Replies

If any of them use "Born again" it is not a Primary definition, it is not even a secondary definition, at best it is a tertiary definition, if it is used at all.

Then do you admit that the translators of the Douay-Rheims Bible used the wrong word and translated poorly the phrase that is translated *born again* in John 3, correct?

The question you should all be asking is why are prots so insistent on using the tertiary definition of the word at best?

Then the question becomes, "Why did the CATHOLIC CHURCH use the phrase "born again" in it's approved Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible that it translated itself?"

SIGH, I have been saying a Novena for you. I pray that God will chose to open your mind and soften your heart. I am also praying that if He chooses not to that He will have both pity and mercy on you.

This looks like a variation on the etymological fallacy. One cannot jump from the dictionary ranking to a statistical conclusion about a word's use in a given passage, i.e., "Because it can be seen as tertiary generally, it must be tertiary here" would be a non sequitur.

Furthermore, one of the most widely respected modern lexicons, that goes beyond bare-bones etymology and investigates localized syntactic and idiomatic influence, suggests a reasonable basis for the preference for "born again." From Louw-Nida:

41.53 γεννάω ἄνωθεν (an idiom, literally ‘to be born again’); παλιγγενεσίαa, ας f: to experience a complete change in one’s way of life to what it should be, with the implication of return to a former state or relation—‘to be born again, to experience new birth, rebirth.’
γεννάω ἄνωθεν: ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν ‘unless a person is born again’ Jn 3:3. It is also possible to understand ἄνωθεν in Jn 3:3 as meaning ‘from above’ or ‘from God’ (see 84.13), a literary parallel to the phrase ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν in Jn 1:13. In Jn 3:3, however, Nicodemus understood ἄνωθεν as meaning ‘again’ (see 67.55) and γεννάω as ‘physical birth’ (see 23.52).
παλιγγενεσίαa: διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως ‘new birth and new life by washing’ Tt 3:5. The metaphor of ‘new birth’ is so important in the NT that it should be retained if at all possible. In some languages ‘new birth’ can be expressed as ‘to cause to be born all over again’ or ‘to have a new life as though one were born a second time.’ See also 13.55.

However, it is true the expression can refer to some kind of "above-ness." But which one? Place, or Time. From the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (IGEL):

ἄνωθεν, -θε, (ἄνω) Adv. of Place, from above, from on high, Hdt., Trag., etc.; ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου, i.e. rain, Thuc.: from the upper country, from inland, Id.
2. = ἄνω, above, on high, Trag.; οἱ ἄν. the living, opp. to οἱ κάτω, Aesch.:—c. gen., Hdt.

II. of Time, from the beginning, Plat., Dem.:—by descent, Theocr.; τὰ ἄν. first principles, Plat.
2. over again, anew, N.T.

This is something one has to respect when dealing with the Greek. They have a very flexible way of reusing parts of speech in both temporal and spatial settings, and within those categories there can be a wide range between the concrete and the abstract. In this case, as the IGEL entry demonstrates, "anothen" can be either spatial above-ness (simple "above"), or temporal above-ness, i.e., going back to Time Zero and starting over, from which we get the simplified "again."

In John 3, the conversational dynamic cannot be ignored in sorting this out. Whatever Jesus meant by anothen (or its Hebrew or Aramaic spoken equivalent), Nicodemas didn't pick up on the spatial meaning "above" at all. He is clearly thinking of a temporal reset, but it is degenerate from what is meant by "born again," because, as an idiom, and especially among evangelicals, it implies both the temporal and spatial aspects, i.e., being born again is both from above and a second birth event. Therefore it seems likely it was something of a double meaning, where Nicodemas got derailed by taking it as strictly temporal, and strictly concrete, and Jesus had to rebuke Him for his lack of insight into the Old Testament teaching on the spiritual aspects of the new birth, which Jesus unfolds as birth by water and by "pneuma" (spirit or wind), as these passages testify:

Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
(Isaiah 44:2-4)

And

Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
(Ezekiel 37:9-10)

Whether Jesus was thinking of these specific passages I cannot say, but clearly whatever Nicodemas missed, it was something Jesus considered obvious teaching of the OT, something no true teacher of Israel should have missed, concerning the new birth.

Bottom line, all this is rather difficult to render in the English. We don't have a perfect replica of the dual-use "above/again" construct (at least that I can think of). So we have to pick one or the other and let the potential dual use come out in teaching the passage. As the English idiom "born again" carries both meanings quite well, it is probably a superior translation choice in this case.

I will have to leave it at that for now. Other duties call.

Peace,

SR

Then the question becomes, "Why did the CATHOLIC CHURCH use the phrase "born again" in it's approved Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible that it translated itself?"

And then try to co-op it to apply to baptism ...

>>Then the question becomes, “Why did the CATHOLIC CHURCH use the phrase “born again” in it’s approved Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible that it translated itself?”<<

There they go again…knowing better than their supposed ‘infallible’ magesterium. The Fromans here make themselves out to be an authority unto themselves. Yet love to call everyone else ‘mini popes.’