View on regeneration

Archangel,

It is adjectival - the best form of the participle to function appositionally (I can't remember arguing for it to be adverbial).

Again, where did you get the idea that I said it was adverbial?

 

TC,

Thanks for the response! You said "Those who believe" represents a present participle because the Greek construction wishes to convey simultaneous action." (from here).

It is my understanding that this type of action is more properly understood to accompany an adverbial participle, not an adjectival. The aorist adverbial participle, according to Wallace, can clearly show what you are saying. As you agree, however, this is neither aorist nor adverbial.

If I misunderstood you, please forgive me. I hope you can see why I might have misunderstood.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Not saying your wrong, but your on another planet from me mate.

 

Archangel,

Where in Wallace are you reading this?

The three examples I provide above all show how a participle with the article, adjectivally, function in apposition.

John 1:12 is no different.

 

TC,

As of yet I don't have a physical copy of Wallace. Thankfully, it is on its way (along with a copy of Robertson's grammar).

I have been reading his "chapter" on participles online. See it here.

Blessings!

The Archangel

 

I see. Wallace doesn't address the participle as appositional.

 

He does, but only in the adverbial sense.

Robertson claims the participial phrase completes the anacoluthon from the beginning of the verse. I think because this is a dative participle, that is right-on.

In as much, it is not showing a pre-cause of regeneration is belief.

ADDITION: Robertson thinks the participle is in apposition to the pronoun, not the verb. (Grammar p. 778). Hence, the anacoluthon. At any rate, it doesn't seem this participle is relating to a verb, per se.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I looked through my copy of Wallace and didn't find what you mentioned.

Yes, Robertson is right on: "all who received"="those who believe." No objection from me.

 

nor from this PB, who heard it explained that way ten years ago by a country preacher who never got beyond third grade, and again by another country preacher who preached in the old singsong style, both of them never reading from a well prepared sermon note with references to Greek scholars.

 

"As a general rule, it may be observed that those gentlemen who know the least Greek are the most sure to air their rags of learning in the pulpit; they miss no chance of saying, "The Greek is so-and-so." It makes a man an inch and a-half taller by a foolometer, if he everlastingly lets fall bits of Greek and Hebrew, and even tells the people the tense of the verb and the case of the noun, as I have known some do." —Charles Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries

 

So, your theory is that God gave the English-speaking people an inferior translation which virtually all of Christendom accepted without question for almost 400 years. A translation which was not even challenged during the most evangelical period in history. Then, during this past 50 year of so while our country has fast moved away from God, He corrected the mistakes with improved translations.

 

Well, if you think that God has improved on the translation He blessed for 400 years with an improved version, where is the proof in our American culture? Just look at the spiritual state of our citizens and show me where today these improved versions has lead the American people closer to God, and maybe you would have a point.

 

TC,

You can find Wallace's discussion on the participle here. Unfortunately, that's the only fragment of Wallace I currently have.

Out of curiosity, why do you say this verse shows faith preceding regeneration, specifically?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Kids? I am 58 years old, how old are you? Or, was this an attempt at a put down?

 

No.

The KJV was great for its time. However, no matter how good a translation is, no translation is perfect. Through scholarship, better renderings of the Greek and Hebrew become possible.

For instance, the KJV makes several mistakes with John 3:16. Does it change the beauty of the Gospel? No.

"For God so loved the world" does not mean God loved the world so much. It mean's God loved the world in this manner (that's what the Greek shows).

"He gave His only begotten Son" is better translated "He gave His unique son." The word translated "only begotten" is used of Isaac, Abraham's son. Isaac was not Abraham's only son, but Isaac was the son through whom the promise would continue. In that respect, Isaac was unique.

"Whosoever believeth in Him" is better translated "all the ones believing." This verse is saying that anyone can believe, as some suppose. The participle is simply saying that those who continue in belief will be saved.

So, many translations, correct some of these. Unfortunately, many modern translators think of this verse as a sacred cow and lean way too far towards the KJV rather than correcting historically goofy translations.

What is more, the English language has progressed quite far in the last 400 years. The KJV was more appropriate for that time period, not ours. Many preachers who use the KJV have to take too much time explaining the English rather than explaining the author's intent.

Also, to claim "modern" translations are behind the move away from God is just silly. These two bits of information do not go together. The argument is non sequitur.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Archangel,

I finally found the reference in my copy. It's treated under Substantival (Independent). Again, no objection here.

Why do I believe this verse actually teaches that faith precedes regeneration?

1. The natural flow of the verse: A. "All who received him; B. "He gave the right to become children of God" ("those who believe in his name").

2. Yes, "were born" is aorist passive, a completed action with no real reference to time. Also, it makes clear that we cannot give birth to ourselves (passive).

3. For me, "to become children of God" points to a change taking place, a re-birth, if you will.

 

Now you are presenting a valid point to be considered. Although I still believe the KJV is the best, because of the ignorance of our populace today, especially where language is concerned, other versions do serve a purpose.

The sad thing is this only needed because our educational system has become so lacking.

 

Because he's a Calvinist and he's disagreeing with what seems to be the prevailing view of Calvinists here on that passage.

 

While I cannot agree that the KJV is best I think it is true that the educational system rarely gets into literature such as Shakespeare, the great English poets, etc. The true beauty of that language has passed into history. And, as you mentioned, it is truly sad that we have lost that, by-in-large.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

TC,

Thanks for the response. I see where you are coming from, even though I don't agree. Tell me, is there any reason why you see "did receive" as the main verb as opposed to "He gave?" I tend to think "He gave" is the main verb and that "did receive" is referencing verse 11.

Thoughts?

Blessings,

The Archangel