Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude ourselves and the truth is not in us. [His word does not live in our hearts.] |
Subject: Is sinless perfection possible on earth? |
Bible Note: You say: I did not play fast or loose with the rules of grammar concerning the possibility of an historical present in Rom. 7:14-24. If you don't accept that interpretation, fine! But, don't pretend that I have violated some rule of grammar if I hold to that position. My reply: You have used your limited knowledge of Greek to give a false impression. I could exonerate you first time, but not with continuing that position once it has been pointed out to you. It simply is not true that your so-called rule justifies saying, whenever a present tense is used I can say 'this is an historic present' even when it is contrasted with a past tense. It is only true in limited contexts. And Romans 7 is not one of them. So yes I do think you are playing fast and loose with Greek tenses. This is a fact. It has to be said. I realise that you do it out of 'ignorance'. But I suggest that until you are far more knowledgeable about Greek you stop citing the meaning of tenses to support your case. You are simply not sufficiently knowledgeable (as at one stage you admitted yourself). It has nothing to do with whether I agree with your points. It is that i see your knowledge of Greek as sadly lacking and therefore misused in your arguments. No language is more misused by commentators, who are trying to support a viewpoint, than Greek. With regard to Ephesians 4.25 ff which is a mixture of aorists and pesents nothing can be more clear than that it describes a continuing situation. And using your methods why should we not see the present tenses as historic presents and the aorists as second aorists? By the time we have finished Greek tenses tell us nothing at all Yes, that is what I am doing, asking that you stick to the facts you are capable of making a judgment on. Aorist does not always indicate point of time action. That is a concept which has long since been disproved. I'm sorry but these things have to be said. Stick to using English in your arguments. Then I will respect you. |