historical present tense John writes about the "historical present tense": > this is not a grammatical distinction -- > only a philosophical one, and, hence, open > for disageement.
It is more than a philosophical distinction, but perhaps you mean to point out that there is no specific syntax or grammar that identifies its use. One must interpret whether or not it is being employed from the context, but this does not mean that it is open for disagreement. Perhaps you mean to say that the assertion alone is not proof. John wrote: > Whether Paul is using an "editorial 'I' " or not, > the fact is that the one in Romans 7 is serving > Christ on one level while sin continues to be an > issue on another level (7:25). This is no fact. The "I" in Romans 7 is not serving Christ, but rather serving the law. He says he is talking about those under law. Those who serve Christ are free from the life of condemnation that he describes in detail in Romans 7. The last verse, Romans 7:25, answers the previous verse, "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" The answer is, Jesus Christ. Then the following verse describes the kind of deliverance that awaits the condemned man in Romans 7. You might want to read some more of Tom Wright on this one. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
