Let’s do a little experiment. What if one translated according to the grammatical rules without picking and choosing which grammatical rules to follow and when in favor of bias or tradition?
First, “God” is a generic Anglo term. Theos, the original word, was a more complex term. Its original meaning ranged anywhere from ruler to someone who was considered beyond human to Zeus with an etymological meaning of “to do, put, place”.
From Proto-Hellenic *tʰehós (whence also Mycenaean Greek (te-o)), a thematicization of Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s, from *dʰeh₁- (“to do, to put, to place”) + *-s. Cognate with Phrygian δεως (deōs, “to the gods”), Old Armenian դիք (dikʿ, “pagan gods”) and Latin fēriae (“festival days”), fānum (“temple”) and fēstus (“festive”). Despite its similarity in form and meaning, the word is not related to Latin deus; the two come from different roots. A true cognate of deus is Ζεύς (Zeús).[1][2]
For Theos so loved..
the “so” is a word that means “thus” or “in this way”.
For thus Theos loved the world…
“World” is indeed the whole ordered world–the kosmos. It is also in the accusative meaning God does something to the world…
For thus Theos loved the world, that…
The conjunction isn’t merely “that” but rather “so that” or “therefore”…
For thus Theos loved the world, so that the only begotten son he gave…
“Only begotten” is actually from one word, monogenés (#G3439), that literally means only-kind. Genos (#G1805) is related to genesis or origin, and means offspring, family, race, nation, kind. The literal order of the accusative nouns with the definite articles is the son, the only-kind…
For thus Theos loved the world, so that the son the only-kind he gave, in order that the whole of the one-who-believes…
A present tense participle active verb works like a noun-verb—pisteuōn believing-one or he-who-believes. And guess what? It is in the masculine singular–one-who-believes. There is also a definite article ὁ to this which insinuates that the participle verb is specific, the one who believes. “He-who-believes” does not speak of a single cognitive assent but of him who endures to the end. The Greek pas (#G3956) is literally whole. “In order that” (#G2443) is a slightly different conjunction than the previous “so that” (#G5620).
For thus God loved the world, so that the son the only-kind he gave, in order that the whole of the one-who-believes into him…
“Eis” (#G1519) is properly into and not “in”. “Auton” is accusative him or himself.
For thus Theos loved the world, so that the son the only-kind he gave, in order that the whole of the one-who-believes into him may not perish…
The word apollumi (#G622) is quite a bit more dramatic than “perish”. It is also in the subjunctive meaning it should be translated with “may” or “might” or something similar. The verb is also in what is called the “middle voice” which means the subject is the recipient of the action. Because it is in the 3rd person masculine singular we will render it “be destroyed”.
For thus Theos loved the world, so that the son the only-kind he gave, in order that the whole of the one-who-believes into him may not be destroyed, but have life everlasting.
Zoe-life is not the same soul-life or bios-life. These Greek words would provide far greater insight to what the authors thought “everlasting life” really means if they weren’t all translated the same.
Here is the result of our experiement:
For thus Theos loved the world, so that the son the only-kind he gave, in order that the whole of the one-who-believes into him may not be destroyed, but have zoe-life everlasting.
Why did John write that the son was “given” rather than something more concrete such as “sacrificed” or even “slaughtered” which would be much more inline with the Old Testament language for “lambs offered in sacrifice”? Why so vague, John? And, who is the “one who believes”?
