I have no idea why you ignore the fact that most translaters do not insert the word "being"
into their translations. DM
into their translations. DM
It does not appear to me that you are less dogmatical than I.
I am only saying that linear-passive is the description of this participle AND NO ONE DENIES THAT.
Secondly, that being the case, the impact of this circumstance is a theologoical determination.
When I say that "are being sanctified" is a better translation for a student of the biblical message (and that is my point), I am not being dogmatic -- simply opinionated. If there is not a difference, then your assessment is correct.
It appears to me that you have been trying to escape the fact of linear-passive in this case with a syntactical argument. I am fully convinced that this cannot be. I have tried to be specific in my rebuttal and, in the case of Robertson, you see him saying things that I do not see in his commentary.
because you have not convinced me, you accuse me of being dogmatic and unable to think or understand at the same level as you. Actually you have this opinion of me before we discuss anything and within one or two responses, you fall prey to the temptation of expressing this belief.
I am thankful for the opportunity to consider (on a more technical level) some of what we have discussed. Since we are about to enter the part when you say " such and such" and I say " oh yeah, ......" we should move on.
Just to make it clear, to argue that linear-passive and "are being sanctified" do not mean what they appear to mean IS a legitimate point. Robertson is one of the few who believes "eis" means "because of" in Acts 2:28. He believes such because of his theology. Thayer's definition of baptism is a Restorationist's dream definition. But Thayer did not believe in water baptism for the remission of sins. His arguments were, of necessity, theological and not syntactical.
jd
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:35:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14
John, this thread is quickly deteriorating. I don't have time to go into a lot of detail. Suffice it to say that Robertson makes a distinction between "descriptive durative" and numerous other forms of linear action. No, it is not an argument AGAINST linear action. It is a refinement of understanding of different types of linear action. You can read Robertson's treatment for yourself along with examples. The primary reason I brought him up was because you challenged Kevin that he could not find a grammarian that would disagree with Bill Taylor. Again, it is your fanatical tendency to make extreme statements, using words like never, always, etc. that provoked me. If you don't get my point that not all grammarians would agree with Taylor, so be it. Let him who is ignorant, be ignorant still. You have what is necessary before you to know better. It is up to you to absorb it and understand it. Let me also point out that not all interlinear translations treat the material as you represent below. Again, we are stuck in these extreme statements, not dealing with the issue in humility and realizing that dealing with tense in Greek to English is problematic, especially for the young Greek student who knows just enough to be dangerous. I have no idea why you ignore the fact that most translaters do not insert the word "being" into their translations. I expect that Bill Taylor is able to deal with this material at a higher level of understanding, even though he takes a different approach to the passage than I do. Peace be with you. David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14 It is almost -- but not quite - humorous, your inability to converse with me without the put downs. Also, for some reason, when I go down into the body of your post, I cannot single space my response unless I write it somewhere else and copy it into the post -- below the "-----Original Message ----" line. Strange. And this applies to all your posts. I wrote that "durative" is an action that begins in the past and is linear in the present. You wrote "No true ...." and referred me to a discussion by Robertson on p 821. You even give a quote from that page. First, durative is just as I said and my definition comes from Robertson. Secondly, the problems Robertson has in mind is carefully defined with specific references within the article. If he meant to include the present passive participle, he does not mention it in this section. I am not sure what you think is being said when you point to the "descriptive durative " You write :This means that he views it only as descriptive linear action. That seems to be my point. Does this mean that "leanear action" is NOT ACTUALLY IN VIEW ?? I will listen to an argument that presents such a case -- but for now, I do not think so. As a result -- the participle remains linear (and hense incomplete IN THIS FRAME of reference). So much for tense. "Passive" is a big deal to me. I think I understand greek pretty well -- but I am not a [English} grammarian. What I believe is this -- saying that we "are sanctified" is not as clear to an average reader as saying "I am being sanctified." Perhaps , because of your expertise in English grammar, you do not see the problem as I see it. To translate the participle as "are being sanctified" is in line with the NKJV, the marginal notes in my NASV, Comfort and Brown's interlinear translation, Marshall's interlinear translation, NIV (those who are being made holy) and -- well, I will quit. The semantics of this syntactical issue may be just as you suppose -- but that is theology. You want to use 10:10 to limit the meaning of 10:14 because it is a part of the same conversation. On a different subject, this might be a good point -- a strong point. But Paul teaches sanctification as a continuing process in Eph 4:20-24 and in Heb 5:13-14. There is clearly a sense in which sanctification is a continuing process. There is no reason, then, to limit this passage (10:14) based 10:10 or to argue for a non-typical syntax. "Desriptive durative" remains linear action (with no end in sight). Summary statement: Robertson's commentary beginning on p 821 is not an argument against an interlinear translation reading "are being sanctified." Secondly, "descriptive durative" is, nonetheless, linear action with no end in sight in the framed reference. Finally, since Paul believes that sanctification is a continuing occasion for maturity -- there is no reason to argue that Heb 10:10 should somehow effect the interlinear translation of 10:14 - specifically, "are being sanctified." As a result, "are being sanctified" is a common translation of those who should know (better). Nothing in Robertson argues that "are being sanctified" is wrong or a poorly thought out translation. This line is trash -- smiley face not withstanding: I do have a tendency to over-estimate what you have read and understood. :-) Jd -----Original Message----- From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:41:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14 David Miller's comments in blue. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14 John responds David wrote this: Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. Robertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way: "But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in "hago ntes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)." "d urative" in this application is nothing more than a description of an action that began at some time in the past and continues into the present time. Not true. You are over-simplifying the problem of tenses in Greek to English translation. Read Robertson's grammar on page 821. "The translators of our English version have failed more frequently from their partial knowledge of the force of the tenses than from any other cause." See also, "We have a great wealth of tenses in English by means of auxilliary verbss, but they do not correspond with any of the Greek tenses." Robertson divides the durative type action into numerous categories, of which your definition above (past action still in progress) is only one. You can find it on page 892 (h). The Hebrews 10:14 passage is not placed by Roberston in this definition. He discusses it as an example under c, Descriptive Durative. This means that he views it only as descriptive linear action. when the passive is attached, "being sanctified" is almost forced into the equation. Passive has little to do with putting "being" in there. The word "being" is put in only if you read the Greek to be indicating a continuous, repetitive process. This is what is under question here. Does the Greek really carry this concept in what it says, or it it only one of our possible renderings? The passive voice has to do with the form of the sentence, for example, "Jesus sanctifies us" would be active voice, but "we are sanctified by Jesus" would be passive voice. Wording it in the passive form puts more emphasis on us being sanctified rather than on the one who sanctifies us. The passive voice does not attach this word "being" into the equation. The KJV takes that option away. Sorry, John, but I repeat: The KJV is present passive. The Greek is present passive. So the KJV does not take anything away in terms of its translation of "present passive." The only way the KJV might take away anything is if the action in the Greek truly means a repetitive or iterative ongoing process. If this could be proven, then the KJV would not point people as forcefully to this meaning as it should. However, if the Greek does not have this force, as Robertson argues, then the KJV might be a better translation than your personal preference. You are correct in saying that "are sanctified" is not past tense -- but that is not how many will see this passage and that is or was the point of this discussion. It was Deegan who said "... its past tense, so what is the problem?" ---------------- illustrating THE problem. Our sanctification is both timeless and not of our own doing. The KJV does not give the average reader this point of view .................. the NKJV does, on the other hand. Fair enough, but it is your theology which is guiding your translation rather than your knowledge of Greek. I cannot be dogmatic about this passage on the basis of linguistics because this exact form of the word is not found anywhere else. Nevertheless, my personal sense is that it is not as loaded with repetitive action as you seem to insist. Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative. You make it sound as though Robertson actually had more to say on this subject than your very accurate quote of the ENTIRE discussion on his part: "But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)." Onlookers to this discussion need to know that this is all there is from Robertson . The statement that he (Robertson) "He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative" is a bit over stated in view of the full comment included in DM's post. I don't know why you think I made it sound like he had more to say. I quoted himand then referred the readers here to look at the quote and see for themselves howhe tells us to compare Heb. 10:10 for his reason why "descriptive durative is certainly all that is true" of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14." It seems veryclear to me that his reasoning is the same as Judy's reasoning. He looks at the context of the passage to find that 10:10 describes us being sanctified throughthe offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all. On this basis, he arguesas Judy does that we should not look to anything more than descriptive durativetype action . At any rate, the original point is that of "being sanctified" versus "are sanctified." Comments on "durative" aside -- if we understand what durative does to the syntax. If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have s ome comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14.Syntax is one thing -- abiding theologies are something else. I do not thinkthat we should appeal to a passage's syntactical construct to redefine that of another (Heb 10:10 as used to overcome 10:14). In so doing, there are no checks on our theological imaginations. And that is exactly what we are doing, it seems to me .. i.e. "because I believe that sanctification is always a completed task, Heb 10:14 must be translated in that light." That is exactly what we are doing when we drag 10:10 into the discussion. On the contrary, 10:10 is part of the dialogue, and therefore it has merit for consideration that theology or even grammatical rules do not have. All of our knowledge of Greek is derived by its use in sentences from whichwe can readily see its use. We get into problems with rare words or rare formswhere its usage is not readily observed.Surely you recognize that 10:10 is part of the thought process being carriedforward by the author of Hebrews into 10:14. This is not like yanking a passagefrom a completely different book. On a side ote -- I own Robertsons' grammar and think it somewhat humorous that you would, therefore, think that I am familiar witha particular commentary in the book -- a 1400 page publication. But, thanks forvote of confidence !! I do have a tendency to over-estimate what you have read and understood. :-)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.
