[B-Greek] 1 John 1.9 Ed Glasscock in latest BibSac

Shumaker, Dave DShumaker at bbc.edu
Thu May 7 15:31:33 EDT 2009


Eddie,
I appreciate the detail to which you have gone to argue against the notion of a futuristic present (I speak here of your other posts, not just this one).  Although, I have to say that I am, as of yet, unconvinced.  The most natural understanding of 1 John 2:18 and other similar uses of the present (seems to me, at least) is to refer to a future event.  It seems like an overly-theological reading of what seems to be a straightforward assertion.  However, this might just be my pre-disposition against overly grammaticalizing language This does not mean, however, that I embrace all of Porter's theories--I don't know enough Greek to have an opinion about this yet =).

Thanks for the healthy interaction,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddie Mishoe [mailto:edmishoe at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:08 PM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; Shumaker, Dave
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] 1 John 1.9 Ed Glasscock in latest BibSac



> Eddie,

> Are you saying that 1 John 2:18 (ercetai) is not referring to the future?

Yes. Remember this verse is saying that you HEARD (in the past) the following: "The antichrist is coming" (perhaps now, perhaps later, but he IS coming). So, the important thing to see here is the idea that the antichrist can come at any moment; we have no temporal knowledge of when that is. Remember, John is NOT telling his readers that the antichrist is NOT coming today but some time in the future. I think this is intuitively obvious. The normal expression for events that have no definite time as to when they will occur, the Present Tense must be used, since the event could happen while the very sentence is being written or spoken.

>
> Wallace's GGBB (535-537) discusses the "Futuristic
> Present" and calls it quite common.
>
> I personally am quite suspicious of saying the futuristic
> present is emphasizing the "certainty of what will
> happen."  To use an English example, If I ask someone
> what she is planning on doing tomorrow, and she says,
> "I am going to the museum," I don't
> necessarily see this futuristic present as emphasizing
> certainty (or even emphatic--as Wallace suggests).  At this
> point, the whole exercise starts to feel like talking about
> the Aorist as a one-time act.  To put it in a different way,
> is the surety of Jesus' "coming" in the
> character of God's promise, or intrinsic to the
> "futuristic present?"

Dave, are you familiar with deictic centers? Look at your example: If I ask someone what she is planning on doing tomorrow, and she says, "I am going to the museum..."

You have asked her to respond in relation to "tomorrow." So, she should answer you, assuming you asked Monday, as if it were Tuesday. And if you fast forward to Tuesday, her response is temporally correct. This is why deictic centers are as critical as whether or not a temporal proposition is being made. For example, I hate hotdogs is not intended to be a temporal proposition. I do not mean, I presently hate hotdogs." Such a proposition could be made in a particular context, as in "you just finished eating 50 hotdogs, how do you feel now?" In other words, the context must always be analyzed before a Present Tense verb is analyzed.

Eddie Mishoe
Pastor





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4060 (20090507) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4060 (20090507) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list