Featured Best 5 Translations ?

Why?

 

CSB
For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. (Christ was not God's one and only Son). Thus this verse incorrectly translates "monogenes." Unique or one of a kind should be used.
ESV
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Thus this verse incorrectly translates both monogenes and the manner in which God demonstrated His love for humanity. "In this way" should be used.
NKJV
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. This version mistranslated both monogenes and the manner in which God demonstrated His love for humanity.
NASB
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.
This version mistranslated both monogenes and the manner in which God demonstrated His love for humanity.
NIV
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This version mistranslated both monogenes and the manner in which God demonstrated His love for humanity.

Thus even the so called "best translations" have flaws, and sometimes less than the best versions can have a better translation of a particular verse. Here is John 3:16 done in a better way:
ISV
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his uniquely existing Son so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life. But even this one alters perish as if the text read lost.

 

Actually, THE best translation for anyone is the one a given person reads, understands, uses, and HEEDS.

 

Because I value accuracy more than a so-called literal rendering in each and every case.

 

So if a person studies the NWT, that is the best one? The best one seems to be the best ones so the verses can be compared and contrasted.

 

Luke 3:38
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

So Adam was a Son of God when Christ was conceived. But when Christ was conceived, Jesus was God's uniquely divine Son.

 

That is a bald supposition, that ones interpertation is always going to be better than its litteral meaning. An interpertation has to start with the texts literal meaning. And, yes, there are cases where the litteral needs to be given its meaning in the form of an interpertation do to language differences.

 

Jesus was the unique "Son"of God, but not the "only" Son of God, as God had created Adam without a human father.
To claim that Jesus was God's only Son is a mistranslation of monogenes. It means unique or one of a kind. Adam was a different "kind" of son, but still a son.

 

You are trying to say Adam was not God's son. I am not.
Two different Greek words can share a meaning. Or the same meaning can be implied.
Jesus was the unique "Son"of God, but not the "only" Son of God, as God had created Adam without a human father.
To claim that Jesus was God's only Son is a mistranslation of monogenes. It means unique or one of a kind. Adam was a different "kind" of son, but still a son.
Here is a translation of Luke 3:38.
CJB
of Enosh, of Shet, of Adam, of God.

Note that the unstated idea is one came from the other.
God is eternal so had to originating entity.
Adam was originated by God,
Seth was originated by Adam
Enos was originated by Seth.

Same idea, Adam was the "son" of God, just as Seth was the "son" of Adam.

 

Was Adam the son of God? Yes or No.

It is not only me that says monogenes means unique or one of a kind. "Only" is not a legitimate translation of monogenes.

In the verse that says Adam the son of God, Luke 3:38 the idea is God created Adam, not as another animal, or inanimate material, but in His own likeness, thus a son.

 

1) God created Adam in His own likeness, thus like a son. Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 5:1.
2) The Greek does not have a word for son, but son is implied, thus nearly all translators read "son of God or son of God."
3) The statement I want a word for word translation when it suits [me] is inaccurate. I say word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation methodology is the best way to translate our Bibles.
4) I am consistent, and your charge I am inconsistent is slanderous nonsense. It is also fallacious argumentation, i.e.. against the man.
5) The translation of monogenes (i.e. one kind) as "only" is a mistranslation. Now the Greek word "mono" (G3441) is often translated as "only" but to leave "genes" out of the inspired text is a mistranslation. The word means "unique or "one of a kind"

 

You evidently missed the plain meaning of my sentence. A so-called 'literal' rendering is not the best/accurate in each and every case.
Translation involves interpretation. That is a given.

 

The litteral is always the starting point.

 

Although I responded to this insightful question in post #28, I did not mention the OT Saints ensconced in Abraham's bosom when Christ was incarnated. No, they were not yet "children or sons of God" but they had been set apart (saints) to be made perfect, thus becoming the children of God.