Romans 7:19

[] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com Tue Aug 22 23:33:28 EDT 2006   [] Direct Discourse: Nominative/Object? [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Romans 7:19 isOU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKONTOUTO PRASSWCan these be Iterative Presents? And if so, doesfrequency in a Present Tense imply that it happenswith high or low frequency/regularity? Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com   [] Direct Discourse: Nominative/Object?[] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 23 08:01:43 EDT 2006   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] Best Romans commentary for Greek? Mitch:> Romans 7:19 is> > OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON> TOUTO PRASSW> > Can these be Iterative Presents? And if so, does> frequency in a Present Tense imply that it happens> with high or low frequency/regularity? You've undoubtedly read about the Present Tensedenoting "on-going action" or "continuous action."Neither of these describes the inherent aspectualsemantics of the Present. One could argue that Paul isonly describing ONE EVENT (note the singular pronouns)in this passage you cite.My own guess is that Paul is describing the strugglewith indwelling sin, giving us ONE EXAMPLE, anddescribing his fight WHILE it is in progress. ThePresent Tense describes an event from the standpointof it being 'in progress,' not for how long it remainsin progress, or how many times (your iterativequestion) it occurs. Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents[] Best Romans commentary for Greek? [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Jason Hare jaihare at gmail.com Wed Aug 23 13:49:00 EDT 2006   [] Best Romans commentary for Greek? [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents I have never really looked at this verse before. I like the structure. :)ου γαρ ο θελω ποιω αγαθον, αλλα ο ου θελω κακον τουτο πρασσω.OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO PRASSW.I do not know if KAKON TOUTO should be taken as one noun phrase, or ifTOUTO should be understood separately as an emphatic (like EKEINOS inthe John 1:18 passage that we were discussing). My initial readingwould make put it together: "but this bad thing (anarthrous) which Ido not will, I do." If it is taken this way, then I can see Eddie'sperspective in saying that Paul was talking about a specific instance.I do not think this is the view of most readers, though. I think it ismore generalized in their understanding, and I think this might havebeen Paul's intention, because he seems to set up a rule about it inthe following verses:Ευρισκω αρα τον νομον, τω θελοντι εμοι ποιειν το καλον, οτι εμοι τοκακον παρακειται.hEURISKW ARA TON NOMON, TWi QELONTI EMOI POIEIN TO KALON, hOTI EMOI TOKAKON PARAKEITAI.This generalizing of the situation into a "rule" or a "NOMOS" surelyindicates that he was not meaning to limit his statement in verse 19to a specific instance, and it should be taken as an iterativepresent, IMO.JasonOn 8/23/06, Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe at yahoo.com> wrote:> Mitch:> > > Romans 7:19 is> >> > OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON> > TOUTO PRASSW> >> > Can these be Iterative Presents? And if so, does> > frequency in a Present Tense imply that it happens> > with high or low frequency/regularity?> > You've undoubtedly read about the Present Tense> denoting "on-going action" or "continuous action."> Neither of these describes the inherent aspectual> semantics of the Present. One could argue that Paul is> only describing ONE EVENT (note the singular pronouns)> in this passage you cite.> > My own guess is that Paul is describing the struggle> with indwelling sin, giving us ONE EXAMPLE, and> describing his fight WHILE it is in progress. The> Present Tense describes an event from the standpoint> of it being 'in progress,' not for how long it remains> in progress, or how many times (your iterative> question) it occurs.> > > > Eddie Mishoe> Pastor> -- Jason A. Harejaihare at gmail.comJoplin, Missouri   [] Best Romans commentary for Greek?[] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Wed Aug 23 14:50:06 EDT 2006   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Jason Hare wrote:> ου γαρ ο θελω ποιω αγαθον, αλλα ο ου > θελω κακον τουτο πρασσω.> OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO PRASSW.> > I do not know if KAKON TOUTO should be taken as one noun phrase, or if> TOUTO should be understood separately as an emphatic ...ROM. 7:19 repeats the thought in ROM. 7:15.ROM. 7:15 hO GAR KATERGAZOMAI OU GINWSKW: OU GAR hO QELW TOUTO PRASSW, ALL' hO MISW TOUTO POIW.ROM. 7:19 OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO PRASSW.Perhaps hO is cataphoric pointing to KAKON and TOUTO is the object of PRASSW.Elizabeth Kline   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents[] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Jason Hare jaihare at gmail.com Wed Aug 23 15:16:12 EDT 2006   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Very nice. I think I agree with you on the use of TOUTO in theseverses. Also, it is interesting to see the back-and-forth of POIW andPRASSW. :)JasonOn 8/23/06, Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> > On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Jason Hare wrote:> > > ου γαρ ο θελω ποιω αγαθον, αλλα ο ου> > θελω κακον τουτο πρασσω.> > OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO PRASSW.> >> > I do not know if KAKON TOUTO should be taken as one noun phrase, or if> > TOUTO should be understood separately as an emphatic ...> > ROM. 7:19 repeats the thought in ROM. 7:15.> > > ROM. 7:15 hO GAR KATERGAZOMAI OU GINWSKW: OU GAR hO QELW TOUTO> PRASSW, ALL' hO MISW TOUTO POIW.> ROM. 7:19 OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO> PRASSW.> > Perhaps hO is cataphoric pointing to KAKON and TOUTO is the object of> PRASSW.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> -- Jason A. Harejaihare at gmail.comJoplin, Missouri   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents[] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Wed Aug 23 16:46:46 EDT 2006   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents [] John 1:18 / Acts 15:14 I have some lingering doubt about this analysis. AGAQON and KAKON disrupt the pattern established in ROM. 7:15OU GAR hO QELW TOUTO PRASSW,ALL' hO MISW TOUTO POIW.ROM. 7:19OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON,ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO PRASSW.I have joined AGAQON with QELW and assuming parallelism KAKON also with QELW. But there are other options. Joining KAKON TOUTO as a noun phrase seems to disrupt the symmetry, however some translations seem to go with that reading.Elizabeth KlineOn Aug 23, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Jason Hare wrote:> Very nice. I think I agree with you on the use of TOUTO in these> verses. Also, it is interesting to see the back-and-forth of POIW and> PRASSW. :)> > Jason> > On 8/23/06, Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:>> >> On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Jason Hare wrote:>> >>> ου γαρ ο θελω ποιω αγαθον, αλλα ο ου>>> θελω κακον τουτο πρασσω.>>> OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO PRASSW.>>> >>> I do not know if KAKON TOUTO should be taken as one noun phrase, >>> or if>>> TOUTO should be understood separately as an emphatic ...>> >> ROM. 7:19 repeats the thought in ROM. 7:15.>> >> >> ROM. 7:15 hO GAR KATERGAZOMAI OU GINWSKW: OU GAR hO QELW TOUTO>> PRASSW, ALL' hO MISW TOUTO POIW.>> ROM. 7:19 OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON TOUTO>> PRASSW.>> >> Perhaps hO is cataphoric pointing to KAKON and TOUTO is the object of>> PRASSW.>> >> >> Elizabeth Kline>> >> >> >> >> --->> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > > > -- > Jason A. Hare> jaihare at gmail.com> Joplin, Missouri> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/   [] Romans 7:19 Iterative Presents[] John 1:18 / Acts 15:14 [] Romans 7.19, 20 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 18:18:58 EDT 2007   [] Cross-References & Quotations in NA27 and UBS [] Romans 7.19, 20 19 OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON ALLA hO OU QELW KAKONTOUTO PRASSW 20 EI DE hO OU QELW EGW TOUTO POIW OUKETI EGWKATERGAZOMAI AUTO ALLA hH OIKOUSA EN EMOI hAMARTIA In verse 20, can OU modify POIW and resume verse 19'spoint of NOT doing the good? Therefore, Paul says, "ifI do not do the thing (AGAQON) I desire, it is nolonger...Paul is arguing that on occasion he does NOT do thegood and does the bad, so this seems to follow but Ican't find any translation that agrees. Mosttranslations have OU modify QELW not POIW. Somethingtells me its location next to QELW may require it tomodify QELW, but I see QELW EGW TOUTO as a unitbetween OU...POIW. Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas ____________________________________________________________________________________Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Searchhttp://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz   [] Cross-References & Quotations in NA27 and UBS[] Romans 7.19, 20 [] Romans 7.19, 20 Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net Thu Oct 4 18:47:26 EDT 2007   [] Romans 7.19, 20 [] Romans 7.19, 20 Dear Mitch,I think that the reason for OU modifying QELW and not POIW is because in each ofthe uses of QELW it is with article and negative. See the following:19 OU DE hO QELW POIW AGAQON19 ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON20 EI DE hO OU QELWFurthermore, you have the following:19 TOUTO PRASSW20 TOUTO POIWEn Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III----- Original Message ----- From: "Mitch Larramore" <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>To: "B Greek" < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:18 PMSubject: [] Romans 7.19, 20> > 19 OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON> TOUTO PRASSW> > 20 EI DE hO OU QELW EGW TOUTO POIW OUKETI EGW> KATERGAZOMAI AUTO ALLA hH OIKOUSA EN EMOI hAMARTIA> > In verse 20, can OU modify POIW and resume verse 19's> point of NOT doing the good? Therefore, Paul says, "if> I do not do the thing (AGAQON) I desire, it is no> longer...> > Paul is arguing that on occasion he does NOT do the> good and does the bad, so this seems to follow but I> can't find any translation that agrees. Most> translations have OU modify QELW not POIW. Something> tells me its location next to QELW may require it to> modify QELW, but I see QELW EGW TOUTO as a unit> between OU...POIW.> > Mitch Larramore> Sugar Land, Texas> > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search> http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz> ---> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy ofCom-Pair Services!> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date: 10/04/07 8:59AM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!   [] Romans 7.19, 20[] Romans 7.19, 20 [] Romans 7.19, 20 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org Fri Oct 5 01:04:40 EDT 2007   [] Romans 7.19, 20 [] Brekekekex Hapax Hapax Dear Mitch,This is a case where indicating the accents is not only helpful, but essential, so I have added them below. The EGW is probably not original, but that is a minor point:----- Original Message ----- From: "Mitch Larramore" <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>To: "B Greek" < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 5. oktober 2007 01:18Subject: [] Romans 7.19, 2019 OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON, ALLA hO OU QELW KAKONTOUTO PRASSW 20 EI DE hO OU QELW [EGW] TOUTO POIW, OUKETI EGWKATERGAZOMAI AUTO, ALLA hH OIKOUSA EN EMOI hAMARTIA> > In verse 20, can OU modify POIW and resume verse 19's> point of NOT doing the good? Therefore, Paul says, "if> I do not do the thing (AGAQON) I desire, it is no> longer...The three times hO is the relative pronoun in neuter accusative, referring to the objects of the verbs:19: For I do not do (the) good which I want (to do), but (the) bad which I do not want (to do), that (is what) I practice,20: But if what I don't want (to do), (if) that (is what) I do, it is no longer...Because OU immediately precedes QELW and is inside a relative clause, it can only modify QELW. The relative clause hO OU QELW is a unit and cannot be split up.>... but I see QELW EGW TOUTO as a unit> between OU...POIW.TOUTO is syntactically the object for POIW, not QELW.Iver Larsen   [] Romans 7.19, 20[] Brekekekex Hapax Hapax [] Romans 7.19, 20 kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net Fri Oct 5 09:19:58 EDT 2007   [] PAS in Colossians 1:15-20 and tense in v.20 [] Responding to the first message of a thread Hello, I not so sure about that one. Because the way I see it hO OU QELW EGW is all under the relative clause and TOUTO POIW is a separate clause all together.--Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net-------------- Original message -------------- From: Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com> > > 19 OU GAR hO QELW POIW AGAQON ALLA hO OU QELW KAKON > TOUTO PRASSW > > 20 EI DE hO OU QELW EGW TOUTO POIW OUKETI EGW > KATERGAZOMAI AUTO ALLA hH OIKOUSA EN EMOI hAMARTIA > > In verse 20, can OU modify POIW and resume verse 19's > point of NOT doing the good? Therefore, Paul says, "if > I do not do the thing (AGAQON) I desire, it is no > longer... > > Paul is arguing that on occasion he does NOT do the > good and does the bad, so this seems to follow but I > can't find any translation that agrees. Most > translations have OU modify QELW not POIW. Something > tells me its location next to QELW may require it to > modify QELW, but I see QELW EGW TOUTO as a unit > between OU...POIW. > > Mitch Larramore > Sugar Land, Texas > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > ____ > Luggage? GPS? Comic books? > Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz > --- > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/   [] PAS in Colossians 1:15-20 and tense in v.20[] Responding to the first message of a thread Timothy, Thanks for he correction, you are right of course. You response highlights what I was trying to get at... namely are there a clear grammatical reasons for the way Paul constructs this passage or is do we have to rely more on logical inference for the antecedents? I am not sufficiently familiar with relative pronoun constructions to know if this is a typical structure. My observation for what its worth (very little probably) is that Paul has opted for a certain amount of rhetorical beauty and balance, a sort of aesthetic quality for effect, almost poetic! Obviously the over all context makes it clear what he means. Paul Evans Wilmington, NC Statistics: Posted by Paul Evans — October 19th, 2013, 9:35 am

---