Replies

I am pinging our naive Greek speaker for quality control. Kolo your comments are welcome.

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:

kai ouk eginwsken authn ewV ou eteken

uion

kai ekalesen to onoma autou ihsoun

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?

First, since we don't have the ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts but later copies, your appeal to the original should be taken in that context. Second, King James didn't "introduce the word into the text. See below (containing prwtotokoV) which was PRIOR to King James and hardly a protestant addition: ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 1:25 (1550 Stephanus New Testament) 1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550) 25και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν Next see the Scrivener Text AFTER KJV ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 1:25 (1894 Scrivener New Testament) 1894 Scrivener New Testament (TR1894) 25και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν Westcott and Hort do not use πρωτοτοκον, but it wasn't a King James invention - nor was it dishonest. It WAS dishonest to imply that a text used LOGOS when it didn't to try to make a point about an extra-biblical doctrine. Please give me a little credit for having looked to see if firstborn really meant firstborn in the Greek and to see if it is in the text itself. I have had Greek in Seminary and can read a lexicon and a little Greek just on the surface of things. I will admit I'm rusty, but the word for firstborn was there. So, now we have a question - which was the true original? And why is firstborn added or taken away? Someone it appears did so on purpose, but why? Be honest.