John, Gospel According to
Please post your comments and suggestions for this article.
Comment by Faheem Qaiser on June 21st, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Dear Brother,
I am Faheem Qaiser from Pakistan . I have studied your web site, and I found it the most wonderful site to get right to the True Word of God. My suggestion for you is to create your material in my language of Urdu and Punjabi also. It will bring lots of blessings of the Word of God for the Pakistani and Indian Urdu and Punjabi speakQing people. For that purpose I as a translator will bring your material into Urdu languages and into Punjabi language as well.
Although it will take your low expenses as well, as fund for the Word of God to reach out to the deserving people. I my self, work on alocal radio station also. Many times it becomes difficult for us to keep doing this because of being minorities and because of the lack of the financial resources. I will wait for your response.
. Sincerely,
Faheem Qaiser
Comment by Robert on September 27th, 2026 at 10:57 am
Suggested corrections and a short expansion of the John 3:16 discussion
Dear Editors,
Please consider the following changes to the Gospel of John article.
1. Prologue and narrative divisions
In “Narrative summary,” the prologue is identified as 1:1–5 and the subsequent narrative as beginning at verse 6. This conflicts with the article’s own outline and “Sources” section, which identify the prologue as John 1:1–18. Please harmonize these passages. A possible replacement is: “Following the prologue (1:1–18), the Book of Signs (1:19–12:50) presents Jesus’ public ministry.” The USCCB introduction uses these divisions:
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/0
2. A verse-reference correction
Under “Other unique characteristics,” the invitation to Thomas to touch Jesus’ wounds is cited as John 20:28. The invitation is in John 20:27; verse 28 records Thomas’s response. Please correct this reference.
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/20
3. Translation context for John 3:16
“Popular Passages in the Gospel” quotes John 3:16 but could help readers understand why English versions differ. Suggested text for editorial consideration:
“English translations differ in their rendering of the Greek adjective monogen?s in John 3:16: the King James Version uses ‘only begotten,’ whereas the NET Bible uses ‘one and only.’ The NET translators understand the word here as emphasizing the Son’s uniqueness. Piotr Blumczy?ski’s study traces the history of ‘only begotten’ in English Bible translation. These differences provide useful context when comparing versions of this widely quoted verse.”
Sources:
NET Bible, John 3:16, especially translation note 2:
https://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=3&verse=16
Piotr Blumczy?ski, “The rise and fall of a translational compound: ‘the only begotten’ in the English versions of the New Testament,” New Voices in Translation Studies 2(1) (2006):
https://newvoices.arts.chula.ac.th/index.php/en/article/view/60
4. Supplementary resource for review
I am connected with john316explained.com. I would also like to suggest its explanatory guide to John 3:16 for your consideration as an optional further-reading link:
https://www.john316explained.com/
This is an independent explanatory website, not a peer-reviewed academic publication. Please assess its suitability separately from the corrections and scholarly sources above.
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
Comment by Jennifer Tanabe on September 28th, 2026 at 10:09 am
Thank you, Robert, for your comment.
Your feedback will be reviewed and the article will be revised accordingly.
Thank you again for taking the time to help make NWE a valuable information resource.
Comment by Jennifer Tanabe on October 14th, 2026 at 12:34 pm
Thank you Robert for your detailed comments.
The article has been revised based on your suggestions, and your website has been added to the External links.
Thank you again for taking the time to help make NWE a valuable information resource.
Leave a Reply
