date:20060218

That is correct, John.  The law gives details so that we can know what love 
is and what love is not.  For example, some people say adultery is love.  Do 
you know how many times I have heard that excuse?  They are in love 
Well, the law says, no, they are not in love.  They are in lust and they 
have broken their vows and commitments of love to someone else.  The law 
says they deserve death for the act of adultery.  Homoesexuality is a 
similar situation.  Society says, let those of the same gender marry and 
love one another, to be happy just like heterosexuals.  They love one 
another.  The law tells us, no, that is not love.

Ultimately, the teaching of Christ helps us see that love is the standard by 
which all will be judged.  Those who sin are not walking in love, while 
those who do not sin are walking in love.  Now every person who commits sin 
becomes addicted to sin, so it is a real problem.  Jesus came to resolve 
this problem of sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God.  This 
means Jesus was manifested so that we would no longer walk in sin but walk 
in love.  It is in this way that it might be said that those who believe in 
Jesus Christ receive eternal life.  Withtout this life changing experience, 
who Jesus is becomes only a philosophy, and one's philosophy of who Jesus 
is, even if they get that philosophy right, will not save them.  It all 
comes down to holiness and living like Jesus lived.  The gospel is primarily 
pragmatic rather than ideological.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding


In what way does the Law unravel the complications of the sin concept?
I see the law giving definition to sin and , thus,   allowing us to think in 
terms of transgression  There are humdreds (perhaps) of ways to sin, but 
in the face of stated law, there is only one transgression per imperative.

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The concept of sin can get very complicated, hence the reason for the law. 
However, compared to the infinite God and the mystery of God in the flesh, 
it is child's play.  God began revealing himself with the law and sin for 
good reason.  It provides the foundation for understanding heavenly things.

The bottom line is that even if you claim to understand all the mystery of 
Christ, if you testify that you are still addicted to sin, then Christ has 
profited you nothing.  Salvation does not come through understanding Christ. 
Salvation comes from a relationship with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.  Our 
understanding of him will follow naturally from that.

David Miller.
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding


Perhaps Lance has a good point, David.  Consider the biblical record.  Does 
it begin with Christ or sin?   And sin, defined and demonstrated , displays 
what volume of content compared to  that of Christ?  Surely the answer is 
much more!

Anyway,  I am not sure how we go about discussing one without the other.

If you think sin is an easily understood concept, read  The Many Faces of 
Evil  by Feinberg or any number of books discussing this subject. 
Extremely complicated.

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 ONE WAY of thinking about this: Who He is takes priority over and, is
 determinative of, all other considerations. Is it possible, David, that 
 you
 have it ...backwards?
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller
 To:
 Sent: February 15, 2006 14:46
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding


  John, which is easier to comprehend? Sin or Christ?
 
  Jesus Christ is far beyond the understanding of any one person. I'm not
  sure anyone on earth fully understands Jesus Christ. The subject of sin,
  however, is much more basic and easy to understand. Furthermore, it is
  the
  only criteria of God's judgment. When we al l stand before Jesus Christ,
  the
  Scriptures teach that we will give account to him for the deeds that we
  have
  done. We will not take a test on Christology (how well we developed our
  understanding of Christ). Our moral behavior is much more important than
  our philosophy of the nature of Christ.
 
  David Miller.
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding
 
  As for Christology, that does matter, but not nearly so much as sin.
  Believers who testify that they are addicted to sin and so is everybody
  else
  is of much more serious concern than those whose Christology

Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding

David: Do you know the meaning of along with the origin of, 'cargo cults'?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 18, 2006 07:18
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding

That is correct, John.  The law gives details so that we can know what 
love
is and what love is not.  For example, some people say adultery is love. 
Do

you know how many times I have heard that excuse?  They are in love
Well, the law says, no, they are not in love.  They are in lust and they
have broken their vows and commitments of love to someone else.  The law
says they deserve death for the act of adultery.  Homoesexuality is a
similar situation.  Society says, let those of the same gender marry and
love one another, to be happy just like heterosexuals.  They love one
another.  The law tells us, no, that is not love.

Ultimately, the teaching of Christ helps us see that love is the standard 
by

which all will be judged.  Those who sin are not walking in love, while
those who do not sin are walking in love.  Now every person who commits 
sin

becomes addicted to sin, so it is a real problem.  Jesus came to resolve
this problem of sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God. 
This

means Jesus was manifested so that we would no longer walk in sin but walk
in love.  It is in this way that it might be said that those who believe 
in
Jesus Christ receive eternal life.  Withtout this life changing 
experience,

who Jesus is becomes only a philosophy, and one's philosophy of who Jesus
is, even if they get that philosophy right, will not save them.  It all
comes down to holiness and living like Jesus lived.  The gospel is 
primarily

pragmatic rather than ideological.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding

In what way does the Law unravel the complications of the sin concept?
I see the law giving definition to sin and , thus,   allowing us to think 
in

terms of transgression  There are humdreds (perhaps) of ways to sin, but
in the face of stated law, there is only one transgression per imperative.

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The concept of sin can get very complicated, hence the reason for the law.
However, compared to the infinite God and the mystery of God in the flesh,
it is child's play.  God began revealing himself with the law and sin for
good reason.  It provides the foundation for understanding heavenly 
things.

The bottom line is that even if you claim to understand all the mystery of
Christ, if you testify that you are still addicted to sin, then Christ has
profited you nothing.  Salvation does not come through understanding 
Christ.

Salvation comes from a relationship with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.  Our
understanding of him will follow naturally from that.

David Miller.
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding

Perhaps Lance has a good point, David.  Consider the biblical record. 
Does
it begin with Christ or sin?   And sin, defined and demonstrated , 
displays
what volume of content compared to  that of Christ?  Surely the answer 
is

much more!

Anyway,  I am not sure how we go about discussing one without the other.

If you think sin is an easily understood concept, read  The Many Faces 
of

Evil  by Feinberg or any number of books discussing this subject.
Extremely complicated.

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ONE WAY of thinking about this: Who He is takes priority over and, is
determinative of, all other considerations. Is it possible, David, that
you
have it ...backwards?
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller

To:
Sent: February 15, 2006 14:46
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding

 John, which is easier to comprehend? Sin or Christ?

 Jesus Christ is far beyond the understanding of any one person. I'm not
 sure anyone on earth fully understands Jesus Christ. The subject of 
 sin,

 however, is much more basic and easy to understand. Furthermore, it is
 the
 only criteria of God's judgment. When we al l stand before Jesus 
 Christ,

 the
 Scriptures teach that we will give account to him for the deeds that we
 have
 done. We will not take a test on Christology (how well we developed our
 understanding of Christ). Our moral behavior is much more important 
 than

 our philosophy of the nature of Christ.

 David Miller.

 - Original Message - 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:05 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door

[TruthTalk] * Moderator Comment**

2006-02-18 Thread Dean Moore




Gary/John lets leave off on the discussion of female breasts-and at least make an effort to appear Christian inyour conversations.Thanks.




- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/18/2006 1:12:18 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] U.S. Religious Demographics 1992-2001

Would it be wrong for me to suggest that you strike me as one who has a good grasp of the situation? 

jd

-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

A man walked into the ladies department of a Macy's and shyly walked up to the woman behind the counter and said, "I'd like to buy a bra for my wife."
"What type of bra?" asked the clerk.
"Type?" inquires the man, "There's more than one type?"
"Look around," said the saleslady, as she showed a sea of bras in every shape, size, color and material imaginable.
"Actually, even with all of this variety, there are really only fourtypes of bras to choose from."
Relieved, the man asked about the types. The saleslady replied: 
"There are the Catholic, the Salvation Army, the Presbyterian, and the Baptist types. Which one would you prefer?"
Now totally befuddled, the man asked about the differences between them.
The Saleslady responded, "It is all really quite simple...the Catholic type
supports the masses. The Salvation Army type lifts the fallen,
the Presbyterian type keeps them staunch and upright, andthe Baptist makes mountains out of mole hills...


On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:15:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Largest denominational families in U.S., 2001(self-identification, ARIS)
||

Re: [TruthTalk] The use of Scripture to convince the gainsayers

2006-02-18 Thread Dean Moore









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk
Sent: 2/18/2006 2:36:16 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The use of Scripture to convince the gainsayers

John replies

John,I have been pondering your treatise concerning the role of Scripture to transform lives. No doubt that is one role. But what about the use of Scriptures to guard against error? Does it have that role in your mind?What do you mean?How do you accomplish one without avoiding the other? 
Following are two passages that I would like for you to explain their meaning:2 Timothy 3:16-17(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Gee, I wonder just how many times I have read this passage. I do not think reproof and correction are negatives. It is not error that is corrected or given reproof -- it is my very life in Christ that is given correction and reproof. "Reproof " has to do with "proving" as one proves his profession as a carpenter -- and how is that done? Practice, practice, practice. Scripture is profitable in this excercise. "Correction" has to do with setting back on course -- this is the very thing promised of Christ Himself in Romans 14:4 ("a
 nd we will be made to stand!!")
Titus 1:9-11(9) Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.(10) For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:(11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.From my perspective, it tells me that Scripture should be used to rebuke and correct others. It seems to me that some on the list, perhaps you included, despise this use, believing that it drives people away from God. What I dispise is this: to invite people onto this DISCUSSION forum and then rebuke and insult them becaue they dare to differ . even to the point of investigating them and seriously considering calling people who might know them and warning them of that person (or were you going to tell them what a great guy you t
 hink I am?)

 **Moderator Comment**John-David has made a good point and it should be considered by you. Also you need to be fair in your standards-You made a least a couple of comments about calling Judy's pastor and informing on her of her responses and took this as far as asking for her Pastors phone #.Now you are angry at David for only checking out your church in Ca. This is the area of Judging that the Bible warns about. Faulting others for doing the same thing you are doing and you will be measured by that same judgement in the eyes of God. Be Fair.

[TruthTalk] Seinfeld episode on 'manzier'




Given the recent history on TT re: the male/female 
thingy, I'd like to take a run at the 'unmentionable' joke. Do your research as 
to 'subject' then think of those denominationally affiliated men for whom such 
would be needful.

fn 1-Are there any present on TT who find nothing 
whatsoever, including the ability to laugh at one's self, 
funny?

Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding




Wrong picture, John. Take insulting and malicious comments like this 
private, please.

David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:25 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to 
  understanding
  
  Picture the format of a typical political cartoon. See David 
  Miller towering over a rather humble looking John Smithson. 
  David's eyes are narrow and his rather bushy eyebrows have a devilish slant to 
  them. A smile is on his face, one which some would confuse with a 
  snear. His hands are behind his back --- clutching a 
  large butcher knife dripping with the fresh blood of a previous 
  opponentas he speaks these words:
  
  
  "If you are open to my questions, then please tell us the name of 
  your church and the pastors with whom you are in leadership there. You 
  said you were a pastor in Sanger. Is that pastor of Sanger Foursquare 
  Church or some other fellowship? If I am misunderstanding something that 
  you were trying to communicate, then please clarify. Thanks."
  
  Get the picture?
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  John wrote:   Why would 
you go to the trouble of checking   me out ? What if David 
decides that I need   to be exposed and consults with these 
leaders?   Exposed for what? I don't see that there is 
anything to expose. You said  that you were speaking as one in 
leadership. You identified your gift as  one of being a pastor. This 
created a curiosity in me to understand more of  your leadership 
role in your church. Don't make more of it than that. If I  did 
speak about you, John, you can be sure that I would only speak of the 
 good which I find in you. It would be a sin to speak evil of a 
brother in  Christ, or to gossip about him in a way that would cast 
him in a negative  light.   John wrote:  
 Please n ote my willingness to be open with   your 
questioning and your refusal to be equally   so in regards to a 
number of your claims over   the past two years.  
 I'm not aware of my making any "claims" much less of being 
uncooperative  concerning questions about such claims. Can you tell 
me what you are  talking about?   If you are open to 
my questions, then please tell us the name of your church  and the 
pastors with whom you are in leadership there. You said you were a  
pastor in Sanger. Is that pastor of Sanger Foursquare Church or some other 
 fellowship? If I am misunderstanding something that you were trying 
to  communicate, then please clarify. Thanks.   
David Miller.   --  "Let your speech be 
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how  you 
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send 
an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be 
unsubscribed. If you have a friend  who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  he will be 
subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

John wrote:
 Robertson will not disagree with my point on this,
 however. If my references do not mean anything
 to you, so be it.

It is not that your references do not mean anything.  They did not reveal 
anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this subject. 
You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might 
refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it 
applies in this case.  Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied 
in every case.  Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those ignorant 
of Greek.  It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative 
active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, continuous 
or progressive action.

Robertson does differ from you quite a bit.  He takes a much more scholarly 
approach to the subject.  You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about 
punctiliar (aoristic) present tense.  Roberston says, But a greater 
difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between 
punctiliar and linear action.  This defect is chiefly found in the 
indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already 
shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically 
always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the 
imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist.  There is nothing left to 
do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative 
Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present).  The one Greek form 
cover both ideas in the ind.  Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 takes 
a similar approach as you do on this subject, trying to force the present 
indicative as always denoting an action in progress.  Robertson takes issue 
with Burton, saying, It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as 
denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has 
to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which 
he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense 
to denote action in progress.'   In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all.  The 
idiom is as old as the tense itself...

You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in 
Basics of Biblical Greek.  He acknowledges that the present indicative 
might be undefined (He cleanses us) as opposed to continuous (He is 
cleansing us), but his instruction is to use the continuous translation by 
default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined.  I'm 
not in sharp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a bias 
toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action.  Such a bias 
apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from 
taking a more scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 John 
1:7.

As for your other comments, they are personal in nature and if you are 
interested in conversing about them, we can do so privately.  Suffice it to 
say that I perceive my Greek studies to be more advanced than yours, even 
though I have had no formal instruction in Greek at the University.  I have 
had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a 
tenured professor of Greek studies at a college here in Florida.  I read 
books and have used CD's and cassette tapes to learn pronunciation and 
receive instruction.  While I don't have that classroom experience in Greek 
studies that you talk about, I stand behind my statement as factually 
accurate and correct.  You might feel that it conveys a false sense that I 
have experienced the classroom.  I do not.  I think it reflects my 
understanding based upon reading a wide variety of scholars who disagree 
with one another about how to teach Greek.  In other words, I have not read 
just one Greek book like Mounce and accepted it as the gospel truth about 
understanding the Greek language.  I have been interested in the differences 
between Greek scholars, just as you see me interested in the differences 
between people's opinions here on TruthTalk.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

David, I have said all that I can say.  You have already admitted to my two 
points of discussion.   That is good enough for me.  Are there exceptions to 
the rule?  Of course.   Robertson will not disagree with my point on this, 
however. If my references do not mean anything to you, so be it.

Regarding your education in Greek.   Nothing of ridicule was written or 
intended.  The fact is this, however,   Greek is best learned as taught by 
others.
You often speak and write as if you have formal background in Greek.  You 
speak of what is taught in Greek classes, the high degree of defficulty in 
learning such concepts as

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

NOITA (no offence intended to anyone - just made it up) but, I'm with DM on 
this one.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 18, 2006 08:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

John wrote:

Robertson will not disagree with my point on this,
however. If my references do not mean anything
to you, so be it.

It is not that your references do not mean anything.  They did not reveal
anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this 
subject.

You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might
refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it
applies in this case.  Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied
in every case.  Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those 
ignorant

of Greek.  It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative
active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, 
continuous

or progressive action.

Robertson does differ from you quite a bit.  He takes a much more 
scholarly
approach to the subject.  You may want to read what he says on p. 864 
about

punctiliar (aoristic) present tense.  Roberston says, But a greater
difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between
punctiliar and linear action.  This defect is chiefly found in the
indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already
shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present 
practically

always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the
imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist.  There is nothing left 
to
do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and 
Durative

Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present).  The one Greek form
cover both ideas in the ind.  Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 
takes

a similar approach as you do on this subject, trying to force the present
indicative as always denoting an action in progress.  Robertson takes 
issue

with Burton, saying, It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as
denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has
to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which
he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present 
tense
to denote action in progress.'   In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. 
The

idiom is as old as the tense itself...

You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in
Basics of Biblical Greek.  He acknowledges that the present indicative
might be undefined (He cleanses us) as opposed to continuous (He is
cleansing us), but his instruction is to use the continuous translation 
by
default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined. 
I'm
not in sharp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a 
bias

toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action.  Such a bias
apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from
taking a more scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 
John

1:7.

As for your other comments, they are personal in nature and if you are
interested in conversing about them, we can do so privately.  Suffice it 
to

say that I perceive my Greek studies to be more advanced than yours, even
though I have had no formal instruction in Greek at the University.  I 
have

had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a
tenured professor of Greek studies at a college here in Florida.  I read
books and have used CD's and cassette tapes to learn pronunciation and
receive instruction.  While I don't have that classroom experience in 
Greek

studies that you talk about, I stand behind my statement as factually
accurate and correct.  You might feel that it conveys a false sense that I
have experienced the classroom.  I do not.  I think it reflects my
understanding based upon reading a wide variety of scholars who disagree
with one another about how to teach Greek.  In other words, I have not 
read

just one Greek book like Mounce and accepted it as the gospel truth about
understanding the Greek language.  I have been interested in the 
differences

between Greek scholars, just as you see me interested in the differences
between people's opinions here on TruthTalk.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

David, I have said all that I can say.  You have already admitted to my 
two
points of discussion.   That is good enough for me.  Are there exceptions 
to

the rule?  Of course.   Robertson will not disagree with my point on this,
however. If my references do not mean anything to you, so be it.

Regarding your education in Greek.   Nothing of ridicule was written or
intended.

Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding




NOITA (no offence intended to anyone - just made it 
up - ps I managed to just pass beginner's grk about a 100 yrs ago) but, I'm with 
DM on this one.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 18, 2006 08:34
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to 
  understanding
  
  Wrong picture, John. Take insulting and malicious comments like 
  this private, please.
  
  David Miller.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:25 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to 
understanding

Picture the format of a typical political cartoon. See 
David Miller towering over a rather humble looking John 
Smithson. David's eyes are narrow and his rather bushy 
eyebrows have a devilish slant to them. A smile is on his face, 
one which some would confuse with a snear. His hands are behind his 
back --- clutching a large butcher knife dripping with the 
fresh blood of a previous opponentas he speaks these 
words:


"If you are open to my questions, then please tell us the name of 
your church and the pastors with whom you are in leadership there. You 
said you were a pastor in Sanger. Is that pastor of Sanger Foursquare 
Church or some other fellowship? If I am misunderstanding something 
that you were trying to communicate, then please clarify. 
Thanks."

Get the picture?

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  John wrote:   Why 
  would you go to the trouble of checking   me out ? What if 
  David decides that I need   to be exposed and consults with 
  these leaders?   Exposed for what? I don't see that there 
  is anything to expose. You said  that you were speaking as one in 
  leadership. You identified your gift as  one of being a pastor. 
  This created a curiosity in me to understand more of  your 
  leadership role in your church. Don't make more of it than that. If I 
   did speak about you, John, you can be sure that I would only 
  speak of the  good which I find in you. It would be a sin to speak 
  evil of a brother in  Christ, or to gossip about him in a way that 
  would cast him in a negative  light.   John wrote: 
Please n ote my willingness to be open with   
  your questioning and your refusal to be equally   so in 
  regards to a number of your claims over   the past two years. 
I'm not aware of my making any "claims" much less of 
  being uncooperative  concerning questions about such claims. Can 
  you tell me what you are  talking about?   If you 
  are open to my questions, then please tell us the name of your church 
   and the pastors with whom you are in leadership there. You said 
  you were a  pastor in Sanger. Is that pastor of Sanger Foursquare 
  Church or some other  fellowship? If I am misunderstanding 
  something that you were trying to  communicate, then please 
  clarify. Thanks.   David Miller.   
  --  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
  salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer every man." 
  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not 
  want to receive posts from this list, send an email to  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a 
  friend  who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Moderator Comment

2006-02-18 Thread Dean Moore




John/David work this out in private. Thanks-Carroll Moore, Moderator




- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/18/2006 8:34:36 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding

Wrong picture, John. Take insulting and malicious comments like this private, please.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The door to understanding

Picture the format of a typical political cartoon. See David Miller towering over a rather humble looking John Smithson. David's eyes are narrow and his rather bushy eyebrows have a devilish slant to them. A smile is on his face, one which some would confuse with a snear. His hands are behind his back --- clutching a large butcher knife dripping with the fresh blood of a previous opponentas he speaks these words:


"If you are open to my questions, then please tell us the name of your church and the pastors with whom you are in leadership there. You said you were a pastor in Sanger. Is that pastor of Sanger Foursquare Church or some other fellowship? If I am misunderstanding something that you were trying to communicate, then please clarify. Thanks."

Get the picture?

jd

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  John wrote:   Why would you go to the trouble of checking   me out ? What if David decides that I need   to be exposed and consults with these leaders?   Exposed for what? I don't see that there is anything to expose. You said  that you were speaking as one in leadership. You identified your gift as  one of being a pastor. This created a curiosity in me to understand more of  your leadership role in your church. Don't make more of it than that. If I  did speak about you, John, you can be sure that I would only speak of the  good which I find in you. It would be a sin to speak evil of a brother in  Christ, or to gossip about him in a way that would cast him in a negative  light.   John wrote:   Please n
 ote my willingness to be open with   your questioning and your refusal to be equally   so in regards to a number of your claims over   the past two years.   I'm not aware of my making any "claims" much less of being uncooperative  concerning questions about such claims. Can you tell me what you are  talking about?   If you are open to my questions, then please tell us the name of your church  and the pastors with whom you are in leadership there. You said you were a  pastor in Sanger. Is that pastor of Sanger Foursquare Church or some other  fellowship? If I am misunderstanding something that you were trying to  communicate, then please clarify. Thanks.   David Miller.   --  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not wan
t to receive posts from this list, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend  who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Courtesy of Mel of Mormon-Library

2006-02-18 Thread Dave Hansen


A myth is a story that is true
until you insist that it be factual
and then it is a lie 






--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.






'[God] has reconciled[certain 
Colossians] by Christ's physical body through death to present[them] holy 
in his sight, without blemish [from sin]and free from accusation [from 
outsiders],[while they're]continu[ing] in [their] faith, established 
and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel 
that [they] heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, 
and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.'
 
 
 (Colossians 
1, NIV)





On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:08:07 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  - Original Message - 
  
||
cd: Which Bible are you reading Gary? 

||

Re: [TruthTalk] Courtesy of Mel of Mormon-Library






yes,  pls tell Mel 
thatmyth is as much the Achilles heel of the Morman Library as it 
is the Library of Congress

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:41:16 -0800 Dave 
Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A myth is a story that is true until you 
insist that it be factual and then it is a 
lie.||

Re: [TruthTalk] the fall and the fig leaf

This is all welll and good -- as long as there remains the caveat that righteousness does not come by the law. I believe that "law" is that standard by which one is judged - be it traffic code criminal code. Judgment and punishment are joined at the hip by law. The Old "Standard of Judgment," given at Sinai and called The Law of Moses, was abolished in Christ. He has become the New Standard of Judgment. And we are judged by the Father as He looks to our positioning in (eis) Him. CHRIST IS THAT STANDARDBY WHICH WE ARE JUDGED-HE IS THE NEW LAW. There is therefore now no condemnation (Jere 31:34, Romans 8:1) for those who are in Christ (NASV). The law is critical as a guide but our compliance to it does not determine our eternal destiny nor is it that which is responsible for our salvation from the carnal self. It only gives us de
finition.

There is sin that we commit and there is sin we possess. That first letter of John is about both and tofail in this opinion is to miss the whole point of that letter. Romans 3:23 speaks of both concerns, as well, when it speaks of "having sinned" (past tense) and "are falling short of the glory" (present tense.) One has to do with the event of sin,over which we have some control. The other speaks of our sinful nature and is more responsible for the separation that drove Christ to the cross ---on our behalf---than any other single considertion.

Guess what folks !! The lights just went on about this "fall of man" thingy. I don't even know what I am about to write specifically -- but I do "know." So lets see how I spell it out. I am more than curious !!

The Garden of Eden -- what happened there that got the Two expelled? "Simple, John -- they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." So says those who do notclosely read the biblical account. NOT TRUE. Not true at all. Look toGen 3:22-24. They are driven out because to leave them alone would be to give them continued access to lifein the Garden, here on earth, living beyond the threat of death while, at the same time, responding to this knowledge asfinite man rather than as the Divine. It was not the event but the knowing that was morethe problem, was it not? In the closing verses to Gen 3 -- does the author even refer to the sin event? Eatingversus knowing. And I mean "knowing in the biblical sense" :-) . I do. The event
bsp;was devasting because it opened the door to the intimacies ofknowing good and evil. In this "knowing" exists not only the event of sin, but its addiction (and so much more.) And so "we have sinned" and "we are falling short of the glory of God Himself." Death, in the Garden account, is the naturalconsequence of .the sin (?) ... NO but of the knowing of good and evil !! The created nature of man included the ability to make choices -- before that choice included the knowing of good and evil. And afterwards? Mansimply will not respond well to the intamies of this knowledge and so he is driven from the tree of life and the garden in which it stood.AND he continues in this knowing -- does he not -- while, at the same time, hidding it from others, even God --
-- and so we have the history of man before the Incarantion. Adam and Eve do not throwdown their fig leaves when theyare expelled from the garden, do they? !! In Romans 3:23 - the past sins are not the problem so much as is the "falling short." There is me and the fig leaf, here AND God andmy fellow man there. So I am encouraged to "keep on confessing" (linear activity) and he willkeep on cleasing . There is ALWAYS a secretive aspectto sin. After we have committed the act - wehide it from others, even if just for a second. And just before we sin? WE JUSTIFY the ensuing action. In this process -- from justification to the false security of the fig leaf -- we find ourselves standing before Goddefiled. SIN IS NEVER JUST AN EVENT, is it? For a moment in time or for years and years -- all that is sin or makessin possible is a part of our equation. Philosophers have remarked that we are what we know. With Adam and Eve, the ability to choose was always there. The personal effects of that choosing was not. THAT IS THE RESULT OF THE FALL. (?)

Anyway -- I have to go think about this for a while.
See ya ..EXCITEMENT !!
jd

That is correct, John. The law gives details so that we can know what love is and what love is not. For example, some people say adultery is love. Do you know how many times I have heard that excuse? "They are in love" Well, the law says, no, they are not in love. They are in lust and they have broken their vows and commitments of love to someone else. The law says they deserve death for the act of adultery. Homoesexuality is a similar situation. Society says, "let those of the same gender marry and love one another, to be

Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.




Gary appears to be 'reading the same bible' as I 
am, Dean. Hm? I guess the obvious question would then 
be..

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 18, 2006 12:01
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave 
  H. get bathing suit.
  
  
  
  '[God] has reconciled[certain 
  Colossians] by Christ's physical body through death to present[them] 
  holy in his sight, without blemish [from sin]and free from accusation 
  [from outsiders],[while they're]continu[ing] in [their] faith, 
  established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is 
  the gospel that [they] heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature 
  under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a 
  servant.'
   
   
   (Colossians 
  1, NIV)
  
  
  
  
  
  On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:08:07 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

- Original Message - 

  ||
  cd: Which Bible are you reading Gary? 
  
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] The use of Scripture to convince the gainsayers


Please produce such comments on my part and I will apologize for them. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk
Sent: 2/18/2006 2:36:16 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The use of Scripture to convince the gainsayers

John replies

John,I have been pondering your treatise concerning the role of Scripture to transform lives. No doubt that is one role. But what about the use of Scriptures to guard against error? Does it have that role in your mind?What do you mean?How do you accomplish one without avoiding the other? 
Following are two passages that I would like for you to explain their meaning:2 Timothy 3:16-17(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Gee, I wonder just how many times I have read this passage. I do not think reproof and correction are negatives. It is not error that is corrected or given reproof -- it is my very life in Christ that is given correction and reproof. "Reproof " has to do with "proving" as one proves his profession as a carpenter -- and how is that done? Practice, practice, practice. Scripture is profitable in this excercise. "Correction" has to do with setting back on course -- this is the very thing promised of Christ Himself in Romans 14:4 ("a
 nd we will be made to stand!!")
Titus 1:9-11(9) Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.(10) For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:(11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.From my perspective, it tells me that Scripture should be used to rebuke and correct others. It seems to me that some on the list, perhaps you included, despise this use, believing that it drives people away from God. What I dispise is this: to invite people onto this DISCUSSION forum and then rebuke and insult them becaue they dare to differ . even to the point of investigating them and seriously considering calling people who might know them and warning them of that person (or were you going to tell them what a great guy you t
 hink I am?)

 **Moderator Comment**John-David has made a good point and it should be considered by you. Also you need to be fair in your standards-You made a least a couple of comments about calling Judy's pastor and informing on her of her responses and took this as far as asking for her Pastors phone #.Now you are angry at David for only checking out your church in Ca. This is the area of Judging that the Bible warns about. Faulting others for doing the same thing you are doing and you will be measured by that same judgement in the eyes of God. Be Fair.

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

Well, it appears thatI have not made my point. If we can agree that present indicative active CAN imply linearactivity, I will continue to speak of the constant flow and I will do so because it fits into the context of what I see as the theology of the bible (i.e. "the fall and the fig leaf")

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOITA (no offence intended to anyone - just made it up) but, I'm with DM on this one.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: February 18, 2006 08:33 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative John wrote: Robertson will not disagree with my point on this, however. If my references do not mean anything to you, so be it. It is not that your references do not mean anything. They did not reveal anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this subject. You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative migh
t refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it applies in this case. Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied in every case. Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those ignorant of Greek. It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, continuous or progressive action. Robertson does differ from you quite a bit. He takes a much more scholarly approach to the subject. You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about punctiliar (aoristic) present tense. Roberston says, "But a greater difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., a
s already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form cover both ideas in the ind." Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 takes a similar approach as you do on this subject, trying to force the present indicative as always denoting an action in progress. Robertson takes issue with Burton, saying, "It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Prese
nt,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself..." You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in "Basics of Biblical Greek." He acknowledges that the present indicative might be undefined ("He cleanses us") as opposed to continuous ("He is cleansing us"), but his instruction is to use the continuous translation by default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined. I'm not in sharp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a bias toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action. Such a bias apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from taking a m
ore scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 John 1:7. As for your other comments, they are personal in nature and if you are interested in conversing about them, we can do so privately. Suffice it to say that I perceive my Greek studies to be more advanced than yours, even though I have had no formal instruction in Greek at the University. I have had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a tenured professor of Greek studies at a college here in Florida. I read books and have used CD's and cassette tapes to learn pronunciation and receive instruction. While I don't have that classroom experience in Greek studies that you talk about, I stand behind my statement as factually accurate and correct. You might feel that it conveys a false sense that I have exper
ienced the classroom. I do not. I think it reflects my understanding based upon reading a wide variety of scholars who disagree with one another about how to teach Greek. In other words, I have not read just one Greek book like Mounce and accepted it as the gospel truth about understanding the Greek language. I have been interested in the differences between Greek scholars, just as you see me interested in the differences between people's opinions here on TruthTalk. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

David --I am going to slow down just a bit on this. If I am going to be "wrong" on this one, I at least want to accurately understood. If I am wrong, by the way, that is fine -- but for the life of me, I do not see how. So I will continue to defend the point until I see it differently.

But before I continue, let me ask you a question. On the following page (Robertson, p 865) , when he writes " The original present was probably therefore aorist or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or linear and the distinctive durative notions grew up around specially formed stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs though never with all" --- is this a comparison on Robertson's part of Attic and Koine or of ancient translators and modern day translators?

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: Robertson will not disagree with my point on this, however. If my references do not mean anything to you, so be it. It is not that your references do not mean anything. They did not reveal anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this subject. You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it applies in this case. Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied in every case. Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those ignorant of Greek. It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, continuous &
gt; or progressive action. Robertson does differ from you quite a bit. He takes a much more scholarly approach to the subject. You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about punctiliar (aoristic) present tense. Roberston says, "But a greater difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form cover both ideas in the ind." Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 takes a similar approach
as you do on this subject, trying to force the present indicative as always denoting an action in progress. Robertson takes issue with Burton, saying, "It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself..." You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in "Basics of Biblical Greek." He acknowledges that the present indicative might be undefined ("He cleanses us") as opposed to continuous ("He is cleansing us"), but his instruction is to use the continuous translation by default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined.. I'm not in sha
rp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a bias toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action. Such a bias apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from taking a more scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 John 1:7. As for your other comments, they are personal in nature and if you are interested in conversing about them, we can do so privately. Suffice it to say that I perceive my Greek studies to be more advanced than yours, even though I have had no formal instruction in Greek at the University. I have had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a tenured professor of Greek studies at a college here in Florida. I read books and have used CD's and cassette tapes to learn pronunciation and receive instruction. While I don't have that classroom experience in Greek studies that you talk about, I stand behind my
statement as factually accurate and correct. You might feel that it conveys a false sense that I have experienced the classroom. I do not. I think it reflects my understanding based upon reading a wide variety of scholars who disagree with one another about how to teach Greek. In other words, I have not read just one Greek book like Mounce and accepted it as the gospel truth about understanding the Greek language. I have been interested in the differences between Greek scholars, just as you see me interested in the differences between people's opinions here on

Re: [TruthTalk] Courtesy of Mel of Mormon-Library

2006-02-18 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: Hmm.You failed to include TruthTalk in that
comment, G. (I do recall you judging some TT posts as mythical on
occasion.)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  yes,  pls tell Mel
thatmyth is as much the Achilles heel of the Morman Library
as it is the Library of Congress
  
  On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:41:16
-0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 A myth is a story that is true until you insist that it be factual
and then it is a lie.
||


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] the fall and the fig leaf

2006-02-18 Thread Judy Taylor




You sound like a follower of Bill Taylor JD; 
positioning in eis?? - Lands sakes!! what next??
Christ is not a NEW LAW. In fact there is NO NEW 
LAW. There is nothing new under the sun and God has
never ever changed His character or His standards; they 
are the same now as they were back then. Surprise!!
AE were driven out of the garden because good and 
evil,light and darkness, life and death can not 
coexist 
in harmony and peace ... 
This was obvious to people in the last century JD. Where have you 
been??

"When wheat and tares compromise it is the wheat that 
suffers. Light and darkness, right and wrong, good 
and evil, truth and error are incompatibles, and when 
they compromise it is the light - the right - the good 
and the truth that are damaged"
W. Graham Scroggie born 1877


On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:12:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  This is all welll and good -- as long as there remains the 
  caveat that righteousness does not come by the law. I believe that 
  "law" is that standard by which one is judged - be it traffic 
  code criminal code. Judgment and punishment are joined at 
  the hip by law. The Old "Standard of Judgment," given at 
  Sinai and called The Law of Moses, was abolished in Christ. He has 
  become the New Standard of Judgment. And we are 
  judged by the Father as He looks to our positioning in (eis) Him. 
  CHRIST IS THAT STANDARDBY WHICH WE ARE 
  JUDGED-HE IS THE NEW LAW. 
   There is therefore now no condemnation (Jere 
  31:34, Romans 8:1) for those who are in Christ (NASV). The law is 
  critical as a guide but our compliance to it does not determine 
  our eternal destiny nor is it that which is responsible for our salvation from 
  the carnal self. It only gives us de finition. 
  
  There is sin that we commit and there is sin we 
  possess. That first letter of John is about both and 
  tofail in this opinion is to miss the whole point of that 
  letter. Romans 3:23 speaks of both concerns, as well, when 
  it speaks of "having sinned" (past tense) and "are falling 
  short of the glory" (present tense.) One has to do with the event 
  of sin,over which we have some control. The other speaks of our 
  sinful nature and is more responsible for the separation that drove Christ to 
  the cross ---on our behalf---than any other single 
  considertion. 
  
  Guess what folks !! The lights just went on about this "fall of 
  man" thingy. I don't even know what I am about to 
  write specifically -- but I do "know." So lets see how 
  I spell it out. I am more than curious !!
  
  The Garden of Eden -- what happened there that got 
  the Two expelled? "Simple, John -- they 
  ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." So 
  says those who do notclosely read the biblical account. NOT 
  TRUE. Not true at all. Look toGen 
  3:22-24. They are driven out because to leave them alone would be 
  to give them continued access to lifein the Garden, here on 
  earth, living beyond the threat of death while, at the same time, 
  responding to this knowledge asfinite man rather than as the 
  Divine. It was not the event but the knowing that was 
  morethe problem, was it not?  In the closing verses to 
  Gen 3 -- does the author even refer to the sin 
  event? Eatingversus knowing. 
  And I mean "knowing in the biblical sense" :-) 
  . I do. The eventn bsp;was devasting because it opened 
  the door to the intimacies ofknowing good and evil. In 
  this "knowing" exists not only the event of sin, but its addiction (and 
  so much more.) And so "we have sinned" and "we are 
  falling short of the glory of God Himself." Death, in the Garden 
  account, is the naturalconsequence of 
  .the sin (?) ... NO 
   but of the knowing of good and evil 
  !! The created nature of man included the ability to make 
  choices -- before that choice included the knowing of good 
  and evil. And afterwards? Mansimply will not respond 
  well to the intamies of this knowledge and so he is driven from the tree of 
  life and the garden in which it stood.AND he continues 
  in this knowing -- does he not -- while, at the same 
  time, hidding it from others, even God -- -- and 
  so we have the history of man before the Incarantion.  
  Adam and Eve do not throwdown their fig leaves when 
  theyare expelled from the garden, do they? 
  !! In Romans 
  3:23 - the past sins are not the problem so much as is the 
  "falling short." There is me and the fig leaf, here 
  AND God andmy fellow man there. So I am encouraged to "keep 
  on confessing" (linear activity) and he willkeep on cleasing 
  . There is ALWAYS a secretive aspectto sin. After we 
  have committed the act - wehide it from others, even if just 
  for a second. And just before we sin? WE JUSTIFY the ensuing 
  action. In this process -- from justification to 
  the false security of the fig leaf -- we find ourselves standing 
  before

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

A couple of additional thoughts:
Your response makes it sound as if what you say is without debate, which it is not , of course (i.e. Burton and Mounce and Rogers).
Secondly, understand that I was taught my opinion of present indcative active by another, so , this article (yours)puts you one up onon my prof ... something I had not previously thought probable.
Thirdly, my opinion of your scholarship is only enhanced by some of your rebuttal. I have read Robertson before, by the way and think I understand what he has to say. Time and discussion will prove the point, one way or the other. I hold Robertson in high regard, by the way, but I do not always side with his opinion. His thinking on "eis" in Acts 2:38 is a case in point. I do not choose my own opinion over his, but the opinion of others. At any rate - I am going to take some time to research a point thatIhave been taughtastrue and have believed to be such for over 30 years, now. What I will not do, at this time, is to examine whether God in Christ forgives all my sins - past present and future -- as the aorist mightsuggest in I John 1:9 ("to forgive"). I do not believe, as you h
ave stated in the past, that only past sins are forgiven by the event on the cross.

It is not that your references do not mean anything. They did not reveal anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this subject. You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it applies in this case. Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied in every case. Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those ignorant of Greek. It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, continuous or progressive action. I will not correct this opinion of yours again. It is a waste of time, obviously.Robertson does differ from you quite a bit. He takes a much more scholarly approach to the subject.Of course and itshould go without saying.
p;You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about punctiliar (aoristic) present tense. Roberston says, "But a greater difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form cover both ideas in the ind." Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 takes a similar approach as you do on this subject, trying to force the present indicative as always denoting an action in progress.Neither Burton nor I do this.
Robertson takes issue with Burton, saying, "It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.'The reason why Burton "takes itback"is because such was never his opinion. Burton does not debate with himself on this issue !! Rather, he adds to or amends the previous comments with those comments that follow. In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself..."You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in "Basics of Biblical Greek."
; He acknowledges that the present indicative might be undefined ("He cleanses us") as opposed to continuous ("He is cleansing us"), but his instruction is to use the continuous translation by default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined. I'm not in sharp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a bias toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action. Such a bias apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from taking a more scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 John 1:7. From one beginner to another, bias is always a problem. As for your other comments, they are personal in nature and if you are interested in conversing about them, we can do so privately. Suffice it to say that I perceive my Greek studies to be more advanced than yours, even though I have had no formal instruction in Greek at the Universi
ty. I have had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a tenured professor of Greek studies at a college here in Florida. I read books and have used CD's and cassette tapes to learn pronunciation and receive instruction. While I don't have that classroom experience in Greek studies that you talk

Re: [TruthTalk] the fall and the fig leaf

I have only one comment to your comments below.

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

You sound like a follower of Bill Taylor JD; positioning in eis?? - Lands sakes!! what next??
Christ is not a NEW LAW. In fact there is NO NEW LAW. There is nothing new under the sun and God has
never ever changed His character or His standards; they are the same now as they were back then. Surprise!!
AE were driven out of the garden because good and evil,light and darkness, life and death can not coexist
in harmony and peace ... This was obvious to people in the last century JD. Where have you been?? Reading Gen 3:22-24 !!

"When wheat and tares compromise it is the wheat that suffers. Light and darkness, right and wrong, good
and evil, truth and error are incompatibles, and when they compromise it is the light - the right - the good
and the truth that are damaged"
W. Graham Scroggie born 1877

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:12:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The Garden of Eden -- what happened there that got the Two expelled? "Simple, John -- they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." So says those who do notclosely read the biblical account. NOT TRUE. Not true at all. Look toGen 3:22-24. They are driven out because to leave them alone would be to give them continued access to lifein the Garden, here on earth, living beyond the threat of death while, at the same time, responding to this knowledge asfinite man rather than as the Divine. It was not the event but the knowing that was morethe problem, was it not? In the closing verses to Gen 3 -- does the author even refer to the sin event? Eatingversus knowing. And I mean "knowing in the biblical sense" :-) .
sp; I do. The eventn bsp;was devasting because it opened the door to the intimacies ofknowing good and evil. In this "knowing" exists not only the event of sin, but its addiction (and so much more.) And so "we have sinned" and "we are falling short of the glory of God Himself." Death, in the Garden account, is the naturalconsequence of .the sin (?) ... NO . but of the knowing of good and evil !! The created nature of man included the ability to make choices -- before that choice included the knowing of good and evil. And afterwards? Mansimply will not respond well to the intamies of this knowledge and so he is driven from the tree of life and the garden in which it stood.AND he continues in this knowing -- does he not -- while, at the same time, hidding i
t from others, even God -- -- and so we have the history of man before the Incarantion. Adam and Eve do not throwdown their fig leaves when theyare expelled from the garden, do they? !! In Romans 3:23 - the past sins are not the problem so much as is the "falling short." There is me and the fig leaf, here AND God andmy fellow man there. So I am encouraged to "keep on confessing" (linear activity) and he willkeep on cleasing . There is ALWAYS a secretive aspectto sin. After we have committed the act - wehide it from others, even if just for a second. And just before we sin? WE JUSTIFY the ensuing action. In this process -- from justification to the false security of the fig leaf -- we find ourselves standing before God
bsp;defiled. SIN IS NEVER JUST AN EVENT, is it? For a moment

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

The issue with Robertson is not addressed here because that will take some time.

But consider this as a first line of defense. Looking at I John 1:6-10, I believe that present time verbs such as are lying (v.6 we lie and practice not the truth), practicing (v.6 not practicing the truth), walking (v. 7 if we walk in the light), and are deceiving (v. 8 deceive ourselves and the truth is not ..) are not punctiliar in nature, in this passage(I do believe that Robertson offers a choice between punticliar and linear -- but more on that later.)

As long as I am walking in darkness, I am deceiving myself the deception never stops in such a case.

As long as I am practicing not -- an action that is continual in circumstance. If I would only stop this practicing, things could be different.

As long as I am walking in the light, stated blessings occur because of a continuig activity or intention of the heart.

As long as I deny the possession of sin, I am deceiving myself -- a clear picture of continuous activity.

I submit that it is not a stretch to then believe that if walking in the light is a continuing activity, cleansing us from all sin is likewise.

Seems a bit too obvious to me.

couple of additional thoughts:
Your response makes it sound as if what you say is without debate, which it is not , of course (i.e. Burton and Mounce and Rogers).
Secondly, understand that I was taught my opinion of present indcative active by another, so , this article (yours)puts you one up onon my prof ... something I had not previously thought probable.
Thirdly, my opinion of your scholarship is only enhanced by some of your rebuttal. I have read Robertson before, by the way and think I understand what he has to say. Time and discussion will prove the point, one way or the other. I hold Robertson in high regard, by the way, but I do not always side with his opinion. His thinking on "eis" in Acts 2:38 is a case in point. I do not choose my own opinion over his, but the opinion of others. At any rate - I am going to take some time to research a point thatIhave been taughtastrue and have believed to be such for over 30 years, now. What I will not do, at this time, is to examine whether God in Christ forgives all my sins - past present and future -- as the aorist mightsuggest in I John 1:9 ("to forgive"). I do not believe, as you h
ave stated in the past, that only past sins are forgiven by the event on the cross.

Re: [TruthTalk] Courtesy of Mel of Mormon-Library




'I do recall you 
judging some TT posts as mythical on occasion' -- yep, Bro, shouldn't 
you agree that it'sprobably an understatement of those critiques, which 
essentially nullifies the supposed 'failure', below?


On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:24:55 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: Hmm.You failed to include TruthTalk in 
  that comment, G. (I do recall you judging some TT posts as 
  mythical on occasion.)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


yes,  pls tell Mel 
thatmyth is as much the Achilles heel of the Morman Library 
as it is the Library of Congress

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:41:16 -0800 Dave 
Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A myth is a story that is 
true until you insist that it be factual and then it is a 
lie.||

Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.




Bro, though you say 
where you found the link in question,in a ttxpress post,we 
know thatain't quite touchin' the question directly

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:34:43 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  interesting link, 
  Bro; lots to readthere
  
  when did 
  you find it?
  
  On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:20:09 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=25342



- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:36 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave 
H. get bathing suit.


Quote: 
JPHOLDING:According to 
several popular Skeptical sites, but so far as I can see, not any site that 
deals in original writings (earlychristianwritings.com, ccel.org), St 
Clement of Alexandria said, "every woman should be filled with shame by 
the thought that she is a woman"."Lea, History of Sacerdotal 
Celibacy (page 320)" is often cited as a source, and I will be looking at it 
in the next week if needed, but in the meantime, anyone out there want to 
tell me what ORIGINAL work of Clement this supposedly comes from? Some also 
cite his "The Tutor" as a source, but I have found nothing like it in the 
original on Peter's site.Can someone give me a citation, at 
least?Or is this another Pope Leo X 
fiasco?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=25342

Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.




I wasn't looking at the clock when I read your post, Gary, but that is when 
I found it, after I read your post.

So do you consider both Dave Hansen and me your brother? You call 
both of us bro.

David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:12 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave 
  H. get bathing suit.
  
  Bro, though you 
  say where you found the link in question,in a ttxpress 
  post,we know thatain't quite touchin' the question 
  directly
  
  On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:34:43 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
interesting 
link, Bro; lots to readthere

when 
did you find it?

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:20:09 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=25342
  
  
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 
  9:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- 
  Dave H. get bathing suit.
  
  
  Quote: 
  JPHOLDING:According to 
  several popular Skeptical sites, but so far as I can see, not any site 
  that deals in original writings (earlychristianwritings.com, ccel.org), St 
  Clement of Alexandria said, "every woman should be filled with shame 
  by the thought that she is a woman"."Lea, History of Sacerdotal 
  Celibacy (page 320)" is often cited as a source, and I will be looking at 
  it in the next week if needed, but in the meantime, anyone out there want 
  to tell me what ORIGINAL work of Clement this supposedly comes from? Some 
  also cite his "The Tutor" as a source, but I have found nothing like it in 
  the original on Peter's site.Can someone give me a citation, at 
  least?Or is this another Pope Leo X 
  fiasco?
  
  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=25342

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

John wrote:
 is this a comparison on Robertson's  part
 of Attic and Koine or of ancient translators
 and modern day translators?

Not exactly any of these choices.  Robertson was hypothesizing about origins 
and does not identify Aeolic, Acradocypriot, Attic, Doric, Ionic, or 
Homeric.  He was simply comparing what he considered to be the thought 
behind the original present tense with the thought behind present tense in 
modern Greek.  He certainly wasn't comparing ancient translators with modern 
ones.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative


David  -- I am going to slow down just a bit on this.   If I am going to be 
wrong on this one, I at least want to accurately understood.   If I am 
wrong, by the way, that is fine  --  but for the life of me, I do not see 
how.   So I will continue to defend the point until I see it differently.

But before I continue, let me ask you a question.  On the following page 
(Robertson, p 865)  , when he writes   The original present was probably 
therefore aorist or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or 
linear and the distinctive durative notions grew up around specially formed 
stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs though never with 
ll  ---  is this a comparison on Robertson's  part of Attic and Koine or of 
ancient translators and modern day translators?

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 John wrote:
  Robertson will not disagree with my point on this,
  however. If my references do not mean anything
  to you, so be it.

 It is not that your references do not mean anything. They did not reveal
 anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this 
 subject.
 You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might
 refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it
 applies in this case. Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied
 in every case. Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those 
 ignorant
 of Greek. It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative
 active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, 
 continuous
 gt; or progressive action.

 Robertson does differ from you quite a bit. He takes a much more scholarly
 approach to the subject. You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about
 punctiliar (aoristic) present tense. Roberston says, But a greater
 difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between
 punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the
 indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already
 shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present 
 practically
 always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the
 imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left 
 to
 do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and 
 Durative
 Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form
 cover both ideas in the ind. Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 takes
 a similar approach as you do on this subject, trying to force the present
 indicative as always denoting an action in progress. Robertson takes issue
 with Burton, saying, It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as
 denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has
 to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which
 he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present 
 tense
 to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The
 idiom is as old as the tense itself...

 You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in
 Basics of Biblical Greek. He acknowledges that the present indicative
 might be undefined (He cleanses us) as opposed to continuous (He is
 cleansing us), but his instruction is to use the continuous translation 
 by
 default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined.. 
 I'm
 not in sha rp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a 
 bias
 toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action. Such a bias
 apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from
 taking a more scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 
 John
 1:7.

 As for your other comments, they are personal in nature and if you are
 interested in conversing about them, we can do so privately. Suffice it to
 say that I perceive my Greek studies to be more advanced than yours, even
 though I have had no formal instruction in Greek at the University. I have
 had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a
 tenured professor of Greek studies at a college here in Florida. I read
 books and

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

You are still sticking with your bias of how you have been taught to read 
the present tense.  Don't you notice how you keep retranslating the words 
into an ing form that accepted translators do not use in their translations 
(KJV, NASB, etc.)?

Something else you should consider, and that is that we are commanded to 
walk in the light, but we are not commanded to keep on sinning.  Nor are we 
commanded to keep on getting cleansed.  Baptism is done as a one time thing, 
and Jesus said he that is washed (cleansed) does not need to wash, save his 
feet only, but is clean every whit.  Do you get rebaptized every time you 
meet in church?

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

The issue with Robertson is not addressed here because that will take some 
time.

But consider this as a first line of defense.  Looking at I John 1:6-10,  I 
believe that present time verbs such as  are lying (v.6 we lie and 
practice not the truth),practicing (v.6 not practicing the truth), 
walking  (v. 7 if we walk in the light),  and are deceiving  (v. 8 
deceive ourselves and the truth is not ..)  are not punctiliar in nature, in 
this passage  (I do believe that Robertson offers a choice between 
punticliar and linear  --  but more on that later.)

As long as I am walking in darkness, I am deceiving myself     the 
deception never stops in such a case.

As long as I am practicing  not   --  an action that is continual  in 
circumstance.  If I would only stop this practicing, things could be 
different.

As long as I am walking in the light,  stated blessings occur because of a 
continuig activity or intention of the heart.

As long as I deny the possession of sin, I am deceiving myself  --  a clear 
picture of continuous activity.

I submit that it is not a stretch to then believe that if walking in the 
light is a continuing activity,  cleansing us from all sin is likewise.

Seems a bit too obvious to me.

jd




 couple of additional thoughts:
Your response makes it sound as if what you say is  without debate, which it 
is not , of course  (i.e. Burton and Mounce and Rogers).
Secondly, understand that I was taught my opinion of present indcative 
active by another, so , this article (yours) puts you one up on on my prof 
...  something I had not previously thought probable.
Thirdly,   my opinion of your scholarship is  only enhanced by some of your 
rebuttal.  I have read Robertson before, by the way and think I understand 
what he has to say.   Time and discussion will prove the point, one way or 
the other.  I hold Robertson in high regard, by the way, but I do not always 
side with his opinion.  His thinking on eis in Acts 2:38 is a case in 
point.   I do not choose my own opinion over his, but the opinion of others. 
At any rate  -  I am going to take some time to research a point that  I 
have been taught as  true and have believed to be such for over 30 years, 
now.What I will not do, at this time, is to examine whether God in 
Christ forgives all my sins -  past present and future -- as  the aorist 
might  suggest in I John  1: 9 (to forgive).   I do not believe, as you h 
ave stated in the past, that only past sins are forgiven by the event on the 
cross.


It is not that your references do not mean anything.  They did not reveal
anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this subject.
You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might
refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it
applies in this case.  Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied
in every case.  Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those ignorant
of Greek.  It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative
active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, continuous
or progressive action.   I will not correct this opinion of yours again.  It 
is a waste of time, obviously.

Robertson does differ from you quite a bit.  He takes a much more scholarly
approach to the subject. Of course and it should go without saying.   ;nbs 
p;You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about punctiliar (aoristic) 
present tense.  Roberston says, But a greater
difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between
punctiliar and linear action.  This defect is chiefly found in the
indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already
shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically
always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the
imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist.  There is nothing left to
do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative
Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative

I prefer a more specific answer. Was Robertson comparing older Greek to the "modern" Koine Greek? The evolution of the verb stems -- is that from ancient to Koine (in Robertson)? Or , are you saying that he compares Koine to present times? !
jd

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: is this a comparison on Robertson's part of Attic and Koine or of ancient translators and modern day translators? Not exactly any of these choices. Robertson was hypothesizing about origins and does not identify Aeolic, Acradocypriot, Attic, Doric, Ionic, or Homeric. He was simply comparing what he considered to be the thought behind the original present tense with the thought behind present tense in modern Greek. He certainly wasn't comparing ancient translators with modern ones. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:18 PM
; Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present IndicativeDavid -- I am going to slow down just a bit on this. If I am going to be "wrong" on this one, I at least want to accurately understood. If I am wrong, by the way, that is fine -- but for the life of me, I do not see how. So I will continue to defend the point until I see it differently. But before I continue, let me ask you a question. On the following page (Robertson, p 865) , when he writes " The original present was probably therefore aorist or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or linear and the distinctive durative notions grew up around specially formed stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs though never with ll" --- is this a comparison on Robertson's part of Attic and Koine or of ancient translators and modern day translators? jd -- Original message --
; From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote:Robertson will not disagree with my point on this,however. If my references do not mean anythingto you, so be it. It is not that your references do not mean anything. They did not reveal anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this subject. You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it applies in this case. Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied in every case. Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those ignorant of Greek. It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, continuous gt; or progressive act
ion. Robertson does differ from you quite a bit. He takes a much more scholarly approach to the subject. You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about punctiliar (aoristic) present tense. Roberston says, "But a greater difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form cover both ideas
in the ind." Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 takes a similar approach as you do on this subject, trying to force the present indicative as always denoting an action in progress. Robertson takes issue with Burton, saying, "It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself..." You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in "Basics of Biblical Greek." He acknowledges that the present indicative might be undefined ("He cleanses us") as opposed to continuous ("He is cleansing us"),
but his instruction is to use the continuous translation by default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined.. I'm not in sha rp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a bias toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action. Such a bias apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from taking a more scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 John 1:7. As for your other comments, they are personal in nature

Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.




neither of you is 
Sisters yet, i reckon:)

..beyond this, 
Whatis one tomake of 
(everyones')humanity?

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:39:02 -0500 "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..So do you consider both Dave Hansen and 
  me your brother? 
  You call both of us 
  bro.
  
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative





'bias'ain'tatrue term, 
below,whilethe writerassumes, probably incorrectly, 
thatPastorSwas taught incorrectly

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:14:47 -0500 "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:You are still sticking with your bias of how you 
have been taught to read the present tense.

Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative



You are still sticking with your bias of how you have been taught to read the present tense. Don't you notice how you keep retranslating the words into an ing form that accepted translators do not use in their translations (KJV, NASB, etc.)? I don't care about the translations. It (ing) is a way of bring out the linear action of the verb and it is the accepted manner of doing so in all the grammars I have seen. What do you think I was presenting to you when I gave sources complete with page reference? They all use the "ing" and for the same reason I use that ending. Are you suggesting that Robertson's comments (as you understand them) trumps all of these grammictal illustration? That the first year boys simply did not get it right -- all of them? But more than that -- you do not think that "walk in the light" is anONGOING activity? Or that as long as I deny 
sin ()whatever that means) I willCONTINUE to be considered a liar. You don't see that? And, are you saying that present indicative actives never mean to imply linear action? 

jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.