότοκος), not the only son of a family that could have daughters, but an only child and because there’s an -ς at the end it shows that the child is a boy.
Μονογενής Monogenes (“mono” + “genes”) was thought to come from “only” (mono) and “to beget” (gennao) Μονογενής Monogenes (“mono” + “genes”) actually comes from “only” (mono) and “class, kind” (genos) The term monogenes literally means “one of a kind.” Monogenēs also occurs a few times in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. Always meaning alone or only or unique not only child. In Judges 11:34 it is used for Jephthah’s daughter, an only child. It is used three times in the Psalms, apparently with the senses of “only” “unique” and “alone”: “only life” In Psalm 22:20 (LXX 21:21), alone In Psalm 25:16 (LXX 24:16), only In Psalm 35:17 (LXX 34:17) unique The word monogenes is used only a few times in the NT. Luke uses this word about certain people always to emphasize that the person was an only or unique child. Lk 7:12, 8:42, 9:38 John is the only NT author to use monogenes to describe Jesus. (See John 1:14 & 18, 3:16 & 18, and 1 John 4:9.)He used the word to highlight the unique relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11:17 in this list says "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered Isaac, and the one who received the promises was ready to offer his one and only son," Isaac was not the only son. He was not even the firstborn but he was unique. The covenant was with Isaac not Ishmael who was physically first born (Gensis 17:18-22)
Hebrews 11:17 uses μονογενῆ to refer to Abraham’s son Isaac. We know Isaac was not Abraham’s only born son. ? And Isaac wasn’t even Abraham’s first born son. ?Just wondering.
@ the word means “the only born”. That’s the meaning of the word, literally. In Abraham’s case, a guy that had a son with Sarah, his legal wife, Isaac was his only son, legally,in the eyes of that culture, no matter how many other children could he had with other women not his wives. Especially in Jesus case, the word μονογενής is used completely literally. Jesus is μονογενής both figuratively and literally.
go and sin no more. Ha! Cool to see this done right from the manuscripts. I'm inclined to think that "Son" is the better reading because the Byzantine tradition is much greater numerically, but in addition to that, the geographic location of these MSS would be closer to the geographic location Johns Gospel was originally written in. I'm coming from a Byzantine Priority position, so you can factor in my bias :) Great video Wes!
The use of the article ο changes nothing in the meaning of the verse. We say in Greek εννοείται, it doesn’t need to be there for the sentence to work with the intended meaning. It’s a textual variance that changes nothing. Moreover, the use of μονογενής clarifies the sentence and who it talks about and about what. Fun fact: in the Septuagint, ο ΩΝ , is rendered in the place of the Tetragrammaton. That’s why in all the icons of Jesus, inside the halo it’s written “Ο ΩΝ «.
What are your thoughts of ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς in the TR as just plainly meaning the Son is "The Being" {God) in the bosom of the Father being the second part of the name in Ex. 3:14 in the LXX? {ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ) It would clearly point to His deity. but my Greek isn't that great.
You are correct. Ο Ων means Being (or more accurately He who exists ) and Ων is the name of God in the Septuagint and the reason in Orthodox iconography, in the icons of Jesus inside His Halo there are the letters «Ο ΩN» , to emphasise that Jesus is God.
An accurate translation also is “He who is in the bosom of the Father” that still identifies the Word as God, existing with the Father, as no other being can be in the bosom of the Father (one with the Father) but God.
I believe that “only-begotten” is the best translation because I have seen the early church fathers refer to the Father as the “Unbegotten God” and then the Son as the “Begotten God”. Seems like they would have known the Greek.
Nice video! Would it be accurate to say that the usage of Theos referring to christ, instead of Ton theon, is that it is speaking of the nature of Christ. It is used to describe "what" Jesus is, and not "who"
For example, Adam was Man. He was the man. Eve was also adam (man) in sense, but in terms of nature, not person. If I say that I am man, I am speaking of nature.
If anyone adds or takes away anything God will take away his portion from the trees of life. Therefore to say the early manuscripts all say only begotten god but it could now read only begotten son is taking a very big risk to say the lest. The unique truth we are reminded of here, of the godlike son of God was begat(firstborn, beginning of the creation by God, earliest of his achievements from long along)by his father is lost.
John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. That's the accurate translation
As in the 10 commands from Exodus 20? Probably not. I don’t have any facsimile copies of the Old Testament, and the whole point of this series is that I’m sharing my personal devotions from the facsimile copies I personally have.
@@TravisMcNeely Maybe I'm even and my room is crooked? I kid I kid. Yes, thanks, I'll do my best to get the camera more even next time. Appreciate the encouragement on the content despite my sub-par recording quality ;).
How did I forget them? I wasn't arguing from a modern translation I was arguing from what I believe the Greek word actually means. Like I said in the video, I have no problem with "only begotten," but I do not believe that is what the original author would have been communicating when he used the term μονογενὴς.
I'm afraid you're revealing you either didn't watch the video or you didn't listen to what I said in it. I explain the philological argumentation via the etymology of the Greek word. μονογενὴς stems from μόνο (only) + γένος (kind) or μόνο (only) + γεννάω (to beget). Given its uses elsewhere (in both extra-biblical literature as well as the LXX) and the presence of the single ν (indicating γένος being the second compound) the most reasonable explanation of the meaning of μονογενὴς is "one of a kind" or "one and only."
The rendering “one and only” for monogenes is illegitimate. The justification for that rendering is very poor. For example, Isaac being the monogenes of Abraham refers to the fact that he is the only-begotten son by his wife Sarah. Note that legally, Ishmael had no legal right to be considered Abraham’s firstborn. Hence why Isaac had the firstborn’s inheritance. Since the rendering is bad all I can conclude is that it results from eisegesis. Is there a better justification for the trinitarian rendering of monogenes?
One and only son is really a bad translation considering the bible calls all angels sons of God . Adam was called a son of God An accurate translation is only begotten god Jesus is the unique son of God. The only direct creation by Jehovah God then he used his firstborn son as a masterworker to create other things Everything else was created by the agency of jesus Bible says through jesus the system of things were created
The use of the article ο changes nothing in the meaning of the verse. We say in Greek εννοείται, it doesn’t need to be there for the sentence to work with the intended meaning. Moreover, the use of μονογενής clarifies the sentence and who it talks about and about what. Fun fact: in the Septuagint, ο ΩΝ , is rendered in the place of the Tetragrammaton. That’s why in all the icons of Jesus, inside the halo it’s written “Ο ΩΝ «
Eliehsarches. The nature of being ,, ONLY BEGOTTEN , is the factor making Jesus unique. Other ,unique.. ,,,monogenes,, people had other unique features. Ie David, was unique among his brothers. At least unique in Jehovahs eyes. That why he was made King David. The unique features jah seen in David , but not in his brother's.
Allan Hutton. For your information, the NWT translating reads almost word for word with your translation.. ie No man has seen God at any time itt is Jesus is the ,only begotten ,god ( mighty one) who is in his fathers (side, boosom) favored relationship) . Jesus the one who explains him. Kind of defeats trinity. ? Refer back to john 1:1. Only begotten ,,god.
18θεὸν God οὐδεὶς no one ἑώρακεν has seen πώποτε· at any time; μονογενὴς only-begotten θεὸς god ὁ the (one) ὢν being εἰς into τὸν the κόλπον bosom τοῦ of the πατρὸς Father ἐκεῖνος that (one) ἐξηγήσατο. explained. There is a difference between Theon and Theos . Nominative and qualitive / accusative. But now, think about whatever you believe this means while reading John 17:20-25.
I was taught with Anglicized Erasmian pronounciation, which was the standard in North America for both koine and Classical when I was in grad school. I can read it fluently but I've never claimed to speak it.
There is no 'correct' way to pronounce the greek from this time era when it was written. That's why there are three different ways the scholars pronounce it
@@gmac6503 koine Greek is very close to modern Greek and that includes pronunciation. That doesn’t matter anyways: this is 2024 and the people that listen, would either speak modern Greek or not Greek at all. So to understand what it is said, there’s no point to speak in a theoretical way people thousands of years ago maybe would have spoken. It’s like someone reading the Bible in the original Old English translation.
