From: Jim Beale (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 05 1997 - 11:38:30 EDT
On Jun 4, 9:59pm, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> > Look how these translations are worded:
> > but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
> > (NIV)
> > so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
> > (NAS)
> > (why does the NAS change FANERWQWSIN to the singular?)
> Good question. It does seem here the NAS violates its own principles of
> translation and takes own the philosophical approach of the NIV where they
> translate more from Greek idiom to English idiom, rather than word for
> word translation.
> > that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
> > (KJV)
> > I think the NIV has captured the meaning well. The NAS has the
> > right idea too, but perhaps the KJV preserves the original ambiguity
> > best. The KJV _could_ be interpreted to mean that "some of those
> > who went out from us were not of us." I think that would be a false
> > exegetical step. Would one of John's 1st century readers have thought
> > this verse was ambiguous? Who can say??
> Jim, I prefer the more literal, non-interpretive translations of either
> the NAS or the KJV. The NIV is by nature more interpretive and
> paraphrastic. So, until it can be demonstrated conclusively that
> OU+verb+PAS implies a universal negation, then it is best to leave the
> ambiguity in the translation.
Well, I'd say it's pretty obvious from the context that a universal
negation is intended here. Would you say that "some of those who went
out were not of them" is a possible meaning of the text in context?
Plus, I'm not sure how to go about the business of generating a
conclusive proof except by doing the dog work of a complete induction.
And a complete induction can only be completed by analysing each case
individually. Without assuming that OU+verb+PAS is equivalent to a
universal negation, the only other appeal can be to the context.
> This is an extremely interesting discussion which I'd love to pursue (the
> wife is beckoning me to dinner just now - yum+love), so I'd better cut off
Wait! Don't go yet!! ;-)
> Just this. Check out 1 Jn 3:9, the classic refutation of
> antinomianism verse. There we have something similiar going on. Yet, I'd
> opt for the universal negation translation simply because of the immediate
> context which certainly calls for it. More later.
PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN
OU POIEI hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI
KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN hOTI EK TOU QEOU
Is PAS+OU+verb the same as OU+verb+PAS?
The idea seems to be: "All the ones having been born of God do not
sin ..." which is equivalent to "None of those who have been born of
God sin ..."
The text itself seems clear and unambiguous to me. Is there some
reason you see to move to the context to support the universal
I hope you had a nice dinner! :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:18 EDT