the fun-damental questions of interpretation and text/punctuation

Brianrw

Member
And I think his analysis is more on Hippolytus and ECW than the decrepit emendation, attempt.

Unitarians don't play fair with either the Greek or English​

I've seen the whole spectrum of how Unitarians/Socinians both use, pervert and dismiss the ancient writers, play loose with the Greek texts, and manipulate translations when the Deity of Christ is involved. It's all tiresome nonsense, and unfortunately they, as Paul writes, "are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:18).

Again, you insist that this is a dichotomy, when I showed you with Murray that the interpretations run in 3 groups.

Murray's list is grouped by punctuation following the UBS punctuation apparatus (none, major, minor)​

Let's not misrepresent what Murray is showing. First, his conclusion is that Christ is spoken of as "God," and that the other translations are unjustifiable. Secondly, Murray states, "The analysis in table 4," p. 149, "shows the principal ways in which Romans 9:5b has been punctuated by modern editors and translators of the Greek text or by representative commentators." (emphasis mine). The words "none, minor, major" refers to the punctuation apparatus of the UBS text. It is not a table designed to show all the ways the passage can be interpreted or translated. It is just a list, grouped by punctuation.

So far as semantics, there is a dichotomy: either a doxology to the Father (Socinain) or a doxology to Christ as God (Orthodox). The only "Beautiful high Christology" translations present demonstrate Christ as God.

The punctuation in both the Textus Receptus and the Critical texts (NA, UBS) all demonstrate ὁ ὢν as pointing back to ὁ Χριστὸς. Any translation that does not follow this has emended the punctuation of the respective Greek text before translating, to which I respond below that:

Every failure to faithfully translate Romans 9:5 into English is based not on grammar, but on the Presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God" (and the same goes for all the other passages where Paul calls Christ "God" in the Greek)​

Following Murray's survey on pp. 152, 153, it is very easy to spot that every reason why translators want to make God the Father as the referent of θεὸς is based upon a presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God". There is not a single, sound grammatical argument to be found. In response: (1a) Christ is not a mere human. (1b) This is not a grammatical consideration (1c) This is an excuse by Abbot, a Unitarian, not a grammatical construction (1d) Circular reasoning: i.e., "there are no doxologies to Christ, so there can't be one here." (2) A theological argument, not grammatical, (3) The recurring circular argument Paul does speak of Christ as God: i.e., in the many instances where he plainly does in the Greek, this argument is applied to question the proper translation. (4) The grammar does not support this type of construction. (5) Paul could not call Christ God because that might incense the Jews is also not a grammatical point.

Excuses and Emendations​

These explanations are, like the Socinian glosses, merely excuses to not translate the passage exactly as it is in the Greek, specifically to avoid admitting that Paul is referring here to Christ as God. That's why there are attempts to remove ὢν, attempts to remove θεὸς, and attempts to transpose ὁ ὢν. If the passage was merely a "High Christological Doxology," there would be no reason for any of these emendations.

A. Jesus is God (6,8,9) - textually worthless, although you would allow 6 and 9

Rightly Following the Greek (Rightly interpreting the usage of the article)

I'm not entirely sure where you are coming at from a Greek level. In the Greek, in Romans 9:5 Jesus literally is identified as "God over all." It's just what it says. No amount of grammatical eisegesis will actually change that. The English says the same thing.

ὁ Χριστὸς [τὸ κατὰ σάρκα·] ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν​

It is a very simple Greek construction. The second instance of the article points back to ὁ Χριστὸς and ὢν means is the present participle of εἰμί ("to be"). Thus far, "Christ . . . who is." After that follows ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς "God over all."

Rightly Following the English (The comma is placed before "God" in English because there is an apposition involved)​

Since Paul gives precedence of word order to ἐπὶ πάντων, the proper way to express it in English would be to place the emphasis first on "over all" before "God." I.e. "Christ . . . who is over all, God." In English grammar, because "God" is appositional to "Christ," a comma should be placed before it. The problem to anticipate is that commas are frequently misused in English and their proper usage is not always rightly interpreted. To avoid such a misunderstanding "God over all" may be deemed more preferable. At that point, we are not speaking of conflicting translations. It's like arguing over semantics: e.g., "Hi, Steven" vs. "Hi Steve" vs. "Hello Steven" vs. "Greetings, Steven." One doesn't make the other wrong.

