From: George Athas (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 23 1998 - 16:08:29 EST
Theodore H. Mann wrote:
> Translations differ with regard to EMELLON APOQANEIN, in Rev.3:2,
> some translating the imperfect verb as "are about...," and others using
> "were about...." Is one or the other preferable, or are both
> acceptable? What is the rationale for either choice? Thanks.
Ted, I'd cast my vote for "were about", simply because of the use of the
imperfect verb EMELLON. It signifies continuous action in the past - the
action referred to being hard to translate as a verb in English. The verb
MELLW refers to future action.
PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney
Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College
Phone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591
(Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:16 EDT