"Born again" is not in the original text,

[Bob corrigan]

How often have people been told, "You must be born again?" According to some Bible versions, this is what Jesus said to Nicodemus. There are a few versions that phrase it, "born anew." And other versions phrase it as "born from above." The question is, which phrase is correct? Tradition and the majority position hold that "born again" is accurate. But not all translators agree. Why is this?
"Born again" has a different meaning than "born from above." They both can't be true, which means one is wrong. Does it matter if one is wrong? Does it matter if those who choose the wrong meaning live their lives believing a lie? Does knowing the truth of what Scripture teaches matter? Far too many people don't care what Scripture teaches, basing everything they believe on how their favorite version reads, what their "pastor" says, and what they want to believe.

Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God. But the things that are revealed belong to our children and us forever so that we may do all of the words of this law." How has God revealed things to us? Through His written word, known as Scripture. We depend on English translations for those who cannot read the original languages. This means we depend upon the translation we read for our knowledge of Scripture. One would think that any English version of a bible would align with any other English version regarding theology and doctrine, especially with the words of Jesus. Alas, this is not so! There are over 50 versions of the English bible, and no two are alike. How can you know which version to trust? The one part of the study that brings the reader knowledge is finding and defining the original words. This is the only way to determine if your version is correctly translated.

In some cases, the Greek manuscript used for translating is the problem. In this case, the translators are the culprits. The phrase "born again" is found in John 3:3, 7, and 1Pet 1:23. We will look at John first.

In John 3:3, 7, we find two Greek words translated into "born again," gennao anothen. There is no problem with the word gennao. It is a verb that means "born." The word that has been incorrectly translated into "again" is anothen. Anothen means "from above." We also find the Greek word anothen in these verses, John 3:31, 8:23, 19:11, James 1:17, 3:15, 17. In each case, the word is always translated "from above." Anothen is also used in Mat 27:51, Mk 13:58, and John 19:23, translated as "from the top." Anothen has never meant "again!" The Greek word, translated 138 times into the word "again" is palin. If Jesus had said "born again" to Nicodemus, the Greek text would read gennao palin! There is no doubt about this.

In 1Pet 1:23, "born again" doesn't come from two separate Greek words but a single Greek word, anagennao. You can clearly see the word gennao. The Greek prefix ana comes from ano. Ano means "above" or "top." It does not mean again! I encourage everyone to check these things out for themselves! Is it strange that the phrase "born again" is translated from gennao anothen in John and anagennao in Peter?

I will cut the original translators of the KJV a little slack. The first KJV wasn't a new translation, as some believe, but rather a revision of the Bishop's Bible. They were limited on the number of Greek texts available and relied heavily on the Textus Receptus and Jerome's Latin Vulgate, both of which had errors. They translated it as "born again" because that is how the Vulgate read. There weren't oceans of information about the Greek language we have now. Still, when it became easier to define Greek words, every single version created since the information was available should read "born from above!" The NKJV and the KJV21 still use the phrase "born again!" They have no excuse.

 

[Michie]

Historically, the classic text from John 3 was consistently interpreted by early Church Fathers as a reference to baptism. Modern Catholic interpreters have noted that the phrase 'born from above' or 'born again' is clarified as 'being born of water and Spirit'.

 

[FireDragon76]

In the early church, the laying on of hands was not separated from baptism. This is still the case in Eastern Orthodoxy.

The separation of the laying on of hands to confirmation evolved mostly from an administrative problem, since the West continued to believe a bishop had to be present to perform it, and bishops couldn't be everywhere at once as diocese got bigger and bigger. In the Eastern Church, the chrism is merely blessed by the bishop, but administered by a priest.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Greek expression can mean "born from above" or "born again", as the word in the text carries the meaning of "from the top" or "from the beginning", from the top, from the first, to start something new, etc. So both "born from above" and "born again" are faithful and accurate translations of the Greek phrase. It is, indeed, speaking of a new birth, the impartation of new life from God. And thus we speak of paliggenesia, regeneration, literally "again-birth", the word St. Paul uses in Titus 3:5.

Regeneration (paliggenesia) and born again/from above (gennethe anothen) are synonymous, and explicitly biblical--they are literally in the text.

It's clear that "again" is how Nicodemus took Jesus' words, in fact he took "again" so literally that he asks Jesus if a man needs to go back into the womb to come back out again. Unless "again" were intrinsic to the expresion Jesus used, Nicodemus wouldn't have bothered asking. Which is why Jesus clarifies, that this new birth, this new impartation of life from God, is "of water and the Spirit", by which He refers to baptism.

For Nicodemus, a rabbi, intimately knew the significance of what washing indicated in Jewish practice, as it related to ritual purification and especially to conversion to Judaism. So when Christ institutes, in Matthew 28:19, the Sacrament of Christian Baptism, the words "born of water and the Spirit" are made abundantly clear. And that is why the New Testament speaks of Baptism the way it does, and why literally every Christian commentator and theologian from the time of the Apostles and until rather recently understood John 3:3-5 to be an implicit, if not explicit, reference to Baptism. It isn't until the past few centuries that alternative interpretations have materialized, largely as a way to reject the historic Christian view, because of a doctrinal bias against the historic sacramental understanding of Baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

"Born again" has a different meaning than "born from above."

No, I don't think it does.
A person is born physically - they become human beings. But they are born into a sinful world, and when they sin, which they will, they are spiritually dead.
A person who is born from above is spiritually born - John 3:6, "The Spirit gives birth to Spirit". A person who had been spiritually dead is born by the Spirit. They are reborn, born anew, born again.

They both can't be true, which means one is wrong.

Yes, they can, and no, it doesn't.
As Jesus said, flesh gives birth to flesh; the Spirit gives birth to Spirit. Someone who is spiritually dead needs to be made spiritually alive.

 

[Blade]

There's allot of words we say that are not in the bible not sure why were talking about these two. We all know born again is also to be translated "born from above" anothen. "Again" is inferred because a spiritual birth is the second birth. The term anothern from above, from heaven is used only here and in verse 7 in connection with born gennao. Terms that express aspects of the same wonderful truth of His grace are repentance, salvation, faith, receiving Christ.

Its that new man which after God was created in righteousness and true holiness. It was dead before we knew Him. It was made new.. born from above born again. They are exactly the same. Born again is second birth. Born from above is second birth. Which means for God so loved the world He gave His only son that who so ever believes in Him shall not die but have ever lasting life.

 

[JulieB67]

I see it differently than many others. I think it is born from "above'

Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God Who gave it."

And to me, Christ is reiterating John 3:3 in verse 13

John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, (anothen, from above/first) he cannot see the kingdom of God."

He tells Nicodemus,

John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven."

Many believe this is just talking about Christ but it states "even the Son of man...


God forms us in the womb and then we are born through the spirit I believe. And Remember God talks about knowing Jeremiah before he even formed him in the womb and so on.

 

[fhansen]

How often have people been told, "You must be born again?" According to some Bible versions, this is what Jesus said to Nicodemus. There are a few versions that phrase it, "born anew." And other versions phrase it as "born from above." The question is, which phrase is correct? Tradition and the majority position hold that "born again" is accurate. But not all translators agree. Why is this?
"Born again" has a different meaning than "born from above." They both can't be true, which means one is wrong. Does it matter if one is wrong? Does it matter if those who choose the wrong meaning live their lives believing a lie? Does knowing the truth of what Scripture teaches matter? Far too many people don't care what Scripture teaches, basing everything they believe on how their favorite version reads, what their "pastor" says, and what they want to believe.

Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God. But the things that are revealed belong to our children and us forever so that we may do all of the words of this law." How has God revealed things to us? Through His written word, known as Scripture. We depend on English translations for those who cannot read the original languages. This means we depend upon the translation we read for our knowledge of Scripture. One would think that any English version of a bible would align with any other English version regarding theology and doctrine, especially with the words of Jesus. Alas, this is not so! There are over 50 versions of the English bible, and no two are alike. How can you know which version to trust? The one part of the study that brings the reader knowledge is finding and defining the original words. This is the only way to determine if your version is correctly translated.

In some cases, the Greek manuscript used for translating is the problem. In this case, the translators are the culprits. The phrase "born again" is found in John 3:3, 7, and 1Pet 1:23. We will look at John first.

In John 3:3, 7, we find two Greek words translated into "born again," gennao anothen. There is no problem with the word gennao. It is a verb that means "born." The word that has been incorrectly translated into "again" is anothen. Anothen means "from above." We also find the Greek word anothen in these verses, John 3:31, 8:23, 19:11, James 1:17, 3:15, 17. In each case, the word is always translated "from above." Anothen is also used in Mat 27:51, Mk 13:58, and John 19:23, translated as "from the top." Anothen has never meant "again!" The Greek word, translated 138 times into the word "again" is palin. If Jesus had said "born again" to Nicodemus, the Greek text would read gennao palin! There is no doubt about this.

In 1Pet 1:23, "born again" doesn't come from two separate Greek words but a single Greek word, anagennao. You can clearly see the word gennao. The Greek prefix ana comes from ano. Ano means "above" or "top." It does not mean again! I encourage everyone to check these things out for themselves! Is it strange that the phrase "born again" is translated from gennao anothen in John and anagennao in Peter?

I will cut the original translators of the KJV a little slack. The first KJV wasn't a new translation, as some believe, but rather a revision of the Bishop's Bible. They were limited on the number of Greek texts available and relied heavily on the Textus Receptus and Jerome's Latin Vulgate, both of which had errors. They translated it as "born again" because that is how the Vulgate read. There weren't oceans of information about the Greek language we have now. Still, when it became easier to define Greek words, every single version created since the information was available should read "born from above!" The NKJV and the KJV21 still use the phrase "born again!" They have no excuse.

The main concept meant to be conveyed in any case is that man must be changed, by the power of God, into a new creation.

 

[Ceallaigh]

It seems to me the way to interpret what Jesus said is found in Nicodemus' response:

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” John 3:4

 

[Der Alte]

It seems to me the way to interpret what Jesus said is found in Nicodemus' response:
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” John 3:4

It certainly appears that Nicodemus understood Jesus to be saying "born again."

 

[FireDragon76]

I certainly appears that Nicodemus understood Jesus to be saying "born again."

Not unambiguously.

I could see Nicodemus making the same objection even if we understood Jesus as saying "One must be be born from above".

Either way, it really has no bearing on the wider meaning of the text, as most of the early Christian community would have been baptizing primarily adult converts during this time period, and the reference to "water and the spirit" fits with other saying in John that refer to the Christian mysteries, such as Jesus telling the crowd they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

"Spiritualizing" tendencies of some latter day Evangelicals aside, even John Calvin did not interpret these passages to refer to anything but the Christian sacraments.

 

[Der Alte]

Not unambiguously.
I could see Nicodemus making the same objection even if we understood Jesus as saying "One must be be born from above".
Either way, it really has no bearing on the wider meaning of the text, as most of the early Christian community would have been baptizing primarily adult converts during this time period, and the reference to "water and the spirit" fits with other saying in John that refer to the Christian mysteries, such as Jesus telling the crowd they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
"Spiritualizing" tendencies of some latter day Evangelicals aside, even John Calvin did not interpret these passages to refer to anything but the Christian sacraments.

What is ambiguous about "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born?” My 2 cents, "born of water" has nothing to do with baptism. AFAIK Baptism is never equated with birth but with death and resurrection.

John 3:5-6​

(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

 

[FireDragon76]

What is ambiguous about "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born?” My 2 cents, "born of water" has nothing to do with baptism. AFAIK Baptism is never equated with birth but with death and resurrection.

John 3:5-6​

(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

Baptism is refered to as new birth in many ancient Christian sources.

Baptism and the New Birth - Apologetics Press

A major cleavage within Christendom pertains to the point at which the “new birth” occurs. Most of Christendom maintains that a person is born again, and thus has sin washed away by the blood of Christ, when that person “accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior.” By this expression, it is...

apologeticspress.org

 

[Der Alte]

Baptism is refered to as new birth in many ancient Christian sources.

Baptism and the New Birth - Apologetics Press

A major cleavage within Christendom pertains to the point at which the “new birth” occurs. Most of Christendom maintains that a person is born again, and thus has sin washed away by the blood of Christ, when that person “accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior.” By this expression, it is...

apologeticspress.org

"many ancient Christian sources" are NOT scripture. When push comes to shove the scriptures take precedent.

 

[FireDragon76]

"many ancient Christian sources" are NOT scripture. When push comes to shove the scriptures take precedent.

Did you read the Apologetics Press article? It is only quoting from the Bible.

 

[Der Alte]

Did you read the Apologetics Press article? It is only quoting from the Bible.

Did not quote scripture which refers to baptism as birth.

 

[FireDragon76]

Did not quote scripture which refers to baptism as birth.

That's a picayune qualm about semantics. It's not intellectually honest. It's been demonstrated that the ordinary way that people are "born again" is in Baptism, according to the Bible.

 

[Der Alte]

That's a picayune qualm about semantics. It's not intellectually honest. It's been demonstrated that the ordinary way that people are "born again" is in Baptism, according to the Bible.

Baptism is never referred to as birth or rebirth in the Bible. Baptism is equated with death and resurrection.

Colossians 2:12
(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.​

Now who is being intellectually dishonest?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Baptism is never referred to as birth or rebirth in the Bible. Baptism is equated with death and resurrection.

Colossians 2:12​

(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.​

Now who is being intellectually dishonest?

Your argument hinges on a denial that John 3:5 refers to baptism. If John 3:5 refers to baptism, then that is, itself, the Bible connecting baptism with birth.

Further, the language of resurrection, namely our being raised with Christ to new life is itself the language of new birth.

"We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:4

In baptism we are buried with Christ, therefore having died with Him, and therefore even as Christ was raised, so we now have new life. That new life, that is our being a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), that is regeneration, new birth, born again.

See also Titus 3:5,

"He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"

Resurrection means new life, new creation, it means regeneration for us. Christ has been raised, and we--united to Him--are alive with Him, we share in His life, by the Holy Spirit, and that makes us new people, born again.

So, for one, Scripture does connect baptism with rebirth, it does so in John 3:5; but even if one wants to deny this explicit mention in Scripture, it is hard to ignore the larger consensus and witness of the Bible: Christ has been raised, His life is granted to us that we might share in it, and thus we have a new life, we are born again, alive to God by His grace and Spirit. The language of resurrection is the language of newness of life, the language or renewal, new creation, rebirth, etc.

On top of all this, one would then also need to ignore the unanimous and universal consensus of every Christian from the time of the New Testament until early modern times, where baptism and regeneration have always been connected based upon this very text from John 3:3-5. The argument then is literally every Christian writer, before the advent of the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions, has been wrong. And while one may very well believe that, that's a pretty difficult sell.

And if you want to content against that assessment, then I would be very curious if anyone can provide any ancient Christian sources which don't understand John 3:5 as being in connection with baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Der Alte]

Your argument hinges on a denial that John 3:5 refers to baptism. If John 3:5 refers to baptism, then that is, itself, the Bible connecting baptism with birth.

Further, the language of resurrection, namely our being raised with Christ to new life is itself the language of new birth.

"We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:4

In baptism we are buried with Christ, therefore having died with Him, and therefore even as Christ was raised, so we now have new life. That new life, that is our being a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), that is regeneration, new birth, born again.

See also Titus 3:5,

"He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"

Resurrection means new life, new creation, it means regeneration for us. Christ has been raised, and we--united to Him--are alive with Him, we share in His life, by the Holy Spirit, and that makes us new people, born again.

So, for one, Scripture does connect baptism with rebirth, it does so in John 3:5; but even if one wants to deny this explicit mention in Scripture, it is hard to ignore the larger consensus and witness of the Bible: Christ has been raised, His life is granted to us that we might share in it, and thus we have a new life, we are born again, alive to God by His grace and Spirit. The language of resurrection is the language of newness of life, the language or renewal, new creation, rebirth, etc.

On top of all this, one would then also need to ignore the unanimous and universal consensus of every Christian from the time of the New Testament until early modern times, where baptism and regeneration have always been connected based upon this very text from John 3:3-5. The argument then is literally every Christian writer, before the advent of the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions, has been wrong. And while one may very well believe that, that's a pretty difficult sell.

And if you want to content against that assessment, then I would be very curious if anyone can provide any ancient Christian sources which don't understand John 3:5 as being in connection with baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

But NOT one single verse equates baptism with birth. That is a conclusion that is drawn by bringing disparate vss. together, as in this post.

Colossians 2:12​

(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. c.f. Rom 6:4-5 ​

John 3:5​

(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

John 3:6​

(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

In this passage Jesus equates "born of water" with "born of flesh," not baptism, and "born of the spirit" with "born of the spirit."
What is the single sign which occurs at birth that signals birth is immanent? I was present at the birth of my oldest son, the birth pains had been going on for a period of time but something happened just as we were getting into cab to go to the hospital.
Please feel free to find one ancient Christian source, 2 or more would be better, which equates baptism with birth.

​

​