You are still sticking with your bias of how you have been taught to read
the present tense. Don't you notice how you keep retranslating the words
into an ing form that accepted translators do not use in their translations
(KJV, NASB, etc.)? I don't care about the translations. It (ing) is a way of bring out the linear action of the verb and it is the accepted manner of doing so in all the grammars I have seen. What do you think I was presenting to you when I gave sources complete with page reference? They all use the "ing" and for the same reason I use that ending. Are you suggesting that Robertson's comments (as you understand them) trumps all of these grammictal illustration? That the first year boys simply did not get it right -- all of them? But more than that -- you do not think that "walk in the light" is an ONGOING activity? Or that as long as I deny sin ()whatever that means) I will CONTINUE to be considered a liar. You don't see that? And, are you saying that present indicative actives never mean to imply linear action?
the present tense. Don't you notice how you keep retranslating the words
into an ing form that accepted translators do not use in their translations
(KJV, NASB, etc.)? I don't care about the translations. It (ing) is a way of bring out the linear action of the verb and it is the accepted manner of doing so in all the grammars I have seen. What do you think I was presenting to you when I gave sources complete with page reference? They all use the "ing" and for the same reason I use that ending. Are you suggesting that Robertson's comments (as you understand them) trumps all of these grammictal illustration? That the first year boys simply did not get it right -- all of them? But more than that -- you do not think that "walk in the light" is an ONGOING activity? Or that as long as I deny sin ()whatever that means) I will CONTINUE to be considered a liar. You don't see that? And, are you saying that present indicative actives never mean to imply linear action?
jd
