@bigdoggproblemsaid Let's have an example of a Biblical passage that reads differently once you take the chapter and the verse breaks out.
Almost all Christians can quote this verse.
John 3:16
Can you quote it? Picking out pet text always runs the risk of lost context.
You familiar with John 3:14? Can you quote it?
You familiar with John 3:15? Can you quote it?
In context this puts a little different spin on 3:16 in the context it was said.
You familiar with John 3:17? Can you quote it?
You familiar with John 3:18? Can you quote it?
Some verses cut across sentences, chopping up thoughts, the same with Chapter headings.
@kellyjaysaid Almost all Christians can quote this verse.
John 3:16
Can you quote it? Picking out pet text always runs the risk of lost context.
You familiar with John 3:14? Can you quote it?
You familiar with John 3:15? Can you quote it?
In context this puts a little different spin on 3:16 in the context it was said.
You familiar with John 3:17? Can you quote it?
You familiar wi ...[text shortened]... quote it?
Some verses cut across sentences, chopping up thoughts, the same with Chapter headings.
Trying not to lose the context, we've got:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 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. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I'm not seeing that a great deal has been added by the surrounding verses. If anything, John 3:16 is the succinct statement of the passage's theme, while the rest sounds a bit rambling.
@bigdoggproblemsaid Trying not to lose the context, we've got:
[quote]And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 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. For God did not ...[text shortened]... g, John 3:16 is the succinct statement of the passage's theme, while the rest sounds a bit rambling.
I agree with you the point of God's love isn't just a feeling, it is seeing a need and doing something about it. As was done with the serpent, they asked him to take away the snakes that were killing them, and God instead had Moses make the bronze staff. Those that looked at it lived, and those that didn't died. It is the theme of love throughout the NT, as in James it says you see someone in need do something.
Others have used John 3:16 simply to say God loves us, ignoring or taking away from doing portion of the text, as well as the danger that not going to Jesus has for those that reject Him too. Thinking that what that verse implies is that for God soooooooo loved the world. Which can lead them into thinking we are home free because God wouldn't harm those He loves.
@kellyjaysaid Almost all Christians can quote this verse.
John 3:16
Can you quote it? Picking out pet text always runs the risk of lost context.
You familiar with John 3:14? Can you quote it?
You familiar with John 3:15? Can you quote it?
In context this puts a little different spin on 3:16 in the context it was said.
You familiar with John 3:17? Can you quote it?
You familiar wi ...[text shortened]... quote it?
Some verses cut across sentences, chopping up thoughts, the same with Chapter headings.
This example doesn't demonstrate how physically removing chapter and verse breaks materially changes the meaning. The sentences are still the same.
Are you aware that there isn't any punctuation in the original text? As such, that there is nothing that explicitly organizes the text in sentences?
Are you aware that in John 3 there is even debate amongst biblical scholars and translators as to when Jesus stops talking and when commentary by the narrator begins?
There are much bigger issues than chapter and verse indicators which can be easily ignored.
@thinkofonesaid This example doesn't demonstrate how physically removing chapter and verse breaks materially changes the meaning. The sentences are still the same.
Are you aware that there isn't any punctuation in the original text? As such, that there is nothing that explicitly organizes the text in sentences?
Are you aware that in John 3 there is even debate amongst biblical scho ...[text shortened]... gins?
There are much bigger issues than chapter and verse indicators which can be easily ignored.
The sentences are still the same, they are the same surrounding the chapters too, but nonetheless the flow of the text gets altered. As you point out with punctuation, since some of the verses cut sentence apart, others string some together, and Chapters introduce page breaks where there shouldn't be any. You prove my point; the Chapters and verses do alter the text. Listening to them if the chapters are not introduced could keep it clean, but most audio versions announce changes in chapters too.
In Jesus' statement where do you think the narrator begins and ends, he is interjecting his views into the middle of a conversation?
@kellyjaysaid The sentences are still the same, they are the same surrounding the chapters too, but nonetheless the flow of the text gets altered. As you point out with punctuation, since some of the verses cut sentence apart, others string some together, and Chapters introduce page breaks where there shouldn't be any. You prove my point; the Chapters and verses do alter the text. Listeni ...[text shortened]... think the narrator begins and ends, he is interjecting his views into the middle of a conversation?
You seem to have missed the point: The translators decide where sentences begin and end. It isn't dictated by the original text.
In Jesus' statement where do you think the narrator begins and ends, he is interjecting his views into the middle of a conversation?
As an example, compare the NIV with the ESV. In the NIV Jesus stops talking after (3:15) while in the ESV Jesus doesn't stop until after (3:21).
Personally I believe that Jesus stops talking after (3:14). Based on context and phrasing, it's what makes the most sense.
@thinkofonesaid You seem to have missed the point: The translators decide where sentences begin and end. It isn't dictated by the original text.
In Jesus' statement where do you think the narrator begins and ends, he is interjecting his views into the middle of a conversation?
As an example, compare the NIV with the ESV. In the NIV Jesus stops talking after (3:16) while in t ...[text shortened]... eve that Jesus stops talking after (3:15). Based on context and phrasing, it's what make most sense.
It is a flow of conversation I don't see Him stopping his part until 3:21 based on the context and phrasing. It is at verse 3:22 that narration begins again. Strip out the verses this looks just right that way too.
@kellyjaysaid It is a flow of conversation I don't see Him stopping his part until 3:21 based on the context and phrasing. It is at verse 3:22 that narration begins again. Strip out the verses this looks just right that way too.
The phrasing is all wrong for Jesus to have said 3:16. For it to be Jesus, He would have lapsed into a really awkward third person - even for him. The transition to a completely different subject also tells against it. There are other considerations as well.
For example:
Dear Dr. Bock,
can you explain why various translations of the Bible differ on whether John 3:16 is a direct quote of Jesus or a comment of the narrator of the Gospel?
many thanks. GBU.
The answer is that there is a judgment about where Jesus words stop in John 3 as he is dialoging with Nicodemus. (Sometimes editors determine the red in red letter Bibles to say where Jesus is speaking, rather than the speaker being clearly named in the text.) Some go as far with Jesus speaking as 3:21. However the phrasing in v 16-- "one and only Son" [also in v 18] -- is more Johannine than the language of Jesus (see John 1:14, 18). Jesu speaks of himself as simply the Son in John (e.g, John 5:19) or as Son of Man (vv 13-14). The light-darkness contrast later in the unit also fits in this category. So it is likely John 3:16-21 are the comments of John on the significance of what Jesus said to Nicodemus.
Pasted from <http://blogs.bible.org/node/487>
Short Answer: Though it's difficult to say, the NIV is probably correct. It's the narrator, not Jesus, who is most likely speaking in John 3:13-21.
Here's why.
John appears to be establishing a chiasm between the first and second miracles at Cana. This third-person monologue (3:13-21) is paralleled with a similar monologue after the testimony of John the Baptist (3:31-36).
A - First Cana Miracle (2:1-12)
B - Temple Cleansing and events in Jerusalem (2:13-25)
C - Conversation with Jesus (3:1-12)
D - Third Person Monologue (3:13-21)
E - John the Baptist's Testimony (3:22-30)
D' - Third Person Monologue (3:31-36)
C' - Conversation with Jesus (4:1-19)
B' - Replaced Temples and events in Jerusalem (4:20-45)
A' - Second Cana Miracle (4:46-54)
Explanation of the Chiasm
A - A' First and Second Cana Miracles: More than simply linked by location and number, there's a common subject and sequence that ties these two stories together. (1) A mother implores Jesus, her son and a father implores Jesus concerning his son (2:3; 4:47). (2) Jesus rebuffs the request (2:4; 4:48). (3) Both mother and father continue to press (2:5;4:49). (3) Jesus commands action without evidence (2:8; 4:50). (4) The servants and the father obey the command (2:8; 4:50). (5) The miracle is revealed (2:9; 4:51). (6) The result is belief in Jesus (2:11; 4:53).
B - B' Events at the Temple in Jerusalem: In speaking to the authorities in John 2 Jesus refers not to the actual temple but rather His own body and to the woman Jesus declares all such earthly temples now superseded. Both conversations end with a brief summary of the crowds' response to Jesus' actions. The later also ends with a reminder of the formers events (4:45).
C - C' Conversations with Jesus: These are the only two sections in John where Jesus has a conversation with a single individual alone. Both conversations turn on the issue of water but antithetical parallels also abound: Time of Day (Night - Noon), Conversation starter (Nicodimus - Jesus), Gender (man - woman), Ethnicity (Jew - Samaritan), Identity (named - unnamed)... The list goes on.
