Doesn't throwing out the word "begotten" from John 3:16 confirm what the HQ has been saying for about 1400 years, that Jesus was not begotten by God, that God DOES NOT begett?

Comments

• you've exposed many points of major misunderstanding here and you deserve max points for that.
  .
  I don't think you're poles apart from Muslims as you imply in your answer. Yes, there is a gap, but there are many bridges across.
  .
  yes the HQ says God did not begett Jesus, see http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1268825
  .
  yes Mohammed was Jehovah's prophet foretold by both Moses http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3517713 and Jesus http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3674410
  .
  your insinuation that I'm BLASPHEMOUS and slandering Jesus is unkind. Please quote where I've done that.
  .
  saying things like "our GOD and us" is taking apartheid to the ultimate extreme. Yet all scriptures say our God is one, the OT in Deuteronomy 6:4, the NT in Mark 12:29 and the HQ in 112:1
  .
  other bridges are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, to name just a few.
  .
  After look @ http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1029247 can you really deny they're following in the footsteps of Christ?
  .
  I leave you ith the greeting of Muslims everywhere and of Jesus too - salaam eleikom

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on January 30th, 2009

Comments

• TY and points for a thought provoking question. You're not implying that there are versions of the Bible where the "not" associated with the commandments has been thrown out, are you? and why 3500 years?

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on January 30th, 2009

• There was "the Adulterous Bible" where they accidentally forgot the word "Not" in one of the commandments (guess which?). As for the dating, my memory places Moses at about 1500 BC. But I've been wrong before. Ask my wife.

  • Report
  

  by mrbuddhafreak on January 30th, 2009

• I see you mean the Jews had been at it for 1500 years before being joined by the Christians. Hmmm
  I know for the Christians it was Paul who said there's no longer any need for the "not" I'm not so sure about the Jews.

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on January 30th, 2009

• I'm not big on the Epistles. But Paul was pretty big on a lot of "nots". But it might have been one of the things he discarded for Gentile Christians.

  • Report
  

  by mrbuddhafreak on January 30th, 2009

• very true, thing is after he finished with it, was it really Christianity any more or did the "Christian" church end up with Pauline doctrines.

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on January 30th, 2009

• Fuzzy. Before Paul, there really wasn't a strong Gentile Christianity. So, it's hard to imagine what exactly might have been.

  • Report
  

  by mrbuddhafreak on January 30th, 2009

• true, it might have remained a sect of Judaism like it was in the early years after Jesus

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on January 30th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• The word "begotten" has not been found in the oldest manuscripts now available. It is therefore agreed that the word was inserted in later manuscripts. It is for this reason that the word was thrown out - it is not part of the scripture. This brings that part of the Bible closer to HQ 112 which states "Say: He is God the one, God the eternally besought of all. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is nothing comparable to Him"

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on May 9th, 2010

• Only begotten" has been altered in each verse to "one and only" or similar by NIV, RSV, GN, LB, NEB, JB. The NKJV marg., Ne and the NASV each support the Arian reading in 1:18 that Jesus was a "begotten God."
  
  "Only begotten" is "monogenes" and this reading is found in the vast majority of manuscripts (TBS (58) "The Only Begotten Son"). The TBS. ibid, states that "only begotten" is the correct reading,
  -
  http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

  • Report
  

  by my2cents on May 9th, 2010

• Hello Bora.
  
  Quote, "The word "begotten" has not been found in the oldest manuscripts now available. It is therefore agreed that the word was inserted in later manuscripts."
  
  What manuscripts are you referring to?
  
  http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=NASB
  
  monogenēs
  
  1) single of its kind, only
  
  a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
  
  b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
  
  On this link up above scroll down and see Luke and in other places the same word is used and in the same way..
  
  http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=3&lid=en&side=r&verse=16&zoomSlider=0
  
  "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes on him might not perish, but have life eternal. "
  
  From the Codex Sinaiticus.
  
  So what older manuscript are you referring to? Please share it with us.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 9th, 2010

• The old KJV renders the verse as
  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
  
  While the newer, revised KJV (referred to as the RSV) no doubt based on later manuscripts, has the same verse as
  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."
  
  We are told in the preface of the RSV that "the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "these DEFECTS are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision . . ." No doubt one of these is the word “begotten” Notice that this word, which I have capitalised in my quote from the older version, isn't there in the newer revision of the KJV (also referred to as the Revised Standard Version)
  
  Anyway, my main point is that this removal takes us a step closer to the HQ which says that God, Almighty, does NOT beget.

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on May 10th, 2010

• @borasalma If the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest available manuscript. And if says "begotten" how can you quote the RSV and say it is more reliable?

  • Report
  

  by my2cents on May 10th, 2010

• Bora that didn't answer the question as my2cents pointed out. I asked you what older manuscript you have seem. Please share with us this information. Or where you just making a claim?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 11th, 2010

• noone might be moving in lofty circles that have access to manuscripts, I don't.
  
  I quoted you a bit from the preface written by Christian scholars who concluded from their studies that the KJV "has GRAVE DEFECTS." and that "these DEFECTS are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision . . ." Surely it is safe to say that the learned doctors of divinity would have compared the KJV with the latest available manuscripts before concluding that it "has GRAVE DEFECTS."

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on May 11th, 2010

• So you were just saying the above, you didn't actually mean it?
  
  And like my2cents pointed out why are you quoting KJV or RSV when your claim was older manuscripts?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 11th, 2010

• "why are you quoting KJV or RSV" > Because they give an indication that the earlier versions of the Bible had texts that do not reflect what is in the earliest found manuscripts of the scripture.
  
  A Greek manuscript that supposedly goes back to the first century is said to have the following literal translation for the same verse: "For in this way God loved the world: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life." No mention of "begotten" here.
  
  Anyway, let's take another, clearer example. This time it's a whole verse that is not there in the earlier manuscripts and was, as is presumed, inserted by scribes, to gain more believers in the trinity. This is 1 John 5:7. If you look at the KJV it renders 1 John 5:7 and 8 as:
  
  "7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
  8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
  
  Now see how the NIV UK renders the "two" verses (look carefully you'll see why I have put "two" in quotes):
  
  "7 For there are three that testify:
  8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement"
  
  [btw your version, the NWT, has handled the problem the same way]
  
  Centuries before these insertions by scribes were discovered, the HQ had warned about it. For example HQ 2:79 says "woe to those who write the Book (the Bible) with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God" in exchange for a miserable gain!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and woe to hem for the gain they make thereby"

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on May 12th, 2010

• Quote, "Because they give an indication that the earlier versions of the Bible had texts that do not reflect what is in the earliest found manuscripts of the scripture."
  
  Then you should have quoted the older manuscript that supported the point you are trying to make.
  
  Quote, is said to have the following literal translation for the same verse: "For in this way God loved the world: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life." No mention of "begotten" here."
  
  What manuscript is this from? "A Greek manuscript that supposedly goes back to the first century??""
  
  Bora please do provide a source or link or something. Even in your own words you include "supposedly" so you shouldn't expect us to give that any weight.
  
  So before jumping to these conclusions try to back up your claims.
  
  And please don't change the subject about NIV or NWT. Get to the part where the evidence supports your assertions.
  
  And as far as the Koran is concerned who wrote that? It wasn't Mohamed because he couldn't read. He passed it on to scribes. So by what hand was that?
  
  But before you get sidetracked, please do provide your evidence.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 12th, 2010

• Never mind I just found it. Where you seriously thinking that was evidence?
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_3:16
  
  Quote, "This could be translated literally as:
  
  For in this way God loved the world: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life."
  
  Notice this says, it "could" not that it should. Unless you have something else? This is hardly what one would even call evidence.
  
  Suppose you are right, that still doesn't change anything. The word Son is still there and Jesus is called unique. So he was a Son in a way that is unique among all others who where called son. Adam for example or the angels who are called sons of God.
  
  There are various ways of translating the Koran as well. I am sure you are aware. But if it goes against your beliefs you will reject it.
  
  What should be done is look at context and other parts of the bible to see how words are used assuming this verse "could" be translated this way.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 12th, 2010

• TY noone. You'll notice regarding the translation of John 3:16 I did not consider myself authorised to say "should be" or "could be" I merely said "IS SAID TO HAVE the following literal translation"
  
  Anyway, to steer away from the doubtful, because that can lead to pointless arguments, I moved to 1 John 5:7 as a clearer example of what happened when older manuscripts exposed the errors of the later scribes.
  
  The thing to rejoice here is that we are getting closer to the original Biblical scriptures, and also as we do so we are getting closer in our beliefs. Surely, those are both steps in the right direction, no?

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on May 13th, 2010

• Quote, "I did not consider myself authorised to say "should be" or "could be" I merely said "IS SAID TO HAVE the following literal translation"
  
  Well, by the way you posed your question it doesn't sound like you are just thinking out loud here bora. It sounds like you were quite certain.
  
  You are right, least we agree on the John scripture. As time goes on more and more truth will be uncovered.
  
  Oh but those were not errors of the scribes. They were deliberate. Trying to get the Trinity some credibility......If I am not mistaken.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 13th, 2010

• There have been some alterations in some text as noted by the preface of the RSV. That does not mean that if something does not fit into our preconceived ideas that that has been changed. There needs to be more evidence than that. I posted a few changes that I have noticed with clickable links to the references.
  
  http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9029718

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on May 14th, 2010

• Tex, why is it that the links on the other page are clickable but not on here? I can't get any of my links to be clickable.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 14th, 2010

• In the old AB, you could post clickable links as comments. In the new AB, you still can, but there are a few extra steps involved. In answers, it is still easy. If I can find the steps again, I will give it to you, but I found it to be quite tedious.

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on May 14th, 2010

• That would be nice, looking forward to it. Any reason why this is so?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 14th, 2010

Comments

• TY but ... the two words are surely related in much the same way as forget and forgotten are.
  
  Even the definition evidence you present for begotten says it is "only-born" Though I am not thoroughly convinced by that anyway, because we have the phrase "only begotten". So if begotten = only-born, then only begotten must = only only-born, which is a bit ludicrous.

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on May 8th, 2010

Comments

• there's a good thought provoking point in your answer but you've unfortunately drowned it in language that might put off believers and appear insulting to women.

  • Report
  

  by borasalama on January 30th, 2009

• i'll burn for it, i've no doubt. and anyway, it just wouldn't have the same impact if i had said 'he couldn't resist the female sexual organs'.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 30th, 2009