You are still sticking with your bias of how you have been taught to read the present tense. Don't you notice how you keep retranslating the words into an ing form that accepted translators do not use in their translations (KJV, NASB, etc.)?
Something else you should consider, and that is that we are commanded to walk in the light, but we are not commanded to keep on sinning. Nor are we commanded to keep on getting cleansed. Baptism is done as a one time thing, and Jesus said he that is washed (cleansed) does not need to wash, save his feet only, but is clean every whit. Do you get rebaptized every time you meet in church? David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative The issue with Robertson is not addressed here because that will take some time. But consider this as a first line of defense. Looking at I John 1:6-10, I believe that present time verbs such as "are lying" (v.6 we lie and practice not the truth), "practicing" (v.6 not practicing the truth), "walking" (v. 7 if we walk in the light), and "are deceiving" (v. 8 deceive ourselves and the truth is not ..) are not punctiliar in nature, in this passage (I do believe that Robertson offers a choice between punticliar and linear -- but more on that later.) As long as I am walking in darkness, I am deceiving myself ---- the deception never stops in such a case. As long as I am practicing not -- an action that is continual in circumstance. If I would only stop this "practicing," things could be different. As long as I am walking in the light, stated blessings occur because of a continuig activity or intention of the heart. As long as I deny the possession of sin, I am deceiving myself -- a clear picture of continuous activity. I submit that it is not a stretch to then believe that if "walking in the light" is a continuing activity, "cleansing us from all sin" is likewise. Seems a bit too obvious to me. jd couple of additional thoughts: Your response makes it sound as if what you say is without debate, which it is not , of course (i.e. Burton and Mounce and Rogers). Secondly, understand that I was taught my opinion of present indcative active by another, so , this article (yours) puts you one up on on my prof ....... something I had not previously thought probable. Thirdly, my opinion of your scholarship is only enhanced by some of your rebuttal. I have read Robertson before, by the way and think I understand what he has to say. Time and discussion will prove the point, one way or the other. I hold Robertson in high regard, by the way, but I do not always side with his opinion. His thinking on "eis" in Acts 2:38 is a case in point. I do not choose my own opinion over his, but the opinion of others. At any rate - I am going to take some time to research a point that I have been taught as true and have believed to be such for over 30 years, now. What I will not do, at this time, is to examine whether God in Christ forgives all my sins - past present and future -- as the aorist might suggest in I John 1: 9 ("to forgive"). I do not believe, as you h ave stated in the past, that only past sins are forgiven by the event on the cross. It is not that your references do not mean anything. They did not reveal anything that I had not known before we started conversing on this subject. You seem to think that because in some cases the present indicative might refer to linear or continuous or progressive action that it proves it applies in this case. Some of your remarks made it appear that it applied in every case. Perhaps you do not see how you come across to those ignorant of Greek. It is as if you identify the verb as being present indicative active, and so the verse cannot mean anything other than linear, continuous or progressive action. I will not correct this opinion of yours again. It is a waste of time, obviously. Robertson does differ from you quite a bit. He takes a much more scholarly approach to the subject. Of course and it should go without saying. & ;nbs p;You may want to read what he says on p. 864 about punctiliar (aoristic) present tense. Roberston says, "But a greater difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always linear... But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the imper. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form cover both ideas in the ind." Burton's N.T. Moods and Tenses on p. 6 takes a similar approach as you do on this subject, trying to force the present indicative as always denoting an action in progress. Neither Burton nor I do this. Robertson takes issue with Burton, saying, "It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denotiong 'action in progress' like the imperf. as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' The reason why Burton "takes it back" is because such was never his opinion. Burton does not debate with himself on this issue !! Rather, he adds to or amends the previous comments with those comments that follow. In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself..." You have mentioned Mounce, so I will comment a bit on his treatment in "Basics of Biblical Greek. " ; He acknowledges that the present indicative might be undefined ("He cleanses us") as opposed to continuous ("He is cleansing us"), but his instruction is to use the continuous translation by default, and if it does not fit the context, then switch to undefined. I'm not in sharp disagreement with his approach, but it does communicate a bias toward treating this tense and mood as continuous action. Such a bias apparently causes a hindrance for beginning Greek students like you from taking a more scholastic approach toward discussions of passages like 1 John 1:7. From one beginner to another, bias is always a problem. As for your other comments, they are personal in nature and if you are interested in conversing about them, we can do so privately. Suffice it to say that I perceive my Greek studies to be more advanced than yours, even though I have had no formal instruction in Greek at the Universi ty. I have had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a tenured professor of Greek studies at a college here in Florida. I read books and have used CD's and cassette tapes to learn pronunciation and receive instruction. While I don't have that classroom experience in Greek studies that you talk about, I stand behind my statement as factually accurate and correct. You might feel that it conveys a false sense that I have experienced the classroom. I do not. I think it reflects my understanding based upon reading a wide variety of scholars who disagree with one another about how to teach Greek. In other words, I have not read just one Greek book like Mounce and accepted it as the gospel truth about understanding the Greek language. I have been interested in the differences between Greek scholars, just as you see me interested in the differences between people's opinions here on TruthTalk.. 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.
