I'm saying he was comparing a hypothetical original (pre-Koine) with modern (post-Koine), so the answer is NO to all your questions.
David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Greek Present Indicative 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" > > > 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. ---------- "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.
