From: Glen Riddle (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Oct 01 1997 - 02:20:10 EDT
> Is it my imagination or is this argument *still* going on?!!!!
> Paul Zellmer writes on 10/1/97:
> > Paul Dixon wrote:
> > > I believe the archives will bear this out: 1) I was not the one who
> > > brought up the issue of contradictions, rather, 2) two other
> > list-members
> > > brought it up. This is how it happened. One list-member, at least
> > > several times, commented that 1 John has contradictions throughout.
> > > Another list-member seemed to agree and suggested 1 Jn 2:7-8 as a good
> > > example. That was when I responded and attempted to show
> > > non-contradiction because of the two different ways KAINHN was being
> > > used.
> > All right, I confess, I will not deny, but confess that I was the
> > offending party that caused the notorious thread to come up again. I
> > apologized to Jonathan within a couple days when I noted that it was
> > putting him in front of the firing line. It took a couple days because
> > that is the delay I normally have in receiving and reading the digests.
> > I believe that the original thread had been allowed to die down, and
> > the statement which kicked it all off again was:
> > > BTW, Jonathan, it appears to me that verses 7 & 8 of chapter 2
> > support
> > > your notes in the past concerning conflicting statements in the book.
> > > We have to continually fight the tendency to soften these statements
> > so
> > > that the points that he is making can continue to have their "shock
> > > effect." Of course, we note as you have that these statements do not
> > > make John undecided in the points that he is making.
> > [The "we" was referring to the translation project that I am a part of.]
> > But, Paul, I also believe that you and the others that went after
> > Jonathan's position were more concerned with semantics than you were in
> > understanding what other people were actually saying. I used
> > "conflicting statements," Jonathan [at least at times] used
> > "contradictions," others [of which I think you were one] wanted to use
> > "paradox." But all of us involved in the the discussion agreed with
> > the last statement quoted above: that John was not undecided on the
> > issues.
> > I note that Carl does not claim that this thread was without merit,
> > just that it got out of hand. Perhaps a better way to handle issues
> > where we feel the need to "present the other side" is to ask the
> > original poster for further insight in his position on that particular
> > area that we are questioning. I realize that sometimes genuine
> > differences do occur, but frequently we are all saying the same thing
> > using different words.
> > Peace,
> > Paul
> > Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
> > Ibanag Translation Project
> > Cabagan, Philippines
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
Yes, my dear zellmer friends...it's still going on, and on, and on. You
see, what we have here is a figure of speech called a "sequential
vortex". You'll have to check the great theologian, Patrick R. McManus:
"The Night the Bear Ate Goombaw" to see this spelled out with precision.
Of course there is the other opinion held by a few scholars: what we
have here is a gnomic contradiction/non-contradiction; I think Rabbi
Hithhillel called it habitual.
For a simple 20-cent stamp all those caught in the sequential vortex of
contradictions/non-contradictions/apologies/non-apologies can complain
or confess with one another---the rest of us could get back to the
enjoyable world of Greek grammar!!!!
glenden p. riddle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:31 EDT