Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Mistaken is one thing. Doubling down after being corrected is quite another. Given your response above, I feel this conversation will not be constructive and only end in disagreement. So, goodbye for now.

If you do have time, please inform me about how to find this Greek recording you did for all to hear.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16)
You failed to answer two simple yes/no questions .

FYI, he also lists John 1:18 as an example of the attributive participle, and John 12:17. In short, the same ones you've been disputing.

Even Wallace changed his mind about this being an attributive participle in his Net bible notes, so your single , no -name resource is another instance of cherry picking.

As I said, and I will say it again, your Biblical koine is weak .

If you do have time, please inform me about how to find this Greek recording you did for all to hear.

Here is my reading of John Chapter 3, for starters.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You failed to answer two simple yes/no questions .

Even Wallace changed his mind about this being an attributive participle in his Net bible notes, so your single , no -name resource is another instance of cherry picking.

As I said, and I will say it again, your Biblical koine is weak .

Here is my reading of John Chapter 3, for starters.
If someone wanted to be hateful like you are, they could say that your modern Greek pronunciation is weak. You sometimes have a hard "b" sound in places where a "v" would be expected (ῥαββί). You sometimes have the wrong vowel length for "o" (διδάσκαλος) and for "i" (ἐστιν), especially at the end of words. There are other minor things that could be mentioned, but most people would say your overall pronunciation is good, because they are fair and charitable people.

You, however, are not, and your assessments of others most often have no connection to reality, your pronouncement on brianrw's Greek knowledge being a primary example. And however decently you read Greek with a modern pronunciation, you have consistently shown that you have no understanding of what you are saying. You aren't worth dealing with, and your opinions are worthless. As brianrw has already said, everyone who can actually read Greek knows it. The three of you in alliance with folly all have one thing in common: none of you know Greek. At least the other two don't pretend like they do (cjab seems to have stopped doing this, at least, so I'll give him credit for it also).
 

cjab

Well-known member
If someone wanted to be hateful like you are, they could say that your modern Greek pronunciation is weak. You sometimes have a hard "b" sound in places where a "v" would be expected (ῥαββί). You sometimes have the wrong vowel length for "o" (διδάσκαλος) and for "i" (ἐστιν), especially at the end of words. There are other minor things that could be mentioned, but most people would say your overall pronunciation is good, because they are fair and charitable people.

You, however, are not, and your assessments of others most often have no connection to reality, your pronouncement on brianrw's Greek knowledge being a primary example. And however decently you read Greek with a modern pronunciation, you have consistently shown that you have no understanding of what you are saying. You aren't worth dealing with, and your opinions are worthless. As brianrw has already said, everyone who can actually read Greek knows it. The three of you in alliance with folly all have one thing in common: none of you know Greek. At least the other two don't pretend like they do (cjab seems to have stopped doing this, at least, so I'll give him credit for it also).
Why is it that you enjoy discussing the status of other posters, as if that counts for anything? This forum is for discussing biblical languages, not your views of other posters.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Why is it that you enjoy discussing the status of other posters, as if that counts for anything? This forum is for discussing biblical languages, not your views of other posters.
Why didn't you give this critique of TRJM? If you're going to whine, at least be consistent. And, for that matter, since you don't know any biblical languages, why are you here?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
If someone wanted to be hateful like you are, they could say that your modern Greek pronunciation is weak. You sometimes have a hard "b" sound in places where a "v" would be expected (ῥαββί). You sometimes have the wrong vowel length for "o" (διδάσκαλος) and for "i" (ἐστιν), especially at the end of words. There are other minor things that could be mentioned, but most people would say your overall pronunciation is good, because they are fair and charitable people.

You, however, are not, and your assessments of others most often have no connection to reality, your pronouncement on brianrw's Greek knowledge being a primary example. And however decently you read Greek with a modern pronunciation, you have consistently shown that you have no understanding of what you are saying. You aren't worth dealing with, and your opinions are worthless. As brianrw has already said, everyone who can actually read Greek knows it. The three of you in alliance with folly all have one thing in common: none of you know Greek. At least the other two don't pretend like they do (cjab seems to have stopped doing this, at least, so I'll give him credit for it also).
Sour grapes.

