Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/30/04 9:47am
In reply to:
QUITTNER
's message, "Thomas, Gospel of, and God's children." on 03/29/04 2:19pm
>>>Wade A. Tisthammer, you wrote in part: >>> ...
>You've left out some words here and replaced them with
>ellipses, so it's difficult for me to understand what
>was being said here without the full context. ... <<<
>..... Maybe your local librarian can help you? Anyway,
>there's a lot about Thomas, Gospel of, on pages 1303
>and 1304 of Eerdmans. Here is a little more than I
>posted last time:
>..... (p.1303:) The date of the Gospel of Thomas is
>unknown.
The majority of scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to mid-second century C.E. Part of the date has to do with its connection to Gnosticism.
>>>> ... John 3:16, for instance, speaking of God's
>only begotten Son.
>..... Eerdmans again, this time page 723, in part: ...
>Part 1 opens with a poetic prologue that relates how
>the Word entered the world and was rejected by many
>but welcomed by others who became God's children (
>1:1-18). ...
That's nice. Still doesn't affect my claims. If anything it reinforces them about the terms being used in different contexts because we see this in the same book.
>..... The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), on page 1748
>under John 3:16 has "he gave his only Son", without
>the word begotten
That translation is not entirely accurate. If we use a literal translation we get the following:
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
Of course, a literal translation (provided here by the scholar Robert Young) is not as "user-friendly," hence we have things like the NIV or the NASB (both of which, BTW, include the word "begotten").
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 