Dean writes > Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the
present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible
the first time out.
No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only
because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is,
the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your
Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect
of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to
accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of
having "made a straw
man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuse me of making "the text
wrong"; he then went on a two day snipe hunt, looking for a
passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not
for David calling him in. Is this how you guys get it the first time
out?
I presented my concern about the KJ translation as
this, that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: 'A
cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the
"perfected" are those whose sanctification is complete: they are,
after all, "sanctified," aren't they?' To which David's response was "How
can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that
they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?" The problem with this
translation is that it is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice
what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?"
The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the
participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the
problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and
he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it.
But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that,
"God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as
Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the
rest going to get IN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy
Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to
my translation, he writes,
Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only
one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in
the present tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to a completed
past with lingering effects. Would you mind venturing a guess as to which
one it is?
David claims that this type of KJV shorthand is not a
problem; he can tell by context when a perfect tense is being implied.
Perhaps he can. What big deal is that? He's studied the Greek. My question to
you is, why can't you tell the difference? Why isn't Kevin able to tell which
one of these is in the present tense, and why can't he tell that the other five
are perfects? He's got God's Word and Holy Spirit to guide him. Izzy
doesn't know how right she is: "If only the scribes and Pharisees can understand
God's Word, and we must depend upon their interpretations, we are in big
trouble. Fortunately this is not the case." She's right: there are plenty
of people who can help you, if you will but let them.
Your recommendation "is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This
type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean
from the Greek." Well tell me then, with an understanding like that, which of
Kevin's present tenses is actually a present tense? Did you agree with
him that this "is exactly the road we travel on when we enter into the greek
game. Endless arguments about the sense of 'being' versus the nuaances of
'having been'"? If you did, then get in the race: I challenge any of you to
tell me the answer without first going to the Greek. Tell me, Kevin, are
you willing to "make your stand, without any scripture to back up your
Philosophy"? If not, then punch in the Greek and notice the tense
results.
Judy claimed that I and my "Gk Dictionary cohorts are putting [ourselves]
into a very definite doctrinal corner here." I asked her why this was so,
but she declined to answer. The truth is, the only thing I am discussing, and
the only criticism I have made against the KJV, is that it is too loose in its
translation of verbal concepts; it is vague and prone to being
misunderstood. Your inability to distinguish between a present and past
tense, between a progressive passive and a participial adjective,
between a perfect tense and a present tense (in numerous other instances),
proves my point. David asks what convinces me that the KJ translators were wrong
to translate it as are sanctified. Well, quite frankly, you do. The
truth is you and your homies don't get it and you're not going to get it as long
as you are hell-bent on sending to hell anything that has to do with the Greek
text. "Forget the Greek, and dont waste your time arguing about it," is the
wrong answer. Come on over to my corner: we will be glad to help
you; we want to help you.
Bill
By the way, Kevin, if you still want another example of "the ONGOING EVENT
of sanctification," you may be interested in looking into the present
participles of Hebrews 2.11 -- one of them is a passive
progressive. |
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revis... David Miller