Talk:John 3:16

message: === First debate ===
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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:It has been called ... because it is considered a summary of two central dogmata of Christianity: the humanity and the sacrifice of Christ This would also be a slight simplification. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Since nobody has objected, I've made the change. » MonkeeSage « 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Accurate summary of central dogmata" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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:It has been called ... because it is considered a summary of two central dogmata of Christianity: the humanity and the sacrifice of Christ This would also be a slight simplification. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First debate 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Second debate 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Continuity error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Typical Interpreation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor quality picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  References to God in Greek and literal translation 

message: 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)
replies: text: thank you😚 41.114.207.180 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Textus Receptus vs Alexandrian Text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: See above. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture suggestion 

message: As per the Snopes article at [], 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)
thread_title:  John 16:3 quote 

message: :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. Froid 10:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Miss USA scandal and Sheena Monnin

message: 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)
thread_title:  Firstborn of Creation 

message: Is the "lolcat bible" version really a valid bible translation?
87.202.125.30 (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Excellent point. Adam Weeden 14:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOLCAT bible?

message: 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)
replies: text: Brilliant improvement, and a fairly good selection as well. AndrewNJ (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Too many translations

message: 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)
thread_title: Too many again (2010)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Flabbergasted 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sports and John 3:16 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source on John 3:16 regarding who "only begotten Son" is 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original Greek? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comparison with Mark's Gospel

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: C

message: 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)
replies: text: That example was on this page for several years, e.g. , and I found it acceptable, but  removed it ( ) with the justification Removed unsourced and OR; Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#popular-culture-RfC. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the amount of vandalism38.73.253.217 (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this article already 

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

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