MatthewJames Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 I just purchased the full SIL series and I was looking up Romans 5:1 and I noticed some weird punctuation and I was just wondering if it is supposed to be like this or if this is a known problem? Here's a good example... QUESTION—Does the aorist participle primarily reflect a past action or present status? It refers to the past action by which God has accepted believers into their current relationship and status [WBC], Justification is a once–for–all act of acquitting a sinner that brings him into a new and permanent status [NICNT], Those who have received justification enjoy the benefit of it now [NTC], QUESTION—What relationship is indicated by ἐκ ‘because of? It indicates the reason God has justified us [HNTC, ICC2, SSA, TH, WBC; GW]: we have been justified because we have faith. This refers to faith in what Jesus Christ has done [sSA], Many translate this as though it indicates the means by which we have received justification [AB, BECNT, ICC1; all versions except GW]: we have been justified by faith. However the implied subjects of the events are different, i.e., God justifies us and we believe, so ‘by’ probably implies reason also. You'll notice that in the top paragraph it seems like it is placing commas where there should be periods, such as after the [WBC] reference and before the capital "J" in "Justification". It continues to do it through that section and then ends the whole section with a comma after the [NTC] reference. However the second paragraph which comes right after it uses a combination of periods and commas. The second paragraph seems to be closer to what it should be like. I can't seem to make sense of why it would be doing this? What am I missing? Or are these just formatting errors? Thanks for the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 Definitely a formatting issue. Working on it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 There's an update (version 1.6) for the SIL Exegetical Summary that fixes this issue. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewJames Posted December 1, 2018 Author Share Posted December 1, 2018 Thank you so much for the prompt reply. It looks great now. Problem solved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now