Jesus' statement in John 3:6 was the answer to Nicodemus' question in John 3:4. Jesus' response was that being born again had nothing to do with physical birth whatsoever; but instead, was all about the spiritual birth. Specifically the spirit needs to be born again. It needs to be born again of water and Spirit.
@Jim,
It does not say that. It does not even hint at that. Fact. Flesh is born through water.
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit
6Flesh is born of flesh,
but spirit is born of the Spirit.
7Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’
8The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
A DIFFERING VIEW:
https://afaithfulversion.org/appendices-p/
By all means read the entire at the link thing but definitely scroll down to where I color changed to red....
I had to cut almost all of the copy out due to length but left the titles of the sections I cut so you can go read if so desired.
What Does It Mean to Be “Born Again”?
It is apparent that the early Latin church fathers made a deliberate alteration of the text in John 3:5 that, to this day, has obscured the true meaning of the phrase “born again.” This alteration has remained a part of the
Latin Vulgate and is the basis of the Catholic doctrine of the “sacrament of baptism.” During the Reformation, Protestants rejected the Catholic sacrament and developed a slightly different doctrine regarding “born again.” The teachings of what it means to be “born again” and “born of God” are perhaps some of the most misunderstood teachings of the New Testament. Tragically, this has resulted in millions of false conversions.
The Catholic sacrament of baptism evolved into a religious work while various Protestant versions led to a perverted, lawless grace that rejects Jesus’ teachings that a Christian is required to keep the commandments of God. Compounding these doctrinal errors is the unscriptural belief in the immortality of the soul and the practice of infant baptism.
There is no scriptural example of infants or children being baptized. Jesus Christ was not “christened” nor was He baptized when He was a baby; in fact, He was not baptized until He was about thirty years old. Neither do the New Testament accounts show that John the Baptist or the apostles baptized infants or children. The New Testament teaches that when one repents of his or her sins to God the Father and by faith accepts the sacrifice and blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, one must be baptized by full immersion in water (
Acts 2:38;
3:19;
8:35-36;
Rom. 3:23-25;
4:7-8,
24-25;
5:9-10;
6:1- 6). Repentance and baptism are decisions and commitments that only an adult can make. The true New Testament teachings of what it means to be born again and born of God differ entirely from Catholic or Protestant beliefs.
The Babylonian Pagan Origin of a Counterfeit
“Born Again” Doctrine
Infant Baptism:
How did these anti-scriptural, heathen, pagan practices become part of Christendom?
The Gnostic Connection, the Great Apostasy
and the Early Latin Church Fathers
“
For the mystery of lawlessness is already working;
The Latin Vulgate: When examining John 3:3-5 in the Latin Vulgate Bible—originally translated by Jerome in 383 AD—one finds a deliberate insertion of the word “again” into verse 5, making it read “born again of water.” No Greek manuscript has the word “again” added to the phrase “born of water.” What follows is the Latin Vulgate with an English translation. Note that the Latin syntax must be reordered into English syntax most of the time and punctuation added:
3.
Respondit Iesus et dixit ei amen amen dico tibi nisi quis natus fuerit denuo non potest videre regnum Dei
3. Jesus responded and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you unless anyone be
born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4.
Dicit ad eum Nicodemus quomodo potest homo nasci cum senex sit numquid potest in ventrem matris suae iterato introire et nasci
4. Nicodemus says to him, “How can a man be
born already being old? Can he enter into his own mother’s belly again and be
born?”
5.
Respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei
5. Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you unless one is
reborn [born again] of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
In verse 3 the Latin natus means “born” and denuo means “anew” or “again.”
But, denuo is not found in verse 5, which reads differently. Instead, the prefix re has been added to natus, making it read renatus, which means “reborn” or “born again.” This addition makes the phrase read, “born
again of water and Spirit.”
This phrase is not found in any of the Greek manuscripts, which universally read:
γ∈ννηθη ∈ξ υδοτος και πν∈υµατος, correctly translated, “born of water and of spirit.” Moreover, the Greek word
ανωθ∈ν anothen “again” or “anew,” found in the Greek text in verse 3, is not found in verse 5.
Since the Greek word
ανωθ∈ν anothen does not appear in verse 5 in any Greek manuscript, the Latin text is not an accurate translation from the Greek. Also, the addition of the prefix re to natus changes the entire meaning of verse 5. It is likely that these changes were made in order to substantiate the mistaken belief that when one is baptized, one is “
reborn of water,” or “born
again of water.” From this doctrine the practice of infant baptism was developed.
Coverdale’s Latin and English New Testament:
Erasmus’ Greek-Latin Version of 1535: With his final version of the Greek Text, Erasmo Roterodamo (Erasmus of Rotterdam) translated the Byzantine Greek into Latin. His purpose was to provide a new uncorrupted Latin version of the New Testament. In his translation, he did not incorporate the mistranslations and deliberate errors of the
Latin Vulgate into his Latin translation. Erasmus’ Latin translation from the Greek, with an English translation provided, is as follows:
3. Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei amen amen dico tibi nisi quis natus fuerit esupernis non potest videre regnum Dei
3. Jesus responded and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you unless anyone be
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4. Dicit ad eum Nicodemus: Quomodo potest homo nasci cum sit senex? Num potest in uentrem matris suae iterato introire, ac nasci?
4. Nicodemus says to him, “How can a man be
born already being old? Can he enter into his mother’s womb again and be
born?”
5. Respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis natus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei
5. Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you unless one is
born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Erasmus’ Latin translation from the Greek is correct. In verse 5, he translated the Greek word
γ∈ννηθη gennethe as natus, “born” of water, not as the Vulgate
renatus, “born again” of water. Erasmus’ translation reveals that the
Latin Vulgate was deliberately corrupted.
How Did It All Begin?
How did the false interpretation and teaching of
John 3:5 develop into a deliberate mistranslation as found in the
Latin Vulgate? The seeds of this teaching are rooted in one of the heresies that the apostle Paul had to address when he wrote to the Corinthians in 56 AD. Some within the Corinthian congregations were claiming that there was no resurrection of the dead, reflecting the pagan belief in the immortality of the soul. To counter this outrageous claim, Paul wrote: “
But if Christ is being preached, that He rose from the dead, how is it that some among you are saying that there is no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection from the dead, neither has Christ been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain. And we are also found to be false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised Christ, Whom He did not raise, if indeed
the dead are not raised.
“For if
the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised. But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins, and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have then perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most miserable. But now Christ has been raised from
the dead; He has become the firstfruit of those who have fallen asleep” (
I Cor. 15:12-20).
The apostles were witnesses that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead, which is the whole foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Old and New Testaments teach about a resurrection of the dead, which will take place when Jesus Christ returns and establishes the kingdom of God on earth. At that time, the resurrected saints will reign with Him as kings and priests (
Dan. 12:2-3;
Rev. 5:9-10;
20:6).
While rejecting the truth of the resurrection of the dead, false teachers assumed the Babylonian antiscriptural belief in the immortality of the soul. To this day, many, if not most, within Christendom are taught that at death the soul goes to heaven for doing good or to purgatory or hell for committing various degrees of evil.
The Bible does not teach the immortality of the soul; rather, it reveals, “The soul that sins, it shall die” (
Ezek. 18:4,
20). Neither does the Bible teach that when one dies, the soul goes to heaven or hell. Rather, it clearly shows that when one dies, he or she awaits the resurrection of the dead—both of the righteous and the wicked (
Dan. 12:2;
John 5:25-29;
I Cor. 15;
Rev. 20:14-15;
21:8).
The belief in the immortality of the soul fueled the doctrine of infant baptism, for if an infant were to die what would happen to its soul? Therefore, this belief necessitated baptism or christening to remove the “stain of original sin” so that if the infant died, its soul would go to heaven; if the infant lived to adulthood, salvation and heaven was assured. From
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, there is the following entry on infant baptism: “Although from the first, baptism was the universal means of entry into the Christian community, the NT contains no specific authority for its administration to infants. But by a tradition at least as old as the 3rd cent., and virtually universal until the Reformation, children born to Christian parents have been baptized in infancy. In the 16th cent. this practice (pseudobaptism) was rejected by the Anabaptists and since the early 17th cent. also by the Baptists and later by the Disciples of Christ.
“Ireneaus (
Haer., ii. 33) speaks of Christ as ‘giving salvation to those of every age’… who are ‘regenerated’ … through Him, and expressly includes ‘infants and little children’ … among these. Explicit statements concerning infant baptism are made by Origen, who refers to it as an established custom, which the Church has received from the Apostles (
Hom. In Lev., viii. 4,
Comm. in Rom., v. 9). In both passages he finds the practice justified by the need which infants, no less than adults, have for liberation from original sin. Opposition to infant baptism (implying the prior existence of the practice) is voiced by Tertullian, who urges (De Bapt., 18) that the baptism of children be deferred (despite Mt. 19. 14) until they can ‘know Christ’. This advocacy of delaying baptism for infants, as well as spiritually immature adults, appears to spring from Tertullian’s ideas of the impossibility or great difficulty of the remission of post-baptismal sin. Such considerations led to a widespread deferment of baptism in the 4th cent., e.g. in the cases of Constantine and of St. Augustine…. On the other hand, by the middle of the 3rd cent. infant baptism was regularly performed, as is attested by Cyprian (Ep. 64), where it is stated to convey remission not only of actual sins but also of original sin. From then onwards evidence for the practice is ample” (
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 701).
“In defending the propriety of Infant Baptism against the Pelagians, he [Augustine] also maintained that one of the chief effects of the Sacrament was the removal of the stain of Original Sin on the soul which bars even the new-born child from the Kingdom of Heaven [i.e., its immortal soul going to heaven], thereby developing earlier teaching from NT times, acc. to which the remission of Actual Sins, the infusion of grace, and the incorporation into the Church had been generally recognized as results of Baptism” (Ibid., p. 127).
Quotations from the Early Latin Church Fathers
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus
Recognitions of Clement
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Seventh Council of Carthage
St. Ambrose of Milan
From these quotes it is evident that the early Latin Church fathers had a corrupted Latin translation with the altered text of
John 3:5, reading
renatus instead of
natus. Later, Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin (383 AD), also retained the altered version of
renatus and
renasci in verses 3, 4 and 5, as evidenced by the
Latin Vulgate of Coverdale’s day—1538 AD.
A Comparison of Other Early English
Translations of John 3:3, 5
William Tyndale, a Bible scholar and the first man to translate the New Testament from the Greek into English, translated
John 3:3, 5 correctly. However, in his other writings, he taught that when one is converted and receives the Holy Spirit, one has been born again. Perhaps he carried this misunderstanding from the
Latin Vulgate into his theology, while rendering the correct translation of “born again” and “born anew” in John 3.
Tyndale rendered the Greek words
γ∈νναω ανωθ∈ν gennao anothen in
John 3:3 as “born from above” and “born anew.” The Greek word
γ∈νναω gennao means: Of a man, “to beget, to become a father”; of a woman, “to conceive, to bear.” In some cases, according to the context,
gennao does mean “born.” However,
gennao predominantly means “begotten” rather than “born.” The Greek word anothen, means: “from above, again, anew” (Arndt & Gingrich,
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament).
From
The English Hexapla (1841) we can compare Tyndale’s translation of the critical verses in John 3 with five other English translations. It is evident that other translators also had problems interpreting
gennao and gennao anothen. The following four versions were translated into English from the Greek Text:
1) Tyndale 1534: “born anew,” verse 3; “born again,” verses 4, 7; “born,” verses 4, 5, and 6.
2) Great Bible, Cramner 1539: “born from above,” verses 3, 7; “born again,” verse 4; “born,” verses 4, 5, and 6.
3) Geneva 1557: “begotten again,” verses 3, 7; “begotten,” verses 4, 5 and 6.
4) KJV 1611: “born again,” verses 3, 7; “born,” verses 4, 5 and 6.
The translators of the 1557
Geneva Bible translated gennao as “begotten.” In many instances, “begotten” is a correct translation of gennao. However, in John 3 “begotten” is an
incorrect rendering. The translators of the 1599 Geneva Bible corrected this error to make it read “born” instead of “begotten.”
The following two versions were translated
1) Wycliffe 1380: “borun ayen,” verses 3, 7; “borun” verses 4 and 6 only; “borun
ayen of watir,” verse 5, “borun of spirit” verse 6, and “borun of the spirit” verse 8.
2) Rheims 1582: “born again,” verses 3, 4 and 7; “born,” verses 4 and 6 only; “born
again of water,” verse 5, “born of the Spirit” verse 6 and 8.
It is reported that it was Wycliffe who coined the English phrase “born again,” but both Wycliffe and the translators of the Rheims version used the Latin Vulgate for their English versions.
The True Scriptural Meaning of “Born Again”
In order to fully comprehend the true scriptural meaning of when one is born again, Jesus’ teachings in John 3:1-12 must be examined. The context of these verses proves that being born again does not mean a conversion or baptismal experience. Rather, it means a literal transformation from flesh to spirit: “Now there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus by name, a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to Him, ‘Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher Who has come from God; because no one is able to do the miracles that You are doing, unless God is with him.’
“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless anyone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man who is old be born? Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless anyone has been born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh; and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, “It is necessary for you to be born again.” The wind blows where it will, and you hear its sound, but you do not know the place from which it comes and the place to which it goes; so also is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.‘ “
“Nicodemus answered and said to Him, ‘How can these things be?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘You are a teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things? Truly, truly I say to you, We speak that which We know, and We testify of that which We have seen; but you do not receive Our testimony. If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?’ ” (John 3:1-12).
It is clear that Jesus was not talking about a conversion or baptismal experience in this dialogue. Rather, he was comparing one’s physical birth—a fleshly existence—to that of being born anew or born again—to an actual spiritual existence. Jesus describes two births: one of water and one of the spirit, “…unless anyone has been born of water and of Spirit …”(John 3:5). Next, Jesus shows the comparison between a birth of flesh and a birth of the spirit: “That which has been born of the flesh is flesh; and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).
