![]() | John 3:16 was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 4, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John 3:16 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
On September 20, 1987, a strategical blunder committed in an NFL game led to a particularly distinctive parody of the sign being created: The Cincinnati Bengals led the San Francisco 49ers by six points in the closing seconds of a game played at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium; faced with a fourth down in their own territory, Bengals head coach Sam Wyche called a running play. The 49ers had no timeouts remaining, and it was Wyche's belief that this play would successfully run out the clock. However, Wyche overlooked the fact that under NFL rules, the clock is automatically stopped on any play that results in a change of possession - and that is what occurred on this play as the Bengals did not gain enough yardage on it to obtain a first down. There were six seconds remaining when the clock was stopped; the 49ers then took possession of the ball, and on the ensuing play Joe Montana threw a touchdown pass to Jerry Rice, and the successful extra point attempt that followed gave San Francisco a 27-26 victory.
I read this about 4times and tried to figure out how this relates to John 3:16. And I couldnt find a reason. Explain, please
The people likely to display the Bible reference at sporting events are better described as Evangelicalists with their emphasis on biblically-oriented and personally experienced faith. In other branches of Christianity, such as Catholicism and the Orthodox Church, tradition plays a great role (a scientist would use the term "the literature" for "tradition"), and followers of these other branches would find the verse on its own meaningless and out-of-context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.109.87 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 July 2005
The article states ...so briefly (and accurately) summarizes the central dogmata of the Christian faith.
I have issues with the (and accurately) interjection (leaving aside the issue of whether individual verses of the christians' bible should be listed in a general world encyclopedia). From whose Point of View is this accurate? Which sects of christian belief cite it and which deny it? In what way is this "accurate" from the point of view of non-christians (and non-christians make up the majority of our readers)?
As an aethist (to declare an interest), I do not accept accuracy statements relating to any religious texts unless further, non-religious, sources can be quoted. This is my personal and declared opinion so people responding should please question the idea rather than question the questioner. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how much we should wait here for people to join the discussion, but since a week has passed and nobody else has commented, I will implement my proposal and remove the pov tag. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I want to re-open this issue. The text currently reads as follows:
It has been called the "Bible in a nutshell" because it is considered a summary of two central dogmata of Christianity: the humanity and the sacrifice of Christ.
I have two objections:
1. What Christian group considers the humanity of Christ to be "one of the two central dogmata" of their faith? Almost all Christian groups believe that Jesus was both God and man. Some Christians believe Jesus was simply a man. But there haven't been any Christians who claimed that Jesus was not a man since the fourth century.
2. More importantly, in what possible way can you find the humanity of Christ in John 3:16? This verse refers to Christ as "God's only son" -- but I don't see why you think it implies he's human. Of course, other Bible passages make it clear that Jesus is human, but not this one.
My proposed revision is this:
It has been called the "Bible in a nutshell" by some Christians because it contains two dogmas that are central to the beliefs of the traditional Christian churches: the sacrifice of Christ, and the importance of faith in Christ.
This is more accurate, and by using the phrase "the traditional Christian churches" it avoids the inaccuracy of the earlier versions, since many 19th and 20th century churches don't accept these two doctrines.
Objections? Lawrence King 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I like your additions, but made some alterations. When the Bible or the creeds refer to Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, this is referring to his generation from the father in eternity before time was created, not to his incarnation that took place in our human timeline. In other words, the second person of the Trinity would not be "Jesus" or "Christ" if there was no incarnation, but he would still be the Word of God, the Son of God, and indeed God.
And I'm not usually "bold" when altering something that looks like it has been debated previously.... perhaps a wiki-failing on my part? Lawrence King 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The sentence (with your addition in red) now reads:
- being saved is based on belief or faith, rather than by works, a doctrine known as sola fide
With your addition, unfortunately this no longer belongs in a list of "some of the most important doctrines of Christianity", because it's now Protestant-specific.
The original phrasing, "saved based on belief or faith, rather than by works" is indeed part of the doctrine shared by all the historic Christian churches. For example, see the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
However, "sola fide" refers to a very similar-sounding doctrine: that Christians are "saved by belief or faith alone". This doctrine is held by the Lutheran church and most of the Reformation churches, but not by the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Catholics, for example, believe that this contradicts the letter of James (the only New Testament book to use the phrase "faith alone" in the Greek).
