Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
MV's use manuscripts that make Jesus the begotten God of the JFW's (NASB translates this directly). Is this scriptural evidence against CT based MV's?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Only Begotten God?
- Thread starter Faith Fact Feeling
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Once again, in English please
instead of acryonm-ese.
what is a JFW?
what is a CT?
instead of acryonm-ese.
what is a JFW?
what is a CT?
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Jehovah's False Witnesses
Critical Text
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
1. The JWs started when this *questionable* reading was first published in an English Bible.
2. The reading states he was a "begotten God", not begotten and God.
Did God so love the world that he gave his only "begotten God"?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Would somebody share with me the
Scripture reference that we are discussing?
I want to look it up in my perfect Bible:
the New King James Version (nKJV).
Thank you.
Scripture reference that we are discussing?
I want to look it up in my perfect Bible:
the New King James Version (nKJV).
Thank you.
Actually, the JWs started before the Revised Version. Which means they had their idea before the CT. But the reading in the Greek is *much* older than them anyway. Either way, to tie them together is simply "guilty by association".
There's a difference? Why don't millions of Baptists have a problem with it, but rather just a select few from the fringes?
The Father gave the Son. The Father is God but not begotten. The Son is God and begotten. What's the problem?
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Actually, the JWs started before the Revised Version. Which means they had their idea before the CT. But the reading in the Greek is *much* older than them anyway. Either way, to tie them together is simply "guilty by association".
There's a difference? Why don't millions of Baptists have a problem with it, but rather just a select few from the fringes?
The Father gave the Son. The Father is God but not begotten. The Son is God and begotten. What's the problem? </font>[/QUOTE]1. Good info. You are correct about the timing with regard to the English Bible. Their inception was just before its release. But I'm sure you know this is central teaching of the JWs--that Jesus was a begotten God. Definitely a guilt by association. The fact that the reading is older does not necessarily mean more accurate though. Heretical beliefs were being taught during the apostles day, and during the time the Alexadrian manuscripts were written.
2. Theres only a difference if one understands the definitons of these words.
3. The problem is that you must re-word it to fit your meaning. Read as it stands it says that Jesus was a "begotten God".
Good, since you agree it is guilty by association, then you must also agree that the "only begotten God" reading should not be thrown out just because the JWs have a skewed view of what that means.
Please explain the difference to me. Do you believe Jesus is "begotten"? Do you believe Jesus is "God"? Have I used these words with a different definition?
No, it doesn't say "a" begotten God as you tried to sneak in there.
It's says "the". There is only one God. Jesus was God, Jesus was begotten. I still don't understand your problem with the reading, and I'm beginning to thing you don't either.
Brian, I don't consider myself on the "fringe" of Baptistdom, but I do quibble with begotten.
John 3:16, ESV: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16, NET: "For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
NET translators note: "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 (tevkna qeou', 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). "
"Begotten," in modern English, I think, does not convey the original intent.
John 3:16, ESV: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16, NET: "For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
NET translators note: "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 (tevkna qeou', 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). "
"Begotten," in modern English, I think, does not convey the original intent.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
1. Guilty by association can carry different connotations (English lesson in progress). It should be thrown out. This association is kinda like the skeletons under Gacey's house. The JWs can at least read English.Originally posted by BrianT:
1. Good, since you agree it is guilty by association, then you must also agree that the "only begotten God" reading should not be thrown out just because the JWs have a skewed view of what that means.
2. Please explain the difference to me. Do you believe Jesus is "begotten"? Do you believe Jesus is "God"? Have I used these words with a different definition?
3. No, it doesn't say "a" begotten God as you tried to sneak in there.
2. I believe he was "begotten" and "God", but not a ("the only" if you like) "begotten God". It's real simple Brian, when two words are joined together one tends to modify the other. I know this is difficult for you. You probably know the "original Greek" better I'm sure.
3. That wasn't a sneak, just a slip. It does say "the". One "thing" is for sure, your the one that doesn't understand.
[ February 05, 2003, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]
rsr, I agree totally with your post. The context of my comment was not about the word begotten, but about the reading that says "God" instead of "Son". The only people I've met that say it's a problem is KJV-only supporters, and the problem they say it creates does not exist in the mind of other Baptists. That's all I meant.
So they read English. They interpret it differently. Should we thrown out the KJV because Mormons deny the Trinity yet use the KJV? You cannot discard a reading simply because another group interprets it differently.
Really? What other begotten Gods do you believe in?
No, I don't know the "original Greek", but I can look things up easily enough.
What you say about joining words together does not make sense. Isa 9:6 says Jesus is the "mighty God". He is "mighty", and he is "God", and thus saying he is the "mighty God" does not change either of those, and is acceptable. Why does that break down for joining "begotten" and "God"?
Your profile says you are a "born-again believer". Are you "born-again"? Yes. Are you a "believer"? Yes. Thus, you area a "born-again believer". Simple, no?
Then why don't you explain it already? If you *do* understand it, why is it taking you so long to explain it?
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
So they read English. They interpret it differently. Should we thrown out the KJV because Mormons deny the Trinity yet use the KJV? You cannot discard a reading simply because another group interprets it differently.
Really? What other begotten Gods do you believe in?
No, I don't know the "original Greek", but I can look things up easily enough.
What you say about joining words together does not make sense. Isa 9:6 says Jesus is the "mighty God". He is "mighty", and he is "God", and thus saying he is the "mighty God" does not change either of those, and is acceptable. Why does that break down for joining "begotten" and "God"?
Your profile says you are a "born-again believer". Are you "born-again"? Yes. Are you a "believer"? Yes. Thus, you area a "born-again believer". Simple, no?
Then why don't you explain it already? If you *do* understand it, why is it taking you so long to explain it? </font>[/QUOTE]OK, Brian, simmer down a little. I was just messing with you. I don't have a stake burning with your name on it (just in case you were wondering). I just think that the reading "begotten God", these two words in conjunction, taken from the CT, could be from an ancient cult. I think the JW's beliefs and usage give credence to this. Judging by your response to rsr I can tell you know what I am talking about. I think you understand my point. And I certainly understand you do not agree with it.
I think your analogy to "mighty God" does not work with this issue. Mighty is a modifier that signifies a quality about God I certainly would not disagree with. Begotten is a whole other matter.
About the Mormons, do they use the KJV, or just distribute it? Plus, they needed a few extra books to correct it anyway, as I understand it. All the Russellites need is a Bible with the Hell removed and Jesus as a created deity (as far as I know).
Sorry, Brian. I admit I'm having trouble following this thread.
Interestingly, the NIV gets it right at at John 1:14:
Looks like the majority of the MVs agree, and none of them (with the exception of the New World) endorse the JW position.)
Interestingly, the NIV gets it right at at John 1:14:
And the ESV:
CEV:
Phillips NT:
And the NET:
See note on John 3:16.
Looks like the majority of the MVs agree, and none of them (with the exception of the New World) endorse the JW position.)
Funny that FFF should try to argue this one. It is a plain statement of Christ's deity.
The Mormons disdain MV's because of verses like this. The Jehovah's Witness that I dealt with the most hated this verse and got very uncomfortable when I used the NASB with her. The KJV was once their official Bible. The NASB never was, and never will be because of verses like John 1:18, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1. It seems they know how to make their arguments from the KJV or NWT but not the NASB.
The Mormons disdain MV's because of verses like this. The Jehovah's Witness that I dealt with the most hated this verse and got very uncomfortable when I used the NASB with her. The KJV was once their official Bible. The NASB never was, and never will be because of verses like John 1:18, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1. It seems they know how to make their arguments from the KJV or NWT but not the NASB.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
From what I have read of your posts Scotty, you find a lot of things funny you “refuse” to understand. Sounds like the JWs you witnessed to were at least equal to you in intellectual acumen.
Who doesn't know, other than you Scotty, that in John 1:18 the TR has “son” and the CT has “God”. Any MV that has rejected this reading rejects it from your blessed “older” Alexandrian manuscripts. Oh, and by the way, here is the NWT reading with the NASB. It kind of sheds some light on the bias of your last sentence. Enjoy.
John 1:18
"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father" NWT
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father" NASU