₦airaland Forum

maynia:
Lol.
The Catholic really ruling the World from inception.
lol

MuttleyLaff:
Nwanne you brought me over here by your spamming chronic appeal plastered all over the Religion forum, urging all and sundry, to come visit this thread.

Hmm, defective and elementary you typed? Those that leave in glass houses, shouldnt be throwing stones. Nwanne, Christianity, never started in any upper room on any day of Pentencost. Christianity, as in, Constantine Christianity, in cahoot with the "church" started in Rome

Correction. The Catholic really ruling the World from Constantine

maynia:
That means what we have now is not Christianity but RRC doctrines.
Lol.
I learn everyday..thank you

What you have now definitely is Christianity though the Protestant did break away from RCC doctrines, the influence(s) of RCC, legacy of RCC etcetera, are until now, still on the ground and all around us, lol.

maynia:
You were citing hisiory in that post, so tell me the source you got it from?
Wikipedia? Or where?

MuttleyLaff:
They are doing "wuruwuru magomago" to the answer

"A mọ ara wa, ti a ba rira wa" loosely translated means "we recognise & know ourselves when we bump into each other"

... trust me, if only more christians, properly read their bibles, there'd be less christians. Do they really believe that Agrippa & the people of Antioch revered Jesus that much, they called the disciples or believers ''Christ-like''? Not if in the know and understand what Agrippa & the people of Antioch meant by the term Christi-anos or Christian, abi?

Anyway, lets leave bullshit for bullshit collector, and for a moment @chorladey, dip and dangle our feet, a little bit in deep end waters, not many are aware that born again precedes and preceded salvation. Fact is, in order to receive and get the gift of salvation, you'll first, have to be born again, be regenerated, as in, be born from above. Now, the disciples, Nicodemus and a lot others were already born again before getting the gift of salvation. It is highly unlikely, anyone will be born again and not have or get the gift of salvation, as anyone truly born again, receives the gift of salvation, and they will not only see the demonstrations & power of the kingdom of God but ultimately will enter into the kingdom of God

Scoffers, mockers, cynics, pagans etcetera dont and never see anything good about the kingdom and that's because they are not born again, they are not born from above, and so are not spiritually rebirthed. It's more the reason, we have atheists, it is because regeneration has not taken place in them and this why they rubbish and/or never want to acknowledge any demonstrations or power of the kingdom of God

Born again and salvation, though are not in the same category, they nonetheless are related

Bunch of two clowns, just without the painted faces & the real red rosy cheek trademark smiles

Anyone to be taken serious, dont put forward wikipedia as source(s). Only a learner, will submit wikipedia as a source of fact or as a basis for putting up a discussion or even as the case maybe in yours, advance wikipedia, as a basis to stage an argument on, lol.

maynia, my neighbour's two spaniel dogs, can go on to wikipedia, to edit it's content with no redress to it, lol. Just shows then, how uncredible wikipedia is and/or can be, lol, doesnt it, lol.

Listen maynia, you would have saved yourself the trouble asking me for where, if you had answered my earlier asked questions, repeated below again:
Do you know how cheese is made?
Do you know what cheese is primarily and "constituented" of?
You asking me where, is tantamount to you asking me to show you the source of the cheese major constituent, lol. No, its not just source you'll have, I'll give you sauce, pepper, maggi, salt and ingredients too in a minute, lol.

mrZENographer:
These translations removed from the scripture and it is so obvious because it's an unfinished sentence/statement. WHO?

In John 3:16 many of these false translations removed "ONLY BEGOTTEN" which distinguished Jesus Christ from "Sons of God" (Job 1:6-12 etc). This is damning.

There are many others. This ones mentioned are at my finger tips.

NIV
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus

Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and

blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the

Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three

are in agreement.

KJV
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus

Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it

is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is

truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the

Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are

one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the

Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three

agree in one.

NLT
6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his

baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross

[b]—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the

Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony.

7 So we have these three witnesses[c]—

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three

agree.

==========================

Like you rightly said, 1 John 5:7 is a statement that begs further explanation, which is provided in the very next verse. The many other translations of the Bible did not remove from scripture, rather it is the KJV and other KJ translations that added to the original Greek text.

I have zeroed in on the text in context, taking it from the verse before and the one after so that we can expatiate on the intended narrative. Please follow me closely;

i) You can easily see the consistency in what Apostle John was saying coming from verse 6. His focus was on the authenticity of the messianic mission of Christ as the Son of God. He alludes that Christ's earthly ministry was confirmed not by just one or two evidences, but by three -
water, blood (life components of the terrestrial body) and spirit. So verses 7 and 8 are just to reinforce the message already passed in verse 6.

ii) The translators committed eisegesis by attempting to sneak in the doctrine of Trinity on verse 7. Verse 7 in KJV is not consistent with verses 6 and 8.

iii) In a very deceptive application of semantics, verse 7 of the KJV uses the phrase "bear record" and then "bear witness" in verse 8. Also, verse 7 of KJV says the three "are one" and verse 8 reads "agree in one". Another juxtaposition of contexts. To be "one" and to be in agreement mean two different things.

iv) Let us not lose sight of what St. John was discoursing - the earthly ministry of Christ and how it was confirmed for all on earth to see; by water, blood (being a physical man) and the Spirit (as a bird during his baptism). This has nothing to do with who bears records in heaven.

v) Assuming (without conceding) that the KJV's translation of verse 7 is correct; was Christ in heaven bearing record (or acting an evidence, testimony) of his earthly mission same time he was on earth? I hope you can spot the incoherence.

In conclusion, the KJV rendition of 1 John 5:7 is not consistent with the original Greek scripture, not coherent or consistent with surrounding verses and not consistent with other scriptural references. Hence it is not just a mistranslation, but an interpolation.

okosunehis:
NIV
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus

Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and

blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the

Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three

are in agreement.

KJV
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus

Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it

is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is

truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the

Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are

one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the

Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three

agree in one.

NLT
6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his

baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross

[b]—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the

Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony.

7 So we have these three witnesses[c]—

8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three

agree.

==========================

Like you rightly said, 1 John 5:7 is a statement that begs further explanation, which is provided in the very next verse. The many other translations of the Bible did not remove from scripture, rather it is the KJV and other KJ translations that added to the original Greek text.

I have zeroed in on the text in context, taking it from the verse before and the one after so that we can expatiate on the intended narrative. Please follow me closely;

i) You can easily see the consistency in what Apostle John was saying coming from verse 6. His focus was on the authenticity of the messianic mission of Christ as the Son of God. He alludes that Christ's earthly ministry was confirmed not by just one or two evidences, but by three -
water, blood (life components of the terrestrial body) and spirit. So verses 7 and 8 are just to reinforce the message already passed in verse 6.

ii) The translators committed eisegesis by attempting to sneak in the doctrine of Trinity on verse 7. Verse 7 in KJV is not consistent with verses 6 and 8.

iii) In a very deceptive application of semantics, verse 7 of the KJV uses the phrase "bear record" and then "bear witness" in verse 8. Also, verse 7 of KJV says the three "are one" and verse 8 reads "agree in one". Another juxtaposition of contexts. To be "one" and to be in agreement mean two different things.

iv) Let us not lose sight of what St. John was discoursing - the earthly ministry of Christ and how it was confirmed for all on earth to see; by water, blood (being a physical man) and the Spirit (as a bird during his baptism). This has nothing to do with who bears records in heaven.

v) Assuming (without conceding) that the KJV's translation of verse 7 is correct; was Christ in heaven bearing record (or acting an evidence, testimony) of his earthly mission same time he was on earth? I hope you can spot the incoherence.

In conclusion, the KJV rendition of 1 John 5:7 is not consistent with the original Greek scripture, not coherent or consistent with surrounding verses and not consistent with other scriptural references. Hence it is not just a mistranslation, but an interpolation.

My dear, you obviously can blow Grammer. But there is no truth in what you are saying.

What about John 3:16?

NLT (New Living Translation)
NIV (New International Version)

Man is principally a Spirit who has a soul and lives in a body.



It is written... There is a spirit in man but the breath of the almighty giveth him understanding.

mrZENographer:
My dear, you obviously can blow Grammer. But there is no truth in what you are saying.

What about John 3:16?

NLT (New Living Translation)
NIV (New International Version)

"Blow grammar"? I wish I could say that of myself!...LOL

I don't really know what your grouse is with John 3:16 and its NIV and NLT rendition. Maybe you can explain in your response. So, I am sharing some of the regular sources I use when trying to understand scripture. The focus is on the Greek word "monogenes" which is translated as "only begotten" in KJV. It also appears in 8 other verses of the Bible.

NB: Maybe you got me wrong. My favorite translation of the Bible is actually KJV, but no version is free of errors because no translator is free of some level of bias. Therefore, I try not to get stuck with one or even two versions; I just compare and contrast as much available versions as possible.

=========
JOHN 3:16
---------
NIV - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,...

NLT - For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son,...

ESV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,...

KJV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,...


HEBREWS 11:17
-------------

NIV - ... He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,

NLT - ... Abraham, who had received God’s promises, was ready to sacrifice his only son, Isaac,

ESV - ... and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

KJV - ... and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

===========
Monogenēs
===========

From Wikipedia
--------------

Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind". Thus monogenēs (μονογενής) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special. Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue. Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.


From Bible Study Tools
- https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/monogenes.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3439
Phonetic Spelling: mon-og-en-ace'
Parts of Speech: Adjective
Definition: single of its kind, only
- used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
- used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

NAS Word Usage - Total: 9 (only 3, only begotten 6)

okosunehis:
"Blow grammar"? I wish I could say that of myself!...LOL

I don't really know what your grouse is with John 3:16 and its NIV and NLT rendition. Maybe you can explain in your response. So, I am sharing some of the regular sources I use when trying to understand scripture. The focus is on the Greek word "monogenes" which is translated as "only begotten" in KJV. It also appears in 8 other verses of the Bible.

NB: Maybe you got me wrong. My favorite translation of the Bible is actually KJV, but no version is free of errors because no translator is free of some level of bias. Therefore, I try not to get stuck with one or even two versions; I just compare and contrast as much available versions as possible.

=========
JOHN 3:16
---------
NIV - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,...

NLT - For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son,...

ESV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,...

KJV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,...


HEBREWS 11:17
-------------

NIV - ... He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,

NLT - ... Abraham, who had received God’s promises, was ready to sacrifice his only son, Isaac,

ESV - ... and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

KJV - ... and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

===========
Monogenēs
===========

From Wikipedia
--------------

Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind". Thus monogenēs (μονογενής) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special. Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue. Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.


From Bible Study Tools
- https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/monogenes.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3439
Phonetic Spelling: mon-og-en-ace'
Parts of Speech: Adjective
Definition: single of its kind, only
- used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
- used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

NAS Word Usage - Total: 9 (only 3, only begotten 6)

MuttleyLaff:
"Jesus said to them,
“If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God;
nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me."
- John 8:42

"Exerchomai" is the Greek original word translated as "proceeded forth". By definition, it means, to go or come out of, with mention of the place out of which one goes, or of the point from which one departs. John 8:42 above, makes no mistake, where from Jesus proceeded forth and came from.

blueAgent & okosunehis, Jesus Christ is God and even god sef, just as I've earlier said and especially if that's how or a way Hairyrapunzel understands to put it.

No, I am not blueAgent & okosunehis, implying that Jesus and God are the same entity, but I am emphatically saying that Jesus and God are the same entity.

blueAgent & okosunehis, listen and watch this. I put on different attire colours to reflect my mood and image I am trying to project across. I could put on a red dress to make a statement that I am fiery, vibrant and lively. The colours are not me, they are images reflecting certain aspects of me. It's the same with God, the maleness and femaleness is not God, they are just constructs made in the image of God. God really isnt male nor female

We all know what kind of image one is projecting when wearing black colours, it could be for mourning or for trying to look sexy

The "the only begotten" phrase, means the only person uniquely gotten this way. The phrase has nothing to do with God biologically giving birth to Jesus, as a mother, like women do.

blueAgent & okosunehis, God is formless. God is a Spirit, and so has no form. God however does have masculine and feminine distinctive personalities plus characteristics associated with man and woman

Before either of youse step and slip on my "God is formless" banana skin comment, let me make myself clearer with the comment, by adding to it, that God is shapeless and formless like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. When you pour water into a drum, it becomes the drum of water. That is why when Moses asked God who should he say sent him, if asked by the Israelites, God said to him, say, I AM I AM sent you.

I AM I AM, in that narrative, means I shall be that I shall be, also means whatever it is necessary for God to be, that, God will be. God willl be a pillar of cloud in the day and become a pillar of fire to give them light at night. God is formless, yet God can take on any form. I know it sounds like an oxymoron thing to say it that way, but God, though truly is formless, can manifest Himself in any form, just as in that Nebucadnezzer fiery furnace and etcetera

MuttleyLaff:
Think of God, this way, H₂0, sent itself into the world. H₂0 caused and allowed itself to be visible as solid ice.

Christ cannot share the same body with God the Father, because God is formless. God has no clear definite shape or size. Jesus Christ is the product of God projecting Himself as a human being in the person of Jesus Christ on earth. Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God

Though Jesus was God, He did not think of equality with God, as something to cling to.
Instead, He gave up his divine privileges. He took the humble position of a servant and was born as a human being, and so God appeared on earth, in human form, as in, the person of Jesus Christ, His Son

blueAgent & okosunehis, God can send Himself, did send Himself to earth, in the form of Jesus Christ. God simultaneously can be in more than one place at a time (i.e. God can be in Heaven and on earth, at the same time) Note that, Jesus didnt correct people that addressed Him as God, for example, where and when said: "My Lord, My God" to Him.

Its often said, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Something to be done right is exactly what it's all about and so what God did. This is a matter of the classsic diy aka Do-It-Yourself.

God looked for someone who could build walls or looked for someone to stand in the breach in His presence on behalf of the world so that it won't be destroyed, but He found no one and so God is lumbered with, doing a classic Do-It-Yourself by sending Himself to carry out the redemptive work.

This will explain what the bible said and/or is saying about "begotten" The word translated as "begotten", i[b]s the greek word[/b] "monogene." "Monogene", means, one and only or better still, one of a kind

Now the word "monogene", is a combination of the root words: "mono" (one or only) and "genos" (of a class or kind) hence "begotten", in the context, or "monogene" in the context means "the only of its kind"

Now, "monogene" occurred also, when similarly used over Isaac, and that is where and when Isaac was referred to, as only son, even when Abraham already had an older son, Ishmael

Isaac was unique, was one and only or one of a kind son. Unique in the sense that, an impotent man and menopaused woman had a child, the promised son, Isaac (i.e. child in a class of its own, this miracle never again has been repeated)

To just clear each other, "begotten" in the Jesus' context, isn’t about procreation or some fantasied sexual intercourse

Jesus, is the last Adam, and second man. The first man Adam became a living soul, whereas, Jesus, the last Adam, became a life-giving spirit

The first man, Adam, is of the earth, earthy, came from earth; while the second man, Jesus Christ is from heaven, came from heaven. Alleluia.

"And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge,
and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none
(i.e. I looked for someone who might rebuild the wall of righteousness that guards the land.
I searched for someone to stand in the gap in the wall so I wouldn’t have to destroy the land, but I found no one.)"
- Ezekiel 22:30

"He saw that there was no man—He was amazed that there was no one—to intercede;
so His own arm brought salvation, and His own righteousness sustained Him."
- Isaiah 59:16

"I was amazed to see that no one intervened to help the oppressed.
So I myself stepped in to save them with my strong arm, and my wrath sustained me
(i.e. I looked, but there was no one to help; I was shocked because there was no one offering support.
So my right arm accomplished deliverance or achieved salvation for me, my raging anger drove me on)"
- Isaiah 63:5

blueAgent & okosunehis, you must have quite a lot of times, heard the saying that "If you want something done right, do it yourself", well none, nobody, no angel out of the whole angelic hosts of heaven, nor no man out of the whole world wide, offered to accept the challenge to help man get returned back to man's original status before the fall, so God resorted to DIY

blueAgent & okosunehis, you know that Christ, means Saviour, right?. So if you do, how then do suppose God will be able to pull this off this God's redemptive work, if Christ isnt God and man, hmm? Give this some thought blueAgent & okosunehis

"Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts."
Malachi 3:1

Of course, Jesus is an angel, Malachi 3:1 confirms Him being a Messenger. This is God sending Himself on an errand. Praise God. Alleluia.

[img]https://s2/images/MuttleyDriveLaff.gif[/img]
okosunehis, you and I have been up this "monogene" garden path enough times before.
Do you remember, both two at least ocassions?

okosunehis:
"Blow grammar"? I wish I could say that of myself!...LOL

I don't really know what your grouse is with John 3:16 and its NIV and NLT rendition. Maybe you can explain in your response. So, I am sharing some of the regular sources I use when trying to understand scripture. The focus is on the Greek word "monogenes" which is translated as "only begotten" in KJV. It also appears in 8 other verses of the Bible.

NB: Maybe you got me wrong. My favorite translation of the Bible is actually KJV, but no version is free of errors because no translator is free of some level of bias. Therefore, I try not to get stuck with one or even two versions; I just compare and contrast as much available versions as possible.

=========
JOHN 3:16
---------
NIV - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,...

NLT - For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son,...

ESV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,...

KJV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,...


HEBREWS 11:17
-------------

NIV - ... He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,

NLT - ... Abraham, who had received God’s promises, was ready to sacrifice his only son, Isaac,

ESV - ... and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

KJV - ... and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

===========
Monogenēs
===========

From Wikipedia
--------------

Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind". Thus monogenēs (μονογενής) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special. Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue. Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.


From Bible Study Tools
- https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/monogenes.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3439
Phonetic Spelling: mon-og-en-ace'
Parts of Speech: Adjective
Definition: single of its kind, only
- used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
- used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

NAS Word Usage - Total: 9 (only 3, only begotten 6)

The devils and his ministers would have succeeded in falsely proving Bible is full of contradictions if KJV had "one and only son" as it translation. Why? Because in several parts of the scripture there are mentioned SONS OF GOD.
This will instantly dilute the uniqueness of Jesus. And an explosion of heresies.

KJV is right to refer to Isaac as Abraham's only Begotten Son. Abraham had only one wife.

This translation of "one and only Son" in Hebrews is therefore incorrect, Because he had other son from another woman. Isaac is not his only Son. But he is the only Begotten because Abraham was only meant to have one son. But because of sin, impatience he bore another against the will of God. Moreover, we Christians are Sons of God (adopted).

Jesus came out from God. The other sons of God were created by God. Jesus is uncreated. By him all things were created [Colossians 1:16.]

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s2/images/MuttleyDriveLaff.gif[/img]
okosunehis, you and I have been up this "monogene" garden path enough times before.
Do you remember, both two at least ocassions?

Of course I remember, also that you were not able to convince me!

Guys @MuttleyLaff and @mrZENographer, I seriously you are making a mistake in your analytic conclusions. I'm talking about the process by which you arrive at your submissions. We need to remember that Greek words like "exerchomai" and "monogenes" do not have direct English translations. Trying to impose only one referenced word or phrase in translating words of another language is a sort of semantic eisegesis. The original Biblical texts in reference were in Greek and not English; so expressions like "begotten" and "proceeded forth" are only English expressions trying to interpret a message that was rendered in Greek.

So what we should be doing here is using English language to explain what the meaning and context of the Greek text represents, and not picking English words, by different translators with different biases and imposing their meaning on Greek texts. That is why it is SOOOO important not to rely on one particular verse to actually understand the intended message of the writer.

About "exerchomai", it is not a specific word that was created and designated for Jesus alone. I have looked at its general usage and placed it in the context of the different texts it is used. Only in the case of Jesus does is it abstractly connote creation. Its usual application is leaving the company of someone, something or somewhere. That is exactly what the narrative of Jesus in John 8 is about: That God is his father, that he was with God (in heaven), which is from where he came to earth. (Not once did Christ refer remotely to creation in any other verse of John . That is the general usage of "exerchomai", not creation. He went further to emphasize that not only did he (Christ) come from God, but that he was also sent by God. This is because his messengership is a subject that is not covered by "exerchomai". He could actually have come from God but not be sent by God. That is how "exerchomai" was used in 1 John 2:19. If you insist "proceeded forth" must mean emerging from the body or person of God, it is just you trying to impose your meaning on the text. There is no other Biblical usage of "exerchomai" to support that, IMO.

Much of my explanation above applies to "monogenes" as well; it is not a word used exclusively for sonship of Jesus Christ. Strong's explanation already covers the fact that it can mean "son" in general, or "son of a unique kind"; hence the "one and only" in NIV and NLT translations. I don't consider that to be a heresy. The usage of the phrase "son of God" can be narrowed to Christ, and broadened to include others, it is all based on context. To buttress my original point, "monogenes" on the other hand will not be used to describe "sons of God".

The unique nature of the sonship of Christ cannot be deciphered by one verse, scripture or testimony. Christ himself said he derived his life from the Father. Before one "derives" life, it means that person was void of life, non-existent or dead. That means Christ was created by God, hence his being referred to as the beginning or first of God's creatures. Again, we are trying to explain what was originally written in Greek using English words and not the reverse.

This post has totally deviated from the original subject of this thread. I think I will rest my case here. Thanks.