Being that the Christmas season is rushing upon us, and as I was perusing through a thread in which the bible version issue came up, I got to thinking about the translation of a single verse. John 3:16 To me the word "begotten" is extremely important, for it established that God's Word worked in the body of Mary to produce the embodiment of itself in the flesh as Jesus Christ is the only son naturally (or through natural human process) born of God. Therefore all believers must be "joint heirs" by adoption having been specifically chosen by God, not by man to such an estate. Now, the NIV leaves this out by stating that the relationship was that of "one and only Son." This seems to negate the heir ship of the believer. In fact "one and only" might be considered a term to prevent the belief in the any consideration that one might be a very heir by adoption. For if God has only one son, then all believers would be amiss calling God - Papa. The question I am asking, does the NIV usage present a real problem with Scriptures on the adoption of the believer as I am pondering, or is it all much ado about nothing and the term "one and only" interchangeable with and understood by the modern believer as "only begotten."