Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[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!

Again, why do you quote an entire post of mine, and yet say something completely irrelevant? I was saying that your inane remark about Dr. Wallace being a good textual critic but not so good in Greek is nonsensical.

 

[Rippon2]

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

How often did translation teams use the word begotten in the text of the Bible?

CSB : 0
CEB : 0
NLT : 0
NET : 0
WEB : 0
NIV : 1
LEB : 3
ESV : 5
NRSV : 8
NASB : 13
________________________________________________________________________________________
Five well-known translations didn't use it at all, including the very conservative WEB.

The NRSV is known as a liberal translation by some here; nevertheless it uses the word in question 8 times vs. the ESV,
which uses it only 5 times.

"Many other Greek scholars" huh? Nope.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

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

The BDAG lexicon allows for the meaning ‘only begotten’ for μονογενής but seems to view this meaning as secondary.

 

[rlvaughn]

An interesting read by John V. Dahms:
The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered
His conclusion:

We have examined all of the evidence which has come to our attention concerning the meaning of monogenēs in the Johannine writings and have found that the majority view of modern scholarship has very little to support it. On the other hand, the external evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin, Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of its occurrences, makes clear that ‘only begotten’ is the most accurate translation after all.

 

[rlvaughn]

One early writer that Dahms cites is Athanasius, of whom it seems hard to argue that he does not connect "monogenes" with birth, born, begetting. For example, from his Discourse 2 Against the Arians, written circa AD 360 (bold emphasis mine).

62. But if He is also called 'First-born of the creation,' still this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time (for how should that be, since He is 'Only-begotten?'), but it is because of the Word's condescension to the creatures, according to which He has become the 'Brother' of 'many.' For the term 'Only-begotten' is used where there are no brethren, but 'First-born ' because of brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, 'the first-born of God,' nor 'the creature of God;' but 'Only-begotten' and 'Son' and 'Word' and 'Wisdom,' refer to Him as proper to the Father. Thus, 'We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father John 1:14;' and 'God sent His Only-begotten Son 1 John 4:9;' and 'O Lord, Your Word endures for ever ;' and 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;' and 'Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:24;' and 'This is My beloved Son.' and 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' But 'first-born' implied the descent to the creation ; for of it has He been called first-born; and 'He created' implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, 'First-born' needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten. For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations;— that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father. Moreover , as was before said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely it is said of Him, 'The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father John 1:18;' but the word 'First-born' has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, 'for in Him all things were created Colossians 1:16.' But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures.

 

[McCree79]

An interesting read by John V. Dahms:
The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered
His conclusion:

I haven't finished reading it yet, but early observations, I find his etymological argument weak. "root gen seems to be closely related to genn, the root of
gennaō, ‘to bring forth by birth’,"

"Seems close"....really.

I find his argument of Abraham/Issac even weaker. He also never...unless he does in last 2 pages...interact with the massive amount of evidence favoring "unique"/"only of kind...of relationship or kind" found in 4th century BC - 3rd century AD. [Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Lycurgus, Hippolytus, Timaeus, Philo of Byblos, etc...]

He is also largely dependent on the Latin.

I will read it again tomorrow after I sleep....

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

From the same general period of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechetical Lecture 11:

4. Again, I say, on hearing of a Son, understand it not merely in an improper sense, but as a Son in truth, a Son by nature, without beginning; not as having come out of bondage into a higher state of adoption, but a Son eternally begotten by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3:30 AM Pacific.

 

[rlvaughn]

Quotes from the 300s demonstrate the poverty of claiming that monogenes cannot mean only-begotten. Those who wrote and spoke Greek knew that it could. Further, that they wrote 1200-1300 years before the King James translation detoxes the attempt to poison the well by making this a KJVO debate.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

And Dr. Wallace in that article also quoted from the most authoritative Greek lexicon, which allowed for "only begotten." You go much further than Dr. Wallace, since you said in Post #89, "Do you agree monegenes does not ever mean begotten?"

As for your Post #19, I still disagree. As I said to McCree79 in Post #42, "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."

I'll leave it there. It's been an interesting conversation. Thank you for participating, even if you keep using the word "deflection" over and over.

 

[John of Japan]

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."

Not!!

 

[McCree79]

Quotes from the 300s demonstrate the poverty of claiming that monogenes cannot mean only-begotten. Those who wrote and spoke Greek knew that it could. Further, that they wrote 1200-1300 years before the King James translation detoxes the attempt to poison the well by making this a KJVO debate.

I dont know if that is the case. In the 2nd and 3rd century examples where it was used towards children could be taken as a reference to there status as "one of a kind". Demonstrating their unique status within the family.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

As for your Post #19, I still disagree. As I said to McCree79 in Post #42, "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."

I feel you are stretching this too far. The reference to Moses and the serpent pole indicates a change of thought. Our"red letter" Bibles imply Jesus is still speaking in verse 16, but it is very likely John is speaking here and explaining Jesus' "being lifted up". We would be consistent then in looking how John, in his commentary used μονογενες earlier in the letter.

Chapter 1 establishes how Jesus is unique among all things...including within the Godhead.

Even if verse 16 is Jesus speaking and he is still speaking to Nicodemus, to use μονογενες to refer to physcial birth as the "only begotten" son would just confuse Nicodemus even more. Jesus just rebuked Nicodemus for thinking physical birth was being looked at. For Jesus then to reference physical birth would muddy the waters.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, I would say that someone who is eternally begotten certainly is one of a kind!

 

[McCree79]

Well, I would say that someone who is eternally begotten certainly is one of a kind!

I would agree with that .. ..

And I think the emphasis is on that unique status.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Well, I would say that someone who is eternally begotten certainly is one of a kind!

I will however point out that you are supplying the word "eternally" here.

Can you provide a verse where Jesus is called μονογενες before the virgin birth or do you mean he will "always" be μονογενες from the birth and throughout time after?

In my opinion, Jesus' μονογενες status is in the fact that He is fully God and fully man. Completely unique among everything and everyone to ever exist. "Only begotten" does not capture that for me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

Just noticed something I missed in Denny Burk’s postings on the subject. He wrote that at the ETS meeting in 2016 Wayne Grudem (among others) presented on this subject. According to Burk, Grudem said he would revise his Systematic Theology to reflect he now believes monogenes means only begotten (at least in the Johannine context).

 

[rlvaughn]

I will however point out that you are supplying the word "eternally" here.

No, not supplying, but referring to what Cyril and Athansius wrote.

IOW, I am not arguing about the doctrine of eternal generation, just pointing out that their arguments seem to me to require more than just understanding monogenes as unique.

 

[McCree79]

No, not supplying, but referring to what Cyril and Athansius wrote.

IOW, I am not arguing about the doctrine of eternal generation, just pointing out that their arguments seem to me to require more than just understanding monogenes as unique.

Gotcha.....


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

I feel you are stretching this too far. The reference to Moses and the serpent pole indicates a change of thought. Our"red letter" Bibles imply Jesus is still speaking in verse 16, but it is very likely John is speaking here and explaining Jesus' "being lifted up". We would be consistent then in looking how John, in his commentary used μονογενες earlier in the letter.

I believe John 3:16 was Christ talking.

Chapter 1 establishes how Jesus is unique among all things...including within the Godhead.

Granted, but that's not the immediate context.

Even if verse 16 is Jesus speaking and he is still speaking to Nicodemus, to use μονογενες to refer to physcial birth as the "only begotten" son would just confuse Nicodemus even more. Jesus just rebuked Nicodemus for thinking physical birth was being looked at. For Jesus then to reference physical birth would muddy the waters.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I disagree, but the thread is basically over.

God bless.