Anyhow, you still believe that Gryllus is taking ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 in the third attributive position ?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Since you don't appear to want to discuss biblical languages, but only other posters, why are you here?
My initial post did discuss the biblical languages. I'm not surprised you didn't realize it since you are Greek ignorant. I pointed out some phonological errors in TRJM's Greek reading. But the only reason I popped in was to let brianrw know that competent posters do exist in this forum. We just don't often waste time with the forum's three stooges.
 

cjab

Well-known member
My initial post did discuss the biblical languages. I'm not surprised you didn't realize it since you are Greek ignorant. I pointed out some phonological errors in TRJM's Greek reading. But the only reason I popped in was to let brianrw know that competent posters do exist in this forum. We just don't often waste time with the forum's three stooges.
If your project is high Trinitarian gnosis, as it is, then I'll agree you'd be better off learning gnostic twaddle by wrote such as Sharp's rule being applied to "o theos" from Wallace.

But just remember Aquinas's last words, the highest high Trinitarian of them all: "All that I have written is chaff, in respect to those things that I have seen and have lately been revealed to me".
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Since you don't appear to want to discuss biblical languages, but only other posters, why are you here?
IMHO, polytheistic posters (Trinitarian, Oneness, Nestorians, Sabellians, Mormons etc.) who usurp the monikers of their Unitarian adversaries from old forums are deceivers, and probably mentally unstable.
 

cjab

Well-known member
IMHO, polytheistic posters (Trinitarian, Oneness, Nestorians, Sabellians, Mormons etc.) who usurp the monikers of their Unitarian adversaries from old forums are deceivers, and probably mentally unstable.
I generally agree but with certain reservations.

To concede the Word of God, the Logos, as subsisting with God in the beginning is not per se polytheistic. Polytheism lies in the further manipulation of this truth to create distinguishable Gods; and often seen in references to Christ the man being "God," and to Mary his mother being "theokotos."

However, as per Thomas in John 20:28 consideration has to be given to the matter that θεός can be construed both in the sense of the Father himself, and of the Father's agents, per Ps 82, and John 10:34/5. So sometimes language on its own can be deceptive, because words can have more than one meaning. This especially applies to the Hebrew word Elohim.

So in respect of persons such as Nestorius, who certainly seems to have used polytheistic language at times (i.e. "God the Word"), but at other times resisted its application, the charge is not so much unabridged polytheism, as having compromised with polytheism by inapposite use of language. For Nestorius it was the meaning or sense attributed to words that was as, or more, important than the word itself.
 
Last edited:

Lucian

Active member
Where I take issue with Erhman is in his facile and unreasoned assumption that monogenes just means "unique". By extension to inanimate objects, it has that inference, but surely its primary animate meaning, as Harris has extensively argued, is "only begotten." That the orthodox understood μονογενὴς Θεὸς as "only begotten God" I have no doubt.
What does 'only begotten' mean?
 

Lucian

Active member
Uniquely born somehow, either as a sole child (Luke 9:38), or a sole child of a man's wife (as Isaac qua Abraham in Heb 11:17) or a sole child of its mother (Luke 7:12).
Okay. What's the meaning in the relevant passage?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Okay. What's the meaning in the relevant passage?
In the context of John 1:18, mongenes is used to describe the Son of God, so inferring a naturally born Son of God as opposed to adopted sons of God, as Israel comprised.
 

Lucian

Active member
In the context of John 1:18, mongenes is used to describe the Son of God, so inferring a naturally born Son of God as opposed to adopted sons of God, as Israel comprised.
With that in mind, what’s the best translation?
 

cjab

Well-known member
With that in mind, what’s the best translation?
I really don't know. I personally translate monogenes as monogenes, but in relation to persons it does usually mean 'only begotten'. Probably the best translation is the best contextual translation, so it may vary depending on context.
 

Lucian

Active member
I really don't know. I personally translate monogenes as monogenes, but in relation to persons it does usually mean 'only begotten'. Probably the best translation is the best contextual translation, so it may vary depending on context.
That's a fair answer, though bear in mind what you've offered there is a transliteration. I suppose I find 'only begotten' almost meaningless to an English speaker, or at best rather vague, and so not a very helpful translation.
 

cjab

Well-known member
That's a fair answer, though bear in mind what you've offered there is a transliteration. I suppose I find 'only begotten' almost meaningless to an English speaker, or at best rather vague, and so not a very helpful translation.
Begotten means born or procreated. Mono also can be translated unique. Therefore it could mean uniquely born or only born or uniquely procreated. As I said, the word is used in several different, but analogous contexts, always inferring birth or procreation. It's exact meaning will therefore be contextual.
 

Lucian

Active member
Begotten means born or procreated. Mono also can be translated unique. Therefore it could mean uniquely born or only born or uniquely procreated. As I said, the word is used in several different, but analogous contexts, always inferring birth or procreation. It's exact meaning will therefore be contextual.
I'm unsure why you're telling me this, I'm afraid. But the bolded text can only be true if it permits rather abstract senses of 'birth or procreation'.
 
Top