AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   "This day have I begotten thee" & the true Bible (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1449)

Will Kinney 07-12-2009 06:06 PM

"This day have I begotten thee" & the true Bible
 
Acts 13:33 "This day have I begotten thee."

All bible versions do NOT teach the same things. Important doctrines are seriously affected, not only by the different texts used, but also by the ways in which the same texts are translated. Such a case is found in Acts 13:33. The King James Bible reads, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE." This verse, as it stands in the KJB, clearly refers to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and God the Father "begetting" Him from the dead.

The versions that read as the KJB, “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN” are Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Biible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1602, Webster’s 1833, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB. The modern New English Bible and the New Century version both read “raising Jesus from the dead”. The Living Bible says “bringing Jesus back from the dead”, and God’s Word Translation says, “by bringing Jesus back to life.”

It is of interest to see how many foreign language Bibles render the phrase "he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN". The Spanish says: "resusitándo a Jesus", the Latin - resuscitans Iesum, the French - en ressuscitant Jesus; the Portuguese - ressuscitando a Jesus, and the Italian has risuscitando Gesu. It is easy to see that they all render this verse the same way as the KJB has it - referring to the resurrection of Christ.

Commentators as well as bible versions differ radically concerning both the meaning and rendering of this passage. Among those that I believe got it right are John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley, and John Calvin.

Psalm 2:7 “this day have I begotten thee”

This is a prophetic Psalm and verse 7 refers to the resurrection of Christ, when He became “the first begotten from the dead” (Revelation 1:5) and “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18)

John Wesley comments on this passage:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - It is true, he was the Son of God from eternity. As St. Paul elsewhere, declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,(Romans 1:4) And it is with peculiar propriety and beauty that GOD IS SAID TO HAVE BEGOTTEN HIM, ON THE DAY WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, as he seemed then to be born out of the earth anew."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament Commentary 1891 says: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Paul gives the thought in Romans 1:4: "He was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead." No more to return to corruption. Never more to endure death."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

"God hath fulfilled the same in that he hath raised up Jesus again -- the meaning is (notwithstanding the contrary opinion of many excellent interpreters) "from the dead"; as the context plainly shows. as it is written in the second psalm this day have I begotten thee--As the apostle in Romans 1:4 regards the resurrection of Christ merely as the manifestation of a prior Sonship, it is plain that this is his meaning here. "

Adam Clarke on the meaning of Psalm 2:7-Verse 7 - Thou art my Son This day have I begotten thee. BY THE RESURRECTION thou art declared to be the Son of God, by miraculous power, being raised from the dead. Thus by thy wondrous and supernatural nativity, most extraordinary death, and miraculous resurrection, thou art declared to be the Son of God. And as in that Son dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, all the sufferings and the death of that human nature were stamped with an infinitely meritorious efficacy. WE HAVE ST. PAUL'S AUTHORITY FOR APPLYING TO THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD THESE WORDS, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee; "-see Acts 13:33; see also ; Hebrews 5:5;-and the man must indeed be a bold interpreter of the Scriptures who would give a different gloss to that of the apostle. It is well known that the words, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," have been produced by many as a proof of the eternal generation of the Son of God.”

John Gill comments on Psalm 2:7 “this day have I begotten thee” - “ And this may be applied to any time and case in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, and transfiguration upon the mount, and HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAS, AS IT IS IN ACTS 13:33 ; because then he was declared to be the Son of God with power, (Romans 1:4)"

Matthew Henry comments on Psalm 2:7 “This day have I begotten thee.” - “This day have I begotten thee, which refers both to his eternal generation itself, for it is quoted (Hebrews 1:5) to prove that he is the brightness of his Father's glory and the express image of his person (Psalms 2:3), and to the evidence and demonstration given of it BY HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, FOR TO THAT IT IS EXPRESSLY APPLIED BY THE APOSTLE, ACTS 13:33. He hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. It was by the resurrection from the dead, that sign of the prophet Jonas, which was to be the most convincing of all, that he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Romans 1:4. Christ is said to be the first-begotten and first-born from the dead, Revelation 1:5,Col+1:18.”

John Calvin comments on Psalm 2:7 “this day have I begotten thee” - “Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Acts 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ ... We must, at the same time, however, bear in mind what Paul teaches, (Romans 1:4) that he was declared to be the Son of God with power when he rose again from the dead, and THEREFORE WHAT IS HERE SAID HAS A PRINCIPAL ALLUSION TO THE DAY OF HIS RESURRECTION."

The modern NKJV, NIV, and NASB versions make this verse refer to the incarnation of Jesus, rather than His resurrection by merely saying, “God has raised up Jesus”. They leave out raised up Jesus AGAIN.
Some new version defenders tell us that the word “again” is not in the Greek text. This is a misleading statement. All the versions, frequently translate the verb anistemi as "rise AGAIN". For example the NIV renders this word as “rise again” 6 times, “raised to life” once, and “raised from the dead” once. It is frequently used in the phrase that Jesus would be “raised” on the third day. The noun form of this verb is anastasis and is always used in referrence to the resurrection.

What does the phrase, “This day have I begotten thee” mean? Jesus Christ did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation. This false doctrine is called incarnational Sonship. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His taking on a human body.

Dr. Douglas Stauffer, a Baptist pastor and preacher, has written a book called One Book Stands Alone, which is a good defense of the King James Bible. Regarding Acts 13:33 and its meaning, Mr. Stauffer notes on pages 24-25: KJB Acts 13:33 "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

"When the Father said this to the Son, it was not at His birth. It was at His resurrection. He became the "first BEGOTTEN of the dead" Rev.1:5. God did not become the Lord's Father when He was born or Mary or at the resurrection. He is from everlasting, with no beginning. The Son always was...but not so in the NIV."

NIV Acts 13:33 "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

"The Lord Jesus Christ did not become THE SON of God at any time during His earthly life or ministry. (Psalm 2:12) The Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son) can be found throughout the Old Testament. Numerous appearances are revealed prior to His being born of Mary. A great passage in proof of this truth is located in the book of Daniel when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace. Notice who else shows up... the ETERNAL Son of God." (Dr. Douglas Stauffer)

The orthodox doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten before His incarnation was firmly established in 325 A.D at the council of Nicea when the church was combating the teaching of Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a created being; that He had an origin and was inferior to God the Father. The NIV, ESV, RSV and Jehovah's Witness versions all support the heresy of Arianism in Micah 5:2 by telling us of Christ that His "origins are from ancient times" instead of the KJB, NASB, NKJV's "whose goings forth are from everlasting."!

Here is part of the well known Nicean Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

I John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." He was the only begotten Son before He was sent into this world.

At least three different verses testify to the fact that the Son of God existed in Old Testament times. In Daniel 3:25 king Nebuchadnezzar ordered Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego cast into the fiery furnace. He then saw four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire..."and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Psalms 2:12 exhorts kings and judges of the earth to be wise and "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

Proverbs 30:4 asks: "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is HIS SON'S name, if thou canst tell?"

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

Versions that still read "this day have I begotten thee" are the KJB, Geneva, Tyndale, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the 2001 ESV.

The NIV, ISV ( International Standard Version) and Southern Baptist Holman Christian Standard of 2003, Daniel Wallace's NET version, and the TNIV teach heresy with their rendering of Acts 13:33 by saying, "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is in the process of writing his own bible version called NET (New English Translation). Dallas TS has wholeheartedly embraced the confusion of the modern versions, and a recent poll shows that most of the seminarians there no longer believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture.

Wallace's NET version reads: "God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE FATHERED YOU.’ " He then footnotes Greek “I have begotten you.” The traditional translation for gegevnnhka (“begotten”) is misleading to the modern English reader because it is no longer in common use. Today one speaks of “fathering” a child in much the same way speakers of English formerly spoke of “begetting a child.”

Wallace gives us the usual song and dance about "updating the language" so as not to mislead, and yet it never dawns on him that his "updated language" version is in fact teaching a heresy.

This teaches that there was a time when Jesus Christ was not the Son, and God was not His Father. This is the same teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and their New World Translation reads exactly like that of the NIV, ISV, NET, TNIV, and Holman CSB. (And the scholars tell us the bible versions are getting better. What a pathetic joke.) The verb used here is gennao, to beget or to be born. There are no Greek words here for the NIV, ISV, HCSB's "have become" or "Father" in any Greek text on this earth.

In what sense then can Jesus be said to have been begotten on a certain day? This happened at the resurrection. Christ bore the sins of His people, and died in our place. He died physically and spiritually - Spiritually in that He was forsaken by the Father. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46.

The Lord Jesus Christ refers to Himself in Revelation 1:5 as "the FIRSTBEGOTTEN FROM THE DEAD", and in Colossians 1:18 He is called "THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, that in all things he might have the preeminence."

I believe the NKJV and the NASB are wrong by applying Acts 13:33 to Christ's incarnation, and the NIV, ISV, NET, TNIV, HCSB, and NWT are heretical by having God say: "Today I have become your Father", thus teaching Christ was not the Son, nor God His Father before a certain day.

Proverbs 30:5-6 "EVERY WORD OF GOD IS PURE: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Is EVERY WORD pure in your Bible version? Do you even care one way or the other?

May our attitude toward God's word be that of king David- “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128.

Will Kinney

Bro. Parrish 07-12-2009 06:28 PM

WOW brother Will that's a lot to chew on, I will have to circle back and study all of this when I have more time. That is interesting about the resurrection. Sometimes I don't know where you get the energy but I love your passion, and I know God has led you to focus on these things like a laser beam, thanks for your insights/wisdom on these issues, we are truly in a battle.

:RunToKJB:

Will Kinney 07-12-2009 06:35 PM

Hi brother. Well, it is what I love to do and I thank God for it and for His precious words. I wrote a lot of that before but it came up again at a Bible club I belong to and I did some more studying on it and on Psalm 2. God's true Bible is so wonderful and always true. The bogus bibles always fall way short of the whole truth.

May God be pleased to open more eyes and to confirm the faith of those who already see.

Will K

Bro. Parrish 07-12-2009 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 23820)
The bogus bibles always fall way short of the whole truth.

Will K

Indeed they do brother, the last thing the world needs is another
BOGUS Bible... wait, I had an image for that, ahhh here it is...


http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wBibleWOW3.jpg

Will Kinney 07-12-2009 08:17 PM

I love it! That is a great poster.

Kewl!

Will K

greenbear 07-12-2009 10:38 PM

Will, this was a great study. I was not aware of the changes in Acts 13:33. It's sad that many Christians will not be convinced to throw away their NIV when confronted by this just this one attack on the diety of Christ and it would seem? the doctrine of the trinity.

God bless,

Jen

Will Kinney 07-13-2009 08:37 AM

Thank you sister. Yes, I am afraid you are right. Truth can be presented that the King James Bible is the onlt 100% true Holy Bible and all others are poor pretenders at best, but more and more people today don't care much for Truth.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine...and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

God bless,

Will K

Will Kinney 07-13-2009 08:39 AM

Brother Parrish. I have had a couple people ask me where they can get a link or a copy of that great poster you showed us. A brother I know wants to put it up on his site. Can you tell us how to make a link to that poster about Another New Bible? Or did you make it up yourself? It is really a great poster. Thanks so much for showing it to us.

Will K

PaulB 07-13-2009 10:13 AM

Hello again Will
 
Thanks for another very helpful article Will. If the Lord tarries there may no count of the people you may be equipping in the future. I also think that it is good that people like Bro Parish & Greenbear are giving you their feedback because this just goes to show that your labours are not in vain.

This is a classic example of the lie of “updated English” where they argue that there are no doctrinal differences. I raised this point to an NIV preacher the other week (who was offering to teach NT Greek to anyone who was willing) to illustrate that the NIV both distorts Christ persons and clear prophetic references that point to Him. I didn’t get a response to the issue I raised, all I got was a classic “escape hatch” comment of “oh, I just want to go and speak to those people over there”.

I have also lent a 3 part DVD set to a family that clearly point out many of these issues in the hope that they will realise how faulty the foundations are on which they are standing.
I don’t know whether you checked out the link that I posted yesterday onto a previous article that you placed on the forum, but things like these examples just show how serious these issues are. Not only that, but boiling points such as these do tend to bring the question of motives behind translations to the surface don’t they?

How quick the seminarians are to proudly undress the KJB by the authority of vile translations such as these by correcting the “so called errors” that modern day scholarship has ironed out. But they are not so eager when it comes down to doing the reverse and rightly correcting the errors of modern scholarship with the KJB.

Daniel Wallace’s comments are pathetic when he claims that the word begotten is misleading just because it is no longer a part of our common day speech. Would he come to the same conclusions over other words found in Scripture that even the seminarians use such as:
Hades, demons, holy, gospel, procurator, Pharisee, scribe, satraps, Ark, pugnacious (NASV), tongues, sons of God, as all of these are words that are hardly ever heard voiced in the 21st century?

For one the word “begotten” stops me racing ahead and makes me think, as the word fathered can apply to someone who never had anything to do with the child, or it could apply to a child that is not my own. But I see begotten as a means of stating “the bringing forth of” (in the sense of coming out of) but “fathered” to me, is like the way in which the word “with child” has been substituted with “pregnant” in most modern versions.

God bless Will

PaulB

PaulB 07-13-2009 10:18 AM

Please forgive the typing errors (eg, Christ persons) as these are't intended to be subtle heresies!

Will Kinney 07-13-2009 12:44 PM

Hi brother Paul. Thank you for the comments. Yes, I totally agree about Daniel Wallace and company's NET version. It is an ongoing train wreck in action. They feel free to alter any text at any time and keep digging around in ancient scrap piles hoping they will come up with new and exciting find. Affectionately known to his most intimate friends as Dumpster Diver Daniel ;-)

God bless,

Will K

boaz212 07-14-2009 03:55 PM

Thanks Will again for your article. I have been going through the book of Acts and this study definitely helped. I believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. I just never got to study and understand the phrase Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee is referring to the resurrection of Christ. I have a couple of questions I like to ask for your help.

1). What's the definition for the word begotten used in Ac 13:33 and Ps 2:7?
2). Can you explain Hbr 1:5 ¶ For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Is the "begotten thee" always referring to the resurrection of Christ? And what does it mean when God says I will be to him a Father...? Is He referring to Rom 1:4?

Thanks for your help. This is a very important doctrine. I need to make sure I have the proper understanding and the scriptures to back it up.

Tim

Will Kinney 07-14-2009 04:30 PM

This day have I begotten thee
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by boaz212 (Post 23926)
Thanks Will again for your article. I have been going through the book of Acts and this study definitely helped. I believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. I just never got to study and understand the phrase Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee is referring to the resurrection of Christ. I have a couple of questions I like to ask for your help.

1). What's the definition for the word begotten used in Ac 13:33 and Ps 2:7?
2). Can you explain Hbr 1:5 ¶ For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Is the "begotten thee" always referring to the resurrection of Christ? And what does it mean when God says I will be to him a Father...? Is He referring to Rom 1:4?

Thanks for your help. This is a very important doctrine. I need to make sure I have the proper understanding and the scriptures to back it up.

Tim

Hi Tim. Thanks for writing. I think if you go back and look at John Gill's comments on Psalm 2:7 that will help. I think "begotten" in the context of Acts 13:33 is when God gave Him life. Christ was truly dead. Just like God begets us. "...which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 1 Peter 1:3.

God gave Him life and He became the first-begotten from the dead - See Rev. 1:5.

As for Hebrews 1:5 I think it refers to His resurrection as predicted in Psalm 2:7. Many hold this view.

There is a lot of dispute about the eternal Sonship of Christ. Not all Christians agree on this doctrine at all. But I think this is what the Scriptures teach. Here is an article I wrote on it. I do not think it is a "break it" doctrine one way or the other, as long as you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is Jehovah God Himself. I completely believe in the full, everlasting Godhead of Jesus Christ. If a person does not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, then I could not fellowship with him.

Here is the article and some pretty impressive church confessions from times past. Hope this helps some.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney

boaz212 07-14-2009 06:19 PM

Hope this helps some.
Hi Will, thanks for your quick reply. Some is quite an understatement. :)
It's all coming together nicely for me. I am just going to go through the verses again and read your article a few more times. God bless, you have been a big blessing to me. Take care.
Tim

Will Kinney 07-14-2009 09:43 PM

Some more great confessions on the only begotten Son of God
 
Hi Tim and others who may be interested in the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLD, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D. Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.

The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561 We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571 Article II The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646 In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Will K

Luke 07-17-2009 10:38 PM

Will, forgive me if I am wrong. I noticed fssl on fff said something about eternally begotten or something.

Do you believe that "this day" refers to a specific day in time, or some eternal decree?

Will Kinney 07-18-2009 03:34 AM

This day have I begotten thee
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 24265)
Will, forgive me if I am wrong. I noticed fssl on fff said something about eternally begotten or something.

Do you believe that "this day" refers to a specific day in time, or some eternal decree?

Hi Luke. This is a good question. Like I said earlier, I do not believe the eternal Sonship is a "deal breaker" as long as one believes that the Lord Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH God. He is the God-man, with two natures. His deity took on humanity at the incarnation.

I think the Baptist commentator John Gill explained the various uses of the phrases "begotten" and "only begotten Son" quite well. However when it comes to the specific phrase used when God says: "This DAY have I begotten thee" I think this refers specifically to the very real DAY when God gave the Son's dead body life again at the resurrection as recorded in Acts 13:33, and as most Christians used to understand Psalms 2:7.

Christ then became "the first begotten from the dead" Rev. 1:5 and "the firstborn from the dead" Colossians 1:18.

This has been the long held traditional view. It is not some new kind of doctrine. However there are some who disagree with the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of the second Person of the Trinity; yet I believe they are Christians too.

I hope that answers your question. If not, then please clarify.

Thanks,

Will K

Will Kinney 07-18-2009 03:43 AM

Another present day Baptist on Acts 13:33
 
You may have already seen this, Luke, but here is another present day Baptist who is pretty well know who see it this way too.

Dr. Douglas Stauffer, a Baptist pastor and preacher, has written a book called One Book Stands Alone, which is a good defense of the King James Bible. Regarding Acts 13:33 and its meaning, Mr. Stauffer notes on pages 24-25: KJB Acts 13:33 "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

"When the Father said this to the Son, it was not at His birth. It was at His resurrection. He became the "first BEGOTTEN of the dead" Rev.1:5. God did not become the Lord's Father when He was born or Mary or at the resurrection. He is from everlasting, with no beginning. The Son always was...but not so in the NIV."

NIV Acts 13:33 "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

"The Lord Jesus Christ did not become THE SON of God at any time during His earthly life or ministry. (Psalm 2:12) The Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son) can be found throughout the Old Testament. Numerous appearances are revealed prior to His being born of Mary. A great passage in proof of this truth is located in the book of Daniel when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace. Notice who else shows up... the ETERNAL Son of God." (Dr. Douglas Stauffer)

Will K

Luke 07-18-2009 02:43 PM

Thanks. I just wondered if you went down that line that some reformed do, and end up with a begotten God and an unbegotten God and a whole lotta confusion by substituting "this day" for eternity.

boaz212 07-18-2009 03:46 PM

Hi Will, quick question for you. Why do many new versions say:
He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” Dan 3:25 (NIV)
Where does that reading come from? Thanks.
Tim

Will Kinney 07-24-2009 06:36 PM

Daniel 3:25
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by boaz212 (Post 24335)
Hi Will, quick question for you. Why do many new versions say:
He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” Dan 3:25 (NIV)
Where does that reading come from? Thanks.
Tim

Hi Tim. Their variant English translation comes from the way they read the Hebrew text. If you believe the verse is talking about the Son of God, then you translate it that way. If you do not, then you go with what the NIV and other modern versions have.

Here is a bit more on it.

Daniel 3:25 "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

John Gill - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God; many of the ancient Christian writers interpret it of Christ the Son of God, whom Nebuchadnezzar, though a Heathen prince, might have some knowledge of from Daniel and other Jews in his court, of whom he had heard them speak as a glorious Person; and this being such an one, he might conclude it was he, or one like to him; and it is highly probable it was he, since it was not unusual for him to appear in a human form, and to be present with his people, as he often is with them, and even in the furnace of affliction;to sympathize with them; to revive and comfort them; to bear them up and support them; to teach and instruct them, and at last to deliver them out of their afflictions."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "like the Son of God--Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas, and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.

Matthew Henry - "Some think it was the eternal Son of God, the angel of the covenant, and not a created angel. He appeared often in our nature before he assumed it in his incarnation, and never more seasonable, nor to give a more proper indication and presage of his great errand into the world in the fulness of time, than now, when, to deliver his chosen out of the fire, he came and walked with them in the fire."

John Wesley - " The Son of God - Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, did sometimes appear before his incarnation."

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of the King James Bible, Geneva Bible, Webster's, Douay, Green's interlinear, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Third Millenium Bible and the NKJV.

However the NKJV also has a footnote that reads" "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace. "A son of the gods" is the reading of the NASB, NIV, RSV and many other modern versions. You cannot believe nor teach the same truth using these conflicting versions.

Will K

Will Kinney 07-24-2009 06:38 PM

This day have I begotten thee
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 24323)
Thanks. I just wondered if you went down that line that some reformed do, and end up with a begotten God and an unbegotten God and a whole lotta confusion by substituting "this day" for eternity.

Hi Luke. No, like I said, I go along with the traditional view on what the phrase means. I definitely think the specific "day" referred to is a real 24 hour day, and it was the day God raised Christ from the dead.

Blessings,
Will K


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study