Quote:
I am not getting that...sigh. He became man...was manifested in the flesh.



Correct. I'm confident you got it, I should have been more clear - some put "the man Jesus" in contrast to "the Second Person of the Godhead", because although they believe "he" existed as two persons, the deity and the man (i.e. like a god that put on flesh clothes), instead of a single unified person who was both deity and man. I don't think you believe in the two-person view (google Nestorianism if you're interested in learning more about the history of this view). But that's a whole other debate. :)

Quote:

Begotten eternally implies He was not always God somehow, to me.



I'm not sure why. But like I said before, I think you have the right concepts, we're just discussing how to best label these concepts. :)

Quote:

I have been doing some study and thinking about Abraham and Issac verse Ishmael, and understand that Ishmael was born of the flesh, but Issac by the will of God. Could it be that the scripture was talking about Issac as his only begotten son because he was born of the will and spirit of God?



Sure, I think that's part of it. Don't forget though, while thinking about Isaac and Ishmael, that because Isaac had a beginning, any explanation of him being the "only begotten" will have a temporal element to it. Whether the "begotten" means "special unique relationship" and/or "the will and spirit of God" and/or something else, once we look for the same in Jesus (who didn't have a beginning), the "temporally begotten" becomes "eternally begotten" if you know what I mean. In other words, just because any explanation has to be temporal with Isaac doesn't mean it has to be temporal with Christ.

Quote:

Somehow, I think if we were sitting down together, discussing this...it would have gone a lot easier.



That's for sure! :)

Quote:

True to the last part, but the first paragraph is really reaching for me!



Perhaps an example from scripture, rather than my own personal examples, will be better. Of course "shall" (and "will") often (even usually) means a future-only event, but not always. Sometimes it means "not only now but in the future as well". For example:

Rev 21:3 "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."

Ezek 36:28 "And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."

Just because those verses say God "shall be" their God doesn't mean he is not already their God.

Quote:

many have attacked those of us that use it and believe it is the pure word of God, saying that it is not the pure word of God. It bothers me because it is like saying there is no pure word of God that we can read and adhere too. And that to me is calling God a liar, that He did not keep His word pure as He promised.



Yes, I understand what you mean as I have been in the Bible version debate for a long time. My basic position is that 1. the pure word of God is available, and always has been, in multiple translations and manuscripts, and 2. there are at least two aspects of "pure" when talking about the pure word of God: purity in terms of what God's message is, and purity in terms of what I call "ink-on-paper". A Bible can be "pure" in the first sense while not pure in the other. Most KJV-only supporters do not see (or accept this), thinking these two aspects are required to be one in the same. I can explain in more detail if you want. :)

Quote:

The problem is that the KJB has stood the test of time, over four hundred years, and through the biggest revival in history,



To some extent, that is certainly true. However, it does nothing to prove its purity in the sense of "ink-on-paper", nor exclusively pure in the sense of God's message. Also, 400 years may seem like a long time, but it's really only 20% of all of Church history. There are Bibles still in use that have been around much longer.

Quote:

and all the new translations are different, using different manuscripts, interpretations, and many as thought for thought rather than word for word, and started by men who were not even believers in the diety of Christ! I just don't understand why people can't see this.



As they say, "the proof is in the pudding". :) Despite some of those things, I can still pick up the NIV or other versions and read "the word of God". God's pure message is still there to be understood.

I'm not sure who you are referring to with "men who were not even believers in the deity of Christ". This is a common charge against Westcott and Hort, the men who produced the Greek New Testament in 1881, which basically opened the door for "modern versions". However, I have found that many KJV-only supporters have been fed false information about W&H by certain authors and preachers, and simply repeat these things without looking into it for themselves. If you are not referring to W&H, who are you referring to?

Quote:

If folks want to use another version, so be it, I still believe they can be saved by them, but why attack the KJ or those who read it, like it is a second class Bible, or second class Christians who read it..to justify their choice.



I know what you mean and I agree. I guess some do it as a "defensive mechanism", because they conversely see KJV-onlyists attack them and their Bible, making them feel like second class Christians with second class Bibles. :)

Quote:

I have ever much enjoyed your posts, and learned more about what I believe and why, and that is a real blessing to me. I hope you too have been blessed in some way.



Totally! :) I hope we have more discussions like this in the future!