In my thread on revisions, I asked Smyth at least twice to start a new thread to air his concerns about Darby's version and whether or not it illegitimately injected his theology into the translation. So far, in the verses Smyth persisted in referencing on that thread, every one of Darby's renderings was permissible according to the Greek. If, as a translation consultant, my African translators had suggested those renderings, I would have allowed them. Smyth, having no apparent knowledge of the Greek (though he pontificated on it in that thread, was reduced to an appeal to context. I want to consider context and semantics in the "about to" rendering he objected to in particular. Here it is Luke 24:21 in the KJV: "But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass." Here it is in Darby's version: "But we had hoped that he was [the one] who is about to redeem Israel. But then, besides all these things, it is now, to-day, the third day since these things took place." What Smyth objects to is the use of the phrase "about to" to translate the Greek present active participle of μέλλω (mello). However, this word in the same form (though with different case and number) is translated exactly the same elsewhere in the KJV: Acts 3:3 and 20:1, and Heb. 8:5, Then he switched to saying the context forbids the Darby rendering. However, he has yet to say how the context does that, so I'll wait on that nugget to comment further on the context. To continue, Smyth is wrong in his understanding of the English language here. In the English as in the Greek, the "about to" phrase is governed by the verb "had hoped." Darby's translation as well as the KJV connects the "about to" to a hope that Jesus (before His death) would redeem Israel--that is, take His place as literal King. So in Darby's rendering, the "about to" remains in the past, and is not in any way, shape or form an endorsement of dispensationalism. it has the same meaning as the KJV: We thought Jesus was going to institute an earthly kingdom, but He didn't, so we, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, are unsure what to think. Smyth will reply that Darby said "is about to," present tense. His problem then is explaining why ἐστιν, (estin), the present active indicative of the Greek "to be" verb, should not be translated with a present tense. So, Smyth, two things: what in the context forbids Darby's rendering, and why should the Greek for "is" (present tense) not be translated with a present tense?