What is the proof Jesus is eternally begotten son?

[Dino246]

Well, you just have not done your homework on this topic from an unbiased standpoint to truly know. I believe your bias gets in the way of seeing the facts in Bible history.

Given that my refutation has nothing to do with "homework" or "facts", but rather with logic, your criticism is completely unfounded.

In any event, I disagree with your conclusion on this topic because the changes in Modern Bibles are for the worse and not for the better, and because there are many verses in Scripture teaching that there is a singular perfect Word that is preserved for today.

Actually, there is no such verse, nor combination of verses, teaching such. There is only biased misinterpretation to that conclusion.

But good detectives should not have a bias, and they should follow the truth wherever that may lead them.

Bias is almost unavoidable. The key is to recognize one's own bias and consciously set it aside while investigating. I'm aware of my bias regarding the KJV and the TR; I know they are not perfect, but generally I'm willing to consider the arguments of KJV-only proponents. I also see through their arguments easily.

The English Revised Version shares the same abbreviation with the Easy-to-Read Version. Then again, this is just one of the many confusions in the Modern Bible Movement (albeit a very small one)..

I will address your concerns with the English Revised Version in a separate post.

 

[Dino246]

Happy New Year to you in Jesus Christ.

Likewise.

Matthew 5:22

• KJV: "...whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."
• ERV: "...whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment..."
• Greek Word in Question: Eikē ("without a cause").
• Translation Choice: The ERV excludes "without a cause," broadening the application to all anger. This was not due to a textual variant but a deliberate interpretive choice.

• 
  
• You need to show that the source material for the ERV does contain elke to prove that the translators excluded "without a cause".

Romans 1:17

• KJV: "The just shall live by faith."
• ERV: "He who is righteous by faith shall live."
• Greek Word in Question: Dikaios ("just" or "righteous").
• Translation Choice: The ERV rephrased the verse to emphasize the process of becoming righteous by faith, subtly shifting the focus from a declarative statement of character ("the just") to a more active condition.

It is an active condition. How does one become "just" or "righteous"? Certainly none are righteous on their own (Romans 3:10). Therefore the ERV is actually a better translation than the KJV here!

Acts 17:22

• KJV: "Ye are too superstitious."
• ERV: "Ye are very religious."
• Greek Word in Question: Deisidaimonesteros ("superstitious").
• Translation Choice: The ERV opted for a softer interpretation of deisidaimonesteros as "very religious," moving away from the critique of idolatry in the KJV to a more neutral or even positive connotation. For example: Martin Luther critiqued the Catholic Mass, describing its ritualism as superstitious. Luther states:
  "The Mass has become a sacrifice to be offered for the dead, a superstitious perversion of Christ’s institution.

"Superstitious" might have meant something different in 1604 than it did in 2021. Without a 1604 dictionary, you're stuck with an unproveable assumption. Paul's intent was to affirm the Athenians as religious (in the good sense), not superstitious (in the bad sense). He was laying the groundwork to present Jesus as God. Criticizing their cultural religiosity as "superstition" (as used today) would push them away, not draw them in. Again, the KJV is the poorer translation by 21st-century usage standards.

Romans 3:25

• KJV: "...whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood..."
• ERV: "...whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood..."
• Greek Phrase in Question: Dia pisteōs en tō autou haimati ("through faith in his blood").
• Translation Choice: The ERV shifts the phrase order, potentially confusing the relationship between faith and the atoning role of Christ's blood.

This is clearly an attempt to justify the KJV phrasing over the ERV. Remember, the translators' intent is to represent the Greek as well as possible, not to uphold a theological interpretation based entirely on the KJV wording. We don't have faith in Christ's blood; rather, we have faith in Christ Himself and His finished work. His shed blood is the means of our redemption, but without Him being Who He is, it is nothing.

So, in summary, you have no case. If you took your own bias blinders off, you would have far less concern about modern translations and you could find something profitable in which to invest your time and effort.