The word: "Begotten"

How has God preserved His word? How has the enemy tried to pervert the word of God?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

I fail to see how there is a difference in most cases between what you say are not error but reasons for studying and what I say are not errors in the NIV. You say they are error in NIV but I say it's a more accurate translation. I say there are errors in the KJV you say they just need to be studied to understand. What's the difference?

Just as another example of what I believe to be a error but not necessarily a huge error but only one that can affect our understanding as English speakers.

You brought up the example of John 3:16 because modern translations leave out "begotten". In my understanding, to say "only begotten" gives us the impressions that Jesus was created. It's as if it is saying that God created His begot or caused him to come into existence. To me this is not correct because it can lead us to believe that Jesus never existed until God caused Him to exist. Why is this important? Because the bible tells us in John 1 that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." Jesus has always existed from eternity. If my dad adopted someone it would still make perfect sense to say I am His only son. Jesus was and is God's only son at least in the natural sense goes. Look at these notes from the NET Bible found at http://www.bible.org
37 tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).
I don't believe the KJV is completely wrong, I would call it an mistake of judgment on their part but nothing that affects doctrine seriously. I just believe some newer translations are more accurate and have chosen better words in this case. The newer versions decision to leave out "begotten" seems logical to me. Which is why I tend to believe that KJV only people are not open to logical reasoning or discussion but would rather just hold their ground in the name of faith and call everything else a perversion.

I'm not saying you are doing this, it just happens to be the position taken by many KJV only people. Read past discussions, read other discussions, they just get mad and start name calling. As Jim pointed out many are almost cult like. But again, you have been willing to discuss this with us and for that I'm grateful. So, please don't take my generalizations of KJV only people to be always direct at you personally.

Zach
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

I wasn't exactly sure on what it means but I did a google search using the define function. If you don't know what that is just type in lowercase define: and then any word your phrase you want to define. It will then only display definitions instead of webpages. From my understanding metaphysical in the context in which the translators notes were used, it means a more abstract philosophical kind of relationship.

I believe and I think the translators of newer versions believe that Jesus was literally God's son in the real way that I am my dad's biological son. Jesus wasn't adopted, He isn't like a son, He is God's only real son. But like I said above I believe the KJV is not necessarily wrong, but there are more accurate translations when it comes to this verse.

As for translators today being Godly enough...I agree with you to a point. I think the problem is not are there men Godly enough in existence but are the ones doing the translation Godly enough.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

That child named Jesus was begotton of God through the virgin birth do you agree? That child is a body which was fitted or prepared for Jesus who is already exisits in fact He and the Father through divine inspiration talk of this in Hebrews 10:5 A favorite verse we read during the Christmas is in Isaiah unto us a child is born unto us a son is given. The child begotton of God the Son given you can't give something to someone if you don't have it already, make sense?

Also John 3:16 is not the only place where only begotton is used compare scripture with scripture.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

What does begotten mean? In my opinion to say God's "only begotten son" or "one and only son" isn't what I would call a serious error but it's one that is used to say why modern translations are corrupt and perverted.

If the passage is only talking about the physical, material, tangible world than "only begotten" would make sense because in the physical material world Jesus did not exist nor was He made by human but He was begotten of God. But the passage is talking about God sending His son.

God sent a son that already was in existence but had yet to be "begotten of God" in a woman. Jesus wasn't begotten until life began inside the womb of Mary. But God send His "One and Only Son" into this world to die for our sins. Galatians 4 says, "When the right time came God sent His son, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem us under the law."

The word begotten seems confusing and misleading to me.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Begotten according to websters 1828 dictionary

BEGET', v.t. pret. begot, begat; pp. begot, begotten.

1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; as, to beget a son.

2. To produce, as an effect; to cause to exist; to generate; as, luxury begets vice.

God caused Mary to conceive in her womb and bring forth a son. I know of John Chapter 1 where he tells us of our Lords pre-exisitance but read on to verse 14 where it says the Word was made flesh. God sent His son and here we are being told how, in the flesh. I suppose another way to get the point across is God says that child is His son that should end any confusion you just need accept it. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be borne of thee, shall be called the sonne of God

As far as Jesus the Christ being a 'one of a kind' I cannot agree because I cannot find anywhere else in scripture that supports such a view. But I find He is the firstborn amongst many brethren. He is the first fruits, and afterward they that are Christs, at His coming and we too are His sons. For as many that are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And won't we have glorified bodies like His in glory? No sir I don't believe one of a kind fits the description.

This verse John 3:16 you see it everywhere even on TV at NFL games and it is the one that gets changed from begotten to one and only, imagine that.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

BEGET', v.t. pret. begot, begat; pp. begot, begotten.

1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; as, to beget a son.

2. To produce, as an effect; to cause to exist; to generate; as, luxury begets vice.
The context of John 3:16 is talking about God the father and His relationship to His Son not the relationship of Mary's son. If we go by the definition above it could easily be understood to be saying that God only became the father of Jesus when He created, or produced, or caused Him to exist, or generated Him inside Mary. This says that God was not the father of Jesus because he had yet to cause Him to come into existence.

If He was already the father of Jesus then how did He create or cause something that already existed to exists?

Unto us a son is given, not begotten. Until us a son is born. Jesus already existed so to say that he was begotten is a contradiction. Unless you it is talking purely about the material, physical world.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

As far as Jesus the Christ being a 'one of a kind' I cannot agree because I cannot find anywhere else in scripture that supports such a view. But I find He is the firstborn amongst many brethren. He is the first fruits, and afterward they that are Christs, at His coming and we too are His sons. For as many that are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And won't we have glorified bodies like His in glory? No sir I don't believe one of a kind fits the description.
If you read the passage quote above from the translators? Isaac was Abraham's only son but he was unique in that he was the child of promise. There are many examples of Jesus being different from us and having a different relationship to God.

What you wrote above sounds very close to the Jehovah's Witnesses who say Jesus isn't "THE" son of God but "A" son of God. They say from John 1 and other places that the Word isn't God but "A" God. They say Jesus is just our bother along with satan and a god along with many others. The problem with this is that we are not also God.

Don't forget the trinity. Jesus was fully man but still God, God the Son. Three eternally distinct being. If we go by your statement above we don't have the trinity but we have the 6billionity because Jesus isn't unique and we are all equal with Him. We are not equal with him. We have been given the same privileges and rights and are treated the same because of God's grace and mercy and the obedience of Christ.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

wackzingo wrote:
As far as Jesus the Christ being a 'one of a kind' I cannot agree because I cannot find anywhere else in scripture that supports such a view. But I find He is the firstborn amongst many brethren. He is the first fruits, and afterward they that are Christs, at His coming and we too are His sons. For as many that are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And won't we have glorified bodies like His in glory? No sir I don't believe one of a kind fits the description.
If you read the passage quote above from the translators? Isaac was Abraham's only son but he was unique in that he was the child of promise. There are many examples of Jesus being different from us and having a different relationship to God.

I agree in that Issac was promised to Abraham by God but both he and Ishmael were his sons and begotten of him only born by different women. What I see here is Abraham begat several sons God begat only one, Jesus. The body needed in order so God could die and become a propitiation for our sins.


What you wrote above sounds very close to the Jehovah's Witnesses who say Jesus isn't "THE" son of God but "A" son of God. They say from John 1 and other places that the Word isn't God but "A" God. They say Jesus is just our bother along with satan and a god along with many others. The problem with this is that we are not also God.

What is the basis of our discussion here? Your NIV says Jesus is Gods One and Only Son, my Bible says He is Gods only begotton Son. I never laid claim to or hold in my heart we are equal with God or that we are evolving into some type of god. I am trying to point out that Jesus is Gods only begotten Son equal with God. Mary did not on her own concieve this child Jesus, it wasn't Joseph nor was she sleeping around this is God claiming in scripture that it was He by the holy Spirit it is supposed to prevent doubt as to who begat this child. Remeber the birds and the bees it takes two to concieve a child and this verse is telling us who was in involved and those who believe are the saved adopted sons of God not equal but made rightous by the blood of Christ. Read a little history and find the significance of a public proclamation of adoption in those times. The 'one of a kind' description is from your commentary I thought trying to persude me that Jesus was not begotten of God and we were not adopted sons hence my using scripture to claim otherwise it in noway meant to make any one believe we are equal with God.

Don't forget the trinity. Jesus was fully man but still God, God the Son. yes I know, the fact that he is begotten of God and concieved in the womb proves that, no argument here the Bible says the Word was made flesh. Three eternally distinct being. If we go by your statement above we don't have the trinity but we have the 6billionity because Jesus isn't unique and we are all equal with Him. Please explain how you came to this where did I say we are equal with God? I thought I was explicit in that He is the Only Begotten we are adopted We have been given the same privileges and rights and are treated the same because of God's grace and mercy and the obedience of Christ. Amen brother
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

I agree in that Issac was promised to Abraham by God but both he and Ishmael were his sons and begotten of him only born by different women. What I see here is Abraham begat several sons God begat only one, Jesus. The body needed in order so God could die and become a propitiation for our sins.
Scripture teaches that Isaac was "one of a kind".

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,


Also please note how the KJV translators translated the word in other cases:

Luke 8:42:
For he had one only <3439> daughter <2364>, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38:
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child <3439>.


John 1:14:
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten <3439> of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18:
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten <3439> Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.



John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten <3439> Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "


John 3:18:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten <3439> Son of God. "


In all these cases the word is translated to mean "one and only".

