No, because to my knowledge ὁ ὢν in the GNT is never antecedent to its subject. When it occurs at the beginning of the sentence (i.e., substantively), it invariably refers to an implied antecedent and with the exceptions of two or three places where Jesus refers elliptically to himself takes on a generic sense, referring to anyone of the whole class of individuals that might perform the action. When there is a noun that precedes it matching in case, number, and gender it always agrees with that as its antecedent.So you're admitting that the subject may come from the article itself without reference to an antecedent subject?
I didn't criticize the punctuation, but the incorrect assertion that the ancient manuscripts contained a "period." I said that a middot is not a period, but stands where in modern English we would expect a comma and actually signified a pause for taking up a breath. FYI, it is the comma that eventually replaced the middot. How is it you can always garble my position so badly?So everything you wrote criticizing the supposed non-modern AV elocutionary punctuation was simply diversion nonsense.
Your syntactical translation is actually identical to the punctuation you criticized.
You were playing a shell game.
It is this type of inconsistency and confusion in how you mishandle simple English arguments that makes your Greek claims, like apposition based on the circular subject-predicate claim, totally untrustworthy, even worthless.
You would probably welcome this, since it supports the AV translation over the doxology to the Father, but you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with trying to contradict everything I say so you'll throw a good and true argument under the bus just to do so.
Except I didn't backtrack at all. Just because I misunderstood your question and went back and answered once it was clarified, isn't a backtrack. Or did you forget I've said about a hundred times repeatedly that "God" is in apposition to "over all," which is set off by a comma after "over all"? Nothing has changed.Now Brian has backtracked and now agrees 100% with the AV non-apposition punctuation! The elocutionary and syntactical punctuations he now says are identical!
I literally just corrected you on this, so you have no excuse. You know that you're engaging in deliberate defamation, right, by consistently misrepresenting my position in order to harm my reputation? Specifically, to give the impression that I'm waffling on positions when I haven't changed them at all? And you've been repeatedly corrected on it but still continue to pretend otherwise? You really need to knock it off.
I didn't say it would be used here. I'm just saying it does sometimes correspond with places where we use syntactic punctuation such as commas, colons, and semicolons. And I'm referring to the punctuation of ancient Greek manuscripts, not English. The middot was eventually replaced by a comma.How would you show a semi-colon?
You do realize that such a punctuation in English can divide thoughts in a manner similar to how a period or stop divides thoughts.
You seem to work with the fallacy of the false dichotomy. If it not a full stop, it does not matter.