RE: ROMANS 8:32

Clayton Bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 02 Jul 1997 09:52:32 +0000

Tom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
My trouble is with the whole hOS GE relative clause. Is this whole
clause modifying the hO QEOS found in verse 31 or is it somehow
dependent on XARISETAI?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes hO QEOS appears to be the *only* antecedent of hOS GE. I think
the PWS . . . XARISETAI clause is paratacticly connected to the
preceeding clause. This is an example of the rabbinic form of
arguement light/heavy, where the lesser example becomes
the grounds (c.f., Perry Miles post) for the greater example.
Therefore, the PWS . . . XARISETAI clause is *semanticly*
related to the hOS GE clause but don't look to find a close
gramatical relationship, only parataxis.

Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point

Please ignore this paragraph. This is a test paragraph to see if the line wrap is still
causing problems. This is a test paragraph to see if the line wrap is still causing problems.
This is a test paragraph to see if the line wrap is still causing problems.