B. Beautiful high Christology (AV and similar, where generally the doxology is seen to the Lord Jesus Christ.)
If the doxology is to Christ, it is to Christ as God. If the passage merely speaks of Christ who was born an Israelite according to the flesh, but the doxology is to the Father, there is no high Christology, as every man is born in the flesh.

There's not another way to read the text, "Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever." The doxology is to Christ as God. Otherwise, you are effectively reading it as the Socinian gloss "God be blessed forever" that drew the ire of Greek grammarians, Orthodox ministers and commentators when it was first proposed.

C. Socinian glosses (worthless(
The Socinians deliberately introduced not only that gloss, but several other glosses because the Greek text, as well as the English, speaks of Christ as God!

Whitby has a lot more in:
Again, Whitby converted to Unitarianism at the end of his life. His Last Thoughts are retractions of Orthodox views. You are literally adopting a Socinian interpretation, while at the same time promoting it as Orthodox. As teachers, it is not about defending a point of view, but of getting things right.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
20.
*** Thomas Goodwin (1683), The Works of Thomas Goodwin (Romans 9:5 on pp. 35, 73, most clearly p. 87. Titus 2:13 on p. 77, uses punctuation in the same spot as the 1611 AV after God, noting that it is "speaking of one, and the same person, Christ. And 'tis here, the putting the Article before great God, and none before Saviour, imports: and so distinguisheth him from God, by the like Phrase generally..."; also understands "God and our Saviour" in 2 Peter 1:1 as affirming Christ as God).

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680)

He probably wrote 1650-1660

Thomas Goodwin (1697)
He goes into these theories, with some confusion and counterpoint involving Beza, and some interesting try, more here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IU9UGKFU984C&pg=RA1-PA23 - 1697
http://books.google.com/books?id=JoVPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA283 - 1864

1637088908103.png

1637089237723.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Again, Whitby converted to Unitarianism at the end of his life. His Last Thoughts are retractions of Orthodox views. You are literally adopting a Socinian interpretation, while at the same time promoting it as Orthodox. As teachers, it is not about defending a point of view, but of getting things right.

You are a master of the genetic fallacy.

(To be fair, Whitby's Last Thoughts have all sorts of weaknesses, but perhaps a strength here and there, have to go over with a fine tooth comb.)

Focus.
Note that I strongly support Jehovah, as in the AV, it is the Tetragram in English.
"Yahweh" is Jupiter, the name of a devil, never to be used by a Christian in prayer or worship. And I have dear friends praying in that name, and I try to reach out to help.

Some Evangelicals get upset because many JWs do understand that Jehovah is correct. So they do not want to receive the precious truth because of the genetic fallacy! Am I supposed to support a devil because the JWs get this partially right? (Of course they blunder horribly in putting Jehovah in the NT, selectively at that! However, that is another issue.)

Many of these "Evangelicals" are promoting the devil Yahweh. Would you promote the devil Yahweh to keep your distinction from the JWs?

Plus I never claim to be promoting something because it is "Orthodox." My goal is to promote Biblical truth, and the AV is the plumb-line. While you want to join Sharp in faux corrections of the AV.

And I took a day mostly away from this because of some heavenly witnesses conversations.

btw, again, there are THREE approaches to Romans 9:5, not two, as I showed in my Trichotomy page. If you accuse me of a Socinian interpretation, you are at best mistaken, at worst lying.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
He probably wrote 1650-1660
Thank you. I'm trying to update them, some of the writings are older than the published date due to varying editions.

Thomas Goodwin (1697)
He goes into these theories, with some confusion and counterpoint involving Beza, and some interesting try, more here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IU9UGKFU984C&pg=RA1-PA23 - 1697
http://books.google.com/books?id=JoVPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA283 - 1864
You have to read it more carefully, because you seem to be reading in something that's not there.

Re: "God, and our Saviour Jesus," there is no confusion our counterpoint that I see, or at least you'd have to clarify. Commas are not syntactic during that period English, and that may be confusing you. They were used only to show where the author wanted to show a pause in speech, his context is clear that he means by this "one person," as he states. It continued to be so with commas until at least the mid-18th century, and the rules as we have today were codified around 1906. I mentioned this at the top of that list with a reference to the article explaining it.

He's comparing it to other scriptures having equivalent constructions--the same examples I've given in fact--where passages are speaking of God as "God and our Father" and proving the construction from them. He goes on to say the reading "expressly" states Jesus is our God and Saviour, and does not discuss any alternatives beyond the initial question.

