But I didn't say that. I said you're trying to show I'm wrong because there are writers who say it could be a doxology to the Father if they add punctuation in the right spot. You've not supported your point at all, you're just being contrarian.
Nonsense. Your wrong, as shown in Murray's #5.
Which is plenty of geek-tech support.
And I said NOTHING about adding punctuation to get to the AV text.
Murray's #5 does not need any additional punctation.
=================
Seven errors and one missing link.
You erred in claiming a grammatical problem in the AV text.
First you wrongly attacked "God blessed for ever" as being ungrammatical English.
You erred in claiming a translation problem in the AV text.
Now you say there must be an "is" in translation from the Greek in the natural AV order. Notice that Murray went into rather great depth into the word order of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς and never made this claim. If it were true, with his thoroughness you would see it in his discussion of #5. Feel free to find authorities that say that the AV is wrong translation because it does not have "is" between "God" and "blessed" as you claim. Even one would help, but they must be referencing Romans 9:5 and its word order and context.
You erred in claiming apposition between God and Christ as some sort of grammatical trigger when it was only your circular conclusion.
You erred in claiming that Christ must have three distinct affirmations. Error shown in the previous post.
You still do not know who is giving the blessing, and how that represents a "natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς”
You erred in missing the
“the natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς” and then rejecting the clear meaning of that phrase (it clearly is shown in the AV text) and then giving a convoluted, dancing non-explanation to give it essentially an opposite unreal application to the deity text.
You erred in claiming that I need or claim a Doxology to the Father, or some special support in that realm.
You erred in claiming the natural reading of the AV text needs added punctuation, like the Socinian glosses.
Seven errors and one missing link.
There are likely more, but that is a good start.
=================
I've answered that above; “the natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς” in Greek is "God is blessed," and by extension with Christ as the subject and God as the predicate nom./appositive, it means that Christ, who is God, is blessed forever.
The phrase came from Murray Harris. You are adding your convoluted explanation, designed to match your preferred text. An explanation that did NOT come from Murray Harris and does not apply to his #5. You are falsely mind-reading Murray.
In the AV text there is a "natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς”
"God blessed" clearly fulfills that natural association.
Unknown blessed (your text) does not.
'''. (Murray) Harris begins laying out the third point beginning at "F. The meaning of θεὸς," mid-way on p. 165, and completes it, where I quoted it, on p. 167, saying (now for the third time), "In Romans 9:5b one may isolate three distinct affirmations about Christ: he is Lord of all, he is God by nature, and he will be eternally praised." (p. 167).
You added nothing here. Murrray allows two distinct affirmations, as in AV and #5, or three in some other translations, like the one in which he eventually erred. That is why he said at least two.
Notice the
"may isolate", showing that this is applicable in some cases, and not others.
Your logic is wrong, again.
You are quote-mining and then digging in with error, instead of trying to understand the issues.