Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

Again, why do you quote an entire post of mine, and yet say something completely irrelevant? I was saying that your inane remark about Dr. Wallace being a good textual critic but not so good in Greek is nonsensical.

 

How often did translation teams use the word begotten in the text of the Bible?

CSB : 0
CEB : 0
NLT : 0
NET : 0
WEB : 0
NIV : 1
LEB : 3
ESV : 5
NRSV : 8
NASB : 13
________________________________________________________________________________________
Five well-known translations didn't use it at all, including the very conservative WEB.

The NRSV is known as a liberal translation by some here; nevertheless it uses the word in question 8 times vs. the ESV,
which uses it only 5 times.

"Many other Greek scholars" huh? Nope.

 

An interesting read by John V. Dahms:
The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered
His conclusion:

 

One early writer that Dahms cites is Athanasius, of whom it seems hard to argue that he does not connect "monogenes" with birth, born, begetting. For example, from his Discourse 2 Against the Arians, written circa AD 360 (bold emphasis mine).

 

I haven't finished reading it yet, but early observations, I find his etymological argument weak. "root gen seems to be closely related to genn, the root of
gennaō, ‘to bring forth by birth’,"

"Seems close"....really.

I find his argument of Abraham/Issac even weaker. He also never...unless he does in last 2 pages...interact with the massive amount of evidence favoring "unique"/"only of kind...of relationship or kind" found in 4th century BC - 3rd century AD. [Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Lycurgus, Hippolytus, Timaeus, Philo of Byblos, etc...]

He is also largely dependent on the Latin.

I will read it again tomorrow after I sleep....

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

From the same general period of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechetical Lecture 11:

 

Quotes from the 300s demonstrate the poverty of claiming that monogenes cannot mean only-begotten. Those who wrote and spoke Greek knew that it could. Further, that they wrote 1200-1300 years before the King James translation detoxes the attempt to poison the well by making this a KJVO debate.

 

And Dr. Wallace in that article also quoted from the most authoritative Greek lexicon, which allowed for "only begotten." You go much further than Dr. Wallace, since you said in Post #89, "Do you agree monegenes does not ever mean begotten?"

As for your Post #19, I still disagree. As I said to McCree79 in Post #42, "I'll just say in answer that the metaphor comparing physical birth to spiritual birth is very obvious. To translate as 'unique' ignores the metaphor."

I'll leave it there. It's been an interesting conversation. Thank you for participating, even if you keep using the word "deflection" over and over.

 

Not!!

 

I dont know if that is the case. In the 2nd and 3rd century examples where it was used towards children could be taken as a reference to there status as "one of a kind". Demonstrating their unique status within the family.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I feel you are stretching this too far. The reference to Moses and the serpent pole indicates a change of thought. Our"red letter" Bibles imply Jesus is still speaking in verse 16, but it is very likely John is speaking here and explaining Jesus' "being lifted up". We would be consistent then in looking how John, in his commentary used μονογενες earlier in the letter.

Chapter 1 establishes how Jesus is unique among all things...including within the Godhead.

Even if verse 16 is Jesus speaking and he is still speaking to Nicodemus, to use μονογενες to refer to physcial birth as the "only begotten" son would just confuse Nicodemus even more. Jesus just rebuked Nicodemus for thinking physical birth was being looked at. For Jesus then to reference physical birth would muddy the waters.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Well, I would say that someone who is eternally begotten certainly is one of a kind!

 

I would agree with that .. ..

And I think the emphasis is on that unique status.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I will however point out that you are supplying the word "eternally" here.

Can you provide a verse where Jesus is called μονογενες before the virgin birth or do you mean he will "always" be μονογενες from the birth and throughout time after?

In my opinion, Jesus' μονογενες status is in the fact that He is fully God and fully man. Completely unique among everything and everyone to ever exist. "Only begotten" does not capture that for me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Just noticed something I missed in Denny Burk’s postings on the subject. He wrote that at the ETS meeting in 2016 Wayne Grudem (among others) presented on this subject. According to Burk, Grudem said he would revise his Systematic Theology to reflect he now believes monogenes means only begotten (at least in the Johannine context).

 

No, not supplying, but referring to what Cyril and Athansius wrote.

IOW, I am not arguing about the doctrine of eternal generation, just pointing out that their arguments seem to me to require more than just understanding monogenes as unique.

 

Gotcha.....


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I believe John 3:16 was Christ talking.

Granted, but that's not the immediate context.

I disagree, but the thread is basically over.

God bless.