Here is the link to John 17:3 previously posted about "taking in knowledge of God and Christ," and an excerpt to show how it was used in context. TD has a problem agreeing with the author of this article. He thinks the author is quoting out of context. See for yourself, if this is the case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57772552/John-17-3-%E2%80%98Taking-in-knowledge-of-%E2%80%99-God-and-Jesus
To determine more accurately what ‘knowing' God and Christ entails we should consider another clue. The word "know" at John 17:3 (KJV) in the Greek is a form of ginosko, in the present subjunctive active mood. Verbs in this mood usually state a potential condition, a purpose, a wish, or a doubt. It is used to express a possibility, an uncertainty or indefinite statement. The subjunctive mood is generally indicated by words such as "may," "might," "ever," and "should." It will normally follow words such as: hína (in order that) and eán (if). An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament wrote: "In the subjunctive [...] the present tense is timeless and durative." (by W. D. Chamberlain, p. 87) New Testament Greek states: "The present tense [subjunctive] views activity as durative, ongoing, or repetitive in nature." (by James Allen Hewett, Revised edition, p. 205)
You can see this subjunctive in action by reading the part of John 17:3
which says: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God..." Take note that the KJV uses the stative form "know" instead of the progressive form (participle) "their knowing you" found in the NWT footnote. Most translations follow the KJV here. However, the Greek basically says: "in order that they may be knowing you..." The Concordant Greek Text likewise reads: ‘that they may be knowing you.' The New Testament in Modern Speech, by R.F. Weymouth) explains in a footnote: "Knowing] Or, as the tense implies, ‘an ever-enlarging knowledge of.'"
Other scholars recognize the durative, progressive factor of the present subjunctive, deriving from the verb ginósko:
A. T. Robertson: "Should know (ginoskosin). Present active subjunctive with hina (subject clause), ‘should keep on knowing'." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 275)
W. E. Vine: "GINOSKO (γιν?σκω) signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
J. H. Bernard: "...the present tense (ginóskosin) marking that continual growth in the knowledge of God which is characteristic of spiritual life, as physical growth is a characteristic of bodily life." (The International Critical Commentary, St John, vol II, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1928, p.561)
G. Abbott-Smith says under ginósko: "to be taking in knowledge, come to know, recognize, perceive, understand. [...] freq. of the knowledge of divine things, of God and Christ...Jo 17:3." (A Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT, 92)
J. H. Moulton: "The present simplex, γιν?σκειν, is durative, ‘to be taking in knowledge.'" (Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena, p. 113)
(Note: γιν?σκειν [ginóskein] is the present infinitive form of ginósko, i.e. "to know"...durative: "knowing," "to be taking in knowledge.")
Max Zerwick writes: "ginóskosin sub[junctive mood of ] ginósko, pre[sent tense] implying a continuous process." (An Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 336)
Marvin R. Vincent: "Might know (ginóskosi). Might recognize or perceive. This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know. Compare ver. 23; x. 38; 1 John v. 20; iv. 7, 8." (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 263. Cursive letters his.)
I checked these references myself, and I want to point out as an observation that when A.T. Robertson, Max Zerwick and Marvin Vincent said the above, they said so under the section of John 17:3 being considered.
I don't see how the quote above of Abbot-Smith is out of context either. The others are not against the context either.
When it comes to Vine, he gives the basic definition of Ginosko as: "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely," e.g., Mk 13:28,29; Jn 13:12; 15:18; 21:17; 2 Cor 8:9; Heb 10:34; 1 Jn 2:5; 4:2,6 (twice), 7, 13; 5:2, 20" Vine does not mention 17:3 here as he does further as indicated by TD. But does this mean his basic definition above changes meaning from this basic meaning of the word to the other reference of John 17:3? I tend to see it more as an added nuance and relationship to the basic meaning, more than assuming Vine totally changes the meaning. This is akin to admitting that stauros does mean basically, "stake" and then saying that stauros must mean (a two piece) cross and only cross in this other scripture. Even if we accept cross as a meaning of stauros, it still does not change the basic meaning of stauros as stake. Does it?
Vine does say: "In the N.T. ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known; in this respect, what is known is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship."
"...The same idea of appreciation as well as knowledge underlies several statements concerning the knowledge of God and His truth on the part of the believers, e.g. John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3..." And: "..such knowledge is obtained, no by mere intellectual acivity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ."
Vine adds: "Nor is such ‘knowledge’ marked by finality; se e.g., 2 Pet 3:18 [...but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"]." And: "Ginosko as a verb, means ‘to know by observation and experience’ is translated to know (to learn -Mk 15:45; Jn 12:9)"
This brings up a couple of questions for those who hold that ginosko rules out the rendering "their taking in knowledge."
Is it really possible "to know" God without involving "intellectual activity" which Vine apparently does not rule out? ...Without true knowledge?
Is Vincent Marvin wrong when he says: "This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know."? Similarly, the The Bible in Basic English tells us: "And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God, and of him whom you have sent, even Jesus Christ."
See also Moulton's Prolegomena comments on hina and what it conveys next at John 17:3. (Page 206)
The author of the link did write: "...the Bible context associates an objective revelation of God (factual side) with a personal relation. What is wrong though, is the conclusion that a personal relationship with God (of faith, trust, love, and obedience) can be obtained without true knowledge. Also, it is wrong for anyone to imply that "taking in knowledge" is accomplished by a systematic course of learning the publications of a religious organization."
The author of the link obviously was aware of JWs contention that "taking in knowledge" requires studying the Bible a la WT. He turns that down, but seems to go further than Evangelicals in insinuating that "knowing" God goes beyond a person just claiming he/she has a personal relation with God and Christ without the pursuit of true knowledge. 2 Pet 3:18 indicates that orientation.
