From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 15 1997 - 03:35:14 EDT
On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:44:16 -0700 "Dale M. Wheeler"
>As I indicated in replying to Rolf, my feeling is that if you have the
>same verb in the same book in the same semantic/conceptual situations,
>that unless there are clues to the contrary they should be read the
>same way. In the case of "to sin" I think its punctual nature overrules
>the imperfective idea, as indicated by 1Jn 2:1. And with no clues to
>the contrary it should be understood that way.
Dale, is not one possible clue to the contrary the change in tense? It
is not, only if you assume it is not. What grounds do you have for
"feeling" that the nuance or aspect of a verb in one occurrence of a book
determines the nuance or aspect in every other occurrence of that verb in
the same book regardless of the change in tense? Is this just a feeling
or hunch, or do you have something more concrete upon which to base it?
Besides, let me give some additional contextual clues to the contrary.
In 1 Jn 3:6-10, consider the parallelism between 3:6b, 3:8a, and 3:10::
1) 3:6b, hO hAMARTANW OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDE EGNWKEN AUTON,
2) 3:8a, hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN EK TOU DIABOLOU ESTIN, and
3) 3:10, PAS hO MH POIWN DIKAIOSUNHN OUK ESTIN EK TOU QEOU.
I've already argued that an aoristic nuance or aspect of hAMARTANW in
3:6b fails simply because it then would end up saying that no one who
(punctually or aoristically, as in 2:1) commits sin (as we all do) has
ever seen God or known Him, meaning, has never been saved. But, this
contradicts what we know to be true, that is, that at least some are
saved. You rejected this interpretation of OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDE
EGNWKEN AUTON, but did not say how you took it.
I contend it has to be the correct interpretation because of the
synonymous parallelisms with 3:8a EK TOU DIABOLOU ESTIN, and 3:10, OUK
ESTIN EK TOU QEOU, which clearly specify that meaning.
Can you deny this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:28 EDT