You are a master of the genetic fallacy.
The Unitarians, the Socinians, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are all notorious for their corruption of the scriptures. I have no problem calling them out for their deceit. Paul warns to mark them. They don't even need to adopt a reading, they only have to muddy the waters with alternate translations, ambiguities, conjectural emendations, variants, etc. no matter how viable. Thus, then, they insulate their own from the arguments of the Orthodox, and all the more better when they sway the Orthodox to be sympathetic to their opinions. It's ludicrous to watch. Like Paul and the other NT writers were so bad at Greek that they couldn't help but accidentally write all those passages that plainly testify of the Deity of Christ, that only they themselves know how to clarify.

btw, again, there are THREE approaches to Romans 9:5, not two, as I showed in my Trichotomy page. If you accuse me of a Socinian interpretation, you are at best mistaken, at worst lying.
I never had. I said that your "third" interpretation stands alone, and would require an emendation of the Greek text. That's why no one advances it. A first semester Greek student would know why your interpretation doesn't follow the Greek text, as it demonstrates a complete ignorance of the usage of Greek adjectives. You think I'm lying to you when I'm not. I already told you to ask around.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thank you. I'm trying to update them, some of the writings are older than the published date due to varying editions.
You have to read it more carefully, because you seem to be reading in something that's not there.
Re: "God, and our Saviour Jesus," there is no confusion our counterpoint that I see, or at least you'd have to clarify.

One issue is how he relates to Beza, who we normally put more in the identity mode, while Erasmus is in the non-identity mode.
 

Brianrw

Member
One issue is how he relates to Beza, who we normally put more in the identity mode, while Erasmus is in the non-identity mode.
The only thing I see from above is that Beza, according to Goodwin, understands one person to be in view in Titus 2:13. That note was in Beza's 1598 editionsof the Textus Receptus, which was the main Greek sources utilized by the KJV translators for the 1611 edition. It was in his earlier 1588 edition as well.

Erasmus had a habit of following favored writers when they may be at odds with the Greek. Titus 2:13 being no different, he found himself embroiled in endless controversy by adhering to a comment by Ambrosiaster, in the Latin, which he perceived drew distinction between the Father and Son in Titus 2:13, against the Greek text.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The only thing I see from above is that Beza, according to Goodwin, understands one person to be in view in Titus 2:13. That note was in Beza's 1598 edition of the Textus Receptus, which was the main Greek source utilized by the KJV translators for the 1611 edition.
Goodwin writes like this.
1637103236850.png


While Goodwin may interpret it that as one "person", his English definitely reads as dual addressing. Remember, no Geneva Bible edition has this as an identity verse.

Now, Lewis Campbell goes into Beza's identity view on this one verse here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fZzQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA485
one text only - Burgess about Beza
https://books.google.com/books?id=gQULAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA11

The learned men of the AV clearly rejected the Beza interpretation in many places, including Titus 2:13, that is why Sharp and Wallace and you want to correct the AV.

A lot of the Goodwin stuff goes in auxiliary areas, seems quirky, but worthy of study, when there is time available.

If there is a rule per any writer, then four or five AV texts must be retranslated, not one.
That is newly covered here.
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...anville-sharp-sought-to-correct.52/#post-8819

You cannot retrofit your latest changes to proper names, blah blah, (mind-reading, statistical analysis, uggies) on writers before Sharp.
There is simply the article construction.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Goodwin writes like this.
1637103236850.png


While Goodwin may interpret it that as one "person", his English definitely reads as dual addressing.
That's what you're not getting. I've told you before that commas back then were elocutionary, not syntactic. I left that note even at the top of the list. All it means is he is expressing a pause. Why do you think Goodwin says immediately after (which you have not included in this snippet):
"...it is clearly meant one person, viz., Christ. For, first, the article τοῦ clearly carries it; it is not said twice, as it would have been if two persons had been intended . . ."​

Beza himself understands this of one person, that's your second contextual clue, which he notes in his 1588 and 1598 editions (if not earlier). If you don't care to believe me, the context is quite clear. There is no "dual-addressing" here, or in any other book of the 1500s and 1600s. It's you who is confused by the archaic construction, not Goodwin.

