Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[Yeshua1]

It is amazing to me that several posters claim translating monogenes as only begotten is not a well known mistranslation. Those that like the NET or NIV, or CSB or LEB, or WEB or NLT, or ESV remain silent while this obviously false assertion is made over and over again. Amazing.


God gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life.

Only Begotten denotes equality and sameness as the Father, while your rendering could be supported by those like the JW!

 

[Yeshua1]

Correctamundo.

Would indeed be amazing to see Van on your translation team trying to render into English his own translation!

 

[John of Japan]

Would indeed be amazing to see Van on your translation team trying to render into English his own translation!

It would never work. He's not qualified in Japanese or Greek.

 

[Yeshua1]

It would never work. He's not qualified in Japanese or Greek.

he seems to post though as if he is qualified to render his judgments upon translations.

 

[McCree79]

Only Begotten denotes equality and sameness as the Father, while your rendering could be supported by those like the JW!

...but your rendering IS supported by the JW's to support Jesus being created.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

...but your rendering IS supported by the JW's to support Jesus being created.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

just shows that we need to go to the scriptures, as still see either term as suitable to use!

 

[Van]

We heard you the first time you posted this.

Yet another off topic post. Do you agree monegenes does not ever mean begotten?

 

[InTheLight]

Yet another off topic post. Do you agree monegenes does not ever mean begotten?

I don't know.

BTW, you are the one who is off topic.

The topic is John 3:16, which do you prefer--"one and only son" or "only begotten son"?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

I don't know.
BTW, you are the one who is off topic.
The topic is John 3:16, which do you prefer--"one and only son" or "only begotten son"?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

First addressing my behavior, rather than the topic is your bag.
Second, I said I prefer "one of a kind" or "unique."
Third, Do you agree monegenes does not ever mean begotten?

 

[Yeshua1]

First addressing my behavior, rather than the topic is your bag.
Second, I said I prefer "one of a kind" or "unique."
Third, Do you agree monegenes does not ever mean begotten?

Would you agree that many much more knowledgeable then you in Biblical Greek agrees with either term OK to use?

 

[Van]

Would you agree that many much more knowledgeable then you in Biblical Greek agrees with either term OK to use?

Everyone knows monogenes does not mean begotten, it is a well know mistranslation. Dr. Dan B. Wallace is as knowledgeable as can be on the subject.

All these posts are simply to perpetuate false beliefs. Did the NIV translators get it wrong. Did the CSB translators get it wrong. Did the ESV translators get it wrong. Did the WEB translators get it wrong. Did the NET translators get it wrong. Did the NLT translators get it wrong. Did the LEB translators get it wrong.

The KJV translators blundered hundreds of years ago, and it is time to face facts.

 

[John of Japan]

For the record, here is the verse in the Lifeline Japanese NT Cool):

なぜなら、ご自分の唯一お生みになった子を与えられたほどに、神はこうしてこの世を愛されました。それは、すべて子を信じる人が、滅びることなく永遠の命を持つためなのです。

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

For the record, here is the verse in the Lifeline Japanese NT Cool):

なぜなら、ご自分の唯一お生みになった子を与えられたほどに、神はこうしてこの世を愛されました。それは、すべて子を信じる人が、滅びることなく永遠の命を持つためなのです。

"For God has loved the world so much that he gave him his only born child. That is because all who believe in the child have eternal life without dying."

Did it come back correct?

 

[John of Japan]

"For God has loved the world so much that he gave him his only born child. That is because all who believe in the child have eternal life without dying."

Did it come back correct?

Not bad. Google translate? Some nuances are missing, in particular the honorifics that Japanese demands.

An interesting note here is that the Japanese word for "unique" (yuiitsu) also means "only." We used that word, so we covered all the bases between "unique" (which some have demanded here) and "only begotten."

 

[John of Japan]

Everyone knows monogenes does not mean begotten, it is a well know mistranslation. Dr. Dan B. Wallace is as knowledgeable as can be on the subject.

Please give us a link to where Dr. Wallace discusses this subject.

 

[Van]

Please give us a link to where Dr. Wallace discusses this subject.

I already did, see post # 59

Here is another blurb copied off the internet:

μονογενής (monogenés)

Monogenes is a word of the Greek New Testament that occurs 9 times, whose meaning is contentious because of the Arian vs Trinitarian controversy. The contention is best illustrated by its translation in the earliest version, Jerome’s Vulgate of 400 AD.

• 3 times it applies to a parent’s only child (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38) and is translated “unicus”, unique.
• once it is used to describe Isaac (Heb 11:17) and is translated “unigenitus”, only begotten.
• 5 times it is used to describe Jesus (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9) and is translated “unigenitus”, only begotten.

Thus, the Vulgate (both Jerome and Clementine texts) adopted an uneven practice when rendering monogenes which was followed by Tyndale, the KJV, NKJV and many more until the late 20th century. Many modern versions since the late 20th century including NIV, NRSV, ESV, etc, uniformly translate this word as “only”, “unique” or equivalent.

The point at issue here is the cognate root of the second part of the word – is it related to gennao (beget, bear), or to genos (class, kind)? Modern linguistic analysis is firmly of the view that the latter is correct. Indeed, if the New Testament writers had intended “only begotten” then they would have used the word, monogennetos; but they did not. This conclusion is further shown in other instances of monogenes in the LXX such as Ps 21:21 (LXX)/ 22:20 (NASB), Ps 24:16 (LXX)/ 25:16 (NASB) where the meaning (in those cases) cannot be “only begotten”. The correct meaning is thus, "only one of its kind within a kind or class or relationship" (BDAG).

 

[Yeshua1]

Please give us a link to where Dr. Wallace discusses this subject.

Does AT Robertson count as a Greek scholar, as he would seem to agree with us and not Van and Dr wallace here!
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-3-16.html

 

[John of Japan]

I already did, see post # 59

Here is another blurb copied off the internet:

Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

I already did, see post # 59

You did not give a link there, but only the NET footnote. But at least that tells me where to look. Thanks.

P. S. I don't think Wallace actually did all of the footnotes, so it may be that you were not quoting Wallace. The NET was crowd-sourced to a degree, with 25 scholars providing the actual translation. I can't find anywhere on their website informing us who did the footnotes, but there were 60,000, and Wallace clearly did not do them all. I would suggest he did the ones on textual criticism, one of his fortes.

 

[John of Japan]

Does AT Robertson count as a Greek scholar, as he would seem to agree with us and not Van and Dr wallace here!
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-3-16.html

He was only the greatest Greek scholar of the 20th century!