Why All the Choking At Rev 1:19?

Your point is arguable, TC, because μέλλει is not a future but a present middle infinitive. The future meaning is in the word itself and not the tense.

 

Give me a simple mans (dummies) explanation of the problem.
I see the past, present and future mentioned in each of the versions you present.

Rob

 

Another little grammar point. The γινέσθαι can mean either "become" or "be." It is often used as a synonym for εἶμι. So the other versions simply take if for "to be" rather than "to take place, become." All of these versions are right--according to the interpretatiuon of the various translators. :smilewinkgrin:

However, since μέλλω is present tense infinitive, I say the KJV and ESV get the nuance right--namely, "be about to, be going to, begin to" (Anlex in my Bibloi software).

 

I tend to agree with you here, basically.

While there are things that probably can be said for and against each version, here, such as my dislike for the rendering of "μετὰ ταῦτα" as 'later' in some of them, I'd suggest that any 'choking' is mostly self-inflicted, by the reader, and not by the translators.

Ed

 

You are correct, in that I overlooked the colon, when reading, and trying to understand your premise. (Comparing the number of versions, at the same time, in my head, was a bit confuting as well, to my one-track mind.)

I am not much of a fan of the TNIV, overall, as I believe it to be an attempted "politically correct" version, with its supposed "gender neutral" language. However, I also do not like the rendering of "later" as I indicated, so may have let that dislike interfere with my studying of all you were trying to say, having looked beyond this version. FTR, I am not a huge fan of the NIV, as well, but do see the difference in the two, when they are side by side. The NIV is definitely a more correct rendering, IMO.

I would say the NASB, of the versions you listed, does the best job with the verse, overall. Likewise, the NLTse does the worst, IMO.

The NIV also still uses the word 'later', which is an extremely poor rendering of "μετὰ ταῦτα", which is rendered in a much better manner as "after these things", IMO. But I am not going to get overly upset over it, nonetheless.

(And one can also make the argument that the three 'tenses' all refer to an 'overlap', from the construction, as well, as opposed to three distinct "time-frames", as well, although I do believe that they are actually referring to three different "time-frames". But perhaps I am letting my theology and eschatology actually infringe on the language of the text.)

I just do not use the NIV, all that much, even though my bride prefers it. :love2: I will sometimes suggest a better rendering to her, but not too vehemently, as you probably can understand. :laugh:

Perhaps I should have worded my response as "more self-inflicted by the reader as opposed to the translators", for a clearer wording of my intent.

I also did note that this dispensationalist (me) does not line up perfectly with our resident Bible Translator, John of Japan.

Ed

 

The two-fold division (of the TNIV and NLT) is perhaps derived from the context rather than the grammar.

Earlier in the chapter (vs 11) John was told to, “Write in a book what you see” .
Verse 19 then, emphasizes that request.

And what is John told to do? He is to write down the things that have been revealed to him.
Those are "the things which you have seen"

What were the things he saw and what did they concern?
They concerned "things which are [happening]" and "things which will take place after these things".

John then proceeds to write the things which 'are happening' in his messages to the seven churches.

A good source of grammatical information and structure (and one that lends support to the three-fold division) is Opentext.org (Rev. 1) [LINK]

Rob

 

Because "what are" becomes "what was" as it's written. :laugh:

Rob

 

This all sounds greek to me... :thumbs:

 

Here we have to disagree, I guess. The ESV does give three distinct tense usages (past participle, present, and future (with the infinitive added), here (unlike the RSV, in this instance), and the punctuation of a comma or omission of a comma before the "and" is optional (I do use them, personally.), in a 'list', without affecting the sense, in modern English grammar. By contrast, the RSV, by the use of the two present tense verbs of "see" and "is", and even given its usage of the infinitive, does not make the same distinction.

Language Cop tells me this, anyway, and also is telling me I need to get to bed. :sleeping_2:

G'nite, all.

Ed

 

Data Dump

John uses a similar construction of this past/present/future outlook in Rev. 17:8

The beast that you saw was, [εἶδες] and is [ἔστιν] not, and is about to [μέλλει] come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was [εἶδες] and is [ἔστιν] not and will come.
Revelation 17:8 NASB95

Yet I'm still not convinced of a "choke" in the translation: rather it's a different arrangement based upon context.

Rob