I was working on a rebuttal to an Islamic apologist doc pointing out why the Bible is not God's word some time ago and thought I would post this. While one can argue with Islamic scholarship, they do make many great points, and cut to the heart of the rot at the core of those who say they follow the Bible. The Islamic apologist quoted from Ellen G. White, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many other cult or sect leaders to validate their Islamic teachings/beliefs.
However, in working through their arguments the "begotten" issue they brought up proved a bit more interesting, for it pits the Qu'ran against the Holy Bible..but not quite. It pits the Qu'ran against translations, and they like what they see.
Here is a quote from the Islamic author:
"BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE
"Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 - AV)
No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication — "BEGOTTEN" — has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud.
Qu'ran, Sura Maryam 88-92
88. And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allâh) has begotten a son (or offspring or children) [as the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say that He has begotten a son ['Iesa (Christ)], and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels, etc.)]."
89. Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing.
90. Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins,
91. That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allâh).
92. But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allâh) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children).
Qu'ran, Sura al-Ikhlas
1. Say (O Muhammad ()): "He is Allâh, (the) One.
2. "Allâh-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks).
3. "He begets not, nor was He begotten;
4. "And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."
The Muslim World should congratulate the "Fifty cooperating denominations" of Christendom and their Brains Trust the "Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence" for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Qur-anic truth."
Here is what I wrote in response:
Christian Response
The mystery of the word “begotten” is one that many Christians struggle with, and why its removal in modern translations meant very little to most believers. To a Moslem this is a critical issue as there are multiple verses, as quotes above show, in the Qur’an stating Jesus could not have been begotten of God. Lets look a little closer at the most quoted verse in the Bible.
The word in question is the Greek word monogenes, the combination of monos and genes. Monos means single, and we use it often in words such as monopoly, monotonous, etc. Genao we see used in words like generation and genes, and its meaning is “I bear” or “I beget”. Today scholars feel monogenes means “unique” or “one of a kind”, and that is why modern version have taken out “begotten” (for the full picture of why it is taken out, one has to study Gnostic teachings and their influence on text families and translations). It should be noted that modern versions also remove the word “begotten” from John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9.
By removing the word begotten we get this in the RSV, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”, and this in the NIV, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
So, does that work? Does it really mean the same thing? Consider this, if Jesus is God’s only son, then what do we do with these verses:
• John 1:12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”
• Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
• Romans 8:19, “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.”
• Philippians 2:15, “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;”
• I John 3:1-2, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God; therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
Here is the verse modern translators painted themselves into a corner with to justify the John 3:16 translation of “one and only”:
Hebrews 11:17, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”. In the NIV it again says, “one and only”.
Was Isaac really Abraham’s only son? What about Ishmael? Here the word begotten means the only son to be born via a lawful wife through Abraham, just like God used Mary to have his only begotten son. While we can become sons of God, there is only one begotten son, and to take that away from him is non-Biblical, and opens the doors for cults and other religions to castigate the name and nature of Jesus, the God-man. In this verse, the Bible shows us the heavy difference between Isaac, the legitimate son, and the illegitimate son Ishmael. It is well known Isaac is an Old Testament type of Christ, so the intentional error carries double meanings, one impacting Isaac and his brother, and one Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment