I addressed this earlier in the thread with the specific manuscripts. I could provide a fairly extensive list as well, since I have examined the uncials and over a hundred minuscules.Nice "argument."
Please don't waste my time with disingenuous questions.Here is a simple question:
ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.
Is the articular ὢν being used attributively in the second position in this verse or as a substantive ?
But it's not always attributive backwards. Sometimes it can function as a substantive, e.g. John 3:31, and Matt 12:29, and sometimes it is attributive fowards, to a following noun.
You're missing the point that it's not found elsewhere in the way you construe it in Romans 9:5. The rule operates on a simple if then . . . else if then statement. If the head noun is expressed (i.e., found in the sentence), then it is purely attributive and this is a dependent usage and modifies the noun. Else if the head noun is unexpressed, then it operates substantively and it is an independent usage and acts like a noun. That's actually the rule.Yet not so unnatural that it isn't found elsewhere.
Since you won't listen to me, I'll refer you back to the grammars:
..a substantival participle is really an attributive participle whose modified noun is unexpressed. (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 187).
An attributive participle modifies a noun (or other substantive) whereas a substantival participle functions as a noun itself. (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 326)
With the attributive use, the article (when present) occurs directly in front of the participle which modifies an expressed noun or pronoun. It is often best to translate an attributive participle with an English relative clause (“who” or “which/that”) . . . Participles can also take direct objects or can be modified by other parts of speech (e.g., adverbs, prepositional phrases, or negative particles). (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 186, 187).
The examples you are providing are substantival, and these are considered an independent usage of the attributive participle. So you are using substantival usages to justify a purely attributive use, which is why I said you are comparing apples and oranges.
I'm actually following it, not overriding it, and if you had a basic understanding of the fundamentals you wouldn't be constantly accusing me of overriding things or making up rules. Normally when you don't understand a language, you can receive a lesson from those who do. But it seems you want to teach when you still need to be taught. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, I do mean it for your benefit.You're using empirical observation alone to override a clear rule of grammar that associates an article to its following noun agreeing in gender and case. Moreover these is nothing grammatically unsound about "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντω θεός etc." It can't be faulted in terms of its grammar, and there may be a reason for using ὁ ὢν here, which is to distinguish θεός from everything that precedes ὁ ὢν (also see John 3:31 etc).
The attributive participle normally functions in the second or (less frequently) in the third attributive position. θεὸς here is functioning as a predicate. Either you emend the passage by adding a period (making ὢν superfluous), or Christ is being referred to as "God." How you want to interpret it from there is up to you. As strongly as you are asserting this, again I'll say this reading is virtually unanimous among the Greeks, that Christ here is called God--and by "virtually," I am allowing for the three or four equivocal testimonies sometimes placed as negative evidence. Again, the heterodox proposed no less than four emendations of the passage to avoid that, but the common interpretation of those among them who didn't emend the passage was that Jesus is like Moses, whom God made "a god to Pharaoh." That is, a god by office.
A reminder would be unnecessary, because I'm quoting them, because my support hasn't changed, and because "God over all" and "over all God" are no different in meaning, only in nuance of expression. However, since you take "God blessed" as a compound adjective (which the Greek construction here doesn't allow) you interpret it as a huge difference, so I can see why you would want to make a big deal about this here.You need a reminder that the AV text, that you say you support, does not have “God over all.”