Chris Weimer

I just wanted to point out that the English "is come" is actually the perfect passive participle with the present tense to be. Often, the KJV translates this construction as such. Think Joy to the World "The Lord is come".

Steven Avery

mensch (more common spelling) is a fine English word these days, a loan-word taken from Yiddish

And there is no need to be Greek-cornfused. We can use Young's Literal which appears to be a translation that we all consider reasonably accurate on these verses. And also use the King James Bible, which appears the best overall. If someone wants to claim either is mistranslating, then we can bring that over to the biblical-Greek forum if necessary.

Anyway, glad you stayed in the discussion.
Tis important stuff.

In your long post, you masked the grammatical issues in an interpretative verbiage barrage. And the grammatical question comes first, before the interpretative shindig.

So .. below is Young's Literal complete translation of four verses, and the King James Bible, as you noted the earlier Young incompleteness. I am williing to use Young's here because we all seem to be in agreement that he translates this section reasonably (better than most, anyway), and for the time being it is important to get to the substance of the discussion without a lot of diversionary asides, as you tended to do in your earlier posts, kvetching about the unusual KJB English. However, unusual can be best, as in "before Abraham was, I am".

===================================
TRANSLATION ASIDES

Let me note that that I believe that the Young "having come" for the prefect participle in 4:2 and 4:3 is better rendered by the KJB/Williams/ASV/DBY/K21/NAB/Rheims "is come".. and on 2 John 7 the KJB "is come in the flesh" again appears superior to "coming in flesh", (despite your protestations), and note that by being more faithful it more clearly eliminates an anaology attempt you makebelow to tense-sublimate the phrase....

Also the KJB
"are gone out into the world"
"are entered into the world"
appears superior as well.
All of these could use their own research and discussion in a thread, perhaps a separate thread here, or a b-greek discussion.

So, any of our Greek experts want to comment on
"are gone" and "are entered" versus (KJB)
"have gone forth" and "did enter" ? (Young)
.. a straight grammatical discussion, and please check that if the TR text is the same if you use NA. I will be very interested.

======================================

All that aside, let's continue (btw... this is so nuanced that I don't think anybody here would accuse the King James Bible of deliberate tense mistranslations, even if your prefer Young or another.).

. I am including verse 4:3 here, since I use the TR text, however the clause not omitted in the modern versions is not a major issue in our discussion, only auxiliary.

1 John 4:1-3 (Young's Literal)
Beloved, every spirit believe not,
but prove the spirits, if of God they are,
because many false prophets have gone forth to the world;
in this know ye the Spirit of God;
every spirit that doth confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come,
of God it is,
and every spirit that doth not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is not;
and this is that of the antichrist,
which ye heard that it doth come,
and now in the world it is already.

1 John 4:1-3 (King James Bible)
Beloved, believe not every spirit,
but try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come;
and even now already is it in the world.

Note also that the King James Bible more clearly separates what you wrongly have been calling the "main verb" of the verses. By beginning the sentence with "Hereby.."

Now there is no doubt that what you call the "past tense" refers to the time of the previous action of when the false prophets
"have gone forth to the world" - Young
"are gone out into the world" - KJB

So let's note that even..
"many false prophets have gone forth to the world"
is actually a present perfect tense, and not a simple past which would be
"many false prophets went to the world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense

Now I know Earl says this is a past tense (aorist) so I will let our Greek and translation experts discuss why, if so, the tense-competent versions translates into an English present perfect, one after another. Would be good to know, although it has little influence on the subsequent phrases.

In both versions, one difference is clear, false prophets are up to the present leaving the faith and going to the world, as well as those who went before.

And even much more significantly, any protestations to the contrary,
this is simply NOT governing the tense (present continuous) of
"every spirit that doth confess Jesus Christ."
NOR is it governing the tense of the actual object of confession.

Next we have an intemediate separating clause ..
"in this know ye the Spirit of God"
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:" - KJB

Ahh, and here is yet another rub. This starts a whole new thought, separating out what Earl and Julian wrongly tried to connect.

Then we have the "confessing" phrase, which is a present continuous action.
The subject is different (every spirit), (using Young)
the action is different (doth confess),
and the tense (present continuous) is different.

Earl, you can't overrule an obvious English understanding by grossly misapplying a grammatical rule, and thus contradicting common sense and a clear reading. Actually overall this is foundational 3rd-grade error stuff, what you sluffed off as "woolly" below, before you back-track.

In fact I will accuse you (and Julian) of a grammatical fabrication in claiming that the timing of this action "doth confess" or the actual confession "coming in the flesh" is subordinated to ("governed" by) the timing of when they originally "have gone forth" in the past. (and they can be, as pointed out, still going forth).

We find the same thing
(even stronger.."are not confessing" and "leading astray") in..
2 John 7 - Youngs
because many leading astray did enter into the world,
who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh;
this one is he who is leading astray, and the antichrist.

2 John 7 - KJB
For many deceivers are entered into the world,
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Now, lets look closely at
"in the flesh having come" -- " is come in the flesh" - KJB
"coming in flesh". -- "is come in the flesh" - KJB

Tensewise.. this are simply the third independent clause of the phrase.

To demonstrate this, keep all the previous part of the verse the same, and using 2 John, consider all of the following alternatives..

"many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing.."

"that Jesus lived"
"that Jesus lives in us"
"that Jesus will live forever and reign in glory"
"that Jesus will return"

All of these are valid constructions, and they are various different tenses for the object of confessing, such as the "coming" of Jesus, AND they are independent of the preceding clauses, and they all have different meanings.

In point of fact the confession is in continuous present tense, but even if the confessions were in the past tense, five years ago, that would have little effect on the confession object itself.

Above are four related but distinct confessions,
and the tense of NONE of them is dependent on
a) when they "did enter in the world"
b) when they make the confessions
(although it is clear that they are NOW confessing)

In summary, the idea of tense-wise subordinating the phrase "coming in flesh" to a supposed past "have gone forth into the world" is simply a smoke-and-mirrors game, of no substance and meant only to obfuscate (the "confusion" Earl referenced above).

The action of that verb involving Jesus is an independent action with its own subject and verb, and its timing depends on its own verbal construction combined with contextual exegesis. Your idea of subjecting that action to being subordinate to a past time when they "have gone forth" was simply 100% wrong, and should be emphatically and clearly rejected.

After that is done, then we can discuss the actual final clause,
with its grammatical, exegesis and contextual issues.

You transparently wrongly mix tenses of two of the three distinct and different actions, and then mishegas that in with assuming your own interpreation in a transparently circular fashion.

The interpretation should be left separate from the grammar for now.

Again, looking are the three main actions.
Grammatically 2 and 3 have no tense dependence on 1, except the simple logic that the present 2 could not precede 1, which is not a future tense.

(Using Younghere.. prefer KJB)
1) When they left us,
"false prophets have gone forth to the world"
"many leading astray did enter into the world"

2) What they are now (not) current confessing
"every spirit that doth not confess
"who are not confessing "

3) And what is the confession..
"Jesus Christ in the flesh (having) come"
"Jesus Christ coming in flesh"

Note: there actually is a fourth present continuous subject/action, too
"the antichrist... doth come, and now in the world it is already"

It is actually of little relevance whether they left us yesterday, or 10 years ago.

Basically, the next part of your post continues interpretative, and that cannot be addressed properly until the mistake mixing the clauses is cleared up.

Then we get to..

The error in all this is simple, you are improperly mixing clauses and improperly applying a grammatical rule where it simply does not fit

As i showed above, that your grammatical construction is false, by showing you four differing potential independent verb/object actions in the final clause.

Earl, the ball is in your court, do you really, truly claim that Jesus "come in the flesh" is "governed" by the "main verb" when they "have gone forth" ?
(which itself is not a past tense anyway).

Please, any careful analysis, as above, shows that it just ain't so.

(snip more interpretative stuff, grammar first, as the grammar monte game was at the heart of the original claim)

Actually this post was more woolly. You did throw in a lot of interestign interpretative stuff that I (snipped) because the grammar error is primary. And you are no less woolly on the grammar now than before. Just more obfuscatory.

This has as much application as the "controlling legal authority" of Al Gore.
Shown above. As an aside, we actually have "did enter" and "are entered".

Error begets error.

Earl, how turnip-dump-truck fallen do you think we are ?

You have the chutzpah to now claim these following are past tense confessions ?
Young KJB
"that doth confess " - "that confesseth
"who are not confessing" - "who confess not"

Perhaps too much grammar and mythicist involvement hath addled your logical processes.

Please do not put your words in my mouth. I made no reference to a "main verb".
Especially tacky to call your word in my mouth "woolly".

Very good. You are seeing a bit, but actually it can happen in any wide range of time.

Your false claim above.

In a sense this is finally your retraction of your whole false "past tense" argument. Too bad you didn't start with it earlier. Looking at the English it is quite clear, and your whole "past tense" argument was wrong from the get-go. So why not just come clean, as I requested before, and retract the whole thing, instead of the masking you did throughout this post.

Well, I will take that as a defacto acknowledgment that you backtrack from your original "past tense" claim. It would be nice however for the forum to backtrack clearer, cleaner and crisper.

Now let's look at your English example.

Your analogy is off in a couple of ways.

One main one is that the 2 John 7 verse is a present participle, a quite different construction, "is coming" which

"unavoidably specifies an action continuing [I]in the present ... this statement by John says He is now coming in the flesh." (Confessing Jesus Has Come in the Flesh.. Colloquium Press) Williams, very tense-sensitive, even translates it as "continues to come".

There are other ways your analogy is rigged, such as choosing the final clause as a historic fait accompli rather than something possibly comprable like "Washington family legacy" or "Herman Washington's plan to run against Hillary in 1988".

By contrast .. "Jesus Christ coming in flesh" which can have a variety of interpretative tense understandings, past, present and future, and combinations thereof.

Also there is a dependence in your example that does not exist in the scripture verse.
the teacher.. (assigns) to
the pupil .. (to spea) on
Washington.. (action)

None of this dependency exists in
I, John,tell you
the deceivers have gone from us and
Hereby note..
they are not confessing
Jesus coming ... and be awares
antichrist (is) now in the world

Even there, by simply changing "crossing the Deleware" to "family legacy" or "Henry Washington's plans to run for President against Hillary" the whole "main verb" supposed tense linkage is broken. Kaput.

In fact, you don't need any of the contruct above to show a present tense verb representing a past action. Threre are many such constructions in English (although definitely not 2 John 7).

"I consider 'Washington crossing the Deleware' to be a turning point in the Revolutionary War."

-- similar tense situation, independent of you whole false "main verb" dependency error shtick.

(snip interpretative Earl Doherty stuff.. only after we have gotten somewhere on the gramar)

Excellente ! .. A beautiful admission, acknowleging one of my earlier main points, one that to any simple understanding is a defacto refutation of the historicity patchquilt coverall placd upon the Johannine epistles by Doherty.

We will hold this for later interpretative, post-grammar discussion.

And Julian, please take note.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Julian

prax,
I have been taking note. Earl presents a solid grammatical breakdown using the Greek source text. He then backs up his analysis by quoting from several grammar books that completely agree with him. Earl's post was excellent, decisive and devastating to your argument. I really thought, once I had read his post, that you would concede. Your position is beginning to look like pure dogmatism since you do not directly address his grammatical points, but instead use English translations to promote your own case.

You refutation is weak, you provide no Greek grammatical backing to bear in your arguments, pointing instead to translations which have been questioned. Earl's post is an exemplary scholarly argument, well-documented and argued.

Your problem is your complete dependence on KJB. It is simply a bad translation. I know that you prefer it but, frankly, that does little towards making a believable argument in favor of its acceptance. You must show that the Greek underlying grammar supports your conclusions, which you have not done at all. Earl has done this in abundance.

Sorry, but so far I see prax 0 - Earl 1.

As for your suspicion of the translation of the aorist case, you should note that Greek has a large number of past tenses and that there is no direct translation of some of them and that in English auxillaries has to be brought in to try to approximate the meaning.

You suspect me of being a fan of Earl's. I am not a fan of anything (unless you wish to discuss Selma Hayak's attributes) and I am not in full agreement with some of Earl's conclusions. Which strangely enough is where you and he agree. I believe that it is a anti-docetic statement.

I liked Earl's book and it is quite convincing in that it not only provides a solid attack against historicity but also provide an alternate. It does not have me completely convinced but it has put me on the fence. I am on the fence because I suspect that reality is far more complex than either viewpoint.


Earl, I had kinda expected a long post from you and instead I get these paltry few lines, hastily thrown together.

Anyways, I am surprised that you do not see the sentence in question as being a simple anti-docetic statement. Surely, that is the simplest interpretation. Gnosticism need not be involved.

Also, could docetism be a mythical viewpoint?

Julian

EarlDoherty

Note: I wrote the following and was about to post it when I saw Julian’s response to Steven Avery’s latest post, and was most encouraged. However, I am going to let it stand, as notice that I will not bother to directly engage Steven any further. When time permits (probably not before Christmas) I may continue the discussion along lines raised by Julian or anyone else who can discuss this thread on a non-dogmatic basis.

You accuse me of a “verbiage barrage�? If anyone could follow the convoluted twists and turns of your latest vainglorious posting, I take off my hat to them. I wouldn’t even make an attempt to do so, let alone to answer it. You start by the assumption that your favored translation is the best, which is simply setting out your own special pleading principle, and everything follows from that. You say, “We can use Young’s Literal which appears to be a translation that we all consider reasonably accurate,� which is begging your own question (a fallacy your use of the phrase indicates you don’t understand). I doubt that “all� would in fact agree. You have ignored all the foremost, recognized translations which I have pointed out do not follow your line of thinking. Apparently, all the great translating minds of the 20th century have not possessed your own acuity. And you simply slough off the idiosyncracies of the King James.

You also ignore my arguments about the relation between 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7, except to try to obfuscate the translation of the former. You ignore the reasoning factor about the circumstances both epistles witness to, how little sense it makes that the writer would so viciously condemn Christian apostles for going about preaching that Christ was not resident in Christians (or however you put it), or why any apostles would in fact choose to do this. But I take it that common sense issues are not your forte.

And what you did with my ‘Washington’ analogy was amazing, if indecipherable.

Anyway, I’ve learned my lesson. Trying to debate an apologist is something akin to taking on the Terminator. They just keep coming back, like a programmed machine, impervious to anything thrown their way, and as single-minded in their goal. And about as soulless.

Sorry, Steven, it just ain’t worth it. You can make of this what you wish (and I’m sure you will). But I’ve got other things to do in a life that hasn’t surrendered itself to a primitive fantasy about heaven and hell and crucified gods and angels and demons and the “word of God� in a collection of petrified ancient writings no one seems able to understand or agree on. If that’s what you want to devote your obviously considerable intelligence to, be my guest.

However, I will continue to add my small voice to trying to bring a bit of historical reality and common sense to the great insanity of our time.

Incidentally, your original spelling of “mentsch� was wrong, even for Yiddish. Perhaps someone pointed that out to you. I trust that you are not part of that fundamentalist outlook with a faux interest in things Jewish only to the extent of awaiting their final destruction before the Second Coming can take place—according to “God’s word,� of course. (Some of that “insanity� I referred to above.)

One who truly wishes a long overdue “shalom� for the Jews,
Earl Doherty

gregor

Mr. Dougherty

Please don't be a stranger here. I enjoyed your explanation of the verses in question - as to both its civility and content. It's a bright contrast.

Steven Avery

Hi Julian, I got a chuckle out of your post. So I am going to just discuss the grammar, since you are so hopeless on that issue, that I don't see any purpose in going into the docetism stuff, at least not at this time.

:rolling: .. except that his grammar rule doesn't even remotely apply in the situation where he tries to apply it, something that I made abundantly clear and now you and he refuse to address. (That is a common shell game in grammar studies, especially in forums like the internet.) And that is why both he and you play "slap-a-back" and simply bow out of the real discussion. Cause the whole thing was a phoney claim.

And Earl would want to claim that basically every grammar & tense oriented translation is wrong, something that is actually rather trivial to see in the English, (that Earl is way off), and the whole thing is justified by an obviously gross misapplication of a grammar rule.

He can get away with that type of nonsense partly because of the Gresham's law nature of a lot of Net posting. Nonsensical arguments often drive out good systematic and consistent understandings. Also because he is largely singing to a choir here, on a home court.

Let him bring his argument that the confession and coming are "past tenses" that are "governed" by a "past tense" entering to any neutral forum, like b-greek, and it would be interesting to see the results. However, in skeptic and mythicist land, a lot of sludge can get by.

Sure. English translations that were already agreed to be good representations of the Greek.

Now, if you feel they are not, why don't YOU give the "right" translation of the verses where you try to jump a (non) past tense over tall buildings in a single bound and apply it here, there and everywhere.

The reason neither of you do is that you know you would look foolish, and your proposed re-translastion would be savaged as the doctrinal agenda nonsense that anybody but a shelled skeptic, looking to fight the plain sense of the NT text, can see at a glance.

Nahhh, perhaps you didn't read the thread. If you or Earl had real integrity on this issue, you would in fact "question" the translations (e.g. Youngs) and offer your proposed improvement to Greek scholars to judge.

Something like...

"Young, William, Rotherdam and the KJB are wrong, and the text should read ....."

instead, we get... thunderous silence

Earl simply shell-game misapplies a grammatical rule, ignores all the actual discussion, and back-slap smirks in ignorance with other folks trying to bend the text to their mythicist hopes.

Wrong again, but inconsequential. I carefully quoted from three of the most "literal" grammar-tense-oriented translations, and all tear his arguments to shreds.

Julian, you are so blinded by the Emporer of Mythicism, and apparently your own hope that there really is an argument there on 1 John being a past tense confession and coming, that you simply cannot see that the Emp is wearing no clothes.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Julian

I shall conduct myself better than you and refrain from further comment.

Julian

Steven Avery

Hi Earl, most is covered above, however I'll add a smidgen

And I don't blame you, since I was the only one to take the time to expose your gross attempted tampering with the NT text for your doctrinal agenda.

What a joke, Earl.

First, you didn't quote the whole section from ANY version.

And even your cherry-picked versions
DISAGREE with your theory top to bottom anyway.

You gave this...

NEB, NASB, NIV:
“…who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.�

Where is the "governed" by "past tense" there ?

And where is the verse reference for ANY of these translations for 2 John 7.
Nowhere to be found.
You didn't supply them, I will, for the two I could find.

2 John 1:7 (NASB)
For many deceivers have gone out into the world,
those who do not acknowledge
Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.
This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge
Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,
have gone out into the world.
Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Oops.. they REFUTE your whole theory top to bottom.
Nothing at all for a past tense "governed" by the
disconnected earlier phrase. ... Zilch nada.

I think I will stop here, as this alone shows the abject nonsense that you are peddling. Most of the rest of your post here is just confusion that I may unravel another day,

When your own cherry-picked references contradict your own theory,
why bother with the rest..

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Soul Invictus

I really appreciate both of yours scholarly and well researched arguments discussing the usage of the Greek passage in question (you too Julian, and others)

I don't know a smidgeon about Greek, so this thread has been educational, which is a plus, but it has been slow to digest because of my ignorance.

I would hope that both of you are willing to continue to debate this issue without marginalizing the other person or his POV. Whoever's position is less persuasive doesn't reflect a negative trait about the person, however that's how some of the comments read. I'm too ignorant to tell if anyone is being dishonest in his representation of how the Greek language operates, so I appreciate the solid scholarly discussion that is going on. I am glad that both of you placed valuable contributions into this thread. It helps me learn the positions of both spheres. I want to give both sides of the discussion a fair shake, so I'm going to reread the support for both and ask other questions (maybe tonight if I can get to my PC) so that I can assess which side of the proverbial "fence" has a greener pasture.

Fair enough?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Now lets return a bit to the translation and grammar discussions. Grammar for now. Here, I am going to touch on the one substantive grammatical question from Earl.

Apparently Earl is claiming that 1 John 4:2 must be a completed action, and therefore from that starting point he would like to extrapolate modifying the normal grammatical sense of 2 John 7. A dubious concept, but one that we will pass on for now. (Earl's view boils down to 1 John 4:2 trumping 2 John, and then changing 2 John 7 to match).

In this post we will concentrate simply on 1 John 4:2, not the extrapolation.

Earl's claim summarizes as..

" So the “has come� refers to a past event."

Earl Doherty
> in 1 John 4:2, and there he used a perfect (past) participle,
> meaning that it took place prior to the confessing."

Earl is trying to imply that the action must be completed in the past, comparable to a simple English past tense. This is incorrect.

Right now I will give three quotes that show that this is a wooden, static and incorrect view of 1 John 4:2 (Earl knows it is hard to apply to 2 John 7, but we will pass on that for now.)

We are discussing eleluthota, the perfect participle of the verb erchomai in 1 John 4:2.

"Many lexicons and commentaries point out that in 1 John 4:2 the Greek verb translated "come" appears in the perfect participle form, which shows that "Christ's action" was "more than a temporary arrangement" The Greek perfect participle here indicates "not a mere past historical fact, as the aorist would, but also the present continuance of the fact. "
(Confessing Jesus Has Come in the Flesh- Blair Adams, Colloquium Press)

http://theberean.org/index.cfm/fusea...03/1John-5-2-3
Earl L. Henn
The perfect tense implies not only the historical fact of Jesus Christ having been born as a flesh-and-blood human being but also the present continuance of this fact. John is saying that Jesus Christ is still human in the sense that He is living His life over again in human beings who submit to Him through the power of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...9&postcount=12
The Nature of the Resurrection Body by J.A. Schep
The perfect participle is used (eleluthota). This means, according to John, not only that Jesus Christ once came in the fullness of time as one clothed with flesh, but that thus he is still present. What happened at the incarnation has not been undone. He is a Christ who “is come, who came and who abides in the flesh.�….

Let us stop at this point for now, as it makes the issue clear.

Simply put, if these men are correct, then Earl's theories fall to the ground. If they are not, Earl's theories of tense extrapolating from 1 John 4:2 to 2 John 7 is at least worthy of consideration.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

there is no past tense used in that verse! ... In the Greek, it is a perfect participle, which means a past action with ongoing effects such that it is still continuing (otherwise John would have used an aorist participle or else a pluperfect which is made by a periphrastic construction). By choosing to use the perfect, John makes it very clear it is an ongoing action.





1 John 4:2 (KJB)
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: