Born or Fathered?

[John of Japan]

Here is the Friberg-Friberg-Mille lexicon definition:

gennaw (1) literally; (a) of men father, become the father of (MT 1.2); (b) of women bear, give birth to (LU 1.13); (c) passive, of both men and women be born (of) (GA 4.23); (2) figuratively; (a) of God's part in Jesus' resurrection (AC 13.33) and his messianic exaltation to the position of highest honor (HE 1.5) (officially) become father of, publicly acknowledge; (b) passive, of the spiritual new birth be born, be regenerated (JN 3.3); (c) of the influence of a leader on his disciples become a father of (1C 4.15); (d) as producing a result give rise to, cause (2T 2.23)

 

[Van]

Thank you, but I don't consider the NET notes to be very good, since the NET is dynamic/functional equivalence.

That is fine. But the footnote did indicate that not everyone goes with born when the voice is passive.

 

[John of Japan]

That is fine. But the footnote did indicate that not everyone goes with born when the voice is passive.

Exactly my point. DE translators don't consider the voice to be important, but I do. There is nuance in the voice chosen by the human/divine author.

 

[Van]

Exactly my point. DE translators don't consider the voice to be important, but I do. There is nuance in the voice chosen by the human/divine author.

Yes, to ignore the grammatical choice of expression is not sound. And the passive voice does tell us the subject is being acted upon. But again, the subject is being acted upon whether fathered, begotten, or born.

 

[Van]

Here is how the LEB translates our word:

1 John 2:29
29 If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness has been fathered by him.

1 John 3:9
9 Everyone who is fathered by God does not practice sin, because his seed resides in him, and [he is] not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.

1 John 4:7
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been fathered by God and knows God.

1 John 5:1
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God, and everyone who loves {the father} also loves the [child] fathered by him.

1 John 5:4
4 because everyone who is fathered by God conquers the world.

1 John 5:18
18 We know that everyone who is fathered by God does not sin, but the one fathered by God, he protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, to ignore the grammatical choice of expression is not sound. And the passive voice does tell us the subject is being acted upon. But again, the subject is being acted upon whether fathered, begotten, or born.

But the nuance is different. DE often eliminates the nuances.

 

[Van]

But the nuance is different. DE often eliminates the nuances.

No argument, DE ignores the grammar to push their agenda.

But what I am proposing is that the passive voice does not require born over fathered. To support this I have shown two well respected versions that translate the passive voice as "fathered." I think the LEB enjoys the reputation of formal equivalence.

 

[John of Japan]

No argument, DE ignores the grammar to push their agenda.

But what I am proposing is that the passive voice does not require born over fathered. To support this I have shown two well respected versions that translate the passive voice as "fathered." I think the LEB enjoys the reputation of formal equivalence.

I'm willing to admit that "was born" and "was fathered" are both literal renderings. The different nuance is that "was born" has the emphasis on the new person, and "was fathered" puts the emphasis on the father. Subtle, but the difference is there.

 

[Van]

I'm willing to admit that "was born" and "was fathered" are both literal renderings. The different nuance is that "was born" has the emphasis on the new person, and "was fathered" puts the emphasis on the father. Subtle, but the difference is there.

Great, I admit both are literal renderings too. And I agree, "fathered" puts emphasis on the Father.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm willing to admit that "was born" and "was fathered" are both literal renderings. The different nuance is that "was born" has the emphasis on the new person, and "was fathered" puts the emphasis on the father. Subtle, but the difference is there.

Which rendering fits the context of the theology of John then?

 

[Van]

Which rendering fits the context of the theology of John then?

The context of "out of God" points in His direction.

 

[McCree79]

Which rendering fits the context of the theology of John then?

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

 

[McCree79]

The context of "out of God" points in His direction.

"Εκ" literally is "away from" God. It points away from Him

Just messin with ya there.

I know what you are trying to say there, but God the Father is not the subject. The noun of the γεννάω is the subject.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

"Εκ" literally is "away from" God. It points away from Him

Just messin with ya there.

I know what you are trying to say there, but God the Father is not the subject. The noun of the γεννάω is the subject.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

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.

 

[McCree79]

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.

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

 

[Van]

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

Why are you muddying the waters? The verb is passive, therefore someone or something acts upon the subject. Dr. Wallace of the NET Bible and the LEB translators disagree with your absurd assertions.

How can this site enlighten when the objective of some posts is to obfuscate?

 

[McCree79]

Why are you muddying the waters? The verb is passive, therefore someone or something acts upon the subject. Dr. Wallace of the NET Bible and the LEB translators disagree with your absurd assertions.

How can this site enlighten when the objective of some posts is to obfuscate?

I know it is passive. Who is the subject? What is a a grammatical subject and how does relate to the verb in translation?


"Why are you muddying the waters" and ignoring grammar?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Dr. Wallace of the NET Bible and the LEB translators disagree with your absurd assertions.

Show me where Wallace disputes the Subjects of the passage or says that passive verbs should be translated from the perspective that clouds what the subject is.





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

I know it is passive. Who is the subject? What is a a grammatical subject and how does relate to the verb in translation?

"Why are you muddying the waters" and ignoring grammar?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Asked and answered in this thread. More obfuscation

 

[Van]

Show me where Wallace disputes the Subjects of the passage or says that passive verbs should be translated from the perspective that clouds what the subject is.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Asked and answered in this thread. More obfuscation.

And there is no dispute as to the subjects of 1 John 5:1. Therefore your question is a deflection to change the subject. More obfuscation.