Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228704 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! You wrote: "Thus people may disagree about what Paul actually means in Romans 7. What they CANNOT do if they take Scripture seriously is ignore the basic rule of grammar when interpreting it. For there are no grounds for doing so apart from the fact that it does not agree with your position." But, in your previous post, you wrote: "As with anyone who seeks to establish rules concerning a language I do it on the basis of usage. No language has a list of rules." So, I am confused. How can I violate a rule that doesn't exist. :-) But, rather than beat a dead horse, I will bow out at this point. There is no grammatical reason why Rom. 7:14-25 cannot be an historical present. You don't feel that it is, and I do feel that it is. I have enjoyed the conversation my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228709 | ||
Tim Moran said: "Thus people may disagree about what Paul actually means in Romans 7. What they CANNOT do if they take Scripture seriously is ignore the basic rule of grammar when interpreting it. For there are no grounds for doing so apart from the fact that it does not agree with your position." But, in your previous post, you wrote: "As with anyone who seeks to establish rules concerning a language I do it on the basis of usage. No language has a list of rules." So, I am confused. How can I violate a rule that doesn't exist. :-) My reply: I would hate you to go through life confused (even if I think you are).:-)) I said a list of rules, not basic rules. Usage provides a basic rule for tenses, past is past, present is present, future is future. This is what all students learn when they are learning most languages (not Hebrew because Hebrew has no past or future tense). I will accept that as a rule as it is so well attested from usage. But any variations from this occur because of unusual usage. Thus the so-called historic present is only used in exceptional situations. It can only be called in when it is demonstrated that the basic rule does not apply. But where in the same passage there is a change from past to present that decides the issue. The present cannot be an historic present. If we do not observe that fact language is meaningless. I notice by the way how quick you are to be dogmatic about tenses when it suits you. Do you really think that you can play it both ways? |
||||||
3 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228711 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! I have had years of training in Greek, so I am aware of what the grammatical rules are. So, rather than continuing to debate the point, I would simply urge the readers of these posts to do a little research themselves concerning the historical present and make of their own minds. Thanks for the discussion my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||