> You have fallen into the very ditch that you accuse Mike of
inhabiting, for
> your translation is extraordinarily biased in a theological
direction- i.e.,
> "sinless perfection". Mike's rendering is much closer to the
meaning of the
> text. Further, to drag poor Paul into the argument is not proper
method as
> (surely EVERYONE will agree with this): Paul and John are different
writers
> who use words differently. Finally, Mike's "habit of sinning" has
the great
> benefit of clearly reflecting the nature of the Greek verb whilst your
> "cannot sin" is an egregious error.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
These points are right on the mark, Jim. In 1 John 3:9, the aorist
form is contrasted with the present infinitive (DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN).
According to Moises Silva, these two forms CAN be contrasted
aspectually, but we must also consider the context (God, Language, and
Scripture. Moises Silva 117-118).
Looking at the context of 1 John. John makes it clear in 2:1 that a
Christian can sin. IF he or she sins, there is an advocate with the
Father. So, more is at stake here than just present infinitive versus
aorist. The context determines a meaning which wholly militates
against the conclusions reached by Bill. "Go on" or "practice sin
(sinning)" would therefore be very valid translations.
Regards,
Edgar Foster
L-R College
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com