By my understanding I am KJV...OK, O

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Frogman, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    What think ye brethren, I am new to this questioning of the KJV, so I don't know the ins and the outs as many of you do. Because I am new to the questioning of the KJV, I am therefore also new to the defense of the same :( :D

    Read the post below and give any comments you wish, makes no never mind to me [​IMG]

    Bro. Dallas [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Dear Brothers and Sisters, the foundational Creed for the Papal Church, and almost all other churches, including most Baptists, I am sorry to say, is the Nicene Creed. However, it went through several editions and changes before getting into its final form.

    This is the Creed based upon the corrupted Egyptian Bible known in the past as the Vaticus Text and later as the Westcott-Hort text. It is the foundational text for all the new Bibles.

    I have often said that their John 1:18, THE ONLY BEGOTEN GOD, rather than THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that degrades Jesus Christ and makes His Deity, THE ETERNAL WORD, into a deity that is not SELF-EXISTENT AND NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT.



    Here are further statements from later explinations to the Nicene Creed, taken from:

    THE
    ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
    OF
    SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS
    Revised, with Notes, by
    THE REV. A. C. ZENOS, D.D.,
    PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS
    IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
    AT HARTFORD, CONN.


    You will find in these statements usages of such terms as co-inoriginate or co-unbegotten, denying the self-existence and self-sufficienty of the Deity of Jesus Christ. The only Being Who is self-existent is God the Father, they say and teach.

    These are in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.

    CHAPTER 19?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /&gt;
    OF THE CREED SENT BY THE EASTERN BISHOPS

    TO THOSE IN ITALY, CALLED THE LENGTHY CREED.



    Yet it must not be thought that the Son is coinoriginate, or co-unbegotten with the Father: for there is properly no father of the coinoriginate or co-unbegotten. But we know that the Father alone being inoriginate and incomprehensible, has ineffably and incomprehensibly to all begotten, and that the Son was begotten before the ages, but is not unbegotten like the Father, but has a beginning, viz. the Father who begat him, for “the head of Christ is God.” Now although according to the Scriptures we acknowledge three things or persons, viz. that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we do not on that account make three Gods: since we know that that there is but one God perfect in himself, unbegotten, inoriginate, and invisible, the God and Father of the only-begotten, who alone has existence from himself, and alone affords existence abundantly to all other things. But neither while we assert that (p.)129 there is one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, do we therefore deny that Christ is God before the ages, as the followers of Paul of Samosata do, who affirm that after his incarnation he was by exaltation deified, in that he was by nature a mere man. We know indeed that he was subject to his God and Father: nevertheless he was begotten of God, and is by nature true and perfect God, and was not afterwards made God out of man; but was for our sake made man out of God, and has never ceased to be God. Moreover we execrate and anathematize those who falsely style him the mere unsubstantial word of God, having existence only in another, either as the word to which utterance is given, or as the word conceived in the mind: and who pretend that before the ages he was neither the Christ, the Son of God, the Mediator, nor the Image of God; but that he became the Christ, and the Son of God, from the time he took our flesh from the virgin, about four hundred years ago. For they assert that Christ had the beginning of his kingdom from that time, and that it shall have an end after the consummation of all things and the judgment. Such persons as these are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, the Ancyro-Galatians, who under pretext of establishing his sovereignty, like the Jews set aside the eternal existence and deity of Christ, and the perpetuity of his kingdom. But we know him to be not simply the word of God by utterance or mental conception, but God the living Word subsisting of himself; and Son of God and Christ; and who did, not by presence only, co-exist and was conversant with his Father before the ages, and ministered to him at the creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, but was the substantial Word of the Father, and God of God: for this is he to whom the Father said, “Let, us make man in our image, and according to our likeness:” who in his own person appeared to the fathers, gave the law, and spake by the prophets; and being at last made man, he manifested his Father to all men, and reigns to endless ages. Christ has not attained any new dignity; but we believe that he was perfect from the beginning, and like his Father in all things; and those who say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the same person, impiously supposing the three names to refer to one and the same thing and person, we deservedly expel from the church because by the incarnation they render the Father, who is incomprehensible and insusceptible of suffering, subject to comprehension and suffering. Such are those denominated Patropassians among the Romans, and by us Sabellians. For we know that the Father (p.130) who sent, remained in the proper nature of his own immutable deity; but
    that Christ who was sent, has fulfilled the economy of the incarnation. In like manner those who irreverently affirm that Christ was begotten not by the will and pleasure of his Father; thus attributing to God an involuntary necessity not springing from choice, as if he begat the Son by constraint, we consider most impious and strangers to the truth because they have dared to determine such things respecting him as are inconsistent with our common notions of God, and are contrary indeed to the sense of the divinely-inspired Scripture. For knowing that God is self-dependent and Lord of himself we devoutly maintain that of his own volition and pleasure he begat the Son. And while we reverentially believe what is spoken Concerning him; “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways on account of his works”: yet we do not suppose that he was made similarly to the creatures or works made by him. For it is impious and repugnant to the church’s faith to compare the Creator with the works created by him; or to imagine that he had the same manner of generation as things of a nature totally different from himself: for the sacred Scriptures teach us that the alone only-begotten Son was really and truly begotten. Nor when we say that the Son is of himself, and lives and subsists in like manner to the Father, do we therefore separate him from the Father, as if we supposed them dissociated by the intervention of space and distance in a material sense. For we believe that they are united without medium or interval, and that they are incapable of separation from each other: the whole Father embosoming the Son; and the whole Son attached to and eternally reposing in the Father’s bosom. Believing, therefore, in the altogether perfect and most holy Trinity, and asserting that the Father is God, and that the Son also is God, we do not acknowledge two Gods, but one only, on account of the majesty of the Deity, and the perfect blending and union of the kingdoms: the Father ruling over all things universally, and even over the Son himself; the Son being subject to the Father, but except him, ruling over all things which were made after him and by him; and by the Father’s will bestowing abundantly on the saints the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the Sacred Oracles inform us that in this consists the character of the sovereignty which Christ exercises.