I changed it to this:
- being saved is based on belief or faith, rather than based on human works
Even though you said "be bold", I wanted to explain my reasons, because (1) my change is almost a reversion of your last change, and (2) I'm a Catholic Christian myself, and I'm also an NPOV fanatic, so I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a second set of eyes look over my change! Does this look okay to you? Lawrence King 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Just to clarify what I was saying: I'm not saying that we have to stick exactly to what's in the verse itself, because this section opens with the phrase "It has been called the 'Bible in a nutshell' because it is considered a summary of some of the most important doctrines of Christianity." To me, this phrase doesn't claim that these doctrines are necessarily found in the verse; it just claims that these doctrines "are considered" to be found in the verse. So I don't object to any reference to "works" on this grounds. My objection is on the grounds of the phrase "some of the most important doctrines in Christianity" -- which, to be NPOV, should remain limited to doctrines that the major mainstream denominations would agree on.
And yes, the sola fide page has endless debates. I'm trying to avoid that sort of things these days (too much of a wiki-holic....) Lawrence King 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
...that whosoever... - that the salvation is open to all
This is partisan in that is assumes one of two points, or possibly both: 1.) That the word "whosoever" implies ability on the part of all. But it doesn't. If I say "whoever runs up the hill will get a dollar," that doesn't mean that the "dollar is open to all," including my paraplegic neighbor. 2.) That "world" always, only has a single denotative referent, namely "every single individual ever." But it doesn't. See John 7:7, 17:9, 1 John 5:19. These two assumptions are contested by a significant contigent of conservative Christianity (viz., Calvinists, tracing back to the later Augustine's interpretation of the passage).
My suggestion is:
...that whosoever... - that salvation is open to all who will believe
This should be acceptable by all parties. » MonkeeSage « 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
All of this discussion about parsing this verse amounts to nothing more than original research. The discussion regarding the opening text, to the extent it quotes the Bible, should be limited to which Bible we accept for our example text. We are not Bible text translaters and if we pick and choose to the point where our text does not match any of the mentioned Bibles, then we have written a new text and that is a WP:OR violation. I would suggest that the New American Standard Bible is the best balance of fidelity to original texts along with understandability. These two criteria are the ones I suggest we measure by. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that the text in the picture is a different translation from the text quoted to its left (top of the page)? Somewhat unprofessional, if I may say so... Anyone care to fix? -Jadorno 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The interpretive section at the beginning of the article needed to be prefaced to point out its subjectivity.
When raising a concern please make sure you stay within the confines of civility, especially the portion in relation to unnecessary profanity. Thank you. Adam Weeden 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I capitalized all references to God and Son of God in the Greek texts, because this is how they appear in the original Greek texts. Also, I'd appreciate your feedback regarding the literal translation:
This is exact translation word-by-word. How should it be adapted in English? NikoSilver 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, come to think of it:
Your input is valuable. NikoSilver 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
An actual literal translation is much more like :
I would also suggest that this word-for-word translation, while adding little to the discussion, does clarify the context somewhat; and if nothing else, context is important (in this context).
The interesting thing I've learned by translating the new testament is just how easy it is to read traditional meaning into very ordinary phrases, which are most inappropriate here, in every sense. If we're going to be literal, let's at least be literal! Since I'm still very much a student of Koine Greek, I apologise if this is inappropriate. Cephas Borg (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The reference at the bottom of this article is inaccurate. Both the Byzantine Text and the Alexandrian Text types have identical Greek wording when it comes to the auton you refer to. The UBS4, NA27, Westcott and Hort (based primarily on Codex Vaticanus the epitome of Alexandrian Texts) and the TR all include the auton. What the person meant to write, I presume, is that the autou (between "son" and "the only begotten" in Greek, i.e. TR reads "His only-begotten Son" while the Alexandrian Text type reads "the only begotten Son.") is not in the Alexandrian Text type. But that Greek word was not included in the Greek at the top of the page, so there's no need to footnote it unless you use the TR as your text for the Greek at the top of the page.
FYI
Jared White, M. Div —Preceding unsigned comment added by Framdamdidily (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 July 2007
I noticed the same thing a Jared, since the existing footnote is confusing, I've moved the footnote to where the 'missing' autou goes in the Byzantine text, and adjusted the footnote as well.
bob relyea
Unfortunately, where the footnote is among a sea of blue links makes it almost invisible, and the textual variant is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Since the majority variant in modern greek texts is ignored in favor of the traditional rendering in almost all translations, this issue probably deserves a mention in the article itself.
Spinkham (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This Bible reference is often cited or parodied in popular culture, but most examples of this are not significant. Adding them into the article contravenes the policies WP:TRIVIA and "No original research" unless there are independent reliable references confirming that the instance is significant. They should therefore be deleted.
See this old version for some examples that have previously been added and deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It is significant because is was 'John 3:16' being used in pop culture why couldn't it be on the page Speer320 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be "trivial", so to speak, to include the August 11th Pearls Before Swine strip in the "popular culture" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaced (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What about in the Family Guy episode, Mr. Griffin Goes to Washington, where the Griffin family prepares to go to the sox opening game and Chris presents a sign that says John 3:16. Brian quotes the passage as "and The Lord said,'Go Sox" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.251.91 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Cowboy superstar Dale Evans apparently would cite John 3:16 on her autographs according to this artifact reported to the Howard Cable blog Teledyn (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
As per the Snopes article at [[1]], there's a fairly common email forward asserting that a given disliked politician cited John 16:3 as their favorite quotation, "And they will do this because they have not known the Father nor Me". Media attention? No more than most of examples listed, but it is informative to indicate it as an urban legend. After all, Wikipedia seeks to inform and educate, right? -71.182.176.147 (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help); More than one of |work=
and |website=
specified (help)
I may be confused here, but the claim that Jesus is 'firstborn of creation' sounds to me like it means that he is within creation: which is the JW position (and that of Arius), but not that of most Christians, who place the Son as eternally begotten, and not part of creation but part of eternal God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.96 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The way I've heard "firstborn of creation" described is that it is indicative of Jesus' having lordship over all creation - having the powers of a "first born" son, whether or not He had siblings or was created. So, "firstborn" as I understand it in this context refers to Jesus' power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.173.137 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the "lolcat bible" version really a valid bible translation? 87.202.125.30 (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The huge number of translations, many of them very similar, unbalance the article. I propose to reduce the list to a representative sample from the centuries and translation methods listed at Bible translations: Greek, Latin, Wyclif, Tyndale, Douay-Rheims, KJV, RV, NASB (C20 formal equivalance), GNB (C20 dynamic equivalence), NIV (C20 in-between approach and best seller), Living Bible (C20 paraphrase), ESV (C21 formal), The Message (C21 dynamic). Comments? - Fayenatic (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to point a couple things out about the Message, from several standpoints. 1. It is neither historically significant, nor culturally notable: it is passing like a fad, (and that's to be expected with anything on a register that has no formalizing to make it endure, but that's another interesting subject altogether!) 2. The Message at this verse isn't even a translation, it's more a compressed commentary, but from the standpoint of either Greek, or any other of the listed translations, the Message has far gone beyond the components of meaning in the original or those other translations, and eisegeted; it's also hard to imagine that as the meaning of the author of the same work including a passage like Chapter 6. My suggestion is that we find a better paraphrase: "God's Word" and "Bible in Basic English" are both readable here, http://bible.cc/john/3-16.htm, and they are both published, and the latter is actually a notable and significant production.
tooMuchData
22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) - User:PRedLSU (talk)
I propose to revert to those stated above. "Believe into" is not an English construction so I don't understand why the Recovery Version is included because of those words. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
How can this possibly be read in isolation from 16-18? The title should be changed and the article should be expanded. Treating 3:16 as separate from the rest of the passage is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is this particular verse of the bible referenced so frequently in sports and popular culture? 98.112.63.4 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Jay
Yes! Also I am not American and I can't get the right meaning. It caught my attention on the film Jerry Maguire, it's placed in the american-football stadium when Rod hangs and pretend to walk in the air. Thanks! GastonSenac (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The Nag Hammadi Library has several gnostic texts which indicate the Holy Spirit is the Son, not Jesus:
The Teachings of Silvanus (115:15): "For all dwell in God, that is, the things which have come into being through the Word WHO IS THE SON as the image of the Father."
and
The Apocryphon of John:
"And he looked at Barbelo with the pure light which surrounds the invisible Spirit, and (with) his spark, and she conceived from him. He begot a spark of light with a light resembling blessedness. But it does not equal his greatness. This was an only-begotten child of the Mother-Father which had come forth; it is the only offspring, the only-begotten one of the Father, the pure Light."
Sant Mat (The Teachings of the Saints) is the modern equivalent of gnostic teaching, and unequivocally states that the "Word" or Spirit is the Son--NOT Jesus. There are many saviors (Masters) throughout the history of Creation. The world is, in fact, never without at least one (see RSSB.org for many sources, some authored by Masters themselves). Sahansdal (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
tooMuchData
22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)
This article several times mentions or references the "original greek" text. Is it referring to the Textus Receptus? My understanding is that there is no definitive Greek text, but multiple variant versions, divided into the Alexandrian text-type, the Byzantine text-type and the Western text-type. Shouldn't the article reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 October 2011
Verses 16 and 18 in John Chapter 3 taken together form a couplet that is logically equivalent to Verse 16 in Mark Chapter 16. Mark 16:16 is a compound sentence constructed essentially like a mathematical if and only if statement. The first statement tells us that one is saved if they believe and are baptized, the second statement in the compound says that one is lost if one does not believe. Given the two thoughts are so linked together it is hard to avoid the conclusion the author tells us baptism is a nice performance communication of the decision the person makes that wins salvation, but it is the decision - the belief - alone that actually secures salvation. Dhrosier (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What are these C numbers? there is no reference given. is this a standard code in bible study. if so, it needs explanation. Wikipedia is not a site for bible scholars to use to write essays for each other.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Per instructions in the section on popular culture, this is to seek consensus on adding a note that "a copy of John 3:16 in 215 languages is in the time capsule under Cleopatra's Needle in London." Samw (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Cleopatra's Needle... A committee was appointed to include the greatest single verse in the Bible. The committee unanimously chose to place into the vault John 3:16, which had been translated into the 215 known languages of the day.
Why are parodies of this verse being excluded from this article? Is the internet, and, by proxy, Wikipedia, not made to be a hub of information connected to various ambiguations of any possible subject, no matter how "trivial" (a purely subjective criterion, by the way, for the free encyclopedia curators out there). For this reason, and considering the cultural impact and commercial success of the brands of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, please reinstate all deleted content referencing John 3:16 in pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:2CB:7200:5CAD:1932:3D03:3114 (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John 3:16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
the amount of vandalism38.73.253.217 (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Nicholas Michael Halim, I will try to copyedit the article to the best of my ability. If you have any concerns about my edits, please tell me right here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I should be able to begin this review tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
First off, this cannot be promoted to GA without all the red in the references being fixed. I will proceed as if it's all done!
Second, I will do a prose review first and then will come back and do a random check of the references to be sure they say what they are supposed to. Don't worry if I find some mistakes, they seem to show up in every article no matter how careful we all try to be. I may ask a friend to help check these as well.
Next to last, don't be put off by my nit-picking. Overall, it's an excellent article, but this is what GA does.
Now last! Please use the template Done to mark when each of my comments have been addressed. (It makes it easier for me to keep track.) If you have objections or disagreements with anything I have said, you are free to voice them, and I promise to listen with an open mind. Come armed with good sources, and I will probably go with what you find. This is my field of study - religion - but things are always changing, and there is always stuff I don't know. I will do my best to be fair and reasonable. For all grammar rules and punctuation, I use The Brief English Handbook, second edition. I want you to succeed, and I am committed to making WP the best encyclopedia possible. Work with me, and we will insure that both those things will happen. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
In the lead, it is a WP standard that controversial statements need references. The rest doesn't need references so long. as they are in the body, but this It is deemed one of the most popular verses from the Bible and as a summary of Christianity's central doctrines
will probably be seen as controversial by some readers. I note that the concept is referenced in the body, so that shouldn't be difficult.
I would like to see the lead beefed up a little more. Maybe an additional summary statement of each section? Just to be sure a reader who only reads the lead (which happens a lot) still gets what's most important.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
By including an explanation of who Jesus is begins with the conversation between Nicodemus[2] and Jesus, a Jewish itinerant preacher.[
it seems odd for there not to be one of Nicodemus as well. I know he's linked, but readers often don't follow those, therefore, for symmetry in the prose, I would just add "a Pharisee" after Nicodemus' name.
This is one of four times in which Nicodemus is mentioned in John:...
Add a sentence either here or at the end of this paragraph that says Nicodemus is not mentioned in the synoptics. You will need a source for that but I know it's correct. It should be easy to find.
the Second Temple Judaism. I
remove "the";
It was known
for clarity, change pronoun to noun: "it" for "Phariseeism";
a rabbinical Jewish law
is incorrect. Rabbinical law was post 600- 700 AD, and it is not "a" law, it is the collection of laws derived from the Torah.
highly opposing attitudes
should read "... and for its highly oppositional attitudes of (or toward)..."
Nicodemus came to Jesus at night[13] – the only time a Pharisee is presented positively in the presence of Jesus.
this is an incorrect use of a dash which is like a comma and therefore creates a sentence fragment. This is a perfect time to use a semi-colon however. Try this: "Nicodemus came to Jesus at night;[13] it is the only time a Pharisee is presented positively in the presence of Jesus anywhere in the four gospels."
On what Jesus did at the cleansing of the Temple, by expelling merchants and money changers,[16] Nicodemus said he knew Jesus was "a teacher who came from God"
This is incorrect. The first two verses say only "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.” They make no mention of the cleansing of the Temple. It was after that that Jesus was arrested.
