David Miller wrote: >> 1. I desire from you an acknowledgment that there >> is no Greek scholar, not Mounce or anyone else, who >> has translated 1 John 1:8 and Romans 3:23 >> as you have. Can you agree with me on this point?
John S. wrote: > Sure. While you are at it, take my clothes and shoes > as well. Seriously, do you mean to exclude the > statement of those greek principles that present > to us the idea of continual and continuing action > in association with present indicative active? > Are you wanting me to concede that? No, we already agreed on those points. What I want you to acknowledge is that you are unaware of any Greek scholar who translates the passages in question as you have. David Miller wrote: >> 2. If there is no Greek scholar who translates >> the context as you have and provides the translation >> that you have, do you have any pause whatsoever such >> that you would consider some arguments from me about >> why you should relinquish your hold on the idea that >> in Christ, we continue to be sinners by our very >> nature, based upon these particular passages? John S. wrote: > I am having trouble here. I am not of the belief that > scholarship in this case, "translates" context. They > translate words. Context determines nuance, does it not? > It is nuance that BillT committed to in the recent post > regarding the faith(fulness) of Christ. Isn't our problem > a difference of opinion regarding defined nuance? Not exactly. A person learned in Greek is much better able to judge the context of a Greek passage. This is because he understands better the nuances of word order, the use of articles, and numerous other clues that help him better judge what the write might be trying to communicate. Sometimes, however, Greek scholars let their theological background get in the way, and they introduce that when they expound upon texts. We sometimes can spot this when we compare different translations. When we have virtually all Greek scholars agreeing upon a translation, even when they have different theological backgrounds and different Greek manuscripts from which they work, and then we have someone else such as yourself arguing that the Greek text actually means something else, something other than the way all these Greek scholars have translated the text, then we need something more than what you have offered us to accept the idea that the Greek gives us better insight into understanding these passages. You seem to be arguing now that it is all a matter of opinion and that one opinion is as good as another. I see it differently. I hear you claiming that the Greek reveals a continuing action in these passages, and yet I cannot find a Greek scholar or translation committee that seems to agree with you. John S. wrote: > If we agree on the verb tense (and I think we do) > in the two passages in question, then there is much > to talk about. Namely, all that information that > goes into making a sound exegetical decision. LOL. John, how can you possibly say this? Verb tense is not the sole information for deciding the meaning of a passage. There are lots of other factors, including consideration of the context and the author's known writing style. Let me give you a modern example by telling you about my going into a local grocery store. I go into the store, and I see this girl behind the counter who is very scared. I say, "are you ok"? She tells me that she is afraid of being robbed. So I begin to share Christ with her and I lead her in prayer. After the prayer, she experiences the joy of the Lord and thanks me for sharing the Lord with her. Now I have written this entire last paragraph in present tense. Does this mean that I am talking about something happening to me right now? No. I am talking about an event in the past, but I speak about it in present tense. Now if we took your approach of simply looking at tense, we would come to a faulty conclusion. Consider also that I could have easily written that entire paragraph in the past tense. It would have communicated the same thing, but the engagement with the reader would have been shifted somewhat. Still, the tense is not the all deciding factor here. The actual thing being communicated is what is important. Our words only approximate that real thing that we attempt to communicate. John S. wrote: > Here is the point of difference between the two of us > as I see it: > You believe that the present tense in these passages > does not mean that sin is a continuing issue. > I am saying that that is exactly the case. > I do admit that scholarship actually says that present > indicative active does not necessarily mean continuous > action -- thus the possiblity of an honest debate. > How am I doing? Well, the problem is that you seem to think that one opinion is as good as another. You were the one who made the assertion about the Greek bringing out a different meaning here. I am challenging you on whether that is true. You have come half way over, acknowledging that the text MIGHT NOT MEAN what you claimed it did. That is a start. Nevertheless, it seems to me that you do not give much credence to my observation that there do not seem to be any Greek scholars translating these two passages the way that you have. I can work with the fact that you recognize that the Greek does not necessarily communicate in the way that you have shared, but for the sake of being thorough, and at the same time make one last stab at you reconsidering your understanding of the Greek, consider the following translations that I have consulted concerning the translation of Romans 3:23: (ALT) For all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (ASV) for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; (BBE) For all have done wrong and are far from the glory of God; (CEV) All of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. (Darby) for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (DRB) For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. (EMTV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (GNB) everyone has sinned and is far away from God's saving presence. (GW) Because all people have sinned, they have fallen short of God's glory. (HNV) for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (LITV) for all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (MKJV) for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, (NASB) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (WEB) for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; (Webster) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (WNT) for all alike have sinned, and all consciously come short of the glory of God, (YLT) for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God-- My point is that if the Greek scholars do not translate the text as you have, do you really have a solid foundation for telling others that the Greek actually means what you have told us that it means? This fact alone does not mean that you are wrong, but if you are boiling your argument down to a matter of opinion rather than actual textual or contextual arguments, then I think this observation does tip the scales of judgment away from your perspective. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "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.
