JD wrote: > David, your comment below is but the first of several > paragraphs addressed to me in your effort to defend > perfectionism as you understand it.
I'm not defending perfectionism or any other -ism, John. I'm simply discussing what the author of the text means to communicate to us. JD wrote: > I am going to give my response some serous thought. > But I do want to address this paragraph before leaving > -- something I can do without having to study my response. > In Greek 101, something I actually took in college, we > learn that "mood" is the relationship of the verb to reality, > and in this case, indicative denotes something that IS rather > than something that might be. Ok. JD wrote: > It has little to do with the action of the verb in time. That's debateable. JD wrote: > The present tense is [almost] always "continuous action > with no end in sight." Whether the action goes on forever > is not necessarily a part of this grammatical function. Please note your use of "almost." What you mean by "almost" also is debateable. JD wrote: > "I am walking to the store" simply does not picture > the journey as completed. The aroist tense does. Ok. JD wrote: > If you have Mounce, go to p 133 and there you will > see the English translation of "luo" in its different > present-tense forms (indicative mood) as "I am loosing, > you are loosing, he is loosing " and so on. My copy of Mounce is at home right now, so I can't consult it just yet. Nevertheless, I'm not sure about your point. JD wrote: > That Christ "is cleansing " us from our sins is the > most common application of the grammatical rule > that is "present indicative active." I have consulted 30 translations, and not one of them translates this passage as "is cleansing." You are the only person I have found to translate it this way. Can you reference for me some other translator who translates the passage this way? JD wrote: > You write: "The Present Tense in the Indicative Mood > represents contemporaneous action, as opposed to action > in the past or the future." I have no idea what you think > you see in this quote, but zodiates clearly does NOT > contradict Mounce or any other grammarian on this issue. You cut off the quote early. I was trying to point out the latter part of what he said. "In moods other than in the indicative mood, it refers only to continuous or repeated action." Notice how he points out that it is in moods OTHER THAN the indicative that it refers only to continuous or repeated action. In the indicative, there is room for it to refer to non-continuous action. Context tells us how to read it. Your comments insist that present indicative indicates continuous action. That is wrong and it leads to bad exegesis of this passage. JD wrote: > Do you know what "comtemporaneous" means? Yes. We don't differ on this point. JD wrote: > In this case , it is action THAT IS CURRENTLY > ON GOING. It is action that is existING or accurING > or originatING during the same time. Well, maybe we do differ on this point. :-) JD wrote: > If I am walking ..... He is cleansing. I am not saying > that the cleasing is a repeated action, David. Rather, > I am saying that it is continuous action with no end in sight > and so I write "keeps on cleasing" as opposed to saying > "cleases us over and over again." In this passage, I am > NEVER away from this continual flow. I realize that, John, but the "ei" ending on the verb gives it a present indicative form, and you are reading a participle type construction into the word. You are forcing an -ing English ending on the word that is not warranted by the Greek construction. JD wrote: > The task is not completed, in this passage. Fine... nobody is saying that it is. JD wrote: > The end of this cleansing is not in view. Right. Nothing is said one way or the other about the end of this cleansing. JD wrote: > If you need a reference for this, ask Dean !! > He is the one with the Websters. look up > contemporaneous. The definition does not > help your cause. I don't have a cause, JD. You do. I'm just reading the text and don't want those who are ignorant of Greek to be deceived by your comments. JD wrote: > You obviously went to Zodiates to find a way > out -- No, I quoted him because I figure you respect him more than me. I could quote Robertson for you as well, as I have done in the past, but it seems to do little to change your thinking. Some professor got something in your head about present tense being continuous action and you can't seem to see it any other way. JD wrote: > because you know full well that if what I say is true, > here in I John, No, I know you are blowing smoke, claiming the Greek says something that it does not. You can remain in your ignorance if you like, but I will speak up for the sake of others who have not studied Greek. JD wrote: > your theory of perfectionism as you understand > it is simply WRONG. I don't have any theory of perfectionism. I simply teach the Scriptures and the proper interpretation thereof. JD wrote: > Exegesis is without value if there is no > integrity in the reason for the search. Are you trying to imply that I have no integrity? 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.
