Origen

Steven Avery

Administrator
I've already told you in another place, "blessed" in that sense follows the definition of "honored in worship, revered, praised, extolled, exalted." Paul is expressing that he is praised and exalted for ever.

That has nothing to do with my question, which was about the ECW.
Try again.

You did not even answer who is the HE who is praised and exalted for ever, in the ECW.
Nor did you answer who gives the blessing in the ECW.

Are there even any who specifically indicate whether God or Christ is blessed for ever?
Are there even any who specifically indicate who is giving the blessing?
Those are the key issues in either supporting or rejecting the pure AV text.
It would be mildly relevant also if someone puts "Christ over all" or "God over all".
You never reviewed the actual ECW.

Brian
I don't see other interpretations among them, where there is no ambiguity, other that that Christ is called "God over all." I'm putting my notes together for you.

Ok, there are some that say that Christ is called God over all.
And there likely are some who do not. If they do not say it, they likely do not read it that way.

Those notes will be helpful, but still do not discuss the blessing part.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Proper English would be "who is over all, blessed by God for ever," for the way you seem to interpret it. But I don't think you understand the egregious manner in which you have to alter the Greek to get translation.

You want "who is over all, blessed by God for ever,"

You mistakenly think that saying this by "who is over all, God blessed for ever" is broken English grammar.
Amazing.

Your problem here is English. This is total nonsense.
The English as in the AV is wonderful. The two phrases are equivalent, although they have a difference in emphasis, the pure AV phrase emphasizing God, your alternative placing the blessing first.

Where did you come up with the cockamamie idea of attacking the English grammar of the simple read of the AV in Romans 9:5? Did you invent that one? Do you have a scholar or commentary reference?

At least we finally parsed out your English problem here.

Whew! Took a while :) .
 

Brianrw

Member
On more time; I don't support changing the AV. You are misreading it.

This is all a joke.
You only support Sharp's attempted corrections in two verses. More or less. You do not even know for sure.
As for my non-support, are you talking about the variants that aren't found in the Textus Receptus? Or the passages where he stretches the rule to include proper names, even after he himself said proper names don't apply? You're just running on pre-conditioned responses. I feel I might as well be speaking to the air.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
... But because proclaiming the Deity of Christ is objectionable, Socinians, Unitarians, and others have muddied the waters with "alternate" translations: adding a Greek comma, semicolon, or colon; removing words, transposing words, etc.

Why bring up the Socinian low Christology punctuations? Red herring.
We both agree they are worthless.

Read my trichotomy post under Romans 9:5.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator

Learn how to read. That is how I perceive you are reading it.


You want that as your correction to the AV grammar on the simple, clear reading of the text.

Deal with the fact that your accusation of bad grammar is totally bogus.

Where did you come up with this absurd accusation of bad grammar?

I think you made it up out of sheer cloth.

You want "who is over all, blessed by God for ever,"

You mistakenly think that saying this by "who is over all, God blessed for ever" is broken English grammar.
Amazing.

Please, this is so simple, you should be able to acknowledge.
 

Brianrw

Member
You want that as your correction to the AV grammar on the simple, clear reading of the text.
Honestly, what is wrong with you? Is there something wrong with your comprehension? Come to your senses a bit. I don't propose a correction to the AV grammar based on your misunderstanding of how to read it. I am simply saying that if you are reading the passage as "God-blessed," your understanding, which means "blessed by God forever," would be properly expressed that way in English. And that meaning would require a substantial reworking of the underlying Greek text. It is a corruption through exposition.

I've said the passage rightly translated is "who is over all, God blessed forever" where Christ is "over all" and "God" and "blessed forever". In other words, "Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed for ever." Is that not what is written there in Romans 9:5 AV?

Even the most basic, first year Greek student would know that two nominatives--one a noun, the other an adjective, when placed together cannot yield the interpretation you are proposing.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Proper English would be "who is over all, blessed by God for ever," for the way you seem to interpret it. But I don't think you understand the egregious manner in which you have to alter the Greek to get translation. Y

You might have a case for this if your theory of God and Christ being appositive was correct and provable. If it was given by a fluent Greek linguist. I showed you there are multiple appositive and predicate theories.

That ended your argument.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I am simply saying that if you are reading the passage as "God-blessed," your understanding, which means "blessed by God forever," would be properly expressed that way in English.

You were wrong.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "God blessed for ever".

Similar meaning, different emphasis.

You should man up and acknowledge that attacking that phrase was wrong. Calling it names like broken English grammar was simply a blunder on your part.

Easily corrected.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You might have a case for this if your theory of God and Christ being appositive was correct and provable. If it was given by a fluent Greek linguist. I showed you there are multiple appositive and predicate theories.

That ended your argument.
That's a completely illogical statement--i.e. the presence of alternate renderings means your rendering is wrong is the same as saying the passage is unknowable because multiple options for renderings are involved. That is precisely the situation the Socinians and Unitarians were trying to create. Fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

You have essentially produced variations of two options:

  1. Either the passage refers to Christ as "God over all" or,
  2. The passage ends with a doxology to the Father
NONE of them support the reading you are proposing and number 2 not only is directly contradictory to the AV text, but requires the addition of punctuation to the Greek text, which was not there in the beginning.

Feel free to email any Greek speaker and ask them if it can mean "blessed by God." It's literally a laughable understanding of the Greek. Propose it in a Greek forum if you want.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
That's a completely illogical statement--i.e. the presence of alternate renderings means your rendering is wrong is the same as saying the passage is unknowable because multiple options for renderings are involved.

The details do not really matter. I will let Greekies duke it out. The critical point is that you based your whole argument on God and Christ being appositive. You did not even give authorities, good or bad, for that argument. It was bluster on your part. Circular in a sense, in order to get to your preferred identity text.

The passage is knowable.
Brilliant scholars, providentially anointed, worked through it and gave us the AV text.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

You are welcome to go on the b-greek forum, or one of the Facebook venues, or other places and try to argue that you can not get the AV text from the Stephanus-Beza TR Greek (if that is what they used.)

The text above from the AV vindicates itself, in the simple reading that you reject. Since the learned men were 1,000 times better in Greek than you, the burden of proof is on you to prove any difficulties.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
The details do not really matter. I will let Greekies duke it out. The critical point is that you based your whole argument on God and Christ being appositive. You did not even give authorities, good or bad, for that argument. It was bluster on your part. Circular in a sense, in order to get to your preferred identity text.
Metzger isn't a good authority? Neither was Murray or Ritchie? Neither is Matthew Henry? Or John Gill? Do you not understand that any of the writers who say the passage refers to Christ "God over all" is affirming that "God" is an appositive to Christ, whether they say appositive or not?

An "appositive" simply is another way of calling a preceding noun by a different name. For example, "God the Lord". "Lord" is an appositive. "Christ the Lord," Lord is an appositive. "Kepha, who is Peter" Peter is also an appositive.

The passage is knowable.
Brilliant scholars, providentially anointed, worked through it and gave us the AV text.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.
Which means that "Christ" is "over all" and "God" and "blessed for ever."
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Metzger isn't a good authority? Neither was Murray or Ritchie? Neither is Matthew Henry? Or John Gill? Do you not understand that any of the writers who say the passage refers to Christ "God over all" is affirming that "God" is an appositive to Christ, whether they say appositive or not?

An "appositive" simply is another way of calling a preceding noun by a different name. For example, "God the Lord". "Lord" is an appositive. "Christ the Lord," Lord is an appositive. "Kepha, who is Peter" Peter is also an appositive.

Your logic is backwards. You claimed your case as if there was a grammatical imperative for God and Christ being appositive. Analagous to grammatical gender agreement forcing a connection.

It is simply an interpretive decision.
Many interpret that way, many do not.

Your bluster that you want an identity translation because God and Christ are appositive is classic circular reasoning.
 

Brianrw

Member
Your logic is backwards. You claimed your case as if there was a grammatical imperative for God and Christ being appositive. Analagous to grammatical gender agreement forcing a connection.
I think you don't realize you don't fall on either side of this argument. You're off on your own. And I don't think you are correctly following what I am saying, or what your sources are saying. As for the translations admitted by all the sources we've discussed, they fall into two camps: (1) Speaking of Christ as "God over all"/"over all, God" or (2) Providing a doxology to the Father. The distinction between the two involves an editorial decision to insert a hard stop and force ὁ ὢν to introduce a new subject, so that it becomes, "...Christ came, who is over all. The one who is God over all [be] blessed forever." By default, the only of the two renderings supported by the text of the AV is #1. Your interpretation is so far off the map.

Since Paul didn't have those conventions of punctuation available to him, he makes the article do the heavy lifting. And there are ways to introduce a new subject in Greek that Paul could have easily used, but he doesn't.

In the English construction "who is God over all," "God" would be a predicate nominative because it follows a linking verb. In the construction "Who is over all, God" "God" is used as an apposition because it follows a comma. These both perform the same function of renaming or redefining the subject noun. In either case, they redefine or rename the preceding subject and both mean the same thing. Again, I'm simply referring to English. In the Greek ὁ (ὢν) ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς would be considered a second predicate (or predicate nominative) to Christ, since a linking verb is involved. Does that help clear up what I am saying?
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
continued from above

Harris, θεὸς as appositional (predicative)

If you don't want to listen to me, I'll refer you back to Murray J. Harris (pp. 166, 167):

But what does θεὸς here signify as applied to Christ? Θεὸς is anarthrous not only because it is appositional (or predicative) but also because it functions as a qualitative noun, highlighting Christ's inherent divinity . . . Since Paul has already referred to Christ as being "over all," that is, as having preeminent status and dignity, θεὸς cannot be taken in a diluted or polytheistic sense...
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. But as they are stated by Paul, these three affirmations are interrelated. Christ exercises dominion over the whole universe, animate and inanimate, inasmuch as he is God by nature (θεὸς) and the worthy recipient of the everlasting worship generally reserved for the Father (Romans 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31).
He is saying here the very same thing I have been saying the whole time.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here is a summary of Murray's overall analysis:

Panayotis Coutsoumpos

1636540959939.png


Gospel Coalition
Ben Witherington III
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...testament-use-of-theos-in-reference-to-jesus/
Witherington has the hymn nonsense, and adds two verses

modification of the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6 (cf. now N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant), as well as in the marana tha prayer (1 Cor. 16:22).
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Did you ever say simply:

Who is blessed?
Who is giving the blessing?

I've asked this a few times, and I do not remember an answer.
I realize that you likely see Christ as blessed, but by who?
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Murray Harris p.166

“the natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς”

As we see in the AV text and is missing in your English corrections.

=======

And right after that Murray talks of two possible translations, the first is the AV pure Bible, #5 on his chart, but he prefers the second, one of the corruptions.

So he does get close.

=======

On p.161 he goes into the issue that the two words are normally in the reverse order, “a pattern of Biblical usage” (p.162) Looks like much ado about nothing. He actually makes a decent point about the “dominant thought” - akin to what I shared above about “emphasis.” And then more explanation is given by Winer.

There also is a good spot where he connect Christ with two related descriptors, "over all" and blessed for ever. p. 165 "two distinct affirmations".

(I have pictures now of all the pages, Google varies in showing pages based on PC, iPad, previous use. )

I may expand this when on puter rather than iPad :).

=======

Ironically, the chapter title tells the tale!

God Blessed Forever (Romans 9:5)

An independent phrase!

========
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
I think you don't realize you don't fall on either side of this argument. You're off on your own. ... As for the translations admitted by all the sources we've discussed, they fall into two camps: (1) Speaking of Christ as "God over all"/"over all, God" or (2) Providing a doxology to the Father.

Nope.
See Murray p. 162 and #5.

In that English text, Murray may not discuss who the doxology is to, but it clearly should be Christ.

Thus, it does not fit your dichotomy.
 

Brianrw

Member
Nope.
See Murray p. 162 and #5.

In that English text, Murray may not discuss who the doxology is to, but it clearly should be Christ.

Thus, it does not fit your dichotomy.
Are you really trying to refute Murray using Murray? :ROFLMAO: I literally bolded above how Murray clearly writes, "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). That is Murray discussing who the doxology is to, and saying it is Christ, despite you saying otherwise. That is also is every bit as clear as what I have said, a number of times now, that the passage is a doxology to Christ as God--that He is "over all," is "God," and is "blessed forever."

Who is blessed?
Who is giving the blessing?

I've asked this a few times, and I do not remember an answer.
I realize that you likely see Christ as blessed, but by who?
I've answered every time, most recently here. The only difference in the interpretation of the doxology is who it is for: Christ if we read the passage as Paul wrote it, or the Father if we follow the modern critical texts and insert punctuation to avoid calling Christ "God" and force a doxology to the Father. (I'm not making a conjecture with the latter. As Metzger specifically notes in his dissenting opinion, found in the volume accompanying the UBS text, this is exactly what the UBS committee consciously chose to do).

Who is giving the blessing?​

This is a typical Hebrew doxology, where the ones giving the blessing are implied (i.e., His people and creation) and "Blessed" follows the definition "revered, honored in worship, praised, extoled, exalted, magnified." So it is in Romans 9:5 of Christ. Paul uses the same form of doxology in two other places: (1) Romans 1:25, "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever (ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν). Amen," and (2) 2 Corinthians 11:31, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore (ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας)." I've also noted this before.

Who is blessed​

θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in this construction follows one of the simplest most basic uses of the Greek adjective, which is learned at quite an early stage. The two nominatives together like this means "God is blessed" since the adjective is in the predicate position (i.e., no article). The addition of is or be may be dropped depending on the actual construction, but the underlying meaning does not change. This is why I keep saying your interpretation requires an emendation of the underlying Greek. The text as Paul has written it--without inserting punctuation into the Greek to force a doxology to the Father--has "God" as a predicate nominative/apposition to Christ (i.e. Christ is God). Thus, together with "Christ" it means "Christ . . . who is . . . God is blessed."

Lastly, because the whole phrase already contains an equative verb, ὁ ὢν, one does not need to be supplied and the full construction becomes "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." Thus Christ is "over all," is "God," and is "blessed forever." I can no longer add is or be in italics as above because the passage would be misread as a doxology to the Father.

Here is a summary of Murray's overall analysis:

Panayotis Coutsoumpos

View attachment 1929

Gospel Coalition
Ben Witherington III
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...testament-use-of-theos-in-reference-to-jesus/
Witherington has the hymn nonsense, and adds two verses

modification of the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6 (cf. now N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant), as well as in the marana tha prayer (1 Cor. 16:22).
You should be reading Murray, not a review of Murray, to get the most accurate account. Murray indicates some doubt, but says it is because he is reading the passage from the UBS (p. 172). He notes that they have punctuated it in a certain manner which I've already discussed above. Metzger (part of the UBS committee) specifically notes in dissent that the punctuation of the UBS is an editorial decision chosen by the majority to force the passage into a doxology to the Father because they don't believe Paul would call Christ God (which is circular reasoning). That's admitted, and I trust you are not of the view that this was a right decision? But I say again, even the minority of authors you have quoted that prefer to force a doxology to the Father admit my position is valid, whereas none of these authors have entertained, much less supported yours.

In summary: all other translation possibilities rest on emendations of the text. The alternatives noted in all your sources emend the punctuation of the text to force a doxology to the Father, or otherwise ignore, remove, or transpose the order of Greek words.
 
Last edited:
Top