Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

[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.

You mean as the Geneva and Kjv translated it, as well as Nkjv and nas?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Interesting that Dr Robertson wrote a textbook 1914 in Biblical Green that even Dr wallace would recognize as still being the finest ever done!

 

[Van]

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

Why are you posting incessant nonsense. Your claim that an exception invalidates the rule is a well known fallacy. Monogenes means unique or one of a kind every time it appears in scripture. No exceptions.

 

[McCree79]

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

Lack of competition from your century does not mean you are the best. We are blessed with tremendous talent in the studies of the Greek language like no other generation has ever seen. We have Wallace, Black, Plummer, Kostenberger, Mounce, Pennington, Zacharias, Merkle, Baugh and others.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

Thus the correct view looks at the usage of 2000 years ago.

Is there a post here where you proved its meaning 2000 years ago? I may have missed it.

I agree that the majority of American scholars appear to agree. However, they are not all the scholars, and possibly not the majority across the spectrum of church history.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why are you posting incessant nonsense. Your claim that an exception invalidates the rule is a well known fallacy. Monogenes means unique or one of a kind every time it appears in scripture. No exceptions.

except that have shown to you that DRRoberston and the standard Greek lexicon both disagree with you, so who is really being the stubborn one?

 

[Yeshua1]

Is there a post here where you proved its meaning 2000 years ago? I may have missed it.

I agree that the majority of American scholars appear to agree. However, they are not all the scholars, and possibly not the majority across the spectrum of church history.

Nor even the ones that translation the formal translations such as Nas and Nkjv....

 

[Van]

Is there a post here where you proved its meaning 2000 years ago? I may have missed it.

I agree that the majority of American scholars appear to agree. However, they are not all the scholars, and possibly not the majority across the spectrum of church history.

You can bring a horse to water, but you can not make his drink. I have provided all the evidence need for any rational mind to accept unique or one of a kind.

 

[Yeshua1]

Lack of competition from your century does not mean you are the best. We are blessed with tremendous talent in the studies of the Greek language like no other generation has ever seen. We have Wallace, Black, Plummer, Kostenberger, Mounce, Pennington, Zacharias, Merkle, Baugh and others.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Not disagree with you, but Shakespeare still cindered to be the single greatest English writer, correct, despite our "advancement" in English grammar and knowledge?

 

[McCree79]

except that have shown to you that DRRoberston and the standard Greek lexicon both disagree with you, so who is really being the stubborn one?

Why are you calling an out of print lexicon "the standard"? Because JoJ likes it?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

except that have shown to you that DRRoberston and the standard Greek lexicon both disagree with you, so who is really being the stubborn one?

Did I rely on one scholar (Wallace) or the majority of scholars? Roberston was wrong, Here is some of a prior post:
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

 

[John of Japan]

Denial and deflection.

I can't even translate this phrase into modern English. Don't even know what you are getting at.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why are you calling an out of print lexicon "the standard"? Because JoJ likes it?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That is from the third edition of BAGD, is that not the latest one? has it supports only begotten to be used there!

 

[Yeshua1]

Did I rely on one scholar (Wallace) or the majority of scholars? Roberston was wrong, Here is some of a prior post:
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

The basic problem that some seem to have with using only begotten is that to them denotes Jesus as being a created being....

 

[Van]

I can't even translate this phrase into modern English. Don't even know what you are getting at.

What a waste, what a denial, what a deflection.

 

[Van]

The basic problem that some seem to have with using only begotten is that to them denotes Jesus as being a created being....

Not the basis problem!! The problem is the word means unique or one of a kind. Your side goes with agenda driven mistranslations.

 

[McCree79]

Not disagree with you, but Shakespeare still cindered to be the single greatest English writer, correct, despite our "advancement" in English grammar and knowledge?

The KJV was the greatest translation for centuries. Therefore it must always be the greatest right?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Not the basis problem!! The problem is the word means unique or one of a kind. Your side goes with agenda driven mistranslations.

Interesting that Kjv/Nas/Nkjv all disagree with you on this, so what were their agendas?

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV was the greatest translation for centuries. Therefore it must always be the greatest right?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Nope, as I prefer the Nas and Esv myself, but still have to see it as being greatest as in most influential of all time!

 

[rlvaughn]

You can bring a horse to water, but you can not make his drink. I have provided all the evidence need for any rational mind to accept unique or one of a kind.

That’s for sure. Works well when you only consider your own evidence. Course, I have noticed you have never even admitted that your own star witness (Daniel B. Wallace) says that monogenes can mean only begotten.