You say that the Greek Orthodox commentary was dishonest. Okay, then I ask you are you honest? Did you actually read the Greek text of Mat 1:25 when you say that the word used is "first-born?"
The Greek original uses the word uioV which means son, not firstborn, not fisrt-begotten, just son.
Frankly I don't know where KJV is getting the "firstborn" in this passage, but to me it sounds like some wild poetic license the part of the men who made KJV, for there is no "firstborn" prwtotokoV in the ORIGINAL Greek. Talk about dishonesty!
Here is the whole verse:
I don't see prwtotokoV. Do you?
Lesson learned: what you read in English is not necessarily what was written. I have said that on this forum many times. Bibles come in many varieties and leave equally varied impressions.
Here we are having a tug-of-war over a word that doesn't exist in the original but was fraudulently introduced in the English version 1,600 years after Christ, and we take it as authoritative "word of God." Is that not the ultimate in deceit and dishonesty?
Some manuscripts include 'ton huion ton prwtotokon'.
-A8
So, what is the point arguing with those who do not even realise their progenitors - who sired their sola scriptura ideology - were ones who changed scripture to match their ideology?
TRD made a good point. What is to be gained arguing with such a one?
Once you have tried to point out the facts and it is obvious your attempts are just reflexively gainsaid, shake the dust...:)
"The Greek original uses the word uioV which means son, not firstborn, not fisrt-begotten, just son."
Yup.
Kosta,
Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) and Textus Receptus (1550/1894) have "ton prototokon". Tischendorf 8th Ed. and Westcott/Hort, UBS4 variants do not.