The word: "Begotten"

How has God preserved His word? How has the enemy tried to pervert the word of God?
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Zack this will be my closing post here but it may wind up on another.

I think we are close on many issues and both of us have accepted the Lord and will see one another in glory I got an uncanny feeling we both will be at the least down right embarassed when the Lord reveals what His will was for us.

I have been going over some things about Islam which lead me to believe we may be seeing a revived empire but Babylon will not be Rome, possibly Mecca. The Catholic church may be a harlot but it will not be the Mother of all harlots (btw Mother of... is an eastern term for the one to end all nothing like it seen before).

Anyways, in Islam they believe in the one true god but his name is Allah they also believe in Jesus the messiah (Eesa al-Maseeh). But the Isa al maseeh of their religion is not begotten of God but rather sent and as I said earlier they will remove your head should you utter God has begotten a Son. I believe it is of great importance to stand firm call it blind faith, call it whatever, but I will not compromise. I gave you an example how the changes in certain bibles are being used to decieve people. When you declare to a true muslim Jesus the Christ as the only begotten you may very well lose your head for it. But 'one and only' or I should say the removal of 'only begotten' is being used to decieve the lost into an eternity of damnation.

The religion of Islam has as one of its foundational beliefs a direct denial of Jesus as God’s Son. This denial is found several times throughout the Quran:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. -Surah 5:17 (Yusuf Ali)

They say: "God hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! Say ye about Allah what ye know not? -Surah 10:68 (Yusuf Ali)

They said, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son"! You have uttered a gross blasphemy. The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear asunder, and the mountains are about to crumble. Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son. It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son. –Surah 19:88-92 (Rashad Khalifa)

…the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! -Surah 9:30 (Yusuf Ali)

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Mein bruder unless you have something else, for me this topic is closed. Lets move on, but count me amongst the ones who say God has begotten a Son!
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David, I don't want you to think I deny that Jesus was begotten. The only thing I disagree with you about is whether the word is translated correctly and whether or not is should be placed in John 3:16.

I believe wholeheartedly that the son has always existed and was sent to live and die for our sins. I believe he was begotten by the father in a woman apart from any man. He lived, died, and rose from the dead to live in the flesh, all because of our sin and to give us a new life.

I don't think there is any difference between my saying that evil should have been translated calamity because it's used by atheists to say God is the creator of evil, and you saying the John 3:16 should should be translated begotten rather than "one and only" because it can be used by Muslims to say God doesn't have a son. In the end I think it's ridiculous to say that "one and only" could be used by anyone to say God doesn't have a son. Neither begotten or "one and only" could be used to say God doesn't have a son.





Like you said, I don't think we disagree on much, but one thing I would still like to know why you don't think the KJV is in error in translating:

Hebrews 11:17:(KJV)
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son"



When it's clear that Abraham didn't have only one begotten son.


This is an obvious error. Serious? No...it doesn't change anything of serious doctrine...but it is still an error. It should have been translated "one only", "only son" or "one and only" but to be translated begotten is contradicting scripture because it's clear that he had begotten another son before Isaac. If Isaac was offered before Abraham was begotten then we could say, "Well...at the time when he was offered he was the only begotten son". But we know this isn't true because he was not the only begotten child at that time. You yourself acknowledged that.

Does this mean that God did not preserve his Word? No...God has, every Greek manuscript from which modern translations come and the T.R. contain the word monogenes. The error is in how we translate that word. That is the problem, our translation, not God's Word. I don't believe there is an English Translation that is 100% perfect in it's translation of every single word. That's why it's so cool that as we have so many English translations that have errors, we also have so many tools to help us find those errors, like this discussion board, the internet, books, etc.

Anyways, I guess we can move on to other discussions...I'm sure we'll be able to find something we agree on, lol.
Locked