But if you count the numbers for faith and regeneration being simultaneous, then it's not really true that the prevailing view is regeneration then faith. :tongue3:
It is not my concern in this passage (which was referenced by Winman) to argue for regeneration preceding faith.
It is, however, my goal to show that Winman's appeal to this verse as a proof-text for faith preceding regeneration is wrong.
All of the aorist verbs show simple snap-shots of the past.
The participial phrase (which occurs at the end of the verse) is just showing a present state--that of believing.
Further, when you get to v. 13 you see God's action (through the passive), again in the aorist to show a simple snapshot of what God has done.
Now, I'll readily agree that I can't show regeneration preceding redemption here.
On the other hand, it cannot be shown that faith is preceding redemption either.
At most this verse could show that regeneration and faith are simultaneous.
Ugly, again.
Try something of substance, not ad hominems.
I love the KJV too.
You cant beat it for it's beauty, especially in the Psalms.
But, it is not the best translation.
Since the KJV was translated (nearly 400 years ago) many, many more manuscripts have been found and that has helped our efforts in the area of textual criticism.
Some of the things we've found have shown the Greek manuscripts used for the KJV were not as accurate as once hoped.
Most modern translations (except the NKJV) used the more attested to manuscripts and are, therefore, better to a large extent.
Obsessed with the Greek?
Yes and no.
But, the primary job of every expositor of God's word is to find the main point that the author was trying to convey.
Going to the Greek (or Hebrew) makes that much easier.
After all, any Christian should want to rightly know God through His word and that includes knowing what He actually intended to say--not what you think He said.
As for a dependable translation???
I think there are several.
I prefer the ESV (mostly because I did my language work at seminary while using that translation, so I have about an 85%-95% chance of knowing the Greek behind a particular translation).
I think the NASB is great.
I do not recommend the NIV because it leaves out many connecting particles and therefore interrupts the flow of thought.
(But, I do enjoy reading the NIV as a commentary-like exercise).
For new Christians or people on a lower reading level, I recommend the NLT.
It is easy to read and it works hard to convey the author's intent, even if it doesn't always use the author's words.
Whatever.
Like BaptistBob, you have never addressed me in a cordial manner.
I'm beginning to think you and BaptistBob are one-in-the-same.
Perhaps you are serving as each other's doppelganger?
Well, then, you must not be able to see clearly.
I whole-heartedly agree that the Gospel is to be made available and preached to all men.
And I believe that anyone willing can and will turn to God in repentance and faith.
I just don't think the fallen heart is capable and God must make the unwilling and unable willing and able to respond to Him.
Don't get too excited webdog!
I wasn't saying that I affirm that idea.
I was merely stating the passage could (as in might, not definitively, maybe, etc.) show regeneration as being concurrent with faith.
I'd agree that these phrases are in apposition (and the the NRSV and the ESV translate them well as such).
But the participle isn't an appositional participle.
You are taking this as an adverbial participle and I am not convinced it should be taken adverbially.
This particular participle, I think, must be taken as an adjectival participle--merely because it has an article that is functioning normally.
If this were an adverbial participle, you would be correct, I think, that the action conveyed by the construct would be simultaneous.
However, this isn't an adverbial participle--it is adjectival.
As such, the participle functions as the substantive (for lack of a better term) of the clause "the ones believing in His name."
And because it is a dative, I think it joins nicely with the first clause of the sentence showing the apposition of the two clauses.
As a present participle, Wallace states: The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation. (footnote 22 in Wallace's chapter on the participle)
So, in relation to the aorist verbs, I think the present participle is used for more theological purposes.
For the reasons stated above, I don't think you are correct.
IMHO, although typically, generally, regeneration precedes belief (even by years), there's actually nothing to prevent God from allowing the effectual call and the gospel call to seemingly occur concurrently without violating the maxim, 'Dead men do nothing'.
It IS lawful for Him to do what He wills with His own, you know.
And God, seeing those 17th century English translators would misunderstand many word usages and the subtle references of the Greek language, gave us men and women of great intellect and ability to study the original languages (not just the scriptures but other writings as well) and for many centuries afterward they give us an even better understanding of His Word.
And that effort continues. It forces us to continually focus on His Word, ever illuminated by Holy Spirit, digging deeper into the mysteries of God, bringing us all together in the knowledge of the Truth.:love2::1_grouphug::love2:
If you only knew how ignorant of a statement this is, you would never post it. I'm not talking about the slam on Calvinism, but your slam on the Greek, from which your translation came.
Your scores of years....haha...that too makes me laugh. Do you think the English translation has more years on the Greek? :laugh:
I think it all happens when we believe.
It's all given to us.
To believe that God exists is the exact opposite of what the world does, and O how the world insults God.
God's will is to believe in the One whom He sent.
He who does so say's that God is true.
I'm not disagreeing that the participle is appositional.
What I'm saying that it is an adjectival participle (as opposed to an adverbial participle) that is in apposition to the first clause of the sentence.
Matt 1:6 and Mark 6:14 seems to be adjectival (an articular participle adding information to "Jesus" and "John," respectively).
1 Thessalonians 1:10 shows another adjectival use, I think.
It is adding information to "Jesus."
I'm not disagreeing with an appositional use, per se.
My disagreement is this:
The participle in the John 1:12 passage is not adverbial.
If it were adverbial, your argument, I think, would be much more correct.
As it is, the articular participle rule out an adverbial usage and, therefore, the concurrent action is, I think, ruled out also.
Sure, context is important.
But I don't think context can break the construction rules--in other words, I don't think context can make a participle which is clearly adjectival into an adverbial participle.