Acts 8:37 and Mark 1:1. 'The Son of God'?

Question

I recently heard a lecture given by a Muslim speaker and he stated that the words, 'Son of God' was inserted at a later date and not found in the original Greek scriptures. Any informed thoughts are welcome.

Answer 1

This is an informed thought: Don't listen to any more Muslims opinions about the word of God - they will never agree with us.
Gal 1: 7 - evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. Pierce who am i to say - I'm not a bible scholar - but i do know this - stick to what you believed in the beginning.

Slayer - well done...

Answer 2

After 40+ years of researching old manuscripts I can only laugh at the idea that a greek manuscript written hundreds of years after the event can be claimed as an authorative work. The original new testament was in fact in hebrew and translated by Paul into Greek. The oldest copy yet found dates back to a Pauline Greek version of 120AD. The words son of god first appear in Acts8:37 in the Augustine Latin bible agreed at the Nician council of 325AD and appears only in western bibles. As to Mark there is a text of 310AD containing the greek word theos which could be translated as God -Godly-,or even,Magistrate. Sadly we don`t have an earlier copy covering the opening of the gospel of Mark. So it looks as though we will have to say the Muslim is correct from the information that we have. We are most definitely not in a possion to say he is wrong!.

Answer 3

There currently exist today over 2,300 copies of the New Testament books in their original language that have survived from the earliest years of the church. Some as close as 20 years from when the originals were written. All before the council in Nicene (around 325 AD) when it is alleged that these changes were made.

They have been found all across Europe, northern Africa and parts of Asia. Many were preserved by groups (such as the Coptic Christians or the Aremnian Christians) which had no contact or connection with the Roman church. Some of these were held by people who opposited the teaching of the diety of Christ and would have no reason to alter those verses. Yet these manuscripts are all word for word indentical. Not a single manuscript anywhere has ever been found which has "son of man" instead of "son of God" in those verses.

Sorry, but there is no historical or scholarly support for a claim that those verses have been altered.

But even if they had - the doctrine of the diety of Christ is not affected. Even the Quran teaches that Jesus was virign born and had no human father. So he could not be the "son of a man" as that Muslim is interpreting the phrase to mean. Otherwise the Quran is false.

When Jesus spoke of himself as being "the son of..." it refers to a Jewish custom in which a child, when the are ready to take on the role of their life's work, is delcared to the "son of...." the one who is mentoring them, and they take on the rights, authorities and responsibilties of that "father". For Jesus to declare that he is "the son of man" means that there came a time when he took on that role. He was not a "man" prior to that. But he took on the rights, authority, and responsibilities of being "human" so that he could die for their sins. (God could not do it, all man could).

So by declaring himself "the son of man", Jesus is stating that there was a time when he was not human, but that he laid that aside and became human for a time. Read Philippians 2:5-11 sometime and you will see it all explained.

Answer 4

It would be interesting to know particulars. Its possible there might have been variants. The title 'Son of man' is usually the one used for Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but this is a messianic title, and there are episodes such as Baptism and Transfiguration where God directly witnesses who He is.

Even if those are scribal errors or more common variants there would be an awful lot of changes that would have to be made to make him a son of God if he was originally given as a man - e.g. many references in John's gospel, and whole passages whose meaning includes Him being Son of God, and God incarnate. And those passages fit in with the whole shape of the work. So he is possibly semi-correct on the point - though you'd want to check - but is probably being misleading by suggesting those are vital and core verses about his sonship - when the New Testament is full of references to his sonship and passages that are built on an understanding of it.

I read a muslim book once about a gospel that made Jesus fit a muslim image - it sounded really plausible until I checked it out and it had been proved the 'gospel' has been a known forgery, created in medieval ages, recognised as such since about 1915 by all the experts - some people just aren't ashamed to distort and lie. They guy who wrote that book had a beatiful picture of himself at the front - smiling, beautifully manicured beard, looking like Moses come down from Sinai, with fine-looking stamps of various Saudi and Pakistani religious boards. But if he was an honest scholar he must have knowingly lied to the reader - amazing people can be so dishonest and claim to speak for God.

There is a Pdf of Codex Sanaiticus on line somewhere, so you could decipher the Greek for yourself for fun. That is one of the first 3 complete manuscripts (held in British Library) and dates from first half of 4th century.

Answer 5

I am a passionate Christian, and have a degree in Biblical Studies. I have an interest in old Biblical manuscripts.
There is one ancient hand-written version of Mark that omits the words 'Son of God' from the introduction to this book.

However, whether or not these words are absent from the introduction have no bearing as to whether or not the author of the Gospel of Mark is convinced that Jesus was the Son of God. The phrase is still included explicitly, spoken by the Roman centurion in Mk 14, and the entire 'apocalyptic' narrative of Mark 13 indicated blatantly that Mark associates Jesus with the awaited Messiah of Jewish thought, and the herald of the coming of God's Kingdom.

Mark believed Jesus was the Son of God. The whole book is full of examples ofJesus meeting every requirement for the coming messiah.

Mark's Gospel is my favourite because it is so raw and unpolished. It is written by a passionate man, with a strong feeling, and a desire to tell as many people as loudly and as completely as possible.

--------------------------------------------
Mike C, what are you talking about? Constantine was 4th Century not 7th, and was not involved in the redaction of the canon, except to encourage the church to standardise it.

Answer 6

son of God is talking about the actual son.
Son of God is a title, which is why you see the S capitalized.
What you're saying wouldn't surprise me, especially since all of the various religious groups have actually originated from the same original source. Each group has taken words/verses etc and respelled them to get them to match more clearly to their own understanding.
I've read bible verses from various religious groups and they all actually talk about the same thine, but the only difference is how each of them spell certain words. Because of that many thinks that the 'other' group has false teachings because of misprint.
Actually they all speak the same, but just with certain changes in spelling.
Lets take that phrase you mention, "Son of God"
The capital shows that it is a title, not necessarily the actual son. He shall be called the Son of God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is the son of God.
Notice, why did I use a small case s? What he's called and what he's actually can be 2 different things.
Anyway, to continue. Lets say one bible says Son of God.
What is a son?
If you read the bible, it says God will guide and instruct only one man on the earth in the last days. He'll do according to God's will, not according to his own. What is that? That's known as a servant? Someone who does according to what he's been instructed to do.
Think of what Jesus said. When talking to people he said, God is my father, but the devil is your father. What did he mean when he said the devil is your father.
One of the meanings for "to father" means "To guide and instruct".
So when Jesus said the devil is your father, what was he telling them? He was telling them that it is the devil who guides and instructs you, otherwise you wouldn't do what you are going to do.
If the devil is the people's father, then what makes that saying? The people are the devil's children.
A verse says the people are not God's children. If the people are not God's children then who's children are they? Jesus said the devil's.
When you look at what I have explained and look at what you mentioned, then you should notice that it is possible that Servant of God had been changed to Son of God and still be talking about the same individual.
Take the Jews bible for ex. Their bible talks about a man appearing on the earth, then in the future another man appearing on the earth. What you're reading you're not seeing that in the KJV, but are you? It doesn't look like it, but you actually are reading about the same thing mentioned in the KJV, but written in a different way.
The KJV says. The father will manifest in the flesh to appear in the image of his son. That's saying the father will walk the earth. Then the KJV says the son will follow in his father's footsteps. What's that saying? That's saying that after the father walks the earth, his son will walk the earth at a future date. When you see that, what do you see. The same thing that the Jews bible is saying. You see the 1st man who walks the earth, then in the future the see the 2nd man walk the earth.
The Jews bible says the first man will be a good man, but the 2nd man who walks the earth at a later date will do sinful things.
Read the KJV again. It says, God is good and never sinned. God is the father, and the father manifest in the flesh to appear in the image of his son. That's showing that the 1st man to walk the earth, who was God himself, was good and never sinned.
The bible says that when God's son returns to earth in the last days, he'll return under a new name. he will be born in sin and he will sin. What's that saying. When his son is born on the earth in the last days he will grow up like the people and he will sin. He will be born a sinner and he will not be perfect, he will have to learn to become perfect.
So then, what is that saying? That's saying that the 2nd man that appears in the future, after the first man had already appeared, will be an evil man, he will sin.
So, although the wording and spelling of the 2 bibles, Jews bible and the KJV, differ, they both are still talking about the same thing.
Like wise with the Muslim bible, that bible, although spellings may differ, they still talk about the same things.
All of the groups, although they vary is some way or another, still talk about the same things as each other but don't realize it.
That's why so many various religions have so much in common, although they may still see differences. The differences is in their own interpretations as to how they see things.
They are not the author, but the readers of the bibles. It's the author who really knows the true meanings of the words/ verses etc, not the readers. The readers, they assume they understand. They don't actually know for certain if they understand.

Answer 7

First I found a link to explain why we do not believe the Bible has been corrupted

http://www.itl.org.uk/faqs.html

Then I found a site explaining the Son Of God http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=170

Answer 8

Before getting down to these little points,it would be a good idea to check out who actually wrote the gospels according to Matthew- Mark- Luke and John.
For sure they didnt write them!

Answer 9

I don't know about all Muslims, but some like to play on both sides of the fence with the Bible. They will use it to disprove the trinity, but then they reject the Bible's claim that Jesus was not God's Son. To them, Jesus was just a prophet.

Answer 10

The Muslim speaker can say what he wishes, however, did he present any proof of his claims?
Its one thing to say ....quite another to prove.
Acts 8:37 contains a thought that is not included by many translators.
Why?
The precise meaning is not a certainty.
When in doubt, leave it out.
However, Christ referred to himself as "son of God."
God himself refers to Jesus as "son of god." Matthew 3:17
The centurion beside Jesus, when Jesus died was convinced. Mark 15:39
The devil referred to him as "son of God." ....and he didn't even like him. Matthew 4:6