• 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
John of Japan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nicodemus thought it was about physical birth and was corrected. It is about salvation by God. A spiritual birth from above. Specifically executed by the unique one who has no one like Him...not even among the Godhead. Jesus' physical birth is not being stressed. His uniqueness as a whole is. I think the term "only begotten" leads the reader to focus on the physical nature too much. "Unique one" allows the reader to more freely consider the full being of Christ.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
Nicodemus thought it was about physical birth and was corrected. It is about salvation by God. A spiritual birth from above. Specifically executed by the unique one who has no one like Him...not even among the Godhead. Jesus' physical birth is not being stressed. His uniqueness as a whole is. I think the term "only begotten" leads the reader to focus on the physical nature too much. "Unique one" allows the reader to more freely consider the full being of Christ.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'll just say in answer that the metaphor comparing physical birth to spiritual birth is very obvious. To translate as "unique" ignores the metaphor.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
Nicodemus thought it was about physical birth and was corrected. It is about salvation by God. A spiritual birth from above. Specifically executed by the unique one who has no one like Him...not even among the Godhead. Jesus' physical birth is not being stressed. His uniqueness as a whole is. I think the term "only begotten" leads the reader to focus on the physical nature too much. "Unique one" allows the reader to more freely consider the full being of Christ.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Jesus could then be seen as being unique, but not Deity by someone!
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
eternally begotten, hence no time never was!
Click to expand...
You are heavily reading into the word. μονογενής never means "eternally begotten". You need the word αἰώνιος here and you do not have it. You only have "produced" or generated ".

If you want μονογενης to mean "eternally begotten" then Issac is going cause you some problems in Hebrews 11:17.

Even if you want to make it say "only begotten" you have a problem. [In Hebrews 11:17]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
You are heavily reading into the word. μονογενής never means "eternally begotten". You need the word αἰώνιος here and you do not have it. You only have "produced" or generated ".

If you want μονογενης to mean "eternally begotten" then Issac is going cause you some problems in Hebrews 11:17.

Even if you want to make it say "only begotten" you have a problem. [In Hebrews 11:17]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Micah 5:2 seems to support begotten though!
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
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.

I'm surprised that you think I think that.
Click to expand...

Surprised? You think monogenes means only begotten. That is surprising and utterly bogus.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
You must have ignored the one given to you from Ephesians!
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense. Folks, pay no attention to all these deflections calculated to derail discussion of the topic.
God gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Surprised? You think monogenes means only begotten. That is surprising and utterly bogus.
Click to expand...
I believe the authors of these lexicons have more knowledge on this than you do.

Thayer's lexicon: "used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)."
Friberg's Anlex; "(2) as a child born in a unique way; (a) used of God's Son Jesus only, only begotten;"
Liddell-Scott lexicon: "only-begotten"
BAGD lexicon: "only...of children"
Abbot-Smith lexicon: "only, only begotten"
TDNT: "'of sole descent,' i.e., without brothers or sisters."
 
Last edited:
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
I believe the authors of these lexicons have more knowledge on this than you do.

Thayer's lexicon: "used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)."
Friberg's Anlex; "(2) as a child born in a unique way; (a) used of God's Son Jesus only, only begotten;"
Liddell-Scott lexicon: "only-begotten"
BAGD lexicon: "only...of children"
Abbot-Smith lexicon: "only, only begotten"
TDNT: "'of sole descent,' i.e., without brothers or sisters."
Click to expand...
Sadly, referring to the use (misuse) of words as a source for historical meaning is ludicrous.

Obviously I believe Dr. Dan B. Wallace has the correct view, over and against the thoroughly discredited claims of the KJVO folks.

Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18) (NET footnote)
Click to expand...
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Sadly, referring to the use (misuse) of words as a source for historical meaning is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
This is quite obtuse. FYI, several of the lexicons mentioned are recent.
Obviously I believe Dr. Dan B. Wallace has the correct view, over and against the thoroughly discredited claims of the KJVO folks.
Click to expand...
Obviously, along with the lexicographers mentioned I disagree with Wallace, as I have the perfect right to do so. He's not infallible, having been completely wrong on a number of Greek issues, such as the nuance of skubalon.

P.S. This is not a KJVO issue. I am not KJVO and do not depend on the KJV for my view of monogenes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top