timeless procreation.

[Superfast]

You didn't quote from a concordance? Are you sure? How sure are you? Because I swear in post #27 where you said,

"here is the greek word used.

gennhqen <1080> (5685) {IS BEGOTTEN," that you quote from a concordance. Do you know how a concordance works? I looked up 1080 and got the word "gennhgen," so as I thought I asked you earlier but maybe not where again did you receive this definition? Are you really sure you didn't quote from a concordance, because I don't believe you?

yep

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Matthew 1:20 tauta <5023> de <1161> {AND THESE THINGS} autou <846> {WHEN} enqumhqentoV <1760> (5679) {HE HAD PONDERED,} idou <2400> (5628) {BEHOLD,} aggeloV <32> {AN ANGEL} kuriou <2962> {OF [THE] LORD} kat <2596> {IN} onar <3677> {A DREAM} efanh <5316> (5648) {APPEARED} autw <846> {TO HIM,} legwn <3004> (5723) {SAYING,} iwshf <2501> {JOSEPH,} uioV <5207> {SON} dauid <1138> mh <3361> {OF DAVID,} fobhqhV <5399> (5680) {FEAR NOT} paralabein <3880> (5629) {TO TAKE TO [THEE]} mariam <3137> thn <3588> {MARY} gunaika <1135> sou <4675> {THY WIFE,} to <3588> {FOR THAT} gar <1063> {WHICH} en <1722> {IN} auth <846> {HER} gennhqen <1080> (5685) {IS BEGOTTEN} ek <1537> {OF} pneumatoV <4151> {[THE] SPIRIT} estin <2076> (5748) {IS} agiou <40> {HOLY.}

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

I have this strange feeling, based on what you've said, that you are going to say an interlinear is a concordance. I have a Ford auto, is that a concordance too?

 

[elopez]

You don't see that it does much to favor my argument because you ignore the reasons they gave for why monogenes doesn't mean unique..

here's one reason they gave amongst many. there are 2 root words in monogenes, one is mono the other is the root word for generate. So to argue that monogenes doesn't mean begotten, is to deny the meaning of the root word in monogenes.

actually i beginning to think they are all wrong. i'm thinking maybe it really means only generated. but I said that and explained why and you ignored it.

I didn't ignore a thing. And I never made the argument that monogenes isn't translated as begotten. Seriously you need to pay attention to what my argument actually is if that's what you think.

 

[elopez]

Originally Posted by Superfast

I have shown that there are arguments for and against it meaning unique, I have shown that there are knowledgeable people on the subject that are on both sides of the issue. you haven't shown that it means unique anymore or less than I have shown that it doesn't mean unique.
​

I cut and paste 2 articles, explained in my own words what they were saying and why that means monogenes doesn't mean unique, you just ignored what they said and what I said by only saying "that's not impressive or convincing." why are their arguments not convincing? you just rerfuse to deal with it. you refuse to deal with the fact that the root word in monogenes means generate, and not unique, just to mention one reason they gave.

Because as I've already explained I could do the same that says the exact opposite of what you c&p. Obviously you would find no justification in what I would c&p, now would you?

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html

he gives 2 definitions for the 2nd root word in monogenes, the 2 meanings he gives are offspring, kind, and cause to be generated, or born. thus the reason almost all bibles translate monogenes as only begotten. unique doesn't fit with the root meaning of the word in monogenes, begotten does. Because if someothing is an offspring or kind, or generated or born, begotten is a much better translation than unique is. your response? I'm not persuaded. In other words you are really saying I refuse to deal with it.

Actually the Greek word "gennhqen" is better translated as born or conceived. Refer to the link you gave me.

2nd source]



http://www.babylonforsaken.com/monogenes.html

what he is saying is that if it means unique it can only mean unique in the sense of only child or only one of his parents, it cannot mean unique in the sense or special as you take it to mean , because it is a different greek word that means unique, namely monadikos. But anyone saying unique child isn't going to mean only child so that rules it out as a definition of monogenes. but If one meantunique child in the sense of only child it would be similar in meaning to only begotten, or only procreated,. your rebutal is to only say "im not impressed." no cournter argument, just ignore it. cause that's all you can really do ignore the evidence call the source no good, and quote your source.

Yes, unique in the sense of only child. Christ is the only Son of God while we are sons of God through faith. This is something I've stated in the very beginning of the thread to which you also must have overlooked or ignored yourself. The Greek monogenes doesn't mean procreated, again, even refer to the link you gave me in your last post.

your only arguement for why monogenes should be translated as unique is cause strongs says so. and all my sources are bad and all your sources are good. typical.

I actually didn't get the definition of unique from strongs, so try again. I never said your sources were bad, did I? Typical of putting words in my mouth? Very much so.

You do the same thing a lot of trinitarians do in here, whatever source I quote you say the source is no good, and that is what you implied in your comments. whatever source you quote is A-1 dandy. INstead of dealing with the issues raised by my source you jsut brush it aside with the source is no good, that way you don't have to deal with anything.

I never said the source was no good, I said it was unimpressive to c&p. You say I "implied" that but as "implying" something is not actually directly saying it, no, I have no said what you merely think I did.

 

[elopez]

open up Strong's concordance to the opening title page and you'll find it says

THE NEW STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE

with

MAIN CONCORDANCE
APPENDIX TO THE MAIN CONCORDANCE
TOPICAL INDEX TO THE BIBLE
DICTIONARY OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
DICTIONARY OF THE GREEK TESDTAMENT


So argue with the opening page.

Yeah, but I'm not the one denying a dictionary is contained in a concordance. You are, remember?

 

[Dillinger]

here's an accurate one. 3 Susans are one Susan.

or 3 persons of susan are one susan.

Unfortunately, you 're still not getting it. God is love (1 John 4:8), and love itself is triadic. God is the "Lover," God is the "Beloved," and God is the "Love" that unites the "Lover" and the "Beloved" as One.

 

[Superfast]

Yeah, but I'm not the one denying a dictionary is contained in a concordance. You are, remember?

I remember saying this in post 46.

nope a concordance merely shows you were a verse is in the bible, a dictionary defines the words . Strongs concordance for example also contains a dictionary at the back. the dictionary portion isn't a concordance.

also you said in post #41 for me to look up the def. of a word in a concordance, and there are other times when youo refer to a concordance as a dictionary, not just these two.

And further that the Greek meaning is different from the English? Again refer to the concordance you quoted earlier.

As I said than, if you want to use a Concordance in favor for you argument, then look up the Greek word "monogenes" and see what you get. I'll warn you now it only backs up what I've been saying. The Greek "monogenes" is in contrast to the Greek "gennhqen." While you're at it, why don't you tell us what the concordance has to say about that word in detail?

you kept telling me over and over to look in a concordance for the definition of a word. you really can't remember doing it all those times?



.

this is your reply to my assertion that a concordance may contain a dictionary but isn't one. in post #47.

could find a verse in the Bible without a concordance. A concordance is an alphabetical list of words used in the Bible in the orignal context. Obviously you don't know what a concordance is, because the back of the book is still part of the entire concordance....

you probably confused me with you. you are the one who denied my statement that strongs concordance contained a dictionary but the dictionary portion isn't a concordance. maybe finally you got it.

 

[Superfast]

I didn't ignore a thing.

saying my arguemnts aren't persuasive is ignoring my arguements for why monogenes can't mean unique. It's a bursh off.

And I never made the argument that monogenes isn't translated as begotten. Seriously you need to pay attention to what my argument actually is if that's what you think.

I get confused with your statements and find them hard to folllow at times. I think you believe monngenes means both begotten and unique. You say begotten in english dosesn't convey the idea of monogenes, begotten and unique do. so I ask you then does eternally begotten really mean "eternally begotten and unique," and your reply was no. so you are very confusing.

 

[Superfast]

Because as I've already explained I could do the same that says the exact opposite of what you c&p. Obviously you would find no justification in what I would c&p, now would you?

If you posted some reasons for why you think monogenes means unique, and I said ''I';m not persuaded, I can post from other sourcess" I would have ignored your reasons for why you believe monogenes means unique. I would have just brushed off your arguments and wouldn't have dealt with them i wouldn't have explained why I believe you are wrong. Saying I"m not persuaded explains nothing.

 

[Superfast]

I actually didn't get the definition of unique from strongs, so try again. I never said your sources were bad, did I? Typical of putting words in my mouth? Very much so.

wherever you got it.

Yeah, I could C&P something that contradicts all of what you quoted, too. It's not that hard, and I find no argument from you here in the source you quoted.

also you said

I know what you said. What I'm saying is just because you c&p some article from a website I don't find that it does much to favor your argument.

those comments suggested to me some denegration of my sources. Especially since you didn't deal with anything they said. The source is no good is a common trinitarian debate tactic in here. you seemed to me to be skirting that tactic on the edge. also the manner in which you said it 'just because you can cut and paste some web site." suggests a denegration of my sources. I'm sure you don't see it, but i did.

Just because you cut and paste from some web site that monogenes means unique , doesn't mean it does. see the insinuation in that? I do.

 

[Superfast]

Actually the Greek word "gennhqen" is better translated as born or conceived. Refer to the link you gave me.

the problem is that in English when people say conceived they usually mean the female role but on rare occasions sometimes they mean the male role. whereas the greek word is solely for the male act not the female act, they too have another word for what the female does, conceived.

look here in luke 1.24 and you see the greek word for conceived, i.e. the female act.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Luke 1:24 meta <3326> de <1161> {NOW AFTER} tautaV <3778> taV <3588> {THESE} hmeraV <2250> {DAYS} sunelaben <4815> (5627) {CONCEIVED} elisabet <1665> h <3588> {ELIZABETH} gunh <1135> autou <846> {HIS WIFE,} kai <2532> {AND} periekruben <4032> (5707) {HID} eauthn <1438> {HERSELF} mhnaV <3376> {MONTHS} pente <4002> {FIVE,} legousa <3004> (5723) {SAYING,}

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm



it's sunelaben it isn't gennhqen. translators just lie and say the holy spirit caused mary to conceive when the scripture actually says 'that which is begotten in her is off the holy spirit." the holy spirit didn't conceive, the holy spirit isn't a female. the holy spirit begat.

2nd source]



http://www.babylonforsaken.com/monogenes.html





Yes, unique in the sense of only child. Christ is the only Son of God while we are sons of God through faith. This is something I've stated in the very beginning of the thread to which you also must have overlooked or ignored yourself. The Greek monogenes doesn't mean procreated, again, even refer to the link you gave me in your last post.

I didn't mean to imply that unique child in the sense of only child is a good translation, I think it is a terrible translation. I'm just saying that is much closer to the true meaning, which is only begotten or only generated, than just merely saying unique. only child would be better than unique child but even that is terrible.




I

 

[elopez]

I remember saying this in post 46.

also you said in post #41 for me to look up the def. of a word in a concordance, and there are other times when youo refer to a concordance as a dictionary, not just these two.

The dictionary is part of the concordance. That's what I'm saying, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Yes I said to look it up on a concordance because you will find the word there. And no, I have not referred to a concordance as a dictionary itself, but that it contains a dictionary. Surely you can notice that difference.

you kept telling me over and over to look in a concordance for the definition of a word. you really can't remember doing it all those times?

this is your reply to my assertion that a concordance may contain a dictionary but isn't one. in post #47.

Yes, I did tell you that. But I never said a concordance is a dictionary, I said that it will have a dictionary.

you probably confused me with you. you are the one who denied my statement that strongs concordance contained a dictionary but the dictionary portion isn't a concordance. maybe finally you got it.

Nope. No confusion on my part. More so on your behalf it looks like. I never denied anything like that. What I denied is that a concordance doesn't contain a dictionary. I said it will have a dictionary. Again, sounds like you need to pay attention to what I actually say.

 

[elopez]

saying my arguemnts aren't persuasive is ignoring my arguements for why monogenes can't mean unique. It's a bursh off.

Yes but I have not ignored them. I've responded to your arguments previously.

I get confused with your statements and find them hard to folllow at times. I think you believe monngenes means both begotten and unique. You say begotten in english dosesn't convey the idea of monogenes, begotten and unique do. so I ask you then does eternally begotten really mean "eternally begotten and unique," and your reply was no. so you are very confusing.

That's not my fault. I understand you have trouble following things, but that's because you hardly pay attention to what I say and twist my statements. You confuse yourself. I believe monogenes is the Greek word translated into the English word begotten, and that monogenes means only one in a unique special sense, which I also believe is what begotten means. All of this is rather straight forward.

 

[elopez]

If you posted some reasons for why you think monogenes means unique, and I said ''I';m not persuaded, I can post from other sourcess" I would have ignored your reasons for why you believe monogenes means unique. I would have just brushed off your arguments and wouldn't have dealt with them i wouldn't have explained why I believe you are wrong. Saying I"m not persuaded explains nothing.

I've explained my reasoning. You fail to comprehend or acknowledge those reasons. Again, not my problem.

 

[elopez]

the problem is that in English when people say conceived they usually mean the female role but on rare occasions sometimes they mean the male role. whereas the greek word is solely for the male act not the female act, they too have another word for what the female does, conceived.

look here in luke 1.24 and you see the greek word for conceived, i.e. the female act.

Well in Luke 1:24 the Greek word for conceived is "sullambano," and means to conceive of a woman in the passive sense. This doesn't mean that the Greek "gennhqen" doesn't mean to conceive or beget. Shall I c&p to support my position?

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

it's sunelaben it isn't gennhqen. translators just lie and say the holy spirit caused mary to conceive when the scripture actually says 'that which is begotten in her is off the holy spirit." the holy spirit didn't conceive, the holy spirit isn't a female. the holy spirit begat.
I didn't mean to imply that unique child in the sense of only child is a good translation, I think it is a terrible translation. I'm just saying that is much closer to the true meaning, which is only begotten or only generated, than just merely saying unique. only child would be better than unique child but even that is terrible.

No, translators are not lying, you are simply just saying that. In Luke 1:24 the word is "sullambano" but in the other passage you quoted the Greek word for concieved is "gennhqen." And no takes to mean that the HS conceived, so I'm not sure where you are getting that. Well, as neither of us are translators and as you can't seem to come to terms on any translation, I'll stick to what sounds most reasonable, and that is not what you are suggesting.

 

[elopez]

wherever you got it.

From a Christian website probably not too different from the one you quoted from.

also you said


those comments suggested to me some denegration of my sources. Especially since you didn't deal with anything they said. The source is no good is a common trinitarian debate tactic in here. you seemed to me to be skirting that tactic on the edge. also the manner in which you said it 'just because you can cut and paste some web site." suggests a denegration of my sources. I'm sure you don't see it, but i did.

Just because you cut and paste from some web site that monogenes means unique , doesn't mean it does. see the insinuation in that? I do.

I did deal with what you said. I think it is you who is neglecting things. Go back and read what I wrote in response to your citing.

 

[Superfast]

The dictionary is part of the concordance. That's what I'm saying, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Yes I said to look it up on a concordance because you will find the word there. And no, I have not referred to a concordance as a dictionary itself, but that it contains a dictionary. Surely you can notice that difference.


.

Originally Posted by super#46
nope a concordance merely shows you were a verse is in the bible, a dictionary defines the words . Strongs concordance for example also contains a dictionary at the back. the dictionary portion isn't a concordance.



Originally Posted by elopes#47

could find a verse in the Bible without a concordance. A concordance is an alphabetical list of words used in the Bible in the orignal context. Obviously you don't know what a concordance is, because the back of the book is still part of the entire concordance....


I say a dictionary at the back of a concordance isnt a concordance, you say Im wrong. That means you believe it is a concordance. now you change your tune and say it contains a dictionary. this is why it is hard to follow you you keep changing your tune. So which is it that you believe now?

do you still want to own your statement tthat a concordance doesn't tell you which verses a word is in in the bible? or have you changed your tune on that as well?

 

[elopez]

Originally Posted by super#46
nope a concordance merely shows you were a verse is in the bible, a dictionary defines the words . Strongs concordance for example also contains a dictionary at the back. the dictionary portion isn't a concordance.



Originally Posted by elopes#47

could find a verse in the Bible without a concordance. A concordance is an alphabetical list of words used in the Bible in the orignal context. Obviously you don't know what a concordance is, because the back of the book is still part of the entire concordance....


I say a dictionary at the back of a concordance isnt a concordance, you say Im wrong. That means you believe it is a concordance. now you change your tune and say it contains a dictionary. this is why it is hard to follow you you keep changing your tune. So which is it that you believe now?

do you still want to own your statement tthat a concordance doesn't tell you which verses a word is in in the bible? or have you changed your tune on that as well?

I say the dictionary is part of the concordance and not excluded from it. I said it has a dictionary, why don't you find and quote that?

I've never said that. I said I could find a verse in the Bible without referring to a concordance. Why are you yet again twisting my words? I'm 'bout over this conversation.

 

[Superfast]

The eternal generation of the Son is defined as "an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son." [

Eternal generation of the Son - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Ok so, the dictionary here is saying that the Father is generating or begatting Jesus without having to think about it over and over and over and over thoughout eternity as a person , but not as an essence. He is also saying that begotten means communicating to HIm (Jesus) the whole godhead. So in trinity jargon, in this phrase and probably this phrase alone, begotten means communicating the God head to Jesus. amazing destruction of the english language. who in the world would take begotten to mean 'communicating".? no one, thus , eternally begotten means nothing to anyone who hears it. that's why we get all these different ideas in here as to what eternally begotten means. He means ''eternally communicating" but says "eternally begotten". In other words don't say what you mean say what you don't mean. you don't mean begotten you mean comunicating so say begotten, that way nobody knows what you mean. whoo hooo.