You seem to come to the Greek text with preconceived notion that salvation is a conditional salvation based upon we do or do not keep doing, so read into the text that understanding
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
IGNORING GREEK VERBS AFFECTS BAPTIST THEOLOGY
- Thread starter Russell Earl Kelly PHD
- Start date
That's great that you actually did take Greek. However, you are 80 years old now, and I respect that--thanks for serving Jesus! From what you have written, I get the impression that you are like most who take the language and then forget about it. Do you still study the language? I've seen no clues that you do, other than the specific area this thread is on, your unfounded belief that the present participle proves one can lose his salvation. But theology does not determine Greek grammar. It doesn't matter if a Greek grammarian is Arminian or not. The grammar is the same.
They are not my rules. They are the rules of Greek grammar. I teach them, but I did not invent them. I gave plenty of quotes from grammarians, while you have not given me a single quote from a grammarian, Arminian or otherwise. Can you conclusively tell me of an Arminian grammarian that agrees with you? I think not.
And I highly object to your contention that I "insult God's inspired choice of present participles." I see no reason to continue interacting with such a caustic viewpoint.
Well, about the same responses we get when interacting with say JW, they are so set on their mindset, that will totally mistranslate the Greek text in order to read into into it and get out of it their own heresy
Indeed.
Russell Earl Kelly PHD
Member
The following is a list of the 57 present participles of “believe” I have identified using a Greek Interlinear and Nathan Han’s, A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament. Twenty-nine (29) end with “-eth,” 21 end in “-e,” 4 end with “-ing” and only 4 end with “-ed.” Therefore, 53 of the 57 present participles of “believe” and only 4 end in “-ed.”
Question for our Greek expert, J of J:
Since the 1611 translators of the KJV had scores of the best Greek scholars in England, why did they only translate 4 of 57 present participles of “believe” with aorist “-ed” endings? Did not God inspire the present tense participles and not the aorist endings? They must not have had the same SBC rules quoted today.
Challenge to readers pf this thread:
Replace the “-eth,” “-e” and “-ing” “believe” words with “made a one-time profession of faith.” You will discover that such a conclusion simply DOES NOT FIT THE CONTEXT. Many of them will be sheer nonsense.
Mt 18:6; 21:22; Mk 9:23, 42; Lk 24:41; Jn 1:12; 3:15, 16, 18, 18, 36, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47, 64, 7:38, 11:15, 26; 12:4, 46; 14:12; 17:20; 20:31; Acts 9:26; 10:43; 13:39; 22:19; 24:14; Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:5; 4:11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 3:22; Eph 1:19; 1 Th 1:7; 2:10, 13; Heb 10:39; 1 Pet 1:8; 2:6, 7; 1 Jn 5:5, 5, 10, 10, 10, 13
Question for our Greek expert, J of J:
Since the 1611 translators of the KJV had scores of the best Greek scholars in England, why did they only translate 4 of 57 present participles of “believe” with aorist “-ed” endings? Did not God inspire the present tense participles and not the aorist endings? They must not have had the same SBC rules quoted today.
Challenge to readers pf this thread:
Replace the “-eth,” “-e” and “-ing” “believe” words with “made a one-time profession of faith.” You will discover that such a conclusion simply DOES NOT FIT THE CONTEXT. Many of them will be sheer nonsense.
Mt 18:6; 21:22; Mk 9:23, 42; Lk 24:41; Jn 1:12; 3:15, 16, 18, 18, 36, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47, 64, 7:38, 11:15, 26; 12:4, 46; 14:12; 17:20; 20:31; Acts 9:26; 10:43; 13:39; 22:19; 24:14; Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:5; 4:11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 3:22; Eph 1:19; 1 Th 1:7; 2:10, 13; Heb 10:39; 1 Pet 1:8; 2:6, 7; 1 Jn 5:5, 5, 10, 10, 10, 13
atpollard
Well-Known Member
OK.
I am always up for reading scripture!
Matthew 18:6
[KJV] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
[requested change] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which [made a one-time profession of faith] in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
[suggested alternate] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which [are eternally saved] in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 21:22
[KJV] And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
[requested change] And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, [made a one-time profession of faith], ye shall receive.
[suggested alternate] And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, [being eternally saved], ye shall receive.
The "difficulty" with the proposed word change stems from an assumption of "one and done and walked away" ... which does create a nonsensical situation of a reprobate child of God [a "married bachelor" - logically impossible and unable to exist].
However, if one assumes "once and forever", then both the "difficulty" and the "logical impossibility" evaporate and the verses continue to make sense.
In Matthew 18:6, the children which presently "believe" do so because they will always believe ... they are His Sheep (of which He will lose none).
In Matthew 21:22, the 'carde blanche' for belief is not momentary mental conviction ... God will help your unsaved self win the lottery, so you will win the lottery.
It is the saving belief in Him. That belief binds you to the creator with a special relationship. From that relationship comes assurance that "God has your back" no matter what.
["the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. - Job 1:21]
Russell Earl Kelly PHD
Member
You come to the Greek text with the full intention of completely ignoring it. You imply that God was wrong for daring to inspire 57 present participles when He should have simply inspired aorist punctiliar verbs. That is your preconceived approach. Do ANYy of the 57 present tense “believe” participles mean “continuously,” “habitual” or “regular”? You have the same problem with “abideth,” “overcometh” and scores of other present participles.
By changing God’s inspired present participle into one-time aorists, you make it impossible for the average student of the Bbile to understand it without a knowledge of Baptist-Greek rules. You think you are smarter that the 1611 Greek scholars. You think that “believeth” and “believes” do not literally mean what they say.
I am ending this thread.
So Dr Kelly studied Greek in college probably over 50 years ago. He has put together his whole theory from one source, a "parsing guide" which is not even a grammar. Hasn't quoted a single grammar to show the linguistic basis of his position. Then he got caustic and said that I am insulting God's Word when I disagreed with him.
On my side, I have qualifications, which I hope to show you simply as qualifications, not bragging. I've taught Greek in two different languages for 13 years, 3 in Japanese (years ago) and now 10 in English. I teach two classes on Bible translation in our seminary (started the MA program). I've translated the entire Greek NT into Japanese, and it has been published (working on the OT). I have a large library of Greek grammars and other helps.
Kelly has no respect for me or any of these qualifications.
But of course his theory is completely right, and we must not disagree with it or we are insulting God's Word.
On my side, I have qualifications, which I hope to show you simply as qualifications, not bragging. I've taught Greek in two different languages for 13 years, 3 in Japanese (years ago) and now 10 in English. I teach two classes on Bible translation in our seminary (started the MA program). I've translated the entire Greek NT into Japanese, and it has been published (working on the OT). I have a large library of Greek grammars and other helps.
Kelly has no respect for me or any of these qualifications.
But of course his theory is completely right, and we must not disagree with it or we are insulting God's Word.Nolan Stengel
Member
You have to understand that what the text is saying is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Still thinking through this; still don't understand the term "noun-adjective." I want to be accurate, so I'm restating this. The infinitive is called a "verbal noun" in Greek. The good doctor may have been thinking of the Greek infinitive, which is a verbal noun, but I don't know. I have already pointed out that the adjective in Greek, when preceded by a definite article, is called the substantival use of the adjective, and the Greek participle is a verbal adjective, so it also has a substantival usage.
His take strikes me similar to the JW NWT "translation team of scholars", as when cornered, none were shown to be really able to even read the Greek text, much less be fluent in itSo Dr Kelly studied Greek in college probably over 50 years ago. He has put together his whole theory from one source, a "parsing guide" which is not even a grammar. Hasn't quoted a single grammar to show the linguistic basis of his position. Then he got caustic and said that I am insulting God's Word when I disagreed with him.
On my side, I have qualifications, which I hope to show you simply as qualifications, not bragging. I've taught Greek in two different languages for 13 years, 3 in Japanese (years ago) and now 10 in English. I teach two classes on Bible translation in our seminary (started the MA program). I've translated the entire Greek NT into Japanese, and it has been published (working on the OT). I have a large library of Greek grammars and other helps.
Kelly has no respect for me or any of these qualifications.
Ironic to me that in all of his labors top prove his point, end result is that undermines the very 1611 Kjv of his, and that version would support in the translation eternal security of the really saved in Christ
Well, I wouldn't want to compare him to the JWs....
Well, since he insists that ὁ πιστεύων must be translated as "continuously believing" I believe you are right. In fact, I do not know a single Bible translation in any language that translates it like he wants to. I mentioned this in one point, but he didn't come up with any. So, it is his hypothesis (not really even a theory) versus all of the great Greek scholars and translators of 1611 to today.
Not saying not a brother, but just that his logic and use of the scriptures seem to mimic their intent to force into the Greek texts their own heresiesWell, I wouldn't want to compare him to the JWs....
I keep meaning to drop this subject, but I keep thinking of Greek grammar points that disprove the OP.
For example, along with the grammar rule wherein a present participle preceded by a Greek article is the substantival (noun) use of the present participle, note the example of John the Baptist. His name usually occurs with a noun meaning "the baptizer," which is ὁ βαπτιστής, not a participle. However, in Mark 6:14 we have the substantival participle ὁ βαπτίζων, "the baptizer." This is an exact parallel usage as "the believer" phrase that Dr. Kelly insists means to keep on believing (or one would presumably lose his salvation). Would Dr. Kelly insist that John the Baptist was continually baptizing, even after he was dead? I am positive that I could provide many more similar examples.
I don't expect he'll answer this post. He has apparently abandoned the thread he started.
For example, along with the grammar rule wherein a present participle preceded by a Greek article is the substantival (noun) use of the present participle, note the example of John the Baptist. His name usually occurs with a noun meaning "the baptizer," which is ὁ βαπτιστής, not a participle. However, in Mark 6:14 we have the substantival participle ὁ βαπτίζων, "the baptizer." This is an exact parallel usage as "the believer" phrase that Dr. Kelly insists means to keep on believing (or one would presumably lose his salvation). Would Dr. Kelly insist that John the Baptist was continually baptizing, even after he was dead? I am positive that I could provide many more similar examples.
I don't expect he'll answer this post. He has apparently abandoned the thread he started.
Last edited:
Maybe looking up Greek grammars and sources to support his theology?
Glad YOU have not abandoned this. Important truths (and my Greek minor in college was almost 60 years ago) from understanding Greek for precise Bible interpretation, not a few-hundred-year-old Anglican translation.
Much easier for me to use and accept what Hebrew and Greek scholars wrote in their grammars than trying to branch out on my own and create novel understands and theology in green text
Russell Earl Kelly PHD
Member
After much research, I submit to your superior Greek knowledge. Of the 57 present participles of "believe," only 14 of them are in the context of present-tense controlling verbs. Of those 14, I plead with you to explain John 3:36; 6:35, 47; Rom 1:16; 4:5 and 1 John 5:5. Do you also interpret these present participles as one-time-punctiliar aorist?
Even when you translate present participles as aorist because of their controlling verbs, you act as if decisions in the past do not carry over into the present and future. That makes no sense in application. I accepted Christ decades ago because I believed in him (aorist), but that does not mean I do not still believe in him. That is why they are aorist participles and not merely aorist.
Even when you translate present participles as aorist because of their controlling verbs, you act as if decisions in the past do not carry over into the present and future. That makes no sense in application. I accepted Christ decades ago because I believed in him (aorist), but that does not mean I do not still believe in him. That is why they are aorist participles and not merely aorist.