Either infer or imply would work here.Fyi - "infer" means "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises"; "Imply" means "to express indirectly" (M-W.com) An author may imply something, or I might infer it. I'm not trying to be obnoxious by mentioning this, I just thought it might be helpful to you since you've been using this word incorrectly.
I think Acts 2:30 proves nothing that is favourable to your argument:You're using a fancy word but it really doesn't mean anything here. There is nothing "redundant" about the presence of "according to the flesh," since he is qualifying the fact that Christ is David's descendent insofar as the flesh is concerned. But in truth, he is the Son of God.
Perhaps I should have said "phrase" instead of clause in my original post to JM.A clause is defined as "a group of words containing a subject and predicate and functioning as a member of a complex . . . or compound . . . sentence" (M-W.com). It is not the sentence itself. Because the attributive participle in Greek has a verbal function, it can set off its own clause dependent upon the head nominal.
I think we ascertained that the best scholars say there is no unambiguous usage of an attributive participle in the second attributive position in Rom 9:5. That you don't admit it suggests a certain narrowness of outlook that could only come from indoctrination.We don't have an equivalent construction in English, but as the attributive participle is an agnate of the relative clause in Greek, we use a relative clause as its nearest equivalent.
It's interesting that those who were predicted to subvert Paul's teaching and "draw men after them" were all native Greek speakers, indicating perhaps that too much sophistication is a dangerous thing.And of course, that is part of the problem, and why they say "a little Greek is a dangerous thing."
This is why you are a difficult student. But, you are free to misuse the terms to your heart's content. I was just trying to help.Either infer or imply would work here.
But you think wrong.I think...
Yes. But your argument is still incorrect.Perhaps I should have said "phrase" instead of clause in my original post to JM.
No, we didn't. There has been no substantiation for that point, much less "the best scholars." If you add a period, it is not grammatically driven. It is driven by the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God"--which is, as Ehrman notes, circular.I think we ascertained that the best scholars say there is no unambiguous usage of an attributive participle in the second attributive position in Rom 9:5. That you don't admit it suggests a certain narrowness of outlook that could only come from indoctrination.
You're the one incorrectly using the Greek language, misusing and misrepresenting your sources, making unsupported assertions. All you and your ilk have to do is just muddy the translation for others. You don't require a sound conclusion, nor can you make any plausible argument for adding a period. The manuscripts, versions, fathers are all against you and I can literally point out when the reading first appears in extant history. But you want me to simply concede that your point is merely valid, while you say the most natural reading is impossible. I won't do that, because I find it to be specious and refuse to be dithering about how to handle it. Adding a period adds an unnecessary layer of difficulty to the passage that is not present without it.It's interesting that those who were predicted to subvert Paul's teaching and "draw men after them" were all native Greek speakers, indicating perhaps that too much sophistication is a dangerous thing.
Overuse of subtlety is a problem for people like Hippolytus, and people like Harris: it is hardly a recipe for success when construing one so direct and predictable as Paul.
Steven's is only interested in supporting his own view; he's been corrected again and again, but in the end he'll go back to calling everything "circular."It's referring to Christ as blessed God.
The statement involves an adjective and does not require a verbal aspect--you are equivocating over the distinction between the past participle verb (pronounced blest) and an adjective (pronounced bles-sed). It simply means that he is "held in reverence : VENERATED . . . honored in worship : HALLOWED." (M-W.com)(Christ is) God (who is) blessed (by .... someone.)
FYI, I quoted the TR MT, not the Alexandrian variant found in NA UBS. In other words, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν, καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ, not ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ [omitted] καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. The Alexandrian scribes lost part of the passage (including τὸ κατὰ σάρκα) through transcription and thus emended ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ to read ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. You should have caught this.I think Acts 2:30 proves nothing that is favourable to your argument:
καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ != ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς
His accusing you of misrepresentation was incredible. What spin had said had just been quoted. Anyone could see that your statement was accurate.Steven's is only interested in supporting his own view; he's been corrected again and again, but in the end he'll go back to calling everything "circular."
Thanks for coming to my defense.
Nonsense.His accusing you of misrepresentation was incredible. What spin had said had just been quoted. Anyone could see that your statement was accurate.
What would stop you from calling the truth nonsense? After all, you have no trouble making false statements and then flagging posts when someone calls you out over those willful false statements.Nonsense.
Spin used the words "noun forms" and called the adjective in the sentence a "nominalized verb" which most likely means a) that he thought it was a verb acting as a noun or b) that he thought it was a noun form based on a verb, both options are incorrect. While the fact that he used the words "noun forms" is enough to debunk your assertion, spin most likely intended option b given what he wrote.Saying an adjective or verb is nominalized does not make the word natively a noun.
What he quoted in this post earlier in the thread certainly did, though the relevant part didn't appear in this post after quoting it.brianrw tried to quote spin, but the quotes did not have spin saying it was a noun (natively).
Yes, he did:
It's been looked at carefully. The Greek is actually a direct quotation, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς, with a verb tacked on at the end to signify "has been born." Here the English translator chose to use a postpositive adjective. Because of the nature of Greek and the flexibility of word order, when a passage is quoted elliptically in good Greek we still have to bring it in as good English. So there may occasionally be slight shifts in nuance as a result.
.Spin used the words "noun forms" and called the adjective in the sentence a "nominalized verb"
He said two nouns. You should learn to read properly.And that is how he should be quoted, and you can add your explanation.
Misquotes are unethical.
You are wasting time and energy, where you should just say "quote properly". You are embarrassing yourself supporting a misquote.
And in that version ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is made into a parenthesis by ABP (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/acts/2.htm).FYI, I quoted the TR MT, not the Alexandrian variant found in NA UBS. In other words, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν, καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ, not ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ [omitted] καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. The Alexandrian scribes lost part of the passage (including τὸ κατὰ σάρκα) through transcription and thus emended ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ to read ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. You should have caught this.
In the reading I quoted, a predicator follows τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as it does in Romans 9:5 and marks a continuance of the sentence.
"On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")"Yes I know how to read and quote properly.
By misquoting spin, the goal is to give a false impression, by omitting the nominalzing aspect.
Make your points in explanation, not in deliberate misquotes.
The word "Father" is never used in the GNT. It is biblical eisegesis to use the word "Father" with reference to "ὁ θεός". Even when I put it this way, you won't see how stupid your argument is, and that's without mentioning circularity.The word εὐλογητὸς is used only of the Father in the GNT. It is therefore biblical eisegesis to argue that in Romans 9:5 it is used with reference to Jesus.
You tried to. You were wrong and were refuted. You just keep ignoring it as though it never happened. And then you contradict yourself saying the phrase in 9:5 is parenthetic yet still qualifies the whole sentence. You, TRJM, and Steven Avery should be banned from posting here.in that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα qualifies the whole sentence. As I've pointed out before to JM, Christ the man was linked to the throne of David, and denoted as King (not God) τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
"On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")"
I put it in quotes for a reason. I meant the English word "Father." I was making a point about how stupid their logic was. I guess your head was too low to catch it.πατήρ
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
Are you losing the thread?
There is no one alive who has "native fluency" in Classical Greek or Koine. This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled insult directed at my competence and skills which is pretty funny coming from someone who possesses none of these traits and has no idea what my background actually is.All of this is very interesting. Over time, spin, or perhaps someone else, will engage in the real fundamental question of whether he properly sees a feature of the Greek language. It would best be someone on a high linguistic level with both native fluency and a solid classical Greek background.
Indeed. But any of those "Seminarian cookie-cutter Anglos" possess more knowledge than you do.e.g. Georgios Babiniotis, perhaps the premier modern Greek linguist, helped us immensely on the question of the heavenly witnesses grammar, when he confirmed that the short Critical Text with only the earthly witnesses is solecistic. This is something the seminarians are very reluctant to accept. Seminarian cookie-cutter Anglos will generally be true to their heritage, right or wrong. (And they will quote people like Daniel Wallace and Bill Mounce as authorities!) We see this problem clearly in the heavenly witnesses grammar question, where modern textual criticism errors are really driving the errors in analysis. (Babiniotis was not inclined to any textual position, he just gave a beautiful linguistic, grammatical analysis.)
It doesn't matter if a text contains a solecism. It doesn't change the fact that someone could've said or written it or that it could still be understood. It doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in the text. (And I'm not saying that this section should or shouldn't be included in scripture. I'm pointing out, once again, the fallacious reasoning on which many of your conclusions rest.)1 John 5:7-8 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.
5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν
Shorter text with the grammatical problem:
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν
"If spin is correct"So I would not be surprised if we run into the same type of difference on the Romans 9:5 God blessed question. If spin is correct, the examples in support will likely involve other word combinations, not specifically God blessed, which is numerically very limited. (Thus your specific searching did not find much of anything.)
I didn't misquote anyone and neither did brianrw. You just aren't literate.None of what you wrote excuses the deliberate misquoting.
Who mentioned "Granville Sharp?" You are the one who has lost the thread.===============
The Granville Sharp "Rule", which is only a special pleading Bible seminarian "rule", and not from the real Greek grammar, would be another case where the seminarian indoctrination takes many into a tailspin.