@@nikostheater koine Greek isn't even like classical Greek, and the pronunciation is not the same. That's why Liddell-Scott is used for classical and BDAG for koine. You don't know what you're talking about because nobody knows how koine Greek back then was pronounced and that's why they use the Erasmian pronunciation while people like Dan McClellan pronounce it differently than someone like Anthony Buzzard who also uses a modern pronunciation. Erasmian is not the same. You've already been told this, but your so hardheaded I'm not gonna continue dialoguing with you. Then you say it doesn't matter, but apparently to you, it does There is a shift in the way Greek is being taught and pronounced nowadays, but it takes time and people were taught the koine pronunciation, or I should say, Erasmian pronunciation, and it's hard to break. Again, people like John Dobson use modern pronunciation when teaching Greek, but others don't. We're mainly studying the text and that's the important part. If one wants to learn classical Greek, there's plenty of sources for that also but it's not biblical Greek.
@@gmac6503 koine Greek is not the same as classical Ancient Greek. Koine Greek is very close to modern Greek in pronunciation and Medieval Greek is the direct ancestor of the modern Greek and the pronunciation is identical to modern Greek. Moreover, using Erasmian pronunciation makes no sense, because a) it’s not correct for Koine Greek and b) it’s completely unintelligible to people that should actually understand. You don’t have your Bible studies in Medieval English, do you? It makes zero sense because the language is a communication tool, not just an academic exercise. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and all the Greek speaking Churches use the original Koine Greek text WITH the modern pronunciation because it’s more accurate and it’s understandable to modern Greek speakers. The language will be heard and need to be understood by people today, not a theoretical Greek person with who knows his original dialect one knows where he lived in the broader Hellenic speaking world.
Hallelujah! Thank you Wes! Your intervention On a critical matters at the critical moments are well appreciated.
I’m so impressed with the tenacity in which you have studied this and so thoughtfully come to your conclusions. I’m a beginning French student (six years now) and I can only imagine how much work and study and pure thoughtfulness went into your thinking here. And I really appreciate the gentle nature of your conclusions, that both interpretations are acceptable, but you have a preference for which one is more likely to be the case. Further, I’m impressed with your followers here, in that they too have taken time to learn the Greek for which they can participate in this conversation. And, lastly, I love your sense of humor, ie., Go and sin no more, ha! Take good care.
Appreciate the breakdown as I learned a lot! It was very helpful/relevant and I’m looking forward to viewing more of your videos like this! 👏
I really enjoyed this. I checked your channel hoping you did this for every verse and we’re continuing on. Thank you
Just finishing my second semester of Greek and was pretty excited to understand everything you said.
Where are you learning?
I bet even a beginner would notice that john 1:1 isnt translated accurately
But the churches or where you learn in school will force you to translate it wrong to support there bias views and what apostate christianity teaches
I wish I could learn greek. There was a greek school at a local orthodox church but I never got to sign up, the class was apparently phased out. Sad.
@@clouds-rb9xt Check out bill Mounce. He has some resources. Some are free and you can buy his whole Greek course for like 100 bucks
@@Strongtower Studying at Biola University through their online Apologetics program. Using Bill Mounce’s material.
Was so clueless, don't understand and can't read this i was just tracing it with my fingers from left to right when i see/saw a text like this. Thank you for sharing. I subbed.
Thanks so much for this. I'm trying to grow my own theology channel and this is very helpful, as I'll be making a video on refuting Islam soon by explaining how Isaac is the son of the promise, and not Ishmael.
One other thing I've noticed by looking into this recently, and I'd love your opinion on this, is how the word "son" ('ben' or 'huios') is not even in the text of Gen 22:1 in reference to Isaac. The Targum and LXX also does not have the word "son" in this passage. Nor is it in the Greek of Hebrews 11:17 in reference to Isaac. I find this very interesting in that Isaac is called the 'monogene' in connection with being "the only one whom it was promised", not necessarily as an "only son". Both Isaac and Christ, being miracle children of the promise (received by Isaac, but expounded by Christ), are the "only ones from their fathers" who's 'sperma' (seed - singular) will procreate God's family. Isaac from God, Christ from Isaac, and God's people from Christ.
But what are you thoughts on the word "son" not actually being in Gen 22:1 or Heb 11:17? Does it take away emphasis on a literal "only son" and emphasize more of an "only one of the promise"? Thanks.
