>spent much time on infinitives, and this got me into trouble. I don't
need
>an English translation to misinterpret the Greek, I can do that directly
>from the original!
Ha! I love a guy who can laugh at himself.
>The question I had involves the interpretation of the present
>infinitive hAMARTANEIN:
>
>1 John 3:9 ...KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN
>
>Does this mean (1) can not sin (ever), or (2) can not (habitually)
>sin?
>Zerwick and Robertson each go for #2.
>
>Robertson's Word Pictures says:
>
>"And he cannot sin" (KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN). This is a wrong
>translation, for this English naturally means "and he cannot commit
>sin" as if it were KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTEIN or HAMARTHSAI (second
>aorist or first aorist active infinitive). The present active infinitive
hAMARTANEIN
>can only mean "and he cannot go on sinning" as is true of hAMARTANEI in
>verse 8 and hAMARTANWN in verse 6...Paul has precisely John's idea in
Rom. >6:1 EIPMENWMEN THI hAMARTIAI (shall we continue to sin, present
linear
>subjunctive) in contrast with hAMARTHSWMEN in Rom. 6:15 (shall we
>commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive).
Yes, yes. But, I still prefer the NASV customary rendering, "no one who
is born of God practices sin." But, you have the idea.
>
>Zerwick's Grammar says:
>
>251. The application of a similar consideration to the verb
>hAMARTANEIN (aorist: commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or
other),
>hAMARTANEIN (present: be a sinner, as a characteristic *state*), offers
a >solution to the apparent contradiction between 1 Jo 2,1 and 3,9. In
the latter
>place John seems to suppose that Christians cannot sin, but in 2,1 he
>admonishes them not to sin. Here however he says GRAFW hUMIN hINA MH
>hAMARTHTE (aorist:not to commit sin), whereas in 3,9 he says that he who
is >born of God OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN (present: be -- habitually -- a
sinner) >because he is born of God, i.e. cannot continue the sinful life
that was his >before his regeneration. (Cf. Rom 6,1 as compared with
6,15).
I am overjoyed. This is what I've been saying all along, but apparently
it wasn't being communicated. But, now you've got it. That is great!
Praise be to God.
Now, do you see a contradiction between 3:9 and 1:8?
>
>Just for comic relief, Robertson's Massive Yellow Tome says "the force
>of the present infinitive is so normal as to call for little comment"
(p.
>890).
Ah yes. But now, what about those who take this as an aoristic present?
Forget it.
Paul Dixon
>Jonathan
>
>***************************************************************************
>Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com
>http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrobie
>POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703
>http://www.poet.com
>***************************************************************************
>
>