Hoping to shed more light.
Thank you for the answers that I have received so far,
and I will try to clarify my question to help everyone
understand where I am coming from.
In the NIV in verse 15 it reads:
"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do,
but what I hate I do."
In the KJV in verse 15 it reads:
"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not;
but what I hate, tha do I."
In the NRSV it reads:
"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want
to do, but I do the very thing I hate."
Each of these versions are very similar and I have only written them
to allow you to see them here, rather than taking the time to
look them up.
I also understand that the writers of the Greek NT word order can be
and is moved around. The essence of my question is first, does an 'ou'
automatically negate the very next indictative verb that it follows?
And I ask this because I see in verse 15 that the Greek reads:
"o gar katergazomai ou ginwskw (No Problem Here). ou gar o thelw touto
prassw (here lies my question), all o misw touto poiw."
Do you negate the verb 'to practice' or do you negate the verb
'to want'? It apprears that the English version negates the second verb
of the sentence.
Is this more clear for those that did reply already and for those you
simple thought it sure looks like mud from here too. If this is simple a
figment of my mind I can handle the truth if it is told to me as such.
I say all this in the simple of hope of understanding my faith and
the scriptures that I believe in, so spare no just critizism. I Scripture
can handle it, even if I might have to take sometime to understand.
Grace and Peace to All
Trevecca Nazaren College