    huh :confused:

    Your ignorant stupid Baptist Brother, uh, Dallas

    Can someone explain the above article to me?
     
  2. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it seems to me that this person is arguing that those who err by saying that Christ is not co-eternal with the Father get that idea from the Nicene Creed which gets it from the textual variance that says "the only begotten God" instead of the "only begotten Son".

    I really don't understand what all the fuss is over the phrase "only begotten God." Christ is exactly that--the One co-eternal with the Father who was begotten at the incarnation. He is God who became a human being--only begotten God.
     
  3. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    BroDallas~I did not understand one word of it...nor have I ever understood much of what many write here. I am ignorant. I grew up believing in the Bible...back then no one ever called it the King James-just the Holy Bible.

    I don't understand what all the fuss it about...it's simple to me to read. The Son is begotten & Mary is not the mother of God. I do not worship 3 gods nor a 3-headed one.

    I believe tongues ceased when the NT was completed & the Apostles died. I believe Jesus is coming soon. I believe in closed communion & church discipline. I believe I'm to put God first, my husband next, & then my children. I believe I'm to be a keeper-at-home & we are to teach our own children. I believe in modesty. and on & on & on. All this(& more) I learned just simply reading that blessed black Book & nothing else.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    This stems from the rather stupid argument some KJVOs wage over some versions reading"only begotten God" or, "This day I have become Your Father". These people need to look at the big picture. What else does "beget" mean except "to sire" or "become the father of"?

    Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead, immortal. This was the symbolic "begetting" mentioned in Acts. He became a man & was begotten as a human baby, thus becoming the only BEGOTTEN son of God. All the rest of us were ADOPTED as children of God. And, being God, Jesus is the only begotten God also. He laid aside most of His POWER, not His TITLE nor His DIVINITY to become a man. He was still GOD'S SON, AND GOD HIMSELF during His time here as a man.

    I don't pretend for one second to have the foggiest idea HOW He did all these things! I only know that, WITH GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, and that there's NOTHING He cannot do; there are only things He WON'T do.

    Since Jesus was ALREADY God's son before He became a man, we know that all the other "begetting" applied to Him besides His Divine begetting with Mary, is symbolic.
     
  5. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The different reading, "only begotten son" vice "only begotten God" is based on a textual variant.

    The reading monogenhs theos (only begotten God) is attested to only by p66, the original hand of Aleph, B, the original hand of C, and L. The reading 'o monogenhs theos is attested to by p75, the correctors hand of Aleph, and 33.

    The reading monogenhs 'uios (only begotten son) is attested to by A, the corrector of C, K, a later portion of W where the original writing is missing, X. Delta, Theta, Pie, 063, family 1 (1, 118, 131, 209), family 13 (13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689), 28, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, and, of course, all of the Byzantine mss containing the gospel of John, or about 600 mss.

    It is clear the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly favors the reading "only begotten son" and many excellent bible scholars believe the "only begotten God" reading is a Gnostic interpolation.
     
  6. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    This stems from the rather stupid argument some KJVOs wage over some versions reading"only begotten God" or, "This day I have become Your Father". These people need to look at the big picture. What else does "beget" mean except "to sire" or "become the father of"?

    I did a 'word' study once. If I can find it I will post it or send it to you.

    Granny [​IMG] AMEN again from the ol' hillbilly Frog. I know where you come from [​IMG] Never thought the Bible was anything but the Word of God. All I know (which is obviously very little) is based upon mostly what I have been reading of it since a child. There are some things influenced by teachers and others, but the things I learnt by the old wood-stove can't nobody take from me [​IMG]

    Thanks everyone for replying.

