What kind of silly nonsense is this? There's no "attempt" here, and I have no idea where you are getting this from. My position is "Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed for ever." It's literally impossible to have a conversation with you when I have to correct you about my position after every response. Please work on your reading comprehension, I do not hold to a "low Christology."Now you are moving away from Christ over all to God over all.
That is the low Christology trick.
You did a great job showing the convoluted mess of your attempt.
I will bookmark this one.
It seems that you're not interested in hearing what I'm saying, you're only interested in finding ways to distort it. It's gotten old. You've predicated about a hundred posts on straw men attacks.
Mr. Avery, the original passage is in Greek which allows greater flexibility in word order, thus, more nuance in its syntactic connections. English word order is rather inflexible, so there are a couple ways to bring it into English, but in either case some nuance is lost. Is that simple enough for you?It makes no sense to say God is formally attached to "over all". Over all is part of a subordinate phrase, describing Christ, that can be removed without changing the basic grammar.
All of the writers you mention simply quote the GNV, which has a footnote indicating Christ is "plainly" called "Mightie God" in the passage, and make no further commentary on it (Northbrooke, Knewstub, Newberie, Habermann, Rudd, Sutton, Byfield, Randall, Fox). Worship corrupts the reading by adding a pronoun ("his"). We're not looking for simple quotations of a particular edition, but commentaries that reveal how they read it, and our particular edition is the AV. At the tail end, you say, "And many who simply accepted the superb AV text," to which I will refer you back to the preceding list.If he is included because of using the word "which" then the many who use "and of our Sauiour" should be put in the non-identity camp.
And many who simply accepted the superb AV text.