From: Trevor M Peterson (spedrson@juno.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 1998 - 23:59:05 EST
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:58:09 +0800 Steven Cox
<scox@ns1.chinaonline.com.cn.net> writes:
>
> Hello
> Sensitive question because it actually affects most of us:
>
> | Is there credible **linguistic** evidence that present tense
>in
> | Romans 7:14~25 refers to the past.
I don't know if this qualifies as linguistic, but here's a suggestion
since no one else has said anything yet:
Try putting the whole passage into aorist, for instance. It seems to
fall flat, if we don't get to view it from the internal aspect of the
present tense. I suppose that would only allow for it to refer to the
past, though--not really demand it. Other than that, I'd say the
continuity of Paul's discussion lends itself most readily to the same
circumstances discussed in vv. 7-13, which are past. Maybe then the best
answer comes from the context (although I'm sure the grammar fits in with
that somehow).
That's just off the top of my head; probably others will have a good deal
more to contribute.
Trevor Peterson
M.Div. Candidate
Capital Bible Seminary
Lanham, MD
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT