Terry's website is so thorough it'll take several months of part-time reading, not several hours or days! It's 8 years worth of part-time research uploaded July 08, with several sections, most relatively short compared to the "research paper" section, on the "main menu".

I've personally read only up to two thirds of all the material, but realisticly maybe only half: that was enough for me to know what's wrong with Nicene orthodoxy and what's wrong with SDA trinitarianism...Clarified is also what Adventism held as truth on the Godhead and the 3 powers "of the Godhead", throughout Ellen White's lifetime and held by several leading individuals decades beyond - till their deaths. More have followed their lead, having discovered their careers.

Within our church the issue is "only begotten", which has been rejected in favour of the NIV's "one and only", in denying that Jesus is the literal Son of God in his pre-existence. Therefore, one section of this website is about this very word, with 6 chapters. Basically, behind that section, Strong's maintains - as do all reputable concordances - that "only begotten" is the correct translation, and Terry's website deals with that.

Assurance of Christ's deity is the Bible's emphasis and our need, and keeping that assurance safe and sound is the debate about the trinity in our church (other church's members do whatever they do!). What about working through the material of the website bit by bit, starting perhaps with his personal testimony - 1st under "a brief undocumented overview" on the main menu, and then the other chapters of that section before the other short sections on Christ, the Holy Spirit, Ellen White and the other bits like "the unaddressed issue"..., before the huge "research paper" with its 60-odd chapters on the Christian era itself. Not suggesting one can't dip into the "research paper" before the rest of the site, but there you go.

Having a similar experience to Terry, I have found his research and style very helpful. I think his style is humble and suitable for all here.

I haven't read the mentioned chapters, but the issue is if monogenes comes from monos + gennao (= to beget) or from monos + ginomai (= to become).
Moulton and Milligan, the etymologists, have pointed out: “Monogenes is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique:’ not ‘only begotten’ which would be monogennetos.” (With double "n," like in gennao.)
Since Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1886), students have known that monogenes means "single of its kind, only". Monogenes is used in the LXX to translate most of the occurrences of the hebrew word yachiyd, whose meaning is "only", not "only begotten."

Is that all??? Keeping this thread in a straight line is really difficult, too, hey!

Etymology?!...You really need to read those chapters!

Why did the Apostle John use "monogenes" for Jesus and Christendom translates it as "only begotten" till the critical 19th century - when source criticism and open questioning of the Bible began? I'd say that's a reliable history of usage and meaning, before etymologists reckoned better than native speakers.

Why did Ellen White use "only begotten" for Jesus and treat him as the literal Son of God from the days of eternity?

There clearly are huge theological implications in this issue, and we're either with our church's founders or we're not. If we're not, why not. Etymology isn't a good enough reason, is it?

I re-checked that "begotten series" of 6 chapters, and the word examined is ginomai..., so don't be so sure.

Colin,
Monogenes was translated as "only begotten" for theological reasons - to harmonize it with the idea of the eternal generation of the Son and at the same time to counteract Arian claims that Jesus was not begotten, but made. Thus Jerome, in the fourth-century Vulgate, translates monogenes as unigenitus (only begotten) only in the passages referring to Jesus Christ (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9), and translates it as unicus (only) in the other passages (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb 11:17).
The influence of Jerome's Vulgate on the King James Version made "only begotten" the standard English rendition.


Ginomai doesn't convey the meaning of literal generation. In fact, even if "only begotten" was the best rendering of the term, it also doesn't necessarily convey the meaning of literal generation. If it did, monogenes couldn't have been employed, for instance, in Heb 11:17, because Isaac wasn't the only begotten son of Abraham. The idea conveyed is clearly that of preeminence, and not of literal generation.

Aha..., but have you read those chapters, or just given your ready opinion? I'm familiar with the SDA trinitarian argument for figurative meanings of "Son" and "Father"...: why not figuratively a "Holy Spirit", too, but...you see how facetious their argument is on that point? The Greek doesn't have one meaning only, after all.

Justin Martyr (spelling?) was a disciple of a disciple (Irenaeus) of a disciple (Polycarp) of the Apostle John: they were clear, centuries before Nicea, that Jesus is the literal Son of God, since before Bethlehem. I've also seen evidence that Arius wasn't the heathen orthodoxy makes him out to be: he wrote to friends (his library was torched after Nicea...!)that Jesus is the fully divine Son of God . The point of contention - when and how in eternity Jesus was begotten the Son of God - is most interesting, between Arius and Alexander & Athanasius.

Yes, the Nicene history is checkered, and "eternal generation" in that sense is "eternally occurring generation" of one "persona" or "centre of consciousness" in the formless substance of the "one God", hence no literal generation of the Son in any literal sense.

Adventism has historically been clear, including Ellen White, on a literal reading of Jesus' divine Sonship, his divinity being without beginning. This has equally clearly changed, within Adventism: the evidence points to Prescott & Daniels leading the change, not Sister White, at all. Those chapters by Terry Hill on "only begotten" are worth reading, when time allows.

I see what Ellen White says in a completely different way than you see it. I don't see her defending a literal reading of Christ's divine Sonship at all. And I don't understand how someone can defend that Christ had a beginning but His divinity didn't.

Anything and everything she says about Jesus and God strongly suggest him as the literal Son of God. I know you see it differently, but she speaks well for herself, without the help of Woodrow Whidden III, or Jerry Moon, etc, with apologies. She wasn't defending it, btw, just saying so. So were all her contemporaries - just saying so: that Jesus is the literally begotten Son of God before Bethlehem.

It's all sufficiently documented on that website, and not just Adventism, either. Please take a tour once you have time to.

To be continued...

Elders Judson Washburn (1863-1955), Charles Longacre (1871-1958) and W. R. French (1881-1968) each refused to budge on this issue. You can read of them here: http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBDH.htm

This defence today of the beliefs Ellen White called on us to support in 1904, against the pantheism crisis, refuses to lie down, you know.

That's me being very precise about Christ's divinity, but Jesus being the literal Son of God, the "only begotten" of the Father, is what was the teaching of our church till after Ellen White's death. Altogether, it's what the Bible says.