THEOBSERVATORY:
BEGOTTEN
BEGOTTEN
PRELUDE
Here I am sharing contemplations from 50+ years of learning from biblical teachings. I've had no college nor theological training. No hebraic, or greek, or aramaic schooling. Again, no letters trailing behind my name. Should I, aught I, dare I get that schooling first, before I attempt to express, expose, expound, or explain and share such a product of human importance- THE BIBLE? And what possible likelihood is there that these words from an "invisible", unknown individual of no reputation or status or association, with no "following", have any worth, significance, or validity to be reviewed? Why am I doing this? No, not to teach- that is a paramount responsibility I have no qualification for, nor quality to do. I will say, however, that I do believe my writings, although not schooled, are skilled to the best conception bestowed upon me, or why place any self-worth without, at least, them. Why am I doing this?
I enjoy writing. I enjoy Bible study- on "my own", not being indoctrinated or innoculated, or dominated, nor denominated by other people. I like words...mostly formulated in my mind from the sharings of other people, but mostly just from my vivid imagination connected with what I have learned over the years. My Mother said many times, I have a creative imagination. (I think she used the word "creative".)
Well, this website is all about sharing information: about commercial products and personal production (such as it is). Mostly, Words transferred from my mind into this computer, and on to whatever receptors are exposed to these ideas, thoughts, contemplations, convictions, concepts, absolutities, novelties, individual impartations out of my mind.
Not to create a following, or man-approved reputation- just to share recreations of thought (whether original, or in general) via this universalized media -the WWW, the Internet, by means of this contraption- the computer. Others are doing it. So why not me? I have some things to share. I can. I do.
I said all that to say this (a quick flashback of Pastor Houser in Lindenwold, NJ's Christ Community Church would say that many times in his sermons)- my words are "begotten" from within my self, recreated from input of my learning. Precious people, such as my parents, pastors, teachers, sister and brothers, aunts and uncles; one named Ed Serdynski; my high school homeroom teacher, John Sheetz; one Stanley Rosenthal, and Bud Ernst; and even Jack Van Impe (of his evangelistic days); and just so many have influenced and impressed my life. But none greater has been the inspiration and application in my life, than the Holy Spirit of Almighty God! My abased and yet determined mind is only an inner revelation "begotten" from my Creators' impact and creation.
No, I am by no means, trying to establish a pedestal on which to proclaim or even claim any personal fame, OR shame. Not to put myself down, but to esteem others higher than myself, I am very content to live humbled, not a flashy attention-getter...I mostly just want my contact with others (by whatever means) to be of help in whatever capacity that may arise. It is with all these words in this, perhaps, redundant Prelude that I am basically beginning this word study to present the concept of the importance of the word "BEGOTTEN".
Oh, I hope this "study" will be as interesting to you as it has always been to me over the many years it has had such a significance to me. These words you are reading, not "breathed out" of me, but extracted out of me, have been birthed, born, "brought into being" from an encapsulated expanse of my mind...and now appear on this media in front of you. These words have been "begotten".
Must we view this word "BEGOTTEN" as obsolete, archaic, out-dated, antiquated, useless, insignificant, something close to what seemingly would have an application along the lines of senility? Why is it not preserved in modern bibles as something patriarchal, or of significant antiquity, venerable? Is the word so complicated, so displaced that it has actually lost its beneficial factor of identity? Identity. That is worthy of superior consideration!
By my count, which could be off by one or three, "begotten" is used about twenty-four times in both the old and new testaments, in the KJV Bible. Many more times are the root words used, begat and beget. Now what does this old, extinguished, yet very key word mean, and why is its significance so important to this wayfaring writer?
Straight from the Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1953 (the only one with me used at the time of this writing), the definition of "begotten" is: referred to the word "beget"...which reads, "beget (bi get') vt. begot', or archaic begat' (-gat'), begot'ten or begot', beget'ting [ME. begeten, to obtain, beget < OE. begitan, to acquire: see BE- & GET] 1. to be the father or sire of; procreate 2. to bring into being; produce [tyranny begets rebellion] --beget'ter n."
To me, this word "begotten" is such a key word of identity, that further observation, or exploration is important! Without the exact quoted definitive for the next two words, let's just take a quick look at the words "sire" and "procreate". Procreate is defined as, "1. to produce (young); beget (offspring) 2. to produce or bring into existence --procreation n. --procreative adj. --procreator n." And now sire is defined as, "1. orig., a person of authority; man of high rank: now used only as a title of respect in addressing a king, equivalent to "your majesty" 2. [Poet] a father or forefather 3. the male parent of an animal, esp. of a four-legged mammal..."
An earlier dictionary, a Webster Collegiate edition, I have in Florida, even better defines the word "begotten" (IF memory serves me correctly) as "birthed, born", if I may be granted your indulgence to resort to such an unconfirmed evidence, which is important that I not be blamed of using words for my own purpose, just to fit a thought into my sequence of adjustment. But to back up that point, please consider what I researched in THE COMPLETE WORD STUDY NEW TESTAMENT (KJV) BY Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D. [So you'll know who he is, here is a sentence from the "Lexical Aids" page in that book to present his credentials. "Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, whose native tongue is Greek, has devoted over forty years to the study of Koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written." And I will quote verbatim, having never seen nor read this before this very moment, his comments on the word "begotten" as follows:
"3439. Monogenes; from monos (3441), only, and geno, to form, to make, and ginomai (1096). To be differentiated from gennao (1080), to beget, generate. Ginomai is related to genos (1085) as in genealogy, species, family, kindred. Monogenes means the only one of the family, as in Luke 7: 12 referring to the only son of his mother; in Luke 8: 42, the daughter of Jairus; in Luke 9: 38, the demoniac boy. Only John uses monogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the Unique One, the only One (monos) of the family (genos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1: 14, 18; 3: 16, 18; I John 4: 9). Jesus is never called teknon ([5043], child) Theou (2316), of God, as the believers are (John 1: 12; 11: 52; I John 3: 1, 2, 10; 5: 2). John 5: 18 reveals that Jesus called God His very own Father (idion [2398]). He was not a Father to Him as He is to us. See John 20: 17. He never spoke of God as the common Father of Himself and of believers. The term monogenes also occurs in Hebrews 11: 17. The genos from which genes in monogenes is derived means race, stock, family, and geno comes from ginomai, become, as in John 1: 14, "...and the Word became (egeneto) flesh," in distinction from gennao, to beget, engender, create. The noun from gennao is gennema (1081), the result of birth. But in monogenes we have genos, Jesus Christ designated as the only One of the same stock in the relationship of the Son to the Father. He is not to be understood as eternally born of the Father, but only in His humanity was He born. Therefore, monogenes can be held as syn. with the God-Man."
The importance of all this is for identity and distinction and significance of Who Jesus Christ really is to each of us, as well as to those who produce words that become bibles. As so many bibles these days leave out this distinction and identity of Jesus Christ, thus diluting, and going on to blurring bibles into books as distorted as ... I mean none of the following words in hatred, except to the inconclusiveness and disdained nonchalantness derived into bibles that have changed and redirected the FULL gospel of Jesus Christ towards broad and crooked haphazard, deceitful instructions for following the Way into the resolved destination for which He came and died for every human being because of the unfaltering love He has for each of us... so, some bible books (some more than others) are as "distorted", and as contemptable as ... and I just can't finish this thought in a public dialog as this- not that anyone is reading it- but it would, no doubt, aggrevate some unpleasant reactions, I'm sure. So, I know my thoughts, and shall believe that by not revealing them will be to the common good of us all.
Now, if that wasn't invigorating enough, let me take us to a further view of distinction, and make the identity factor even more expanded. Since no one is here who can refute, or dispute, or deny that Jesus Christ is established as the only "birthed, born" Son of GOD, which does make Him "unique" (as some bibles have replaced that word for "begotten", but it is an ambiguous word), then I shall go on to the next contemplation linked to this word "begotten". Jesus Christ is the "only begotten Son of GOD" (John 3: 16, 18; 1: 14, 18; I John 4 9); and even GOD HIMSELF, verifies and proclaims it! (Ps. 2: 7; Acts 13: 33; Heb. 1: 5, 5: 5) Irrefutable reference as to the identity that distinguishes the "only begotten Son"!
One Christmas, while reading the genealogy of Christ in Matthew, remember all those "begats" in chapter one?...I also cross-referenced that documentation with His genealogy in Luke 3 and when I got to the last verse, 38, it reads "...Adam, which was the son of God." Interesting, I thought! Another "son of GOD". Adam. So what's the difference here? And as the account in Genesis 1 & 2 tell of the creation of Adam, and Eve, by the very actual hands of GOD, it "dawned" on me that there is an actual real difference here! Adam was the created son of God, and Jesus Christ is the "born" Son of GOD. Identity and distinction. Again, a significance that is important and worth noticing here!
Let me quote from the TEV New Testament, Good News for Modern Man and simultaneously bring in the Living Bible paraphrase and the New Living Translation, Tyndale House Publishers, of the passage found in I Cor. 15: 45-50, 45"For the scripture says: 'The first man, Adam, was created a living being'; but the last Adam is the life-giving Spirit. The scriptures tell us that the first man, Adam, was given a natural, human body ('became a living person') but Christ is more than that, for he was life-giving Spirit. But the last Adam--that is, Christ--is a life-giving Spirit. 46It is not the spiritual that comes first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. First, then, we have these human bodies and later on God gives us spiritual, heavenly bodies. (What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. 47Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven above.) 48Those who belong to the earth are like the one who was made of earth; those who are of heaven are like the one who came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. Every human being has a body just like Adam's, made of dust, but all who become Christ's will have the same kind of body as his--a body from heaven. 49Just as we wear the likeness as the man made of earth, so we will wear the likeness of the Man from heaven. Just as each of us now has a body like Adam's, so we shall some day have a body like Christ's. Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like the heavenly man. 50What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever. This is what I mean, brothers: what is made of flesh and blood cannot share in God's Kingdom, and what is mortal cannot possess immortality. I tell you this, my brothers, an earthly body made of flesh and blood cannot get into God's kingdom. These perishable bodies of ours are not the right kind to live forever."
O.K. So what's the distinction here, what's so significant about this? Is there a mind-blowing connection in all this? Let me "plug it in" / make the connection for us.
Adam, the created son of GOD; Jesus Christ, the "born / BEGOTTEN" Son of GOD, and now let me introduce you to the third "son of GOD"- true, "born-again" sons, and daughters- children of GOD- human by-products of Adam and Eve, as well as spiritual reproductions of Jesus Christ- the adopted children of Almighty GOD! As mentioned in John 1: 12, we who are also "sons of God"; AND the first man, Adam, who was the CREATED "son of God" (Luke 3: 38, and Gen. 1: 27). It is the very distinguishing and perfectly designated word "begotten" that has been removed, thus has distorted many bibles from giving our Lord Jesus Christ his due and deserving and revered title "the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD". With such a key word missing, the most important and significant word / title revised out from our heritage, it hinges all doctrine and theology thereafter as weakened, diluted and therefore devised into a very shrude deception of the true gospel as divinely authenticated by Almighty GOD, our Creator. Therefore, as God's perfect "love letter" from Heaven to Earth, to us HIS church, HIS Bride, HIS loved-ones to enjoy that super feast and reunion in Heaven, I propose that "one and only" be stricken from the record as a lie, and "begotten" be returned as the true identity of our Saviour!! to be updated and continued
Here I am sharing contemplations from 50+ years of learning from biblical teachings. I've had no college nor theological training. No hebraic, or greek, or aramaic schooling. Again, no letters trailing behind my name. Should I, aught I, dare I get that schooling first, before I attempt to express, expose, expound, or explain and share such a product of human importance- THE BIBLE? And what possible likelihood is there that these words from an "invisible", unknown individual of no reputation or status or association, with no "following", have any worth, significance, or validity to be reviewed? Why am I doing this? No, not to teach- that is a paramount responsibility I have no qualification for, nor quality to do. I will say, however, that I do believe my writings, although not schooled, are skilled to the best conception bestowed upon me, or why place any self-worth without, at least, them. Why am I doing this?
I enjoy writing. I enjoy Bible study- on "my own", not being indoctrinated or innoculated, or dominated, nor denominated by other people. I like words...mostly formulated in my mind from the sharings of other people, but mostly just from my vivid imagination connected with what I have learned over the years. My Mother said many times, I have a creative imagination. (I think she used the word "creative".)
Well, this website is all about sharing information: about commercial products and personal production (such as it is). Mostly, Words transferred from my mind into this computer, and on to whatever receptors are exposed to these ideas, thoughts, contemplations, convictions, concepts, absolutities, novelties, individual impartations out of my mind.
Not to create a following, or man-approved reputation- just to share recreations of thought (whether original, or in general) via this universalized media -the WWW, the Internet, by means of this contraption- the computer. Others are doing it. So why not me? I have some things to share. I can. I do.
I said all that to say this (a quick flashback of Pastor Houser in Lindenwold, NJ's Christ Community Church would say that many times in his sermons)- my words are "begotten" from within my self, recreated from input of my learning. Precious people, such as my parents, pastors, teachers, sister and brothers, aunts and uncles; one named Ed Serdynski; my high school homeroom teacher, John Sheetz; one Stanley Rosenthal, and Bud Ernst; and even Jack Van Impe (of his evangelistic days); and just so many have influenced and impressed my life. But none greater has been the inspiration and application in my life, than the Holy Spirit of Almighty God! My abased and yet determined mind is only an inner revelation "begotten" from my Creators' impact and creation.
No, I am by no means, trying to establish a pedestal on which to proclaim or even claim any personal fame, OR shame. Not to put myself down, but to esteem others higher than myself, I am very content to live humbled, not a flashy attention-getter...I mostly just want my contact with others (by whatever means) to be of help in whatever capacity that may arise. It is with all these words in this, perhaps, redundant Prelude that I am basically beginning this word study to present the concept of the importance of the word "BEGOTTEN".
Oh, I hope this "study" will be as interesting to you as it has always been to me over the many years it has had such a significance to me. These words you are reading, not "breathed out" of me, but extracted out of me, have been birthed, born, "brought into being" from an encapsulated expanse of my mind...and now appear on this media in front of you. These words have been "begotten".
Must we view this word "BEGOTTEN" as obsolete, archaic, out-dated, antiquated, useless, insignificant, something close to what seemingly would have an application along the lines of senility? Why is it not preserved in modern bibles as something patriarchal, or of significant antiquity, venerable? Is the word so complicated, so displaced that it has actually lost its beneficial factor of identity? Identity. That is worthy of superior consideration!
By my count, which could be off by one or three, "begotten" is used about twenty-four times in both the old and new testaments, in the KJV Bible. Many more times are the root words used, begat and beget. Now what does this old, extinguished, yet very key word mean, and why is its significance so important to this wayfaring writer?
Straight from the Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1953 (the only one with me used at the time of this writing), the definition of "begotten" is: referred to the word "beget"...which reads, "beget (bi get') vt. begot', or archaic begat' (-gat'), begot'ten or begot', beget'ting [ME. begeten, to obtain, beget < OE. begitan, to acquire: see BE- & GET] 1. to be the father or sire of; procreate 2. to bring into being; produce [tyranny begets rebellion] --beget'ter n."
To me, this word "begotten" is such a key word of identity, that further observation, or exploration is important! Without the exact quoted definitive for the next two words, let's just take a quick look at the words "sire" and "procreate". Procreate is defined as, "1. to produce (young); beget (offspring) 2. to produce or bring into existence --procreation n. --procreative adj. --procreator n." And now sire is defined as, "1. orig., a person of authority; man of high rank: now used only as a title of respect in addressing a king, equivalent to "your majesty" 2. [Poet] a father or forefather 3. the male parent of an animal, esp. of a four-legged mammal..."
An earlier dictionary, a Webster Collegiate edition, I have in Florida, even better defines the word "begotten" (IF memory serves me correctly) as "birthed, born", if I may be granted your indulgence to resort to such an unconfirmed evidence, which is important that I not be blamed of using words for my own purpose, just to fit a thought into my sequence of adjustment. But to back up that point, please consider what I researched in THE COMPLETE WORD STUDY NEW TESTAMENT (KJV) BY Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D. [So you'll know who he is, here is a sentence from the "Lexical Aids" page in that book to present his credentials. "Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, whose native tongue is Greek, has devoted over forty years to the study of Koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written." And I will quote verbatim, having never seen nor read this before this very moment, his comments on the word "begotten" as follows:
"3439. Monogenes; from monos (3441), only, and geno, to form, to make, and ginomai (1096). To be differentiated from gennao (1080), to beget, generate. Ginomai is related to genos (1085) as in genealogy, species, family, kindred. Monogenes means the only one of the family, as in Luke 7: 12 referring to the only son of his mother; in Luke 8: 42, the daughter of Jairus; in Luke 9: 38, the demoniac boy. Only John uses monogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the Unique One, the only One (monos) of the family (genos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1: 14, 18; 3: 16, 18; I John 4: 9). Jesus is never called teknon ([5043], child) Theou (2316), of God, as the believers are (John 1: 12; 11: 52; I John 3: 1, 2, 10; 5: 2). John 5: 18 reveals that Jesus called God His very own Father (idion [2398]). He was not a Father to Him as He is to us. See John 20: 17. He never spoke of God as the common Father of Himself and of believers. The term monogenes also occurs in Hebrews 11: 17. The genos from which genes in monogenes is derived means race, stock, family, and geno comes from ginomai, become, as in John 1: 14, "...and the Word became (egeneto) flesh," in distinction from gennao, to beget, engender, create. The noun from gennao is gennema (1081), the result of birth. But in monogenes we have genos, Jesus Christ designated as the only One of the same stock in the relationship of the Son to the Father. He is not to be understood as eternally born of the Father, but only in His humanity was He born. Therefore, monogenes can be held as syn. with the God-Man."
The importance of all this is for identity and distinction and significance of Who Jesus Christ really is to each of us, as well as to those who produce words that become bibles. As so many bibles these days leave out this distinction and identity of Jesus Christ, thus diluting, and going on to blurring bibles into books as distorted as ... I mean none of the following words in hatred, except to the inconclusiveness and disdained nonchalantness derived into bibles that have changed and redirected the FULL gospel of Jesus Christ towards broad and crooked haphazard, deceitful instructions for following the Way into the resolved destination for which He came and died for every human being because of the unfaltering love He has for each of us... so, some bible books (some more than others) are as "distorted", and as contemptable as ... and I just can't finish this thought in a public dialog as this- not that anyone is reading it- but it would, no doubt, aggrevate some unpleasant reactions, I'm sure. So, I know my thoughts, and shall believe that by not revealing them will be to the common good of us all.
Now, if that wasn't invigorating enough, let me take us to a further view of distinction, and make the identity factor even more expanded. Since no one is here who can refute, or dispute, or deny that Jesus Christ is established as the only "birthed, born" Son of GOD, which does make Him "unique" (as some bibles have replaced that word for "begotten", but it is an ambiguous word), then I shall go on to the next contemplation linked to this word "begotten". Jesus Christ is the "only begotten Son of GOD" (John 3: 16, 18; 1: 14, 18; I John 4 9); and even GOD HIMSELF, verifies and proclaims it! (Ps. 2: 7; Acts 13: 33; Heb. 1: 5, 5: 5) Irrefutable reference as to the identity that distinguishes the "only begotten Son"!
One Christmas, while reading the genealogy of Christ in Matthew, remember all those "begats" in chapter one?...I also cross-referenced that documentation with His genealogy in Luke 3 and when I got to the last verse, 38, it reads "...Adam, which was the son of God." Interesting, I thought! Another "son of GOD". Adam. So what's the difference here? And as the account in Genesis 1 & 2 tell of the creation of Adam, and Eve, by the very actual hands of GOD, it "dawned" on me that there is an actual real difference here! Adam was the created son of God, and Jesus Christ is the "born" Son of GOD. Identity and distinction. Again, a significance that is important and worth noticing here!
Let me quote from the TEV New Testament, Good News for Modern Man and simultaneously bring in the Living Bible paraphrase and the New Living Translation, Tyndale House Publishers, of the passage found in I Cor. 15: 45-50, 45"For the scripture says: 'The first man, Adam, was created a living being'; but the last Adam is the life-giving Spirit. The scriptures tell us that the first man, Adam, was given a natural, human body ('became a living person') but Christ is more than that, for he was life-giving Spirit. But the last Adam--that is, Christ--is a life-giving Spirit. 46It is not the spiritual that comes first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. First, then, we have these human bodies and later on God gives us spiritual, heavenly bodies. (What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. 47Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven above.) 48Those who belong to the earth are like the one who was made of earth; those who are of heaven are like the one who came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. Every human being has a body just like Adam's, made of dust, but all who become Christ's will have the same kind of body as his--a body from heaven. 49Just as we wear the likeness as the man made of earth, so we will wear the likeness of the Man from heaven. Just as each of us now has a body like Adam's, so we shall some day have a body like Christ's. Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like the heavenly man. 50What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever. This is what I mean, brothers: what is made of flesh and blood cannot share in God's Kingdom, and what is mortal cannot possess immortality. I tell you this, my brothers, an earthly body made of flesh and blood cannot get into God's kingdom. These perishable bodies of ours are not the right kind to live forever."
O.K. So what's the distinction here, what's so significant about this? Is there a mind-blowing connection in all this? Let me "plug it in" / make the connection for us.
Adam, the created son of GOD; Jesus Christ, the "born / BEGOTTEN" Son of GOD, and now let me introduce you to the third "son of GOD"- true, "born-again" sons, and daughters- children of GOD- human by-products of Adam and Eve, as well as spiritual reproductions of Jesus Christ- the adopted children of Almighty GOD! As mentioned in John 1: 12, we who are also "sons of God"; AND the first man, Adam, who was the CREATED "son of God" (Luke 3: 38, and Gen. 1: 27). It is the very distinguishing and perfectly designated word "begotten" that has been removed, thus has distorted many bibles from giving our Lord Jesus Christ his due and deserving and revered title "the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD". With such a key word missing, the most important and significant word / title revised out from our heritage, it hinges all doctrine and theology thereafter as weakened, diluted and therefore devised into a very shrude deception of the true gospel as divinely authenticated by Almighty GOD, our Creator. Therefore, as God's perfect "love letter" from Heaven to Earth, to us HIS church, HIS Bride, HIS loved-ones to enjoy that super feast and reunion in Heaven, I propose that "one and only" be stricken from the record as a lie, and "begotten" be returned as the true identity of our Saviour!! to be updated and continued
PAGE 3
