Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228666 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! You wrote: "It is true that sometimes the present can be viewed historically, but not when it is specifically contrasted with the past in the same context." What is your authority for this statement? I have studied Greek, but I don't recall ever reading such a rule concerning the historical present. But, I have slept since then. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228677 | ||
Hi Tim As with anyone who seeks to establish rules concerning a language I do it on the basis of usage. No language has a list of rules. Any grammar is simply an attempt to explain usage. Later study may change those 'rules', not because the rules have changed but because new examples of usage have been discovered. The 'rules' of ancient languages are thus discovered by comparison of different contexts. Greek does not have an 'historic present' per se. It is something that is surmised on the basis of usage in certain unusual contexts (like the so-called 'prophetic perfect') In this case the context is not unusual. It is not a prophecy where God is speaking with an eternal present, but a man writing about his own experience to his fellow brethren who are not theologians but normal everyday folk. And he wants them to understand him on first reading. If you can provide me with a case of usage in koine Greek in an ordinary context where an historical present occurs completing a passage which is in the first person all the way through and which has begun with the past tense and I will accept that there ia another 'rule'. But the normal rule is that past means past and present means present, if language is to mean anything. I await your attempt with bated breath.(Even Moo could not find one which is why he postulated his own extraordinary theory). The general rule is that past means past and present means present when presented in a contrast. We need very sure evidence before we change it, not simply the desire to support a theory. Perhaps you can supply that evidence? I am using the tenses in the normal way. The proof for any alternative lies with the person putting forward that alternative. It is simply not enough to talk about 'an historic present' as though it could be used anywhere. I do not wish to start citing qualifications but be assured that I use the Greek text, and daily use it for purposes of explaining the meaning of passages, and that I studied koine Greek to a reasonably high level, not just out of interest. Best wishes |
||||||
3 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228683 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! You made your statement so precise that I thought perhaps there was a rule somewhere that said the same thing you were saying. So, if I understand your response correctly, your statement is simply a statement of your opinion concerning the passage. Which is fine! We are allowed to have opinions. However, if my opinion is that Paul was using an historical present, I am not violating any established rules of Greek grammar. :-) Now, allow me to demonstrate why I believe Paul is using an historical present. Perhaps that will shed some light on my thinking. If Paul is not using an historical present, then he makes the following contradictory statements. 1) Slaves or not: Rom 6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 2) To sin or not to sin: Rom 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Rom 7:18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. There are other examples but let's stop there for the moment. If in Rom. 7:14-25, Paul is describing his present experience as a Christian, then Paul is directly contradicting everything he has to same about the sin nature in Rom. 6, Rom. 8, and Gal. 5. If Paul is speaking in Rom. 7:14-25 in the historical present of his experience prior to coming to Christ, as a Pharisee who wanted to obey the Law of God but could not since he was a slave to his sin nature, then Rom. 7:14-25 is in perfect harmony with Rom. 6, Rom. 8, and Gal. 5. By the way, for those who believe that Paul is simply describing himself from the perspective of spiritual maturity, where he is able to look at his 'holy' live and still see how far it falls short of God's glory, there is one fatal flaw. Rom. 7:14-25 does not say that he sometimes fails to live up to God's standards. It says that he ALWAYS fails to do so. Is that really a normative description of the Christian life in relation to sin? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228701 | ||
No Tim you interpret me totally incorrectly. The rule in Greek is very simple. Past tense refers to the past. Present tense refers to the present. There is no rule that says that we can interpret the present tense historically. There are simply instances where it has been done in UNUSUAL contexts. The fact that a Greek grammar speaks of this as a historic present DOES NOT mean that we can translate the present as a past tense wherever it suits us. It is simply giving a warning that it has been done for specific reasons. And it NEVER occurs in a passage where the past tense is then followed by the present tense, which makes it quite clear that the normal rules of grammar are intended to apply. Thus people may disagree about what Paul actually means in Romans 7. What they CANNOT do if they take Scripture seriously is ignore the basic rule of grammar when interpreting it. For there are no grounds for doing so apart from the fact that it does not agree with your position. |
||||||
5 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228704 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! You wrote: "Thus people may disagree about what Paul actually means in Romans 7. What they CANNOT do if they take Scripture seriously is ignore the basic rule of grammar when interpreting it. For there are no grounds for doing so apart from the fact that it does not agree with your position." But, in your previous post, you wrote: "As with anyone who seeks to establish rules concerning a language I do it on the basis of usage. No language has a list of rules." So, I am confused. How can I violate a rule that doesn't exist. :-) But, rather than beat a dead horse, I will bow out at this point. There is no grammatical reason why Rom. 7:14-25 cannot be an historical present. You don't feel that it is, and I do feel that it is. I have enjoyed the conversation my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228709 | ||
Tim Moran said: "Thus people may disagree about what Paul actually means in Romans 7. What they CANNOT do if they take Scripture seriously is ignore the basic rule of grammar when interpreting it. For there are no grounds for doing so apart from the fact that it does not agree with your position." But, in your previous post, you wrote: "As with anyone who seeks to establish rules concerning a language I do it on the basis of usage. No language has a list of rules." So, I am confused. How can I violate a rule that doesn't exist. :-) My reply: I would hate you to go through life confused (even if I think you are).:-)) I said a list of rules, not basic rules. Usage provides a basic rule for tenses, past is past, present is present, future is future. This is what all students learn when they are learning most languages (not Hebrew because Hebrew has no past or future tense). I will accept that as a rule as it is so well attested from usage. But any variations from this occur because of unusual usage. Thus the so-called historic present is only used in exceptional situations. It can only be called in when it is demonstrated that the basic rule does not apply. But where in the same passage there is a change from past to present that decides the issue. The present cannot be an historic present. If we do not observe that fact language is meaningless. I notice by the way how quick you are to be dogmatic about tenses when it suits you. Do you really think that you can play it both ways? |
||||||
7 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228711 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! I have had years of training in Greek, so I am aware of what the grammatical rules are. So, rather than continuing to debate the point, I would simply urge the readers of these posts to do a little research themselves concerning the historical present and make of their own minds. Thanks for the discussion my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||