- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,01:15) Hi All I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread.
John 17:5…
With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ).
Blessings Keith
What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian?A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…”
Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1.
Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2011,02:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,01:15) Hi All I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread.
John 17:5…
With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ).
Blessings Keith
What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian?A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…”
Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1.
“einai” is present active infinitive, which according to your own source, (ATR) says [page 890-891] “the present infinitive is most ~ used only once with pro (Jn 17:5).
The ~ present infinitive, is timeless and durative.”
[page 823] “~ Linear or durative action may be represented by a continuous line [].
In other words, “einai” is not aorist; not “punctiliar” action; and not referencing action taking place “before the world was.”
“Was” is translated from “eimi” which is the present active infinitive of the verb “to be,” which you know as “einai.”
Jesus is plainly speaking of a world that not only is, but “pro” places the glory before the eyes of that world, not before its creation. “pro” is a reference to location, not time, in this passage. “Timeless and durative.”
Quote (Paladin @ June 10 2011,10:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,01:15) Hi All I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread.
John 17:5…
With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ).
Blessings Keith
What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian?A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…”
Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1.
Hi PaladinSo you say! Of course it is entirely possible for ATR to be a Trinitarian because he understands the Greek and the writer’s intent.
In fact why is it that most all credible Greek Grammarians are Trinitarian?
WJ
Hi All
If Jesus was not speaking of the world that was created in the Genesis beginning in John 17:5 as Paladin claims, then what about the world he speaks of in verse 24…
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: “for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”.
ATR states…
Before the foundation of the world (pro katabolh kosmou). This same phrase in Ephesians 1:4 ; 1 Peter 1:20 and six other times we have katabolh kosmou ( Matthew 25:34 ; Luke 11:50 ; Hebrews 4:3 ; Hebrews 9:26 ; Revelation 13:8 ; Revelation 17:8 ). Here we find the same pre-incarnate consciousness of Christ seen in 17:5 .
Will they now claim that Jesus is not saying he was “Loved” (indicative, active, aorist) by the Father “before” (pro) the Genesis creation?
This is why ATR says…
…”before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ).
Context plays a part in Greek Translation as well!
WJ
Hi WJ,
Argument from authority. In this case one who is no longer with us. argument from antiquity. In this case the “the winners” of the theological wars/debates of the early church.
ATR was a member of the Southern Babtist Church. He most certainly was indoctrinated in and held the trinitarian position as the only truth before his formal education in the greek language. This Church held to Trintarianism before ATR was a member. He was, therefore, religiously trained to accept and hold this position.
Arguments from authority and from antiquity are at best “weak arguments” simply because the level of authority of any given individual in any given field can be a source for debate in and of itself.
These are called logical fallacies. Here is link to my source for this info:On another point I clearly pointed out your error of understanding the use of perfect tense and your ad hominem towards Paladin here:
Quote Is this Greek according to Paladin? Your statement is misleading when you say, “The Greek “perfect” references a completed action, with results that carry into the present.”
You have yet to post anything like “Yes, I was mistaken on that. Thanks for the info!” or “No, I am correct about that and here is some more info to prove/show that I am correct”. Please sir, do not think that I believe you are going to hell for holding on to your theology and defending it until the day of your death. I truly do not believe this to be the case. I am simply pointing out that you are straying away from the structure and procedure of what is commonly accepted as formal debate and honest intellectual exchange of information in order to increase one's knowledge of the grammer of the greek language.
At any rate Mr. A.T. Robertson is no longer able to interact with the people who post to this forum so the best you can do is say you agree with his theological outlook then procede to defend it via debate, not as a means for refuting anothers translation and interpretation.With Love and more love,
WispringHi Wispring
I am busy and will try to get to your post soon. In the mean time I recommend you brush up on the “perfect/indicative” for “katabainō” (down) in John 6:38
Blessings!
WJ
WJ
Quote If Jesus was not speaking of the world that was created in the Genesis beginning in John 17:5 as Paladin claims, then what about the world he speaks of in verse 24… Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: “for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”.
Before the foundation of the world (pro katabolh kosmou). This same phrase in Ephesians 1:4 ; 1 Peter 1:20 and six other times we have katabolh kosmou ( Matthew 25:34 ; Luke 11:50 ; Hebrews 4:3 ; Hebrews 9:26 ; Revelation 13:8 ; Revelation 17:8 ).
I can see your point but it says Before the world was and Before the foundation of the world
so my question would be what is the foundation of the world ,is it Adam or Adam and Eve or when creation started after Christ the son of God was created?
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. this is not the transformation of the earth ,the beginning is the making of the solar system and perhaps all of creation after Christ ,because the foundation and the beginning is where it start ,right ?an other question is not Christ the foundation of all things ? I believe so.
and so yes this would be wen God start to create after He create his son Christ Gen 1;1
he(Christ) is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,I can see God being in his glory all by himself ,but when he created Christ the glory of Christ would not mach his father glory but he was the second great glory there was ,and all that came after that ,was of less glory if we compere the glory of the father and the son
so what Christ requested in his prayer was to have that glory back in a way the second to God the only son of God.right side of the father.
Col 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,Pierre
Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) Hi WJ, Argument from authority. In this case one who is no longer with us. argument from antiquity. In this case the “the winners” of the theological wars/debates of the early church.
ATR was a member of the Southern Babtist Church. He most certainly was indoctrinated in and held the trinitarian position as the only truth before his formal education in the greek language. This Church held to Trintarianism before ATR was a member. He was, therefore, religiously trained to accept and hold this position.
Arguments from authority and from antiquity are at best “weak arguments” simply because the level of authority of any given individual in any given field can be a source for debate in and of itself.
These are called logical fallacies. Here is link to my source for this info:
Logical Fallacies
Hi WispringHa Ha! You deride me for committing a “logical fallacy” and yet you attempt to make the argument that ATR was a Baptist and indoctrinated therefore that means his Greek is biased. Do you see the irony of your claim? Paladin said…”What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian?”. It is wrong to attack ATR's Greek by claiming it is based on his theology, and insinuate he was dishonest. That works 2 ways also. What if Mike or I in referring to you and Paladin said…“What do you expect from a “Unitarian?”
The problem you have is when you say…
Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) …Arguments from authority and from antiquity are at best “weak arguments” simply because the level of authority of any given individual in any given field can be a source for debate in and of itself.” and then claim it is a “logical fallacy”, well that is just not true in this case.
First of all ATR is not just any individual, but in fact he is a “World renowned Greek Grammarian” who is recognized by many Greek Scholars to this day as being an expert in the field.
Who are you, and who is Paladin?
Where is the credible Greek scholar that disagrees with ATR and his Greek in John 6:38 or John 17:5? Are we just to take your word for it?
So I don’t buy your “logical fallacy” argument in reference to ATR. You and Paladin are making the argument that your Greek is more accurate than his. So you see it is a two edged sword that swings both ways. According to your own words how are you not making a logical fallacy by arguing for the “Authority” of yours and Paladins Greek over ATR’s based on your own “theology”? At this point I haven’t seen any evidence that I should reject ATR’s Greek over yours or Paladin’s! It seems to me you and Paladin rejects his Greek merely because of his theology.
Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) On another point I clearly pointed out your error of understanding the use of perfect tense and your ad hominem towards Paladin here: Quote Is this Greek according to Paladin? Your statement is misleading when you say, “The Greek “perfect” references a completed action, with results that carry into the present.”
You have yet to post anything like “Yes, I was mistaken on that. Thanks for the info!” or “No, I am correct about that and here is some more info to prove/show that I am correct”.
But you ignored my post when I quoted ATR…[Compare A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 864, 879]:
“It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress'” like the imperfect as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself…
The reason I said Paladin is misleading is that he argues from the point that when Jesus said “I came down” (perfect, active, indicative) that it was not a literal action performed by the subject Jesus and that it was a completed action that carried over to the present inferring that it could not mean he completed the action in the past once and for all. I will explain in my next post!
Blessings!
WJ
Hi Wispring
The problem you and Paladin have is “katabebhka” is the Perfect, Active, Indicative of katabainw and it is the “indicative” that presents a problem because…
It is an important distinction to understand, as discussed below, that the only place in which 'time' comes to bear directly upon the tense of a verb is when the verb is in the indicative mood. In all other moods and uses the aktionsart of the verb tense should be seen as primary. The perfect tense has to do with the completed progress of an action and its corresponding finished results. That is, it shows a present state of affairs (from the writer’s perspective), based upon an action in past time (when using the indicative mood). There is no tense in English that has this same meaning. Oftentimes the student of English will fail to realize the importance of the perfect tense and will tend to blend it with the aorist in translation. This is mainly due to English idiom and the customary practice of translating the Greek perfect as the English perfect. This can be a big mistake and can blur the point or emphasis of a New Testament passage. Since the perfect tense is used less frequently than other tenses, it is exegetically more significant. When it does occur, there is usually a definite and deliberate reason it was chosen by the writer. The emphasis may be on the culmination of the action's progress or on the resulting state of affairs brought about by the action. Source
You ignored or skipped over this information that I pointed out from your source…
Compare A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 864, 879]:
“It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress'” like the imperfect as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself…It has already been seen that the durative sense does not monopolize the 'present' tense, though it more frequently denotes linear action. The verb and the context must decide.”
So the key common denominator relative to present tense verb usage is that the action is to be viewed as internal as opposed to external wherein the former has in view action from within as it occurs, and the latter has in view action which is completed or action which has not yet occurred.
An examination of the various present tenses used in the New Testament Books will corroborate and clarify this:
[From: “Syntax of New Testament Greek” in {} brackets, Brooks & Winbery, 1979, University Press, Lanham, Md, pp. 82-90]:The Time Element for the Perfect/Indicative is speaking of the action completed in the “past with present results”.
The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action. The 'time' aspect of the tense of a verb really only comes into affect when the verb is in the INDICATIVE mood. When a verb is outside of the indicative mood, then the aktionsart (‘kind of action’) of the tense is usually emphasized and should be carefully noted, and its bearing upon the passage should be considered. Source
In other words Jesus the subject of John 6:38 “came down” katabebhka from heaven not in an abstract way, but it was an action that was ”completed in the past by the subject, Jesus (active voice) ” and not to be completed again (indicative, active, perfect) and the present results are Jesus the bread of life has now come among men. Remember…
The Time Element for the Perfect/Indicative is speaking of the action completed in the “Past” with present results”.
Every scripture that Paladin gives to refute this fact in John 6:38 shows the word ‘katabainō” is used in context of a literal “coming down” whether it be “fire”, “water’, etc and not an abstract thought or plan.
He derides me for not giving a Greek equivalent to John 6:38 yet he gives a list of scriptures that do not disprove what I was saying but rather proves what I was saying since in every case he listed ‘katabainō” it is a literal “coming down” by the subject.
Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) Please sir, do not think that I believe you are going to hell for holding on to your theology and defending it until the day of your death.
It seems to me that is what all you anti-preexistence people are doing.Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) At any rate Mr. A.T. Robertson is no longer able to interact with the people who post to this forum so the best you can do is say you agree with his theological outlook then procede to defend it via debate, not as a means for refuting anothers translation and interpretation.
No the best I can do is “AGREE” with ATR's Greek, which is to this day recognized all over the world, and disagrees with you and Paladin as well as his theology.It seems that you and Paladin have your own theology and are making the argument that your theology doesn’t influence your Greek while at the same time you make the argument that a “World Renown Greek Grammarian, i.e. AT Robertson” and his Greek is theologically motivated. That is what you call a “logical fallacy”, isn’t it? That in my opinion is disingenuous!
Blessings WJ
(Edited to add more content from the source!)
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,08:40) Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) Hi WJ, Argument from authority. In this case one who is no longer with us. argument from antiquity. In this case the “the winners” of the theological wars/debates of the early church.
ATR was a member of the Southern Babtist Church. He most certainly was indoctrinated in and held the trinitarian position as the only truth before his formal education in the greek language. This Church held to Trintarianism before ATR was a member. He was, therefore, religiously trained to accept and hold this position.
Arguments from authority and from antiquity are at best “weak arguments” simply because the level of authority of any given individual in any given field can be a source for debate in and of itself.
These are called logical fallacies. Here is link to my source for this info:
Logical Fallacies
Hi WispringHa Ha! You deride me for committing a “logical fallacy” and yet you attempt to make the argument that ATR was a Baptist and indoctrinated therefore that means his Greek is biased. Do you see the irony of your claim? Paladin said…”What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian?”. It is wrong to attack ATR's Greek by claiming it is based on his theology, and insinuate he was dishonest. That works 2 ways also. What if Mike or I in referring to you and Paladin said…“What do you expect from a “Unitarian?”
The problem you have is when you say…
Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) …Arguments from authority and from antiquity are at best “weak arguments” simply because the level of authority of any given individual in any given field can be a source for debate in and of itself.” and then claim it is a “logical fallacy”, well that is just not true in this case.
First of all ATR is not just any individual, but in fact he is a “World renowned Greek Grammarian” who is recognized by many Greek Scholars to this day as being an expert in the field.
Who are you, and who is Paladin?
Where is the credible Greek scholar that disagrees with ATR and his Greek in John 6:38 or John 17:5? Are we just to take your word for it?
So I don’t buy your “logical fallacy” argument in reference to ATR. You and Paladin are making the argument that your Greek is more accurate than his. So you see it is a two edged sword that swings both ways. According to your own words how are you not making a logical fallacy by arguing for the “Authority” of yours and Paladins Greek over ATR’s based on your own “theology”? At this point I haven’t seen any evidence that I should reject ATR’s Greek over yours or Paladin’s! It seems to me you and Paladin rejects his Greek merely because of his theology.
Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23) On another point I clearly pointed out your error of understanding the use of perfect tense and your ad hominem towards Paladin here: Quote Is this Greek according to Paladin? Your statement is misleading when you say, “The Greek “perfect” references a completed action, with results that carry into the present.”
You have yet to post anything like “Yes, I was mistaken on that. Thanks for the info!” or “No, I am correct about that and here is some more info to prove/show that I am correct”.
But you ignored my post when I quoted ATR…[Compare A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 864, 879]:
“It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress'” like the imperfect as Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the 'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself…
The reason I said Paladin is misleading is that he argues from the point that when Jesus said “I came down” (perfect, active, indicative) that it was not a literal action performed by the subject Jesus and that it was a completed action that carried over to the present inferring that it could not mean he completed the action in the past once and for all. I will explain in my next post!
Blessings!
WJ
So tell me WJ, what do you think of wescott and Hort as scholars?Here is what some modern scholars have to say about them:
(v) What The Majority Text Is
The Majority Text is a text that employs the available evidence of the whole range of surviving manuscripts rather than relying chiefly on the evidence of a few. To us it is unscientific to practically ignore eighty to ninety percent of the evidence in any discipline.For all intents and purposes since Westcott and Hort's time, the readings of the majority of manuscripts have been rejected as “late and secondary.” Much of the support for this approach has been the theory that there was an official ecclesiastical recension thrust upon the church in the fourth century, thus explaining the preponderance of so-called Byzantine manuscripts thereafter. Another support was that no manuscript evidence before the fourth century apparently supported Byzantine readings. Futher, a handful of alleged conflations was used to suggest that the traditional text was full of them. (Actually all manuscriprs have some.) History has not yielded any evidence of such a recension, and this aspect of the theory is now largely abandoned.
Second- and Third-century papyri now support many readings that were once dismissed as “late.” Furthermore, many of the “conflations” can be just the opposite: a fuller text from which part has been dropped out by such things as\\stylistic or theological considerations, or sheer carelessness.
We hold that ultimately the history of the transmission of each book of the new testament should be traced by means of a geneological tree. This method failed under Westcott and Hort precisely because they refused to give proper weight and role to the majority of the extant manuscripts.
Quote (terraricca @ June 09 2011,22:52) Mike i agree with Irene ,you doing a great Job for the truth of scriptures and so to restore Godly truth were it should be .
Pierre
Quote (Paladin @ June 10 2011,07:05) Well, Mike, that's what happens when you “translate” everything to accomodate your doctrinal needs.
