• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Did I rely on one scholar (Wallace) or the majority of scholars? Roberston was wrong, Here is some of a prior post:
BDAG
1...to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only
2...to being the only one of its kind or class, unique

TDNT
More generally it means 'unique' or 'incomparable.'

I don't have my Frieberg Anlex with me...so I can't check it. But the fact that the number "2" is used in your definition, there is others.

Lowd Nida
pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - unique, only.

EDNT
only (one of its kind), unique*

Barclay Newman
only, unique
Click to expand...
Did you just cut and paste my post and make it look like yours? :)

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
That is from the third edition of BAGD, is that not the latest one? has it supports only begotten to be used there!
Click to expand...
The BDAG is the 3rd edition and it prefers ...."μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here"

It notes others prefer "only begotten", but then adds, "in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.)"

πρωτότοκος = "to having special status associated with a firstborn, firstborn" BDAG (Rom 8:29)

So what word proper emphasizes the special status better? "Only begotten" or "unique" /"only of His kind".

I will go with unique.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[/b][/B]
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
The BDAG is the 3rd edition and it prefers ...."μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here"

It notes others prefer "only begotten", but then adds, "in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.)"

πρωτότοκος = "to having special status associated with a firstborn, firstborn" BDAG (Rom 8:29)

So what word proper emphasizes the special status better? "Only begotten" or "unique" /"only of His kind".

I will go with unique.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[/b][/B]
Click to expand...
they would seem to be allowing for both!
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
they would seem to be allowing for both!
Click to expand...
I am "only of kind" or "unique" preferred....not onlyism. Hahaha

However I do think the μονογενες is much better served with a rendering of "unique one". I have not ran across one example of Greek were "only begotten" is merited. I do not accept the Latin as an argument or conjecture from early church fathers. Describing Christ as "eternally begotten" lacks support from scripture.

The BDAG acknowledges the "only begotten" position but doesn't seem to endorse it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
I am "only of kind" or "unique" preferred....not onlyism. Hahaha

However I do think the μονογενες is much better served with a rendering of "unique one". I have not ran across one example of Greek were "only begotten" is merited. I do not accept the Latin as an argument or conjecture from early church fathers. Describing Christ as "eternally begotten" lacks support from scripture.

The BDAG acknowledges the "only begotten" position but doesn't seem to endorse it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Most who do not like using only begotten seems to be seeing it denoting that Jesus was created, had a beginning, even though does not mean that!
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
Most who do not like using only begotten seems to be seeing it denoting that Jesus was created, had a beginning, even though does not mean that!
Click to expand...
Are you speaking of the approximately dozen prominent English Bible translation teams who don't use that term? They are New Testament and Old Testament scholars who are well respected and may know a thing or two more than you on this subject.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
Are you speaking of the approximately dozen prominent English Bible translation teams who don't use that term? They are New Testament and Old Testament scholars who are well respected and may know a thing or two more than you on this subject.
Click to expand...
I never said that was not a viable way to translate it, just not the only way that we can!
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
Most who do not like using only begotten seems to be seeing it denoting that Jesus was created, had a beginning, even though does not mean that!
Click to expand...
The above is total bunk and an evil accusation. It's entirely unfounded. I had said that Old and New Testament scholars of a dozen or more versions certainly don't believe the rot of your assertion above. You have some colossal nerve to make such a wicked claim. I daresay you would be put in your place but quick to say the same thing to their faces.


Then, in post 210 of yours you tried to backtrack unsuccessfully :"I never said that was not a viable way to translate it, just not the only way we can." Pathetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top