So?
The point is that Vines agrees that begetting in Psa 2:7 is dealing with the Incarnation.
Now, what his opinion after that is is irrevelant! He is just contradicting himself!
He doesn't like it, but there it is, the word 'beget' means Christ being born.
Does he give a reason why, even though that is what the word means it is not referring to Christ's Sonship?
That is Vine's own views contradicting what he just admitted.
Note that the above is part of my post to ftD. Note, it is the word used in the 'birth of Christ'. That is what the word means. True, but that is not the only thing it means Now, what Vine's opinion is is irrevelant. TRANSLATION: "Don't confuse me with the facts."
No, don't confuse me with man's opinions on what the facts are.
He admitted the word referred to the birth of Christ and it referred back to Psa.2:7 that is the essential point.
His denial that it doesn't mean what it says is irrevelant.
You read part of a citation from Vines, consider that authoritative, and yet reject the rest of it as 'opinion'...unbelievable!
I consider his view on the word 'beget' authoritive since it lines up with Thayer and Strong.
If the word means 'used in the birth of Christ' and refers back to Psa.2:7 that is my view of Begotten, referring to the Incarnation. TRANSLATION: "It doesn't matter if every orthodox Greek scholar in existence thinks differently, they're wrong."
What matters is what the scripture teaches.
I think a guy named Luther stated something like that once!
Vine's attempt to avoid that clear conclusion are meaningless. TRANSLATION: "I don't know a Greek participle from a "partridge in a pear tree", but I am afraid to admit that the Greek experts, including those who church fathers who read the manuscripts that were used in the King James Version that I worship and reached a different conclusion than what I believe at the Council of Nicea, and produced the Nicene Creed, which proves that I am wrong...so they must be wrong! Yea, thats the ticket!
Keep yapping.
The fact is that you are wrong, the word 'beget' refers to the Incarnation.
Psa.2 is referring to a specific time (this day) when the Father says Thou art my Son, this day, have I begotten thee, it is referring to the Incarnation (Acts.13:33, Heb.1:3, Heb.5:5) as stated by Vine! i see that you've got your reservations made for the lake of fire.
LOL!
Go back and read some more Greek, you need it.
So, unlike you, W E Vine knew what the Greek actually said.
The point is that Vines agrees that begetting in Psa 2:7 is dealing with the Incarnation.
That is nonsense, he said just the opposite, you are still lying to us. i told you what page the citation is on, look at it and tell us just where in that citation Vine agrees that begetting in Psalm 2:7 is dealing with the incarnation.
Now, what his opinion after that is is irrevelant! He is just contradicting himself!
Since he never said that begetting in Psalm 2:7 is dealing with the incarnation, the only person he is "contradicting" is you!
He doesn't like it, but there it is, the word 'beget' means Christ being born.
Sometimes beget does mean born, but not in Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, or Hebrews 5:5
He says that because he knew the bible, and the rules of the Greek language.
First off, you need realise that the word gennao is in the perfect, not present tense in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5.
The translators of the KJV knew that the Greek perfect tense does not correspond with the English perfect tense. They knew that English has no tense that is the equivalent to the Greek perfect active, so, what to do?
The translators decided to get it as close as the English language allowed.
Here is what the Greek perfect active means:"The Greek perfect tense denotes a present state resultant upon a past action.
DEFINITION
The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes and event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for "indicating not the past action as such but the present 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action".(4)
The KJV translators, realising that the emphasis was on the present result of an event that happened in past time translated the Greek perfect tense with the English present. Note that to this day, no translation has equaled the KJV in rendering the Greek perfect tense into English.
Since the event recorded in the New Testament is a citation of Psalm 2:7, the event happened before David was inspired by God to compose Psalm 2!
Once again, the rightly divided word of God has made you a liar and a heretic.
You need to repent or face the lake of fire...turn or burn!