- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 22 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Hebrews 11:17 NKJV ©
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,Kathi,
Do you see that the word “son” is in italics in the KJV, NKJV, and NASB? That means the translators are ADDING the word “son” to the sentence because we ALREADY KNOW that Isaac was a male. The italics PROVE that the Greek word, “monogenes”, doesn't actually MEAN “only begotten son”. We can ASSUME “son” in this verse, because we know Issac was Abraham's son. But the Greek word “monogenes” has NOTHING TO DO with that assumption. The assumption is based on OTHER Biblical evidence. We could NEVER derive “only begotten SON” from the word “monogenes”, in and of itself.
I've already explained this to jammin in my last post, Kathi……….. so thanks for the scriptural SUPPORT of what I told him.
The word “monogenes”, in and of itself, does NOT mean “only begotten son”. Do YOU understand this, Kathi? If the child Abraham was to sacrifice was a daughter, would the Greek word “monogenes” all of a sudden MEAN “only begotten daughter”? YES or NO?
Do you see what's going on here? jammin is claiming that the Greek word “monogenes”, in and of itself, MEANS “only son“. IS THAT TRUE, KATHI? YES OR NO?
What we KNOW about the matter is that the Greek word “monos” means “only”. And we know that the suffix “genes” comes from the word “ginomai”, which means “generated”, “made”, “begotten”, etc. Why do you guys wish to completely ignore the “genes” part? Or worse yet, why do you wish to pretend “genes” means “son”?
You take a word that literally means “only generated”, and swap the “generated” part for “son”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:50) So, 'monogenes theos' could very well be God the only Son or God the only begotten Son.
Wrong. The “mono(only)” part would apply to theos, not the non-existent huios. The phrase “mongenes theos” could be translated as “only unique god”, or “only begotten god”, or “only generated god”. Those words will NEVER add up to “God the only Son” – no matter how badly you guys WANT them to.Kathi, I came to you for help in teaching your friend some hard cold facts, so he could stop spouting things that made him sound stupid. You have not only failed your friend in this effort, but have gone as far as to jump on his stupidity bandwagon.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:50) I do agree with you that it should more simply say 'the only begotten God'…………..
Well, well…………….. a glimpse of sanity after all. There is no such phrase as, “God the only Son” in all of the scriptures. And there is NO WAY to come to this phrase from the words “monogenes theos”, or from the words “monogenes huios”.And the thing about 1:18 is that the words are EITHER “monogenes huios”, OR “monogenes theos” – depending on the manuscript used. But there is NO Greek ms that has BOTH “theos” AND “huios” in 1:18. Therefore, “God the only Son” is a travesty of translation, and is quite frankly, laughable.
That phrase, like “Trinity” and “Godhead” before it, is nothing but the invention of men who have been blinded by the god of this age. Support it if you want – but there is no way it is scriptural.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 28 2012,14:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,13:05) Mike,
Well, close but more like this:Who, being in very nature God…
(someone who has the nature of God and should be treated as God………….)
And who or what do you mean by your two uses of the word “God” in your parenthesis?
God nature is the nature of one who is worshiped.
Second 'God' means one who is worshiped.
Okay, so like this:Who, being in the form of
Godone who is worshiped, and should be treated as one who is worshiped, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,Kathi, I believe you already acknowledged that the second “God” in that sentence refers to God Almighty, the PERSON.
Doesn't it make more sense that Jesus was existing in the form of God Almighty the Person, but didn't consider equality with God Almighty the Person a thing to be grasped?
Of course it does, as that is exactly what Paul was teaching us. Unlike you and jammin, Paul didn't consider “God” to be some kind of species, with different members – of which Jesus was one.
Paul taught that Jesus' humility was such that, even though he was existing in the form of his own God (as a powerful spirit being), he didn't consider himself equal to his own God – like Satan did.
Your understanding of this verse, and the explanation of that understanding, leave much to be desired. It is nothing more than your USUAL twistings of scriptures in your effort to FORCE them to teach things they don't really teach.
The first “God” in that verse refers to the same thing (person) as the second “God” in that verse. The only other way around that common sense understanding is to claim Paul believed in “God” as a species, and Jesus had the nature of this species, because he was a member of that species. And that goes against EVERYTHING ELSE Paul taught about Jesus and his God – who also happens to be our God.
Kathi, the God of Jesus is the God of us. This is scriptural, as Jesus himself says so.
When will you believe this?
Quote (jammin @ Oct. 29 2012,09:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 29 2012,06:40) Quote (jammin @ Oct. 28 2012,08:29) who is that almighty God you are referring to mike?
Well jammin,You already said that we only have ONE Almighty God, right? And we know from scriptures that our ONE Almighty God has a Son named Jesus, right?
So you tell me who our ONE Almighty God is. (Hint: He is the ONE who has a Son named Jesus.)
the son is God and he is almighty just like his father.
they are both GOD by nature. and the nature of GOD is almighty.now answer my question.
who is that GOD almighty you are referring to?
jammin,I believe my answer was clear in what I said above. If we both believe in only ONE Almighty God, then I can only be talking about ONE when I say “Almighty God”, right?
My question to you is: Does that ONE Almighty God that we both believe in have a SON named Jesus? YES or NO?
Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2012,01:12) Mike, Yes as you said: Jesus has a different will.
Then you realize the error of what you previously posted, and have come to the truth of this matter? That is great news, my friend.Now, does it make sense to you that “God Almighty on Earth” would have a DIFFERENT will than “God Almighty in Heaven”? YES or NO?
Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2012,01:12) NOTICE JESUS GIVES LIFE : SO HERE YOU HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE THAT BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE
SINCE THEY BOTH GIVE LIFE!!!
Does that mean that any else who gave life in the scriptures was also God Almighty? Or does this only apply in the case of Jesus?Also, notice:
John 6:57
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.The God OF Jesus (who happens also to be the God OF us) granted his holy servant to have life in him. This is not a statement of EQUALITY, Charles, but a statement about One who is the Ultimate Lifegiver GRANTING the authority to give life to one of His SERVANTS.
This Ultimate Lifegiver also granted some of His OTHER servants to give life in the scriptures. And you'll notice from the NT that many of the things God GRANTED to His SERVANT Jesus Christ, were subsequently granted ALSO to the disciples who faithfully followed Jesus Christ.
Now Charles, are they ALL God Almighty? Or is Jesus the only servant OF God Almighty who is also the God he serves?
When you guys take scriptures that clearly speak of a Greater One GIVING something to His SERVANT, and try to twist it into some kind of equality between this Greater One and His SERVANT, it just baffles my mind. I can't help but wonder what spirit would lead an intelligent person to believe such nonsense.
How can a sane mind take, “God GRANTED His SERVANT to have life in him”, and turn it into, “They are both EQUAL, because they can both give life!” ?
It truly baffles my mind, Charles.
Quote (carmel @ Oct. 29 2012,09:13) Mike, The Holy Spirit purposely DROVE Jesus to go into the desert, and He left Jesus ON hIS OWN to proof that
HE WAS AN ORDINARY MAN WITHOUT THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Hi Charles, I take issue with two points you make here.1. Your use of the word “drove” – the Scriptures uses the word “led” here; not drove.
You drive cattle from behind to force them to go where you want with a prod if necessary.
But you lead a horse from the front with coaxing to go where you want. …BIG difference.2. This verse indicates that the spirit did not leave Jesus alone as you are suggesting…
“Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him,
the same is he which baptizeth with the HolySpirit.” (John 1:33)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgSimplyForgiven,Oct. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Love is not above God, Love is just an attribute of God which is part of Him, in all He does.
SIMPLYFORGIVEN,
FIRST AND FORMOST:
WITH EVERY RESPECT, READ AND LEARN WHAT IT MEANS METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE.
1. Bread
“I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger.” John 6:35
2. Light
“I am the light of the world; he who fallows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12
3. Gate
“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9
4. Good Shepherd
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11
5. Resurrection and Life
“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” John 11:25
6. Way, Truth, Life
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6
7. True vine
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1
LET’S START:
NOW:
Read scriptures and be aware what God is!!!
1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God;
FOR GOD IS LOVE
1 JOHN 4:16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE ;
and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
SO SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR :
GOD IS LOVE ITSELF.
A SPIRIT OF LOVE!!! AND ALL GOD’S ATTRIBUTES ARE DERIVED THROUGH IT!!!
MORE TO COME IN RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU CALLED REDICILOUS
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2012,05:51) Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2012,01:12) Mike, Yes as you said: Jesus has a different will.
Then you realize the error of what you previously posted, and have come to the truth of this matter? That is great news, my friend.Now, does it make sense to you that “God Almighty on Earth” would have a DIFFERENT will than “God Almighty in Heaven”? YES or NO?
Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2012,01:12) NOTICE JESUS GIVES LIFE : SO HERE YOU HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE THAT BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE
SINCE THEY BOTH GIVE LIFE!!!
Does that mean that any else who gave life in the scriptures was also God Almighty? Or does this only apply in the case of Jesus?Also, notice:
John 6:57
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.The God OF Jesus (who happens also to be the God OF us) granted his holy servant to have life in him. This is not a statement of EQUALITY, Charles, but a statement about One who is the Ultimate Lifegiver GRANTING the authority to give life to one of His SERVANTS.
This Ultimate Lifegiver also granted some of His OTHER servants to give life in the scriptures. And you'll notice from the NT that many of the things God GRANTED to His SERVANT Jesus Christ, were subsequently granted ALSO to the disciples who faithfully followed Jesus Christ.
Now Charles, are they ALL God Almighty? Or is Jesus the only servant OF God Almighty who is also the God he serves?
When you guys take scriptures that clearly speak of a Greater One GIVING something to His SERVANT, and try to twist it into some kind of equality between this Greater One and His SERVANT, it just baffles my mind. I can't help but wonder what spirit would lead an intelligent person to believe such nonsense.
How can a sane mind take, “God GRANTED His SERVANT to have life in him”, and turn it into, “They are both EQUAL, because they can both give life!” ?
It truly baffles my mind, Charles.
the nature of God is almighty. if you are GOD, you are almighty.now im asking you. who is that GOD you are referring to?
btw pls answer also my pending questions.
1. where is your version of FORM OF HIS GOD in phil 2.6
2. where is your version of UNIQUELY GENERATED IN john 1.18im still waiting boy. be ashamed of yourself. if you say something, you must read it
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2012,05:18) Hebrews 11:17 NKJV ©
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,Kathi,
Do you see that the word “son” is in italics in the KJV, NKJV, and NASB? That means the translators are ADDING the word “son” to the sentence because we ALREADY KNOW that Isaac was a male. The italics PROVE that the Greek word, “monogenes”, doesn't actually MEAN “only begotten son”. We can ASSUME “son” in this verse, because we know Issac was Abraham's son. But the Greek word “monogenes” has NOTHING TO DO with that assumption. The assumption is based on OTHER Biblical evidence. We could NEVER derive “only begotten SON” from the word “monogenes”, in and of itself.
I've already explained this to jammin in my last post, Kathi……….. so thanks for the scriptural SUPPORT of what I told him.
The word “monogenes”, in and of itself, does NOT mean “only begotten son”. Do YOU understand this, Kathi? If the child Abraham was to sacrifice was a daughter, would the Greek word “monogenes” all of a sudden MEAN “only begotten daughter”? YES or NO?
Do you see what's going on here? jammin is claiming that the Greek word “monogenes”, in and of itself, MEANS “only son“. IS THAT TRUE, KATHI? YES OR NO?
What we KNOW about the matter is that the Greek word “monos” means “only”. And we know that the suffix “genes” comes from the word “ginomai”, which means “generated”, “made”, “begotten”, etc. Why do you guys wish to completely ignore the “genes” part? Or worse yet, why do you wish to pretend “genes” means “son”?
You take a word that literally means “only generated”, and swap the “generated” part for “son”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:50) So, 'monogenes theos' could very well be God the only Son or God the only begotten Son.
Wrong. The “mono(only)” part would apply to theos, not the non-existent huios. The phrase “mongenes theos” could be translated as “only unique god”, or “only begotten god”, or “only generated god”. Those words will NEVER add up to “God the only Son” – no matter how badly you guys WANT them to.Kathi, I came to you for help in teaching your friend some hard cold facts, so he could stop spouting things that made him sound stupid. You have not only failed your friend in this effort, but have gone as far as to jump on his stupidity bandwagon.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:50) I do agree with you that it should more simply say 'the only begotten God'…………..
Well, well…………….. a glimpse of sanity after all. There is no such phrase as, “God the only Son” in all of the scriptures. And there is NO WAY to come to this phrase from the words “monogenes theos”, or from the words “monogenes huios”.And the thing about 1:18 is that the words are EITHER “monogenes huios”, OR “monogenes theos” – depending on the manuscript used. But there is NO Greek ms that has BOTH “theos” AND “huios” in 1:18. Therefore, “God the only Son” is a travesty of translation, and is quite frankly, laughable.
That phrase, like “Trinity” and “Godhead” before it, is nothing but the invention of men who have been blinded by the god of this age. Support it if you want – but there is no way it is scriptural.
do you know greek better than those scholars who translated john 1.18 as GOD THE ONLY SON mike?
yes or no?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 30 2012,13:18) Hebrews 11:17 NKJV ©
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,Kathi,
Do you see that the word “son” is in italics in the KJV, NKJV, and NASB? That means the translators are ADDING the word “son” to the sentence because we ALREADY KNOW that Isaac was a male. The italics PROVE that the Greek word, “monogenes”, doesn't actually MEAN “only begotten son”. We can ASSUME “son” in this verse, because we know Issac was Abraham's son. But the Greek word “monogenes” has NOTHING TO DO with that assumption. The assumption is based on OTHER Biblical evidence. We could NEVER derive “only begotten SON” from the word “monogenes”, in and of itself.
I've already explained this to jammin in my last post, Kathi……….. so thanks for the scriptural SUPPORT of what I told him.
The word “monogenes”, in and of itself, does NOT mean “only begotten son”. Do YOU understand this, Kathi? If the child Abraham was to sacrifice was a daughter, would the Greek word “monogenes” all of a sudden MEAN “only begotten daughter”? YES or NO?
Do you see what's going on here? jammin is claiming that the Greek word “monogenes”, in and of itself, MEANS “only son“. IS THAT TRUE, KATHI? YES OR NO?
What we KNOW about the matter is that the Greek word “monos” means “only”. And we know that the suffix “genes” comes from the word “ginomai”, which means “generated”, “made”, “begotten”, etc. Why do you guys wish to completely ignore the “genes” part? Or worse yet, why do you wish to pretend “genes” means “son”?
You take a word that literally means “only generated”, and swap the “generated” part for “son”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:50) So, 'monogenes theos' could very well be God the only Son or God the only begotten Son.
Wrong. The “mono(only)” part would apply to theos, not the non-existent huios. The phrase “mongenes theos” could be translated as “only unique god”, or “only begotten god”, or “only generated god”. Those words will NEVER add up to “God the only Son” – no matter how badly you guys WANT them to.Kathi, I came to you for help in teaching your friend some hard cold facts, so he could stop spouting things that made him sound stupid. You have not only failed your friend in this effort, but have gone as far as to jump on his stupidity bandwagon.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:50) I do agree with you that it should more simply say 'the only begotten God'…………..
Well, well…………….. a glimpse of sanity after all. There is no such phrase as, “God the only Son” in all of the scriptures. And there is NO WAY to come to this phrase from the words “monogenes theos”, or from the words “monogenes huios”.And the thing about 1:18 is that the words are EITHER “monogenes huios”, OR “monogenes theos” – depending on the manuscript used. But there is NO Greek ms that has BOTH “theos” AND “huios” in 1:18. Therefore, “God the only Son” is a travesty of translation, and is quite frankly, laughable.
That phrase, like “Trinity” and “Godhead” before it, is nothing but the invention of men who have been blinded by the god of this age. Support it if you want – but there is no way it is scriptural.
Mike,
you said:Quote
Do you see that the word “son” is in italics in the KJV, NKJV, and NASB? That means the translators are ADDING the word “son” to the sentence because we ALREADY KNOW that Isaac was a male. The italics PROVE that the Greek word, “monogenes”, doesn't actually MEAN “only begotten son”. We can ASSUME “son” in this verse, because we know Issac was Abraham's son.The translators are adding the word 'son' to John 1:18 because we ALREADY KNOW that Jesus was a male and a son.
We can ASSUME 'son' in this verse, because we know Jesus was the Father's only begotten Son.So if you are going to go after jammin about this then you have to go after the translators of that one translation that jammin quoted and those that use it in regards to Isaac in Hebrews. The word 'Son' does not change the meaning. Jesus is the God who was in the bosom of the Father and Jesus is the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father and who explains Him.
Once again, I do agree that 'the only begotten God' is the most literal translation. It is ok that you have a preference for a more literal translation but to take jammin to the task when what he quoted is a way that verse is translated, is really fruitless. He is right to take you to task about the words you have added to the other two verses that he is confronting you on. You will not find your added words in any translation from what I recall.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 30 2012,13:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,23:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 28 2012,14:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 28 2012,13:05) Mike,
Well, close but more like this:Who, being in very nature God…
(someone who has the nature of God and should be treated as God………….)
And who or what do you mean by your two uses of the word “God” in your parenthesis?
God nature is the nature of one who is worshiped.
Second 'God' means one who is worshiped.
Okay, so like this:Who, being in the form of
Godone who is worshiped, and should be treated as one who is worshiped, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,Kathi, I believe you already acknowledged that the second “God” in that sentence refers to God Almighty, the PERSON.
Doesn't it make more sense that Jesus was existing in the form of God Almighty the Person, but didn't consider equality with God Almighty the Person a thing to be grasped?
Of course it does, as that is exactly what Paul was teaching us. Unlike you and jammin, Paul didn't consider “God” to be some kind of species, with different members – of which Jesus was one.
Paul taught that Jesus' humility was such that, even though he was existing in the form of his own God (as a powerful spirit being), he didn't consider himself equal to his own God – like Satan did.
Your understanding of this verse, and the explanation of that understanding, leave much to be desired. It is nothing more than your USUAL twistings of scriptures in your effort to FORCE them to teach things they don't really teach.
The first “God” in that verse refers to the same thing (person) as the second “God” in that verse. The only other way around that common sense understanding is to claim Paul believed in “God” as a species, and Jesus had the nature of this species, because he was a member of that species. And that goes against EVERYTHING ELSE Paul taught about Jesus and his God – who also happens to be our God.
Kathi, the God of Jesus is the God of us. This is scriptural, as Jesus himself says so.
When will you believe this?
Mike,Quote Unlike you and jammin, Paul didn't consider “God” to be some kind of species, with different members – of which Jesus was one. Well, I don't believe that jammin or myself have said one way or the other that God was some kind of species.
more later.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 31 2012,13:57) The translators are adding the word 'son' to John 1:18 because we ALREADY KNOW that Jesus was a male and a son.
We can ASSUME 'son' in this verse, because we know Jesus was the Father's only begotten Son.
That's not an equal comparison, Kathi.The Greek words “monogenes theos” cannot possibly mean “God, the only Son” – even if you italicized the word “son”. They can italicize “son” and ADD that word into the scripture, but if they did, it would say, “the only begotten god son“.
They are changing “monogenes theos” to “theos monogenes”, and then adding “son” to the end. Now, tell me I'm wrong.
Also, tell me if the word “monogenes”, IN AND OF ITSELF, means “only son”. Does it? YES or NO?
See, you missed the entire point I was making about the italicized “son” in Hebrews. The FACT that the word “son” IS italicized PROVES that the word “monogenes”, IN AND OF ITSELF, doesn't mean “only son”. That's why they had to ADD the word “son” in italics in the first place Kathi………….. because the word “monogenes” doesn't mean “only son”. Yet jammin is claiming that it does.
