- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 25 2010,01:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2010,21:53) Hi Professor,
I think that every time we see “Son of God” we can equate that to 'begotten God' because that is what a divine being would beget. So, 'begotten God' is in the NASB one time and Son of God is in there many times. They mean the same thing as far as I understand it. That is why the Pharisees thought that Jesus was making Himself out to be God, because He said that He was the Son of God. The Pharisees didn't like the thought of a begotten God. I am thankful for the NASB and find it more accurate than others in this case and often otherwise. I think your addition of the word 'of' is not the intention of the author.
Kathi,As you see, I stayed with the NASB because it is more closely to our language.
However, here is the KJV which would've “proved” my point without any debate:
Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
Seeing that the KJV pushes the Trinity I am surprised that they didn't put “God” there, aren't you?
The Professor
Hi David,“Holy City Bible Code” Pages 29, 30 and 31.
In 1603 King James I Authorized 54 Godly Bible scholars and educated men to take on the task of going back to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and do a “word for word” translation. This had never been done before, as most Bibles of that time were translations of translations. King James I wanted a non-biased translation of the purest form, God’s word (the Bible) produced directly from the original texts.
It’s interesting to look how English Theomatics plays a part even in this area. It seems to be by divine appointment that the numbers seem to add up to the number 117. If you add the total number of translators (54) to the Theomatic value of “the Bible” (the Bible=63) (54+63=117) you come up with 117. This sum seems to be just another in a series of numerical anomalies using English Theomatics that points to what I call the “finger print” of “GOD the Father”=117 known as (יהוה האלהים=117) JEHOVAH GOD!
To the English-speaking world, the AKJV Bible has become the standard because of the strict parameters that were put in place requiring a “word for word” translation; avoiding perceptual interpretations that may alter what the manuscript actually meant. They also had to agree upon each and every word of the translation. Whenever a word had two or more possible meanings the most popular meaning was inscribed into the text; with the second choice was italicized and listed at the end of the verse. One such example is in 1Thess. 4:15 where the word prevent is inserted into the text while precede is listed as an alternative word at the end of the verse.
Because of the concise and sound translation into English which is found in the AKJV, resource material such as the Strong’s Concordance complements the AKJV Bible by defining each word in its original language; helping to present a more comprehensive look into God’s word making it the study standard of choice for the more serious student of Scripture. The Young’s Concordance defines each word based only upon its usage in the texts (according to Mr.Young); because of this it is used less. It is therefore rare to find scholarly theologians, modern and ancient and alike, not using the AKJV Bible for in depth study based upon these reasons. The AKJV is, by default, the standard by which all other English versions (translations) of the Bible are compared.
English as we speak today, uses PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE tenses expressed separately; this is not so with the 1611 King’s English. It seemed, therefore that since GOD isn’t limited by time or space, the old English from the King James era was perfect for translating “word for word”. Just as the arts embrace Shakespearian writings for their intrinsic value and superior prose, the King James translation has some of these qualities, being romantic and poetic as well. Words from the King James era also have multiple tenses built right into them for a more exact “word for word” translation.
Let’s take a look at a few examples of multiple tense words: holpen, meetest and saith. Saith means: “is said and says”, meetest means: “is met, meets, and will meet”, and holpen means: “is helped and will help”. The original texts have many instances modern vernacular lacks the clarity of single words containing past, present, or future tenses combined.
In modern English, the word “you” lacks exactness of meaning and is rarely used in the AKJV Bible. Modern usage of the word “you” could mean “an individual”, “a couple of people”, or even “a large group of people”. 1611 lexicon is more precise with words such as “Ye” used for a group and “Thou” for an individual. Also words like thy, thee, and thine are among many such words used in the AKJV Bible. Without understanding of the originally written texts, the current reader wanting a modern word for word translation usually overlooks these “technicalities”.
“YHVH is GOD”=117
PSALM 117 is [The Bible's Center Chapter],
the [smallest chapter] of the [LARGEST BOOK]!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (JustAskin @ Aug. 25 2010,09:58) …. I'm getting out of here – this forum is full of loose brain loonies ….
Hi JustAskin,Are you quitting the forum or just this thread?
Edj,
I'm getting out of my head, that's what I'm getting out of.If I were getting out of the forum, I would just do it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 25 2010,11:56) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 25 2010,13:11) Hi Mike,
The difference between the NASB and the NWT is a capital 'G.' So the question is which one gives the the Son the same honor as the Father?
Was there a capital “g” in the Greek text?
The Father will share His glory with NO OTHER, Kathi…….that includes His Son.
The son has been given glory of his own, and the Father shares many things with His Son…….His glory is scripturally NOT one of them.
mike
Mike,
You know that NASB translates it with a capitol G for a reason and the NWT translates it with a small g for their reason. I choose the capitol G, you choose the small g.You said;
Quote The Father will share His glory with NO OTHER, Kathi…….that includes His Son. And your point is? Do you think that calling the Son 'the only begotten God' is sharing in the 'unbegotten God's' glory?? I don't give the Son the title 'unbegotten God', do I? So there, each have their own glory…one as being 'unbegotten' and the other as being 'begotten'. No conflict.
Seek the context.
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 26 2010,09:42) Edj,
I'm getting out of my head, that's what I'm getting out of.
JustAskin, I think that by repeating a word over and over again, the intent is to confuse and put off, a cunning deception, getting at peoples mind's, leading away, taking off path, I found even debating with bod better, I learned so much, He made me search scripture for answers, theres nothing which makes sense here, just repetition over and over, with anger at anyone who get's in the way,Begotten is explained in scripture, in Acts This day I have begotten you is when Jesus was risen from the dead, why confuse this moment and take away or add to it ? YAH SAVES- Yahshua means, “Yah is salvation” or “Yah is Savior.”
It shows God's love.
That was what God wanted to show the world, it was the act of Love, not only for us to be saved but also a Father to a son, for all who believe, one we are invited to be a part of, if we become children of God reborn of the spirit,
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so all who believe will not perish but will have eternal life,
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 25 2010,01:22) LU – you are completely lost in an earthbound view. That is why you cannot understand what I am saying.
You are saying what I am saying but really have no idea OF WHAT you ARE ACTUALLY saying…
“GOD” is a word… can you get it… “G” “O” “D” is a word like any other word.
As sentient beings we attribute meaning to the Words that we create and use and learn.The Meaning of the Word “GOD” is “One of Might and Power” – you seem incapable of understanding this simple concept.
This meaning is relative to a POSITION or Rank.
ALMIGHTY GOD is the ULTIMATE POWER and AUTHORITY – yes… Is that what you want to hear? Well, there, I've said it.
But you refuse refinement – Ok, if you feel so then do so BUT – do not contend with your betters – else you fall foul of your own childlike – and childish – sensibility.
Here is a call for wisdom – which you prove you do not have – Relativity also means that others can be “Gods” – “Mighty ONEs” (Do not look at the Capital or lowercase letter – this is purely for a later reason.
Right now you are drinking milk and cannot take to solid meat. But let me feed you a little to see if you are ready…
Moses is called “GOD” by God Almighty, YHVH by name. Why? Please just answer this elementary question.
JA,
There is the Heaven Net theme song that comes to my mind now after reading your post.I don't want your meat JA, I'll stick to my child like faith and drink my milk. Thanks anyway!
Here is a song just for you today…enjoy
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 26 2010,10:06) For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so all who believe will not perish but will have eternal life,
Hi Shimmer,John 3:16 (New International Version)
16″For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
In what way do you think God “gave” His Son? What does that mean in your head? I'm just curious.
mike
Hi Mike,
Don't you think that it is interesting how people are so upset about using the terms unbegotten and begotten in reference to the Father and the Son. We have certainly observed the early church fathers use the two terms in reference to the Son and the Father, even the early creeds. Since the knowledge of the Son is so important for salvation is it any wonder that there has been a falling away from the teachings of the early church regarding these two words. I mean satan would want to mock the terms if they were that important, much like some are doing on here. Could that be part of the apostasy, in some way? I am sure glad that the terms begotten and unbegotten were used by the early church and that we aren't the ones making them up or straying from those terms and referring to them as some form of 'cunning deception.' Those two terms bring much light to the scriptures and the relationship of the Father and the Son.Hi Kathi,
I wholeheartedly concur with you on this point. It has become a big game on HN for some reason.
I'm with you and scripture and Ignatius and Eusebius on this matter.
It has dawned on me that I can't change the world Kathi. I thought I could…..silly me.
peace and love,
mikeMike,
We have to be convinced in our own heart…let the Holy Spirit work in us and He will take care of the others.For your information, I was the big believer in God the Father and God the son, it was me who started this whole thing, by mentioning Ignatius. It was me who asked people like Nick and JA, “are you too afraid to use the title God for Jesus” ?, It was me who said that I would call Jesus another God, because to me, the last day's would involve Islam, and they would make you say “There is no God but (Allah) God, so I said I would say “No” because I would not deny Jesus.
But I have been put off what I did believe, I have gone seeking others opinions because of the continual repetition of the word, and then all the other thing's added after that, such as God has a body, that is Mormon, you also put down and hurt people, but you won't see that.
I only read these threads because of JA, otherwise I wouldnt. You don't understand that you make other's confused.
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 26 2010,18:06) Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 26 2010,09:42) Edj,
I'm getting out of my head, that's what I'm getting out of.
JustAskin, I think that by repeating a word over and over again, the intent is to confuse and put off, a cunning deception, getting at peoples mind's, leading away, taking off path, I found even debating with bod better, I learned so much, He made me search scripture for answers, theres nothing which makes sense here, just repetition over and over, with anger at anyone who get's in the way,Begotten is explained in scripture, in Acts This day I have begotten you is when Jesus was risen from the dead, why confuse this moment and take away or add to it ? YAH SAVES- Yahshua means, “Yah is salvation” or “Yah is Savior.”
It shows God's love.
That was what God wanted to show the world, it was the act of Love, not only for us to be saved but also a Father to a son, for all who believe, one we are invited to be a part of, if we become children of God reborn of the spirit,
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so all who believe will not perish but will have eternal life,
Hi Shimmer,I'm sorry if I caused any confusion, but the Thread was more about “God” being begotten, not the concern over the word “begotten”.
If I told you there was a begotten God, would you believe me?
Or that God was begotten?
How would these phrases effect you?
The Professor
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 26 2010,10:06) Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 26 2010,09:42) Edj,
I'm getting out of my head, that's what I'm getting out of.
JustAskin, I think that by repeating a word over and over again, the intent is to confuse and put off, a cunning deception, getting at peoples mind's, leading away, taking off path, I found even debating with bod better, I learned so much, He made me search scripture for answers, theres nothing which makes sense here, just repetition over and over, with anger at anyone who get's in the way,Begotten is explained in scripture, in Acts This day I have begotten you is when Jesus was risen from the dead, why confuse this moment and take away or add to it ? YAH SAVES- Yahshua means, “Yah is salvation” or “Yah is Savior.”
It shows God's love.
That was what God wanted to show the world, it was the act of Love, not only for us to be saved but also a Father to a son, for all who believe, one we are invited to be a part of, if we become children of God reborn of the spirit,
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so all who believe will not perish but will have eternal life,
Hi Shimmer,It may appear that nobody is making any headway,
but I have seen significant change in you among others.
So everyone's differing insight is helping the ones needing it!
Do you now understand that other Post I made? Did you re-read it?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgSorry David, I wasnt aiming that at you,
JustAskin took Mike as his begotten brother, now the word begotten seems to have taken over everything, and there's only two people who are doing it ,thing's were said which werent nice, it's like no-one cares about JA or his acts of kindness, well, Im gratefull to him, I love JA, I know others do too.
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 26 2010,19:40) Sorry David, I wasnt aiming that at you, JustAskin took Mike as his begotten brother, now the word begotten seems to have taken over everything, and there's only two people who are doing it ,thing's were said which werent nice, it's like no-one cares about JA or his acts of kindness, well, Im gratefull to him, I love JA, I know others do too.
I agree Shimmer,I was getting tired of the Born and Begotten and then up pops “begotten God” so I thought I'd bring it over here to see if people could respond only to this one “concept”.
The Professor
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 26 2010,11:42) Hi Ed, thanks, what post was that ? (I have to go, so, later)
Hi Shimmer,How quickly we forget. Here <– Sixth Post down
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (shimmer @ Aug. 26 2010,19:27) For your information, I was the big believer in God the Father and God the son, it was me who started this whole thing, by mentioning Ignatius. It was me who asked people like Nick and JA, “are you too afraid to use the title God for Jesus” ?, It was me who said that I would call Jesus another God, because to me, the last day's would involve Islam, and they would make you say “There is no God but (Allah) God, so I said I would say “No” because I would not deny Jesus. But I have been put off what I did believe, I have gone seeking others opinions because of the continual repetition of the word, and then all the other thing's added after that, such as God has a body, that is Mormon, you also put down and hurt people, but you won't see that.
I only read these threads because of JA, otherwise I wouldnt. You don't understand that you make other's confused.
Hi Shimmer,I know what it is like making Jesus to be “God, the Son”. Now it perturbs me that I wasted so much time on a lie.
That may be why it is unsettling that others are trying to bring back the same idea using the “Church Fathers” as an excuse.
It is nice to know that you started this…..but why?
The Professor
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
