I prefer a more specific answer. Was Robertson comparing older Greek to the "modern" Koine Greek? The evolution of the verb stems -- is that from ancient to Koine (in Robertson)? Or , are you saying that he compares Koine to present times? !
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John wrote:
> > is this a comparison on Robertson's part
> > of Attic and Koine or of ancient translators
> > and modern day translators?
>
> Not exactly any of these choices. Robertson was hypothesizing about origins
> and does not identify Aeolic, Acradocypriot, Attic, Doric, Ionic, or
> Homeric. He was simply comparing what he considered to be the thought
> behind the original present tense with the thought behind present tense in
> modern Greek. He certainly wasn't comparing ancient translators with modern
> ones.
>
> David Miller.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:18 PM
> ; Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative
>
>
> David -- I am going to slow down just a bit on this. If I am going to be
> "wrong" on this one, I at least want to accurately understood. If I am
> wrong, by the way, that is fine -- but for the life of me, I do not see
> how. So I will continue to defend the point until I see it differently.
>
> But before I continue, let me ask you a question. On the following page
> (Robertson, p 865) , when he writes " The original present was probably
> therefore aorist or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or
> linear and the distinctive durative notions grew up around specially formed
> stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs though never with
> ll" --- is this a comparison on Robertson's part of Attic and Koine or of
> ancient translators and modern day translators?
>
> jd
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> ; From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > John wrote:
> > > Robertson will not disagree with my point on this,
> > > however. If my references do not mean anything
> > > to you, so be it.
> >
> > 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
> & gt; or progressive act ion.
> >
> > Robertson does differ from you quite a bit. He takes a much more scholarly
> > approach to the subject. 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. 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.' 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 sha rp 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.
> >
> > 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 University. I have
> > had many friends who have taken Greek, and I have one friend who is a
> > tenur ed 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.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative
> >
> > David, I have said all that I can say. You have already admitted to my two
> > < BR>> points of discussion. That is good enough for me. Are there
> > exceptions to
> > the rule? Of course. Robertson will not disagree with my point on this,
> > however. If my references do not mean anything to you, so be it.
> >
> > Regarding your "education" in Greek. Nothing of ridicule was written or
> > intended. The fact is this, however, Greek is best learned as taught by
> > others.
> > You often speak and write as if you have formal background in Greek. You
> > speak of what is taught in Greek classes, the high degree of defficulty in
> > learning such concepts as time and action. And it all sounds good to those
> > who have not been there. Look at this quote from your response:
> >
> > "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
> > unders tand, so it is hammered pretty hard in beginning classes. The
> > problem
> > is that sometimes there has been too much emphasis upon it."
> >
> > Now, I submit to you that if we did not know better, this paragraph makes
> > it sound as if you are fairly advanced in your Greek studies and suggests
> > that you know something of what goes on in the classroom -- both beginner
> > and advanced. The facts are considerably different, not to mention the
> > fact
> > that we are talking about a very basic Greek instruction. I could give you
> > a hundred references, if I had time. I have made my point and you have
> > acknowledged same. That just about does it.
> >
> > jd
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > John, you still don't seem to understand that showing a present indicative
> > active verb to be properly translated with the ing ending in some texts
> > does
> > not mean that the ing ending is appropriate everywhere a verb is
> > conjugated
> > in the present in dicative active. If I quoted Robertson for you, would it
> > help you hear me any better?
> >
> > Furthermore, I object to you ridiculing me over my lack of formal
> > education
> > in religion and Greek. I may not be as educated as you in this area, but
> > I'm not stupid. I think you sh ould rely more upon making a good argument
> > than upon your superior credentials.
> >
> > David Miller
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative
> >
> >
> > 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 thought was certainly >
> > not complicated. I agreed with your conclusion. Sorry that my answer was
> > redundant. The redundancy you have noted is only the inability of me to
> > give you a different answer fro m what I have been saying. I do believe I
> > am
> > at the heart of the issue.
> >
> > 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 Actually, ALL FI RST YEAR GREEK STUDIES do this 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 the difference between
> > time and action, or between puntiliar and linear is not difficult ! I have
> > no idea why you say this. If i t were so difficult - it would be in
> > advanced Greek studies and I do not recall such being the case. for
> ; > beginning students to
> > understand, so it is hammered pretty hard in beginning classes. Classes,
> > of
> > course, you never took. Correct? 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 hav e 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. actually, I found a translation that gave the "ing"
> > translation. but I did not buy it and have lost track of the author. But
> > no matter -- you se em to be saying (prese nt indicative active) that
> > because the translations "are not including " (present time activity that
> > goes on forever) the "ing" ending," the claims of John Smithson are false
> > !! Here are some sources for the translation of "ing" in regard to
> > present active ----
> > 1. Rogers and Rogers, Linguistic and Exegetical Key To The Greek New
> > Testament, p 592, where they everywhere use the translative expressions "
> > walking ............ confessing" with this explanation:
> > " Walking in the light is the conscious and sustained endeavor to live a
> > life in conformity w. the revelation of God WHO IS THE LIGHT (my emphasis)
> > . Just before this, they say "the cond. cls. in vv7 and 9 introduce the
> > hypothesis of pres. and continuous Christian life -- on the supposition
> > that we are walking or confessing."
> > Supporting authority: Johannine Grammar, Edwin Abbot, p372 ----- Daniel
& gt; > Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic , p. 663 ------Ray
> > Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, p. 11 ------ William
> > Mounce, Basics of Bilbical Greek Grammar, p. 133 -------
> > and again on page 353
> > All of the above contain actual citations using "ing" to convey the idea
> > of
> > present time verbs.
> > This is not a debateable issue. Plain and simple. You are a self taught
> > Greek student. fine and good. Stick to the books and you will be fine.
> >
> > 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, it is a fact, not 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. Absolutely 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. David, I have to smile just a bit, here.
> > You see my point regarding present time. And you understand my point
> > regarding the need for continual cleasing. Is this not an admission that
> > my
> > point has been made to you - and all I have used in the discussion is an
> > arugment from the use of verb tense? 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. Now why did you go and say this? If I laugh
> > at anybody -- and who said I did other than yourself [ad hom if there is
> > such a thing, or , if you prefer, a flat out lie] I would laugh at you.
> > Look how much time you have taken on two or three occasio ns over the past
> > year to finally admit that you kinda see all the points that I have been
> > trying to make. In addition, you disagree on one of the more basic of
> > Greek lingistic rules !!! Doesn't make you look good.
> > As far as learning from Judy Taylor -- I consider her to be so involved in
> > error as to be actually dangerous to those who might give her attention.
> > Dean? It could happen when he is not doing his immatation of tough guy
> > street preacher. You -- well, you have made a few points that I have
> > added to my "comments worth keeping" file.
> >
> >
> > 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
> > dis carding
> > everything they know about the passage. Sounds like good advice !!
> >
> > 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.
>
> ----------
> "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.