Paladin,Unlike you and many others, I have no “doctrinal needs”. I've said 100 times that it wouldn't change my faith one way or the other if Jesus didn't pre-exist. But my understanding is based on the scriptures, while YOU seem to be the one translating “everything to accomodate your doctrinal needs”. And usually with very illogical, mind numbing results.
For example, take the words “the glory I was having”. You want this to mean “the glory that the thought of me in your mind/heart was predestined to someday have”. What Greek words in that scripture lead you to this conclusion? It's completely assinine IMO to come to this conclusion from the words that are actually there, and is a clear cut example, also IMO, of someone trying to illogically translate a scripture to fit their doctrinal needs.
Paladin, the words “I WAS HAVING” refer to a PERSON who HAD something in the past. If I said “I WAS HAVING fun last night”, you wouldn't think “the thought of me in someone's mind/heart was looking forward to the fun that was predestined for me since last night, which I would someday have” would you?
Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2011,06:36)
So tell me WJ, what do you think of wescott and Hort as scholars?
Hi PaladinIt doesn't really matter much what I think about Wescott and Hort simply because much of the debate has already been settled over which are the best or more accurate manuscripts. Most modern Translations use eclectic editions and agree for the most part on what the original intent of the inspired writer was. The variations in the major translations usually do not affect major Christian doctrine.
In reality, to argue for the purity of the Byzantine stream, as opposed to the pollution introduced by the Alexandrian manuscripts, is to blow out of proportion what the differences between these two texts really are–both in quantity and quality.For over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant affects any doctrine. Carson has gone so far as to state that “nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants. This is true for any textual tradition. The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected.” 25 The remarkable thing is that this applies both to the standard critical texts of the Greek New Testament and to Hodges's and Farstad's Majority Text; doctrine is not affected by the variants between them. 26
If the quality of the text (i.e., its doctrinal purity) is not at stake, then what about the quantity? How different is the Majority Text from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland text? Do they agree only 30 percent of the time? Do they agree perhaps as much as 50 percent of the time? This can be measured, in a general sort of way. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. 27 Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity. Source
As far as the chronological order of the NT books, well that is still an on going debate.
Blessings!
WJ
Quote (Paladin @ June 10 2011,09:43) “einai” is present active infinitive, which according to your own source, (ATR) says [page 890-891] “the present infinitive is most ~ used only once with pro (Jn 17:5). The ~ present infinitive, is timeless and durative.”
[page 823] “~ Linear or durative action may be represented by a continuous line [].
In other words, “einai” is not aorist; not “punctiliar” action; and not referencing action taking place “before the world was.”
“Was” is translated from “eimi” which is the present active infinitive of the verb “to be,” which you know as “einai.”
Jesus is plainly speaking of a world that not only is, but “pro” places the glory before the eyes of that world, not before its creation. “pro” is a reference to location, not time, in this passage. “Timeless and durative.”
From NETNotes: 5774 Tense – Present The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense. Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are termed “historical presents,” and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present.Paladin, I understand what you are saying here. You are saying that since “exist” is in the present tense, Jesus is asking to be glorified “in front of the world that currently exists”, as in “glorify me now in front of everyone”.
But you must at least acknowledge the possiblility that it could be an “historical present”, if you are to be honest with yourself. And if you can acknowledge even the possibility of this being the case, then you can let the context sort it out for you.
We both agree that the perfect tense represents a continual or ongoing action that happened IN THE PAST, right? At least that is what the source YOU quoted says about it, right?
So since the perfect tense of “echo” signifies that Jesus is asking to be glorifed with some glory HE WAS HAVING at some time in the past, (but currently did NOT have), then the question is WHEN did he have this former glory that he was asking to have again? And if the question is when, then “pro/before” seems more likely to refer to time than location in this particular case.
I conclude that “pro” is an historical present that answers the question of when Jesus was having glory in the past.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2011,14:10) Hi Wispring I am busy and will try to get to your post soon. In the mean time I recommend you brush up on the “perfect/indicative” for “katabainō” (down) in John 6:38
Blessings!
WJ
I've tried to hammer this point home to no avail, Keith.If Jesus was “from heaven” the same way John the Baptist was sent “from God”, the word “DOWN” would not have been needed, used, or made sense.
John was not said to have been “sent DOWN from God”, right? And if he was, we would have to take that word “DOWN” very seriously, and come to the conclusion that John was literally WITH God, and was sent DOWN to earth from His physical presence.
The word “DOWN” pretty much seals our understanding in John 6:38 while making their understanding something that goes against what the scripture clearly teaches.
mike
Hi WJ,
Quote Ha Ha! You deride me for committing a “logical fallacy” and yet you attempt to make the argument that ATR was a Baptist and indoctrinated therefore that means his Greek is biased. Do you see the irony of your claim? Paladin said…”What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian?”. It is wrong to attack ATR's Greek by claiming it is based on his theology, and insinuate he was dishonest. That works 2 ways also. What if Mike or I in referring to you and Paladin said…“What do you expect from a “Unitarian?”
To be honest WJ, I didn't think I was deriding you nor Mr. Robertson's honesty in his exegesis. I was stating that it is only natural that a person who was born and raised with the trinity being an absolute truth would exegete with this bias. Not that it's right or wrong, it would be only natural based on how the mind works in a psychological way. For myself I was raised with neither the Unitarian or the Trinitarian religious education. I was an athiest in my teen years and made science my god. I did learn what objectivity is. I did admire the Spock character from Star Trek who experienced the world through an objective, logical mind. I do believe that God is objective when it comes to processing factual data. This is what I am using now to understand the greek language.Quote The problem you have is when you say… Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23)
…Arguments from authority and from antiquity are at best “weak arguments” simply because the level of authority of any given individual in any given field can be a source for debate in and of itself.”and then claim it is a “logical fallacy”, well that is just not true in this case.
First of all ATR is not just any individual, but in fact he is a “World renowned Greek Grammarian” who is recognized by many Greek Scholars to this day as being an expert in the field.
Who are you, and who is Paladin?
Where is the credible Greek scholar that disagrees with ATR and his Greek in John 6:38 or John 17:5? Are we just to take your word for it?
So I don’t buy your “logical fallacy” argument in reference to ATR. You and Paladin are making the argument that your Greek is more accurate than his. So you see it is a two edged sword that swings both ways. According to your own words how are you not making a logical fallacy by arguing for the “Authority” of yours and Paladins Greek over ATR’s based on your own “theology”? At this point I haven’t seen any evidence that I should reject ATR’s Greek over yours or Paladin’s! It seems to me you and Paladin rejects his Greek merely because of his theology.
You see this you posted above? It fits with high precision the situation described below.Quote Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy.)In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.
So…yes it is a logical fallacy.
Back to the issue being debated. Actually, the indicative mood refers to something that is actual, something that really occured or is considered matter of fact as opposed to possible or potentially from the authors perspective or viewpoint of the person speaking in the written account whether or not the the event is true or not. In other words, a lie is written in the indicative mood as well as a true factual statement according to the grammatical use of the indicative mood.
It is a fact that Christ Jesus is the fullfillment of prophesy. It is a fact the prophesy came down from heaven. It is a fact that Christ Jesus knew he was the fullfillment of prophesy. It is a fact that he was conceived in Mary's womb via the Holy Spirit that came down from heaven. Now, it is never revealed in the scriptures that Christ Jesus was aware that he was conceived via the Holy Spirit; I assume that sometime during his life on earth with all the authority, wisdom, knowledge and power that God gave him he did become aware of this fact, however, he may not have known about this until after he was resurrected. It is a fact that the phrophesies that God gave to the prophets of the OT that predict the coming Christ Jesus are, indeed, a part of God's plan for mankind. This is the understanding of many of those who do not adhere to the Trinitarian or pre-existence doctrines go by.
Let's review the meaning of the word literal now.Quote Definition of LITERAL
1a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual c : free from exaggeration or embellishment d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts
2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3: reproduced word for word : exact, verbatim
Anything written about in a factual manner is considered literal even a prophesy or a plan.Quote But you ignored my post when I quoted ATR… [Compare A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 864, 879]:
“It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress'”
No WJ, I did not ignore it. The scriptures in view are John 6:38 and John 6:42Quote John 6:38-42
King James Version (KJV)38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it t
hen that he saith, I came down from heaven?
These are perfect tense. They are not present tense, therefore, the present tense rules and definitions do not apply.Quote Quote (Wispring @ June 10 2011,12:23)
Please sir, do not think that I believe you are going to hell for holding on to your theology and defending it until the day of your death.It seems to me that is what all you anti-preexistence people are doing.
Please sir, do not lump me in with some stereotypical generality that you may or may not have for people who do not believe in the pre-existence doctrine. I still believe that both you and I are disciples of Christ Jesus and are both doing our best to live our lives in accordance with loving him and keeping his words so that both he and God the Father will dwell within us in spirit. I still believe that both of us are in agreement that Christ Jesus is the truth, the light, and the way. I still believe that both of us are doing our best to love God with all our hearts, mind, strength and soul. I still believe we are doing our best to love one another as we love ourselves. At least I hope this is so.With Love and more love,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ June 11 2011,23:38) It is a fact the prophesy came down from heaven.
Hi Wispring,Are you implying that it was “the prophesy about Jesus” that became flesh and dwelled among us with the glory of an only begotten from the Father? Are you implying that when the PERSON Jesus said “I came down from heaven”, he confusinly meant “The prophesy about me came down from heaven”?
That is neither what he said, nor how the Jews to whom he was speaking understood his statement.
Hi Mike,
I implied nothing. I stated the reasoning of an understanding of scripture based from a standpoint of God's word, part of which is prophesies, being fulfilled in the scriptures. I am not one of those Jews living in that spiritually darkened time. I understand spiritual things differently than they did. I will state that is fairly clear that most of the people and at least some of Christ Jesus disciples did not understand what he was saying most of time. Even when he was speaking to them in person. I would like to make it clear that to my mind the trinity and pre-existence theological issues most likely are pale in comparison to loving Christ Jesus and keeping his words. Loving God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul. Loving one another as you love yourself. Conducting youself in behaviour and demeanor in accordance with the sermon on the mount. Taking care of the needy, the fatherless, and the widows. It is interesting stuff to discuss and debate this is true. In the final analysis, one's acceptance in the heavenly realm upon death from this world most likely will not hinge on one's understanding of these two issues. May the peace that our lord and master Christ Jesus promised his disciples dwell in you heart and may the love you have for God be expressed in your interactions with you fellow man.With Love and more love,
WispringHi Wispring,
I disagree with the heart of your post, for I believe that Trinitarians break God's first commandment, which was uttered throughout the years by many messengers of God, and lastly by His main spokesman, the Word of God himself, whom God has made both Lord and King over us.
I could be wrong, but I don't think disobeying the direct commands of both our Lord and our God are going to win much praise on that last day.
Saul disobeyed God because of his own human thoughts, emotions, and good intentions in that he saved the best of the Amalekite's cattle and sheep to sacrifice them to Jehovah. How did that work out for him? Here was Samuel's response:
22 But Samuel replied:“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king.”To OBEY is better than sacrifice. To HEED the commands of our God is better to Him than all the fat of all the rams.
Uzzah also broke God's rule out of a very pure and understandable good intention, in that he didn't want the ark to fall off the wagon. How did that work out for him?
2 Samuel 6:6-8
When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God. Then David was angry because the LORD’s wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah.You can see that even David, the man of God who was much beloved by his God, could not understand why a man who was trying to do good for the ark of his God had to die.
I am well aware that people like Keith and Kathi have good intentions, which leads them to place Jesus in a position higher than what is ever taught in the scriptures. But in doing so, they worship the creation along with the Creator, which is STRICTLY forbidden by God AND the Lord He appointed over us.
I have not been given the authority to judge another master's servant, but I have been given the responsibility to reprove and correct them using scripture when necessary.
Your post, while coming from the ever popular and seemingly pure “Live and let live” frame of mind, doesn't really follow the lead shown in the scriptures. I can't think of the prophet right now, but I remember God telling him of his responsibility to turn others from their evil ways, lest their blood be on his own head for not even trying.
***ADDITION***
My extremely knowledgable little sister, who is my “scriptural database” in times of need, has reminded me that the prophet I referred to above is Ezekiel. You can read the situation to which I referred in Ez 3:18-21.peace,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
