Phil. 2:10 KAMYH=should bow or will bow?
Clwinbery at aol.com
Clwinbery at aol.com
Thu May 17 19:45:50 EDT 2001
In a message dated 5/17/01 3:15:21 PM, hjbluebird at aol.com writes:
>I really appreciate you help in this. But it wouldn't be grammatically
>correct to translate KAMYH as "will bow" would it? That's why I
>cann't understand why my NASB would do that. It's suppose to be a
>literal translation, isn't it?. I feel some what betrayed.
>
The aorist subjunctive is part of a hINA clause, hINA EN TWi ONOMATI IHSOU
PAN GONU KAMYHi. . .
by nature all subjunctives are potential and thus future. There are a number
of places in the GNT when the future indicative is used inter-changeably with
the subjunctives in hINA clauses. To translate the aorist subj. as future
here is, IMHO, is very close to what Paul was thinking. He considered that,
if this were God's purpose, it surely would come to pass.
Carlton Winbery
LA College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list