Holes in the trinity

[Shermana]

The KJV is not the only version to use "begotten:" the American Standard, the Douay-Rheims, the New American Standard, the New King James (they must have been just as ignorant as the original translators), the Darby Translation, the Webster Bible, the Third Millennium Bible, Young's Literal Translation to name a few. Is it possible that there are more than one way to translate the original?

Nice avoidance of my question, but it is possible in a sense that translations are not always word-for-word but "Thought for thought", but they in those cases are not being Literal. If you're not concerned about what the Greek actually says and want a translation that suits a traditional audience that essentially DEMANDS it to be translated it that way, then you're cool. There was in fact outcry against the "one and only" issue because "begotten" was for some reason such a sancrosanct word for so many in that verse. For whatever reason, publishers are aware that "begotten" can make the difference of millions of sales and use in churches or not, regardless of its accuracy. I wouldn't call them "ignorant" or "stupid" as you have, but I would call them "embellishing". With that said however, Monogenes can have an implication of "begotten", as long as you understand its an implication and not the actual word itself. If I said "I'm my mom's one and only", obviously that would imply "begotten".

The question, what do you think Monogenes means in the Greek? Does it have a necessary implication of a state of being born? In LUke 7:12 for example, it is used for "Only son", but guess what, the word "Son" is a different word. Hence, it only means "only". Good luck finding a translation that says "Only begotten son" for Luke 7:12.

Also, do notice in Hebrews 11:17, Isaac was called Abraham's ("one and only") "Only begotten" son (Monogenes), but does that mean "Only begotten"? What about Ishmael? Apparently he doesn't count for some reason. So in that case, what do we do with the word "Monogenes"?

As much as I like Young's Literal, they sometimes do sell out for the crowd-pleasing translation once in a while, such as with this case.

So yes, there are possible translations if you don't mind those that deviate from the actual text. If you're cool with that, that's fine, but if you're going to argue about what the Greek itself says, you're gonna be stuck in a situation where your translation falls flat because it's more of a crowd pleaser than an attempt for total accuracy.

By all means, please tell me why it does not say "Only begotten son" in any of your translations in Luke 7:12, thanks.

So let me ask you again, why did the NIV and others translate it that way? Were they stupid? Ignorant? Lying?

And with that said however, your original point about the word "begotten" is still disproven, since it is only ever meant for direct physical birth in the text, and reading anything more into it is baseless.

 

[Kenny]

And with that said however, your original point about the word "begotten" is still disproven, since it is only ever meant for direct physical birth in the text, and reading anything more into it is baseless.

What is the Greek word for "direct spiritual birth"?

 

[RabbiO]

What is the Greek word for "direct spiritual birth"?

Well it certainly took you long enough to accept the invite.

Peter

 

[Kenny]

LOL… You are quick to find me!

And a "God filled New Year" to you!!

 

[Shermana]

What is the Greek word for "direct spiritual birth"?

There is none at least that I'm aware of.

However, what you may have is the word Anothen seen in John 3:3, commonly mistranslated as "Born again", which is "from Above", as in a Heavenly above.

 

[Kenny]

There is none at least that I'm aware of.

However, what you may have is the word Anothen seen in John 3:3, commonly mistranslated as "Born again", which is "from Above", as in a Heavenly above.

So, why does "only begotten" have to be physical alone? Or was there another point that I missed. I just came on board and just couldn't quite pinpoint what the issue was on this even though I read through the thread-line.

It seemed to be concentrated on Luke but I just couldn't get the gist of what the issue was.

 

[savagewind]

So, why does "only begotten" have to be physical alone? Or was there another point that I missed. I just came on board and just couldn't quite pinpoint what the issue was on this even though I read through the thread-line.

It seemed to be concentrated on Luke but I just couldn't get the gist of what the issue was.

The point is a father has a son. It's just plain silly to believe a father is the son of himself. A son is something added to a father. To add needs two things, or more things that are not together then they are.

They say the son was not begotten but was with God from the beginning as God. But then they say he was begotton too. Does anyone remember Babylon means confusion? Or doesn't it? The Bible warns us to get out of Babylon, doesn't it?

 

[Shermana]

So, why does "only begotten" have to be physical alone?

First off, the word "begotten" which is not the actual translation of Monogenes, only ever applies to physical birth in old English, unless you can find another example, you can make up any interpretation for any word you want, just don't try getting others to believe it when you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

Or was there another point that I missed.

Just the point that anyone can make any definition they want from anything with or without evidence of its use being used as such.

I just came on board and just couldn't quite pinpoint what the issue was on this even though I read through the thread-line.

It seemed to be concentrated on Luke but I just couldn't get the gist of what the issue was

The issue was an attempt to use the word "begotten" in some strange mystical way to enforce the idea of the Trinity, which is a typical tactic by Trinitarians to redefine and revision anything they want from the text other than what the plain reading and evidenced context entails. As Savagewind says, to say that "begotten" can mean a person bringing a piece of themselves through another medium not only isn't implicit in the text whatsoever, it violates the very meaning of what "begotten" means in every single other instance of how its used.

So if your argument is that a word can mean something different than how its used every single other time and have absolutely no evidence that it's ever used the way you're implying, that's fine and dandy as long as you don't try using that in a debate.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Nice avoidance of my question, but it is possible in a sense that translations are not always word-for-word but "Thought for thought", but they in those cases are not being Literal. If you're not concerned about what the Greek actually says and want a translation that suits a traditional audience that essentially DEMANDS it to be translated it that way, then you're cool. There was in fact outcry against the "one and only" issue because "begotten" was for some reason such a sancrosanct word for so many in that verse. For whatever reason, publishers are aware that "begotten" can make the difference of millions of sales and use in churches or not, regardless of its accuracy. I wouldn't call them "ignorant" or "stupid" as you have, but I would call them "embellishing". With that said however, Monogenes can have an implication of "begotten", as long as you understand its an implication and not the actual word itself. If I said "I'm my mom's one and only", obviously that would imply "begotten".

The question, what do you think Monogenes means in the Greek? Does it have a necessary implication of a state of being born? In LUke 7:12 for example, it is used for "Only son", but guess what, the word "Son" is a different word. Hence, it only means "only". Good luck finding a translation that says "Only begotten son" for Luke 7:12.

Also, do notice in Hebrews 11:17, Isaac was called Abraham's ("one and only") "Only begotten" son (Monogenes), but does that mean "Only begotten"? What about Ishmael? Apparently he doesn't count for some reason. So in that case, what do we do with the word "Monogenes"?

As much as I like Young's Literal, they sometimes do sell out for the crowd-pleasing translation once in a while, such as with this case.

So yes, there are possible translations if you don't mind those that deviate from the actual text. If you're cool with that, that's fine, but if you're going to argue about what the Greek itself says, you're gonna be stuck in a situation where your translation falls flat because it's more of a crowd pleaser than an attempt for total accuracy.

By all means, please tell me why it does not say "Only begotten son" in any of your translations in Luke 7:12, thanks.

So let me ask you again, why did the NIV and others translate it that way? Were they stupid? Ignorant? Lying?

I do not know Greek.

And with that said however, your original point about the word "begotten" is still disproven, since it is only ever meant for direct physical birth in the text, and reading anything more into it is baseless.

My point is still the same. In either translation Jesus still is the Son of God and as I stated only His body began at His birth.

 

[Shermana]

You don't have to speak fluent Koine to research that Monogenes means "Unique" and "only", and that the word "begotten" is an implied addition that's not a direct translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogenēs

It can also mean "Only legitimate child" which explains the case of Isaac, an example of how implications of the word extend beyond the literal translation.

For example of how translators add the embellishment (though still implied idea) of "begotten", look at Plato's Timaeus.

Timaeus 31b, "In order then that [the world] might be solitary, like the perfect animal, [the creator] made not two worlds (cosmos) or an infinite number of them; but there is and ever will be one only-begotten heaven (ouranos) created."[13][14]

In this case, "only begotten Heaven" has an implication for something that is created, but is the "one and only" universe. The word "begotten" by the translators here may not be entirely on point however.

However, look at Psalm 22, which is clearly NOT talking about one's "Only child", but their "only soul".

Psalm 22:20 "deliver my soul from the sword, my only begotten (life?) from the hand of the dog."

Same for Psalm 35.

Psalm 35:17 "deliver my soul from their mischief, my only begotten (life?) from the lions."

The phrase "Son of God" may in fact be referring to his status as the "Firstborn of Creation", a literal, not some metaphorical concept of "Pre-eminence" in that John was directly stating what Philo, and likely Solomon as well in Proverbs 8, said about the incarnation of Wisdom, who was the First Created Being and the Instrument and Vehicle of which all Creation was made Through. The concept of what "Son of God" entails has been furiously debated for centuries. See Wisdom of Solomon:

Wisdom of Solomon 7:22 "there is in her (i.e. Wisdom) a spirit quick of understanding, holy, as an only child (monogenes), manifold."

The idea is that all these references to "Wisdom" as an actual person was not an abstract poetic concept but instead, very literal, as a literal heir to God Himself and may extend to the Targum's use of the "Word of God" concept.

 

[Kenny]

The point is a father has a son. It's just plain silly to believe a father is the son of himself. A son is something added to a father. To add needs two things, or more things that are not together then they are.

I'm not quite sure one has to see it that way. You read it literally… why are you reading it literally?

In the Tanakh, Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Did God begat us all? Or did my physical father have something to do with it? Could this be, let's say, Babylonish to someone too? Or is it not to be taken literally!!

They say the son was not begotten but was with God from the beginning as God. But then they say he was begotton too. Does anyone remember Babylon means confusion? Or doesn't it? The Bible warns us to get out of Babylon, doesn't it?

Yes, there shouldn't be confusion. But who is confused in this case? Certainly, if you talk to Christians, they don't seem to be confused.

Maybe it is simply lack of knowledge or the rejection of knowledge? Hosea 4:6.

Not trying to pick a bone with you, but one must be open to other interpretations. Having different interpretations is very Jewish! :yes:

 

[Shermana]

Yes, there shouldn't be confusion. But who is confused in this case? Certainly, if you talk to Christians, they don't seem to be confused.

What do you mean they don't seem to be confused? They are constantly arguing over different points of doctrine. They don't even all agree over the Trinity? What fantasy world are you living in where there's no confusion among Christians?

Maybe it is simply lack of knowledge or the rejection of knowledge? Hosea 4:6.

Now THAT is something that you'll find for sure if you talk to most Christians, most of them don't even know the contents of the Gospels themselves, let alone what Paul says.

Not trying to pick a bone with you, but one must be open to other interpretations. Having different interpretations is very Jewish! :yes:

If only Most Christians were open to the idea of different interpretations, it would be so much easier getting them to understand basic context.

 

[Kenny]

First off, the word "begotten" which is not the actual translation of Monogenes, only ever applies to physical birth in old English, unless you can find another example, you can make up any interpretation for any word you want, just don't try getting others to believe it when you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

Just the point that anyone can make any definition they want from anything with or without evidence of its use being used as such.

EXACTLY!

A spiritual application of "begotten"

1 Peter 1:Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The issue was an attempt to use the word "begotten" in some strange mystical way to enforce the idea of the Trinity, which is a typical tactic by Trinitarians to redefine and revision anything they want from the text other than what the plain reading and evidenced context entails.

I really don't think that the whole of the thought of the Godhead is based on one word, that is "begotten". I believe it is also viewed as evidenced in the Tanakh.

For an example: Is 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit on your descendants, my blessing on your offspring.

So… did God just become poured some of Himself on His descendants? How can God pour out God? Or perhaps it was His Holy Spirit as Jesus referenced.

I guess, if one wants to be contentious, one can be contentious.

 

[Shermana]

So… did God just become poured some of Himself on His descendants? How can God pour out God? Or perhaps it was His Holy Spirit as Jesus referenced.

I guess, if one wants to be contentious, one can be contentious.

Precisely.

 

[Kenny]

What do you mean they don't seem to be confused? They are constantly arguing over different points of doctrine. They don't even all agree over the Trinity? What fantasy world are you living in where there's no confusion among Christians?

A difference of opinion is hardly "confusion". Otherwise every marriage would be a mess

Now THAT is something that you'll find for sure if you talk to most Christians, most of them don't even know the contents of the Gospels themselves, let alone what Paul says.

Surely. That's why one must study. Most don't. But Christians don't have a corner on that market. I'm sure I could find some even in your camp.

If only Most Christians were open to the idea of different interpretations, it would be so much easier getting them to understand basic context.

The fundamental (or the foundation) is really not under dispute. Jesus came to save; died on the cross for the sins of mankind to redeem them; resurrected therefore taking the keys of death, hell and the grave; is seated at the right hand of the Father; and the Messiah is coming again.

Those who dispute this basic foundational belief are most assuredly Christians in name only.

 

[Muffled]

I have been shown it means it is the word that makes things happen. And I have been shown that the verb is wrong. It is not was it is is.

In the beginning is the word and the word is with God and the word is god.

I have more but I don't love talking to myself. Peace

I believe it depends on your perspective. For us the beginning was but for God it is.

 

[Muffled]

This isn't the more I mentioned I had but here it is (even though I am sure I'm talking to the wind). So the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong saying the word is A god. And the rest are wrong saying the word is THE GOD. And the reason why is words make bad things happen even as words can make good things happen. If you wish to get technical you might say the word is very many gods.

The fact that words can make bad things happen and some who claim to love God make bad things happen by their false teaching, words have become the shame of the Lord.

Anyone loving any lie at all to pass it along cannot possibly be beside The Lord to love HIM.

I believe the error in this thinking should follow from this logic.

The Word is great than a word and God is greater than a god. Sure the Word is a word but it is not all words good and evil, Sure God is a god but He is pre-eminent over all gods.

 

[Muffled]

Nice avoidance of my question, but it is possible in a sense that translations are not always word-for-word but "Thought for thought", but they in those cases are not being Literal. If you're not concerned about what the Greek actually says and want a translation that suits a traditional audience that essentially DEMANDS it to be translated it that way, then you're cool. There was in fact outcry against the "one and only" issue because "begotten" was for some reason such a sancrosanct word for so many in that verse. For whatever reason, publishers are aware that "begotten" can make the difference of millions of sales and use in churches or not, regardless of its accuracy. I wouldn't call them "ignorant" or "stupid" as you have, but I would call them "embellishing". With that said however, Monogenes can have an implication of "begotten", as long as you understand its an implication and not the actual word itself. If I said "I'm my mom's one and only", obviously that would imply "begotten".

The question, what do you think Monogenes means in the Greek? Does it have a necessary implication of a state of being born? In LUke 7:12 for example, it is used for "Only son", but guess what, the word "Son" is a different word. Hence, it only means "only". Good luck finding a translation that says "Only begotten son" for Luke 7:12.

Also, do notice in Hebrews 11:17, Isaac was called Abraham's ("one and only") "Only begotten" son (Monogenes), but does that mean "Only begotten"? What about Ishmael? Apparently he doesn't count for some reason. So in that case, what do we do with the word "Monogenes"?

As much as I like Young's Literal, they sometimes do sell out for the crowd-pleasing translation once in a while, such as with this case.

So yes, there are possible translations if you don't mind those that deviate from the actual text. If you're cool with that, that's fine, but if you're going to argue about what the Greek itself says, you're gonna be stuck in a situation where your translation falls flat because it's more of a crowd pleaser than an attempt for total accuracy.

By all means, please tell me why it does not say "Only begotten son" in any of your translations in Luke 7:12, thanks.

So let me ask you again, why did the NIV and others translate it that way? Were they stupid? Ignorant? Lying?

And with that said however, your original point about the word "begotten" is still disproven, since it is only ever meant for direct physical birth in the text, and reading anything more into it is baseless.

I believe if you are saying that only son and only begotten son is a matter of preference I can agree with that. After all how does one get sons. The begotten has to be obvious and does not need to be stated but it is probably there to conflct with the notion that Jesus was created although both are true.

 

[savagewind]

This is what the trinity sounds like; There is one God. One God is three gods. See how there are two there?

1. There is one God

2. Three gods in one God

That makes two.

To get technical now your second god is actually three gods. That makes four.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus is God's son. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son? How? The definition of son is someone born to or adopted. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?

Hi, Savage.

I'm interested in this topic, but can't say much now because supper's almost on the table. My answers:

1. You say Jesus is God.
A: Not I; you must be addressing someone else.

2. Jesus is God's son.
A: Not His biological son; God is not biological. Jesus is God's "son", in the same way that I am God's "son"; and I am not God. (cf John 17)

3. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son?
A: I don't believe in any "trinity". We can all become "one" with God in purpose, if we submit to His will; but that doesn't make us part of a "trinity".

4. The definition of son is someone born to or adopted.
A: Yes. I am a natural son of my earthly father, and the adopted son of my heavenly father. The scriptures indicate that Jesus was the same, though he was born via a miracle. He was the natural son of David, as Paul says. Two genealogies are given for him, one by adoption (probably Matthew) and one by a physical link (prob. Luke). No genealogy is given for Mary, who early church tradition says was the daughter of Anna and Joachim.

5. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?
A: No. God is eternal, with no beginning and no end. WE came from Him; so WE have a beginning; and our beginning and end are in God. He is therefore OUR "Alpha and Omega". In OUR beginning, i.e. in the beginning of the universe, God created the heavens and the earth. God lives outside of beginnings and endings. All things were made by the word of God, which is a "thing", not a person. The Pe****ta Bible calls that "word" a term that, essentially means the "mind" of God. When we trust and obey that word, that word "becomes flesh" in us.

Time to eat. Shalom shalom :eat: