Featured John 3:16 Which do you prefer?

Yes, even though God loved the word...

On a more serious note, why would you so rearrange the wording?

BTW, I do not object to the rendering "in this way" as incorrect. However, I prefer not to change what is there.

I have not accepted your assessment that this is going with an ambiguous reading.

Ultimately, in rewriting what is likely the most well known (at least one of the most well-known) verse(s) in the Bible, I believe we lose more than we gain.

 

The majority of people I have interacted with read it as "so much."

Preachers will paraphrase it as "so much". The Good News Bible reads, "so much". If it is not ambiguous, why do most people come away with different interpretation than we do?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I'm puzzled by this fretting over "so", given the rest of the verse!

If giving one's only begotten son isn't "much", I don't know what is!

 

There are at least twelve Bibles at Bible Gateway that give the "much" connotation. (The main thing they seem to have in common is the attempt to be modern and easy to read.)

Contemporary English Version
Easy-to-Read Version
Expanded Bible
Good News Translation
International Children’s Bible
J. B. Phillips New Testament
Living Bible
The Message
New Century Version
New Testament for Everyone
The Passion Translation
Worldwide English New Testament

A good portion of these are supposed to be translations (while doubtless some are interpretations) by people who would purport to have more knowledge of the Greek language than I.

Well, even the use of ambiguous is open to interpretation. Do you mean it is open to several possible meanings, or that it is doubtful and difficult to comprehend? If open to different possible meanings, I think that describes almost everything in language. Most words have a semantic ranged. Some people (see above) even thought the Greek was open to a possible meaning which you and I do not.

 

, Got me.

 

"for God loved the world in this way"

 

When we accept something as true, then whatever comes later has a problem if it does not mesh with our prior beliefs. If you grew up reading the KJV, then a different rendering seems less than the best. What we "like" is very different from what is true.

John 3:16 can be worked over such that it does not resemble the KJV. We can drop the conjunction "for." We can clarify "loved." Agape refers more to a sacrificial action to help someone, thus "unconditionally loved" or "sacrificially loved". We can render "world" as "mankind." Thus God sacrificially loved mankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish, but have eternal life.

Ditto for Jesus's name, would we accept a version rendering it Yeshua? The hard and counter intutitive reality is that we must recognize some of what we accepted in the past may be invalid.

 

i shall forever know HIM as JESUS.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus; there's just something about that name.
Master, Savior, Jesus, like the fragrance after the rain;
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, let all Heaven and earth proclaim
Kings and kingdoms will all pass away,
But there's something about that name.
Kings and kingdoms will all pass away,
But there's something about that name.

how often i have walked with HIM and wandered off...
yet HE has NEVER left me.