Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[McCree79]

I believe the authors of these lexicons have more knowledge on this than you do.

Thayer's lexicon: "used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)."
Friberg's Anlex; "(2) as a child born in a unique way; (a) used of God's Son Jesus only, only begotten;"
Liddell-Scott lexicon: "only-begotten"
BAGD lexicon: "only...of children"
Abbot-Smith lexicon: "only, only begotten"
TDNT: "'of sole descent,' i.e., without brothers or sisters."

Surely you are not using these sources to suggest that μονογενης only means "only begotten"???

I am sure I have just missed something, but looking at Van's charge and your reply, that is how it seems. Perhaps your point is that the word "can " mean "only begotten".

BDAG
1...to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only

2...to being the only one of its kind or class, unique

TDNT
More generally it means 'unique' or 'incomparable.'

I don't have my Frieberg Anlex with me...so I can't check it. But the fact that the number "2" is used in your definition, there is others.

Lowd Nida
pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - unique, only.

EDNT
only (one of its kind), unique*

Barclay Newman
only, unique

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

Surely you are not using these sources to suggest that μονογενης only means "only begotten"???

I am sure I have just missed something, but looking at Van's charge and your reply, that is how it seems. Perhaps your point is that the word "can " mean "only begotten".

BDAG
1...to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only

2...to being the only one of its kind or class, unique

TDNT
More generally it means 'unique' or 'incomparable.'

I don't have my Frieberg Anlex with me...so I can't check it. But the fact that the number "2" is used in your definition, there is others.

Lowd Nida
pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - unique, only.

EDNT
only (one of its kind), unique*

Barclay Newman
only, unique

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes, you have missed the whole conversation between Van and me. I brought up the linguistic term "polysemous" quite awhile ago, and then after that pointed out that monogenes could be translated several ways. I even said to you that "unique" was a possible rendering in John.

 

[Yeshua1]

Utter nonsense. Folks, pay no attention to all these deflections calculated to derail discussion of the topic.
God gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life.

Who can believe on Jesus then? Only those who are the Elect of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

All

I believe the authors of these lexicons have more knowledge on this than you do.

Thayer's lexicon: "used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)."
Friberg's Anlex; "(2) as a child born in a unique way; (a) used of God's Son Jesus only, only begotten;"
Liddell-Scott lexicon: "only-begotten"
BAGD lexicon: "only...of children"
Abbot-Smith lexicon: "only, only begotten"
TDNT: "'of sole descent,' i.e., without brothers or sisters."

They seem to be indicating God as being his Father in that unique sense as being the only begotten would be my take....

 

[Yeshua1]

Sadly, referring to the use (misuse) of words as a source for historical meaning is ludicrous.

Obviously I believe Dr. Dan B. Wallace has the correct view, over and against the thoroughly discredited claims of the KJVO folks.

Far as I know, few if any of those cited sources would hold to KJVO though!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is quite obtuse. FYI, several of the lexicons mentioned are recent.

Obviously, along with the lexicographers mentioned I disagree with Wallace, as I have the perfect right to do so. He's not infallible, having been completely wrong on a number of Greek issues, such as the nuance of skubalon.

P.S. This is not a KJVO issue. I am not KJVO and do not depend on the KJV for my view of monogenes.

I do not think any of those cited would hold to KJVO, as many of them hold to the Critical greek text and modern translations actually!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, you have missed the whole conversation between Van and me. I brought up the linguistic term "polysemous" quite awhile ago, and then after that pointed out that monogenes could be translated several ways. I even said to you that "unique" was a possible rendering in John.

Either English term would be acceptable, and it does seem that those against use of begotten would be doing such due to it somehow mean that he was a created being?

 

[InTheLight]

Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer:

"only begotten son"

OR

"one and only son"

I like "only begotten son" since it implies a direct inheritance of lineage from God the Father. "One and only son" does not convey the relationship between father and son as strongly as "only begotten". Though unlikely, "one and only son" could be construed as adopted.

But, generally speaking, I'm OK with "one and only son".

 

[McCree79]

Either English term would be acceptable, and it does seem that those against use of begotten would be doing such due to it somehow mean that he was a created being?

...other than the cults that do that very thing

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

This is quite obtuse. FYI, several of the lexicons mentioned are recent.

Obviously, along with the lexicographers mentioned I disagree with Wallace, as I have the perfect right to do so. He's not infallible, having been completely wrong on a number of Greek issues, such as the nuance of skubalon.

P.S. This is not a KJVO issue. I am not KJVO and do not depend on the KJV for my view of monogenes.

So the KJVO folks don't claim monogenes means begotten. Right, got it.
Dr Wallace and many modern translations are wrong. Right, got it.
More than a dozen modern versions are wrong. Right, got it.

 

[Van]

Who can believe on Jesus then? Only those who are the Elect of God!

Endless change of subject questions is just deflection to avoid biblical truth. Monogenes means "one of a kind" or "unique."

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

 

[Yeshua1]

pre

...other than the cults that do that very thing

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Pretty much all of the Cults ONLY use the Kjv, would not use that to mean the Kjv was bad though!

 

[Yeshua1]

So the KJVO folks don't claim monogenes means begotten. Right, got it.
Dr Wallace and many modern translations are wrong. Right, got it.
More than a dozen modern versions are wrong. Right, got it.

those who translated it as only begotten were not Kjvo, right got it!

 

[Yeshua1]

Endless change of subject questions is just deflection to avoid biblical truth. Monogenes means "one of a kind" or "unique."

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

or only begotten also!

 

[Van]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

So the KJVO folks don't claim monogenes means begotten. Right, got it.

Didn't say that. Don't twist my words.

Dr Wallace and many modern translations are wrong. Right, got it.
More than a dozen modern versions are wrong. Right, got it.

Correctamundo! And other modern versions are right.

 

[John of Japan]

I do not think any of those cited would hold to KJVO, as many of them hold to the Critical greek text and modern translations actually!

Correctamundo.

 

[Van]

Didn't say that. Don't twist my words.

Correctamundo!

I never twist the words of others. You charge is false and ludicrous. BTW, the KJVO folks sail your false bottom boat too.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

We heard you the first time you posted this.