    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Granny, If I were you, I would continue to read the KJV all of my life. We younger people, sometimes did not get to grow up with the KJV and we cannot read it like you can. And, although the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Bible, many words are different now. I was a lucky one and I'm 46 yrs old, and I grew up on a KJV. I have a better understanding of it. Children today do not comprehend the Bible nearly as well. My daughter got so frustrated trying to comprehend the words she did not understand that she would balk at reading by herself. Although I read with her, I found that she understood much easier with a newer translation.

    They can say what they want, but the mainstream translations the Baptists have discussed are still the Word Of God. Just simply a newer translation. There have been comparisons with older manuscripts and whether or not we agree, I think 26 verses are no longer found and some other changes, but NO doctrine has changed, regardless of what is being said.

    Like I said, I love the KJV, but I also love to read easier translations for me to understand.

    For you----I would keep my good King James with you at all times. You and I both know that you cannot go wrong by doing that.

    Just my thaughts, Granny, thank you for a moment to share them with you. I am not even telling you that I want you to agree with me. I'm just telling you how I feel. My mother was a very, very good Christian woman. ...never heard a bad word from her lips. That type of woman. Our family revolved around Christ Jesus. When I started reading new translations, she saw that I was reading more of the Bible and she thought it was great.

    ---Phillip---

    PS (This is my middle name and my mother named me after the Bible Philip, but somehow someone got an extra "l" on the birth certificate. I still feel blessed to have a mother, who like you loved the Lord so much that nothing else was important, including naming her son after a well known person from the Bible)

    Have a great weekend!
    ;)
     
  8. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    Bro. Dallas, this is an attempt to deal with the doctrine of the Trinity and to explain how the Son could have been "begotten" yet still God and not created. It was a defense of the Son's divinity, yet a recognition of the Father's primacy (in an attempt to reconcile the divinity of the Son's with Christ's comments about doing only the will and speaking only the words of the Father.) No wonder it's dense.

    BTW: Why do you consider it a shame that Baptists would hold to the Nicene Creed?

    Skan, there is a trend among some MVs that rejects "begotten" in favor of "one and only" (such as the NET) or "only" (NIV, ESV, Phillips, among others). Does the NET rendering, in particular, translate into English bettern than "begotten?"
     
  9. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Below is an 'English to 12 yr. old AOL user translation...really :rolleyes:

    DAAR BROTHER PHILIP THANK U FOR UR POST I ENJOY3D RAADNG WUT U HAD 2 WRIET ALSO GOD 2 SE TAHT IM A FEW YEARS UR MINOR AND STIL A SOUND KJV.O!!111!1!11!!!!!!!1 LOL LOVE YA ANYWAY BROTHAR I JUST N3V3R HAD AL THOSA OTHER WORLDLY TRANSLATIONS H3R3 IN TEH STIKS OF KY11!!1! LOL &lt;GRIN&gt;

    GOD BLES
    BRO1!!11 OMG WTF LOL DALAS EA2N [​IMG] [​IMG] :confused:

    here is the link:

    English to 12 yr. old AOL user translator
     
  10. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother Phillip, ah's glad t'see yer post. yer message is fine taken an' point made, so whut eff'n yer mah elder


    That's the 'redneck' dialectilizer version of my earlier post [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Here is the link to that:

    The Dialectilizer
     
  11. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frogman you ar not KJVO
    You are a OKjv. As was my mother. she only used the KJV because that is all she used!!

    She never slandered another version. As she said that she just knew enough to know the KJV.

    I wish sometimes life was that simple.
    Of Course, I'd like to live in Mayberry!!

    Anyway, in my way of thinkin' if someone is willing to look at what the Greek says then they are not KJVO.
     
  12. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    My Dear Bro. Dallas I cannot begin to tell you what a joy it is to read your posts.Sometimes you give me new insights and sometimes you crack me up.
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Brother Tim, I use to be a true red letter only KJVO; but that was then, this is now and I have grown somewhat. I do prefer the KJV because it is what I studied (or mostly read) as a young(er) person and dad wouldn't let another version around the house. But, we did have 'A History of the People of God' published by the Church of Christ :eek: :eek:

    I still have that one [​IMG]

    Oh well, as I said, I prefer the KJV; but learn alot by studying as thoroughly as possible for an old hillbilly the originals along with KJ.

    Originally posted by tinytim, aka, Brother Tim:
    My ramblings above are from that "simpler" time dear brother, when Ronald Reagan was president, terrorists were afraid to come outside and the Cold War was warming up ;)

    God Bless
    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
  14. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother Bill,
    I am glad to be able to do both. Please pray for me as sometimes I am not so well at brightening the day of people around me, though I really try, sometimes the old world gets us all down.

    God Bless
    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     

Share This Page

Loading...