Preterist Bible is coming!

[stormcrow]

bibleprophecyfulfilled.com/preteristbible.html

Here is an excerpt from the site:

Some examples of futurist translation bias being addressed include:

The blatant omission of the Greek word mello (about to), which is an imminent time indicator, from the KJV 106 times. The NIV and NASB “only” omit mello about 85 times. Mello has now been re-inserted back into the Word of God, where it has always belonged.

The Greek word stoicheion is used seven times in the New Testament. It is usually translated elements, as in 2 Peter. In reality, this word is not talking about physical materials, but principles or ideas (cf. Gal 4:3). In 2 Peter, stoicheion is describing the principles of the Old Covenant being destroyed in a fiery judgment, and not a future nuclear holocaust.

In the Greek, Ge can mean land or earth. The superior translation, particularly in the book of Revelation, is often land. For example, Revelation 1:7 more accurately reads tribes of the land, and not nations of the earth.

The Book of Revelation, written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Rev. 11:1-2 and 17:10), describes events that were coming primarily upon the land of Israel in the first century (as well as the Roman World) not subsequent generations.

Revelation 9:16 refers to a two million man army from China—or does it? In the Greek it is actually myriads upon myriads. Could the number just as readily be translated as 20,000 or 200,000?

In some versions of the KJV Matthew 24:3 reads - end of the world? The Greek is actually - end of the age? The Greek words Aion (age) and Kosmos (world) are not synonymous.

Oikoumene is poorly translated as whole world. This Greek word is actually almost always referring to the Roman world. Luke 2:1 is one example of fifteen. In addition to the Bible, which clearly and repeatedly illustrates oikoumene as the Roman world, Josephus’ The War of the Jews and other first-century plus writings further illuminate the accurate meaning of the Greek word oikoumene as the Roman world.

In the Preterist Bible, the futurist translation bias has been removed. It makes reading the Scriptures so much clearer. The fog of futurist (1 Thes 5:21) translation bias has been thoroughly dissipated, and the distorting carnival mirrors replaced. Now we can see more clearly!

This is an exciting time to be a student of the Bible. Here is but one example of the futurist bias removed:

because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." Acts 17:31 (NASB)

Because He has appointed a day, in which he is about to judge the Roman world in righteousness by that Man who he has appointed; of which He has given assurance to all men, in that He has raised Him from the dead. Acts 17:31 (FCB)

I'll be getting my copy for Christmas.

[Morris]

As I look at the excerpt, what I see is one bias replacing another bias - a 'better' bias perhaps, but a bias none the less.

[I had much more written, explaining things and getting onto a bit of a tangent regarding doctrinal bibles and agendas. But after looking at it I decided it was better to just leave it at this. ]

Enjoy the new version, just keep in mind that it too *is* biased, even though it is in agreement with your own view, and probably more accurate overall.

[Allyn]

I am a proud contributor of two commentaries. Titus and Deuteronomy.

[Allyn]

Dec 6, 2012 12:19:54 GMT -5 Morris said:

As I look at the excerpt, what I see is one bias replacing another bias - a 'better' bias perhaps, but a bias none the less.

[I had much more written, explaining things and getting onto a bit of a tangent regarding doctrinal bibles and agendas. But after looking at it I decided it was better to just leave it at this. ]

Enjoy the new version, just keep in mind that it too *is* biased, even though it is in agreement with your own view, and probably more accurate overall.

Morris, we replaced the bias. So yes, it is a more accurate view.

[Morris]

Dec 8, 2012 9:17:17 GMT -5 Allyn said:

I am a proud contributor of two commentaries. Titus and Deuteronomy.

Very cool. And this kind of thing illustrates what I was trying to get at; I prefer it when doctrinal interpretation is presented in commentaries, not within the translation itself. (And yes, many, if not all of them, are guilty of this.)

Now, in most cases, I imagine that this translation itself is probably more accurate, but I can see from the excerpt that doctrinal view is influencing the translation when it perhaps should not. The text should also be allowed to say whatever it says, regardless of whether that is a perceived difficulty or not. Explanatory notes can be used to clarify things and present views.

Again, this goes for all translations. I wasn't intending to just pick on this one. My concern as a student of scripture is that people are aware of biases and the influences they can have. We all have our biases and beliefs so I'm not suggesting that they are wrong, but when used in translating scripture (by any interest group), I am especially sensitive to it.

I don't know. I wish that I didn't sound so negative. Maybe I'm just too sensitive to influential motives, and the "why"'s, especially when sales are involved. And I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from getting one either. Just be aware, that's all.

[Once4all]

Sheldon, I agree with you about biased translations. They are all biased in one way or another. Regarding the specific example given here ("he will judge" vs. "he is about to judge"), if the imminent time of the second writing is indeed present in the Greek, then the bias lies with the first writing, which omits it and allows for any length of time in the future. Do you agree?

Bev

[Morris]

Dec 12, 2012 12:07:15 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Sheldon, I agree with you about biased translations. They are all biased in one way or another. Regarding the specific example given here ("he will judge" vs. "he is about to judge"), if the imminent time of the second writing is indeed present in the Greek, then the bias lies with the first writing, which omits it and allows for any length of time in the future. Do you agree?

Bev

To be honest, that example isn't even the main bias that I was thinking about. (I was referring to some things in the quoted excerpt). However, even that example can display some bias as the word is more indicative of intention without speaking of timing specifically. And 'imminent' is not inherent in the word either; it can refer to something imminent (and often does refer to something soonish), but it doesn't have to. For example, Romans 5:14.

So to your question, there is nearly just as much bias here as in the first writing. Here, the bias is that 'about to'/'mello' demands immediacy, and it does not. In the first writing, the bias is to sometimes ignore the word altogether. In my opinion, both biases exist to either avoid the appearance of doctrinal difficulty, or strengthen the view. We all need to be wary of these things.

Acts 17:31 could be translated as, "Because He has appointed a day, in which he purposes to judge the land in righteousness by that Man who he has appointed; of which He has given assurance to all men, in that He has raised Him from the dead." But then again, I could be biased and not even realize it.

However, and at the very least, "purposes" (or "intends") is a verb just like 'mello' ("about to" is not). And although that sounds like "maybe He'll actually judge or maybe he'll change His mind when the time comes", 'mello' here is in the indicative mood, meaning it is being said as a 'statement of fact'; His purpose will come about and you can be well assured of this fact because He raised Him from the dead for this purpose. (And just to be transparent, I'm not suggesting this refers to some rapture or the like).

[Once4all]

Thanks, Sheldon. Your explanations are always well-researched and well-written.

Bev

[Allyn]

Yes, thanks, Morris.
You probably understand the point preterism is making. To remain faithful to the context of end of the age termonology and indicators, we find it important to keep the flow consistant and harmonizing throughout the New Testament in this regard.

[Morris]

This is why I love this place and have continued to stay here - I can have honest conversations and even propose criticisms. And on top of that, instead of being called immature names, I'm thanked for my contributions.

So, thank YOU!

[Once4all]

Dec 13, 2012 9:23:00 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Yes, thanks, Morris.
You probably understand the point preterism is making. To remain faithful to the context of end of the age termonology and indicators, we find it important to keep the flow consistant and harmonizing throughout the New Testament in this regard.

I agree. It is important to keep the flow consistant... as long as one is not engaged in making the flow consistent. Big difference! If words are massaged to make something consistent, I don't think that is being honest with the translation. Semantics, I know.

Bev

[stormcrow]

Romans 5:14 from th FCB (Fulfilled Covenant Bible):

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is a type of Him that is about to come.

IMHO, this presents a much clearer picture of the verse in question, and is now consistent with verse 9:

Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we will be saved from wrath through Him.

His second coming was to be as that of a wrathful God executing "vengeance for the covenant" according to Leviticus 26, Luke 21:20-22, Matthew 21:33-45, and Matthew 23:34-38.

Put another way, "we will be saved from wrath through Him...who is about to come."

This rendering is perfectly consistent with what Jesus told the disciples on the Mount of Olives:

"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Matthew 24:37-39 (NASB)

Paul repeats this idea in his letter to the Thessalonians:

For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come. 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 (NASB)

And here:

For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 (NASB)

The point I'm trying to make here is that stripping imminence from Romans 5:14 not only destroys what Paul literally wrote and the context in which he wrote it, but destroys the link between what Paul clearly believed and wrote in one letter with what he wrote in others. A perfect example of how the futurist bias pits Paul against Paul can be seen in these two verses:

The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 1 Corinthians 15:26 (NASB)

but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10 (NASB)

This futurist bias not only pits Paul against Jesus but Paul against himself! The proper reading of Romans 5:14, therefore, is the one that makes it consistent with everything else Paul wrote about the subject elsewhere in the NT, as demonstrated above.

[stormcrow]

In other words, there is no reason at all to change the definition of mello (from "about to be" to "was" or "shall be") when interpreting it in every case as "about to be", "about to come", "about to go", etc. preserves the intent of the writer to convey imminence. That's because apostolic eschatology, as revealed in the writings of the NT given when these letters and gospels were written, was all about imminence!

There is no better example of this than what can be seen in comparing the following two passages:

"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Matthew 24:32-34 (NASB)

Jesus spoke these words circa 30 AD. By the time James wrote his epistle - believed to have been written as late as 62 AD - the apostles had seen all the signs they needed to see to write what he wrote:

Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door. James 5:7-9 (NASB)

The last sign Jesus said would be fulfilled before the end of Temple Judaism, as the apostles had known it, was that the gospel would be preached throughout the entire Roman Empire (Matthew 24:14). We see this fulfilled in the words of Paul to the Romans and Colossians (Romans 1:8, 10:18, 16:26, Colossians 1:5-6, 1:23). There was nothing left for them to look forward to but the imminent expectation of His coming, just as He had promised, before their generation had passed.

This is the context in which the apostles must be understood regarding their "end time" beliefs and it's the way these passages using the word Greek word "mello" must be translated.

[stormcrow]

By the way, you can read Allen's commentaries (among others) here:

www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.com/bible/commentaries/commentary_deuteronomy.pdf

and here:

www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.com/bible/commentaries/commentary_titus.pdf

Good work, Allen!

[Morris]

Dec 15, 2012 11:55:03 GMT -5 stormcrow said:

In other words, there is no reason at all to change the definition of mello (from "about to be" to "was" or "shall be") when interpreting it in every case as "about to be", "about to come", "about to go", etc. preserves the intent of the writer to convey imminence.

...

I only have a quick moment to comment so I'll just say this; Why is there a reason to change the definition of mello to "about to be" from "to intend"? So while translating it certain ways keeps the appearance of consistency, I still question it's accuracy when the word has more meaning to it.

You could simply use "intending to do", "intending to be", "intending to suffer", but that doesn't give the desired sense of imminence. Saying "about to" removes the fact that 'mello' is a verb and usually in the present tense. "About to" makes it a preposition. To me, that is a fundamental shift.

[Allyn]

Dec 17, 2012 13:00:23 GMT -5 Morris said:

Dec 15, 2012 11:55:03 GMT -5 stormcrow said:

In other words, there is no reason at all to change the definition of mello (from "about to be" to "was" or "shall be") when interpreting it in every case as "about to be", "about to come", "about to go", etc. preserves the intent of the writer to convey imminence.

...

I only have a quick moment to comment so I'll just say this; Why is there a reason to change the definition of mello to "about to be" from "to intend"? So while translating it certain ways keeps the appearance of consistency, I still question it's accuracy when the word has more meaning to it.

You could simply use "intending to do", "intending to be", "intending to suffer", but that doesn't give the desired sense of imminence. Saying "about to" removes the fact that 'mello' is a verb and usually in the present tense. "About to" makes it a preposition. To me, that is a fundamental shift.

Intentions are not absolute. God speaks in absolute terms. This is the best reason I can think of for rendering the Greek the way we have.

[stormcrow]

You could simply use "intending to do", "intending to be", "intending to suffer", but that doesn't give the desired sense of imminence. Saying "about to" removes the fact that 'mello' is a verb and usually in the present tense. "About to" makes it a preposition. To me, that is a fundamental shift.
Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prophecy&action=display&thread=928#ixzz2FNvflJHf

Because there is a way to convey mere intent or purpose by saying "He is about eating" or "She is about swimming."

But when you combine "about" with the infinitive verb form "to _______" (fill in the blank with the verb of your choice) - which is what "mello" means (about to be), you not only convey intent but imminence.

It's the difference between saying "I am about eating" and "I am about to eat." Mello denotes the latter and should, therefore, be translated this way in every case where it is used.

[stephenpatrick]

Dec 8, 2012 9:17:17 GMT -5 Allyn said:

I am a proud contributor of two commentaries. Titus and Deuteronomy.

Hey Allyn.

I just saw this. Congratulations.

[Allyn]

Dec 18, 2012 7:57:43 GMT -5 stephenpatrick said:

Dec 8, 2012 9:17:17 GMT -5 Allyn said:

I am a proud contributor of two commentaries. Titus and Deuteronomy.

Hey Allyn.

I just saw this. Congratulations.

Thanks, brother. Hey, have you heard anything from Ted? I haven't seen him for a long time.

[Morris]

Dec 18, 2012 2:16:18 GMT -5 stormcrow said:

But when you combine "about" with the infinitive verb form "to _______" (fill in the blank with the verb of your choice) - which is what "mello" means (about to be), you not only convey intent but imminence.

How is it treated when there is no combination with an infinitive verb?

[Allyn]

Dec 19, 2012 11:10:57 GMT -5 Morris said:

Dec 18, 2012 2:16:18 GMT -5 stormcrow said:

But when you combine "about" with the infinitive verb form "to _______" (fill in the blank with the verb of your choice) - which is what "mello" means (about to be), you not only convey intent but imminence.

How is it treated when there is no combination with an infinitive verb?

John 4:47 is a good example where it is used as being at the point of something, and in this case at the point of death. I believe The Aorist Infinitive comes in to play (no pun intended).

[stormcrow]

John 4:47 is a good example where it is used as being at the point of something, and in this case at the point of death. I believe The Aorist Infinitive comes in to play (no pun intended).

When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and was imploring Him to come down and heal his son; for he was at the point of death. John 4:47 (NASB)

Or, literally put, "he was about to die." This is how Young's Literal Translation translates mello:

he, having heard that Jesus is come out of Judea to Galilee, went away unto him, and was asking him that he may come down and may heal his son, for he was about to die. John 4:47 (YLT)

Here are some other instances where even the futurist translators got it right.

As Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem...Matthew 20:17 (NASB)
Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" Matthew 20:22 (NASB)
was sick and about to die. Luke 7:2 (NASB)
which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Luke 9:31 (NASB)
for He was about to pass through that way. Luke 19:4 (NASB)
And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" Luke 21:7 (NASB)
"But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place..." Luke 21:36 (NASB)
to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die. John 18:32 (NASB)
When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. Acts 3:3 (NASB)
On the very night when Herod was about to bring him forward, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers... Acts 12:6 (NASB)
But when Paul was about to open his mouth... Acts 18:14 (NASB)
as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. Acts 20:3 (NASB)

And there are many, many other examples of this interpretation of mello even in a translation like the NASB. So it's curious to see this same word "mello" translated as "shall", "will", or "was" in other passages where it is wholly unjustified to translate it as such apart from a futurist bias.

In other words, were it not for a futurist bias, "mello" would be translated in every instance exactly as it has been translated in the examples cited above. This, again, is what the FCB does: it strips futurist bias out of the NT.

[Morris]

Dec 20, 2012 9:32:10 GMT -5 stormcrow said:

In other words, were it not for a futurist bias, "mello" would be translated in every instance exactly as it has been translated in the examples cited above. This, again, is what the FCB does: it strips futurist bias out of the NT.

My apprehension comes from the fact that the word has more than one facet to it. This is what I find when researching it, no matter where I look.

Take the Analytical Greek Lexicon;

- to be about to, on the point of,
- it serves to express in general a settled futurity,
- to intend,
- future as distinguished from past and present,
- to be always, as it were, about to do, to delay, linger

Again, only one facet is used, while the richness of the word itself is boiled down to a single possible expression, "to be about to".

"A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti";

1- for the future, hereafter,
- things future, things to come,
2 (joined to an infinitive)
a- to be on the point of doing or suffering something,
b- to intend, have in mind, think to,
c- as in Greek writing from Homer down, of those things which will come to pass (or which one will do or suffer) by fixed necessity or divine appointment,
d- in general, of what is sure to happen,
e- to be always on the point of doing without ever doing, i.e. to delay

2a is latched onto while everything else is ignored to the point where I feel like the translators want me to believe it does not have any other possible meaning than 'soon'. Thus I have to conclude that there is a bias, even though in many cases the bias is correct. But then again, even the futurist bias gets it 'right' sometimes.

[Allyn]

But Morris, that is exactly the point. If all the NT writers wrote of the 1st century end of the age, wouldn't you suppose that "mello" should be used as at the point of or about to take place? It wouldn't be correct to use it in such a way that left the 1st century readers confused.

[stormcrow]

2a is latched onto while everything else is ignored

And yet, as has been pointed out in the other verses where the word is translated "to be about to", there is not a single instance of the word I have seen where any of these other meanings you cite make more sense than the one repeatedly used by even futurist translators.

The verses where these other senses of the word always seem to appear are in verses that appeal to futurist interpretation. Here, again, is a perfect example of this (I won't quote the FCB but Young's Literal):

having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. Acts 24:15 (NASB)

There is no sense of timeliness, imminence or urgency in Paul's words when mello is translated "there shall certainly be." But when you read the verse in Young's, it takes on a whole new meaning:

having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; Acts 24:15 (YLT)

There is no reason to translate mello "shall be" when the proper translation "about to be" is consistent with the apostolic view from every NT writer that Jesus' parousia was imminent.

The only reason for the change from "about to be" to "shall be" is because "shall be" allows Paul's words to fit within a futurist paradigm for understanding them.

They changed the meaning of his words to fit a doctrinal view despite properly translating it in every other case where it didn't contradict their dogma.

If Young's Literal were the only translation the church ever had, do you think we would even be having this discussion? And yet precisely because mello has been mistranslated in certain cases in any number of translations, the argument for its continued mistranslation is derived from its repeated mistranslation!

[stormcrow]

If all the NT writers wrote of the 1st century end of the age, wouldn't you suppose that "mello" should be used as at the point of or about to take place? It wouldn't be correct to use it in such a way that left the 1st century readers confused.

Agreed.

This...

I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation and his reign-- 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT)

is perfectly consistent with this...

You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door. James 5:8-9 (NASB)

and this...

The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. 1 Peter 4:7 (NASB)

and this...

Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Philippians 4:5 (NASB)

This...

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Timothy 4:1 (NASB)

not so much.

Was there any reason to omit "about" in the NASB version of 2 Timothy 4:1 apart from futurist bias? If there is a sound exegetical reason for doing so, I have never seen it.

[Allyn]

There is another striking consideration that we haven't discussed, and that is what to do with Israel 2000 years later. Did Jesus come to satisfy the prophets for the sake of a group of people unrelated to the 1st century Jews who practiced (rightfully so) the Law of Moses, Or did He come to bring in the New Covenant for those who eagerly awaited the fulfillment of Jeremiah 30 but up to that time were still bound by the Law?

[Morris]

Dec 20, 2012 23:54:44 GMT -5 stormcrow said:

Was there any reason to omit "about" in the NASB version of 2 Timothy 4:1 apart from futurist bias? If there is a sound exegetical reason for doing so, I have never seen it.

I don't think so in this case. But that's the kind of thing a bias can do.

But the question I raise is why is "to be on the point of doing or suffering something" latched onto so vehemently, and "to intend, have in mind, think to" (for example) utterly ignored? Is that not a bias that is used to appeal to a particular interpretation?

Imagine if I were to now say that "about" should only be understood to mean "of; concerning; in regard to". That is the only meaning that should be understood when reading that word. We can safety ignore "near; close to", "here or there; in or on", and "on every side of; around". I think the same thing is being done with 'mello' because it fits an interpretation.

Many people also forget that we aren't really dealing with just one word, but rather with a base word in it's many forms (I know we often speak of 'mello' regardless of form out of simplicity). But should all these forms be treated the same despite the fact they are different?

A quick example; in both Matthew and Luke 3:7 we read "Brood of vipers! who did shew you to flee from the coming wrath?" (YLT) . Here we have a form of the word 'mello' that certainly does not mean 'about to', but uses the concept of "things future, things to come", with no sense of when in the future (be it one day, one month, one year, one generation). If "about to" is strictly used here with its "on the verge of" meaning, it cannot refer to an event over forty years away (as I believe it does).

"Mello" has more to it than simply "about to", just as "about" has more to it than "of; concerning; in regard to".

I'll stop with that and leave it. Feel free to rebuttal but I'll allow others to have the final word, as this is a preterist site after all, unless someone asks me to comment specifically.

[stormcrow]

A quick example; in both Matthew and Luke 3:7 we read "Brood of vipers! who did shew you to flee from the coming wrath?" (YLT) . Here we have a form of the word 'mello' that certainly does not mean 'about to', but uses the concept of "things future, things to come", with no sense of when in the future (be it one day, one month, one year, one generation). If "about to" is strictly used here with its "on the verge of" meaning, it cannot refer to an event over forty years away (as I believe it does).

Again, there is absolutely no wrong in translating mello "about to come" in Luke 3:7 because even verse 9 establishes imminence!

Then he said to the multitude that came out to be baptized by him, Oh generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? 3:8 Therefore bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father: for I say to you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 3:9 Now also the axe is laid to the root of the trees: Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire. [FCB] www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.com/bible/luke.pdf

This is a case where the NASB is actually more strongly worded in verse 9:

"Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Luke 3:9 (NASB)

If the axe is "already laid", then the wrath is "about to come!"

Ultimately, your argument against translating mello as "about to...." in every case so far, rests on its continued and repeated mistranslation, despite the fact that translating it "about to..." is perfectly acceptable - if not preferable - in every case you've provided.

And thank you for the respectful discussion.

[stormcrow]

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14 (NASB)

As pointed out in another post, this was the last sign the disciples/apostles would see before the end came. The gospel of Matthew was written in 40 AD, making it one of the earliest written books of the NT.

By the time Paul wrote his letters to the Romans (@57 AD) and Colossians (@60-62 AD), wherein he claimed the prophecy of Matthew 24:14 to be fulfilled (Romans 1:8, 10:18, 16:26, Colossians 1:5-6, 1:23) the "end" was within a matter of a few short years (the Jewish rebellion that led to war with Rome began in 66 AD).

In fact, given this information, it seems ludicrous that "mello" would be translated to connote anything else.

Given that most of the books of the NT were written in the late 50s/early 60s, and that they had seen the last sign they would see fulfilled in the preaching of the gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire, the use of the word "mello" meaning "about to..." makes perfect sense. His parousia was imminent. This is what they believed and conveyed to their readers in their letters.