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:
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 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 it back" 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 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.
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 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 it back" 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 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.
