Talk:John 3:16

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 ensuing paragraph relates that one. Not very well though.--Will2k 15:48, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

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 thought the same thing honestly, when reading this article before making my post to the AfD discussion. and accurately should probably go... I know that the issue of salvation has been at the center of controversy for centuries (see Predestination for starters) so I think it's certainly POV to say that John 3:16 accurately reflects what every christian believes. I think citing a source or two could be helpful, if anyone wants to dig one up. --W.marsh 22:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

::Apparently all people involved in this discussion come from the other AfD... Anyway, I also dispute that the verse summarizes the central dogmata of Christianity. Who said that? These are two central dogmaota, but only ones exists, as far as I know. I therefore propose to change the second sentence of the introduction into:

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)

:: Like you I have never really thought the introductory sentence of which you speak properly summarised the sort of doctrinal things which Christians see this verse as pointing towards. Encouraged by your proposing to revise it, I have gone for a radical reworking of this sentence. See if you think it accurately reflects the Christian doctines for which Christians consider this verse so rich in theology! Be bold. Brusselsshrek 13:28, 12 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)

::I'm very glad that you linked to the relevant doctrinal detail. I hoped and knew this would happen. Following your lead, I've just also added the link to sola fide. I am very happy that at least this new structure enables the depth of the verse to be explained via links to the relevant doctrinal sections. Brusselsshrek 12:38, 14 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)

:I'm very happy to drop the whole "sola-fide" thing. I think it is important to make sure that the links only point to what the verse actually does state or imply, rather than bringing in all sorts of other things (which may or may not be supported elsewhere in scripture). I therefore can only support the linking purely to "faith"; this is certainly how the verse says we are saved, and certainly any conclusion of whether this is by faith alone or includes works is beyond the scope of this verse, and so from a NPOV stance it is correct that such debate be left for elsewhere. I have not looked, but I am sure that the sola fide and other similar pages display with full vigour each side of this obviously very important discussion. Brusselsshrek 10:22, 3 March 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)

:Since nobody has objected, I've made the change. » MonkeeSage « 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

::A bit late, but I agree. It is in accordance with context and meaning of other NT verses. -- ActiveSelective 04:58, 3 June 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 problem is thus: the image is of the NIV translation which is copyrighted (so can't be used in the article). I have requested WP review the image to determine if it falls under fair use. What is probably the best course of action, regardless of fair use ruling, is to take a similar picture of a non-copyrighted version (such as the KJV which is the one being quoted). AdamWeeden 12:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

::After posting the image to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can_I_use... (the appropriate spot for this sort of thing) and getting some negative feedback, I'm going to be requesting the image be taken down as a copyright violation. If anyone has a non-copyrighted Bible they'd like to photograph as a replacement, feel free. Adam Weeden 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The interpretive section at the beginning of the article needed to be prefaced to point out its subjectivity.

: I don't think it should be prefaced, I think it should be removed and replaced by sourced interpretations from credible and varied sources. For instance, if the Pope of the catholic church made a quote about the verse, provide sources and place here. The same goes for other churches, pastors, and religious affiliations. I don't want to be so bold as to remove the entire section, which could spark an edit war, but as it is, it is nothing more than OR, and needs to go.72.78.179.244 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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:

:Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

:So [much], id est, loved [masculine article "o"] God the world, that the Son the [only child/of same substance] [He] gave so-that everyone who believes to Him not perish but have life eternal.

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:

• "γάρ" can mean any of the following: id est/that is/to say/i.e./therefore/to explain...
• "ἵνα" can mean: so that/to/so as/for/so to/in order to...

Your input is valuable. NikoSilver 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

: Nonsense. The distinction between uppercase and lowercase letters in the Greek alphabet did not exist until centuries after this text and its early manuscripts were written. There is no capitalization in the early manuscripts, as can be plainly seen by looking at them. Where are you getting this nonsense? Antinoos69 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

An actual literal translation is much more like :

:So indeed loved God the world that the son the unique he gave that everyone who believes on him not may perish but have life eternal.

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)

:thank you😚 41.114.207.180 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2024 (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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_3:16&diff=prev&oldid=165135218 this old version] for some examples that have previously been added and deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:People keep adding this one:

:*'' In Family Guy, Chris Griffin holds up a sign which reads: 'John 3:16'. Brian later looks for this quotation in the Bible and reads: 'And the Lord said, "Go Sox!".

:Why? Is it particularly significant? - Fayenatic (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2008 (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)

:But is there any reason to consider it more significant than all the other references in pop culture? Did it raise a prominent response e.g. was the public or official reaction to it discussed in newspapers or on television? No? Then I'm deleting it again. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

::Then why do all the other get to be on they did not "raise a prominent response". If You Can't Back this up then I think the whole Pop Culture Section should be removed Speer320 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

:A long list of trivial pop culture references has been concisely summarised already. This one is covered in the existing sentence Various real and fictional characters have parodied the phrase by substituting their own name for "John", or pretending that the verse says something else. "Austin 3:16" gained press coverage; did "And the Lord said, Go Sox"? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:49, 22 September 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)

:It probably would. Did it raise a prominent response e.g. was the public or official reaction to it discussed in newspapers or on television? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:29, 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)

:See above. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cowboy superstar Dale Evans apparently would cite John 3:16 on her autographs [http://howardcableblog.com/2014/01/31/roy-rogers-the-whole-wholesome-family/comment-page-1/#comment-240 according to this artifact reported to the Howard Cable blog] Teledyn (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As per the Snopes article at http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/bibleverse.asp, 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)

:This morning, I posted a short synopsis of the recent leading-headlines scandal and my rationale for its inclusion in this article (i.e., "added Sheena Monnin entry - it's in front-page news and in broadcast headlines; her religious views (summed up in John 3:16) are being used to explain her views"). Additionally, the pageant has also begun selecting questions for its finalists from Twitter, even more closely linking that organization to social media, and thereby making Monnin's Facebook entries all the more relevant. Here's my post:

::* On her Facebook page, Miss USA 2012 contestant Sheena Monnin (Miss Pennsylvania 2012) describes herself as "conservative" and characterizes her religious views by citing the Bible verse John 3:16. The beauty pageant queen and her Facebook postings recently made headlines when Monnin resigned from pageant after publicly claiming it was fixed, posting on her Facebook page, "After it was indeed the Top 5 I knew the show must be rigged; I decided at that moment to distance myself from an organization who did not allow fair play and whose morals did not match my own.” The Miss Universe Organization dismissed her allegations as "false", and published portions of an email Monnin sent pageant officials indicating that she was resigning for a different reason: because she disagreed with the organization’s recent decision to admit transgender contestants.{{cite web|website=today.msnbc.msn.com|url=http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47696589/ns/today-style/|date=updated 6/5/2012 7:34:07 PM ET|accessdate=June 6, 2012|title=Miss USA contestant resigns, says pageant was fixed: Officials dismiss beauty queen’s accusations as ‘false,’ maintain she has different agenda |work=Today}} Froid 10:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Personally, I find it hard to think of a cultural allusion with less relevance. The verse contains a passing mention in the article. Contrast this, for example, with the coverage the verse gets in regards to Tim Tebow. StAnselm (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

{{Reflist}}

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)

:Depends what you define as a "valid" bible translation. We have to be really careful in answering this as this somewhat of a moving target. I know people who say the KJV is the only "valid" translation. Adam Weeden 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::No. It's a wiki on the internet. It's not a fixed publication. It's not a question of whether the translation is theologically valid (the KJV-only thing) but whether a reliable source exists to document the translation. For lolcats, the answer is emphatically "no". — Lomn 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Excellent point. Adam Weeden 14:14, 17 September 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)

: Brilliant improvement, and a fairly good selection as well. AndrewNJ (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

:: Added Recovery Version literal translation. Useful due to its translation of the Greek preposition "eis" as "into" rather than "in". PRedLSU (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)PRedLSU 02:25, 29 May 2009 (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

:The Message in in the list as an example of non-literal Bible translations completed in the 21st century (even though its NT was published in the 20th). See here for a C21 list: http://bible-researcher.com/versbib13.html

:Clearly, The Message might be superseded by more significant new works as the century goes on, but for the time being it is often quoted.

:The other points of view expressed above would be interesting to discuss, but this is not the place. The Message's take on this verse is not so demonstrably heinous as to deny it a place in the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

:I can understand how you can feel this way, but that does not take away from the fact that in terms of public consumption, John 3:16 is often cited singularly. Ubiquitous are signs/notes with "John 3:16" on them. I don't think I've ever seen a sign/note saying "John 3:16-18." The Bible is all about context, so no verse stands on its own, but John 3:16 is often used as a encapsulated message that sums up the Gospel succinctly, and accurately, if maybe a bit simplistically. I would recommend that if you can find some published articles from respected sources online about how John 3:16 should be viewed in the larger context of John 3:16-18 that you should expand on the context section at the beginning of the article. However, we have to be careful, as this is somewhat of a slippery slope. Once could argue that the context should be larger than even John 3:16-18, and it could grow and grow until it takes up the whole chapter, book, new testament, and Bible. I personally feel that the whole chapter (especially 3:5) are important to understanding what Jesus REALLY means by what he says in 3:16, but that goes back to basic principles of exegesis, and speaks more to taking ANY verse out of context. Adam Weeden 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::You're right, of course. While trying to think out of the box, I believe my brain may have slightly fallen out as well on that one. Can you tell me when this whole "John 3:16" thing began? My knowledge of Christian history is pretty weak. The article alludes to something about a John Chrysostom. Is he responsible for popularizing it? At what point did Christians begin using the term "John 3:16" to represent their faith? Also, is the objection by David Pawson significant, and if so, can we summarize it in the article? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I understand why there is a page on just 3:16, but since if there is a "Context" section, that section should at least be accurate. The current thing given as the "Context" here has nothing at all to do with John's point here (especially in reference to John's over-arching purpose in his Gospel). There are other places where John says that the only path to eternal life, but that is not what 3:16 refers to. The focus is on the "whosoever" (Jew OR Greek). The passage as a whole is clearly a critique of how the Jewish leaders had rejected Christ because he exposed their evil, and those Jewish leaders have "already been condemned" (John writing after the Temple having been destroyed in AD 70). Hence now anyone (Jew or Greek) can enter the Kingdom of God through being born again. And for this reason, Jesus must be "lifted up" so "everyone who believes" can receive the spirit (John 3:15), this is the effect Jesus describes elsewhere with the same language (If I am "lifted up" I will draw "all men" to myself) (John 12:32) and similarly Jesus gives the spirit because he "will be given all things" (John 16:15). Remember, John wrote to the Greeks about how God's grace is now available to everyone since the Jews rejected Christ, and it is that availability that is the focus in John 3:15 (for which John 3:16 is the explanation). I would like to edit the "context" section to correct this.68.57.75.246 (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2009 (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)

