Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[Yeshua1]

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

The recognized gold standard of greek lexicons disagrees with you!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

well, Dr Robertson and the Bagd disagree with you!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Actually, Nkjv/Nas translations....

 

[Yeshua1]

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."

Again, the standard Greek lexicon and the greatest NT Greek scholar all time disagree with you!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

that link actually undermines your position, more than supporting it!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

I said not as good as Dr Roberston, not that he was not good!

 

[McCree79]

I believe John 3:16 was Christ talking.

Granted, but that's not the immediate context.


I disagree, but the thread is basically over.

God bless.

I appreciate your insight and attitude towards the discussion....but yeah...we are out of time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

I said not as good as Dr Roberston, not that he was not good!

...and how do you judge Roberston to be greater than Wallace. This is a claim that cannot be proven or disproven.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

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

The consensus is in, monogenes as used in scripture means unique or one of a kind. Full Stop

 

[Van]

Why push provincialism, the meaning as used in scripture is not begotten, but unique or one of a kind.

 

[Van]

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.

Denial of deflection, finding fault where none exists. Monogenes as used in scripture means unique or one of a kind. A different Greek word is used for only begotten. Face facts.

 

[Van]

Not!!

Denial and deflection.

 

[Van]

well, Dr Robertson and the Bagd disagree with you!

Me? What about Dr. Wallace? What about the NIV translation team. What about the ESV translation team. What about the CSB translation team. What about the WEB translation team., What about the NLT translation team. What about the LEB translation team. What about the NET translation team. You have ignored all the evidence, demonstrating willful ignorance for the sake of provincialism.

 

[Rippon2]

I said not as good as Dr Roberston, not that he was not good!

There's a certain thickness about you. Once again, to be a New Testament scholar in the realm of textual criticism one would have to be rather proficient in Greek. Without the later one could not be the former. Get it now? Probably not.

 

[rlvaughn]

Why push provincialism...

What’s provincialism got to do with it?

Oh, I guess you mean the preferred view popularized in the past 60 or 70 years? Yes, right, we should not be so provincial and narrow! Why not look at it across 2000 years of church history instead? Probably shouldn’t look at just new translations in only English either. What have other language translations done with it, and across a broad span of time?

 

[Van]

What’s provincialism got to do with it?

Oh, I guess you mean the preferred view popularized in the past 60 or 70 years? Yes, right, we should not be so provincial and narrow! Why not look at it across 2000 years of church history instead? Probably shouldn’t look at just new translations in only English either. What have other language translations done with it, and across a broad span of time?

It is in looking at the historical meaning that modern scholars concluded monogenes as used in scripture means unique or one of a kind. Therefore to cling to the mistaken translations of the past, as described in this thread, is provincialism. Note a different Greek word means only begotten. Thus the correct view looks at the usage of 2000 years ago.

 

[Yeshua1]

...and how do you judge Roberston to be greater than Wallace. This is a claim that cannot be proven or disproven.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

He is accepted as the single greatest NT Greek scholar of his century, while Dr Wallace is not!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is in looking at the historical meaning that modern scholars concluded monogenes as used in scripture means unique or one of a kind. Therefore to cling to the mistaken translations of the past, as described in this thread, is provincialism. Note a different Greek word means only begotten. Thus the correct view looks at the usage of 2000 years ago.

BAGD, standard Greek lexicon, disagrees with you on this!

 

[Yeshua1]

Me? What about Dr. Wallace? What about the NIV translation team. What about the ESV translation team. What about the CSB translation team. What about the WEB translation team., What about the NLT translation team. What about the LEB translation team. What about the NET translation team. You have ignored all the evidence, demonstrating willful ignorance for the sake of provincialism.

What about the Kkjv and Nas translators, they got their degrees from the Greek mail in courses?

 

[Yeshua1]

What’s provincialism got to do with it?

Oh, I guess you mean the preferred view popularized in the past 60 or 70 years? Yes, right, we should not be so provincial and narrow! Why not look at it across 2000 years of church history instead? Probably shouldn’t look at just new translations in only English either. What have other language translations done with it, and across a broad span of time?

Guess no one even knew Biblical greek before dr wallace!