And:

RESPONSE:

Osama thinks that he can get away with partial quotations, having the audacity to assume that we wouldn’t check out his own sources for accuracy. Here is what his own link says in context:

Etymology

The etymology of the word Elohim is prehistoric, and therefore unknown. There are many theories, however, including the following:

• Some trace its origin in el or ul which may mean ("to be strong") or possibly ("to be in front"), from which also are derived ayil ("ram", the one in front of the flock) and elah (the prominent "terebinth"); Elohim would then be an expanded plural form of El.
• Others trace the word (and the related singular word Eloah which is also a name for diety in the Bible) to alah ("to terrify") or alih ("to be perplexed, afraid; to seek refuge because of fear"). Eloah and Elohim, therefore, would be "He who is the object of fear or reverence," or "He with whom one who is afraid takes refuge".

The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine, but the construction is usually singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7). There are two theories as to why the word is plural:

• In one view, predominant among anthropomorphic monotheists, the word is plural because of the practice common among of the common Hebrew practice of expressing extension, magnitude and dignity by pluralizing the form of words.
• In another view, more common among secular historians and polytheists, is that the word's plurality is reflective of early Hebrew polytheism. Originally meaning "the gods", or the "host of heaven", the word may have been singularized by later Hebrew henotheist priests who sought to identify the most powerful Semitic gods with their patron god YHWH.

While the words Elohim, Eloah, and El appear to be related, with the word El being the oldest, it is uncertain whethe the word Elohim is derived from El via Eloah. Moreover, the word Eloah is arguably feminine. If this is true, some have suggested that the word Elohim is the masculine plural of a feminine noun, used as a singular, which would imply indeterminacy in both number and gender. However, this is speculative. (http://www.fact-index.com/e/el/elohim.html; underline emphasis ours)

Osama’s source doesn't support his case, but states that the origin of Elohim is actually unknown and that scholars have postulated several theories regarding its root. By omitting the first paragraph, Osama gives the misleading impression that the web link is affirming that Elohim is definitely an expanded plural form of El, which is actually not the case. This is just one of the many theories given.

When we check other lexicons, here is what we find:

Hebrew for 0430
Pronunciation Guide
'elohiym {el-o-heem'}
Root Word
PLURAL OF 0433   (Source)

Carefully note that, according to the above lexicon, Elohim is a plural of 0433. Here is the entry for 0433:

Hebrew for 0433
Pronunciation Guide
'elowahh {el-o'-ah rarely (shortened) 'eloahh {el-o'-ah}
PROBABLY prolonged (emphat.) from 0410   (Source)

Hence, this online reference agrees that Elohim is the plural of Eloah. And, now, here is the entry for El:

Hebrew for 0410
Pronunciation Guide
'el {ale}
Root Word
shortened from 0352   (Source)

Another lexical source states:

elohim. God, gods, judges, angels. … This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah, is found more frequently in Scripture than el or eloah for the true God …

Albright has suggested that the use of this majestic plural comes from the tendency in the ancient near east toward universalism: "We find in Canaanite an increasing tendency to employ the plural Ashtorot ‘Astartes’, and Anatot ‘Anaths’, in the clear sense of totality of manifestations of a deity’" (William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2d ed., p. 213). But a better reason can be seen from the Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2, 26). This is further borne out by the fact that the form elohim occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic (Gustav F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 88) (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., Bruce K. Waltke [Moody Press, Chicago 1980], 93c, Volume 1, p. 44; underline emphasis ours)

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament links Elohim with El. Under entry 430 for Elohim, it says to see 433 which happens to be the entry for Eloah. All comments within brackets [] are mine:

In imitation of the Aramaean usage, the singular form is only used in poetry and in the later Hebrew; the plural of majesty, [Elohim] occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times … (Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: A Dictionary Numerically Coded to Strong’s Concordance with an Exhaustive English Index [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1979], p. 49)

The following writer says:

"A plural form of the Heb. noun eloah describing Deity. Some ERRONEOUSLY regard it as the plural of El (q.v.), but it is not from the same root. It is usually translated "God," although sometimes it is a true plural and must be understood as "gods" (Ex 12:12; Gen 35:2,4; Deut 29:18; 32:17). It is sometimes applied to men as God's representatives (ex 21:6, RSV; 22:8-9,28, RSV). The term may refer to angels (Ps 8:5, cf. RSV; 82:1), although these passages are debated.

"Usually elohim takes a singular verb. However, it seems occasionally to govern a plural form of the verb (Gen 20:13; 35:7; II Sam 7:23; Ps 58:11, Heb.). What is the significance of this apparent inconsistency? Some would regard it as evidence of the polytheistic origin of the term. In fact, other people of the same era used divine titles in a similar way. The Akkad. plural ilanu (gods) was applied to a single deity. Pharaoh was addressed as ilania ("my gods") by his Canaanite vassals in the Amarna letters. In the OT the plural Elohim is applied to Chemosh, the god of the Ammonites (Jud 11:24); Ashtoreth, the goddess of Sidon (I Kgs 11:5); and Baal-Zebub of Ekron (II Kgs 2:1).

The significant fact, however, is not the origin of the word, for this cannot be definitely known. Rather, it is the way it is used of Israel's God in the OT. When used of Yahweh, it refers to the sole God of the world, who is addressed in the plural as the fullness of Deity. We can be sure that no polytheistic elements are allowed to appear in Gen 1. Yet, it is here that the plural is most obvious (Gen 1:26). Regardless of one's explanation of the reason for the plural emphasis here, he cannot ignore the plain meaning of the passage. In some sense God is plural; yet He is also singular (cf. the singular verbs in v. 27). Although the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the chapter, it emerges from it." (C.T. Francisco, Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, ed. C.F. Pfeiffer, J. Rhea, and H.F. Vos, Volume I, p. 523, "elohim"; bold and emphasis ours)

Yet, to be fair to Osama, there are some sources that do believe that Elohim is a derivative of El, not Eloah, such as the following:

Etymology

Elohim has been explained as a plural form of Eloah or as plural derivative of El. Those who adhere to the former explanation do not agree as to the derivation of Eloah. There is no such verbal stem as alah in Hebrew; but the Arabist Fleischer, Franz Delitzsch, and others appeal to the Arabic aliha, meaning "to be filled with dread", "anxiously to seek refuge", so that ilah (eloah) would mean in the first place "dread", then the object of dread. Gen., xxi, 42, 53, where God is called "the fear of Isaac", Is., viii, 13, and Ps. lxxv, 12, appear to support this view. But the fact that aliha is probably not an independent verbal stem but only a denominative from ilah, signifying originally "possessed of God" (cf. enthousiazein, daimonan) renders the explanation more than precarious. There is no more probability in the contention of Ewald, Dillmann, and others that the verbal stem, alah means "to be mighty": and is to regarded as a by-form of the stem alah; that, therefore, Eloah grows out of alah as El springs from alah. Baethgen (Beitrage, 297) has pointed out that of the fifty-seven occurrences of Eloah forty-one belong to the Book of Job, and the others to late texts or poetic passages. Hence he agrees with Buhl in maintaining that the singular form Eloah came into existence only after the plural form Elohim had been long in common use; in this case, a singular was supplied for its pre-existent plural. But even admitting Elohim to be the prior form, its etymology has not thus far been satisfactorily explained. The ancient Jewish and the early ecclesiastical writers agree with many modern scholars in deriving Elohim from El, but there is a great difference of opinion as to the method of derivation. Nestle (Theol. Stud. aus Würt., 1882, pp. 243 sqq.) supposes that the plural has arisen by the insertion of an artificial h, like the Hebrew amahoth (maidens) from amah. Buhl (Gesenius Hebraisches Handworterbuch, 12th ed., 1895, pp. 41 sq.) considers Elohim as a sort of augmentative form of El; but in spite of their disagreement as to the method of derivation, these writers are one in supposing that in early Hebrew the singular of the word signifying God was El, and its plural form Elohim; and that only more recent times coined the singular form Eloah, thus giving Elohim a grammatically correct correspondent. Lagrange, however, maintains that Elohim and Eloah are derived collaterally and independently from El. (Source)

Hence, scholarly opinions can be produced to support both positions, so I don’t want to split hairs over this issue. Regardless of whether we assume that Elohim originates from singular El, the real issue is whether the Scriptures teach that Jesus is El, or God, in the same sense that those spoken of in Psalm 82:6 are said to be gods and the sons of the Most High.

Osama is erroneously assuming that since both Jesus and these other individuals are called Elohim, this therefore proves that Jesus is no different than they are. The problem with this logic is that just because the same word is applied to two different entities, this doesn’t mean that the word must have the same meaning in both instances. To help illustrate this, note that in the following citations Yahweh God is also called Elohim:

"In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God (Ruach Elohim) was hovering over the face of the waters. And God (Elohim) said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Genesis 1:1-3

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Genesis 2:4-7

Applying Osama's logic, we would have to conclude that Yahweh is Elohim, or God, in the same sense that the others are called Elohim. Now obviously, no one would make such an unwarranted and erroneous assumption since there are things said about Yahweh that are not said of the others, showing that these other entities are not God in the same sense that Yahweh is. For instance, Yahweh is said to be eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, Creator, Sustainer etc., attributes and qualities that he alone has.

Similarly, just because Jesus and these other beings are called Elohim doesn't mean that the Bible writers were teaching that Christ was God in the same sense that these others were. On the contrary, as we have constantly been demonstrating both in our rebuttals to Osama and elsewhere, Jesus is called Elohim, El, etc. in the sense of being Yahweh God. For instance, the passage in Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t simply call Jesus El, but El Gibbor, meaning the Mighty God. This exact phrase is used only of Yahweh God as the very next chapter of Isaiah shows:

"In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on him who struck them, but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God." Isaiah 10:20-21

Isaiah further teaches that the Messiah is Immanu-El, which means that he is El, or God, who is with us:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

"‘She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel’ (which means, God with us)." Matthew 1:21-23

But according to Isaiah, Yahweh is the only El and Elohim, the only God:

"remember the former things of old; for I am God (El), and there is no other; I am God (Elohim), and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it." Isaiah 46:9-11

What the preceding factors show is that Isaiah, by calling the Messiah the Mighty God and Immanu-El, was plainly identifying the coming Davidic King as the human appearance, the incarnation, of Yahweh God. The following syllogism helps to demonstrate why this point is exegetically and contextually inescapable:

1. Yahweh is El Gibbor (the Mighty God) and he alone is El (God).
2. The Messiah is El Gibbor (the Mighty God) and he is Immau-El (God with us).
3. Therefore, the Messiah must be Yahweh God.

To further illustrate this, here is Psalm 82:6 again, this time including verse 7 as well:

"I said, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.'"

These so called gods and sons of God will die as any other mortal as a result of God's judgment falling on them for their wickedness and injustice. Jesus, on the other hand, is God's unique (monogenes) Son, the Agent and Heir of all creation, the exact representation of God's nature, the Source of life, the Savior and Sustainer of all, the Holy and Sinless One, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the sovereign and universal Judge of the whole world etc. And, unlike these other so called gods, Jesus voluntarily forfeits his own life and then receives it back again since no can take it away from him:

"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews then said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will YOU raise it up in three days?' But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken." John 2:19-22

"For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down OF MY OWN ACCORD. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." John 10:17-18

"So Pilate said to him, 'You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?' Jesus answered him, 'You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.'" John 19:10-11

Thus, Jesus is not God in the way that the judges of Psalm 82 are gods, but he is God in the same exact sense and to the same degree that the Father is God, i.e. in the sense of being Yahweh! Both Jesus and the NT writers called Christ God’s Son in the sense of being one in essence, nature, power and dignity with the Father, using the expression to imply that he was full Deity. Even the Jews understood that this is how Jesus was using the expression:

"And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I am working.’ This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.’" John 5:16-23

"And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?’ But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I AM, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ And the high priest tore his garments and said, ‘What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?’ And they all condemned him as deserving death." Mark 14:60-64

"The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.’" John 19:7

For more on the meaning of Psalm 82:6 and Jesus’ use of it in John 10:34-35, please read our article: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/john10_34-36.htm

As far as Son of God meaning the same thing as Servant of God is concerned, Osama doesn’t realize how this position actually discredits Muhammad and the Quran. If "Son of" simply means "Servant of," then why does the Quran so vehemently speak out against anyone being called the son of Allah? For instance, the Quran erroneously accuses the Jews of calling Ezra (Uzayr) the son of Allah:

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! S. 9:30

Assuming that the Quran is correctly representing the views of the Jews, the only sense in which they would have ever believed that Ezra was the son of God would be spiritual. The Jews knew, on the basis of the OT scriptures, that God is a spiritual Being who enters into a relationship with his covenant people as a loving Father. The Jews would never have imagined that Ezra was God's son in the sense that God had sexual relations with a consort who then begot Ezra. In other words, the Quran will not even allow for Allah to enter into this type of spiritual relationship with believers or messengers. This is why the Quran says:

"They say: 'The Most Gracious has begotten a son!' Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they attributed a son for the Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth BUT MUST COME TO THE MOST GRACIOUS AS A SERVANT." S. 19:88-93

And they say: "The Most Gracious has taken a son!" Glory to Him! They are (but) SERVANTS raised to honor. S. 21:26

The Quran even denies that the Jews and Christians are God’s children:

And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming. S. 5:18

Here, the Quran posits a rather weak argument, since even earthly fathers discipline and punish their children when they do wrong. In fact, the Bible says that if God doesn't chastise a person who professes to be a true believer then this means that the person isn't a child of God!

"Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son." Deuteronomy 8:5

"I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you." 2 Samuel 7:14-15

"My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights." Proverbs 3:11-12

"Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.'" Amos 3:1-2

"And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? 'My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.' It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Hebrews 12:5-11

The glorious and risen Lord Jesus, while in heaven, revealed to his servant John the following:

"Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent." Revelation 3:19

It is because true believers are God's children that God chastens them when they do wrong or sin.

Clearly, Allah is not a father to anyone even in a purely spiritual sense, which means that "Son of" does not carry the same meaning as "Servant of" as far as the Quran is concerned. The Quran is obviously not in agreement with the true Word of God, the Holy Bible, showing that Allah is not the same as Yahweh God.

Osama has a chart showing how both Hebrew and Arabic use a similar word for son, ben. In the chart he shows that in Arabic, the word is used to refer to the Israelites as the sons or children of Israel, and then says:

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!

How can "Sons of" be a wrong translation of beni when this is the primary meaning of the word? In fact, the Hebrew and Arabic words for servant or slave is ebed and abd respectively, not ben. Osama is operating under the fallacy that since these words carry similar meanings they must therefore mean the same thing. Children, by virtue of their position within the family, are similar to servants in that they must obey their parents and come under their authority. Yet, they are more than that since slaves do not necessarily have a permanent place in the household, whereas children do. Slaves might not receive an inheritance, whereas children will, provided that their parents are not poor. Male children carry on their fathers' names, slaves do not.

In the words of the Lord Jesus:

"When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, 'Does your teacher not pay the tax?' He said, 'Yes.' And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, 'What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?' And when he said, 'From others,' Jesus said to him, 'Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.'" Matthew 17:24-27

"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' They answered him, 'We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, "You will become free"?' Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" John 8:31-36

The Lord Jesus contrasts slaves from sons, showing that the two are not the same and that they do not have the same position and rank within the household.

Furthermore, because of his haste, Osama didn't see how his definitions of words refute his own position. To say that beni means "People of", "Group of", "Belongings of", means that the persons in question have the nature of that which they belong to. For instance, beni Israel, or "children of Israel", refers to individuals who are Israelites by nationality, persons who have the quality or nature of being an Israelite.

Thus, to say that Jesus is the Son of God means that he has the nature of, the quality of being God, that he is God by nature!

In fact, when believers are said to be children of God it means that we have become adopted into God's family in order that we may share in God's divine life of incorruptibility and moral perfection:

"And Jesus said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, FOR THEY CANNOT DIE ANYMORE, because they are equal to angels AND ARE SONS OF GOD, being SONS OF THE RESURRECTION.'" Luke 20:34-36

Notice the connection between being a son of God and being a son of the resurrection, i.e. being a child of God means to be immortal and incorruptible, to never die again, which for believers occurs at the resurrection day.

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire." 2 Peter 1:3-4

"Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!-- assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." Ephesians 4:17-24

"For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness... Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:10, 14

"Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure." 1 John 3:2-3

This is also the reason why God constantly told the children of Israel to be holy since, being adopted as his sons and daughters, they had to reflect the holiness and moral purity of the God to whom they belonged:

"You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel." Exodus 19:4-6

"For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." Leviticus 11:44-45

"You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth. The LORD saw it and spurned them, because of the provocation of his sons and his daughters. And he said, 'I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness' ... Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children." Deuteronomy 32:18-20, 43

The failure of so many Israelites showed that those persons weren't truly sons of God, much like not every person who claims to be a Christian is truly a Christian. As the following citations state:

"They answered him, 'Abraham is our father.' Jesus said to them, 'If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing what your father did.' They said to him, 'We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God.' Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.'" John 8:39-44

"So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." Romans 2:26-29

Obviously, this doesn't mean that finite creatures become infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, beginningless etc., but that we become morally perfect and immortal. Jesus' Sonship is different, however, and that is why he is said to be the unique (or monogenes) Son of God since, as we noted earlier, not only does he share God's incorruptibility and moral perfection, he also shares all the other essential attributes that make God what he is in contrast to creation. And it is only in union with the Lord Jesus that persons can ever be children of God:

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, HE GAVE the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12-13

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are NO LONGER A SLAVE, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God." Galatians 4:4-7

Notice that in the last passage those who become sons of God are no longer slaves, showing that, contrary to Osama, these words do not mean the same.

Thus, it is directly the result of Jesus' eternal Sonship, and our union with him, that we are given the grace of adoption into God's family.{1}

Osama also wrote:

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".

He then proceeds to contradict himself by asserting: