Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

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.

 

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

 

All

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

 

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

 

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!

 

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?

 

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".

 

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

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

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.

 

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.

 

pre

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

 

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

 

or only begotten also!

 

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.

 

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

Correctamundo! And other modern versions are right.

 

Correctamundo.

 

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

 

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.