You wrote:
<What gives rise to my persistence with the non-eternal HN is other uses
<of HN in John. For example, in John 2:1 we have Mary at the wedding:
<John 2:1 HN hH MHTHR TOU IESOU EKEI (The mother of Jesus was there)
<Here HN is modified by an adverb just as the John 1:1a HN is modified by
<the adverbial phrase EN ARXH.
An excellent example illustrating the meaning of HN In 1:1
<I asked if HN might carry an aorist flavor at times
<(the omnitemporal type). Carl pointed out that EIMI in itself has no
<aorist nuances (i.e. he "zapped" me, twice mind you!). Someone pointed
<out in A.T. Robertson's Tome that EIMI can have aorist implications at
<times but that it is difficult to determine (if memory serves me from
<the non-archived post, Robertson suggested the John 1:1 HN as an aorist
<possibility). Rod said that A.T. Robertson can be wrong and I left it
<all at that and pondered some more and am still pondering a year later!
Robertson defines aspect in terms of Aktionsart, so clearly Carl and Ron
are correct.
Dear Pete,
When I applied Rods question about the meaning of time to Jesus, it was not
to start a doctrinal discussion, but because it seems that Plato«s old view
of time still is being taken for granted. You wrote:
<Isn't it interesting that while John is talking about that which happens
<before creation he uses EINAI but once he begins talking about the creation
<or what has been created he uses GINESQAI. Isn't it the stative versus the
<progressive rather than a matter of time. In the first couple of verses
<John is referring to the state of being in the beginning EN ARKHHI as
<before Gen 1.1. It is in verse 3 that he begins to talk about what happens
<when things start to happen. How can you have a discussion about the time
<<implications of EINAI when there was no time?
Could you please claryfy your statement that there was no time before the
creation described in Gen 1:1, and show how this differs from Plato«s view?
There is nothing in Genesis indicating that spirit creatures were created
at the same time as the material universe; Job 38:5-7 tells they were
created earlier. If time just is an abstraction, indicating that life and
everything move forwards, it is meaningful to speak of time as long as
creatures (spirit or material ones) have existed, thus also before the
beginning of John 1:1, provided it is the same beginning as that of Gen 1:1.
If the Word, who was in the beginning, is eternal because there was no time
before this beginning, must not also the angels be eternal? But this
contradicts Col 1:15,16. These are not only theological, but rather
philological questions which have a bearing on how we understand and
translate the Greek text of John 1; Col 1 and other passages. Therefore I
think it is important to define our veiw of time and eternity.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo