- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,07:56) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 07 2009,07:31) Hi WJ,
Your false doctrine presses thorns in the head of Christ.So If Jesus gives glory to his God in what way is that equality?
If he has equality with God then you proclaim two equal gods.God is one.
Nick,
Philippians 2 is not about Jesus giving glory to God. It is about men confessing the name of Jesus to God's glory. If you don't bow to Jesus' name or confess that He is Lord then you do not glorify God.thinker
Hi TT,
You mean the God in heaven that Jesus told us to pray to?[mt6]
You mean the God of Jesus?[jn20]Yes He is the immortal unchanging God of the OT and the NT.
WorshippingJesus said to Paladin:
Quote No the claiming Greek part is all you have been parading. You are the one that claims to know more than the translators and “Strong” and A.T. Robertson. and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. Phil 2:11
It doesnt take Greek to know that our tongues will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” to the Glory of God the Father!
No new name, just the same name that everything in the NT is done through, whether it be prayers, healing, raising the dead, baptism, Etc, Etc, Etc.
The name that is above all names, Jesus Christ!
WJ,
Paladin denies that the Greek language has a past tense verb. This ought to make anyone scratch his head.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,19:32) WorshippingJesus said to Paladin: Quote No the claiming Greek part is all you have been parading. You are the one that claims to know more than the translators and “Strong” and A.T. Robertson. and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. Phil 2:11
It doesnt take Greek to know that our tongues will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” to the Glory of God the Father!
No new name, just the same name that everything in the NT is done through, whether it be prayers, healing, raising the dead, baptism, Etc, Etc, Etc.
The name that is above all names, Jesus Christ!
WJ,
Paladin denies that the Greek language has a past tense verb. This ought to make anyone scratch his head. thinker
There is no past tense verb in the Koine New Testament Greek.The Koine New Testament Greek has no interest in time in the same sense all other languages do. Their focus of interest is in what kind of action is involved; i.e., punctiliar, and durative. This is why the Greek aorist can be translated into the English future, because some actions are only in the prospect, i.e., not accomplished, only promising.
A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; by A.T.Robertson – Page 344 begin 2nd paragraph;
The greatest confusion prevails in the names given to the various tenses. The time idea appears in the names past, present, and future. The state of the action rules in the names aorist, imperfect, and perfect. Thus it is cleat that the time idea did not prevail with all the names that the grammarians used. In the indicative, indeed, in the past, three tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; in truth, in the subjunctive, optative, and imperative practically only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present.
In the future, as a rule, no distinction at all is made between the three ideas. As a rule the future is aoristic anyhow.
There were originally two types of verb-roots, the punctiliar and the durative. The tense called aorist (aoristos, 'undefined action') is due to the use of the punctiliar verbs (the idea of a point on a line). The present tense comes out of the durative verb-root. But it is worth repeating that tenses are a leter development in the use of the verb.
As often, the grammars have it backward. The so-called second is the oldest aorist, and the so-called first is the late form of the verb.
On page 388 ATR has this to say, near the bottom of the page; How a Greek idiom is to be represented in English is a matter of little concern to the Greek grammarian till the work of translation is reached. The Greek point of view is to be observed all through the process till translation comes. It is Greek syntax, not English.
And on page 389; Theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiiom. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.
This is what I have been trying to tell you in my own stumbling way.
If you have a teacher of Greek grammar that is telling you the koine New Testament Greek has a past, present and future tense, you have a teacher that follows a new and wrongly understood grammar and syntax. It is that simple.
Thinker……….listen to what Paladin is saying here, i believe him to be right on this brother. IMO
peace and love to you brother………………..gene
Paladin cites ATR:
Quote In the indicative, indeed, in the past, three tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; in truth, in the subjunctive, optative, and imperative practically only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present. Note that ATR said that in the “indicative, indeed, in the past, three tenses appear.” This is what I told you a few days ago. ATR does not say that there is no past tense. This is your own conclusion.
Quote Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3) The verb “died” is 2 aorist indicative. Christ died (past tense).
thinker
Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2009,05:03) Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,19:32) WorshippingJesus said to Paladin: Quote No the claiming Greek part is all you have been parading. You are the one that claims to know more than the translators and “Strong” and A.T. Robertson. and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. Phil 2:11
It doesnt take Greek to know that our tongues will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” to the Glory of God the Father!
No new name, just the same name that everything in the NT is done through, whether it be prayers, healing, raising the dead, baptism, Etc, Etc, Etc.
The name that is above all names, Jesus Christ!
WJ,
Paladin denies that the Greek language has a past tense verb. This ought to make anyone scratch his head. thinker
There is no past tense verb in the Koine New Testament Greek.The Koine New Testament Greek has no interest in time in the same sense all other languages do. Their focus of interest is in what kind of action is involved; i.e., punctiliar, and durative. This is why the Greek aorist can be translated into the English future, because some actions are only in the prospect, i.e., not accomplished, only promising.
A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; by A.T.Robertson – Page 344 begin 2nd paragraph;
The greatest confusion prevails in the names given to the various tenses. The time idea appears in the names past, present, and future. The state of the action rules in the names aorist, imperfect, and perfect. Thus it is cleat that the time idea did not prevail with all the names that the grammarians used. In the indicative, indeed, in the past, three tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; in truth, in the subjunctive, optative, and imperative practically only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present.
In the future, as a rule, no distinction at all is made between the three ideas. As a rule the future is aoristic anyhow.
There were originally two types of verb-roots, the punctiliar and the durative. The tense called aorist (aoristos, 'undefined action') is due to the use of the punctiliar verbs (the idea of a point on a line). The present tense comes out of the durative verb-root. But it is worth repeating that tenses are a leter development in the use of the verb.
As often, the grammars have it backward. The so-called second is the oldest aorist, and the so-called first is the late form of the verb.
On page 388 ATR has this to say, near the bottom of the page; How a Greek idiom is to be represented in English is a matter of little concern to the Greek grammarian till the work of translation is reached. The Greek point of view is to be observed all through the process till translation comes. It is Greek syntax, not English.
And on page 389; Theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiiom. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.
This is what I have been trying to tell you in my own stumbling way.
If you have a teacher of Greek grammar that is telling you the koine New Testament Greek has a past, present and future tense, you have a teacher that follows a new and wrongly understood grammar and syntax. It is that simple.
Hi AllPd says
Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2009,05:03) “there is no past tense verb in the Koine New Testament Greek.”
Then he proceeds to quote A.T. Robertson who clearly disagrees with him.The funny thing is I said earlier in this thread …
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,14:35) PD also is placing his own theology above the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson.
And his response was…Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,16:23) Finally, you got SOMETHING right. Do you have a point? Instead of correcting me, why don't you correct A.T.Robertson who is Wrong?
Now we know why he has been hesitant to quote his sources.It is because he places himself above them and disagrees with them yet uses them to support what he is saying.
WJ
WJ,
I thought it quite bizarre that Paladin would use ATR to prove there is no past tense in the Greek and then give an excerpt from ATR which says the opposite.thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 08 2009,03:57) Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2009,05:03) Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,19:32) WorshippingJesus said to Paladin: Quote No the claiming Greek part is all you have been parading. You are the one that claims to know more than the translators and “Strong” and A.T. Robertson. and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. Phil 2:11
It doesnt take Greek to know that our tongues will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” to the Glory of God the Father!
No new name, just the same name that everything in the NT is done through, whether it be prayers, healing, raising the dead, baptism, Etc, Etc, Etc.
The name that is above all names, Jesus Christ!
WJ,
Paladin denies that the Greek language has a past tense verb. This ought to make anyone scratch his head. thinker
There is no past tense verb in the Koine New Testament Greek.The Koine New Testament Greek has no interest in time in the same sense all other languages do. Their focus of interest is in what kind of action is involved; i.e., punctiliar, and durative. This is why the Greek aorist can be translated into the English future, because some actions are only in the prospect, i.e., not accomplished, only promising.
A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; by A.T.Robertson – Page 344 begin 2nd paragraph;
The greatest confusion prevails in the names given to the various tenses. The time idea appears in the names past, present, and future. The state of the action rules in the names aorist, imperfect, and perfect. Thus it is cleat that the time idea did not prevail with all the names that the grammarians used. In the indicative, indeed, in the past, three tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; in truth, in the subjunctive, optative, and imperative practically only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present.
In the future, as a rule, no distinction at all is made between the three ideas. As a rule the future is aoristic anyhow.
There were originally two types of verb-roots, the punctiliar and the durative. The tense called aorist (aoristos, 'undefined action') is due to the use of the punctiliar verbs (the idea of a point on a line). The present tense comes out of the durative verb-root. But it is worth repeating that tenses are a leter development in the use of the verb.
As often, the grammars have it backward. The so-called second is the oldest aorist, and the so-called first is the late form of the verb.
On page 388 ATR has this to say, near the bottom of the page; How a Greek idiom is to be represented in English is a matter of little concern to the Greek grammarian till the work of translation is reached. The Greek point of view is to be observed all through the process till translation comes. It is Greek syntax, not English.
And on page 389; Theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiiom. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.
This is what I have been trying to tell you in my own stumbling way.
If you have a teacher of Greek grammar that is telling you the koine New Testament Greek has a past, present and future tense, you have a teacher that follows a new and wrongly understood grammar and syntax. It is that simple.
Hi AllPd says
Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2009,05:03) “there is no past tense verb in the Koine New Testament Greek.”
Then he proceeds to quote A.T. Robertson who clearly disagrees with him.The funny thing is I said earlier in this thread …
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,14:35) PD also is placing his own theology above the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson.
And his response was…Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,16:23) Finally, you got SOMETHING right. Do you have a point? Instead of correcting me, why don't you correct A.T.Robertson who is Wrong?
Now we know why he has been hesitant to quote his sources.It is because he places himself above them and disagrees with them yet uses them to support what he is saying.
WJ
WJ,
Wow! How observant you are. Paladin says that ATR is wrong and then uses him to prove there is no past tense in the Greek when ATR says just the opposite. thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,03:08) Paladin cites ATR: Quote In the indicative, indeed, in the past, three tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; in truth, in the subjunctive, optative, and imperative practically only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present. Note that ATR said that in the “indicative, indeed, in the past, three tenses appear.” This is what I told you a few days ago. ATR does not say that there is no past tense. This is your own conclusion.
Quote Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3) The verb “died” is 2 aorist indicative. Christ died (past tense).
thinker
He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action.You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Paladin said:
Quote He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action. You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Mumbo jumbo man! “He died” (past). The indicative renders the 2 aorist completed action in PAST time.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,07:46) Paladin said: Quote He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action. You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Mumbo jumbo man! “He died” (past). The indicative renders the 2 aorist completed action in PAST time.
thinker
Go ahead and rave all you want to. I will not try to correct your non-Greek Greek, I will just let you go ahead and show your ignorance to the entire webworld.Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2009,07:54) Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,07:46) Paladin said: Quote He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action. You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Mumbo jumbo man! “He died” (past). The indicative renders the 2 aorist completed action in PAST time.
thinker
Go ahead and rave all you want to. I will not try to correct your non-Greek Greek, I will just let you go ahead and show your ignorance to the entire webworld.
Aorist 2 means completed action. Aorist 2 + indicative mood = completed action in PAST time. I am not worried about the web thinking I am “ignorant.” The fact is that Christ died (completed action in past time). The web will think that you suffer from an acute case of denial.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,08:11) Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2009,07:54) Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,07:46) Paladin said: Quote He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action. You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Mumbo jumbo man! “He died” (past). The indicative renders the 2 aorist completed action in PAST time.
thinker
Go ahead and rave all you want to. I will not try to correct your non-Greek Greek, I will just let you go ahead and show your ignorance to the entire webworld.
Aorist 2 means completed action. Aorist 2 + indicative mood = completed action in PAST time. I am not worried about the web thinking I am “ignorant.” The fact is that Christ died (completed action in past time). The web will think that you suffer from an acute case of denial.thinker
Yah, well, nobody who has EVER studied ANY aspect of New Testament Koine Greek will think so.Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,16:11) Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2009,07:54) Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,07:46) Paladin said: Quote He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action. You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Mumbo jumbo man! “He died” (past). The indicative renders the 2 aorist completed action in PAST time.
thinker
Go ahead and rave all you want to. I will not try to correct your non-Greek Greek, I will just let you go ahead and show your ignorance to the entire webworld.
Aorist 2 means completed action. Aorist 2 + indicative mood = completed action in PAST time. I am not worried about the web thinking I am “ignorant.” The fact is that Christ died (completed action in past time). The web will think that you suffer from an acute case of denial.thinker
HI JackI don't think the world will put much stock in someone who thinks he knows more than the Translators, “Strong” or AT Robertson, do you?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 08 2009,08:54) Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,16:11) Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2009,07:54) Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,07:46) Paladin said: Quote He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action. You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Mumbo jumbo man! “He died” (past). The indicative renders the 2 aorist completed action in PAST time.
thinker
Go ahead and rave all you want to. I will not try to correct your non-Greek Greek, I will just let you go ahead and show your ignorance to the entire webworld.
Aorist 2 means completed action. Aorist 2 + indicative mood = completed action in PAST time. I am not worried about the web thinking I am “ignorant.” The fact is that Christ died (completed action in past time). The web will think that you suffer from an acute case of denial.thinker
HI JackI don't think the world will put much stock in someone who thinks he knows more than the Translators, “Strong” or AT Robertson, do you?
WJ
WJ,
I gave Paladin the opportunity to re-think his conclusions about the aorist and he chose rather to dig for himself a deeper hole. He could have said, “I had not thought about the use of the aorist in the indicative mood. I will look at it and get back to you.” Now he is committed to denying the facts beyond turning.thinker
Hi TT,
Why bother with petty family fueds when there is an elephant in your living room?
You teach beyond scripture that God is three persons.Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,09:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 08 2009,08:54) Quote (thethinker @ July 07 2009,16:11) Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2009,07:54) Quote (thethinker @ July 08 2009,07:46) Paladin said: Quote He died. 2nd aorist = completed action, as compared with “He was dieing, linear action. You need to read ATR to understand what he means by “three tenses” in the past, since “past” IS a tense;
and wha the means by “in the present two” since “Present” MEANS a tense; and “in the future one” since the “future” IS a tense.He is not saying the same thing you are. You do not get three tenses in one tense, two tenses in another tense and one tense in a third tense. THAT is nonsense.
You did not even see the explanations I included from ATR.
Mumbo jumbo man! “He died” (past). The indicative renders the 2 aorist completed action in PAST time.
thinker
Go ahead and rave all you want to. I will not try to correct your non-Greek Greek, I will just let you go ahead and show your ignorance to the entire webworld.
Aorist 2 means completed action. Aorist 2 + indicative mood = completed action in PAST time. I am not worried about the web thinking I am “ignorant.” The fact is that Christ died (completed action in past time). The web will think that you suffer from an acute case of denial.thinker
HI JackI don't think the world will put much stock in someone who thinks he knows more than the Translators, “Strong” or AT Robertson, do you?
WJ
WJ,
I gave Paladin the opportunity to re-think his conclusions about the aorist and he chose rather to dig for himself a deeper hole. He could have said, “I had not thought about the use of the aorist in the indicative mood. I will look at it and get back to you.” Now he is committed to denying the facts beyond turning.thinker
Nothing of the sort.I gave you samples of the aorist future, AFTER you insisted “the Aorist is past tense.” I did not cover indicative, and NEITHER DID YOU.
So don't now begin to pretend it was always your prime consideration.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
