By "Muhammad Sohel"
Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.
[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]
Introduction
There are several places in KJV/NASB that speak of Jesus (pbuh) as the only "begotten" Son of God…
* John 3:16 (most well known); again in v18
* Back to John 1:14 and 18
* Again over in 1 John 4:9
* Word "begotten" generally suggests the idea of originating from or being produced by someone else
The human person of Jesus (pbuh) was born into a human family.
[Genesis chapter 5; Matthew chapter 1]
.
* Hebrews 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33, all quotes from Psalm 2:7, likely referring to Christ's (pbuh) birth and arrival as the promised Messiah.
* Same word is translated as "born" in regards to Jesus in Matthew 2:1, 4; Luke 1:35; 1 John 5:1.
Jesus Christ (pbuh) is not eternal:
"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]
Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).
Are these verses (John 3:16, etc.) wrong?
Consider once again the verses that say that Jesus, the Son of God, is a begotten being or person. Numerous other passages show that not to be the case. Is God's inspired word thus contradicting itself in these verses? No! The problem is that these verses have been translated wrong! The word "begotten" in these verses is actually a poor, inaccurate, and misleading translation of the original inspired text.
The Original Greek Word Monogenes
The phrase "only begotten" in the above-mentioned verses, in the original Greek language, is monogenes (pronounced hard g as in go; Strong #3439)…
* Combination of two words: "monos" which means "only" or "alone," and "genos" which means "of the kind, sort, species" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT)
* A better translation might be "only one of its kind" or "only unique" or just "only," but not "begotten."
* Hugo McCord defines it as "a lone being, a unique existence, the only one of its kind, that which has no duplicate" (Gospel Advocate, 3/20/86)
* It's interesting to note that the 2nd century Old Latin version translated all nine NT occurrences of monogenes as UNICUS, which means "unique."
The word (actually inspired) has nothing to do with origin, as does typically the word "begotten." Rather the intent is to affirm that Jesus Christ is the unique, only one of His kind.
God Sent Jesus' (pbuh)
The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following verses:
(i)"… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."
[The Bible, John 14:24]
(ii)"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent."
[The Bible, John 17:3]
Hebrews 11:17
* If monogenis refers to begetting or origin, then this passage contradicts other clear Biblical teaching
* KJV reads" "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac (pbuh); and he that had received the promises offered up his ONLY BEGOTTEN (monogenes) son."
* Is it true to say that Isaac was begotten by Abraham? Yes, according to Genesis 21; Matthew 1:2; Acts 7:8
* Isaac the ONLY son begotten by Abraham (pbuh) ? No; look at Galations 4:22: "For it is written that Abraham (pbuh) had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman." Ishmael (pbuh) was also begotten by Abraham (pbuh). In fact, Scripture shows that Abraham (pbuh) had several other sons. Therefore, Isaac (pbuh) was NOT the ONLY begotten son of Abraham. Any version of Scripture that says so is actually contradicting itself!
* All this serves to illustrate that monogenes does not mean "begotten".
Origin of the Term "Begotten"
First, the term came about because of translation errors. Most modern translators have correctly identified the original language and its intent, and thus have something similar to "one and only Son" (the NASB retains "only begotten" in the text, but some NASB publishers include a footnote which states the literal translation is "unique, only one of His kind"). But some ancient translators apparently erroneously thought that the root of the second part of monogenes was gennao instead of genos. Remember genos means "of the same kind," but gennao does indeed mean "to beget," from which comes "begotten."
However, if gennao was indeed the true root, an additional "n" would apparently have to be added to read monogenNes. Hugo McCord used to advocate the "only begotten" translation; but then he wrote, "I, too, was in the same error. I did not realize I had to add to the Greek to get 'only begotten' into the New Testament. One added letter in a word lowers Jesus from being the God to being only a son of God" (Gospel Advocate, 3/30/86). Instead of being truly unique, being begotten relegates Him to merely being a created being like everyone else!
Second, it appears that the term came about because of doctrinal reasons. Somewhere in the 3rd century, Origen promoted the doctrine of eternal generation (that Christ eternally came from the Father; not sure what all was meant by such, but the phrase and doctrine evidently caught on). This idea was furthered in the 4th century by Jerome and others to battle against the growing Arian heresy (Arius taught that Jesus was indeed begotten or created by God). Thus came about the teaching that Christ was not created or begotten by God at the time of His earthly birth, but that He was "begotten from everlasting." This is a nice-sounding phrase, but it still promotes (maybe even unknowingly) the idea that Christ (as deity) has an origin, which is not true!
Notice that these translators were not consistent in the way they translated monogenes. Look at Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. In all these verses, the KJV translators left out "begotten" and just put "only." In all these places, they were faithful to translating the original language as it really ought to be done. So why here and not the other passages? Because none of these are referring to Christ. It is obvious that the KJV translators inserted their theology into their work.
The usage of word "Son":
This usage of the word “son” in the language of the Bible is a metaphor for the righteous servant of God, without it implying anything special or unique about the way in which he is created, or describing him literally as the offspring of God. Hence John says:
“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!”
[1 John 3:1]
For the same reason Adam is also called a son of God – exalted be Allaah far above that.
“Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
For as many as are led by the Sprite of God, these are Sons of God.
[Romans, 8:14].
NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the KJV/NASB Version.
Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.
[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]
Introduction
There are several places in KJV/NASB that speak of Jesus (pbuh) as the only "begotten" Son of God…
* John 3:16 (most well known); again in v18
* Back to John 1:14 and 18
* Again over in 1 John 4:9
* Word "begotten" generally suggests the idea of originating from or being produced by someone else
The human person of Jesus (pbuh) was born into a human family.
[Genesis chapter 5; Matthew chapter 1]
.
* Hebrews 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33, all quotes from Psalm 2:7, likely referring to Christ's (pbuh) birth and arrival as the promised Messiah.
* Same word is translated as "born" in regards to Jesus in Matthew 2:1, 4; Luke 1:35; 1 John 5:1.
Jesus Christ (pbuh) is not eternal:
"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]
Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).
Are these verses (John 3:16, etc.) wrong?
Consider once again the verses that say that Jesus, the Son of God, is a begotten being or person. Numerous other passages show that not to be the case. Is God's inspired word thus contradicting itself in these verses? No! The problem is that these verses have been translated wrong! The word "begotten" in these verses is actually a poor, inaccurate, and misleading translation of the original inspired text.
The Original Greek Word Monogenes
The phrase "only begotten" in the above-mentioned verses, in the original Greek language, is monogenes (pronounced hard g as in go; Strong #3439)…
* Combination of two words: "monos" which means "only" or "alone," and "genos" which means "of the kind, sort, species" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT)
* A better translation might be "only one of its kind" or "only unique" or just "only," but not "begotten."
* Hugo McCord defines it as "a lone being, a unique existence, the only one of its kind, that which has no duplicate" (Gospel Advocate, 3/20/86)
* It's interesting to note that the 2nd century Old Latin version translated all nine NT occurrences of monogenes as UNICUS, which means "unique."
The word (actually inspired) has nothing to do with origin, as does typically the word "begotten." Rather the intent is to affirm that Jesus Christ is the unique, only one of His kind.
God Sent Jesus' (pbuh)
The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following verses:
(i)"… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."
[The Bible, John 14:24]
(ii)"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent."
[The Bible, John 17:3]
Hebrews 11:17
* If monogenis refers to begetting or origin, then this passage contradicts other clear Biblical teaching
* KJV reads" "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac (pbuh); and he that had received the promises offered up his ONLY BEGOTTEN (monogenes) son."
* Is it true to say that Isaac was begotten by Abraham? Yes, according to Genesis 21; Matthew 1:2; Acts 7:8
* Isaac the ONLY son begotten by Abraham (pbuh) ? No; look at Galations 4:22: "For it is written that Abraham (pbuh) had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman." Ishmael (pbuh) was also begotten by Abraham (pbuh). In fact, Scripture shows that Abraham (pbuh) had several other sons. Therefore, Isaac (pbuh) was NOT the ONLY begotten son of Abraham. Any version of Scripture that says so is actually contradicting itself!
* All this serves to illustrate that monogenes does not mean "begotten".
Origin of the Term "Begotten"
First, the term came about because of translation errors. Most modern translators have correctly identified the original language and its intent, and thus have something similar to "one and only Son" (the NASB retains "only begotten" in the text, but some NASB publishers include a footnote which states the literal translation is "unique, only one of His kind"). But some ancient translators apparently erroneously thought that the root of the second part of monogenes was gennao instead of genos. Remember genos means "of the same kind," but gennao does indeed mean "to beget," from which comes "begotten."
However, if gennao was indeed the true root, an additional "n" would apparently have to be added to read monogenNes. Hugo McCord used to advocate the "only begotten" translation; but then he wrote, "I, too, was in the same error. I did not realize I had to add to the Greek to get 'only begotten' into the New Testament. One added letter in a word lowers Jesus from being the God to being only a son of God" (Gospel Advocate, 3/30/86). Instead of being truly unique, being begotten relegates Him to merely being a created being like everyone else!
Second, it appears that the term came about because of doctrinal reasons. Somewhere in the 3rd century, Origen promoted the doctrine of eternal generation (that Christ eternally came from the Father; not sure what all was meant by such, but the phrase and doctrine evidently caught on). This idea was furthered in the 4th century by Jerome and others to battle against the growing Arian heresy (Arius taught that Jesus was indeed begotten or created by God). Thus came about the teaching that Christ was not created or begotten by God at the time of His earthly birth, but that He was "begotten from everlasting." This is a nice-sounding phrase, but it still promotes (maybe even unknowingly) the idea that Christ (as deity) has an origin, which is not true!
Notice that these translators were not consistent in the way they translated monogenes. Look at Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. In all these verses, the KJV translators left out "begotten" and just put "only." In all these places, they were faithful to translating the original language as it really ought to be done. So why here and not the other passages? Because none of these are referring to Christ. It is obvious that the KJV translators inserted their theology into their work.
The usage of word "Son":
This usage of the word “son” in the language of the Bible is a metaphor for the righteous servant of God, without it implying anything special or unique about the way in which he is created, or describing him literally as the offspring of God. Hence John says:
“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!”
[1 John 3:1]
For the same reason Adam is also called a son of God – exalted be Allaah far above that.
There remains the issue of Eesa (peace be upon him) being
described as a son of God, and what they fabricated about the Lord of the
Worlds, saying that He was the father of the Messiah (peace be upon him).
This too is not unique in the language of the Gospels:
“Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
[John 20:17].
For as many as are led by the Sprite of God, these are Sons of God.
[Romans, 8:14].
NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the KJV/NASB Version.
No comments:
Post a Comment