They then discussed about the need to be born again before being able to see the Kingdom of God,[19] and where the spirit goes after the death of the body
no comma after God
Jesus then spoke about the salvation and damnation that people shall reap; and those who do not believe in him will face,[21] and criticised Nicodemus for his lack in the understanding of theology.
this is an incorrect use of a semi-colon. Remove it and don't use "and", use that instead. End the sentence after face. Start a new sentence with "He criticized...
I note that you stop there, but the remainder of the text is just as relevant to context imo. A summary that includes that most scholars see the rest of the chapter as the words of Jesus would also be appropriate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I note that you stop there, but the remainder of the text is just as relevant to context imo. A summary that includes that most scholars see the rest of the chapter as the words of Jesus would also be appropriate.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This will seem like an an odd section to most readers imo but also cool. I like it. I have not checked any of them for accuracy. I will later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
This needs more explaining. First, I would explain how you can reference King James as having the same verse three ways.
Then I would add what methods are used for analyzing this verse: textual criticism? Some of this looks like literary criticism - "parallels with surrounding verses" - but one or at most two sentences with some real critical analysis would be good. Take a look at this for example: [[Gundry, Robert H., and Russell W. Howell. “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14-17 with Special Reference to the Use of Ὅυτως... Ὥστε in John 3:16.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 41, no. 1, 1999, pp. 24–39, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561476. Accessed 26 Apr. 2022.]]
Most of this seems to not actually be analysis so much as it is simple exegesis; that should also be said.
So real life is interfering right now, but I should be back later tonight. This won't take long, I'm sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Are your quotes exact? They have to be exact, and I do mean exact, from every word to every comma. Otherwise, paraphrasing is best. They should all be checked.
John 3:16 is in which God's motives on sending Jesus,[24] which in Christianity are to give people believing in the latter an eternal life, appears in the Gospel for a first time;[25] eternal life is also a dominant theme in the entire Gospel.
This needs to be divided and reworded. As it is, it makes no sense at all.
Theologian Larry Hurtado saw the verse to reflect Jesus's importance in Christianity
"sees" the verse "as reflecting" Jesus' without the extra s
Mention of the ... the
remove one 'the'
However, Anglican bishop N. T. Wright confuted:
don't use confuted here. It's too strong a term for this, and it's unecessary and confusing to the majority of our readers. Just say NTW argues against that view saying...
The verse's purpose is assumed to strengthen the faith of Christians, not to be an evangelistic tool.
The verse's purpose is assumed to be that of strengthening faith in those already Christian and not evangelizing non-Christians.
... instead, the emphasisation of the verse is, for Christians, to keep believing.
the emphasis of the verse is toward continuing belief in (or for if you prefer) Christians.
John 3:16 has parallels with surrounding verses[34] – up to 3:21,
I found this statement odd, so I checked your sources and can find no explanation of what it means in the references you cite. Can you direct me to where I might find an explanation of what this means?
This results in a controversial speculation[38] that John 3:16 is a personal commentary of an evangelist, traditionally John the Evangelist.
There is speculation that John 3:16 is the personal commentary of an evangelist, traditionally "thought to be" John the Evangelist, but it is controversial.
Theologian David Pawson said it is unusual for Jesus to say such in a third-person perspective, or repeat and expand
change "say such in" to "speak from and "a perspective" to "the third person perspective", no comma, or "to" repeat "or" expand...
Move this whole sentence to the section that discusses it below. Jesus never referred to himself as "only begotten Son"[41] but as "Son of Man";[42] "only begotten son" is what the evangelist call Jesus in John 1.[43]
Jesus never referred to himself as "the" "only begotten Son"[41] but as the "Son of Man". end of sentence "only begotten son" is what the evangelist call Jesus in John 1
Only begotten son (No quotes needed) ... calls...
John 3:16 has parallels with surrounding verses[34] – up to 3:21,Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
RL again! I'll be back later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Nicholas Michael Halim I can't see that anything has substantially changed. The addition of the Muslim comments is good but insufficient. I am going to fail this for now due to non-npov, referencing problems (still red), continued problems with English grammar, and a failure to respond to requested additions to the body of the text. Please don't be discouraged by this. Make the academic additions. Discuss the controversy over authorship and dating. Explain better that Jerome probably added 'only begotten' because of the Arian controversy. Work on this article and renominate. I wish you the best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Bible verses New text to Matthew 2603:6000:9744:8B00:197E:A65F:CC65:650 (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)