- Jun 5, 2017
- 22,242
- 6,634
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
You missed the point. The aroist is not used to point out time in the subjunctive mood.I never said it was "always used" in the past. But it IS the generally used PAST tense form.
Your response here...LoveGodsWord wrote: “Because this is the basic genius of the aorist, it can have a phenomenally wide range of usage. You can be looking at the action as a whole but paying special attention to the beginning (“ingressive”) or to the end (“consummative”). It can describes something that simply is regardless of any time reference (“gnomic”). But my favorite is to proleptic (futuristic) use of the aorist. Because time is secondary, the aorist can describe a future event and emphasize the certainty of the action. It is not a common usage, but it does show how we need to keep the idea of “time” in its proper place. Sometimes we will go to translate an aorist as a past tense and the result is just silly. Rev 10:7 says, “But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trump et the mystery of God will be accomplished (ἐτελέσθη), just as he announced to his servants the prophets” (NIV, NRSV is also future). ἐτελέσθη is aorist, but it obviously does not describe a past event. The NASB and HCSB go with the present, “is finished.” The ESV weakens it to the subjunctive, “would be fulfilled.” But my all-time favorite is the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism. “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased (εὐδόκησα)” (Matt 3:17. NRSV). The aorist is not saying that God “was” pleased with Jesus (perhaps implying he was no longer pleased — that would be heresy), but that the sum total of his life, perhaps culminating in his humble submission to a sinner’s baptist, was pleasing to the Father.” (Source: Bill Mounce)
Good then perhaps reading them should be helpful to our discussion. You did not respond to anything in this section of the post. It was posted because you seemed to be of the view that everytime you see an aroist use of a verb it means past tense when we were talking present tense application of John 3 and John 5 application to believing or not believing as a requirement to receiving everlasting life or not receiving everlasting life as shown in John 3:16-18; John 3:36; John 5:24.<yawn> Yep, I've got Mounce. I also have Wallace's WAY MORE complete "Greek Grammar" text.
No one said that there was. The subjunctive mood aorist is the verb form that is used to explore a hypothetical situation. I posted you a link in the last post did you read it? The subjunctive mood primarily refers to hypothetical actions in the present or the future, i.e., in the same time covered by the primary tenses of verbs. There are only three tenses of the subjunctive, each of which expresses aspect, not time. As shown earlier in the post you ignored the application of the aorist in the subjunctive mood is the same used in John 4:14 "whoever drinks".There is no such thing as a "subjunctive aorist", as you presume.
Why try and twist what I am saying to something I have never said or perhaps you have a misunderstanding I do not know. The subjunctive however does deal with the mood and it does have application of course to the the tenses used (see previous section). As posted in the link provided earlier, the subjunctive mood primarily refers to HYPOTHETICAL actions in the PRESENT or FUTURE, i.e., in the same time covered by the PRIMARY tenses of verbs. There are only three tenses of the subjunctive, each of which expresses ASPECT, not time: PRESENT - ongoing aspect; AORIST - simple aspect; PERFECT - completed aspect. Since the subjunctive mood always refers to hypothetical events, it never has an augment.The "subjunctive" deals with the MOOD, not the tense. Totally different. This is why it is hard to take you seriously. You claim things from ignorance.
Not always and not in the subjunctive mood. Can you tell me what is the difference between the indicative mood's meaning and use of an aorist and the subjunctive meaning and use of an aroist? John 4:14 is not indicative to time but to hypothetical aspect.What babble! The aorist is used to describe a simple point in time action. Do you understand what that means? It means to simply take a drink. That is a point in time action.
Here is where your mistake is. The subjunctive mood of the aorist is not in relation to time but to hypothetical aspect. The hypothetical aspect the aroist is being used in John 4:14 is to"whoever drinks" of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst"; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.And Jesus used the aorist with the water He gives to point out that from that SINGLE POINT IN TIME "drink" (or belief in Him) there will be NO MORE THIRST.
John 10:28 does not support once saved always saved. The context you leave out shows that those who those who receive eternal life are those who "believe and follow" what Gods' Word says. It is not saying that those who do not believe and follow what God's Word says receive eternal life. That interpretation of the scripture in a contradiction of the scriptures that warn us not to depart the faith and return to unbelief and known unrepentant sin in Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 8:10-12 and Hebrews 3:8-19.Jesus used the aorist to teach eternal security, just as He taught eternal security from John 10:28.
No one said there was. As posted earlier the aorist used in John 4:14 is in the subjunctive mood to the verb. Do you know the meaning of the use of the aroist when used in the subjunctive mood? What is the difference between the subjunctive mood and the indicative mood?Again, there is NO SUCH THING AS A SUBJUNCTIVE AORIST. That is just plain ignorance.
Look I am getting quite tired with your false claims and accusations to what I am saying to you which is simply a distraction to the discussion. I am not saying anything in regards to what your saying here so please do not pretend that I am as it is misrepresenting what I am saying which is dishonest and disrespectful. I am sure you understood when I typed middle I left off "3rd" to person I was referring to the voice and not a "middle person" as I provided a link to V-FIM-3S which is the verb - Future indicative Middle - 3rd person singular. So let's be honest here. If your not sure on what I am saying just ask. It is obviously you that does not know Greek but I am not interested in silly arguments with you so prove what you say otherwise there is no point in continuing this discussion if your going to try and twist and misrepresent what is being shared with you here.And, there is NO SUCH THING as a "middle person". There is, however, a "middle voice", but apparently you have no knowledge of Greek grammar. your errors with Greek grammar sink your boat. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm having none of it. If you "learned" about a "subjunctive aorist" or a "middle person" from Mounce, you need to quit reading him and find an actual scholar.
Take Care.
Last edited:
Upvote
0