Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:35:43 -0800

Pride is the highway to utter apostasy. . . . Mark those that are proud in any town, or any company of professors of piety; and if any infection of heresy or infidelity come into that place, these are the men that will soonest catch it. Richard Baxter

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill, remember the words of Rush  --  when you argue with an idiot, no one can tell the difference.  Maybe I should pay attention to that advice as well. 
 
Jd
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

How is the air up there?

Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure, a present tense verb conveys an action that is not yet complete; in other words, it is not yet a past tense. As I said before, it is unfortunate that the KJV misled you here, understandable though it may be, but now you need to move on to accepting that the original language posits this participle as a present passive.
 
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

What say ye Bill?
Skip the GREEK just shine on us the EXPOSITION of the ENGLISH below:
 
Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflects a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, then if this is so I don't agree with Bill on that point either.  We've moved on from bulls and goats;
the blood of the eternal sacrifice is once and for all time.
 
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:57:08 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"

Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.
 
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill
 
I have no idea what you are talking about Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of
focus because of the faith and influence of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified in any other sense because she remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and
sin.
 
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Fair enough. Do you accept the present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do not.
 
Bill
 
Are you living in some kind of delusion Bill?
My understanding of that text remains the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality here
rather than presumption.  jt
 

                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 

                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)


                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)



Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

Reply via email to