Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[Yeshua1]

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

Wonder how van views his view here then?

 

[Van]

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.

Since he edited the NT, I expect he approved all of them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Since he edited the NT, I expect he approved all of them.

You would be presuming quite a bit there! At Robertson, Greek scholar greater then even Dr wallace agrees with me on this issue, what about that?

 

[John of Japan]

Since he edited the NT, I expect he approved all of them.

Where is your source for saying this? I read that there were 25 on the committee, and the chairman was not Dr. Wallace. He is a great scholar, but not omnipresent.

 

[Van]

You would be presuming quite a bit there! At Robertson, Greek scholar greater then even Dr wallace agrees with me on this issue, what about that?

Please address the facts as presented. First you question my qualification, then Dr. Wallace, then the NIV team, the ESV team, the CSB team, the NET team, the WEB team and on and on.

Monogenes never means begotten, never ever at any time. Full Stop

 

[Van]

Where is your source for saying this? I read that there were 25 on the committee, and the chairman was not Dr. Wallace. He is a great scholar, but not omnipresent.

I once ran a instruction shop. I had about a dozen writers who prepared the drafts. I marked them up, and they fixed them. Only after I approved the finished product, and signed my name, did the instructions get promulgated. Anything as controversial as "only begotten" would be brought to his attention as Senior NT Editor.

 

[Van]

Yet another blurb from Dr. Wallace:
Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’?

 

[McCree79]

You would be presuming quite a bit there! At Robertson, Greek scholar greater then even Dr wallace agrees with me on this issue, what about that?

To quote you...."You would be presuming quite a bit there!"

To assume Robertson is more knowledgeable than Wallace is a big jump.

No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to prove that. Especially in the light of the fact that Wallace has the advantage of reading Robertson and others and building upon them.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

To quote you...."You would be presuming quite a bit there!"

To assume Robertson is more knowledgeable than Wallace is a big jump.

No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to prove that. Especially in the light of the fact that Wallace has the advantage of reading Robertson and others and building upon them.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I would say that d rwallace might be superior in textual criticism, but not in the outright knowing of the biblical greek itself!

 

[Yeshua1]

Please address the facts as presented. First you question my qualification, then Dr. Wallace, then the NIV team, the ESV team, the CSB team, the NET team, the WEB team and on and on.

Monogenes never means begotten, never ever at any time. Full Stop

Just saying that one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Biblical Greek scholars in history disagrees with you!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another blurb from Dr. Wallace:
Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’?

At BEST, one can argue that it would best be translated Unique, one and only, but not that begotten is not also a viable way to render it!

 

[Yeshua1]

To quote you...."You would be presuming quite a bit there!"

To assume Robertson is more knowledgeable than Wallace is a big jump.

No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to prove that. Especially in the light of the fact that Wallace has the advantage of reading Robertson and others and building upon them.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

still do not see where one can say that its the only way to translate this, as one and only!

 

[Rippon2]

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

Y-1 isn't qualified in English.

 

[Rippon2]

I would say that d rwallace might be superior in textual criticism, but not in the outright knowing of the biblical greek itself!

Are you daft? Since Dr. Wallace is a recognized New Testament Greek scholar of course he knows the Greek quite well. He can't very well be an accomplished New Testament textual critic without knowing Greek.

Your ill-logic is akin to saying : "He may be a master mechanic, but he doesn't use tools that well."

 

[Van]

Just saying that one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Biblical Greek scholars in history disagrees with you!

Not with me you deflector, with modern scholarship. How anyone could support absurdity after absurdity is beyond me.

 

[Van]

At BEST, one can argue that it would best be translated Unique, one and only, but not that begotten is not also a viable way to render it!

Utter nonsense, have you even understood why your view is untenable?

 

[John of Japan]

I once ran a instruction shop. I had about a dozen writers who prepared the drafts. I marked them up, and they fixed them. Only after I approved the finished product, and signed my name, did the instructions get promulgated. Anything as controversial as "only begotten" would be brought to his attention as Senior NT Editor.

So you have no proof, only presumption. Got it.

 

[Van]

So you have no proof, only presumption. Got it.

I proved Dr Wallace disagrees with you. I proved Dr. Wallace holds the view expressed in the footnote. I proved your claim that monogenes can be understood as only begotten has been rejected by modern scholarship.

All you offer is denial and deflection.

 

[rlvaughn]

Yet another blurb from Dr. Wallace:
Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’?

Interesting.

A few thoughts.
Modern scholars are not the only scholars.
In the linked piece Wallace interacts with another modern scholar.
Wallace acknowledges re the TLG that Irons may have a point.
Wallace notes the BDAG allows for only begotten though he thinks this seems to be secondary.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you daft? Since Dr. Wallace is a recognized New Testament Greek scholar of course he knows the Greek quite well. He can't very well be an accomplished New Testament textual critic without knowing Greek.

Your ill-logic is akin to saying : "He may be a master mechanic, but he doesn't use tools that well."

I would still suspect that Dr Robertson would be seen as being his superior in regards to being the premier Greek scholar still by many!