State Worshipping Churches

[srkruzich]

Sorry steve, any greek orthodox christian will tell you that Jesus was not begotton, rather made.  The correct translation is not begotten, it's unique.  In fact, the King James version and it's derivatives are THE ONLY versions of the bible that says begotten.  You mentioned the dead sea scrolls, i think what you meant was the original greek manuscripts.  You see, they went back to the greek manuscripts and from those they re-did the King James version and came out with the New International Version (NIV).  This is what is said about the NIV;

NIV is not a good stand alone translation.  Its not a word for word translation, but a thought for thought.  Secondly, i have checked and looked, and any version i find has a reference on one and only son that states "his only begotten"   Secondly the same greek word used in the greek bible is
μονογενής or monogenēs which is "only begotten".    Doesn't matter which way you cook it, the greek says its begotten, not unique.  Please give me the greek word for unique and the text in which it specifically says unique in the greek bible.

The NIV is not a word for word translation.  I don't go by anything but word for word.  word for word cannot be argued with and the NIV translation is mistranslating the word μονογενής monogenēs "yes it is the same word that means begotten"

Also if the translation is to say that christ is only unique, then it would disagree with John 1:1 and if that happens it negates the entire bible.  Your verses have to agree.

[Anmar]

Steve, Even evangilical bible scholars say begotten is a mistranslation.  Those same scholars say that the king James version is NOT a word for word translation, are you more knowledgable of the bible than your own scholars?  Even when the King James Version first came out, scholars rejected it immediatly because of its poor translation.

Secondly, you asked for the translation of the greek word.  In greek, the word is μονογενῆ which means unique.  The greek word for begotten is γεννηθείς.  (For reference http://www.greekbible.com/index.php) I'm not fluent in greek, but i have a friend who is and her uncle is a greek orthodox priest, and she assures me that it's not the same word.

Even different versions of the revised King James version don't have the same translation.  The English Standard version and the revised standard Version are both derived from the King James, yet one says Begotten and the other just says son (no begotten or unique) yet both versions are acceptable to the church. 

As for the contradiction with John 1:1, I don't really see a specific contradiction, but John 1:1 is another passage that has a fuzzy translation.  John 1:1 does contradict another section of the bible, which is John 10:35. 

As to your point that the translation and contradiction negates the entire bible, thats pretty much my point as well.  I could give you a long list of mistranslations and contradictions in the bible, especially the king james version.  The bible was written by man, and has been changed by man countless times.  The contradiction between John1:1 and 10:35 is so profound, that it puts into question the divinity of Jesus.

The major doctrines of the evangelical movement are constantly being altered in the text because it is now being discovered that they came from poor translations.  These doctrines include the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the method of salvation, and the resurection.  If you can't trust these doctrines, what else is left?  This is exactly why the founders became Deists.  Look at what Jefferson did to his bible, he removed every passage that referred to the divinity of Jesus and mention of the trinity.

[srkruzich]

Steve, Even evangilical bible scholars say begotten is a mistranslation.  Those same scholars say that the king James version is NOT a word for word translation, are you more knowledgable of the bible than your own scholars?  Even when the King James Version first came out, scholars rejected it immediatly because of its poor translation.

Secondly, you asked for the translation of the greek word.  In greek, the word is μονογενῆ which means unique.  The greek word for begotten is γεννηθείς.  (For reference http://www.greekbible.com/index.php) I'm not fluent in greek, but i have a friend who is and her uncle is a greek orthodox priest, and she assures me that it's not the same word.

that is the same reference i used and that word does not say unique.  It says monogenēs.  IF you diasect the word monogenēs you get Mono which means Only, and genēs which is genetic.  so the verse would be Only gentic son or only begotten son which is all it could mean as he is genetically the same as his father. 

Even different versions of the revised King James version don't have the same translation.  The English Standard version and the revised standard Version are both derived from the King James, yet one says Begotten and the other just says son (no begotten or unique) yet both versions are acceptable to the church. 

You know there are some translations that are from preserved scripture and other translations are made from corrupted scripture. 
you have tynsdale, luthers, coverdales, mathews, stephens, geneva as well as KJV bible are all word for word translations of the preserved.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, jeromes, alexandrian, wescott &hort, ASV, RSV, NIV and NKJV are all from corrupted text  which occured around 331AD.   OF which Origen and Eusibius are authors of the corrupted text.

As for the contradiction with John 1:1, I don't really see a specific contradiction, but John 1:1 is another passage that has a fuzzy translation.  John 1:1 does contradict another section of the bible, which is John 10:35. 

What contradiction are you talking about??    The Word is Christ in John 1:1.   If your referring to the usage of the word in john 10:35 then that is word like in saying something.  The difference is in john 1:1 it says The Word, not the word of God.  John 10:35 says the word of God which means his words.

As to your point that the translation and contradiction negates the entire bible, thats pretty much my point as well.  I could give you a long list of mistranslations and contradictions in the bible, especially the king james version.  The bible was written by man, and has been changed by man countless times.  The contradiction between John1:1 and 10:35 is so profound, that it puts into question the divinity of Jesus.

really?  where???
I don't see how it can call into question the divinity of christ.
john 10:35 says
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

and john 1:1 says
Jhn 1:1     ¶      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Where is the contradiction???

The major doctrines of the evangelical movement are constantly being altered in the text because it is now being discovered that they came from poor translations.  These doctrines include the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the method of salvation, and the resurection.  If you can't trust these doctrines, what else is left?  This is exactly why the founders became Deists.  Look at what Jefferson did to his bible, he removed every passage that referred to the divinity of Jesus and mention of the trinity.

well first of all, jefferson could not have removed every passage that mentioned the trinity.  first of all trinity is not mentioned in the bible and second of all the doctrine of the trinity starts in gen 1:1 and goes all the way through Revelations 22:21  The story begins with let US make  man in OUR own image.  Father son holy spirt. 
In Rev father son and hs are present in the end.  So yeah trinity is a doctrine and is supported in the bible.
Christ is divine, and he states his divinity when the soldiers came for him, he was preesent in the firey furnace when nebuchadnezzar threw meshac shadrach and abindigo in the furnace, the unclean spirits that christ cast out of the man into the pigs recognized him as the son of God,    No the divinity is not in question. 

[Catwoman]

Uh, not be given too easily to stating the obvious...But...This is the Political board.  This thread needs to be moved to the Religion thread, don't ya think?

[Anmar]

No cat, the religion forum specifically states that it's not a place for debate.  I have a retort to steves most recent post, but if this is bothering people i'll keep it to myself.