Born or Fathered?

[Yeshua1]

ἐκ (ἐξ before vowels) prep. with gen. from, out from, away from; by, by means of, by reason of, because; for; on, at; of

The subject is still the subject. You are trying to let another noun control the translation of the verb. It should be done from the subjects point of view to maintain original nuance.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Has Van now schooled himself in the Greek texts and language to agree/disagree with your points here?

 

[Yeshua1]

1) Ek means "out from." Not "away from."
2) 'Out from God" is translated as by God.
3) The verb is passive so the subject is being acted upon by God.
4) Ek points to the origin, in this case the origin of the action on the subject is by God.

Have you been studying biblical Greek ?

 

[Van]

Have you been studying biblical Greek ?

Note that Y1 does not address the topic, but instead addresses my qualifications. The fact that Dr. Wallace (NET) and LEB translators provide the basis of my view is not addressed. Obfuscation on display.

 

[Van]

One difficult verse in choosing to render our word "fathered" where "out of God" is present is John 1:13, The difficulty is in the "not of bloods" at the start of the verse. This may point to joint contribution of a biological conception, thus John is comparing not human fathering to Godly fathering, but human caused conception with God caused conception. So, even though the NASB footnotes "begotten" for born, and the YLT and Weymouth NT, use begotten, I think John was presenting the result of human conception, thus born addresses the idea t Thin perhaps, but here I stand. The other meaning of "not of bloods" is that it might be referring to the Jewish bloodline back to Abraham. Either way born appears to be better than fathered even though "out of God" is present indicating divine origin.

Here is John 1:13 NASB, but edited to show "blood" as plural:
New American Standard Bible
who were born, not of bloods nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Note that Y1 does not address the topic, but instead addresses my qualifications. The fact that Dr. Wallace (NET) and LEB translators provide the basis of my view is not addressed. Obfuscation on display.

No,just wondering if you are qualified to actually discuss what is the point of the OP itself!

 

[John of Japan]

The language is stressing what God has caused/produced. The subjects in this passage are "Everyone who love" and "Jesus Christ." They are the subjects of the passage, therefore the verbs should focus on the subjects...."born" keeps the focus on the subjects.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

@Yeshua1: I agree with this.

 

[Van]

Notice that not one of those questioning the NET/LEB translation of 1 John 5:1 has offered to describe the grammar. Here is my understanding of the English translation grammar:

Everyone - subject of first clause of the sentence.
believing - used as an adjective to modify or describe the subject.
that Jesus is the Christ - adjectival clause used to modify or describe the subject
has been fathered - passive verb showing the action taken upon the subject
by God - adverbial phrase used to modify or describe who did the fathering.

Notice that the subject remains the subject and was not obscured in any way.
Notice that the verb remains the verb and was not obscured in any way.

There is more to the verse but there is no need for more explanation, as the negative assertions against the translation choice have focused on the first clause.