It is frustrating that I can read a little bit of Greek in my Greek NT, but I get lost when I look at the manuscripts. Any advice?
At about 5:19 and again at 7:03, I noticed that P75 reads ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν, but your provided translation omits the article.
Where do you get these extract of the originals as I'm trying to do a flyer for JW and would find this really helpful😊
Great video man, helped explain this complex topic to a dummy like me 😅 I’ll be preaching on John’s prologue soon, and wanted to fresh up on my understanding of “monogenes Theos” Love God and love people, amen!
The last words of your explanation was "made him," at 13:26 but you meant "made him known" right?
Μονογενής means only born. Strictly, the only child born , not the first of many (that would be πρωτότοκος), not the only son of a family that could have daughters, but an only child and because there’s an -ς at the end it shows that the child is a boy.
Μονογενής Monogenes (“mono” + “genes”) was thought to come from “only” (mono) and “to beget” (gennao)
Μονογενής Monogenes (“mono” + “genes”) actually comes from “only” (mono) and “class, kind” (genos)
The term monogenes literally means “one of a kind.”
Monogenēs also occurs a few times in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament.
Always meaning alone or only or unique not only child.
In Judges 11:34 it is used for Jephthah’s daughter, an only child.
It is used three times in the Psalms, apparently with the senses of “only” “unique” and “alone”: “only life”
In Psalm 22:20 (LXX 21:21), alone
In Psalm 25:16 (LXX 24:16), only
In Psalm 35:17 (LXX 34:17) unique
The word monogenes is used only a few times in the NT.
Luke uses this word about certain people always to emphasize that the person was an only or unique child. Lk 7:12, 8:42, 9:38
John is the only NT author to use monogenes to describe Jesus. (See John 1:14 & 18, 3:16 & 18, and 1 John 4:9.)He used the word to highlight the unique relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 11:17 in this list says "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered Isaac, and the one who received the promises was ready to offer his one and only son,"
Isaac was not the only son. He was not even the firstborn but he was unique. The covenant was with Isaac not Ishmael who was physically first born (Gensis 17:18-22)
Hebrews 11:17 uses μονογενῆ to refer to Abraham’s son Isaac. We know Isaac was not Abraham’s only born son. ? And Isaac wasn’t even Abraham’s first born son. ?Just wondering.
@ Isaac wasn’t Abraham’s only biological son, he was his legal son.
Jesus though was strictly μονογενής in two ways, both as the Logos and as Jesus.
@@nikostheaterThat sounds rather different than what your previous comment said. “Strictly, the only child born”
@ the word means “the only born”. That’s the meaning of the word, literally.
In Abraham’s case, a guy that had a son with Sarah, his legal wife, Isaac was his only son, legally,in the eyes of that culture, no matter how many other children could he had with other women not his wives.
Especially in Jesus case, the word μονογενής is used completely literally.
Jesus is μονογενής both figuratively and literally.
Gratitude 🙏🕊️🇨🇾
The Codex Sinaiticus notes say other translations omit “OC” and include “the being”.
go and sin no more. Ha!
Cool to see this done right from the manuscripts. I'm inclined to think that "Son" is the better reading because the Byzantine tradition is much greater numerically, but in addition to that, the geographic location of these MSS would be closer to the geographic location Johns Gospel was originally written in. I'm coming from a Byzantine Priority position, so you can factor in my bias :)
Great video Wes!
We love you but Jesus loves you ❤more . Please keep preaching the gospel of Lord Jesus Christ ❤
The use of the article ο changes nothing in the meaning of the verse. We say in Greek εννοείται, it doesn’t need to be there for the sentence to work with the intended meaning. It’s a textual variance that changes nothing.
Moreover, the use of μονογενής clarifies the sentence and who it talks about and about what.
Fun fact: in the Septuagint, ο ΩΝ , is rendered in the place of the Tetragrammaton. That’s why in all the icons of Jesus, inside the halo it’s written “Ο ΩΝ «.
What are your thoughts of ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς in the TR as just plainly meaning the Son is "The Being" {God) in the bosom of the Father being the second part of the name in Ex. 3:14 in the LXX? {ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ) It would clearly point to His deity. but my Greek isn't that great.
You are correct.
Ο Ων means Being (or more accurately He who exists ) and Ων is the name of God in the Septuagint and the reason in Orthodox iconography, in the icons of Jesus inside His Halo there are the letters «Ο ΩN» , to emphasise that Jesus is God.
An accurate translation also is “He who is in the bosom of the Father” that still identifies the Word as God, existing with the Father, as no other being can be in the bosom of the Father (one with the Father) but God.
@@nikostheaterI like that understanding/translation as well ... That's a good insight brother!
I believe that “only-begotten” is the best translation because I have seen the early church fathers refer to the Father as the “Unbegotten God” and then the Son as the “Begotten God”. Seems like they would have known the Greek.
Thank you for this, it is very interesting. God bless you.
So I have seen monogenes translated as only unique. I could see this as accurate in both your examples.
Do they sell the book you have of the original papyrus? I’d like to have that @wes huff
Nice video! Would it be accurate to say that the usage of Theos referring to christ, instead of Ton theon, is that it is speaking of the nature of Christ. It is used to describe "what" Jesus is, and not "who"
For example, Adam was Man. He was the man. Eve was also adam (man) in sense, but in terms of nature, not person. If I say that I am man, I am speaking of nature.
If anyone adds or takes away anything God will take away his portion from the trees of life. Therefore to say the early manuscripts all say only begotten god but it could now read only begotten son is taking a very big risk to say the lest.
The unique truth we are reminded of here, of the godlike son of God was begat(firstborn, beginning of the creation by God, earliest of his achievements from long along)by his father is lost.
John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
That's the accurate translation
Okay, now prove your work.
@AthanasiusofIreland
Prove my work?
Can you translate the commandments in ancient texts
As in the 10 commands from Exodus 20? Probably not. I don’t have any facsimile copies of the Old Testament, and the whole point of this series is that I’m sharing my personal devotions from the facsimile copies I personally have.
New sub diving into your videos now .. Glad you were the tool God is using to bring down Billy and his foolishness ..
Your camera is not level Or your bookshelves. Great video though. :P
or you're sitting at an angle.
lol
@@TravisMcNeely Maybe I'm even and my room is crooked?
I kid I kid. Yes, thanks, I'll do my best to get the camera more even next time. Appreciate the encouragement on the content despite my sub-par recording quality ;).
@@WesHuff 😄
You do great work! I appreciate it and share with my students
His house is set on a hill.
Wess Huff. Forget the NLT and every modern translation.
The Greek says,
"Monogenace".
"Only born, Only begotten".
Which Jesus was.
How did I forget them? I wasn't arguing from a modern translation I was arguing from what I believe the Greek word actually means. Like I said in the video, I have no problem with "only begotten," but I do not believe that is what the original author would have been communicating when he used the term μονογενὴς.
@@WesHuff only begotten is what the original Greek says.
I'm afraid you're revealing you either didn't watch the video or you didn't listen to what I said in it.
I explain the philological argumentation via the etymology of the Greek word. μονογενὴς stems from μόνο (only) + γένος (kind) or μόνο (only) + γεννάω (to beget). Given its uses elsewhere (in both extra-biblical literature as well as the LXX) and the presence of the single ν (indicating γένος being the second compound) the most reasonable explanation of the meaning of μονογενὴς is "one of a kind" or "one and only."
@@WesHuff I think we are saying the same thing. It's just that you are complicating the fact that Jesus was the.
"Only Beggoten".
Very nice video, thank you, God's love and blessings to you and your new family member
The rendering “one and only” for monogenes is illegitimate. The justification for that rendering is very poor. For example, Isaac being the monogenes of Abraham refers to the fact that he is the only-begotten son by his wife Sarah. Note that legally, Ishmael had no legal right to be considered Abraham’s firstborn. Hence why Isaac had the firstborn’s inheritance. Since the rendering is bad all I can conclude is that it results from eisegesis. Is there a better justification for the trinitarian rendering of monogenes?
One and only son is really a bad translation considering the bible calls all angels sons of God . Adam was called a son of God
An accurate translation is only begotten god
Jesus is the unique son of God. The only direct creation by Jehovah God then he used his firstborn son as a masterworker to create other things
Everything else was created by the agency of jesus
Bible says through jesus the system of things were created
Yes, some great points. “Only-begotten god” would be an honest rendering of monogenes.
Πρωτότοκος means first born.
Μονογενής means only born, not first born among others. The only one that was born.
An only child is μονογενή.
The use of the article ο changes nothing in the meaning of the verse. We say in Greek εννοείται, it doesn’t need to be there for the sentence to work with the intended meaning.
Moreover, the use of μονογενής clarifies the sentence and who it talks about and about what.
Fun fact: in the Septuagint, ο ΩΝ , is rendered in the place of the Tetragrammaton. That’s why in all the icons of Jesus, inside the halo it’s written “Ο ΩΝ «
Push for a Joe Rogan interview, the world needs clarifications about all of this!
Eliehsarches. The nature of being ,, ONLY BEGOTTEN , is the factor making Jesus unique. Other ,unique.. ,,,monogenes,, people had other unique features. Ie David, was unique among his brothers. At least unique in Jehovahs eyes. That why he was made King David. The unique features jah seen in David , but not in his brother's.
Lots was taken out of the Bible. It is only the pure word of God when translated correctly.
Allan Hutton. For your information, the NWT translating reads almost word for word with your translation.. ie No man has seen God at any time itt is Jesus is the ,only begotten ,god ( mighty one) who is in his fathers (side, boosom) favored relationship) . Jesus the one who explains him.
Kind of defeats trinity. ? Refer back to john 1:1. Only begotten ,,god.
18θεὸν God οὐδεὶς no one ἑώρακεν has seen πώποτε· at any time; μονογενὴς only-begotten θεὸς god ὁ the (one) ὢν being εἰς into τὸν the κόλπον bosom τοῦ of the πατρὸς Father ἐκεῖνος that (one) ἐξηγήσατο. explained.
There is a difference between Theon and Theos . Nominative and qualitive / accusative.
But now, think about whatever you believe this means while reading John 17:20-25.
:)
Good effort but.. your pronunciation in Greek needs a LOT of work.
I was taught with Anglicized Erasmian pronounciation, which was the standard in North America for both koine and Classical when I was in grad school. I can read it fluently but I've never claimed to speak it.
There is no 'correct' way to pronounce the greek from this time era when it was written. That's why there are three different ways the scholars pronounce it
@@gmac6503 koine Greek is very close to modern Greek and that includes pronunciation.
That doesn’t matter anyways: this is 2024 and the people that listen, would either speak modern Greek or not Greek at all.
So to understand what it is said, there’s no point to speak in a theoretical way people thousands of years ago maybe would have spoken.
It’s like someone reading the Bible in the original Old English translation.
@@nikostheater koine Greek isn't even like classical Greek, and the pronunciation is not the same. That's why Liddell-Scott is used for classical and BDAG for koine. You don't know what you're talking about because nobody knows how koine Greek back then was pronounced and that's why they use the Erasmian pronunciation while people like Dan McClellan pronounce it differently than someone like Anthony Buzzard who also uses a modern pronunciation. Erasmian is not the same. You've already been told this, but your so hardheaded I'm not gonna continue dialoguing with you.
Then you say it doesn't matter, but apparently to you, it does
There is a shift in the way Greek is being taught and pronounced nowadays, but it takes time and people were taught the koine pronunciation, or I should say, Erasmian pronunciation, and it's hard to break. Again, people like John Dobson use modern pronunciation when teaching Greek, but others don't. We're mainly studying the text and that's the important part. If one wants to learn classical Greek, there's plenty of sources for that also but it's not biblical Greek.
@@gmac6503 koine Greek is not the same as classical Ancient Greek. Koine Greek is very close to modern Greek in pronunciation and Medieval Greek is the direct ancestor of the modern Greek and the pronunciation is identical to modern Greek.
Moreover, using Erasmian pronunciation makes no sense, because a) it’s not correct for Koine Greek and b) it’s completely unintelligible to people that should actually understand.
You don’t have your Bible studies in Medieval English, do you?
It makes zero sense because the language is a communication tool, not just an academic exercise.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate and all the Greek speaking Churches use the original Koine Greek text WITH the modern pronunciation because it’s more accurate and it’s understandable to modern Greek speakers.
The language will be heard and need to be understood by people today, not a theoretical Greek person with who knows his original dialect one knows where he lived in the broader Hellenic speaking world.