From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org)
Date: Tue Jul 09 1996 - 18:19:48 EDT
Dr. Paul S. Dixon, pastor Check out my doctoral product,
Ladd Hill Bible Church "The Evangelism of Christ: a
Wilsonville, OR 97212 Model for Evangelism Today"
http://users.aol.com/dixonps/evangelism.htm
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
To: theology@iclnet.org
Cc: theology@iclnet.org
Subject: Re: Logic & 1 Jn.1:9
Howard:
I, too, have enjoyed the discussion and desire not to carry it
out ad infinitum. I responded to your claim that tense has significance
only in the indicative mood and thus the durative sense of the present
subjunctive in 1 Jn 1:9 is nonexistent. I quoted from A.T. Robertson's
grammar showing he acknowledged the durative sense of the present
subjunctive. Your response is that Robertson is out-dated and has been
corrected by recent grammars.
First of all, let me point out that Blass-DeBrunner-Funk rejects
your claim that tense has significance only in the indicative mood. For
example, "The present and aorist imperatives differ in the same way as
the imperfect and aorist indicatives: the present imperative is durative
or iterative, the aorist imperative punctiliar" (paragraph 335). It also
recognizes the significance in tense in the other moods. I read B-D-F
and do not find that they necessarily disagree with Robertson's point
that the present subjunctive denotes durative (vs punctiliar) action.
But, if they do, so what? Are they necessarily right? Let's example
their scriptures and see for ourselves.
Second, I contend that my interpretation does justice to the
context. The purpose of the epistle is stated in 5:13, "these things I
have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order
that you may know that you have eternal life." There are several
arguments by which we can know. The first, is durative confession of
sins versus a denial that we have sin (v. 8, note durative present there)
and a denial that we have ever sinned (v. 10). The second test is found
in 2:3, "by this we know we have come to know Him, if we keep His
commandments." Note the durative present here. The durative present is
found throughout the epistle is key to the interpretation of the book.
Dr. Paul S. Dixon, pastor Check out my doctoral product,
Ladd Hill Bible Church "The Evangelism of Christ: a
Wilsonville, OR 97212 Model for Evangelism Today"
http://users.aol.com/dixonps/evangelism.htm
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Howard Diehl wrote:
> At 04:26 PM 7.8.96 -0700, you wrote:
> >Howard et al:
> > I beg to differ with you. Tense does have significance, not only
> >in the indicative mood, but in the other moods as well, including the
> >imperatival and subjunctive. I quote A.T. Robertson (A Grammar of the
> >Greek NT, [Broadman Press, 1934], p. 889), "The rarity of the pres. subj.
> >... has already been commented upon. The aorist is used as a matter of
> >course unless durative action is to be expressed." He then gives as an
> >example Mt 17:20, "if you have faith as a mustard seed ..." where the
> >present subjunctive is used, as in 1 Jn 1:9, denoting durative, habitual
> >or characteristic action.
> > How is it that you say tense has significance only in the
> >indicative mood? Do you reject the significance of tense in the
> >imperativals? How about participles?
> >
> >
> >Dr. Paul S. Dixon, pastor Check out my doctoral product,
> >Ladd Hill Bible Church "The Evangelism of Christ: a
> >Wilsonville, OR 97212 Model for Evangelism Today"
> >
> I don't necessarily want to drag out this discussion ad infinitum, but the
> first thing you need to do is check out something more recent on
> linguistics. Robertson was okay 50 years ago, but the study of language and
> linguistics, especially in the study of the New and Old Testaments has leap
> frogged since Robertson. Any of a dozen greek grammars will serve as a
> corrective and will build upon Robertson. Compare Blass-DeBrunner-Funk,
> Zerwick, Zerwick-Grosvenor, C.F.D. Moule. Even the discussion in Bauer,
> et.al., Greek Lexicon does not mention type of action, only the type of
> condition in view.
>
> As I also stated, you cannot build a theology on the grammar of the greek.
> John does not have "habitual, durative, or continuous" habits in mind.
> John's three subjunctives are corrections of three errors of the dissidents
> in the Church. (BTW, have you ever tried reading I John after 2John and
> 3John? The progression is interesting and I John makes more sense.)
>
> Thanks for the discussion, Paul, I've enjoyed it. It's time to move on to
> other things.
> Information is not knowledge. Let's not confuse the two.
> -W. E. Deming
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE THEOLOGY to majordomo@iclnet.org
> Web Page - http://www.why.net/users/dgreen/theolist.htm
> Archives - http://www.why.net/users/dgreen/archives/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT