Dr. Faustus' faulty reasoning and misunderstanding of scriptures is part of what leads him to behave as he does. Read the following lines carefully, and then read Romans 6:23 and 1 John 1:7-9. Stipendium peccati mors est.

Ha!

Stipendium, &c.

The reward of sin is death: that’s hard.

[Reads.]

Si peccasse negamus, fallimur, et nulla est in nobis veritas;

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and

there is no truth in us. Why, then, belike we must sin, and

so consequently die:

Ay, we must die an everlasting death.

What are the discrepancies (differences) between the Bible passage and Faustus' understanding? What does Faustus seem to be missing in his self-knowledge? What are some dangers that might come with misinterpreting scripture? Please explain fully how Faustus' reasoning is incorrect.

How might an author with the opposite attitude rephrase the following sentence? this historic building is a local treasure, with a distinctive exterior and many antiques and fascinating artwork on the inside. choose the correct answer from the following choices, and then select the submit answer button. it's a shame this old building hasn't been torn down yet: its ugly design makes it an eyesore, and it is full of rickety furniture and dusty paintings. this building was built over 100 years ago and features a design not seen on many other buildings of the era as well as a large collection of furniture and art. the old man running the antiques shop watched the kids with suspicion, worrying they would not handle his fragile merchandise with proper care. it is vital that we preserve the history of our town by taking care of buildings like this one, with its interesting design and outstanding collection of art and furniture.

c. is the answer to your question.

explanation:

third person

explanation:

note the usage of names and pronouns, "james" & "the old man". this alone can confirm it as third person, as first person uses "i" and the like, while second person uses "you" and the like.

~