"Son of God" means "Servant of God" in Hebrew

[Qabandi]

Comparison between Hebrew and Arabic:

In this article, I will prove that the Bible's "Son of GOD" translation is wrong, because it literally means "Servant of GOD" as Islam clearly defines it. I have shown ample evidence from Hebrew below.


The following definitions were taken from: http://www.thebabycorner.com/pregnancy/babynames/find.php?sex=boy&begin=a

WordHebrew or ArabicEnglish TranslationAbbottHebrewFatherAbbArabicFatherAbelHebrewBreath or Son ofAbdArabicServant of or Slave of

Important Note: Since "Abd" means "Servant of" in Arabic, and "Abel" means "Breath of" in Hebrew, then this means "Abel" in Hebrew could also mean "Servant of" or "Creation of", since it literally also means "Breath of".



The following Hebrew words and their definitions were taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

WordHebrew or ArabicEnglish TranslationBenHebrewSon ofBinArabicSon of (as in Osama bin Laden)Benie ElohimHebrewSons of GODBeniArabicPeople of (as in Bani Israel, People of Israel)

Important Note: Since "Beni" in Arabic means "People of", then this means that "Benie" in Hebrew also means "People of" or "Group of", or "Belongings of", which was falsely translated as "Sons of" throughout the entire Bible!



"In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

This literature contain a few passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the Messiah (see Enoch, cv. 2; IV Esdras vii. 28-29; xiii. 32, 37, 52; xiv. 9); but the title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom ii. 13, 16, 18; v. 5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] iv. 10).

In Judaism, it is through such personal relations that the individual becomes conscious of God's fatherhood, and gradually in Hellenistic and rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race (Abot iii. 15, v. 20; Ber. v. 1; see Abba). In one midrash, the Torah is said to be God's "daughter" (Leviticus Rabbah xx.)"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God)

Important Note: "filial relation to God" means that a person or creation has a special place in GOD Almighty's Sight. Also, "sons of God" being identical with "the saints" means that the term "son of God" is not an accurate one in the sense of being physically or biologically "part of GOD" or "Son of GOD" respectively as the trinitarian Christians falsely claim.

Also, "In one midrash, the Torah is said to be God's "daughter'", further proves my point that "Son of GOD" today in the English bibles don't mean more than a "Creation of GOD" or "Servant of GOD"; perhaps a very dear or special servant of GOD Almighty, as the Torah was also called "daughter of GOD".



"Son of God" is the same as "Servant of God" in Hebrew!

"In modern English usage, the Son of God is almost always a reference to Jesus Christ, whom Christianity holds to be the son of the Christian God, eternally begotten of God the Father and coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Human or part-human offspring of deities are very common in other religions and mythologies, however. For example in the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest recorded legends of humanity, Gilgamesh claimed to be of both human and divine descent. Another well-known son of a god and a human is Hercules.

A great many pantheons also included genealogies in which various gods were descended from other gods, and so the term "son of god" may be applied to many actual deities as well."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God)

Important Note: So as we can see, the "Son of GOD" theory originally comes from pagan Greek origins. And since most of the Bible's New Testament was written in Greek, then it had been without a doubt negatively influenced by such pagan theology, where Jesus being called "Son of GOD" is literally interpreted today as "part of GOD" or the "Creator of the Universe".



"In the Hebrew Bible Israel is both a man (Jacob, the son of Isaac) and the nation that descended from him.

Because of the shared name and organic identity, God speaks to the nation as though he were a single person. Israel is, in fact, God's son (Exod 4:22 — beni vechori yisrael; Deut 14:1 — banim atem l'Adonai; Jer 31:9 — ki hayiti le'yisrael le'av; Hosea 11:1 — mimitzrayim qarati livni).

Israel's Father nurtures him to grow up and become a worshiping servant (Exod 4:23 — "Let my son go that he may serve me")."

(http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hebrew/eved-adonai.html)

Important Note: Here we see when Israel became GOD Almighty's "son", he reached the point of being GOD Almighty's "servant". This means that "son of GOD" is nothing but a "Servant of GOD" as clearly defined in Islam. It doesn't at all mean that the individual is part of GOD Almighty, or he is GOD the Father Himself.

This is further proven in this quote:

"The Inner Son Rescues His People
Read together, these texts make clear that the Plan (etzah) is set in God's mind. He will use the anointed one — and his circle of faithful-to-God disciples — as his agent for bringing rebellious Israel back to his sonship calling.

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]YHVH formed me from the womb to be His Servant,
to bring Jacob back to him,
in order that Israel might be gathered to Him.

It is too small a thing that you should be
my Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the preserved ones [netzurim] of Israel . . . (Isa 49:5, 6) [/size][/font]

​

It's worth noting that the apostles Paul and Barnabas quoted this passage in reference to themselves, as being members of the Messiah's Remnant Israel (Acts 13:46-48; cf. Luke 2:32).

Thus, within the writings of Isaiah we observe the tensions, paradoxes, and hopes for fixing what is broken — both within God's servant people and in the creation as a whole. To accomplish this there are two who serve the Lord, two with the title "Eved." "

(http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hebrew/eved-adonai.html)

Important Note: Again, we see that the Son of GOD's main responsibility is to Serve GOD Almighty and to Worship Him alone. So a Son of GOD is basically a Servant of GOD. Also, Jesus being called "Son of GOD" is also no different. Him being the "Son of GOD" means he is a Servant of GOD Almighty, or Abdallah, since "Abd" means "Servant of" and "Allah" means "GOD" or "The Supreme GOD Almighty above all gods".

 

[Qabandi]

Articles with detailed proofs about "Son of God" means "Servant of God" in Hebrew:

Below are a list of articles that clearly prove from Hebrew resources that "Son of God" also means "Servant of God".



Article #1:

The following article was taken from: http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/saviororservant.asp

[size=+1]

Is Jesus "God's Son" or "God's Servant?"​

[/size]

​

Do you see a difference between these two Bible versions?

King James Version​

[size=-1]Acts 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
​

Acts 3:26 - Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.[/size]

New King James Version​

[size=-1]Acts 3:25 - You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
​

Acts 3:26 - To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities.[/size]



In the KJV, we find that Jesus is God's Son. In the NKJV, we find that He is God's servant. These are clearly not the same! The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant." So which one is correct here?

The solution is simple: look at the context in which it is used. In English, we have many words that can have more than one meaning. If a translator, going from English to another language, came across the word "bear," he would have a choice of meanings. But it wouldn't take rocket science to figure out which one to use.

If the passage described a man with a heavy burden, the translator would understand that the man is going to "bear," or "carry" the burden. If, on the other hand, the passage described a hairy beast climbing a tree, the translator would understand the correct meaning here applies to a forest-dwelling animal that will eat nearly anything it finds. It's not really very hard.



Now look at the Bible passage above. What is being discussed?

• "children of the prophets"
• "covenant which God made with our fathers"
• "in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

It's clear, isn't it? The passage is talking about "children," and "fathers" and "seed." The word "pais" means "son." But the New King James translators chose "servant." Why? They were not alone. The New World Translation, created by the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Jesus, translated this word "servant" also. So do the NIV, ASV, NASB and other modern Bible translations.

Could it be that these modern translators disagree that "pais" can be translated "son?" No, the NKJV committee translates this very word as "boy," "child" or "son" in Matthew 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 9:42; and John 4:51. Yet they refused to translate the word as "son" in this powerful sermon where Peter presents Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

One has to ask, why were these translators so determined to deny the deity of Jesus in this passage? Is this a Bible you can trust with your eternal destiny?



Article #2:

The following excerpt was taken from: http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_son.htm

"[size=-1]Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his book: [/size][size=-1]"The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title "Son of God" in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself."[/size][size=-1] [/size][size=-1]For Christ's Sake,[/size][size=-1] pp. xii.[/size]"

The article goes into great depth in refuting the polytheist trinity paganism. I recommend reading it.



Article #3:

The following excerpt was taken from: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/god.html

"....And there is only one Jehovah God, who qualifies! In fact, the whole idea of Christ being just a man or lesser god, makes the Christian belief ridiculous.



Isaiah 43:10-11

• "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have Chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I AM He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.
• I, even I, AM the Lord; and beside Me, There is No Saviour."

That word translated Lord there is in the Hebrew [yehovah] Jehovah. There is no god before who is the Saviour, and no god after. Jehovah God is the only possible Saviour. No man, nor superman, could accomplish the task of being burdened with all our sins, judged for them, and be resurrected without them. Even a non-Christians can understand the bankruptcy of any other idea. For when we actually stop to think about it seriously, it's quite ludicrous! Unless this man was the very revelation of God (the only one able to become sin for us, and withstand the judgment thereof), we have no Saviour! And that is exactly what God said in Isaiah chapter 43 verse 11. Who could accomplish such a feat to be a saviour? The answer in all reasonableness is, no one but Jehovah God is the Saviour."

Again, the article goes into great depth in refuting the polytheist trinity paganism. I recommend reading it.

 

[Qabandi]

Jesus "feared" GOD in the Old Testament: Another proof that he is a Servant:

Let us look at the following verses from the Bible:

1. A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD (Jesus fearing his GOD)--
3. and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or
decide by what he hears with his ears;

(From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 11:1-3)

In regards to the Spirit of GOD Almighty resting on Jesus, please visit: The Spirit of GOD Almighty came upon others before and after Jesus in the Bible.

Anyway, a simple question here must be asked: How can Jesus be the Creator of the Universe if he feared GOD Almighty? Trinitarians often say "Jesus is the Son of God". And when one tries to get further elaboration from them about what exactly "Son of God" means, they end up telling him that Jesus is the Creator of the Universe.

Almost every single trinitarian Christian that I debated believes that Jesus is the Creator of the Universe.


Let us look at what Jesus said about himself and about GOD Almighty:

"I do nothing of myself (From the NIV Bible, John 8:28)"

"My Father (GOD) is greater than I (From the NIV Bible, John 14:28)"

"Father (GOD), into thy hands I commend my spirit (From the NIV Bible, Luke 23:46)"

"And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 24:36)"

Do these quotes suggest at all that Jesus is in the same level as the Creator of the Universe?



Conclusion:

As we've seen above, in Hebrew, "Son of God" can also be translated as "Servant of God", which literally means "Abdallah" in Arabic. Abd = Servant, and allah = Allah, or the Supreme GOD Almighty that is above all gods. So, Jesus being called "Son of God" does not mean anything about him being part of GOD or GOD Almighty Himself. It simply means "Servant of God" since Jesus existed among Jews and preached the Gospel to them.

Allah Almighty said: "And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! they are (but) servants raised to honour. (The Noble Quran, 21:26)"

Jesus himself in his own quotes in the New Testament refuted trinity as shown above. The Bible in the Old Testament also refuted trinity by saying that Jesus will have the spirit of fearing GOD Almighty in him.

How can GOD Almighty fear Himself? And why would the Creator of the Universe have any fear in Him?
​

Jesus clearly was the Servant of GOD Almighty as Islam claims. Jesus was the Jews' Messiah and Leader, and Allah Almighty's Messenger to them. But he was not part of GOD Almighty, nor His biological son.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

What exactly are you aiming to achieve? Do you expect to rock the foundations of thousands of years of Christian tradition based on a few random quotes scattered throughout the bible?

Perhaps instead of trying to prove your religion / disproving others, you should try to find a truth that appeals to you. Ultimately, your display of insecurity concerning the other religions of the world is one of weakness, not strength.

 

[Qabandi]

actully that all was a copy paste i allready chose a religion and its islam , and im not trying to do anything here im just reminding my self .

 

[Qabandi]

And it is possible that you guys misunderstood the translations of the bible from hebrew to english , so dont ignore the topic and answer .

 

[Deut 13:1]

And it is possible that you guys misunderstood the translations of the bible from hebrew to english , so dont ignore the topic and answer .

Do you speak Hebrew???

Ta'ase li tova.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

And it is possible that you guys misunderstood the translations of the bible from hebrew to english , so dont ignore the topic and answer .

Nope. We didn't misunderstand, we simply see the truth in the silliness of trying to tear down another's religion in order to mentally build up your own. I'm very happy for you to be Muslim, and would not dream of posting articles trying to tear down your religion, especially not on RF, which has a longstanding history of embracing all faiths. I would ask that other people, in return, would extend the same courtesy.

 

[Qabandi]

Why do you look on my thread as a [ religion tearing thread] intead of just answering me or atleast showing me that my topic is false , you just accused me of trying to tear down religions like im a devil or something .

Becouse this forum is all about debates , you should of DEBATED if im right or wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Becouse this forum is all about debates , you should of DEBATED if im right or wrong.

It's hard to "DEBATE" - or even debate - when you base your position on something so respected in the field of linguistics and philology as thebabycorner.com.

 

[Aqualung]

Nope. We didn't misunderstand, we simply see the truth in the silliness of trying to tear down another's religion in order to mentally build up your own. I'm very happy for you to be Muslim, and would not dream of posting articles trying to tear down your religion, especially not on RF, which has a longstanding history of embracing all faiths. I would ask that other people, in return, would extend the same courtesy.

But wait! That's the point of having a debate section! It's to debate people why your religion is correct and why your thinking is correct. If RF wasn't meant for that sort of thing, it shouldn't have debate sections in the first place.

Becouse this forum is all about debates , you should of DEBATED if im right or wrong.

Exactly!

 

[TashaN]

But wait! That's the point of having a debate section! It's to debate people why your religion is correct and why your thinking is correct. If RF wasn't meant for that sort of thing, it shouldn't have debate sections in the first place.
Exactly!

:clap

i feel disappointed when people look at your religion before your topic and they start advising you to not attack others instead of answering the question posted by others.

what a pity?

Does that mean we have to change our religion in every post so no one will think that we are trying to attack for example or what? :banghead3

why people simply don't focus on the subject.

i have a suggestion for RF to disable the religion title for every person so no one will know your religion when you ask.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

what a pity?

Actually, I'll show you something remarkably pitiful ...

Important Note: Since "Abd" means "Servant of" in Arabic, and "Abel" means "Breath of" in Hebrew, then this means "Abel" in Hebrew could also mean "Servant of" or "Creation of", since it literally also means "Breath of".

The reason not to debate this 'argument' is that it is, literally, incoherent nonsense.

 

[TashaN]

Actually, I'll show you something remarkably pitiful ...
The reason not to debate this 'argument' is that it is, literally, incoherent nonsense.

you have the right to do any comment whether you see it as incoherent nonsense or not but you missed the point which is "The Attacking Theory" in this forum when people fail to answer or they feel that someone said somthing unbelievable for them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

you have the right to do any comment whether you see it as incoherent nonsense or not but you missed the point which is "The Attacking Theory" in this forum when people fail to answer or they feel that someone said somthing unbelievable for them.

I do not understand that sentence.

 

[Danny]

I believe that being the servant of god means that you help the god in putting the things together. It means that if you can do something good for another that you get something back for it in place. If you help god you would get something back for it from the great almighty.
Helping the great almighty is the best job you can find in the world. The greatest boss of them all is the great almighty himself.

 

[Deut 13:1]

you have the right to do any comment whether you see it as incoherent nonsense or not but you missed the point which is "The Attacking Theory" in this forum when people fail to answer or they feel that someone said somthing unbelievable for them.

He is correct, this argument is stupid. Here is an argument using his kind of logic.

The word "Lo" in Hebrew can mean no or him. So it can be said that the Hebrew meaning of "Lo" really means "no To him" That's the argument by this guy. It's very silly.

 

[jewscout]

the word for son in hebrew is "Ben"
the word for servant (or slave) is "ehved" (or transliteration close to that, i can't make hebrew characters on my computer)

then again my knowledge of the hebrew language isn't that extensive so i could be wrong on that one...

 

[Deut 13:1]

the word for son in hebrew is "Ben"
the word for servant (or slave) is "ehved" (or transliteration close to that, i can't make hebrew characters on my computer)

I think that's the right transliteration, but you are thinking of the correct word.

then again my knowledge of the hebrew language isn't that extensive so i could be wrong on that one...

It looks fine from here.

 

[Darkdale]

Nope. We didn't misunderstand, we simply see the truth in the silliness of trying to tear down another's religion in order to mentally build up your own. I'm very happy for you to be Muslim, and would not dream of posting articles trying to tear down your religion, especially not on RF, which has a longstanding history of embracing all faiths. I would ask that other people, in return, would extend the same courtesy.

Damn, and I had some pretty mean-spirited things I was going to say to him. Oh well. I guess I'll just say that this thread is silly and move on.