Abner Chou Explains John

Why does the Legacy Standard Bible use the phrase "only begotten"? Abner Chou explains why this phrase is so important.
Learn more about the LSB:
LSBible.org
Read the LSB:
read.lsbible.org
Download the Legacy Standard Bible Smartphone App for Free!
www.accordanceb...
Social Media:
/ standardbible
/ legacystanda. .
/ legacystand. .
#bible #johnmacarthur #biblestudy #legacystandardbible #lsb

[@Me2Lancer]

Thank you for your leadership in translating the Legacy Standard Bible. Also, I appreciate your clear explanation of Only Begotten as it is translated in the LSB.

[@AmosAAnderson]

One of the strongest cases for "Only Begotten" I've read is from Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology Second Edition on pages 293 - 298. I highly recommend reading it. I couldn't summarize it if I tried.

[@JoelMetzger-wo6md]

Great, great, great, is this good explanation! Holy, Holy, Holy, is our One LORD God!

[@koreaisraelm]

Thank you for the explanation.

[@BatMite19]

The Greek "monogene" means what it looks like. "Mono" = "one" or "only"; "gene" = "born" (think "genealogy"). So, "only begotten is a literal translation. However, my understanding of the word is that it was also a legal term referring to a single heir who would inherit everything the father had. Normally in Jewish culture, the first son would receive a double portion. But when there is only one son, then he gets it all. What is also significant about it is that in Jewish culture, if there is no son at all, then the genealogy of the father ends. The family line stops. Note that according to Levitical law, land was assigned to each family, and passed on to the sons from generation to generation. The book of Ruth shows us what happens when the father dies and there is no remaining son to inherit the land -- it goes to the closest kinsman, and the wife and daughters are dispossessed. By Jesus being the "only begotten Son," he was the one on whom all of the Father's hopes depended. He was the "kinsman redeemer" needed to restore God's dispossessed people to his family line. There was no second heir, no second chance. All of the Father's hopes and plans depended upon the Son. John's readers would have understood that legal term, and hopefully they would have recognized Jesus as the only hope for salvation.

[@gsaray123]

Yet we have to consider the difference between the time Christ inherited the position of Sonship with the time sons inherited the possessions of the father. Christ was eternally begotten of the Father, and not only at the time of the incarnation.

[@ezeomaanthony-ww5rq]

youtube.com/@BatMite19

[@michaelg4919]

According to Michael Heiser "gene" = "type" -> only type / one of a kind / unique

[@matthewneilson2193]

Excellent discussion

[@artemioquintero7866]

Put out another video Abner. We would like another update.

[@cristaolegendario6417]

I agree with the "begotten" part, but I think that to render the beginning of the verse as "God loved the world in this way..." would transmit better the idea in how God manifested his love toward his elect.

[@solitarypawn5076]

The elect was always Christ the Lord, not mere individuals (Ps 89:3, Isa 42:1, 43:10, 49:7, Matt. 12:18, Lk 9:35, 23:35). God chose Christ to save the world. When we respond to the gospel, we become chosen in Him. Please don't use Calvinist gibberish here. Most Christians who are in Christ have rejected this false doctrine of individual election. Thanks.

[@cristaolegendario6417]

@@solitarypawn5076 where did I mention "calvinism"? I always thought that arminians also believed in the "elect," just differing in how you become one.

[@chessic4]

Agreed. “God ‘so’ loved...” is at best incomplete.

[@gabrielkinzel3389]

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed *us* _in Christ_ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as *he chose us* _in him_ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 *he predestined us* for adoption to himself as sons _through Jesus Christ,_ according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, *_with which he has blessed us in the Beloved._* - Ephesians 1:3-6

[@HerveyShmervy]

@@cristaolegendario6417because you implied that God died only for the elect, that is why he thinks you're calvinist

[@David-cw7pd]

Why didnt you translate monogenes as only begotten in Luke 7:12 Luke 8:42 Luke 9:38 or Hebrews 11:17?

