spin at BCHF on Romans 9:5 and Brian's response

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
PBF - Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides! Post #27 and #29 https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...an-errors-on-both-sides.2285/page-2#post-9230

Spin - BCHF
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62844#p62844 - page 2
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62855#p62855 - page 3

θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας
God blessed for ever

The last line is Greek working differently from English. We'd use a subordinate clause, "who God blessed forever." The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever". God is the one doing the blessing and the Christ is the one blessed. However, the trinitarian Christian oblivious to the fact that Paul is not trinitarian (or even binitarian) happily reorganizes the sentence to make the messiah God. This is amazing doctrinal manipulation of the text. It shows just how easily faith clouds judgment even of those who are supposed to be supplying the best tools for the faithful to use. Instead, they are letting their readers down.
Click to expand...

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"), both nominative singular masculine, so you naturally link them together (just another indicator). But if you can propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing the first with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with, I'll be willing to read it, but I won't hold my breath. Perhaps you might like to reorder ο ων επι παντων θεος as well to help you. I won't mind. Honest.
Click to expand...

Steven comments
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...an-errors-on-both-sides.2285/page-2#post-9239
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian's response

PBF - Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides! - Post #30
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...an-errors-on-both-sides.2285/page-2#post-9263

Brian Winter said:
I'm having trouble believing this, based on his comments. Namely:

The last line is Greek working differently from English. We'd use a subordinate clause, "who God blessed forever." The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever".

He's referring to θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

His further details are equally abhorrent:

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"),

First, there is no pronoun in the Greek that justifies the addition of "who" before God. It's an equative clause involving a participle verb (lit. "being," translated "is"), which means the whole of what follows between that and the adjective is descriptive of Christ. Secondly, εὐλογητὸς is not a verbal form used as a noun. It is literally an adjective. Don't believe me? You can verify that here. In other words, he pretends that an adjective is actually a verb working as a noun, and that somehow the two nouns connected together have the force of a verb joined together with a preposition. I'd laugh, but it's not funny.

Is this where you got your interpretation from? It's honestly terrible. This guy's a fraud.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian continues, I am not copying over the pictures, since he backtracks on the parser claim, you can see them on the url.

PBF - Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides! - Post #32

Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!

I keep telling you that you're reading the passage wrong. That's why comments such as above keep happening. Why do you think you're virtually the only one who feels he has it right? Simply learn how an adjective works in Greek, and you'd get this. They aren't constructed the same as they are in...
purebibleforum.com

Brian Winter said:
I've been at this for 28 years buddy, trust me, I'm being kind to him. I can tell you almost 100% he was looking at a parser and misread it when he made that statement. You can narrow the list to ones that note the etymology of the word.

Go ahead and verify the link above. The Greek εὐλογητὸς is not a "verbal form as a noun," and we are not looking at two nouns together. See that little "nom"? It means it is an adjective in the singular, masc(ulin) nom(inative) case.

Finding what parsers are out there. He didn't get it from Biblehub...

Probably something more like BLB, which gives the etymology:
Click to expand...

And after I suggest that Brian post on BCHF.

Brian Winter said:
It's extremely tempting, but you quoted him here so I will address it here. Maybe I'm wrong about the parser, but that just makes his statements worse. If he's not reading from a parser, I can't see how on earth someone with a "strong" Greek background can say the construction is a noun coupled with a verb nominalized as a noun, that is two nouns strung together forming a relative clause (he actually says subordinate clause) joined together by a preposition. It's absolute madness. There's nothing coherent in that how statement. Pretty much, it's like using a bunch of words strung together to sound smart.

It is not nominalized verb acting as a noun. It is a nominative adjective in the predicate position.

Also, it seems the native Greek writers as far back as we have record, and the heretics who might have benefited from this reading, missed the memo on this one too ("who God blessed forever.")
Click to expand...
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
PBF - circular grammatical claims of zero merit - apposition, second predicate - #22

circular grammatical claims of zero merit - apposition, second predicate

Thus the Greek construction you are asking for, under the requirements above is ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν. This uses the perfect participle (i.e., verbal adjective) form of the verb ευλογεω to form an adjectival phrase describing Christ as "blessed (v. blest) by God." You did not give a full...
www.purebibleforum.com

Brian Winter said:
Responded to here. I have no idea what kind of nonsense I just read--a noun and a nominalized verb becoming two nouns strung together and forming a relative clause involving a preposition. (It's just a noun and an adjective. No verb. No preposition between "God" and "blessed," No relative pronoun after "over all").

Good sources are important in making good judgments. If I had to put my faith in a forum member named "Spin," whom I know nothing about, in opposition to the unanimous consent of the early Christian writers who spoke the language natively and used the passages to refute the heretics for centuries, I'm going to go with the early Christian writers.
Click to expand...
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
For completeness, here is a reduced picture of the parser idea.

1638535940863.png
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Potential post on BCHF

I'm having trouble believing this, based on his comments. Namely:

The last line is Greek working differently from English. We'd use a subordinate clause, "who God blessed forever." The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever".

He's referring to θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

His further details are equally abhorrent:

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"),

First, there is no pronoun in the Greek that justifies the addition of "who" before God. It's an equative clause involving a participle verb (lit. "being," translated "is"), which means the whole of what follows between that and the adjective is descriptive of Christ. Secondly, εὐλογητὸς is not a verbal form used as a noun. It is literally an adjective. Don't believe me? You can verify that here. In other words, he pretends that an adjective is actually a verb working as a noun, and that somehow the two nouns connected together have the force of a verb joined together with a preposition. I'd laugh, but it's not funny.
Click to expand...

(Leave out parser material.)
(After I suggest posting on BCHF_)

It's extremely tempting, but you quoted him here so I will address it here. Maybe I'm wrong about the parser, but that just makes his statements worse. If he's not reading from a parser, I can't see how on earth someone with a "strong" Greek background can say the construction is a noun coupled with a verb nominalized as a noun, that is two nouns strung together forming a relative clause (he actually says subordinate clause) joined together by a preposition. It's absolute madness. There's nothing coherent in that how statement. Pretty much, it's like using a bunch of words strung together to sound smart.

It is not nominalized verb acting as a noun. It is a nominative adjective in the predicate position.

Also, it seems the native Greek writers as far back as we have record, and the heretics who might have benefited from this reading, missed the memo on this one too ("who God blessed forever.")
Click to expand...

(In another spot)

I have no idea what kind of nonsense I just read--a noun and a nominalized verb becoming two nouns strung together and forming a relative clause involving a preposition. (It's just a noun and an adjective. No verb. No preposition between "God" and "blessed," No relative pronoun after "over all").
Click to expand...
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Now we will switch to objections voiced on CARM by John Milton.

This is planned to be placed on BCHF where spin sometimes posts.

alternate two words
εὐλογητὸς θεῷ
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/page-47#post-705109

https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/page-49#post-705842
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/page-50#post-705880
dative case

summary by John Milton
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/post-707099

brian on pbf
There's no hidden, advanced Greek rule that few recognize where two nominatives, one a noun and another an adjective, can form a compound adjective or prepositional phrase.
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...e-reason-for-seeing-apposition.2442/post-9858

This was given as the grammar by a gentleman who supports the apposition theory.

When there is a noun and an adjective together in the nominative case, the adjective is either attributive (has the article) or predicative (has no article). They don't form a compound. It's literally one of the easiest concepts to understand in Greek. There is an attributive participle which means the rest of the sentence describes the subject, Christ. That makes "God" a predicate nominative. When you have a predicate nominative thus described by an adjective and the connection of an attributive participle they all refer back to the same subject: Christ.

spin "On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")"

Spin said "noun form" and that means a noun, more specifically a word in the form of a noun. That means he is wrong.
Then he called it a "nominalized verb". That is also wrong.
If by "nominalized verb" he meant the noun form of a verb, he is still wrong.
If by "nominalized verb" he meant a verb functioning as a noun, he is wrong and contradicted himself.
However you explain it, Spin called an adjective a noun and was wrong. .... you can check for yourself and see that εὐλογητός is an adjective (εὐλογεῖν = verb; εὐλογία = noun). ... even if he hadn't called εὐλογητός a noun (and he clearly did) he was still wrong and you knowingly support him anyway.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/post-707099
Click to expand...


And you are wrong for saying that's not what he said, for saying brianrw and I are in error, and for not understanding what it was that Spin said in the first place. Worse, you are cheerleading for Spin even after you can check for yourself and see that εὐλογητός is an adjective (εὐλογεῖν = verb; εὐλογία = noun). The pitiful thing is even if he hadn't called εὐλογητός a noun (and he clearly did) he was still wrong and you knowingly support him anyway.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/post-707099

https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...-reason-for-seeing-apposition.2442/#post-9851

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

Tweaked and placed at:
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=137303#p137303
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
spin
August 21, 2024

Perhaps these two questions can help:

1. Do you believe that ευλογητος is not derived from ευλογεω?

2. Do you believe that ευλογητου in Mk 14:61 doesn't act as a noun?

Mark 14:61
But he held his peace, and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked him,
and said unto him,
Art thou the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top