Both you and I can find the greek text online and both you and I have access to Strongs concordance. I however cannot read the greek. That was what I was asking, in case my inquiry wasnt clear enough. So I ask again, do you know how to read biblical greek well enough to tell us which group of translators did the best work or if both did acceptable jobs on this text that is being discussed in this thread.It is not clear to me what these paragraphs have to do in a post supposedly concerned with the ability to read and comprehend greek.

This made me think of an old joke.

"I know every language in the world but Greek," I said. "What about Chinese?" was the reply.

"It's Greek to me."

Excellent, John.



Great point. Also the explanation of Christ as the embodiment of God's character, as well as the law (including its weightier matters).

TE: People, before they are born again, can make right decisions, in accordance with God's will. God alone is good. He is the source for all good, whether for unbelivers or not.

MM: Tom, please help me out, again. Which ones of the following statements best describes what you’re trying to tell me. Thank you.



TE: The difference is in you, in how you are interpreting the versions. You, for some odd reason, are interpreting the NIV, which says, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin" to mean "One who is born of God will continue to sin."

MM: I’m sorry, Tom, but can you please help me understand the differences between the following contrasts? Thank you.

1. What is the difference between “continue to sin” and “doth not commit sin”?

2. What is the difference between “he cannot go on sinning” and “he cannot sin”?

………………………

TE: There's a verse which reads, "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit." (Matt. 7:18). This doesn't mean that no good tree ever in the history of man has produced a bad fruit, but rather that, as a general practice, good trees to not produce bad fruit. Indeed, it is the fact that they, as a general practice, produce good fruit that makes them good trees. Similarly one who is born of God cannot sin. In the same way that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit. The born again person is not characterized by a life of sin. It's not saying that a born again is not able to commit a sin.

MM: It never occurred to me to read what Jesus taught in the way you just suggested. So, the good tree - bad tree metaphor doesn’t mean what it says, that it actually means “every” good tree can produce bad fruit and “every” bad tree can produce good fruit.

And, this interpretation helps explain why 1 John 3:1-10 cannot possibly mean born again believers do not and cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus, that it means they can commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus.

Matthew
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Does this next quote, and the ones following it, also support your interpretation of the good tree - bad tree metaphor?

UL 154
The fruit of the tree testifies if it is a good or corrupt tree. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. By their fruits ye shall know them. Let us so speak and so labor that our fruit may be unto righteousness and we letting our light shine forth in good works. Profession is nothing. A godly life alone will God approve. {UL 154.3}

Do you mean instead of the ten commandments?

TV: It is not clear to me what these paragraphs have to do in a post supposedly concerned with the ability to read and comprehend greek.

MM: I figure Sister White's comments are more inspired than mere men attempting to interpret and translate the Greek.

JB: Well MM, this is a typical problem we have in communication with you. Try and think this through before you answer.

MM: John, I posted Sister White's comments, not mine. You are critiquing her, not me.

1.Asking me to pick what best describes my thought from a list you have composed is pointless.
2.My point regarding the NIV and 1 John 3:9 was that is says "No one who is born of God will continue to sin" (this is from memory; that's close if not perfect) which you, for some reason, interpret to mean "No one who is born of God will not continue to sin." That's what I said was weird. You also had a list of three things which you inferred from this statement, which I saw no basis for inferring.

I pointed out that where I see the difference is not so much in the texts themselves (that is, how the NIV and KJV put it) but in how you interpret them, where you interpret the NIV to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.

3.I'm not following the end of what you were saying, but, in brief, what my point was is that the character is not comprised of the occasional misdeed or occasional good deed. A person can be a born again Christ and occasionally commit an occasional misdeed, a sin. It seems to me that you are taking a principle, and wanting to make an iron clad rule out of it. Actually, all of your views seem to be like this. They are stated in absolutes. You seem to think this way.

For example, you wrote that in order for a person to be born again, the Holy Spirit must reveal every cultivated sinful habit from birth and must confess them all. This is an absolute statement, which is obviously false. I was able to convince you of the falsity of the statement, because you changed it to be that all sinful habits must be revealed and confessed, except for exceptions to the rule. But, even though you recognize the falsity of the absolute statement, which is seen by your correction of it, you still to not admit the error, which is also an interesting characteristic of your style of thinking.

Part of the reason I've continued to dialog with you is to try to understand how you think. It's very challenging. I've figured out a few things, but there are other things I don't understand (such as your reticence to admit error).

MM, it looks to me like JB was responding to your post #83857, which doesn't even have one EGW comment. It has a lot of your comments though, and JB's post addressed the comments you made, in detail. I think his suggestion to you is well taken. You responded to what he wrote without addressing any of the points he made, and apparently without even being aware of which post of yours he was addressing.

JB expressed thoughts I've been trying to share very well. Thomas is also getting at similar ideas. What Thomas is pointing out is not what John (who wrote the epistle, not JB) was concerned about when he wrote the letter. He conception of keeping the commandments is not at all similar to yours. It is not concerned with sinless behavior, but with loving one's neighbor. This is clear from the examples that John gives, which involve caring for your neighbor. John is pointing out that anyone who knows Christ will love his neighbor and take care of him.

It's not so much that John is saying the opposite of what you are saying, as that John's whole way of thinking, his whole concern, his whole purpose, was different than your way of thinking, your concern, and your purpose.