How come the translators weren't consistent? or were they just adding their own commentary into the text by adding "begotten".
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Oh brother, how about you do the explaining this time ok? Translate an english word into what? the words begotten are printed here there is nothing to translate its in english already one only needs to look up the definition. If you want to translate the original greek to english then start with menogenes and the root word gennao another to consider is protoklos <sp>
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

It important to be consistent in the translation of certain word unless the text clearly indicates it should be translated differently? What we have been discussing so far is one good example. Take for example these verses:

Luke 8:42:
For he had one only <3439> daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38:
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child <3439>.

The word used for he had "one only" daughter and he is mine "only child" is the same word used in John 3:16 where it is translated "only begotten son" in the KJV.

By not being consistent in how they translated monogenes, it makes it hard for people to make the connection of God being a father with only one child that died and these men whose only children were dead or near death.



John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His..."

The importance here is that at the time when God sent His son Jesus...Jesus was His only son. You and I and everyone else had yet to be adopted and Jesus had yet to be begotten. Sure Jesus was begotten, but he also existed before he was begotten. Why do I think this is important?

Because while we were all sinner's, turning our backs on God and rejecting Him He though enough of us that He would be willing to sacrifice His "ONE AND ONLY SON" not just one of many. It was because of his willingness to give his only son for our sins and Jesus' obedience that we have now been adopted in as His sons and are called his brothers (Heb. 2). The word begotten is true, but it's out of place here because it takes away from this important truth that Jesus was unique as a son just as Isaac who although he had other brothers as you mentioned, he was not the "only begotten". You yourself said he was not the only begotten, but "your bible the KJV" says he was. You are correct and the KJV is incorrect. He was not the only bogotten as it says, but he was the "one and only" as in a unique way because he was the child of promise.

I'm sure I won't change your mind because it would mean that the KJV has errors. Hopefully others will see my point. God loved us so much that he did not spare even his only son. Now at this time Jesus is not his "only son" because we have been adopted, but at the time when God sent him He was.

How many sons did God have before Jesus was begotten? One
How many were begotten? One
How many after Jesus was begotten? Many

Begotten is not necessarily incorrect, but it can be misleading because of it's meaning and the context in which it's used. But I guess that's my opinion and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one and others reading it will have to make their own decision.
jimbaum
Site Admin
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Contact:

Post by jimbaum »

Hi, y'all.

I split this topic from "How has God preserved His word?"

Jim B.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Thanks, I was thinking we were getting just a little off topic, lol.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Sorry it was a bit off topic now wasn't it?

Zack I doubt presently we will see eye to eye on this , though I hope we do some day, we are looking at different bibles, which in turn mean different manuscripts and different translators. You believe all bibles have some error I believe the manuscripts translated into english by the King and the men chosen is true and without error, it's a matter of faith because in my Bible God said he will preserve His word your NIV doesn't. I have tried to explain but was met by you just telling me it is wrong. You obviously pasted an explanation on the words 'one and only' I asked you to explain it and you told me to google it. I do not recieve understanding from google it is by much prayer, meditation on the word and study past and present. Until we study the same thing we will never be of one mind but a house divided I do not for one instance think God said both one and only and only begotten. There is a very good reason why I believe it is only begotten. You say it is because he (Jesus) is unique and begotten confuses people all I can say to that is it shouldn't confuse anyone. He was begotten of God not made hence the term God-man when some asks me how do I know the child was begotten of God and not Joseph I can tell them God claims that child as His and commands us to call that holy thing which was concieved in Marys womb as His son. One and only has more in common with Islam the Islamic Jesus was sent by the one true god not begotten but sent. Tell a true muslim God begat a child and he will accuse you of being an infidel and take your head as it is written in that abomination atop the temple mount far be it from his glory that he should have a son. That God so loved the world he gave His only begotten son flies in the face of that anti-parallel anti-christ religion

I ask you Zack do you believe that child who God commanded Joseph to name Jesus who the God of Israel commands us to call His son was begotten of God the Word made flesh? In otherwords the God of Israel by the overshadowing of the holy Spirit caused Mary to concieve, not Joseph as many might think. Yes or No no gray areas allowed.

Either you do and it ends the discussion, but if you don't, then you may want to re-evalute what you are reading. I don't agree with anything westcot and or hort has commented on and that is what you have brought to the table is their commentary.
Last edited by David on Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

What about this? What about your bible saying Isaac was the only "begotten" of Abraham? We know the KJV says that Abraham had others sons that he begot and then it says he offered his only begotten son Isaac. Is this a contradiction?
The word begotten is true, but it's out of place here because it takes away from this important truth that Jesus was unique as a son just as Isaac who although he had other brothers as you mentioned, he was not the "only begotten". You yourself said he was not the only begotten, but "your bible the KJV" says he was. You are correct and the KJV is incorrect. He was not the only bogotten as it says, but he was the "one and only" as in a unique way because he was the child of promise.

And by the way my bible does say God will preserve His word. I just don't hold to the blind faith... Which in my opinion that's not faith at all but wishful thinking in the light of truth that shows otherwise.
Locked