D - D' The Third-Person Monologues: Both these monologues begin as narrative speeches in the first person and jump suddenly into the third person, making it difficult to tell weather or not the characters are still speaking or if the author has simply stepped in. In addition, these two discourses share a number of parallel phrases and related themes.
• "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man. (3:13)." "The one who comes from above is above all (Jesus); the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth (John the Baptist). The one who comes from heaven is above all (3:31-32)."
• "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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (3:16-18)." "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (3:36).
E John the Baptist's Testimony: Confined on either side by the third person monologues, John's testimony appears to represent this chiasm's pivot.
Pasted from <http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4991/to-whom-should-we-attribute-john-316>
2. This second view is taken up by the Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the English Standard Version and the NET Bible. These Bibles along with their committee of translators and editors propose that Jesus’ exchange with Nicodemus ends at verse 15 and the following verses up to verse 21 are the thoughts and commentary of the author of John. Interpreters who favour this position propose the following arguments to substantiate their position:
a) John 3:16 introduces a new subject which disconnects it from the previous verse. In John 3:16 “God” is introduced as a new subject and so this may indicate the author’s own exposition on Jesus’ preceding words.
This view is proposed by Bartholoma: “Evidence for regarding 3:16-21 as the evangelist’s exposition may be found in the introduction of “God” as the new subject in 3:16-17, the tail-head transition between 3:15 and 3:16…” [5]
b) The phrase τὴν ἀλήθειαν (ton aletheian, “to do truth&rdquo😉 only occurs elsewhere in 1 John 1:6 and is never used by Jesus in his speeches.
c) The special phrase τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ (ton huios ton monogenen, “the only Son&rdquo😉 in John 3:16 is never used by Jesus to refer to himself or anyone else in his speeches. It is only used by the author of John in his commentary and notes about Jesus (John 1:14 and John 1:18 [following most textual critics, we would agree with the Byzantine reading as opposed to the Alexandrian]).
d) The phrase ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν (ho pisteuon eis auton, “who believes in him&rdquo😉 in John 3:16 and again in verse 18 is only used by the author of John and never by Jesus himself (John 1:12 and John 2:23).
e) John 3:19 conveys the same idea as the author of John’s musings in John 1:9-11 in the Prologue. The tone used in the verse seems to be historic in nature, conveying the idea of past rejection, e.g., “loved darkness” and “were evil”.
f) It is not infrequent for the author of John to abruptly intercede and insert his ideas, thoughts or commentary on a topic between or right after the words of Jesus, e.g., John 1:16-18 and John 12:37-41.
g) And the strongest point that this position puts forward is the fact the John 3:16 abruptly changes the tense from present to past, i.e., John 3:1 until John 3:15 are formatted in the present tense which tallies with how Jesus’ speech is typically structured. But John 3:16 shows an abrupt change in the tense to the past tense. [6]
Points b, c, d, e, f and g are used by the noted biblical scholar Marvin Vincent, who was Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature in Union Theological Seminary in New York. He strongly opposes the view that sees verses 16 to 21 as the words of Jesus and postulates no less than six reasons to substantiate his stance. Commenting on John 3:15 he writes:
“The interview with Nicodemus closes with ver. 15; and the succeeding words are John’s. This appears from the following facts: 1. The past tense loved and gave, in ver. 16, better suit the later point of view from which John writes, after the atoning death of Christ was an accomplished historic fact, than the drift of the present discourse of Jesus before the full revelation of that work. 2. It is in John’s manner to throw in explanatory comments of his own (i. 16-18; xii. 37-41), and to do so abruptly. See i. 15, 16, and on and, i. 16. 3. Ver. 19 is in the same line of thought with i. 9-11 in the Prologue; and the tone of that verse is historic, carrying the sense of past rejection, as loved darkness; were evil. 4. The phrase believe on the name is not used elsewhere by our Lord, but by John (i. 12; ii. 23; 1 John v. 13). 5. The phrase only-begotten son is not elsewhere used by Jesus of himself, but in every case by the Evangelist occurs elsewhere only in 1 John i. 6.” [7]
The above good point about the abrupt shift in the tense is also begrudgingly agreed upon (or at least, he submits to the possible view) by Dwight Pentecost as he quotes commentator, Shepard who in his The Christ writes:
“The past tenses of the verses which follow (3:16-21), would indicate that they are not the words of Christ, who would have used present tenses in His conversation, but of John who in these verses recapitulates in summary and comments on the teaching of Christ to Nicodemus. These seasoned reflections of John in the interview, reannounce Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God sent into the world to be its Teacher and Saviour.” [8]
Pasted from <http://unveiling-christianity.net/2016/02/08/john-316-jesus/>
BTW I corrected a couple of typos in my previous post as to when Jesus stops talking.
@thinkofonesaid The phrasing is all wrong for Jesus to have said 3:16. For it to be Jesus, He would have lapsed into a really awkward third person - even for him. There are other considerations as well. The transition to a completely different subject also tells against it.
For example:
Dear Dr. Bock,
can you explain why various translations of the Bible differ on whether Joh ...[text shortened]... 7>
BTW I corrected a couple of typos in my previous post as to when Jesus stops talking.
It isn't moving into a different subject, as I was pointing out He was explaining that God gave the staff for the snakes to be lifted up for the people's needs, and in the same way He was sent to be lifted up. The reason 3:16 was said was because of 14, through 18 were all on point. Jesus needed to be lifted up to save people, and those that didn't go to Him were not going to be saved, just as those with the snakes they didn't go look at the staff they were going to die.
@kellyjaysaid It isn't moving into a different subject, as I was pointing out He was explaining that God gave the staff for the snakes to be lifted up for the people's needs, and in the same way He was sent to be lifted up. The reason 3:16 was said was because of 14, through 18 were all on point. Jesus needed to be lifted up to save people, and those that didn't go to Him were not going to be saved, just as those with the snakes they didn't go look at the staff they were going to die.
Read through the examples I posted. There's a lot more to it than what you're considering.
@kellyjaysaid Due to listening to someone talk about scripture, they mentioned that the original text didn't have chapters and verses in them, something I've always known, but never gave it a second thought.
These added breaks in text were good for identifying passages, but there is a down side too, and its a big one. They can actually change the meaning by breaking up the flow of the ...[text shortened]... I highly recommend getting one of these for your personal study there is a difference in reading it.
I definitely would not mind getting such a thing. I have heard that even the punctuation by modern conventions can change meaning.
People often forget, while they are reading, that the standardization of grammar wasn't a thing for a long time.
I believe that the first effort at standardizing a national grammar was in Spain, but I could be wrong. I do know that the Arabs had famous grammarians before this point and it was vital to them due to the nature of the Koran, but this is a separate issue to some degree as they still might have not really viewed any effort at grammar standardization in the same lens as the Spanish.
@philokaliasaid I definitely would not mind getting such a thing. I have heard that even the punctuation by modern conventions can change meaning.
People often forget, while they are reading, that the standardization of grammar wasn't a thing for a long time.
I believe that the first effort at standardizing a national grammar was in Spain, but I could be wrong. I do know that the ...[text shortened]... might have not really viewed any effort at grammar standardization in the same lens as the Spanish.
I'm enjoying mine so far, and I discovered if you like reading in Biblegateway there is an option for turning of the verses. It doesn't get rid of the chapters which still create breaks in letters and books that were not there when written.
I spend a lot of time reading a variety of translations prayerfully, punctuation, culture, time frames, the who what why was something written, there are a host of things that we need to beware of. God's Spirit leads and teaches so I'm comfortable in study.
@thinkofonesaid The phrasing is all wrong for Jesus to have said 3:16. For it to be Jesus, He would have lapsed into a really awkward third person - even for him. The transition to a completely different subject also tells against it. There are other considerations as well.
For example:
Dear Dr. Bock,
can you explain why various translations of the Bible differ on whether Jo ...[text shortened]...
BTW I corrected a couple of typos in my previous post as to when Jesus stops talking.
Thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I think you put in some effort and I’m being serious when I’m saying thank you.
@kellyjaysaid Thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I think you put in some effort and I’m being serious when I’m saying thank you.
Sure. Hope it gave you some inkling as to how far out of your depth you are when it comes to understanding scripture. Once again you've shown that you can do little more than regurgitate the dogma that you've been taught. It's unfortunate that you lack the humility to admit it.
Scripture without Chapters and verses
26 Jan '19 01:211 edit
Back to Top