ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
On my way out to pick one up! Thanks to those who recomended this to me!
ESV Bible
- Thread starter ReformedWretch
- Start date
- Status
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
I was just randomly reading this and remembered I might want a new bible to take with me into asia (we are only allowed one and I dont want to take one with notes in and everything which would be a pain if I loose) - what is this translation like? Is it good? Are there any details I can have?
Sorry if that was a serious statement but I had to chuckle when I imagined you going through the NKJV and the ESV comparing words... :bigsmile:
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
I agree, sorry if it was offensive. I know it is a well known verse to turn to to check differences so there is nothing strange about what you actually did.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." - ESV
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." - NIV
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." - NKJV
Not sure why I put the NIV in there but that is how it all compares to each other.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Im NKJV only except when I need to use my Joe Smith translation ha ha lol
blade
p.s. Im not doggin the NKJV it is actually my favourite.
blade
p.s. Im not doggin the NKJV it is actually my favourite.
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I am looking into this. It is a concern.
SteelYankee
Puritan Board Freshman
You shouldn't be worried. It is not a concern but a badge of honor that the ESV is closer to the true meaning of this passage. You are getting suckered into the fallacy that all Scripture must match up with the King James Version, which truly boggles my mind. I cannot for the life of me figure out why we should make a 17th century Anglican translation the standard of all Bibles. Why not Geneva? Why not the Great Bible? Why not Tyndale? Why not Wycliffe?
Oh well, back to the matter at hand: "begotten."
Modern versions are roundly criticized for daring to change "œonly begotten" into "œunique" in passages such as John 3:16. In this most familiar of all verses, we all grew up quoting "œHis only begotten Son." Modern versions will say "œOnly" or "œunique" or "œone and only."
In doing so, KJV Onlyists will claim that the modern versions are denying the virgin birth of Christ. Besides the point that the doctrine of the virgin birth does not hinge on only this singular verse, evidence points that the modern translations are more accurate.
Older translations have traditionally understood the Greek word underlying the phrase (monogenes) to be a compound word formed from monos (only) and gennao (beget). This led Jerome to use the Latin phrase unigenitus in his Latin translation, which was picked up centuries later. This has caused great misunderstanding through the centuries since the Son did not have an origin and was not created (begotten) by the Father. Jesus Himself is an eternal being.
It is best to understand the term to instead be a compound from monos (only) and genos (kind). This word means "œthe only one of its kind." We are all familiar with the biological term "Genus" which speaks of a type of something. This translation is more consistent with John´s use of the word in other locations.
Furthermore, support for this word can be found in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham´s monogenes in the KJV.
The KJV says Isaac is Abraham´s "œonly begotten son" and the NIV says Isaac is Abraham´s "œone and only son."
Of course, both of these translations are lacking because we know that Isaac is not Abraham´s only begotten son, as he fathered Ishmael and other sons through Keturah.
However, Isaac was the only one of his kind "“ the child of promise. See Galatians 4 (22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.)
The same is said with believers and Jesus: there are many children of God (John 1:12-13) but only one unique Son of God.
Oh well, back to the matter at hand: "begotten."
Modern versions are roundly criticized for daring to change "œonly begotten" into "œunique" in passages such as John 3:16. In this most familiar of all verses, we all grew up quoting "œHis only begotten Son." Modern versions will say "œOnly" or "œunique" or "œone and only."
In doing so, KJV Onlyists will claim that the modern versions are denying the virgin birth of Christ. Besides the point that the doctrine of the virgin birth does not hinge on only this singular verse, evidence points that the modern translations are more accurate.
Older translations have traditionally understood the Greek word underlying the phrase (monogenes) to be a compound word formed from monos (only) and gennao (beget). This led Jerome to use the Latin phrase unigenitus in his Latin translation, which was picked up centuries later. This has caused great misunderstanding through the centuries since the Son did not have an origin and was not created (begotten) by the Father. Jesus Himself is an eternal being.
It is best to understand the term to instead be a compound from monos (only) and genos (kind). This word means "œthe only one of its kind." We are all familiar with the biological term "Genus" which speaks of a type of something. This translation is more consistent with John´s use of the word in other locations.
Furthermore, support for this word can be found in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham´s monogenes in the KJV.
The KJV says Isaac is Abraham´s "œonly begotten son" and the NIV says Isaac is Abraham´s "œone and only son."
Of course, both of these translations are lacking because we know that Isaac is not Abraham´s only begotten son, as he fathered Ishmael and other sons through Keturah.
However, Isaac was the only one of his kind "“ the child of promise. See Galatians 4 (22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.)
The same is said with believers and Jesus: there are many children of God (John 1:12-13) but only one unique Son of God.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
I was curious how different versions interpretted the verse. The website http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html shows how the verse reads in a number of different Bible versions.
Its good to know that it can also be interpretted "unique" or "one and only". Its helpful when you run across those like the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny Jesus' deity and go to this verse to try and prove their point.
[Edited on 25-10-2004 by blhowes]
Its good to know that it can also be interpretted "unique" or "one and only". Its helpful when you run across those like the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny Jesus' deity and go to this verse to try and prove their point.
[Edited on 25-10-2004 by blhowes]
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Actually, I think it is a good idea to consider a number of translations like the ESV, NASB, Geneva, Amplified, KJV and NKJV. The key though is the original manuscripts used in these translations. Take a look at 1 Cor 11:28-30 with an emphasis on 29 and note the difference and how one could interpret these passages:
NKJV: 1 Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
ESV: 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
NKJV: 1 Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
ESV: 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Actually, the issue here is not a textual one. The critical text (basis of ESV) reads:
Ou[twj ga.r hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon( w[ste to.n ui`o.n to.n monogenh/ e;dwken( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion
The Byzantine text (basis of NKJV) reads:
ou[twj ga.r hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon( w[ste to.n ui`o.n to.n monogenh/ e;dwken( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion
It has to do with the definition of the word monogenes (monogenh/). In recent years, it has become common to deny that it means "only begotten" because the -genes part of the word does not come from the Greek word for "beget" but from another the Greek word.
[Edited on 10/25/2004 by fredtgreco]
The NKJV. I think that monogenes as "only begotten" is too important to deny. I also did some research (which is not readily at hand) in which certain Classical Greek authors used the term in an only begotten sense. If I find it later, I'll post it.
One more vote for "only begotten." Same reasons as Fred. My mind could be changed, but...
1) The biblical self-witness uses the term when its natural sense is precisely "only-begotten." That it presents interpretive challenges in places like Heb. 11:17 is beside the point.
2) I think this is the sense the early church, much of it Greek-speaking, attested. They were much closer to the Scripture's own milleu and usage, and their opionions should carry more weight than the modern semanticist's arguments over root-word origins (In my humble opinion).
- Status
