The Perfect Inerrant Bible

Still waiting for Deacon JD's Scriptural support of his view.

 

Do you mean that God beget God?

 

That is true. How sad!

 

What a neat way to explain the self-existant God
who has eternally existed to this point in time
and will eternally exist from this point in time! :applause:

 

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. Unless, of course, you think Jesus isn't God.

Michael

 

Why not? Every 'version' there is was 'written' (in the sense of translated or paraphrased) by someone or someones. In fact I got one, myself! :thumbsup: I mean, who do you think the ESV is named for, if not after EdSutt... :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Yep! Agreed! "...have I begotten thee..." is expressly stated four times in Scripture! (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5) And that from the KJV, no less!

Ed

 

Careful, folks. If the Son was the "only begotten" in the sense He had a birth (or a beginning) then He wasn't enternal with God. The Greek word found in John 1:18 and John 3:16 is monogenes (Strong's #3439, compound of mono related to singleness as in oneness and genes as related to kind as in species) which literally means "single of its kind". This word is only used about sons and daughters in relation to their parents, but in the application to Christ it is not 'begotten' that should be translated but the uniqueness (the 'only' part). Christ is the unique Son of God but was never procreated or created by God.

 

Unless He is eternally begotten.
Or unless this passage is simply speaking of Him being begotten in the flesh and born as a man. In which case He is the only person of the Trinity to be begotten.

If one believes that Jesus has an eternal Sonship with the Father, then one could make the connection that He is eternally begotten.

 

i'd always taken the meaning of begetting in Christ's unique case as a title rather than an event. if it's an event, has the event been completed, or is it always in progress?

boy, the profundities ... kinda reminds me of the eternal procession of the Spirit. never cld wrap my head around these toughies.

perhaps someone cld give a list of verses supporting both?

 

There are not always specific verses to "prove" a doctrine (even of the Trinity), but try this...

Prov 8:24-25

It is also in the Nicene Creed.

Or one can try to use some kind of logic using the Scripture as a whole.
Since Jesus is called "Son of God" and a "son" is begotten of his father, then of necessity the second person of the Godhead would be eternally begotten or else He would have at some point not been the Son of God.

 

thx much! i was expecting Ps 2. for Prov 8 i'm somehow reminded of a warning i heard years ago that we shd avoid identifying the speaker as Christ at all costs in view of the threat of Arianism. it appears to give support to the view that there was a time before creation of other things that the speaker wasn't born or didn't exist. so i was advised to keep its identity as Wisdom personified, nothing more. something for me to keep thinking abt.

again, my question of what "begotten" entails ... is it merely a title or a physical process? is it complete? or timeless n ongoing--i.e. still being begotten, n so on, world without end?

 

I would suggest that in this case begotten is not a physical process but a spiritual one yielding the relationship of Son to Father.

 

As I stated earlier, the Greek in the NT does not mean 'only begotten' but should be something like 'only Unique' or 'One of a kind'. God has chosen to reveal the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Trinity as Father and Son because of our limited human understanding. The Mormons take this to mean the Son was born from God and therefore was not eternally present (in the past and therefore He is simply another god, not the Person of the Trinity). But the Son was not conceived, He is not in the process of being born, nor was created. 'Begotten' is a poor translation and has caused a serious misunderstanding. Christ is unique in many ways; for example, He was 100% human while at the same time being 100% God.

 

No, it's NOT TRUE. Their 'agenda' was a correct-as-possible, bias-free translation.

 

Yes, you stated that earlier, but it's not as authoritative a definition as you seem to think.

Thayer's lexicon (Thayer was not a Trinitarian) does indeed define it as you do...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1161003886-5925.html

But strongs defines monogenes differently...
"only born"

I have also read other definitions of the word, but the bottom line is the definition/translation of the word is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

 

Actually, only two verses preceding clearly indicates that the person speaking in this poet passage is not the Lord. Proverbs 8:22 (which begins the new paragraph) states: The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I believe that this entire chapter is best understood as Wisdom personified as the speaker.

I think you take the analogy of sonship too far. To exaggerate, Jesus is also called the "Lamb of God" but His body was not covered with wool. It is true that sons are normally begotten of a father, but remember that Jesus evaded having an earthly genetic father. According to scripture He was 'conceived' of the Holy Spirit (not God the Father). In heaven, or eternity past, or before earthly humans, perhaps it was not necessary to refer to the Second Person as "Son" at all.

 

deacon jd
'' ... many of the liberal scholars who are responsible
for "new versions" of the Bible had an agenda,
and in this case it happened to be denying the virgin birth.''

Unfortunately you tryed to use one scripture which might
have been 'weak' on 'virgin birth' to show that in one
version someone might have been 'denying the
virgin birth'. However, we showed that there are other
places in the same maligned Bible that are STRONGER
on 'virgin birth' than the KJV is.

Sorry but:
the NIV is a Perfect Inerrant Bible.
The nKJV is a Perfect Inerrant Bible.
The KJV1611 is a Perfect Inerrant Bible.
The KJV1769 is a Perfect Inerrant Bible.
The KJV1873 is a Perfect Inerrant Bible.

(I mention only these three KJVs as
they are the ones I have paper copies of
that are still usable. I also have an American
Bible Society edition of 1850, but it was
used up by my maternal Grandmother and
is hard to check.)

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
is a Perfect Inerrant Bible which I hold in my
hand daily for personal and public devotions,
preaching doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruciton
in righteouness.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,

IMHO 'all Scripture' includes each of those
English Versions mentioned above.
Strangely, nobody seems to want to discuss the
methods of resolving seeming discrepancies within
certain Bibles or among certain Bibles. There
is a topic for discussing 'Deconflicting the Bible' at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33814

(Leads one to suspect that some might be more interested
in bashing Bibles than trying to figure out what God
is saying in those Bibles. I'm describing 'shoes', wear them
if you wish' i'm not necessarily describing anybody that
I might have mentioned, quoted, or otherwise tabbed)

 

Yes, strictly speaking that is true. The controversy is that if monogenes is derived from a root of the verb ginomai(to become), then the word would mean something like 'only existing' or 'unique', but if monogenes is derived from a root of the verb gennao (to beget), then the word would mean something like 'only born'. I guess there are good scholars on both sides. But words have meaning in context.

Look at Hebrews 11: 17-- By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. Clearly, Issac was not Abraham's only begotten son (Ishmael and others), so reasonably it must indicate that Isaac was his unique son (a special son of promise).

I prefer the traditional ethymology for various reasons (just off the top): Tyndale's 1534 and many modern versions (ESV, NIV, NLT, RSV, ISV) translate it without use of "begotten"; I believe that "begotten" was held over from the Latin Vulgate; I feel sometimes that Strong's was influenced by the KJV; I don't think the verse demands that "begotten" be part of the translation and can still be understood as Trinitarian.

Brother, I did not want to debate this point; primarily, I just wanted to caution against any thoughts of the Son being born, or having a beginning.

 

I agree, and am pretty sure I heard this somewhere before?? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed