John 3:16 and the clarity of the HCSB

[Stasis Point]

"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. -- John 3:16 (HCSB)

Blogger Rick Mansfield in his The Holman Christian Standard Bible (Top 10 Bible Versions #1) notes:

'. . .the most controversial correction has to do with the HCSB's rendering of John 3:16. Years ago, the NIV translators correctly opted to translate μονογενής as "one and only" instead of "only begotten" which had remained standard phrasing in translations of the Tyndale tradition.

However, the HCSB translators went a step further and corrected the "so" of "God so loved the world... ." The average person reads the "so" in John 3:16 as meaning "God sooooooo loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" or that "God loved the world SO MUCH." Now, I won't deny God's perfect love for his creation, but that's simply not what the "so" means.

The "so" is from the Greek word οὕτως and simply means "thus" or "in this way." In other words, to paraphrase, what the verse means is "This is the way in which God loved the world: that he he gave his one and only son... ." The HCSB renders John 3:16 as "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."'

Now, as this pertains to the topic of election, I would expose the passage this way:

"For God loved [YAHWEH showed love to] the world [all KINDS of people, not just Jews] in this way [or, in this manner]: He gave His One and Only Son [Jesus], so that [in order that] everyone who believes in Him [the elect] will not perish but have eternal life. -- John 3:16 (HCSB)

The power to will is a componant of saving faith. Therefore, whosoever will, is, whosoever who has faith. The faithless are not willing.

Thus, the comparison: whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, whosoever won't call a upon the name of the Lord shall not be saved. Very simple. Total depravity is the encapsulation of the concept none are willing.

Given that none are willing, if any are to be saved, God has to, (some how) cause them to be willing. Thus, His plan seems to be to bring about salvation for the elect who in their state as natural men will be born unwilling, but who God intends to bring to willingness.

Before He can make them willing, so that He may save them, there must be a ground of justification to base that salvation on. Thus, God gave His Son so that everyone who believes will have a ground of justification.

Those that won't believe --the unrepentant and faithless-- have no use for a ground of justification, because they are condemned already. It is not "for" them, because they have not believed in the name of God's only Son.

[Ransom]

'. . .the most controversial correction has to do with the HCSB's rendering of John 3:16. Years ago, the NIV translators correctly opted to translate μονογενής as "one and only" instead of "only begotten" which had remained standard phrasing in translations of the Tyndale tradition.

A few years ago when I studied hermeneutics, the mistranslation of monogenes as "only begotten" instead of "one of a kind" was one of the specific fallacies that we discussed.

The "so loved" thing is a bit more interesting. "For God so loved" is not actually wrong (and thus doesn't need correcting, as your quote suggests); it's just ambiguous. Today we tend to see the word "so" as an intensifier. For the KJV translators, "so" meant "in this manner." We still use the word in this way when we use phrases such as "like so," but it's not as common anymore.

[anchor]

After 2000 years I'm glad somebody finally got it right!!

[Dr. Bob Griffin]

[b]"For God so loved" is not actually wrong (and thus doesn't need correcting, as your quote suggests); it's just ambiguous.

Today we tend to see the word "so" as an intensifier. For the KJV translators, "so" meant "in this manner." We still use the word in this way when we use phrases such as "like so," but it's not as common anymore.

Spot on. Of course those who claim a particular English translation is THE Bible and not simply a man-made translation [duh] will jump all over this. Not Mark's sig line (before he accurately quotes me speaking the truth he will not accept) is that I don't believe the "Bible" i.e., HIS favorite English translation.

Watch for it.

[Stasis Point]

The "so loved" thing is a bit more interesting. "For God so loved" is not actually wrong (and thus doesn't need correcting, as your quote suggests); it's just ambiguous. Today we tend to see the word "so" as an intensifier. For the KJV translators, "so" meant "in this manner." We still use the word in this way when we use phrases such as "like so," but it's not as common anymore.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

If one were translating in a vacuum they'd not see any problem with translating the first clause as "God so loved". But, because of the prominence of John 3:16 in evangelical (including fundamental) circles and the great weight which is put on every clause, "so" has become distorted by preachers, pamphleteers, and soulwinners.

You can just hear a preacher intone 'How much does God love? God soooooooooo loved the World, bruthas, that He. . .'

So, the HCSB team, in this case, chose a dynamic equivelent which would counter how the clause is typically misexegeted, and thus this equivelent gives an interpretation of a single word right in the body of the text, almost like the Amplified version.

I like the philosophy that the HCSB seems to have pursued. It appears they are searching for a niche between the NASB/ESV to the right (so to speak) and the NIV/TNIV/NLT to the the left (so to speak) and have sought to find a better balance between formal equivelence and dynamic (now called functional) equivelence. And, have chosen the locution "Optimal Equivelence".

Interesting essay at the link in the OP. Anybody had the chance to read it yet?