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.

 

[DeanM]

Codex Sinaiticus has not undergone comprehensive scientific testing, such as radiocarbon dating, which raises questions about its purported 4th-century origin. This lack of empirical verification leaves room for doubt regarding its authenticity compared to other ancient manuscripts that have been tested.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Codex Sinaiticus has not undergone comprehensive scientific testing, such as radiocarbon dating, which raises questions about its purported 4th-century origin. This lack of empirical verification leaves room for doubt regarding its authenticity compared to other ancient manuscripts that have been tested.

Its even worse for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

They have Jesus' dying by a spear instead. But this ridiculous reading is not published in Modern English Bibles in Matthew 27:49.

Here are more embarrassing blunders in this article:

https://brandplucked.com/vaticanus-sinaiticus-facts.html

So, how can these be the oldest and best?

Side Note:

Will Kinney at Brandplucked has a lot of great articles defending the KJV. But I do not agree with his belief in Calvinism, though.
...

 

[DeanM]

Its even worse for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

They have Jesus' dying by a spear instead. But this ridiculous reading is not published in Modern English Bibles in Matthew 27:49.

Here are more embarrassing blunders in this article:

https://brandplucked.com/vaticanus-sinaiticus-facts.html

So, how can these be the oldest and best?

Side Note:

Will Kinney at Brandplucked has a lot of great articles defending the KJV. But I do not agree with his belief in Calvinism, though.
...

If they were to test sinaiticus and prove its a forgery what would happen to the modern bibles who used it? Which is why it will never get tested.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

If they were to test sinaiticus and prove its a forgery what would happen to the modern bibles who used it? Which is why it will never get tested.

Agreed. There is too much money at stake.


....

 

[Dino246]

Its even worse for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

They have Jesus' dying by a spear instead. But this ridiculous reading is not published in Modern English Bibles in Matthew 27:49.

Meanwhile, the KJV has Jesus being slain and hanged on a tree in Acts 5:30... but I'm sure your double standard won't permit you to acknowledge that the KJV is equally ridiculous here.

 

[PaulThomson]

Meant to say, "stay away from the TR" and not "say away."

Side Note:

Ugh. This limited time restricted editing feature truly is annoying.
You guys have to change this. Many other places do not have this restriction..

The KJV is not the Textus Receptus (TR). It is an English translation of the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic text of the TR. The KJV contains errors in translation from the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic.

There are other Bible translations also based on the TR.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Meanwhile, the KJV has Jesus being slain and hanged on a tree in Acts 5:30... but I'm sure your double standard won't permit you to acknowledge that the KJV is equally ridiculous here.

Source:
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/slay


Side Note 1:

Now, some may object by pointing out that Acts 5 mentions the word “slay” (the present tense of “slew”) in verse 33 and “slain” (another variation of the past tense of “slay”) in verse 36, both of which mean “kill” in the immediate context. While it is true that “slay” (present tense) and “slain” (past tense) are used to mean “kill” in the same chapter, 1 Samuel 15:29 states that God is not a man that He should repent. However, in the very same chapter, God is said to repent in verses 11 and 35. The same Hebrew word is used in all three verses. This demonstrates that words can have different definitions and that they can possess a semantic range of various divergent meanings.

Side Note 2:

John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (1563, expanded in later 17th-century editions):

Foxe frequently used "slew" to describe not only executions but also violent persecution, torture, and mistreatment leading up to death. For example:

Speaking of Christian martyrs:

“The tyrants took them, bound them, and slew them with manifold torments before taking their lives.”​

​

Here, "slew" refers not just to the killing itself but to tortures preceding death.

Regarding early Christians:

​

“They slew them with great cruelty, scourging them before the death-stroke came.”​

​

Again, the "slaying" involves scourging and cruelty before the actual death.


Holinshed’s Chronicles (1577):

In Holinshed’s Chronicles, which was widely read in Elizabethan England and even used by Shakespeare as a historical source, the word “slew” is used in a way that includes abuse and violence prior to actual death. For example, in the account of the murder of King Duff:

“They caught him in his bed, and slew him with much cruelty, sparing not to buffet and abuse his body even as he cried for mercy.”​

Greek (2 Maccabees 7:4):

While the LXX texts of 2 Maccabees can vary slightly by manuscript, the phrase typically reads something like:

οἱ δὲ βασανισταὶ διαχειριζόμενοι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἔδεσμον καὶ ἔτυπτον​

Translation: "And the torturers, laying hands upon (διαχειριζόμενοι) the brothers, bound and beat them."​

​

Here, διαχειριζόμενοι clearly refers to the initial stage of violent handling, not the final act of death. The torturers are:

• Grabbing the victims
• Binding them
• Beating them

This gradual process of torture fits your original point: this is a type of physical violence that leads to death but is not immediately lethal.

In other words, Jesus was scourged (Flagellation), beaten, and had a crown of thorns forced on his head. The Jews had the Romans slew him by this form of torture before He was hung on a tree (i.e., the cross and not a literal tree).




....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The KJV is not the Textus Receptus (TR). It is an English translation of the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic text of the TR. The KJV contains errors in translation from the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic.

There are other Bible translations also based on the TR.

People see error because that is what they desire to see.
People also have faith because they simply want to trust God's Word, even if they may not always have all the answers.
In other words, I did not need a Bible manuscript to confirm the resurrection of Christ in the Bible.
I just believed God's Word that it was true. This is what must happen when it comes to the Bible's teaching on how the Word is pure and it will be preserved for all generations. You either believe the Bible on this teaching, or you don't (Pointing to supposed errors, etc.). Oh, and Jesus cared about jots and tittles being preserved, too. So this is not just the cardinal doctrines preserved only, but the smallest details of His words will be preserved.



....

 

[PaulThomson]

People see error because that is what they desire to see.
People also have faith because they simply want to trust God's Word, even if they may not always have all the answers.
In other words, I did not need a Bible manuscript to confirm the resurrection of Christ in the Bible.
I just believed God's Word that it was true. This is what must happen when it comes to the Bible's teaching on how the Word is pure and it will be preserved for all generations. You either believe the Bible on this teaching, or you don't (Pointing to supposed errors, etc.). Oh, and Jesus cared about jots and tittles being preserved, too. So this is not just the cardinal doctrines preserved only, but the smallest details of His words will be preserved.....

What do you believe was the perfect Bible with every jot and tittle preserved before the KJB was produced in 1611 IYO?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

What do you believe was the perfect Bible with every jot and tittle preserved before the KJB was produced in 1611 IYO?

Most likely this would have been a Latin Italic Bible edition held by the Waldenses / Vaudois (Which were persecuted by the Catholic Church). They can be traced back to the disciples. It has been said that the Waldenses have given a pure Bible to the Reformers. Now, could I be wrong? Sure. I don't have this Latin Italic Bible to examine. Most likely it was destroyed by the Catholic Church. But the point here is that I don't need to have manuscripts that I can touch, feel, sniff, and taste in order to believe the promise of God involving Psalms 12:6-7 (among other verses), anymore than I need to touch the nail prints in Jesus' hands in order to believe.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

If they were to test sinaiticus and prove its a forgery what would happen to the modern bibles who used it? Which is why it will never get tested.

Did you see my KJV debate with Jeff Dollar?

...

 

[Dino246]

People see error because that is what they desire to see.

I couldn't have said it better. This is what you do with anything other than the KJV. Now if you could only see your hypocrisy, we might get somewhere.

 

[DeanM]

When they test sinaiticus I might be sort of convinced. If they also explain why those texts left Alexandria, where many gnostic texts originated including more sinaiticus, and why the Sinai monks would feel it ok to use these texts as kindling. I would think the monks would save them if they considered them worth saving. Tishendorf (spelling) visiting the vatican before his remarkable find is something I would also like explained. Then theirs Wescott and Hort. Maybe folks should read their correspondance and other writings that came to light after they died.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

When they test sinaiticus I might be sort of convinced. If they also explain why those texts left Alexandria, where many gnostic texts originated including more sinaiticus, and why the Sinai monks would feel it ok to use these texts as kindling. I would think the monks would save them if they considered them worth saving. Tishendorf (spelling) visiting the vatican before his remarkable find is something I would also like explained. Then theirs Wescott and Hort. Maybe folks should read their correspondance and other writings that came to light after they died.

Westcott and Hort started a movement based on deception, and we see a pattern of deceptions being employed through history with this movement, as well. The ERV (English Revised Version) by Westcott and Hort says in the beginning that it is the version set forth in 1611 AD (See Archive.org). But is not the version set forth in 1611AD. Westcott and Hort snuck in their never before seen Greek text by smashing Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together when they disagree with each other in 3,000 places in the gospels alone. Westcott and Hort moved the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 to hide the missing Comma in 1 John 5:7. The deception continues with other Modern Translators changing a few words in 1 John 5:8 and moving it to the missing spot where the Comma should go in 1 John 5:7 (Which is the most clearest and direct verse on the Trinity). The deception continues with the NKJV, KJVER, etcetera.


...


....

 

[DeanM]

Westcott and Hort started a movement based on deception, and we see a pattern of deceptions being employed through history with this movement, as well. The ERV (English Revised Version) by Westcott and Hort says in the beginning that it is the version set forth in 1611 AD (See Archive.org). But is not the version set forth in 1611AD. Westcott and Hort snuck in their never before seen Greek text by smashing Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together when they disagree with each other in 3,000 places in the gospels alone. Westcott and Hort moved the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 to hide the missing Comma in 1 John 5:7. The deception continues with other Modern Translators changing a few words in 1 John 5:8 and moving it to the missing spot where the Comma should go in 1 John 5:7 (Which is the most clearest and direct verse on the Trinity). The deception continues with the NKJV, KJVER, etcetera.


...


....

Its not hard to find information on Westscott and Hort. I dont understand how people defend these corrupt modern translations without doing reasearch.
https://www.apostolic.edu/modern-bible-versions-and-westcott-and-hort-27-5/

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Its not hard to find information on Westscott and Hort. I dont understand how people defend these corrupt modern translations without doing reasearch.
https://www.apostolic.edu/modern-bible-versions-and-westcott-and-hort-27-5/

The article claims that the NIV is translated from five manuscripts, which do not agree with one another. This is not exactly correct. It reflects a misunderstanding of the textual foundation. The NIV is primarily translated from the Nestle-Aland Critical Text, which relies heavily on two manuscripts known as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

Codex Alexandrinus (A) is occasionally referenced, but it is not a primary source for the Critical Text. Its influence is limited, and it plays only a minor role in the translation decisions behind the NIV. As such, it has only a marginal presence in modern English Bibles.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) is rarely used due to its fragmentary condition. It may be cited in footnotes or for supplemental support, but it is not a foundational manuscript for the NIV. Its limited use means it contributes very little to the text of modern English versions.

Codex Bezae (D) is known for its unusual and often divergent readings, particularly in Acts and the Gospels. It is generally not favored in the Critical Text and has very minimal impact on modern English translations such as the NIV. Its distinctive character places it outside the mainstream sources used for the Nestle and Aland, which is the basis for most Modern English Bibles.


....

 

[homwardbound]

Codex Sinaiticus has not undergone comprehensive scientific testing, such as radiocarbon dating, which raises questions about its purported 4th-century origin. This lack of empirical verification leaves room for doubt regarding its authenticity compared to other ancient manuscripts that have been tested.

Doubt! is the problem I see in belief to see truth over errors in this world we are each in presently as well as those before us as well

Doubt, causes troubles as I see said in Isaiah 7:9. Yet this probably not on topic, yet just sharing the entire love of God to us all, thanks

 

[DeanM]

Doubt! is the problem I see in belief to see truth over errors in this world we are each in presently as well as those before us as well

Doubt, causes troubles as I see said in Isaiah 7:9. Yet this probably not on topic, yet just sharing the entire love of God to us all, thanks

Not doubting God just man and his desires. Tishendorf (sc) is far beyond questionable. As for Westcott and Hort their letters and other writings that came to light after their deaths are nothing short of heretical. Not to mention their ties to the RCC. No friend I dont doubt God just those who commit fraud for money.