: I think because it IS so well-known, and it does present a simple summary of the "good news" of the gospel. It's truly good news for anybody who's tried to please God through their acts and fallen short many times. That's the emphasis of the "whosoever." Fool4jesus (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2011 (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)

::Chill dude, and read John 1 sometime. That first text (ToSilv.) is nothing unusual and does not state the Spirit is Jesus, but that the Word is Jesus (again, Read John 1). The later ones don't even appear to have anything to do with what you're saying. In fact, the latter of these texts may not even have anything to do with Christianity: it may just be a gnostic-Jewish text, which was common enough that John 1 draws upon the lingo from those ideologies (though somewhat altering the meanings in the terms, then jumping from that into the Christian gospel). There was established religious and ideological in-speak throughout religious communities even back then, (of course), including with the use of logoi (word), with variant conceptions and paradigms depending on communities, locale, heritage, etc..

tooMuchData

—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

:Yes, as the discussion #Reference to Textus Receptus vs Alexandrian Text (above) refers to at least one difference between the texts for this verse. Hoping that someone with access to the texts will do so. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

:Thanks, but (as stated at the top) this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a general forum. There's no scope to add personal interpretaions of scripture -- take a look at WP:PRIMARY; in an encyclopedia we need interpretations to be cited from recognised commentaries. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:41, 10 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)

:Ah, you mean in the table of translations, in the column headed "Century & distinctive features". It's meant to be century. Perhaps linking them, e.g. C20, would help to make this clearer. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 14 June 2013 (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)

:The backstory, recorded at [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hlAmZlssEoYC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=john+3:16+215+cleopatra%27s+needle&source=bl&ots=2WGinB_bvr&sig=kzfiCxRGRzMu8cPDCFU1KB5y0Pw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7ry6UaqpCcWf0QXm6oGYCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=john%203%3A16%20215%20cleopatra%27s%20needle&f=false] by Jerry Vines, seems notable to me. I'd use this in the introduction rather than under popular culture, but leave the details as a quotation in the citation footnote:

:{{cite book|title=Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism|year=2010|publisher=B&H Publishing|isbn=978-0805464160|page=13-14|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hlAmZlssEoYC&pg=PA13&dq=john+3:16+cleopatra%27s+needle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=isC6Ua2kDMqI0AWj5oHACg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=john%203%3A16%20cleopatra%27s%20needle&f=false|author=Jerry Vines|authorlink=Jerry Vines|editor=David L. Allen, Steve W. Lemke|accessdate=14 June 2013|quote=Cleopatra's Needle... A committee was appointed to include the greatest single verse in the Bible. The committee unanimously chose to place into the time capsule{{!}}vault John 3:16, which had been translated into the 215 known languages of the day.}}

:[http://archive.org/stream/storyofthebibles00cantuoft#page/n18/mode/1up] is another good source, already used in the article on the monument, but Vines' chapter also backs up other quotes e.g. Luther's "the Bible in miniature" which I propose should be added. – Fayenatic London 07:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

:That example was on this page for several years, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_3:16&oldid=686217782#Popular_culture], and I found it acceptable, but {{user|Finnusertop}} removed it ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_3:16&diff=prev&oldid=735495301] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_3:16&diff=next&oldid=735495301]) with the justification Removed unsourced and OR; Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#popular-culture-RfC. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 26 March 2018 (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604071531/http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot%2Fnews%2Fnews.aspx%3Fid%3D4202304 to http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot%2Fnews%2Fnews.aspx%3Fid%3D4202304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

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)

:I have done a first copyediting pass and left a lot of tags on the article. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

:: I have addressed all issues in the article. Excellent copyediting. Thank you very much! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

{{Talk:John 3:16/GA1}}

Bible verses New text to Matthew 2603:6000:9744:8B00:197E:A65F:CC65:650 (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)