Non-scholar wrote:
: You have parsed the verb melle with the infinitives in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21: 7 correctly
Do tell.
: However, you make no comment on the grammar that is involved with these terms or how they should be translated.
I don't need to. The fact that every lexicon you and I have quoted (with one minor exception, which I showed is mistaken because it is self-inconsistent) agrees with Bauer's Lexicon is proof enough. So is the fact that Bible translators are unanimous against the New World Translation. You cannot find a single Bible translation that agrees with the NWT on the rendering of these passages. Nor can you find a single lexicon or word study or other scholarly work that specifically agrees with the NWT. I'll bet that you've even discussed this with one or more of the NT-Greek professors at your school, and found that they, too, agree with Bauer's. I challenge you to tell us what they've told you, or if you haven't checked with them, to do so and report back to us their comments.
You try to dismiss the examples in Bauer's by demeaning them as the mere personal opinion of the deceased scholar Walter Bauer. But you ignore the fact that some of the very best NT scholars in the world have contributed editorially to this lexicon, and obviously agree with Bauer's original scholarship. Indeed, the earlier English editions were produced by the scholars William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. All three of their names are used to refer to the 2nd edition of Bauer's as "BAG". This lexicon is universally recognized as definitive, and "BAG" is a universally used abbreviation because of the work's scholarly stature. The world-renowned Bible scholars Kurt and Barbara Aland edited the German editions of Bauer's, so they obviously agree with their fellow scholars. These two scholars, of course, have produced the definitive Greek NT texts for decades, i.e., The Greek New Testament from United Bible Societies, edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, et al., which is produced in another form as Novum Testamentum Graece (latest: Nestle-Aland 27th edition; UBS4). Bauer's 3rd edition of 2000 was revised and edited by yet another recognized scholar, Frederick William Danker, and this work is also universally recognized as definitive, and is referred to as "BDAG" -- Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich.
Do you really think that when every good NT scholar in the world is of the opinion that the NWT is wrong, that the NWT is somehow right? Obviously you do, but then, readers of this board understand your sectarian bias all too well. You know perfectly well that the entire structure of the Watchtower cult would instantly collapse without the 1914 date, which rests on the "invisible presence" doctrine, which rests on a mistranslation of Matthew 24:3, which mistranslation is proved by the fact that no scholars agree with the Watchtower rendering of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7. Not even the vaunted Emphatic Diaglott, nor The Bible In Living English agree. Hence, we understand your goal of defending the NWT's rendering of these two passages.
: All you have done is quoted from the opinions of Bauer and the authors of the Translator Handbooks Luke & Mark along with your preferred translations.
Quoting from world-recognized scholars is a very bad thing, eh?
The fact is that the grammar, from a purely lexical standpoint, may be argued to be ambiguous. But in ambiguous cases, context determines the actual meaning. You've carefully ignored discussions of context, despite my having discussed it in detail.
: Why did you not try to determine whether in fact the NWT renderings in the interlinear and translation were correct or incorrect?
But I did. In this thread I have carefully considered the context so as to resolve any ambiguity. The context proves that the rendering "What will be the sign when these things are destined to come to a conclusion" is as meaningless as Mark's asking Jose (a la my example on page 3 of this thread), "how can I tell when you're destined to show up?" The point here is that the fact that Jesus -- God's foremost and infallible prophet -- just told the disciples that a lot of things would happen in the future, i.e., were destined to occur, and that Jose just told Mark that he would be arriving in Chicago in May, i.e., that he was destined to arrive in May, obviates the need for the disciples or Mark to ask again, in the very next breath, about the inevitability of the future arrival, i.e., asking about whether the arrival was destined. Since such a rendering makes no sense in context, it cannot be correct, especially when the grammatically preferable rendering "when are you about to show up?" makes perfect sense in context. This awareness of proper context is largely why the scholars responsible for Bauer's Lexicon have given these passages as typical examples of the use of mellw when it means "to be about to". Obviously neither you nor the NWT translator, Fred Franz, show or showed any awareness of context when doctrinal considerations require a mistranslation.
: In fact, if you had bothered to consult the grammar you would have found that the NWT is absolutely correct as the following reference works prove:
Being grammatically allowable is not the same as being contextually correct.
: Regarding the verb with the infinitive in Mark13:4 ''mellle pres. subj. mello to be about to. Used w. infinitive the future. sunteleisthai pres.pass. inf. sunteleo to complete, to bring to an end".Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament by Fritz Reinecker, 1982 p.124. In the same reference work on page 203 for Luke 21:7 it says"mello to be about to. Used w. infinitive to ecpress fut.(s.MKG,307)".
This reference completely proves my point. Why you don't see that is a complete mystery. As regards Mark 13:4, it obviously gives the meaning, "to be about to complete" -- which is exactly what I've been arguing for. The same goes for Luke 21:7.
: So, if we consult MKG page 307 (The Morphology of Koine Greek:As used in the Apocalypse of St. John by G. Mussies, 1971 Supplement To Novum Testamentum)
I don't have this reference in my library, but have ordered it. In view of the fact that you've misrepresented most of the source references you've used in these threads, you now have the opportunity to review your use of this one, and correct any mistakes. If you don't, you can be sure that I will point them out when I receive my order.
: it says the following under Section11.6.4 : (b) Durative Future Indicative:
: mello plus durative infinitive
: These words groups have a futural as well as a durative value...
: (d) Future Subjunctive: mello plus (durative) infinitive eg. Luke 21:7 melle ginesthai.
Your point being what? We already know that the tense melle, "be about to", when used in the expression "hotan melle tauta sunteleisthai panta" refers to the future.
: Similarly,
What do you mean, "similarly"? You haven't said anything that we don't already know!
: if you consult the references on mello with the pres. inf in A Grammar Of The Greek Mew Testament- In The Light Of Historical Research by A T Robertson, 1934 on page 869-70: (d) The Futuristic Present."'The other use of the futuristic present is the dramatic and prophetic...It is not merely prophecy, but certainty of expectation is involved...This use of mello and inf. is a sort of half-way station between the futuristic present and the punctiliar future. The futuristic present startles and arrests attention. It affirms and not merely predicts. It gives a sense of certainty.
Here again you've completely misrepresented (or misunderstood) a source reference. I'll type in the full text so that readers will see for themselves what you've left out -- because you know that the material you relegated to ellipses blows your argument. As usual, I'll expand some abbreviations for clarity:
The other use of the futuristic present is the dramatic or prophetic. "This present -- a sort of counterpart to the historic present -- is very frequent in the predictions of the N. T." It is not merely prophecy, but certainty of expectation that is involved. As examples note Mt. 17:11 Eleias erkhetai kai apokatastesei panta, 24:43 poia phulake ho kleptes erkhetai, 26:2 ginetai kai -- paradidotai, 26:18 poiw to paskha, 27:63 egeiromai, Lu. 3:9 ekkoptetai kai balletai, 19:8 didwmi kai apodidwmi, Jo. 4:35 ho therismos erkhetai, 8:14 pou hupagw, 8:21 hupagw kai zetesete, 10:15 ten psukhen mou tithemi, 12:26 hopou eimi egw, 20:17 anabainw, 21:23 ouk apothneskei, 1 Cor. 15:26 katargeitai. In Jo. 10:15 ff. tithemi really covers the whole of Christ's life viewed as a unit (constative aorist). In Mk. 9:31 we have paradidotai, in Mt. 17:22 mellie paradidosthai. This use of mellw and infinitive is a sort of half-way station between the futuristic present and the punctiliar future. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 443 The futuristic present startles and arrests attention. It affirms and not merely predicts. It gives a sense of certainty. Cf. in Mt. 18:12, aphesei kai poreutheis zetei together, and pheugei (Rev. 9:6).
The problem is simple: in the above quote, Robertson is talking about verbs in the indicative mood, not the subjunctive mood. In Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, melle is in the subjunctive mood, whereas every verb in the above quote is in the indicative mood (except for Mt. 18:12, where the verb poreutheis is a participle), so your application is simply wrong.
You obviously have an extremely serious problem with reading comprehension when doing research. The section you misrepresented, "(d) The Futuristic Present", comes under the general heading "2. PUNCTILIAR (AORISTIC) PRESENT" on page 864 of A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament. Under this heading Robertson states:
The present tense is named entirely from point of time which only applies to the indicative... But in the indicative present the sharp line drawn between the imperfect and aorist indicative (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Present Indicative into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punctilinear Present and Linear Present).
Robertson then expounds upon four categories of this "punctiliar present", including "(d) The Futuristic Present". In view of Robertson's direct statements that this section refers to the indicative mood and not the subjunctive mood, and the fact that almost all of his examples in section (d) contain verbs in the indicative rather than the subjunctive, it's clear that you've either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented what Robertson wrote.
I'll illustrate what Robertson is talking about with one of his examples, namely, Matt. 17:22, which is the example that you claimed above proves your point. In the NWT, Matt. 17:22 reads: "The Son of man is destined [mellei] to be betrayed." This is quite in line with Robertson's other examples. Other Bible translations read, "is going to be", "will be", "is about to be" and so forth -- all of which show certainty of future action. In view of the fact that Jesus was actually betrayed not more than about a year after the events portrayed in Matt. 17:22, the rendering "is about to be" is perfectly fine.
The bottom line here is that in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, because melle is in the subjunctive mood, Robertson's discussion does not apply.
: You may wish to check the other references on this subject by means of the Index to Greek Words on page 1272.
In view of your continuing atrocious scholarship, I'll let you give examples and I'll continue to demonstrate that your application is wrong.
: In short, the NWT renderings are absolutely correct and it is possibly the only translation that recognizes this subtle nuance in Koine Greek.
Yes indeed, based on scholarship such as you've demonstrated time and again, readers can see how true that is.
: The other references you have quoted are simply too superficial and do recognize the significance of parousia meaning presence im Matthew 24:3 compared with the similar question in Mark 13:4 and luke 21:7.
Nonsense.
Now I'll present another nail in your grammatical coffin with respect to the proper translation of Mark 13:4, Luke 21:7 and Revelation 10:7.
First, you have yet to justify why the New World Translation fails to render the phrase hotan melle consistently. If your arguments were correct, then the NWT would be required to render them identically, because they're identical in Greek and the contexts are essentially the same: something is about to take place from the viewpoint of a future point in time. That the NWT doesn't do this should prove to you that your arguments are wrong.
Second, the word hotan in "hotan melle" in these passages refers to a single event occurring at a single point in time. This is evident, once again, from context. In Rev. 10:7, the seventh angel is about to blow his trumpet. This is a one-time event. Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 are talking about the destruction of the temple -- again a one-time occurrence. According to Bauer's Lexicon, hotan has a number of senses:
1. pertinent to an action that is conditional, possible, and, in many instances, repeated, at the time that, whenever, when
. . .
alpha. with the present subjunctive, when the action of the subordinate clause is contemporaneous with that of the main clause. Usually of repeated action whenever, as often as, every time that ...
Bauer's gives several passages that illustrate this usage, such as Mark 13:11: "But when [or whenever; hotan] they are leading you along to deliver you up ..." (NWT) Obviously this usage doesn't apply to the three passages we're discussing, since they don't describe repeated action. Obviously, renderings that imply repeated action, like "as often as the seventh angel blows his trumpet" and "every time that the seventh angel blows his trumpet" are nonsensical. The same goes for Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7. But Bauer's also gives another meaning:
alpha. with the present subjunctive, ... Also without the idea of repetition when 1 Th 5:3.
The referenced scripture reads:
Whenever it is [hotan legwsin; literally, whenever they-may-be-about; KIT] that they are saying: "Peace and security!" ... (NWT)
Again a one-time occurrence. Bauer's next part of the definition is:
Looking back upon a preceding time-reference hews tes hemeras ekeines hotan pinw Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25
The first referenced scripture reads:
I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it [hotan auto pinw; literally, whenever it I-may-be-drinking; KIT] new with you in the kingdom of my Father.
Mark 14:25 is a parallel passage and contains essentially the same language.
In our passages under discussion, hotan melle is certainly "looking back upon a preceding time reference", hotan modifies melle, which is in the present subjunctive, and the event that this phrase refers to is a one-time event. Therefore, following Bauer's definitions, hotan must mean "at the time that", and the phrase hotan melle must mean "at the time that [the following event] is about". This makes perfect sense in each passage:
Rev. 10:7: In the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, at the time that he is about to blow his trumpet...
Mark 13:4: Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign at the time that all these things are about to come to a conclusion?
Luke 21:7: Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign at the time that these things are about to occur?
Now let's see what these passages look like when we substitute the sense of "inevitable" for "are destined":
Rev. 10:7: In the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when it is inevitable [destined] that he will blow his trumpet...
Mark 13:4: Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when it is inevitable [destined] that all these things are to come to a conclusion?
Luke 21:7: Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when it is inevitable [destined] that these things are to occur?
Obviously, these renderings are nonsensical. And yet that is exactly what the New World Translation does to the latter two passages -- it renders them nonsensical! The reason for doing this is obvious: by rendering the passages nonsensically, readers don't get the sense of the passage on a casual reading (and how many of Jehovah's Witnesses read their Bibles more than casually?), and so they don't make the connection that these passages contradict the NWT's rendering of parousia in Matthew 24:3.
Summing up what we know so far about the NWT's rendering of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7:
No recognized scholars or scholarly sources justify it.
No other Bible translations support it.
Every reference that non-scholar has attempted to bring to bear has been shown to say either the opposite of what he claims, or to be irrelevant.
The NWT's rendering is nonsensical and is specifically designed to mislead readers.
: QED
LOL!
AlanF