Remember, no Geneva Bible edition has this as an identity verse.
Yes, it does. The problem is you are stumbling over the English words in the GNV (I'm using the 1599), trying to read it like modern English. The footnote for Titus 2:13 in the Geneva Bible is express: "Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance and coming is called by the figure Metonymy, our hope." You are simply not understanding how that form of English construction was used back then. A relic of that usage still lingers in the 1769 KJV in Colossians, where we read, "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ" (Colossians 2:2).

In 2 Peter 1:1, the footnote is also clear:

A salutation, wherein he giveth them to understand that he dealeth with them as Christ's ambassador, and otherwise agreeth with them in one selfsame faith which is grounded upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour.
And in Romans 9:5, "A most manifest testimony of the Godhead and divinity of Christ."

In all three place, that version is against what you are saying here.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
That's what you're not getting. I've told you before that commas back then were elocutionary, not syntactic.

Our God and our Savioir Jesus Christ - reads nicely as two, especially with a pause.
Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, reads nicely as one.

2 Peter !:1 is identity in the Geneva

”that version“ ? It is not a version. You are looking at Goodwin.

Titus 2:13 - Check the Geneva 1560. They change in editions.

And the text of the 1599, which does have the margin note, does NOT match its margin note.
1637121772597.png

1637121856222.png

https://books.google.com/books?id=wGHylXkwEm8C&pg=RA5-PA8

Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, -

A commentator can write whatever they want in a margin note.

Did you actually leave out that text deliberately?
(if so, that type of stuff undermines your credibility)

Now checking to see if the faux footnote is in the 1560.

This 1560 edition does NOT have the errant footnote.
1637122727336.png

https://books.google.com/books?id=twtOAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA101
Also the 1569
https://books.google.com/books?id=zf5mAAAAcAAJ
Nor the 1560 facsimile
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

My conjecture so far is that the errant footnote in 1599, that you highlighted ignoring the actual text, came from Laurence Tomson (1539-1608) or Francis Junius the elder (1545-1602).

Some info on Puritanboard:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1560-vs-1599-geneva-bibles.24151/

Btw, an edition with a 1599 date may be printed later, but that does not really affect this issue.

An elocutionary pause has syntactical significance, in a case like this. If your voice is trying to connect the two phrases, there is no purpose for a pause. However, in the case above, the syntax es suficiente.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
A commentator can write whatever they want in a margin note.
The 1599 contributors to the marginal notes were John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby. Certainly no slouches among them regarding the Greek text. This marginal note seems to most closely resemble the comment of Beza in his 1588/98 Greek editions (Cf. "metonymie").

And the text of the 1599, which does have the margin note, does NOT match its margin note.
This 1560 edition does NOT have the errant footnote.
Did you actually leave out that text deliberately? (if so, that type of stuff undermines your credibility)
C'mon be real.
My credibility is fine. You open yourself to criticism when you say "no Geneva Bible edition has this as an identity verse," and the commentator of the 1599 edition states that "Christ is here is most plainly called the mightie God." They didn't even have to appeal to the Greek to say it, or offer an alternate rendering.
1637121856222.png


Our God and our Savioir Jesus Christ - reads nicely as two, especially with a pause.
Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, reads nicely as one.
You've lost this point. You made a mistake reading the passage, admit it and move on. Goodwin makes his comment clear that the translation he provided spoke of one person, in agreement with Theodore Beza. You're trying to make a syntactic usage out of the comma that didn't exist back then, and arguing that somehow Goodwin was confused and didn't know he was contradicting himself. You then try to pull out Goodwin as a "dual-addressing" authority because you didn't carefully read what he was saying afterward.

”that version“ ? It is not a version.
"That version" refers to the version you mentioned, which is the Geneva Bible.

An elocutionary pause has syntactical significance, in a case like this. If your voice is trying to connect the two phrases, there is no purpose for a pause. However, in the case above, the syntax es suficiente.
No, you can't read our rules of punctuation back into 17th century English. There was no syntactic connection with punctuation in that time period. It's quite apparent in that passage, especially when after quoting it he says it refers to one person. As I've noted, "God, and our Father" in the 1611, speaks of one person, not two. These commas were all removed by 1769.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
My credibility is fine. You open yourself to criticism when you say "no Geneva Bible edition has this as an identity verse," and the commentator of the 1599 edition states that "Christ is here is most plainly called the mightie God." They didn't even have to appeal to the Greek to say it, or offer an alternate rendering.

The TEXT is what counts. And the TEXT is definitely NOT identity.
Note, I used the word VERSE.

Apparently, you left the text out deliberately.
Once again, you would do better not to play those games. Deliberate omissions of primary information hurts credibility.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
There was no syntactic connection with punctuation in that time period.

You do not seem to realize that an elocutionary pause will often be there precisely because of the syntactical understanding. When we speak, we pause between phrases that are not closely connected. Thus if a Sharp construction was felt to say Jesus is God, there should not be an elocutionary pause between Jesus and God.

(Putting aside one absurd attempt of three descriptions in Romans 9:5, which is not Sharp anyway.)

The learned men of the AV understood the primary sense of all the Sharp-Winter Blunder Verses quite well.

And I am surprised that the English scholars on a quick review do not highlight this salient fact, although they probably do with the better writers. Or they would, if asked.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The 1599 contributors to the marginal notes were John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby. Certainly no slouches among them regarding the Greek text. This marginal note seems to most closely resemble the comment of Beza in his 1588/98 Greek editions (Cf. "metonymie").

1599 had many new notes.
Your margin note has no visibility before 1599.

Calvin, who passed in 1564
Miles Coverdale, who passed in 1569,
John Knox who passed in 1572
William Whittingham who passed in 1579
Anthony Gilby who passed in 1585

did not contribute to those new 1599 notes.
And likely none of the people you mentioned were among the contributors.

And I gave you two proper names above that come from the scholarship studies. It is very possible that a Beza note in his Greek edition had some influence on Laurence Tomson (1539-1608) or Francis Junius the elder (1545-1602). If Theodore Beza had contributed to the notes directly, that should show up in the scholarship circles.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
In 2 Peter 1:1, the footnote is also clear:
A salutation, wherein he giveth them to understand that he dealeth with them as Christ's ambassador, and otherwise agreeth with them in one selfsame faith which is grounded upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour.

And they have the mistaken identity in the text as well.

by the righteousnesse of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ:

This was corrected in the AV 1611.

Sharp and Middleton and Wallace and Winter tried to change the AV, despite the fact that there is basically zero ECW support.

============================

On Titus 2:13, the 1599 Geneva margin note is essentially irrelevant, since the Geneva text in all editions is clearly dual addressing.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0hTffh4VpY8C&pg=RA7-PP9

1637265214751.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
You've lost this point. You made a mistake reading the passage, admit it and move on. Goodwin makes his comment clear that the translation he provided spoke of one person, in agreement with Theodore Beza.

We have seen again and again that a text can be dual addressing, and the eyes of the "Jesus is God" corrrector of the AV reader ignores the text, and says it is identity.

See the Titus 2:13 footnote right above in the 1599 Geneva for a perfect example. They were not retranslating the text, so they pretended that it said what they wanted it to say.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You do not seem to realize that an elocutionary pause will often be there precisely because of the syntactical understanding. When we speak, we pause between phrases that are not closely connected. Thus if a Sharp construction was felt to say Jesus is God, there should not be an elocutionary pause between Jesus and God.

Encyclopedia Britannica - "their purpose was elocutionary, not syntactical . . . at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase"

You are reading in "syntactic" issues in based upon how you understand pauses in speech and punctuation in modern times. Punctuation as we utilize it was actually codified around 1906, but at the time of the AV translation commas were not syntactic:

By the end of the 16th century . . . their purpose was elocutionary, not syntactical . . . Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase...
It was the lexicographers Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler in The King's English, published in 1906, who established the current British practice of light punctuation. Punctuation in the United States has followed much the same path as in Britain, but the rules laid down by American authorities have in general been more rigid than the British rules. ("Punctuation in English since 1600," Encyclopedia Britannica)

On Titus 2:13, the 1599 Geneva margin note is essentially irrelevant, since the Geneva text in all editions is clearly dual addressing.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0hTffh4VpY8C&pg=RA7-PP9

The 1599 footnote in the GNV tells us how the passage was "most plainly" read in 1599, not how it would be read today.​

While I may have otherwise been inclined to agree with you, period works and commentaries show us how the English was read at any moment in time, as the language continues to evolve. The Geneva bible is a 16th century translation, and its text reflects the grammatical conventions of its time. The author of the footnote certainly held that the passage "here most plainly" showed that Christ was the "mightie God." We find this same curious construction in the AV, "the mystery of God, and of the Father," where I believe we both agree no dual addressing is intended. To me, that footnote has more weight than how we would read it today. If you can produce writers from the 1500s that may give clarity (I have turned up nothing so far from the 1500s; those I can find who quote the GNV comment only of Christ), that would be helpful. Otherwise, it was over 400 years ago. I'll take this word for it.

The AV 1611 punctuation in Titus 2:13 was not understood as indicating dual addressing​

Most of the 65 writers I produced for Romans 9:5 (stopping at 1798) also comment on this passage, and there is no variation so far among the Orthodox. I will refer you again to William Beveridge in 1710, who says Titus 2:13, referring to Christ as God, is rightly translated "the Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Sermon on Several Subjects, p. 78). You have already made the mistake in reading Mr. Goodwin, who following the same punctuation ("The great God, and Saviour of us," and not 2 "ours" as you say) immediately afterward indicates it is "speaking both of one, and the same person, Christ." (1683 edition, p.77). Even the punctuation of his own comment shows a different usage. Many works could be added to these two, which I have noted here.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
If it's a doxology to the Lord Jesus, then the doxology speaks of Christ as being both "over all" and "God," so I don't know what we are debating. Without "by" or "be," there's no other way to read the English.

Close, it speaks of Christ being "over all" and "God blessed for ever".

You can pretend there is a hyphen there.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

The 1599 footnote in the GNV tells us how the passage was "most plainly" read in 1599, not how it would be read today.​

While I may have otherwise been inclined to agree with you, period works and commentaries show us how the English was read at any moment in time, as the language continues to evolve. The Geneva bible is a 16th century translation, and its text reflects the grammatical conventions of its time. The author of the footnote certainly held that the passage "here most plainly" showed that Christ was the "mightie God." We find this same curious construction in the AV, "the mystery of God, and of the Father," where I believe we both agree no dual addressing is intended. To me, that footnote has more weight than how we would read it today. If you can produce writers from the 1500s that may give clarity (I have turned up nothing so far from the 1500s; those I can find who quote the GNV comment only of Christ), that would be helpful. Otherwise, it was over 400 years ago. I'll take this word for it.

That was only in the 1599 Geneva NOTES.
It was not in the:

1557 Whittingham
1560 Geneva - Text or Notes
1576 Geneva - Laurence Tomson - text or notes - ADDED: THIS MAY HAVE THE NOTE
1599 Geneva text (no new translation)
1611 AV

The 1599 notes are interesting, but of little significance, as I explained that they did not come from any of the core Geneva translators.

=====================================

Colossians 2:2 (AV)
That their hearts might be comforted,
being knit together in love,
and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding,
to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God,
and of the Father,
and of Christ;

There definitely is dual addressing, the question is whether there is tri-addressing.
John Gill is interesting.
Are you really using this as an analogy verse?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Goodwin's punctuation (1683 edition, p.77, though he died much earlier in 1620).

Thomas Goodwin (1600 -1680)

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680)

He probably wrote 1650-1660

More silly stuff

You have already made the mistake in reading Mr. Goodwin,

No mistake, Brian. As I simply pointed out that the way he quoted Beza, with a comma and two ours, was not an identity quote. 100% proper, although I see now that you are totally confused on the comma aspects, so I may set up a special post.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Survey of English Comments on the Passages of Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13

Alternative views


On Romans 9:5 here is a source for a bunch of alternate views, mostly having "God blessed" separated from Christ.
And Titus 2:13

Can seek out book quotes.

Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism: With an Examination of the Alleged Biblical Evidence for the Doctrine of a Triune God, the Proper Deity of Christ and the Divine Personality of the Holy Spirt Distinct from the Father (1837)
John Wilson
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ruxmwknf0n4C&pg=PA132

Granville Sharp Rule page
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ruxmwknf0n4C&pg=PA142

Titus 2:13
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ruxmwknf0n4C&pg=PA144
1637395974850.png


https://books.google.com/books?id=Ruxmwknf0n4C&pg=PA285
1637395698527.png



Concessions of Trinitarian Authors p. 268
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ruxmwknf0n4C&pg=PA268

1637396357950.png
1637396404581.png


John Wilson (1802-1868)
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Wilson, John, 1802-1868

George Hill (1750-1819)

James Yates (1789-1871)
http://books.google.com/books?id=peQ_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1449

Joseph Priestley -(1733-1804)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley

Racovian Catechism (1605)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racovian_Catechism

William Ellery Channing (1780-1842)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellery_Channing

Ralph Wardlaw (1779-1853) - Congregationalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wardlaw

Moses Stuart (1780-1852)
 
Last edited:
Top