Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

Nicodemus thought it was about physical birth and was corrected. It is about salvation by God. A spiritual birth from above. Specifically executed by the unique one who has no one like Him...not even among the Godhead. Jesus' physical birth is not being stressed. His uniqueness as a whole is. I think the term "only begotten" leads the reader to focus on the physical nature too much. "Unique one" allows the reader to more freely consider the full being of Christ.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

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.

 

Jesus could then be seen as being unique, but not Deity by someone!

 

Your logic here is off. "Begotten" is more likely to make people miss Jesus being Yahweh than "unique one".

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Except that Begotten means not created....

 

That is not what it means.
It means to generate or produce.

I have never seen anyone claim the word "begotten" mean "not created.".

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

eternally begotten, hence no time never was!

 

You are heavily reading into the word. μονογενής never means "eternally begotten". You need the word αἰώνιος here and you do not have it. You only have "produced" or generated ".

If you want μονογενης to mean "eternally begotten" then Issac is going cause you some problems in Hebrews 11:17.

Even if you want to make it say "only begotten" you have a problem. [In Hebrews 11:17]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Micah 5:2 seems to support begotten though!

 

Surprised? You think monogenes means only begotten. That is surprising and utterly bogus.

 

Utterly false.

 

Your understanding of what it teaches there, so very true!

 

More deflection and denial, no on topic comment.

 

the scriptures there that we have been adopted in the beloved, and we will one day be glorified in Him!

 

Utterly false. Note no quote folks.

 

You must have ignored the one given to you from Ephesians!

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.