Does One Size Fit All?

[DrJamesAch]

No,you are quite wrong. Do you believe that man has added anything to God's Holy Word?



That's silly. John 3:16 doesn't have any textual variants like the ending of Mark,for instance. But people do wrongly intertpret John 3:16;that's for sure.

If there were no textual variants for John 3:16, then there should have never been a problem with the interpretation of 'begotten', yet the NIV changed it to "one and only Son" which obscures the meaning of monogenes.

Even though the NIV followed the Majority text (with the exception of begotten) for verse 16, the text used for John 3 was the Siniaticus, Vaticanus, and the Egyptian Papyri P66 and P75 (the only ones that contain the NIV rendition of John 3:13 that removes "who is in heaven") Since P66 and P75 do not agree with each other, those are variant texts that were used in by the NIV translating committee on John chapter 3.

John 3:16 does not leave room for compare and contrast arguments such as Calvinists attempt to do with Romans 5. There is only one subject in John 3:16 that is the recipient of eternal life and it's whosoever believes.

 

[Deacon]

If there were no textual variants for John 3:16, then there should have never been a problem with the interpretation of 'begotten', yet the NIV changed it to "one and only Son" which obscures the meaning of monogenes.

[SNIP]

John 3:16 does not leave room for compare and contrast arguments such as Calvinists attempt to do with Romans 5. There is only one subject in John 3:16 that is the recipient of eternal life and it's whosoever believes.

Well there are variants in John 3:16 but it is not a variant that causes the problem, rather a translational difficulty.

The translation "only begotten" presents problems for many readers.
It suggests that there was a time earlier when God the Son was not begotten

The confusion extends from a misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years, μονογενής (monogenēs) was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, μόνος (monos, “only”) and γεννάω (gennaō, “to beget, bear”). Scholars of Greek eventually discovered, though, that the second part of the word μονογενής (monogenēs) does not come from the Greek verb γεννάω (gennaō), but rather the noun γένος (genos, “class, kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” with no connotation to time, origin or solitary existence. The validity of this understanding is shown by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s μονογενής (monogenēs)—but Isaac was not the only son Abraham fathered, since he fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son—the son of the covenant promises and the line through which the messiah would come. Just as Yahweh is an elohim, and no other elohim are Yahweh, so Jesus is the unique son, and no other sons of God are like Him.
Heiser, M. S. (2012). Divine Council. In J. D. Barry & L. Wentz (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Rob

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

No Problem Here...

Well there are variants in John 3:16 but it is not a variant that causes the problem, rather a translational difficulty.

The translation "only begotten" presents problems for many readers.
It suggests that there was a time earlier when God the Son was not begotten



Rob

Rob....you really have to stretch and strain to find a problem with the rendering of John 3:16 in the AV. I see absolutely no problem with the use of the words "only begotten" there and agree with Doc James that the MV's make the meaning MORE obscure with the variations of wording that they employ. The explanation you quoted of the Greek and Hebrew words that underlie it was interesting but did nothing to dim or change (or desire to change) my KJV. Away I go as merrily as before.....!:smilewinkgrin: It is hard to improve on perfect...even though I know that is NOT a popular opinion in here.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Well there are variants in John 3:16 but it is not a variant that causes the problem, rather a translational difficulty.

The translation "only begotten" presents problems for many readers.
It suggests that there was a time earlier when God the Son was not begotten



Rob

That was exactly what I meant by it obscures the meaning of monogenes. Regardless of where the ROOT came from the WORD in the texts (whether TR or A and B, or the Egyptian Papyri) was still monogenes. And "only begotten" emphasizes that there is no other kind like Christ because He is God. The KJV translators got it right.

Nevertheless, I was responding to Rippon's contention that there were no variant readings of John 3 which he used as an argument that Mark 16 could not be compared to the John 3 issue because Mark 16 had variant readings. I was showing that that was not true.

 

[Deacon]

Perhaps this would be better to deal with this in another thread but here we are… I’ll not start another.
On a personal note, in years past I memorized John 3:16 using the phrase “only begotten” and it comes quite naturally to my tongue.

Let me try and communicate your position and let me know if I’ve misrepresented you.

You are most comfortable using an older, traditional translation that uses the phrase “only begotten” to translate the Greek word, μονογενής [monogenēs].

You believe that the possible confusion that results with God the Son being understood as a created being, (someone that was begotten by the Father), isn’t really so important and it doesn’t bother you in the least.

WHERE DO I STAND - I believe that God’s words don’t need correcting, after all they are divinely inspired.
The problem here however lies not with the original words but with the words the translators of older versions chose to represent the Greek Scriptures they were translating.

I’ve had a few problems over the years the way this verse is translated in some versions, particularly in the way it interplays with Colossians 1:15 (“firstborn”).

I find it extremely difficult to communicate the proper meaning of “begotten” to innocents and new believers.

Older commentators believe as we do. The gist of the older commentators is that monogenēs (which they translated as “only begotten”) means “unique”, preeminent, “only one”
Why not translate it that way and avoid the confusion.

So to answer the original question, "Does one version fit all?"
I FEEL that comparing many translations provides a person with a better understanding of the complexities of translation and helps a person to know the meaning of Scripture better.

Rob

 

[Rippon]

A Literal Translation of John 3:16

Thusly for loved the God the world so that the son only one he gave so that every one the believing into him no perish but have life eternal.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Thusly for loved the God the world so that the son only one he gave so that every one the believing into him no perish but have life eternal.

A literal translation from which text...I know, do you! Since it's a literal translation of the NIV, shouldn't be too hard to figure out

This is what the text actually says:

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

(the bold print would be the 'monogenes' for those who can't read Greek)

 

[DrJamesAch]

Perhaps this would be better to deal with this in another thread but here we are… I’ll not start another.
On a personal note, in years past I memorized John 3:16 using the phrase “only begotten” and it comes quite naturally to my tongue.

Let me try and communicate your position and let me know if I’ve misrepresented you.

You are most comfortable using an older, traditional translation that uses the phrase “only begotten” to translate the Greek word, μονογενής [monogenēs].

You believe that the possible confusion that results with God the Son being understood as a created being, (someone that was begotten by the Father), isn’t really so important and it doesn’t bother you in the least.

WHERE DO I STAND - I believe that God’s words don’t need correcting, after all they are divinely inspired.
The problem here however lies not with the original words but with the words the translators of older versions chose to represent the Greek Scriptures they were translating.

I’ve had a few problems over the years the way this verse is translated in some versions, particularly in the way it interplays with Colossians 1:15 (“firstborn”).

I find it extremely difficult to communicate the proper meaning of “begotten” to innocents and new believers.

Older commentators believe as we do. The gist of the older commentators is that monogenēs (which they translated as “only begotten”) means “unique”, preeminent, “only one”
Why not translate it that way and avoid the confusion.

So to answer the original question, "Does one version fit all?"
I FEEL that comparing many translations provides a person with a better understanding of the complexities of translation and helps a person to know the meaning of Scripture better.

Rob

What would be more confusing to a potential convert? Explaining the meaning of begotten if you have to (assuming you use John 3:16 instead of the "Romans Road" which is fine), or explaining the verse from several different bible versions? I think the latter would be much more confusing. Even the atheist societies recognize the problem with so many translations. When Mitt Romney was running for president, the American Atheist Society bought a billboard sign that read in part "Christianity: 30,000 versions of truth"

 

[Rippon]

What would be more confusing to a potential convert?

Because it presents a barrier. If you are dealing with a potential convert with little,to no church background using the word "begotten" would be an obstacle for them (as it is for many KJV readers too).

Explaining the meaning of begotten if you have to,

Of course one would "have to". Why create extra hoops for them to jump through? Cut to the chase.

or explaining the verse from several different bible versions?

An excellent idea;one which I have advocated for a long time. Use the NET,GW,NJB etc.

Simply holding to a tradition of using the oblique word begotten is not the way to go.

I think the latter would be much more confusing. Even the atheist societies recognize the problem with so many translations. When Mitt Romney was running for president, the American Atheist Society bought a billboard sign that read in part "Christianity: 30,000 versions of truth"

And are you in agreement with this view of the AAS?!

 

[DrJamesAch]

Because it presents a barrier. If you are dealing with a potential convert with little,to no church background using the word "begotten" would be an obstacle for them (as it is for many KJV readers too).



Of course one would "have to". Why create extra hoops for them to jump through? Cut to the chase.



An excellent idea;one which I have advocated for a long time. Use the NET,GW,NJB etc.

Simply holding to a tradition of using the oblique word begotten is not the way to go.



And are you in agreement with this view of the AAS?!

Explanation of the doctrine of justification and sanctification would be a stumbling block as well. So you know what I do when I am talking to a potential convert? I don't explain the doctrine of justification to them just yet. If one believes that using "begotten" would present a problem then the solution is simple: don't use it. Baptists have been using Romans: 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, and 10:9-10 for years. I personally don't use the "Romans Road", I use what fits the situation after spending some time talking with them because I'm not looking for a quick prayer.

But even if one feels the need to explain begotten, if that hangs you up more than explaining the death, burial and resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the deity of Christ in verses that are obvious on the subject (I have never used John 3:16 with a Jehovah's Witness), then there may be a need to step back and examine your presentation. I have lead several thousand people to Christ, and I have never been stuck on 'begotten'. A ten second explanation isn't going to ruin or confuse the presentation. There's an easy way to avoid creating hoops: don't.

And if I was unsaved, and you pulled out all 4 of those versions on me, I would be calling 911 or possibly shoot you because you look like you're getting ready to sell me something. Since Peter said to always be ready, I carry a pocket NT with me everywhere I go and sometimes a pocket edition of the whole Bible (when talking to my fellow Jewish friends). I have never used anything other than one KJV and it has worked just fine!

And on the AAS, they label ALL of Christianity into the same lump (such as blaming the entire church for the atrocities committed by Rome during the Dark Ages-Oh, and John Calvin, just had to throw that in there ) But they at least do have a valid point that thousands of different Bibles do create confusion. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Matthew 23:3).

 

[Bluefalcon]

Explanation of the doctrine of justification and sanctification would be a stumbling block as well. So you know what I do when I am talking to a potential convert? I don't explain the doctrine of justification to them just yet. If one believes that using "begotten" would present a problem then the solution is simple: don't use it. Baptists have been using Romans: 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, and 10:9-10 for years. I personally don't use the "Romans Road", I use what fits the situation after spending some time talking with them because I'm not looking for a quick prayer.

But even if one feels the need to explain begotten, if that hangs you up more than explaining the death, burial and resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the deity of Christ in verses that are obvious on the subject (I have never used John 3:16 with a Jehovah's Witness), then there may be a need to step back and examine your presentation. I have lead several thousand people to Christ, and I have never been stuck on 'begotten'. A ten second explanation isn't going to ruin or confuse the presentation. There's an easy way to avoid creating hoops: don't.

And if I was unsaved, and you pulled out all 4 of those versions on me, I would be calling 911 or possibly shoot you because you look like you're getting ready to sell me something. Since Peter said to always be ready, I carry a pocket NT with me everywhere I go and sometimes a pocket edition of the whole Bible (when talking to my fellow Jewish friends). I have never used anything other than one KJV and it has worked just fine!

And on the AAS, they label ALL of Christianity into the same lump (such as blaming the entire church for the atrocities committed by Rome during the Dark Ages-Oh, and John Calvin, just had to throw that in there ) But they at least do have a valid point that thousands of different Bibles do create confusion. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Matthew 23:3).

Welcome to the Baptistboard, James!

 

[Yeshua1]

What would be more confusing to a potential convert? Explaining the meaning of begotten if you have to (assuming you use John 3:16 instead of the "Romans Road" which is fine), or explaining the verse from several different bible versions? I think the latter would be much more confusing. Even the atheist societies recognize the problem with so many translations. When Mitt Romney was running for president, the American Atheist Society bought a billboard sign that read in part "Christianity: 30,000 versions of truth"

Are you saying that there is ONLY one version that the church should all agree to be using?

 

[Yeshua1]

What would be more confusing to a potential convert? Explaining the meaning of begotten if you have to (assuming you use John 3:16 instead of the "Romans Road" which is fine), or explaining the verse from several different bible versions? I think the latter would be much more confusing. Even the atheist societies recognize the problem with so many translations. When Mitt Romney was running for president, the American Atheist Society bought a billboard sign that read in part "Christianity: 30,000 versions of truth"

Isn't it the work of the Holy Spirit though in the process of 'expalining' to others what the Bible actual means and says?

That he can do quite well with Kjv/Nasb/Niv, as all would be the word of God to us in english?

 

[Rippon]

Regarding John 3:16

I appreciate James White's book :The Potter's Freedom. In it he quotes from John Owen's work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ page 214)

"If this word whosoever be distributive,then it is restrictive of the love of God to some,and not to others,--to one part of the distribution,and not to the other. And if it do not restrain the love of God,intending the salvation of some,then it is not distributive of the forementioned object of it;and if it do restrain it,then all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his Son. Secondly,I deny that the word here is distributive of the object of God's love,but only declarative of his end and aim in giving Christ in the pursuit of that love,-- to wit,that all believers might be saved. So that the sense is,'God so loved his elect throughout the world,that he gave his Son with this intention,that by him believers might be saved.' And this is all that is by any (besides a few worthless cavils)objected from this place to disprove our interpretation..."

 

[Rippon]

In James White's book :The Potter's Freedom,he takes on Norman Giesler's book called :Chosen But Free.

"John 3:16 is cited by CBF over and over again as indication that there is no particularity to God's work of salvation. The idea that the term 'world' could possibly mean anything other than every single individual (despite the fact that all serious exegetes recognize a wide variety of uses of this term in the New Testament and especially in John's writings ,for example,John 17:9 and 1 John 2:15) is simply dismissed by CBF on numerous occasions. Furthermore,the common misconception that John 3:16 uses an indefinite phrase,'whosoever,' is presented as evidence against the particularity of God's work of redemption. However,anyone familiar with the text as it was written knows that the literal rendering of the passage is 'in order that every one believing in him should not perish but have eternal life.' The verse teaches that the giving of the Son guarantees the salvation of all the believing ones."