Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

Begotten is the correct word to use. To begat in Scripture refers to coming from the father’s seed line. The body that Jesus moved into in the womb of Mary came from God not Joseph. Jesus is not God’s only Son, for God has many sons. Jesus is God’s only begotten Son.

You do know that technically speaking here, When we see Jesus in the Old Testament in human form like Melchezadek, the Angel of the Lord, the 4th Man in the fiery Furnace, God who visited Abraham before sending Angels to Sodom, etc etc etc, this is the same body as Jesus while on Earth?

Jesus is not literally the offspring of God, because He always existed as the WORD first and foremost from word "Go" even before "In the Beginning."

He is the Creator of ALL Things! Even His own flesh body He Created.

A body was prepared for Him. Those examples you gave is the Lord in a spiritual, heavenly body as an angel.

The fallen Angels had similar bodies and were able to produce Nephilim with human women.

I said nothing about revisions of any type. I notice, however, that you have avoided answering my questions.

He does place emphasis on the original meaning of a word. And warns those who would add or subtract from it. Many do and change the the subject matter in doing so . The word apostle comes to mind.

We walk by faith not after as it seems you are, signs and and lying wonderment gospel . The sons of God ( coming from God) are born again believers they were being unevenly with unbelievers daughters of men coming from flesh and blood .
.Its easy to distinguish by looking what follows. the procreator Daughters of mankind. Sons of God kind .

Falling angels as lying spirts have no DNA. We do not wrestle against flesh and blood. There is no need to think we do.
What purpose could there be for wrestling against the things seen? Spilled blood?

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

If you are looking for action from falling angel it is the spirit of error that works in daughter of men, or mankind . God was simply protecting the unseen spiritual seed until it came and ended the genealogy of the seed .

Why you take a simple sentence and turn that into a whole other topic is beyond my reasoning skills.

You clearly do not even understand why I posted what I did and then went off onto your own little tangent.

All I can suggest is to assume away!

That would be a good assignment!

A faithful witness cannot lie. The ESV and NASB lies in 2 Samuel 21:19. David killed Goliath not Elhanan.

KJV 19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV 19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

NASB 19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Proceedeth is an archaic term. Matthew 4:4, in modern English, says, "But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

They are not. They are all translations. The KJV is not "the word of God", it is simply a 400+-year-old translation.

That proves nothing. Which is the correct version is the question.

What version, revision, or translation is the Word of God in your opinion?

So when you hold a bible in your hand, you are not holding God’s written word?

Lol, who killed Goliath? Elhanan or David? Funny how neither line up with the truth found in 1 Chronicles 20:5. Take a look at the esv...a contradiction? Absolutely!

5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Does a translation have to be word for word for it to be the holy preserved word of God? Better be careful how you answer...

Apparently KJVOs can't understand Bible translation, either the sources or the methods. Here is the translator's note from the NET on that verse, "The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually suspect. The Chronicles text appears to have misread “Bethlehemite” (בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name אֶת לַחְמִי (ʾet lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text appears to have misread the word for “brother” (אַח, ʾakh) as the accusative sign (אֵת, ʾet), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”

This should be ample information for anyone with open eyes and an open mind.

There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation

1) There is often not a one-to-one meaning between the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/koine Greek lexicon and modern English. The translator must decided "the closest fit", taking context into account.

2) The verb tenses in the ancient languages are different than those in English, so again, a judgement call must be made about how to translate the verbs into English.

3) The idioms most certainly have no parallel meaning. Even the idea can sometimes throw you for a loop, because often it's not from the horse's mouth, therefore it goes in one ear and out the other. Even during the flood it wasn't raining cats and dogs.

One must decide between a formal approach to translation -- as close to the original wording as possible, but never word-for-word -- and a functional translation, where the meaning of the texts is communicated, so that readers thousands of years later will understand Scripture the way the ancients understood it.

You should always remember that every translation is a compromise; there is never a 100% accurate translation.