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 time and action. And it all sounds good to those
who have not been there. Look at this quote from your response:
"Greek studies often 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 for beginning
students to
understand, so it is hammered pretty hard in beginning classes. The
problem
is that sometimes there has been too much emphasis upon it."
Now, I submit to you that if we did not know better, this paragraph makes
it sound as if you are fairly advanced in your Greek studies and suggests
that you know something of what goes on in the classroom -- both beginner
and advanced. The facts are considerably different, not to mention the fact
that we are talking about a very basic Greek instruction. I could give you
a hundred references, if I had time. I have made my point and you have
acknowledged same. That just about does it.
jd
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.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
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 hav e 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.
----------
"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.