Is jammin right about this? YES or NO?
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 31 2012,13:57) Once again, I do agree that 'the only begotten God' is the most literal translation. It is ok that you have a preference for a more literal translation but to take jammin to the task when what he quoted is a way that verse is translated, is really fruitless.
I agree that trying to teach jammin the TRUTH about many things seems to be fruitless. But I try anyway. You can help your friend if you want to, simply by telling him the TRUTH of the matter that the Greek word “monogenes” DOESN'T MEAN “ONLY SON”.Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 31 2012,13:57) He is right to take you to task about the words you have added to the other two verses that he is confronting you on. You will not find your added words in any translation from what I recall.
First of all, I answered his first question the first time he asked it. I told him point blank, “NO, there is no translation that says the words, “his God” in Phil 2. How many times should I answer it, Kathi?When I made that statement about “his God”, I seriously, for the life of me, thought that everyone in the whole world understood that Paul was saying Jesus was existing in the form of Jehovah, his God.
I never in a million years figured that you two think Paul was talking about Jesus existing in the form of “godkind”. I thought it was self-evident that he was existing in the form of Jehovah, his God, but didn't consider equality with Jehovah, his God, something to be grasped.
Even Ed piped in and asked why it would matter if I was saying “his God”, since we all know that Jehovah IS the God of Jesus. Apparently, both Ed and I just assumed that all people understood that Paul MEANT “God” when he WROTE “God”.
I honestly didn't realize how far certain people would go for their doctrines. I didn't realize that people like you and jammin would have to IMAGINE that Paul was using the word “God” to refer to some kind of “god-kind species”, of which Jesus was a member. It honestly never crossed my mind.
Kathi, IF Paul was indeed talking about Jesus existing in the form of Jehovah, and not of some “god-kind species” like you think, would it then be wrong of me to say “his God”, since we all know that the Father IS the God of Jesus? YES or NO?
And finally, concerning jammin's other question, “NO, I don't know of any English Bible that translates “monogenes” as “uniquely generated”. But jammin's answer is always the same: READ IT IN SCRIPTURE, OR ELSE IT'S NOT TRUE.
Kathi, is that a fair assessment? Do you agree that the “mono” part of “monogenes” is said to mean “only”, “one”, “one after its kind”, and “unique”? YES or NO?
Now, consider this info:
The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is mo·no·ge·nes′, from mo′nos, meaning “only,” and gi′no·mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.Hence, mo·no·ge·nes′ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.
(jammin, pay REAL CLOSE ATTENTION to the “i.e.” in the definition above. It means the same thing as the parenthesis mean in the definition you quoted. They both mean, “AS IN”, or “FOR EXAMPLE”. In other words, monogenes means “only generated”, AS IN an only child. Do you see the difference? It doesn't MEAN “only child”. It MEANS “only generated”, AS IN an only child. Get it?)
And Kathi, based on the teachings of Strong, as quoted above, does the root word of “genes” mean “to generate”? YES or NO?
If so, then is “only generated” an accurate translation of “monogenes”? YES or NO?
And if so, knowing that the “mono” part of the word can also mean “unique”, would “uniquely generated” also be an accurate translation of “monogenes”? YES or NO?
And if so, then does the fact that no English Bible renders “monogenes” as “uniquely generated” mean I am a “false teacher” by saying the word can mean that? YES or NO?
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 31 2012,14:06) Well, I don't believe that jammin or myself have said one way or the other that God was some kind of species.
Let's make this simple, Kathi.I can show you MANY scriptures where Paul meant “God Almighty” when he used the word “theos”.
Can YOU show me even ONE scripture where Paul used the word “theos” to describe what you say he was describing in Phil 2:6? In other words, is there a scriptural use of “theos” by Paul that would SUPPORT your understanding of his use of the word in Phil 2:6?
jammin,
I have yet again answered YOUR questions in my post to Kathi. It's now YOUR turn again:
jammin, we both agree that there exists only ONE Almighty God. Does that ONE Almighty God have a Son named Jesus? YES or NO?
mike said:First of all, I answered his first question the first time he asked it. I told him point blank, “NO, there is no translation that says the words, “his God” in Phil 2. How many times should I answer it, Kathi?
mike said:
And finally, concerning jammin's other question, “NO, I don't know of any English Bible that translates “monogenes” as “uniquely generated”.——–
thank you mike for answering. you are really a false teacher. you always do this mike. you say words that are not written in the bible. those words only exist in your imagination LOLbtw i already answered your question. the nature of God is almighty. if you are GOD< you are almighty.
who is that GOD you are referring to??before i forgot, you still did not answer my last question.are you better than those scholars who translated john 1.18 as God the only son when it comes to greek?
yes or no?Mike,
Here is a verse, 'gods':
Gal 4:6 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.That is good that you answered jammin.
I have said all I'm going to say about John 1:18 in this regard. It really seems pointless.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 01 2012,22:50) Mike,
Here is a verse, 'gods':
Gal 4:6 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.That is good that you answered jammin.
I have said all I'm going to say about John 1:18 in this regard. It really seems pointless.
]kathiwhy would you say anything you the others make their mind up just like you do ;
tell me HIS GOD THE FATHER THE ONLY TRUE GOD
IF YES
THEN CHRIST THE SON EVEN BEING IN THE SAME NATURE CAN NOT BE THE TRUE GOD OF WITCH HE HIS TO SON OF,YOU HAVE TO DECLARE TO BE TRUE TO YOUR OWN VIEW “THAT THEIR ARE TWO TRUE GODS ONE CALLED THE FATHER AND ONE CALLED THE SON ,AND THAT MAKES THE BIBLE USELESS TO ANY ONE BECAUSE IT LIES ON THE VERY FOUNDAMENTAL TRUTH THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD,
KISS THE DEVIL WHILE YOU ARE GOING THERE
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 01 2012,10:50) Mike,
Here is a verse, 'gods':
Gal 4:6 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
And is that the defintion you want to use for the first “God” in Phil 2:6, Kathi?Are you claiming that Jesus was existing in the form of “gods”, but didn't consider equality with his own God something to be grasped?
I asked for an instance where Paul used the word “theos” in a way that supports what YOU think he meant by “theos” in the first part of Phil 2:6. Can you show me an example? Because the one you showed doesn't match what you've claimed about Phil 2:6.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 01 2012,10:50) I have said all I'm going to say about John 1:18 in this regard. It really seems pointless.
Okay. The following questions are about the Greek language, and not about John 1:18, so you should be able to easily answer them. (I believe they are all simple YES or NO questions, so it shouldn't take too much time out of your life.)1. Does the Greek word “monogenes”, IN AND OF ITSELF, mean “only son”? YES or NO?
2. Do the Greek words “monogenes theos”, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, mean “God the only Son”? YES or NO?
3. Kathi, IF Paul was indeed talking about Jesus existing in the form of Jehovah, and not of some “god-kind species” like you think, would it then be wrong of me to say “his God”, since we all know that the Father IS the God of Jesus? YES or NO?
4. Kathi, based on the teachings of Strong, as quoted in my last post, does the root word of “genes” mean “to generate”? YES or NO?
5. If so, then is “only generated” an accurate translation of “monogenes”? YES or NO?
6. And if so, knowing that the “mono” part of the word can also mean “unique”, would “uniquely generated” also be an accurate translation of “monogenes”? YES or NO?
7. And if so, then does the fact that no English Bible renders “monogenes” as “uniquely generated” mean I am a “false teacher” by saying the word can mean that? YES or NO?
I realize you don't WANT to answer these questions. I understand that your HONEST and CORRECT answers to these questions might embarass your buddy jammin, and put him at odds with you. But are we after TRUTH in this forum? Or just trying to find people who will side with us?
(Btw, you might as well give up on you and jammin being sidekicks anyway. He believes the truth of the scriptures that there exists only ONE Almighty God. And by now he also realizes that you believe in TWO Almighty Gods. That being the case, you should save face and answer the questions. That way, the rest of us will most likely eventually forget about the personal reason you didn't answer them the first time.
)Quote (jammin @ Nov. 01 2012,09:18) mike said: “NO, there is no translation that says the words, “his God” in Phil 2. mike said:
“NO, I don't know of any English Bible that translates “monogenes” as “uniquely generated”.——–
thank you mike for answering. you are really a false teacher.
How so, jammin? Do you really believe that if the words aren't in the Bible exactly the way I said them, then what I said is automatically false? You can't really believe that crap, can you?1. You do realize that OUR God is also the God of JESUS, right?
Therefore, OUR God is HIS God. I have not spoken falsely.2. You are smart enough to realize that “unique” is one way to translate the Greek word “monos”, right? And you're smart enough to know that “to generate” is one way to translate the root word from which “genes” comes, right? If you are able to realize these FACTS, then you SHOULD also be able to realize that “uniquely generated” is a perfectly acceptable translation of “monogenes”. After all, you accept “uniquely begotten”, right? And “begotten” is a synonym of “generated”.
So once again, I haven't spoken anything that is false. jammin, what does it mean when someone claims that a person who is speaking the truth is really speaking falsely? Doesn't that make you a bearer of false witness against me? What are we told by God about bearing false witness against our neighbors? Is it acceptable to God?
Quote (jammin @ Nov. 01 2012,09:18) you always do this mike. you say words that are not written in the bible.
Oh, you mean like the word “trinity”? Where in the Bible can I find that word, jammin? Newsflash, sonny! Just because the exact words are not in the Bible doesn't make them false words. Do you think that Jesus is the Lord of the Apostle Thaddaeus? Does anybody ever mention in the Bible that Jesus is HIS LORD? Would I be a “false teacher” then, if I was speaking about Thaddaeus, and said something about HIS LORD Jesus?Lord have mercy, jammin. Surely you MUST be smarter than this, right?
Can I say, “The Bible is the written word of God”, even though the word “Bible” isn't even in the Bible? Or would I be a “false teacher” for making that claim? I swear, sometimes I just want to reach into the computer and slap some sense into you………………. which brings me to this next senseless thing you've been saying:Quote (jammin @ Nov. 01 2012,09:18) who is that GOD you are referring to??
What in the world are you talking about? You just got done saying that there is only ONE Almighty God. Now you're asking me WHO the Almighty God is that I'm talking about? That doesn't even compute, jammin. If there is only ONE of them, then I have no choice but to be talking about that ONE. Now, would you please answer the question:
jammin, you and I both believe that there exists only ONE Almighty God. Does that ONE Almighty God have a son named Jesus? YES or NO?Quote (jammin @ Nov. 01 2012,09:18) you still did not answer my last question.are you better than those scholars who translated john 1.18 as God the only son when it comes to greek?
yes or no?
I don't know whether I'm “better” than them or not, but I do know that “monogenes theos” doesn't mean “God the only Son”. I'm surprised that you don't also know this, since you claim to have studied Greek.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 01 2012,10:50) That is good that you answered jammin.
Glad you're happy. Now be a good girl and answer my questions.mike said:How so, jammin? Do you really believe that if the words aren't in the Bible exactly the way I said them, then what I said is automatically false?
You can't really believe that crap, can you?
—-
mike i do not need your opinion. if all preachers will be like you then what is the use of the bible? dont you have any common sense mike?
what is the use of the bible if i can say anything i want even if i cant read my words in the bible.
do not use bible mike.. use pocket book LOLbtw i am not preaching the WORD “trinity.”
did i say that you can find that word in the bible???
did i say that i believe in that WORD?talk to people who believe that the “word trinity” is in the bible.
i say what is written in the bible mike.————
mike said:
I don't know whether I'm “better” than them or not, but I do know that “monogenes theos” doesn't mean “God the only Son”. I'm surprised that you don't also know this, since you claim to have studied Greek.me: then dont pretend mike that you know the language. scholars translated john 1.18 as GOD THE ONLY SON and i believe that mike bec i can read that in the bible. im not like you…
you believe what is not written in the bible. you preach imagination mike LOL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
