John wrote:
> is this a comparison on Robertson's part
> of Attic and Koine or of ancient translators
> and modern day translators?
Not exactly any of these choices. Robertson was hypothesizing about origins
and does not identify Aeolic, Acradocypriot, Attic, Doric, Ionic, or
Homeric. He was simply comparing what he considered to be the thought
behind the original present tense with the thought behind present tense in
modern Greek. He certainly wasn't comparing ancient translators with modern
ones.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative
David -- I am going to slow down just a bit on this. If I am going to be
"wrong" on this one, I at least want to accurately understood. If I am
wrong, by the way, that is fine -- but for the life of me, I do not see
how. So I will continue to defend the point until I see it differently.
But before I continue, let me ask you a question. On the following page
(Robertson, p 865) , when he writes " The original present was probably
therefore aorist or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or
linear and the distinctive durative notions grew up around specially formed
stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs though never with
ll" --- is this a comparison on Robertson's part of Attic and Koine or of
ancient translators and modern day translators?
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
& gt; 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 sha rp 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
> < BR>> 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
> unders tand, 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 in dicative 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 i t 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 se em 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.
----------
"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.
