Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Many of the KJV words are archaic and no longer understood without special instruction. It is not impossible to trace 2000 year old language meanings accurately. As pointed out above, the knowledge of ancient Greek was never lost, and contrary to your assertion, there are several different dictionaries created in later antiquity by ancient grammarians. They are not organized in the same way as modern dictionaries, and often serve a different purpose, such as helping writers use the proper Attic word instead of the Koine (common usage) word, but they are still quite valuable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Well-known member
No, I am right.

If you think Koine Greek language is the equivalent or understood precisely by Greeks today, I have a bridge to sell you.
Check out the work of Greek Professor Chrys C. Caragounis, who has done a lot of work on the diachronic aspects of the NT. E.g.
"New Testament Language and Exegesis: A Diachronic Approach," and "A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1."
 

Truther

Well-known member
Check out the work of Greek Professor Chrys C. Caragounis, who has done a lot of work on the diachronic aspects of the NT. E.g.
"New Testament Language and Exegesis: A Diachronic Approach," and "A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1."
Insults removed per mod.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Well-known member
Don't bore me with commentary.

Nobody accurately translates 2000 year old languages accurately anymore.

A Greek PHD is not a magic wand of ancient knowledge, but a hand me down of continuing guessing.
So you would close down this sub forum as irrelevant?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Edit insulting language per mod.
But there's nothing to chat about. I wonder why you are here? No-one here subscribes to your views, and you have cited no academic authority for anything you have said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Edit insulting language per mod.
You seem to want to be willfully ignorant. Your statement couldn't be more false. Thousands of pages of Greek literature from the time of the archaic period onward, documentary papyri, inscriptions, epitaphs, ancient teaching manuscripts. We know a great deal about ancient Greek, and it is more than "possible" to translate "accurately." Differences in translation are usually differences in modern translation theory, not failure to understand the Greek. In the case of the NT it is usually religious belief and theological dogma that presents difficulty. You are actually an extreme example of the this, with your religious commitment to the King James Bible.

A Ph.D. may not be a magic wand, but there is a lot of ancient knowledge involved. Just like your doctor. Do you want somebody who only knows the best of 17th century medical knowledge, or do you want someone up on 21st century techniques?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Well-known member
It's difficult to avoid the obvious parallelism between Πάτερ (vocative) ..... πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί, in Jn 17:5 and ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in John 1:1b.

How can it be avoided?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It's difficult to avoid the obvious parallelism between Πάτερ (vocative) ..... πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί, in Jn 17:5 and ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in John 1:1b.

How can it be avoided?
Not to mention ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα in 1 John 1:2. His blindness on this score is a testament to the deceiving power of Satan upon the lost.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Edit insults
Above is especially true of Trinitarian “graduates.” Just look at how they have tried to change the definitions of everyday biblical words & phrases like Θεὸς, and μονογενὴς and υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ to fit in with their doctrine, …and this is just for starters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
No, it's not the case, not when we have a large and continuing corpus and a continual reading tradition as pointed out above. And, no modern Ph.D's don't "invent" new meanings to ancient words. Lexicography is a lot more complicated than that. But quite the arrogance you have on display here,
A discussion which began in ancient times with native speakers of the languages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Well-known member
Why cjab, what a pithy, convincing argument... :rolleyes:
Well just because Sharp's rule is BS - the product of people with PhD's adding their 2cents worth (or not).

Or if you want some real argument, here's a good link.

Also, the glory of God IS Jesus Christ 2 Cor 4:6.

 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Jesus is called our groat God and savior in the Bible
Actually Titus 2:13 calls Jesus the glory of the Great God and Saviour (τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν). In other words Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is an appositive:

…ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

All of the Trinitarian “proof texts” are simply word tricks.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Actually Titus 2:13 calls Jesus the glory of the Great God and Saviour (τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν). In other words Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is an appositive:



All of the Trinitarian “proof texts” are simply word tricks.
The Greek applies to Jesus Himself as being that very God and savior
 

cjab

Well-known member
The problem with Sharp's rule is that it isn't comprehensive as people like Wallace make out. Thus it doesn't define what a proper name is. Languages changes, so do nouns change into proper names. In "New Testament Language and Exegesis: A Diachronic Approach" Chapter 6, investigating “The Nominative Used as Vocative” (pp. 171-188), Caragounis focuses on the use of θεός and finds that the LXX is the first work in Greek to use the vocative Θεέ (11 times; p. 177). At the same time, he notes that ὁ θεός is used as Vocative (at least in 60 cases), because the articular form “has a more exalted, a more distanced nuanced tone belonging to a more formal, solemn and elevated diction” (p. 180), findings which obtain equally for the NT (p. 181-184) and for Neohellenic (pp. 187-188).

Once you accept that by the New Testament era, θεός is well used to being used as a vocative, any application of Sharp's rule for Trinitarian purposes, which relies on θεός as being an ordinary noun, is abnegated. This includes Titus 2:13.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Edit insults.
Good grief, I know of no one who actually believes that and if you do, I would agree with you that they are idiots. The incarnation was an act of special creation parallel to the creation of the universe. The language used to describe it is clearly not the language of impregnation...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top