dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
- Thread starter
- #241
NO IT CANNOT! Aorist Tense means a point of time! It is Biblical, intellectually and academically dishonest to say that the Aorist tense means "is Being". It NEVER means that. It is a point in time and is perpetuated through out eternity.
And the Clincher is the Passive Voice. We had NOTHING to do with being Justified, Christ alone did it.
Then this interpretation is bogus, the one posted by George?
"Therefore being justified by faith,..."
Do you know more than the Greek scholars who translated this version? Maybe, you seem to know my heart.
Here is the entry for Thayer's, which I posted, in it's entirety, previously:
The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.
The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.
The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.
Here is the definition from dictionary.com
1. A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation.
2. A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek or Sanskrit, that in the indicative mood expresses past action.
As I've been saying, I don't know if the proper way to translate this verse is "have been" or "is being". They are both used in various interpretations. It seems logical, then, to NOT use it to either prove or disprove this doctrine.
Sorry, you are simply wrong. It can be translated as "being justified". It was in whatever version George used above.
It can be translated that way for religion. For Christianity and the Koine Greek it cannot.
In thayers Def. that is why He said that the "concept of the verb is considered" with out regard to past , present......
The concept of the verb is Justified, No matter what ,where , when or how.......the concept carries.....Justified. Which is perpetuated through out eternity.
Even Thayer recognizes this. That is why He says the common practice is to put it in the PAST tense, Because it really does not matter, It is perpetuated through eternity. If it has happened it will continue to happen.
Plus once again, it is in the Passive voice, so all our arguing means nothing. The passive voice puts the Nail in the coffin for your interpretation. Christ did it. We Did not and do not.
No one is arguing that anyone but Christ "did it". This is a red herring. Please answer the question posed. Is ""Therefore being justified by faith,..." a bogus translation? Is it, in your mind, a "religious" translation, yes or no? Do you know more than Greek scholars, yes or no?
Last edited by a moderator: