I don't think they were misled by the passage. I think they
perceived that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and
you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove
your point.
This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually
discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated.
You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the
educational background to talk on your level about these matters. We
really should not run roughshod over them. We need to do the translating
for them.
Wait a minute David, this really troubles me.
Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem?
You've mentioned in the past that you think I am
against education. Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is
going to work on me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is
IMO totally misplaced in the body of Christ and from my experience it has
caused no end of problems. All education can do is give one a
historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans
questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works since we are
still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not
good.
I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has
repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being
sanctified.
My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to
both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved,
and we will be saved, same for sanctification; and I saw the verse
in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and the once for all
aspect. So all we did on that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to
do which is to "strive about words to no profit"
I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the
completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers
(those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification).
Am I missing something David, are there some who
are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not
others? This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess
5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless
and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the
start.
Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept.
You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she
took that position. I know I just lost you... sorry. I'm tired and
must sign off now. God bless.
JD's claim that Kevin and I prove his point is ironic
since he and Bill proved the point made earlier about the danger of the newer
translations where men feel free to correct God's Word in light of the
"supposedly" newer Greek (read Westcott and Hort) manuscripts.
No it does not ???? Perhaps
this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the
problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly,
do not and that is my point. The average reader will
see this as a completed action.
Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point. IN
THAT REGARD, this is a poor translation of the
text. A much better translation would be as Bill
suggested, IMO.
Jd
-----Original
Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
[email protected]Sent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48
-0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/
revisor
JD
wrote:
> The translation presents the reader with a
> completed task when that is not the
case.
No it does not. The translation is
present passive. You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past
tense. Nothing in this translation indicates whether our
sanctification is completed or is still ongoing. It only
indicates that we are sanctified at the present time.
Peace.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Miller <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
[email protected]Sent:
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor
JD wrote:
> I think Bill's point (correct me if I am wrong,
> Bill) is that the KJ translation gives us a past
> tense translation of a present tense participle.
> There is no good reason for doing such and
> in that context, it is a "mistake."
I did not understand Bill this way, but if that is what he is saying, he
would be wrong. The phrase "are sanctified" is not past tense. The syntax
of "sanctified" looks like a past tense construction, but it is simply a
participle construction of the verb "sanctify" that looks the same as the
past tense form of the verb. The tense of the verb is present tense, as
indicated by the word "are." If it were past tense, the phrase would be
"were sanctified" not "are sanctified." The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case.
JD wrote:
> In the English, this past tense translation circumvents
> ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as ongoing
> event by another in our lives.
It would only be your own personal reading of "are sanctified" that would
circumvent ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as an ongoing event. The
phrase is present tense, and hence it does not circumvent anything of the
sort. Your confusion in the first paragraph would seem to prove my point.
Peace be with you.
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.
