Christians believe Jesus is God's son (God forbid) ontologically, yet they can't answer begetting is a biological process and continue to use filial terms literally? The question is why such huge contradictions in their foundational belief? Accordingly, their criticism on quranic refutation which is not directly addressing them "How can he have a son without consort (female)" is false. Can they address this?

It seems to me that "eternal generation" is an oxymoron : > "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel > kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of > contradictory or incongruous elements" It seems to me that "generation " requires at least a single step: > a : the action or process of producing offspring : procreation b : > the process of coming or bringing into being c > : origination by a generating process : production; especially : > formation of a geometric figure by motion of another Do they say: * God and Jesus both existed eternally with Jesus "describable" as a son, begotten, etc. but with no actual, literal birthing having occurred? * the begetting of Jesus occurred so long ago as to be for all intents and purposes to still be considered "eternally so"? * it is a "mystery beyond human comprehension" (as the Trinity in general is often described)? Or do they simply use the term without explanation of the contradiction?

I note that many modern theologians no longer translate monogenēs as “only begotten” but as “unique” or as "one of a kind." Most modern English versions have adopted this new understanding and translate the five Johannine uses of monogenēs as “only.” However, "only-begotten" is a key concept in the Nicene Creed. The Creed interprets it as that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father. Do such translations imply that the Nicene Creed is in error? Or are these translations wrong? Or is there a way of reconciling the absence of "only-begotten" in modern Bibles with the Nicene Creed? Furthermore, the theory of Eternal General has been defined as an: (1) “eternal, (2) personal act of the Father, (3) wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, (4) He **generates the person** (not the essence) of the Son, (5) by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, (6) without division, alienation, or change, (7) so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, (8) and eternally continues, (9) not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son." (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 182.) This is, in other words, an explanation of the Biblical concept that the Son was begotten (generated) by the Father. But if the word only-begotten (for the Son) disappears from our Bibles, is the theory of Eternal Generation now redundant? Or are there other evidence in the Bible that the Father generated the Son?