John 3:16

[Rashadi]

I been wondering about this famous verse that Christians always try to quote to prove that Jesus(as) is divine and that he is the only begotten "son of God"(astaghfirullah). But there is a problem with this verse.

16"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."

The first thing with this verse is that it does not say who this son is supposed to be. Christians of course will tell you without a doubt that it is referring to Jesus Christ(as) and expect everyone to accept without a doubt, but there is a problem. First of all, according to the Bible, as a whole, God has "sons" by the tons. Furthermore, the Prophet David(as) is called "begotten son" and he is mentioned by name:

" 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7).

as one can see from the above verse, David is called "begotten son" and if anyone has the right to be called that, it will be David and he is clearly called "begotten" by name and unlike the gospel of John which mentions no name yet Christians will argue it is Jesus(as) just because the Gospels are supposed to about him, but that is not all the way true because the Bible is supposed to be the 'inspired word of God" and both the old and New Testament is supposed to inspired by the same God and it is supposed to be a continuation. Therefore, at no time was Jesus (as) the "only begotten son" because David (as) was called that long before and so were others. The only thing that makes Jesus unique is that he is born without a father but that does not make him the son of God not the only begotten. Even if this argument is used, it don't work well because Jesus never made such claims nor referred to himself as the "only begotten son" .

The Quran makes it clear that Jesus(as) was born miraculously and that he was a sign to mankind and him and his mother, Mary(as) were an example for the Children of Israel. When God wants to do something, He merely says "kun" (be) and it is. Even Jesus was only a servant of God, a prophet, Messiah and still a creature. He never claimed to be more that a man and never demanded to be worshiped nor did he claim to be God because that would clearly go against the concept of pure monotheism.

 

[alkathiri]

Have you know that John 3:16 was declared as fabrication by scholars from more than 50 denominations which produced the RSV(Revised Standard Version).


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

Nope...Thats a knockout blow for the christians who used that verse

 

[slaveofAllah88]

Nope...Thats a knockout blow for the christians who used that verse

:salam2:
yep its true the word begotten was taken oue real biblet since it wasn't found in the oldest bible

 

[Bluegazer]

Assalamu Alaikum to my brothers and sisters in Islam,


Brother shaheerpak has mentioned that:

the word begotten was taken oue real biblet since it wasn't found in the oldest bible

That's absolutely true.


The following are two citations of John 3:16 from Roman Catholic Bibles; the Challoner revision of the Douey-Rheims Bible and the New American Bible. Please notice that I have coloured the missing word in red and set it in bold type, like so:

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

[Challoner revision of the Douey Rheims Bible]

Source: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

[New American Bible]

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXB.HTM

 

[Bluegazer]

There's a very interesting paragraph in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's found in the entry "New Testament", under the heading "Transmission of the text":

No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited today, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different readings have been found in the older witnesses to the text of the New Testament--which in itself is a proof that Scriptures are not the only, nor the principal, means of revelation. In the concrete order of the present economy God had only to prevent any such alteration of the sacred texts as would put the Church in the moral necessity of announcing with certainty as the word of God what in reality was only a human utterance. Let us say, however, from the start, that the substantial tenor of the sacred text has not been altered, not withstanding the uncertainty which hangs over some more or less long and more or less important historical or dogmatical passages. Moreover--and this is very important--these alterations are not irremediable; we can at least very often, by studying the variants of the texts, eliminate the defective readings and thus re-establish the primitive text. This is the object of textual criticism.

Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Source: http://newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm


The most important part of the text of this citation was originally posted by my brother in Islam Milanista23 from another forum. The following is a link of the post where he mentioned this citation:

http://imanway.com/en/showpost.php?p=19883&postcount=11

 

[xSharingan01x]

Assalamu Alaikum to my brothers and sisters in Islam,


Brother shaheerpak has mentioned that:




That's absolutely true.


The following are two citations of John 3:16 from Roman Catholic Bibles; the Challoner revision of the Douey-Rheims Bible and the New American Bible. Please notice that I have coloured the missing word in red and set it in bold type, like so:



[Challoner revision of the Douey Rheims Bible]

Source: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm




[New American Bible]

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXB.HTM

:salam2:

Thanks for the information.
Where have you been Brother? It's been a while since you've posted....
It was interesting reading your post in some older threads, I hope you'll be able to participate and contribute to discussions. . Insha'Allah.

 

[Bluegazer]

Thank you, brother Sharingan01, for your kind words.


As to where I've been, let's just say it's a pretty long [and often repeated] story I'd rather not repeat again!


As to my contribution to future discussions, I hope I'll benefit from such discussions, but I'll try to do all this in moderation!