Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[Yeshua1]

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

You mean that you know more of biblcal Greek then AT did? He wrote a massive standard Greek textbook, have you?

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Not just my view, but many other Greek scholars on various translation teams!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

he seems to be claiming to be superior to Dr Robertson as a Greek Scholar!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

No, we also have Greek scholars, such as those on translation teams that still go for begotten!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Interesting that the recognized greek lexicon itself disagrees with van here!

 

[John of Japan]

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

Wallace is answering the excellent essay by Irons, so he hedges his bets here. Wallace says; "The BDAG lexicon allows for the meaning ‘only begotten’ for μονογενής but seems to view this meaning as secondary. In addition, they note that in the Johannine literature 'The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.'"

Now, I gave BAGD (the 2nd ed.; BDAG is the 3rd) saying this, and Van basically ignored it. BDAG also says in this quote that only and unique "may be quite adequate." In other words, other renderings are possible if not adequate. Wallace quotes BDAG as authoritative, meaning that he disagrees with Van that "unique" is the only possible rendering. I also said on this thread at one point that (due to the word's polysemy) translating "unique" in John is not mistaken, but Van has ignored that in his absolute insistence that anything other than "unique" is mistaken.

So, Van has again proven nothing by quoting from his hero, Daniel Wallace (an admittedly top Greek scholar, whose textbook I taught from one year).

 

[John of Japan]

he seems to be claiming to be superior to Dr Robertson as a Greek Scholar!

I prefer to say that he simply does not have the skills to digest Robertson.

 

[John of Japan]

I proved Dr Wallace disagrees with you.

Nope. You didn't. The essay by Wallace you linked to quoted BDAG which allows for "only begotton."

 

[Rippon2]

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!

As I and many others have long told you -- your exclamation marks are stupid and meaningless.

I had said absolutely nothing about Dr. Robertson. Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

I was addressing your absurd remark that though Dr. Wallace is a New Testament textual critic, he doesn't know Greek that well.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wallace is answering the excellent essay by Irons, so he hedges his bets here. Wallace says; "The BDAG lexicon allows for the meaning ‘only begotten’ for μονογενής but seems to view this meaning as secondary. In addition, they note that in the Johannine literature 'The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.'"

Now, I gave BAGD (the 2nd ed.; BDAG is the 3rd) saying this, and Van basically ignored it. BDAG also says in this quote that only and unique "may be quite adequate." In other words, other renderings are possible if not adequate. Wallace quotes BDAG as authoritative, meaning that he disagrees with Van that "unique" is the only possible rendering. I also said on this thread at one point that (due to the word's polysemy) translating "unique" in John is not mistaken, but Van has ignored that in his absolute insistence that anything other than "unique" is mistaken.

So, Van has again proven nothing by quoting from his hero, Daniel Wallace (an admittedly top Greek scholar, whose textbook I taught from one year).

My main contention on this issue would be, thinking that you are saying same thing, that we can use either words Only Begotten or one and only, as both would be acceptable.
saying that, still think context best favors only begotten of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

I prefer to say that he simply does not have the skills to digest Robertson.

There would not be that many here who could do that, I would wager!

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope. You didn't. The essay by Wallace you linked to quoted BDAG which allows for "only begotton."

Do you prefer and still use the second edition BAGD, as have read that some think the newest one got a little too much 'PC?"

 

[Yeshua1]

As I and many others have long told you -- your exclamation marks are stupid and meaningless.

I had said absolutely nothing about Dr. Robertson. Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

I was addressing your absurd remark that though Dr. Wallace is a New Testament textual critic, he doesn't know Greek that well.

he knows biblical greek far better then nearly any one here on this Forum, but still think AT was superior to even him!

 

[John of Japan]

Do you prefer and still use the second edition BAGD, as have read that some think the newest one got a little too much 'PC?"

Yep, and because BDAG costs so much! As a poor Greek prof paying large hospital bills, can't afford it!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yep, and because BDAG costs so much! As a poor Greek prof paying large hospital bills, can't afford it!

I wished had picked up years ago that Zondervan condenses Lexicon of their 5 vol Dictionary of Greek edited by Colin brown, think was 40 dollars!

 

[Van]

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.

But the point is monogenes as used in scripture means unique or one of a kind. The mistranslation is well known.

 

[Van]

You mean that you know more of biblcal Greek then AT did? He wrote a massive standard Greek textbook, have you?

How can you claim all the NIV translators got it wrong, all the ESV translators got it wrong, all the CSB translators got it wrong, all the WEB translators got it wrong, all the LEB translators got it wrong, and all the NET translators got it wrong, by attacking my view? Twaddle

 

[Van]

No, we also have Greek scholars, such as those on translation teams that still go for begotten!

What a waste, what incessant twaddle. NIV? ESV? NET?
CSB? WEB? LEB? NLT? What you have are warmed over KJVO absurdities.

 

[Van]

Wallace is answering the excellent essay by Irons, so he hedges his bets here. Wallace says; "The BDAG lexicon allows for the meaning ‘only begotten’ for μονογενής but seems to view this meaning as secondary. In addition, they note that in the Johannine literature 'The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.'"

Now, I gave BAGD (the 2nd ed.; BDAG is the 3rd) saying this, and Van basically ignored it. BDAG also says in this quote that only and unique "may be quite adequate." In other words, other renderings are possible if not adequate. Wallace quotes BDAG as authoritative, meaning that he disagrees with Van that "unique" is the only possible rendering. I also said on this thread at one point that (due to the word's polysemy) translating "unique" in John is not mistaken, but Van has ignored that in his absolute insistence that anything other than "unique" is mistaken.

So, Van has again proven nothing by quoting from his hero, Daniel Wallace (an admittedly top Greek scholar, whose textbook I taught from one year).

Here is my post #19
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."

I was presenting the mainstream view of modern scholarship and was spot on. All these "disagrees with Van that "Unique" is the only possible rendering" are simply manufactured claims to avoid saying "oops."

 

[Van]

Nope. You didn't. The essay by Wallace you linked to quoted BDAG which allows for "only begotton."

Yet another deflection. You claimed it was only my presupposition that Dr. Wallace supported the footnoted view. But I linked to an article that proved Dr. Wallace supported the footnoted view.
Rather than manufacturing false assertions about others, why not admit my post # 19 was spot on.