Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[Yeshua1]

Neither - monogenes means "one of a kind" or "unique."

"begotten" is a well known mistranslation
Jesus is not God's only son, because both Adam and every born anew believer is God's "son."

Jesus is begotten by the father in His essence, hence fully God, always been the Son, while we were all adopted in!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ever heard of polysemy?

Another Mormon splinter sect?

 

[Yeshua1]

TDNT goes with "only begotten" in John. That work has been accused of depending too much on etymology, but in this case I don't think it does. I agree with "only begotten" in John, and we used a Japanese equivalent for that in the Lifeline Japanese New Testament, 唯一生まれたご子息.

Back in the 1950's-1960's there was some controversy about the meaning of monogenes, and conservatives went with "only begotton" in those days. Maybe because of that, ever since I learned that some modern versions went with "unique," I've felt that was a weak word to use for Christ. We are all unique in some way or other. To simply say Christ was unique doesn't tell us how He was unique, but "only begotten of the Father" does specify His uniqueness.

begotten refers to Jesus being very God of very God, as he was and is the eternal God the Son, so those seeing it making him created as misguided on this!

 

[Van]

Ever heard of polysemy?

No, but I looked it up. My hermeneutic is the inspired intended message is singular. So while many possible understandings can be considered, only one was intended. OTOH, misunderstandings of a word or message could fill a mind with darkness.

 

[Van]

Jesus is begotten by the father in His essence, hence fully God, always been the Son, while we were all adopted in!

Not what John 3:16 says. And some of the above nonsense is unbiblical, like our adoption is not in the future.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not what John 3:16 says. And some of the above nonsense is unbiblical, like our adoption is not in the future.

We have been adopted by God the father now, but it does not yet been fulfilled, as that awaits our glorification event!
John wrote to us in His prologue that the Word was eternally begotten, was with the Father, and became the man Jesus....

 

[Van]

We have been adopted by God the father now, but it does not yet been fulfilled, as that awaits our glorification event!
John wrote to us in His prologue that the Word was eternally begotten, was with the Father, and became the man Jesus....

Utter nonsense, see Romans 8:23.

Calvinists redefine words to pour their false doctrine into scripture. Monegenes means unique not begotten. Adoption refers to the redemption of our bodies at Christ's second coming, not being born anew.

 

[Yeshua1]

Utter nonsense, see Romans 8:23.

Calvinists redefine words to pour their false doctrine into scripture. Monegenes means unique not begotten. Adoption refers to the redemption of our bodies at Christ's second coming, not being born anew.

We already have been adopted in the beloved right now, or else we would not have eternal life!

 

[Reynolds]

Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer:

"only begotten son"

OR

"one and only son"

Kjv

 

[Reynolds]

Makes Jesus sound like a created being. It also misses what is at the heart of mongenes

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

His flesh was created.

 

[McCree79]

His flesh was created.

Yes, but this verse isn't talking about his flesh. If it was Adam would qualify as well.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

No, but I looked it up. My hermeneutic is the inspired intended message is singular. So while many possible understandings can be considered, only one was intended. OTOH, misunderstandings of a word or message could fill a mind with darkness.

A Biblical message will usually only have one meaning (except for some prophetic passages). The term polysemy is not about messages but individual words, which very often have more than one meaning, and should be translated according to context, not usually by concordance.

 

[Yeshua1]

A Biblical message will usually only have one meaning (except for some prophetic passages). The term polysemy is not about messages but individual words, which very often have more than one meaning, and should be translated according to context, not usually by concordance.

only Begotten would indeed speak to His uniqueness, as He is eternally God!

 

[Van]

We already have been adopted in the beloved right now, or else we would not have eternal life!

Notice the same false claim, and no reference to scripture. Just read Romans 8:23 folks. Our adoption is future.

 

[Van]

A Biblical message will usually only have one meaning (except for some prophetic passages). The term polysemy is not about messages but individual words, which very often have more than one meaning, and should be translated according to context, not usually by concordance.

I am sure you think you are contributing, Sir, but since you have not said monegenes means unique or one of a kind, your contribution does not seem edifying. And I am surprised you think words should not be translated using concordant historical meanings based on context.

 

[John of Japan]

I am sure you think you are contributing, Sir, but since you have not said monegenes means unique or one of a kind, your contribution does not seem edifying.

The whole point of my mentioning polysemy is that yes, monogenes means all of those: unique, one of a kind, and only begotten. The meaning is determined by context. In John 3, the context is clearly about birth, so monogenes means "only begotten" there.

And I am surprised you think words should not be translated using concordant historical meanings based on context.

I'm surprised that you think I think that.

 

[McCree79]

The meaning is determined by context. In John 3, the context is clearly about birth,

One could say based on the more immediate context, verse 13...the uniqueness of Jesus is on display...how he is the only one to do something...and accordingly unique is better. Plus the context of the first 3 chapters is showing how Jesus is unique not only among man, but also unique among the God head(ch1). Chapter one is important for us to understand John's use of the word, since it is the only other place John uses μονογενής....and John is stressing the uniqueness of Jesus among every other being in existence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Notice the same false claim, and no reference to scripture. Just read Romans 8:23 folks. Our adoption is future.

Ephesians 1:5-7 past tense adoption!

 

[Yeshua1]

One could say based on the more immediate context, verse 13...the uniqueness of Jesus is on display...how he is the only one to do something...and accordingly unique is better. Plus the context of the first 3 chapters is showing how Jesus is unique not only among man, but also unique among the God head(ch1). Chapter one is important for us to understand John's use of the word, since it is the only other place John uses μονογενής....and John is stressing the uniqueness of Jesus among every other being in existence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

John also though was stressing that Jesus was unique due to being only begotten, so stressing his deity by that term!

 

[John of Japan]

One could say based on the more immediate context, verse 13...the uniqueness of Jesus is on display...how he is the only one to do something...and accordingly unique is better. Plus the context of the first 3 chapters is showing how Jesus is unique not only among man, but also unique among the God head(ch1). Chapter one is important for us to understand John's use of the word, since it is the only other place John uses μονογενής....and John is stressing the uniqueness of Jesus among every other being in existence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You can translate the word as "unique" in either place and not be wrong. The problem for the translator is that monogenes is ambiguous in these contexts. There is no one English word that covers both meanings. Therefore, the translator has to make an exegetical choice.

Again, my exegetical choice of "only begotten" in John 3 is based on the immediate context, which was about birth.