[@jacobsavage1264]

Will a MacArthur study Bible with LSB text be available?

[@supermannyg3]

Yes.

[@chasingtheLord96]

Eventually

[@sherlockhomeless7138]

Yeah, that's what I'd like to know! I don't have a MacArthur study Bible, but I'd definitely buy one if it will be available with the LSB text.

[@philtheo]

It's available now!

[@EricBadong]

That looks like a section of Codex Sinaiticus in the background (one of the framed images).

[@IndianaJoe0321]

I appreciate translating Peter's Hebrew name as "Simeon" in the New Testament. The koine Greek has "Miriam" for the person we know of as Mary, and "Jacob" for the person we know of as James (Book of). So why were those two names not translated accordingly?

[@ShoelessJoeChristian]

And don't forget about Yeshua/Joshua instead of "Jesus"!

[@craigime]

the koine Greek has "Maria" for Mary, not Miriam. not sure where you got that from... but you are right in saying that it has "Jacob" (Iakobos). that being said, Peter is only called "Simeon" twice- so they just translated it those two times. they're all just English translations/ versions of those names.

[@craigime]

@@ShoelessJoeChristian Jesus is never called Yeshua or Joshua in the New Testament. he's called Iesous. even Josua in the new testament is called Iesous

[@IndianaJoe0321]

From the Greek, @@craigime . The New Testament mentions the name Mary 54 times in 4 different forms: Μαρία (18 occurrences), Μαριὰμ (27 occurrences), Μαρίαν (2 occurrences), and Μαρίας (7 occurrences).

[@Christs_servant]

I’m still trying to understand why with so many translations out there already why do we need another when this one is already so very similar to others that are already out

[@bretclement3197]

This translation was made in response to the NASB 2020 edition which John MacArthur said he would never use because it was trying to conform to the modern reader instead of being true to God’s word. I guess there will be plenty of existing NASB 95 readers who will never use the 2020 because of those concerns but new Christians or existing Christians who move to the NASB may gravitate to the newest version. The Legacy Standard bible SHOULD BE SIMILAR to the existing bibles that are already out because the NASB 95 (and others) are understood to be good translations. If there were major differences it would be a cause for concern. By making this Legacy Standard bible, they believe they have made a good text closer to the original (and if they have achieved this it’s a great thing) and are making a new translation with the philosophy of adhering to the original text instead of modern sensibilities. By going down this path, hopefully any new editions to the LSB where changes are required they will continue with this philosophy and as such preserve God’s word where many other translations are being accused of deviating from it. I use the NASB95 at the moment. I haven’t yet decided if I’ll use the LSB but I’m pleased that there are those who care enough about the word to try to preserve it as best they can but ultimately we know it will be preserved in one way or another because God will ensure it (Psalm 12:6-7).

[@davidcann2405]

I'm new to all this and have been looking for a "correct" Bible. I haven't found one yet that all Christians can agree on. Every version (including the KJV) is endlessly argued over by believers insulting and condemning each other claiming all versions other than their favorite are mistranslated, corrupted, or lies from the pit of Hell.🙁

[@HeavyHeartsShow]

The LSB/NASB95/KJV are all great. LSB is the most accurate, KJV is the most majestic.

[@ezeomaanthony-ww5rq]

Good

[@terencealbertmcbain8041]

Why was the concordance left out of the LSB?

[@ezeomaanthony-ww5rq]

Happy

[@ezeomaanthony-ww5rq]

@@drboone357 you

[@verngoossen3628]

Have you ever tried responsive reading????

[@RichardAberdeen-cn8rg]

Jesus is the only person in history who was born in the flesh of the holy spirit; Mary is his mother and God is his father. This is different than being born again, where a sinner is forgiven and then given the spirit of God.

[@robertrodrigues7319]

While a great fan of the LSB, it missed a trick here, in Jn 3:16. Only Begotten is NOT faithful or a correct translation. It means One and Only Unique Son. μονογενῆ is made up of two words, Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind". Thus monogenēs may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special. Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child". The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue. Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant.

[@flintymcduff5417]

You ought to make us a perfect translation with your expertise.

[@robertrodrigues7319]

@@flintymcduff5417 I have! all my imandations are on the margin of my wide margin nasb 1977 bible, from Gen-Rev!!! Thousands of notes since 1986, when I was still in Bible College studying Greek

[@davidpatton7298]

John settles this issue of whether Jesus is eternal God in John 1.1-.18. Something else: The Truth is revelation by the Spirit of God. Not uber exegesis of man. Pray for revelation, wisdom, truth, and understanding. This is what happened to Paul, and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and in the midst of the disciples again in Luke 24; for example.

[@chrisj154]

Excellent response. I will try to remember that 😊

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

Hear me out and stow the heresy haranguing... The use of the word "Begotten" as a past particle descriptor for Jesus' entrance into our ephemeral plane in John 3:16 can hold such sublime significance if we embrace its possibilities rather than just suppose Christ as this lingering spiritual appendage perpetually existing in timelessness without any known pertinent purpose aside from a fleeting temporal dust up to prove parental passion by putting humanity on track for a easier opportunity to qualify for epiphanous post-life harmony within the unfathomable glory of our father God. Can't the Son have been eternally "brought fourth" by way of always being notioned for eventual designation in not a too dissimilar way that an architect may plan, or an artist might conceive, or an inventor should eureka - well prior to manifestation? But first it would be beneficial to recognize that God requires no eternal Son for His infinite efficiency. Only an incarnated Son for a specificity. It's always a curious turmoil as to why some of the faithful can allow themselves to feel antagonized and even scandalized by even entertaining the quite lovely perception toward the person of Jesus as being an ingenuity of God's creative determination. I submit that when the vagueries of the archaic English term "Begotten" is sanwitched between the possessional context of 'God's" and the intentioned outcome of "Son" it can elegantly be inferred a refinement by divine proximity for a more poetic expansion of spiritual meaning beyond merely being "only inseminated and brought about by birth" into an emphatic testimony of being "uniquely derived and singularly embued" in reference to the exclusive conscience properties of God. To me, "Begotten" is an astonishingly powerful term of singularly seminal resolution and sacrifice. It seems Jesus as a flesh body amongst us under a constructed lineage and name must sensically in deed be a soley designed entity for aspecting God. Jesus' consciousness is directly derived from the eternal God almightly rather than merely a facsimile of some of God's core attributes as the rest of His earthly children's souls reflect. He's an authentic seeded and born man quite deliberately, as a partitioned authoritized proxy of God Himself for earnestly experiencing His creation in intimate fellowship and ministery with us His created by sharing our plights and delights on our terms from the perspective of our souls' limited state of temporal toil. God meeting with us on this equal plane as a contemporary is the ultimate act of empathy and most profound exampling of the humility we are called to emulate. Before Jesus' conception, He was not distiguished separate from the holistic entity of God's tri-omni absolute creative rule. On earth, Jesus is God purposefully limiting a segmented off representation of Himself from all the infinite power, presence and knowledge which God must inherently retain at all times and which cannot therefore be fully contained and contended within a created vessel of His particularly specified will for but a singled out matter of concentration. Video Games now are an avenue into starting to possibly better comprehend the dynamics of the relationship. As the avatar that you play in the virtual world is a limited representation of the whole dimensionality possesed by the long previously existing and discretely breathing player behind the controler who negotiates their effigy around in the mere created simulation of the game. So in other words, while that character you're playing is acting out your volition as it applies to that milieu - and even as you are invested to motivate its every decisive motion moving toward an objective which you have chosen to pursue - simultaneously behind the controller you continue to contend with other tasks of your broader reality which does not and cannot be burdained upon the capacities of that figure of your intention which exist only in the game created simulator. Outside of that game you're still inhaling and exhaling, communicating for a result in other things, still swallowing, eating and drinking, scratching an itch, your physical organs are still processing, you are simultaneously thinking of multiple things unrelated to what your virtual character is going through even as you do concentrate devoted attentions on accomplishing his ends as well. So is your avatar in that simulation you (?) - well for all intents and purposes relevant to the tasks in that simulation the answer is yes, but transcendentally of that prospect then the answer becomes more accurately yes but not entirely. So then how unfathomly more must God be moving seperately from His temporal dimensioned human proxy? Therefore shouldn't we logically surmise earthly Jesus has to be the Son, as the Father has more business than can be privy to the authentic human experience which was His proxy Jesus' mission to complete? Once His earthly mission was accomplshed, while the life experience of Jesus must be uniquely considered, Christ is no longer a partitioned aspect of the Father as His Son, but rather They are again He - as in One - and so too is His Holy Spirit which descends upon us as a beacon of His beckoning to comfort and lead us in His purposeful directions. Another thought is how we precieve each other over the phone. We indentify the voice being picked up by a microphone wiring and processed through a complicated signal out to a speaker as still being a person, although it is a manifestation of that individual's personality being somewhat accurately represented for communication without actually being all that that person truly is or can be. If we have aspects to ourselves which are identified in separation as still being us, then just try to imagine what our infinite Creator can aspect. That's a fashion for how I articulate my limited grasp on the subject anyway. The scriptures wisely do not bother wasting energy in attempting to detail more of the unmanageably complex and ultimately arbitrary convolution to the exact machinations for such an abstruse concept. Though certainly it does specifically detail that its primary figure who is called by the common name of Yeshua was particularly prepared from the lineage of God's chosen people who preserved His prophets for a designated time to be seeded by God and birthed for God's personalized solutions. For my reckoning "Begotten" is a sublime window into the wonders of our Creator's divine designs and destinations as conducted through His own limb's ingenuity that at times seemingly act independent from one another whilst still actually being deliberately implemented by a singular mind with a harmonious goal. It's not a false teaching, it's an evident inevitability.

[@romanofOmen]

Very interesting. This is like it my lone thoughts about spiritual life, trinity and the incarnation were actually put into word form. Somehow you did it. I enjoy these deep perspectives into the mysteries of our God, however it truly works in the end is yet incomprehensible to us. Let us continue to will and to work for his good pleasure. Though, I will say that I’m more familiar with the notion that the Son is a separate person, eternally existent alongside the Father, as He was “slain from before the foundation of the world” and when He ascended He as you said, become one or went back to His Father, returning to His prior abode yet now inhabiting a glorified body according to the Father’s will and purpose which He is wholly subservient and delighted with. This kind of talk is interesting but it pays not to get too lost in it and focus on the scripture and priorities of it as His children. Understanding the incarnation automatically leads to trying to comprehend the trinity. All I can add is that love must have always been with God. He didn’t emanate or create his other parts or selves (incarnation is different, not what I’m referring to, I liked what you said about it, trying to articulate it). It was a saying I heard from an apologist, I forget who, but he had said that the trinity always was because love and relationship cannot exist independent of God, nor could a single (Islamic) type of God understand love if it did not exist within him already. A constant loving unity amongst the Godhead. A beautiful thing to behold. Each accounting for different roles for whatever wonderful wise purposes God has. Father, originator Son, agent Spirit, applicator One of many ways of understanding it. This simplistic device is beyond short of explaining it.

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

@@romanofOmen I like you. We'd get along fine. )

[@cesaresp101]

Did you guys keep the nasb’s textual criticism decisions?

[@southernberean8166]

Ok let me know what that means and how can I learn terms like that

[@raybo632]

Criticism is against. The text should be taken literally.

[@IndianaJoe0321]

Some newer translations of Deuteronomy 32:8 go with the much-older Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript reading of "sons of God" rather than the Masoretic Text reading of "sons of Israel." The LSB stayed with the more recent Masoretic Text manuscript reading of "sons of Israel."

[@cesaresp101]

@@IndianaJoe0321 that's disappointing

[@r.rodriguez4991]

That is such a stretch.

[@ezeomaanthony-ww5rq]

Happy

[@ezeomaanthony-ww5rq]

Happy

[@elmavethera830]

Being that they are One in essence and one in nature, then that would be intricately connected to the fullness of The GODHEAD dwelling in The Messiah which would be the oneness of His essence and nature.

[@porteal8986]

orthodox theology has throughout christian history maintained that the son is eternally begotten, coeternal with the father

[@David-cw7pd]

how is the son coequal to the father if the father both generates the person of the son and communicates the divine essence to the person he generates?

[@MikesBibleNotes]

The King-Son proceeds from His Father the King.

[@thecrew777]

"Proceeds from"? Meaning, He starts at His Father and moves out? Or He is "coming from" as in "originates from"? I was so bad at grammar, and now when I run into these seeming condundrums I get so tangled.

[@alvinlam5961]

Why baptise instead of immerse? Referring to other passages where baptizo clearly means only immerse, dip, or bury. Just wondering.

[@raybo632]

Are you baptized. It means nothing if you have not. JHON CHAPTER 3.Rom 6. Look up this passage. Mark 10:38. This is not Water baptism. This is metaphorical. Now was baptism a Comandments, yes. However when you look at Romans CHAPTER 6.it is clearly shown that there's no Water. But our union with Christ Jesus our salvation. Romans CHAPTER 6,7,8. Is crucial in this study. GALATIANS 2:20

[@mikeseamore3726]

Why is this a big deal? All Bibles read only begotten son...

[@terrywebb438]

Shalom, In studying The Name; I was shown YAH, and yet YASHUA = GOD saves, where YAH is singular tense; Yah = GOD, holy and FATHER. YESHUA = Yes Salvation. Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Abnerxdlol]

let him cook!

[@Collo21]

Refer this to Col chapter 1. The son is NOT the father and the father is NOT the son

[@Deep-Travel]

Then, it is not a word by word but that theology led the translation.

[@joseywales9726]

listen again...he explains why the translation only begotten is literal but has a sound theological base

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Will not support anything MacArthur is involved with. Disappointed in Lockman that they have someone that pushes a 5 point Calvinist theology. That is the main reason I no longer support Lockman. Went away from NASB and will not endorse LSB either.

[@BillWalkerWarren]

So what translation did you go with ?

[@rodneyjackson6181]

@@BillWalkerWarren sir, I don't go with any one translation. I like a good balance of literal and thought for thought. I actually like 5 translations. I love the NLT, NKJV, CSB, KJV and the Geneva. I still like the NASB too and have one. I don't like when McArthur has too much influence in Lockman with the LSB. Theological biases have no place in translation. McArthur doesn't even believe Mark 16:9 through the end of the chapter belongs in the Bible. I have seen a study by Dr. Chuck Missler that blows that argument away. Thanks for the question brother! Blessings!!

[@BillWalkerWarren]

@@rodneyjackson6181 Ok understand just so you know lockman isn’t doing the LSB . They just let Master’s seminary use the 77 version as templet . They removed most gender neutral language that’s not in the Hebrew or Greek. They also use God’s sacred name instead of The LORD . Just so ya know I am reformed guy but I do like your choice of Bibles . My favorites are ESV NASB 97 and KJV all are excellent. Blessings

[@rodneyjackson6181]

@@BillWalkerWarren What I have watched on video, the LSB is a revision or "improvement" of the 1995 NASB. I understand Masters Seminary did the upgrade on the LSB, however, its still being published by Lockman and they had to get Lockmans permission because they used the NASB 1995 as the basis for the translation.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

@@samuelm.5752 agree with you Bro. Samuel 100%! Blessings!