Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:57:32 -0800

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

JD 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.

Reply via email to