Born or Fathered?

[Greektim]

You have said repeatedly, my view is the product of my theology, rather an presenting the same idea as presented by Dr. Wallace (NET footnotes) and as subsequently supported by the TDNT to a limited degree.

The reason I am saying that is b/c the determining factor for you seems to be guided by your theology. I'm not saying your assertion of "fathered" is necessarily wrong, only that the conclusion is guided more by your views.

As I said, I think the point is moot b/c the idea is the same for God. There is not a mother in regeneration, so "fathered' implies all of that when referring to being born from above/again.

 

[Van]

Again, my assertion that "fathered" appears to better translate the idea of John in several verses, was not mine, but belonged to one or more of the translation team of the NET. In every example where I suggested a change from born to fathered, out of..a Person of the Godhead is found next to the form of gennaw in the text. Seems straightforward to me.
My view that Calvinism is mistaken doctrine is irrelevant to the observation.

I appreciate that you do not see any change in the message of 1 John with this correction to traditional translation, but others, perhaps many others will.

 

[Van]

We find "born anew (again) in four places in the NASB, John 3:3, 7, and 1 Peter 1:3, 23.

In John the word translated born is followed by "anothen" meaning either anew or from above. Because of the context, I believe "born anew" is John's message both in verse 3 and 7.

In 1 Peter, born anew seems less likely, and fathered from above more likely, especially at 1 Peter 1:23 which again mentions seed. Or reborn from above?

 

[Yeshua1]

We find "born anew (again) in four places in the NASB, John 3:3, 7, and 1 Peter 1:3, 23.

In John the word translated born is followed by "anothen" meaning either anew or from above. Because of the context, I believe "born anew" is John's message both in verse 3 and 7.

In 1 Peter, born anew seems less likely, and fathered from above more likely, especially at 1 Peter 1:23 which again mentions seed. Or reborn from above?

Reborn from above fits John 3:16!

Which makes sense, as he is the Apostle that shows us that we are now children of God, adopted and accepted in the beloved!

 

[Van]

Sorry Yeshua1, but the word translated "begotten" actually means one kind, i.e. one of a kind. See the NET footnote.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry Yeshua1, but the word translated "begotten" actually means one kind, i.e. one of a kind. See the NET footnote.

itidentifies its subject, jesus, as the Unique one, ONLY one in that class of being 'begotten!"

 

[Van]

Yeshua1, you can deny "one kind" means one of a kind. But Dr. Wallace and many other scholars agree with "one of a kind." Therefore John 3:16 does not contain the word "gennaw" which means born or fathered.

We find "born anew (again) in four places in the NASB, John 3:3, 7, and 1 Peter 1:3, 23. In John the word translated born is followed by "anothen" meaning either anew or from above. Because of the context, I believe "born anew" is John's message both in verse 3 and 7. In 1 Peter, born anew seems less likely, and fathered from above more likely, especially at 1 Peter 1:23 which again mentions seed. Or reborn from above?

 

[Van]

Turning a bit, to the meaning of being "fathered by God, lets consider the difficult verse, 1 John 5:18. Here we find a verse that is translated a slew of very different ways, making it possible to object to any version we think is probably best.

18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

1) Various translations have no one fathered (or born) of God sins, or Everyone fathered (or born) of God does not sin. But since either view says the same thing, this problem simply muddies the water.

2) Next, in the NASB, we get "He" who was born of God...." Here, if we look at the modern translations, we get three very different positions:

(1) He, or the One, or Jesus
(2) God
(3) the fallen human who has been born anew​

Apparently textual variants support (or can be claimed to support) each of this very different interpretations.

Our interest is in accepting that God (the Father or the Son) is doing the action, rather than claiming the born anew person keeps himself from the penalty of present and future sinful thoughts and deeds.

Thus, my understanding of 1 John 5:18 is "We know that no one fathered by God sins, but God keeps (protects) him, and evil does not touch (harm) him.

Bottom line, if we are fathered by God we have the Spirit of His Son sent into our hearts, and God protects us so that even if we think or do sinful things, it is just as if we had not sinned, for no one fathered by God "sins." Hence, when we are "fathered" we are "justified."

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1, you can deny "one kind" means one of a kind. But Dr. Wallace and many other scholars agree with "one of a kind." Therefore John 3:16 does not contain the word "gennaw" which means born or fathered.

We find "born anew (again) in four places in the NASB, John 3:3, 7, and 1 Peter 1:3, 23. In John the word translated born is followed by "anothen" meaning either anew or from above. Because of the context, I believe "born anew" is John's message both in verse 3 and 7. In 1 Peter, born anew seems less likely, and fathered from above more likely, especially at 1 Peter 1:23 which again mentions seed. Or reborn from above?

Jesus is Unique Son of God, as he is always been such by eternally begotten by/of/from the Father, while ALL others have been adopted of God, but Jesus unique and sole Son of God due to Him being of same essense as God Himself!

 

[Van]

When someone is born into a family, they never are also adopted. They are heirs at birth.

"One of a kind" equals "unique."

"Eternally begotten" refers to the fact God the Father and God the Son are eternal persons of the Trinity. Jesus did not become God the Son when born of a women, He is God the Son now, and was God the Son before anything was created. Therefore "eternally begotten" actually refers to God the Son as "eternally existing" rather than the relationship having a beginning.

The KJV and others mistranslate monogenes (which means one of a kind) as only begotten. But that is the subject of another thread.

Mistaken and vague translations father mistaken and corrupt doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

When someone is born into a family, they never are also adopted. They are heirs at birth.

"One of a kind" equals "unique."

"Eternally begotten" refers to the fact God the Father and God the Son are eternal persons of the Trinity. Jesus did not become God the Son when born of a women, He is God the Son now, and was God the Son before anything was created. Therefore "eternally begotten" actually refers to God the Son as "eternally existing" rather than the relationship having a beginning.

The KJV and others mistranslate monogenes (which means one of a kind) as only begotten. But that is the subject of another thread.

Mistaken and vague translations father mistaken and corrupt doctrine.

And once again, what are your creditials to say all of these translators have been either mistaken or trying to corrupt the bible?

And you MUST be adopted into a family if not natural born, as it happened that way in Rome, today, and in God's Family!

Our rebirth spiritual allows God to now adopt us in as NOW the sons and daughters of His!

 

[Van]

Yeshua1, I do not have any man-made credentials, but as a member of God's never adopted family, I am a member of the priesthood of believers.

If you really want credentials, and you don't, See Dr. Wallace.

If you deny you have been born into God's family, fine. But that view is unorthodox.

Again, God is all powerful and nothing could disallow God from causing us to be spiritually reborn from above, certainly not the will of Calvinist men.

Answer this question, what was God's message in Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5?