|
You are probably looking at the wrong index. Also, 1934 is the
copyright date, not the edition. We have been over this edition stuff
before in regards to Thayer. I hope we don't have a repeat
here. The publisher is what is important when you get down to page
numbers. My copy is from Broadman Press. The quote was from page
891, toward the bottom of the page. You can read about his treatment of
durative action, descriptive present tense, progressive present tense, etc.
on page 879. If the page numbers do not correspond to your text, let me
know.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:56
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor
Just to clarify. My Robertson's has a listing of scriptures
discussed. Heb 10:10 and 10:14
are not on that list. I am thinking they are a part of a secondary
discussion in the book and that is why they are not on the list. I
don"t know that but I am giving David the benefit of the
doubt. I just want to see the comments referred to in the
actual context of their statement.
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Deegan < openairmission@yahoo.com> To:
[email protected]Sent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:25:59 -0800
(PST) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/ revisor
You can't find a greek grammar that will
disagree with what he has said.
DM shoots down your false accusations
and now it is YOU THAT CAN NOT FIND!
"Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars."
OUCH!
JD why not stop the foolishness and
start having a real conversation?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't find your reference in
Robertson's Greek grammar. Perhaps a page number.
And it might be of more help to me if you gave the Table of Index
heading in which this commentary is made just in case our page numbers do
not match up (my copy is a 1934 editiion).
-----Original Message----- From: David Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]Sent: Sat, 26
Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/ revisorJD wrote:
> ... I would
venture the guess that not a single
> translator, if asked to give an
opinion on what
> Bill has written (in plain English, by the
way,
> Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where
> in
the world do you think Bill T came up with
> such
ideas? You think he just made them up
> -- pulled them
out of thin air??? You can't find
> a greek grammar that will
disagree with what he
> has said.
Apparently you have not
consulted too many grammars. A.T. R obertston in "A Grammar of the Greek
New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way:
"But
usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4;
Ac.
20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in
"hagontes" (Ac. 21:16).
In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47)
the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all
that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."
Notice
how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy
did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue
the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative
concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is
CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durati ve.
If you are familiar
with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative
action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is
Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present
being another
one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that
would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance.
Considering
how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I
think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some
disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning
of Heb. 10:14.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
|
