Continuation of my post #8 for Lon:
I Am (ego eimi)
From my personal in-depth study of the 'I Am' trinity 'proof':
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-1.html
Dr. Walter Martin, the much-heralded trinitarian “cult-buster,” has been quoted as publicly declaring that
“there is no rule or precedent in Greek syntax to allow a present [tense] to equal a perfect [tense].” (Cf. KOTC, p. 89.)
However,
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:
“The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is
virtually the same as perfective [perfect tense], the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6,
8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27” - T&T Clark, 1963.
G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:
“
Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]...,
viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” -
A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.
Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the
duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29;
Jn 8:58 (
eimi);15:27 (
este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb
often
“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...” - p. 879,
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.
Even
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:
“b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of
existing results [D&M’s emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, ‘I learn that you have moved’ (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....
“To say that this use is ‘present for perfect’ (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of
the perfect [tense], but stresses the
continuance [D&M’s emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. To say [manthano auton elthein], ‘I learn that he has gone,’ has a force which is approximated only by ... ‘
I have learned that he has gone’.
“c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as ‘from the beginning’ in Jn 15:27 and ‘before Abraham came into existence’ in John 8:58 which both act as ‘adverbs of time’ - RDB], and
may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: ‘from beginning with me
you are’ and usually rendered into English as: ‘
you have been with me from the beginning’ - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB].” - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me]
Kenneth L. McKay wrote in his,
A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:
"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...
Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi],
I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."
Perhaps even more surprising is this admission by hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace:
A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)
1. Definition
The present tense may be used to describe an action which,
begun in the past, continues in the present. ....
.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as ‘before Abraham came into existence’], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.
2. Key to Identification
The key to this usage is normally to
translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a ‘temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.’] Some examples might not fit such a gloss, however. [Wallace’s examples include Luke 13:7; Luke 15:29; John 5:6; 1 Jn 3:8.] - pp. 519-520,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]
Some NT Greek Grammars which acknowledge the "durative" or "progressive" present tense wherein the present tense verb [such as
eimi] is understood to be continuing and, hence, may be properly rendered into English as a
present perfect tense [such as "I have been"]:
Blass & DeBrunner,
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, #322.
Brooks & Winberry,
Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 84.
Ernest De Witt Burton,
Syntax of Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, #17
Dana & Mantey,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 182-183
William W. Goodwin,
Greek Grammar, p. 270, #1258, 1900 ed.
Kenneth L. McKay,
A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek
C. F. D. Moule,
An Idiom Book of N.T. Greek, p. 8
J. H. Moulton (Nigel Turner),
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3, p. 62
Wesley J. Perschbacher,
NT Greek Syntax, p. 284-285
A. T. Robertson,
Grammar of the Greek NT in Light of Historical Research, pp. 879-880
Herbert Weir Smyth,
A Greek Grammar For Colleges, #1885
Gerald L. Stevens,
NT Greek, p.78
Daniel B. Wallace,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519
G. B. Winer,
A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, p. 267.
Richard Young,
Intermediate New Testament Greek, pp. 111-112
Brooks/Winbery,
Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 84-85
..........................
When a
trinitarian Grammar scholar or translator (whether paraphrase or more literal) translates the Greek text in a way that contradicts the usual trinity 'proof,' that is significant! (And although many of the Bibles listed in post #8 above are not paraphrase Bibles, it matters little as to the understanding of the trinitarian translator's understanding of said trinity 'proof.')
Most trinitarians will simply dismiss a
non-Trinitarian scholar's translation or grammar studies, but since we are quoting mostly
trinitarian scholars and translators, it should be taken seriously. And the more we find the more significant it is.
