John, I have read your post carefully, and while many times I do miss your intended meaning, I don't think this is one of those times. You have not said anything new in this post that I did not understand from your previous posts. Perhaps you are not grasping my point.
Your previous point included the idea that because you have identified the verb in 1 John as present indicative active, it must refer to a time of action that is continuous and linear rather than at one point in time (punctiliar, which is the common usage of the aorist tense). Greek studies often make a big point of how tenses in Greek convey type of action rather than time because in English the tenses we use tend to be more about time than type of action. This is a difficult concept for beginning students to understand, so it is hammered pretty hard in beginning classes. The problem is that sometimes there has been too much emphasis upon it. In past posts, you have argued that you know something about 1 John 1:7 because of your knowledge of Greek. You have relied heavily upon your ability to identify the tense and mood of the verb to make your case that the passage can only be understood as linear action with no end in sight. The idea is that an ending of ing in English better conveys the meaning of 1 John 1:7, even though there is no other translator who has translated the passage this way. Now, in this post, after reconsidering the issue for two hours, you argue that context tells you that the ing ending is warranted. I can handle that argument just fine. That is a possibility, but now we shift to discuss context rather than the fact that the word in Greek is present indicative active. Furthermore, context can be examined better in English, so the rest of those on TruthTalk who do not know Greek can consider the passage on an equal footing with you. Let's talk about the context in English and consider whether the author means to convey "cleansing" in a linear way, or "cleanses" in the sense of taking a bath, which common sense tells us that we will get out of the bath tub at some point and not just sit in that tub forever because we are constantly getting dirty while sitting in the bath tub. I'm not sure I completely disagree with your ulitmate point. There is a sense in which I need to be cleansed continually by the blood of Jesus Christ because of this body of flesh that I live in. I just disagree with your thinking that the matter is settled because of the present indicative active construction of the Greek. I hope you understand better my point. If you do understand my point, you might better be able to hear the perspective of others like Judy or Dean instead of laughing at them because of their ignorance of Greek. Your concept of interpretive plurality is a good one. Please apply it to the present situation, attempting to understand how there may be aspects to how others read 1 John 1:7 that might enhance your own understanding, and how your understanding might actually fit in with their piece of the puzzle and thereby enhance their understanding without them necessarily discarding everything they know about the passage. David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] ; TruthTalk Cc: David Miller Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative David, I really wish you would read my posts carefully. You just do not do this. I have said many times, now. that my received teaching in "biblical languages" first year Greek back in the 60's was this: "present indicative active " pictures continuing action in present time with no end in sight." I have illustrated that with one " who is walking to the store." Present action is not necessarily eternal but it is always "action with no end in sight." The difference is not one of time but of action (punctiliar versus linear.) In I John 1:7 - the blood that "cleanses us from our sins" is stated in present time, as you well know. That means that just as we see the boy "walking to the store," we see Christ "cleansing us from our sins." Where we might argue that this [third class condition] action does not go on forever, it is certainly is occuring in present time and , by no means, is a past-time [aorist] activity. If we tie this to verse 8 and the present actives "if we are saying," " we are not having," "we are deceiving," a rather weighty syntactial argument can be made for the continual flow of the blood of the Lamb. There is meaning to be derived from form. But certainly, semantics is an equally important aspect of the hermeneutcial equation. Bill believes the historical context is critical to this discussion (the gnostic consideration.) I will let him explain. I personally believe in the principle of "interpretvie plurality" when it comes to biblical language studies. That is my term and I am admittedly a flat footed novice. I use the term to summarize the idea that a pluality of considerations (I want to say "usually two [ideas]" - but maybe this plurality has no counted limitations.) exist in a single statement of truth. Examples? Well, the plurality that existes in scripture (so this is not my idea - only my observation) with regard to prophesy. The young woman and the virgin woman; the many nations (the seed of Abraham) and the Christ (Paul's thinking on the seed of Abraham. And what of personal experience. how many times have any number of us made conclusions drawn from a particular passage, grown from the effects of those conclusions and then changed our thinking concerning those given scripture and , once again, experienced continued growth? If it is the Living Word, perhaps we can argue that such a statement of economy is a necesary deduction. Does that mean there is more than one truth? No, of course not. But it does mean that the truth of a particular passage comes to us on "time delay." And, so, you and I argue as if each of us is right to the exclusion of the other. Whether or not that is true, each can grow ---- certainly I have -- because of what we currently believe. The syntax of this passage allows for a variation of interpretive considerations. I see the sacrifice of Christ being "once and for all time" because it is continual. You see that it is "once and for all time" because it was once given for all but is limited to past sins. [Bill has a third and well stated consideration, as well.] Does the syntax allow for more than one consideration? Perhaps. But I do believe there are more syntactical issues with the later than with the former. Regarding your final conclusion --- I do agree !!! I have taken about two hours to review and reconsider. I have not changed my ind -- but if your last statement is not true on a wider range of technical issues, spiritual "truths" would be the product of reasoned opinion to the exclusion of the passion of the Indwelling. "Discovery" is not the product of either/or but both. I would commend you to a study of those passages that use present indicative active as continuous and unlimited action. Surely there are some that exist. For theological reasons, I believe this passage to be one. jd -------------- Original message -------------- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John, this was sent to the list when I think you were off the list. Does it make sense to you? Do you care to comment? David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Miller To: TruthTalk Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative John, a couple of passages for you to consider. 1. In Mat. 13:44, a man sells all that he has and buys a field. The word for "buyeth" is present indicative, but we do not understand from this that he continually keeps buying the field over and over again forever with no end in sight. 2. In Mat. 26:63, the high priest adjures Jesus by the living God, to tell him whether he is the Christ. The word for "adjures" is present indicative. We do not understand from this that he keeps continually adjuring Christ into the future forever with no end in sight. My point is that the present indicative alone is not enough to make a case for continuous type action. 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.
