From: Kevin Smith (kgs@iafrica.com)
Date: Wed Oct 20 1999 - 19:24:16 EDT
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#d8e9d8>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT size=3>On 20/10/99 Steven Craig Miller wrote:
</FONT></FONT><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=2>It is true that the present tense sometimes refers
to habitual actions, but does that mean that a negative of a present tense
can indicate that such<FONT color=#000000> </FONT>actions are not done
habitually? For example, if someone says: "Steven plays chess."
What does "plays chess" mean? It doesn't mean that I play chess
continuously day and night, yes? Now if someone says: "Steven doesn't
play chess," what does that mean? Could it possibly mean that I only
occasionally play chess, but I don't do it on a regular bases? I think not.
<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=2>(There is the possibility that the phrase
"plays chess" could mean "plays [tournament] chess" and
so it is possible for one to occasionally play chess and yet not "play
chess" in this specialized sense.)</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Although I have no vested
interest in the theological conclusion we draw from 1 John 3:9, I find your
choice of illustration ironic. I used to play tournament chess but gave up
playing regularly some time ago. When asked, "Do you still play
[tournament] chess?" I answer, "No." The reality is that once
every 2-3 years I do play a tournament. The general state of affairs is that I
do not play chess, but that general state allows for occasional exceptions.
Every once in a while I feel like playing some chess, but I am no longer truly a
chess-player.<BR></FONT></FONT><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=2>"Now, let's look at the Greek text. If we had:
hAMARTIAN POIEI ("he/she does sin"), surely it is possible to
understand this as referring to habitual action. Now lets negate the
sentence (as it appears in the Greek text): hAMARTIAN OU POIEI ("he/she
does not sin"). Now, are we to understand this to mean that this person
does indeed occasionally sin, but just doesn't do it habitually? Personally,
I find such reasoning to be a real stretch." (Steven Craig
Miller)<BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman">Could it be
that OU + present tense often expresses the general state of affairs while
allowing room for occasional exceptions, with the focus falling sqarely upon the
general truth? Perhaps the exceptions are not in view all, but the possibility
of their existence is not excluded. Thus in our present text the focus if
squarely upon the fact that "whoever is born of God hAMARTIAN OU
POIEI." The possibility of exceptions to that truth is not denied, but it
is incidental to the point. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Consider, for example, Romans 7:16: ...hO OU
QELW TOUTO POIW. Regardless of whether it was before or after Paul's conversion,
his point is surely that, as a general rule he did not want to sin. However, the
very fact that he did what he didn't want to do indicates that there were
exceptions to that general state, that is, times when he did want to
sin.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Kevin Smith</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Port Elizabeth, SA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><A
href="mailto:kgs@iafrica.com">kgs@iafrica.com</A></FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:43 EDT