John, you still don't seem to understand that showing a present
indicative active verb to be properly translated with the ing ending in
some texts does not mean that the ing ending is appropriate everywhere a
verb is conjugated in the present indicative active. If I quoted Robertson
for you, would it help you hear me any better?
Furthermore, I object to you ridiculing me over my lack of formal education
in religion and Greek. I may not be as educated as you in this area,
but I'm not stupid. I think you should rely more upon making a
good argument than upon your superior credentials.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:08
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present
Indicative
John, I have read your post carefully, and while many times I do miss your
intended meaning, I don't think this is one of those times. You have
not
said anything new in this post that I did not understand from your
previous
posts. Perhaps you are not grasping my point.
Your thought was certainly not complicated.
I agreed with your conclusion. Sorry that my answer was
redundant. The redundancy you have noted is only the inability of me to
give you a different answer from what I have been saying. I do
believe I am at the heart of the issue.
Your
previous point included the idea that because you have identified the
verb
in 1 John as present indicative active, it must refer to a time of
action
that is continuous and linear rather than at one point in time
(punctiliar, which is the common usage of the aorist tense). Greek
studies
often Actually, ALL FI RST YEAR
GREEK STUDIES do this make a big point of how tenses in
Greek convey type of action rather
than time because in English the tenses
we use tend to be more about time
than type of action. This is a
difficult concept the difference between time
and action, or between puntiliar and linear is not difficult ! I have no
idea why you say this. If it were so difficult - it
would be in advanced Greek studies and I do not recall such
being the case. for
beginning students to
understand, so it is hammered pretty hard in
beginning classes. Classes, of course, you
never took. Correct? The problem
is that sometimes there has been too much emphasis upon it.
In past
posts, you have argued that you know something about 1 John 1:7
because of
your knowledge of Greek. You have relied heavily upon your
ability
to identify the tense and mood of the verb to make your case that
the
passage can only be understood as linear action with no end in sight.
The
idea is that an ending of ing in English better conveys the meaning of 1
John 1:7, even though there is no other translator who has translated the
passage this way. actually,
I found a translation that gave the "ing" translation. but I did not buy
it and have lost track of the author. But no matter --
you seem to be saying (present indicative active) that because the
translations "are not including " (present time activity that goes on
forever) the "ing" ending," the claims of John Smithson are false
!! Here are some sources for the translation of "ing" in
regard to present active ----
1. Rogers and Rogers, Linguistic
and Exegetical Key To The Greek New Testament, p 592, where they everywhere
use the translative expressions " walking
........... confessing" with this explanation:
" Walking in the light is the conscious
and sustained endeavor to live a life in conformity w. the revelation of God
WHO IS THE LIGHT (my emphasis) . Just before this, they say
"the cond. cls. in vv7 and 9 introduce the hypothesis of pres. and
continuous Christian life -- on the supposition that we are
walking or confessing."
Supporting authority: Johannine Grammar,
Edwin Abbot, p372 ----- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, p.
663 ------Ray
Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, p.
11 ------ William
Mounce, Basics of Bilbical Greek Grammar, p.
133
-------
and again on page 353
All of the above contain actual citations using
"ing" to convey the idea of present time verbs.
This is not a debateable issue. Plain and
simple. You are a self taught Greek student. fine and
good. Stick to the books and you will be fine.
Now, in this post, after reconsidering the issue for
two hours, you argue
that context tells you that the ing ending is
warranted. I can handle that
argument just fine. That is a
possibility, it is a fact, not a
possibility.
but now we shift to discuss
context rather than
the fact that the word in Greek is present indicative
active.
Furthermore, context can be examined better in English, so the rest
of
those on TruthTalk who do not know Greek can consider the passage on an
equal footing with you. Absolutely
Let's talk about the context in English and
consider
whether the author means to convey "cleansing" in a linear way, or
"cleanses" in the sense of taking a bath, which common sense tells us that
we will get out of the bath tub at some point and not just sit in that tub
forever because we are constantly getting dirty while sitting in the bath
tub.
I'm not sure I completely disagree with your ulitmate
point. There is a
sense in which I need to be cleansed continually
by the blood of Jesus
Christ because of this body of flesh that I live
in. I just disagree with
your thinking that the matter is settled
because of the present indicative
active construction of the
Greek. David, I have to smile just a
bit, here. You see my point regarding present time. And you
understand my point regarding the need for continual cleasing. Is this
not an admission that my point has been made to you - and all I
have used in the discussion is an arugment from the use of verb
tense? I hope you understand better my
point.
If you do understand my point, you might better be able to
hear the
perspective of others like Judy or Dean instead of laughing at
them because
of their ignorance of Greek. Now why did you go and say this? If I laugh at
anybody -- and who said I did other than yourself [ad hom if there
is such a thing, or , if you prefer, a flat out lie] I would laugh
at you. Look how much time you have taken on two or three occasio
ns over the past year to finally admit that you kinda see all the points
that I have been trying to make. In addition, you disagree on one
of the more basic of Greek lingistic rules !!! Doesn't make you
look good.
As far as learning from Judy Taylor
-- I consider her to be so involved in error as to be actually dangerous
to those who might give her attention. Dean? It could happen when
he is not doing his immatation of tough guy street preacher. You
-- well, you have made a few points that I have added to my "comments
worth keeping" file.
Your concept of interpretive plurality is a good one. Please
apply it to
the present situation, attempting to understand how there may
be aspects to
how others read 1 John 1:7 that might enhance your own
understanding, and
how your understanding might actually fit in with their
piece of the puzzle
and thereby enhance their understanding without them
necessarily discarding
everything they know about the passage.
Sounds like good advice
!!
David Miller.