John 3:16

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Van, Oct 27, 2014.

  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Baptists are split on the specifics of John 3:16. When I was young, and the "Bible" was the KJV, we memorized the verse this way: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

    Now, using the results of word study, the verse can be understood exegetically as God sacrificially loved fallen mankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son so that anyone who believes into Christ shall not perish but have eternal life.
     
  2. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,928
    Likes Received:
    369
    Hey Van. I don't understand your post. I am not sure what the difference is between the two (the verse and the exegesis), except perhaps that "begotten" being presented as unique (I disagree with that interpretation). If you could provide more detail (perhaps in the older understanding as compared to the new) I'd appreciate it. I also learned it in the KJV...which, BTW, misses me up sometimes when I'm reading out of another translation :( ...but I understood this love as a sacrificial love (based on the giving of His only begotten Son), so I am not sure I am tracking here.

    thanks
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    In my tally there are six English Bible versions which translate it more correctly than the typical way : NET, HCSB, GWT, ISV, NJB and LEB.

    I'll give the rendering of the latter, which is reflective of the others:

    "For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I had forgotten to include the translation from The Story of Jesus by Robert H. Mounce. His whole book is the Gospel of John written in a paraphrased form. Robert Mounce was on three translations teams : ESV,NIV and NLT.

    Anyway, this is his rendering of John 3:16 :

    "This is how God loved the world : he gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life and not really die."
     
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    273
    Regardless of the translation used the context points to a type:

    And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up Jn 3:14 ASV

    And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21:8

    A couple of things, the serpent was lifted up for those who were bitten, and, the serpent was not lifted up for the Egyptians, or the Greeks, or the Assyrians, or the Babylonians, or the Persians, or the Italians, etc., the serpent was lifted up for Israel.

    It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for Christ. “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

    The ‘world’ (arrangement) of 3:16 is the very same ‘world’ of 18:20 and elsewhere in this gospel. “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
     
  6. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,918
    Likes Received:
    95
    How dare you teach "Old School Theology" my brother:smilewinkgrin:
     
  7. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Thanks JonC for actually addressing the topic. Yes, your understanding of sacrificial love is the same exegetical understanding as mine.

    We disagree on monogenes, literally one kind. Begotten is a mistranslation according to the majority of modern scholars.

    I expect you too understand "world" to refer to all mankind. However, other Baptists (see post #5) claim Calvinistically that world refers to various subsets of mankind, Jews here, non-Jews there, Elect here, non-Elect there, which in my view is simply manipulating the text to pour man-made doctrine into it.
     
  8. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Kosmos (translated as world)?

    According to A.W. Pink,
    Well, lets look at them carefully and exactly from the NASB:

    John 1:29 “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

    Here the world is used to indicate not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles will be saved. It is unnatural and forced to assert that only the part of the world that will be saved is in view.

    John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

    Here again, the world includes everybody, those that will be saved and those that will not be saved. God sent Christ into the world to save sinners. Whoever believes in Him will be saved.

    John 3:17, “For God did not sent the Son into the World to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.”

    Another clear verse where world means everybody, and the offer of salvation is extended to everybody that hears the gospel and believes.

    John 6:33, “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”

    Once again, world includes everybody. The verse does not say gives life to everybody in the world, only that Jesus gives life to anyone in the world that believes in Jesus.

    John 12:46, “I have come as a light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness.”

    This one is very clear, Jesus is the light of the world which is in darkness.

    John 12:47, “And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him, for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

    This is crystal – the world includes both those that will not be saved and those that will be saved.

    1 Corinthians 4:9, “For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.”

    Again, it is unnatural and forced to say something other than saints and sinners are in view. To assert otherwise is to miss the irony of the passage.

    2 Corinthians 5:19, “…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

    Clearly we see the reconciliation of Christ on the cross as a completed work of reconciliation, available to the world, Jews and Gentiles, but the gift must be received. Therefore, verse 20, “we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

    In summary, the premise that these passages use world to mean only the elect is without merit. The unforced and natural reading –saints and sinners, Jew and Gentiles, all of fallen mankind, fits in every case.
     
    #8 Van, Oct 28, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2014
  9. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,928
    Likes Received:
    369
    I do view “world” as mankind. I am not sure if I would go so far as to say that particular verse means all of man, individually, rather than mankind in general. But I do not view it as speaking of people groups.

    We may or may not disagree on “begotten.” At face value we do disagree, but I also understand the problems associated with “begotten.” I find similar problems with “one of a kind” in that it does not, to my understanding, adequately express the author’s intent. “Begotten” stresses the uniqueness that “one of a kind” misses. This, of course, is expressed in that He is God’s Son…so my objection may very well be meaningless. At the same time, however, “one of a kind” is also inherently expressed in presenting Jesus as “God’s Son.” My reason for clinging to “begotten” is probably the same reason that many reject it. Where some view the word as indicating a beginning, I view it as emphasizing Jesus as being God and sent from the Father. But I'm not a Greek scholar (I find neither Greek or scholar descriptive of me) and now days about all I know of Greek is Baklava (but maybe that's Turkish :confused: ).

    I also believe many interpret Scripture through their theology rather than their theology through Scripture. It is unfortunate, common, and occurs on both sides of the debate. I'm sure I'm guilty of it at times, although I assure you it's unintentional. But some do seem to go at great lengths to protect a doctrine against unwanted biblical interference.
     
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Regardless if we translate Him as being the "only begotten" or the "One and only/unique", isn;t the theology still the same?
     
  11. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,928
    Likes Received:
    369

    Some take "begotten" to deny Christ's deity (they view it as evidence that He had a beginning or was created).
     
    #11 JonC, Oct 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2014
  12. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Jesus taught it was never right to do wrong to get a chance to do right. We should not mistranslate in order to bolster the case for Christ's divinity.
    Stick with John 1:1-3. :)
     
  13. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi JonC, yes I think we both strive to be objective and not twist or manipulate the text to support man-made doctrine. One of a kind I think best translates "monogenes" because Jesus is God's one of a kind Son. Not begotten or created but eternal. Does God have other sons? Yes, of course, every born anew person is a "son of God." And of course, Adam was the "son of God." But Jesus is the one of a kind Son of God.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    God though ONLY had jesus eternally begotten of the Father, so that is same as calling him one and only!

    BOTH emphasise his uniquess as being Son of God!
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    The Greek wording would support his deity and eternalness though!
     
  16. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,928
    Likes Received:
    369

    I don't know enough to deal with the Greek word itself. But I do think the content of that chapter makes clear the deity of Christ.
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,148
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    In the verse in question "so" does not mean "so much." It means "in this way." Some of us older people still use "so" this way. "How do you do that?" "You just do so, and so."

    "God, in this way, loved the world: He gave His One Unique Son . . ."

    To reject the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ is to reject the love of God.
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Perhaps I was not clear. "Begotten" or the Greek word translated as "begotten" does not appear in John 3:16, the KJV translators mistranslated monogenes. Monogenes appears in John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9.
    The modern translations, either in their footnotes or in the main text uniformly translate monogenes as "one and only" or "one of a kind."

    Now another Greek word is also sometimes translated as begotten, G1080, gennaō. This word is rendered begat, begotten, born and fathered.

    All this confusion and mistaken doctrine is driven by flawed translation choices.
     
    #18 Van, Nov 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2014
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,148
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is false.

    The word in John 3.16 is μονογενη and in 1.14 it is μονογενους.

    They are the same word. The spelling difference is due to the fact that μονογενη is an adjective in the accusative case, singular, masculine and μονογενους is an adjective in the genative case, singular, masculine.

    The word is a construct (putting two words together to form a single new word). μονο means, one, single, only (one of its kind) and γενης meaning generated, begotten, produced. We see the word in Luke 7.12 where it is translated "only son." Her only, single, one, generated, begotten, produced son.
     
    #19 TCassidy, Nov 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2014
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi Tom, I will agree, one of our views is false. :)

    My view is found in the NASB, HCSB, NIV, NET and others including the WEB. Your view is found in the KJV and its kin.

    Note, in my post 18 I said the same word appears in John 3:16 and John 1:14. The word in both places is translated one and only or one of a kind in the listed translations.

     
    #20 Van, Nov 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2014

Share This Page

Loading...