Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.

Grammatically speaking, there are apparently three ways of taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ( though only one is really possible, for those who know their Biblical Koine, that is). In any case, here are the three options apparently:

This thread is placed in the wrong forum. In the future take it to the Trinity forum.

You may discuss the language issue, but not as it relates to Trinitarianism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gryllus, please explain to the readers how ὁ ὢν could be a nominative and still be a “predicate substantive” in Romans 9:5 ? It’s like saying πρεσβευτήν is nominative in εἵλεσθε ἐκεῖνον πρεσβευτήν. It can only be nominative if it is appositional to ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα , or if it is functioning attributively, in the second attributive position or else if it is a participle phrase with the participle functioning substantivally, and starting a new sentence.
Do you not think that Gryllus would answer your question just because you asked him respectfully instead of appealing to those who may be reading? I think he would.
 
It's a predicate substantive because a) it's predicate, if follows and renames the original substantive, ὁ Χριστός, and 2) substantive because it's articular "the one who is" or "the one being." Your example is not relevant as the syntax is not the same. You can quote Smyth wrongly as you often quote the Scriptures wrongly: at least you are consistent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I'm not using it incorrectly. I've explained ad nauseam how I read the text -- a string of nominatives all with the same referent. We don't need fancy grammatical categories to explain this text, and wouldn't need it if there weren't a history of interpretation involving critical theology. This citation from Smyth is a bit more relevant:

915. Predicate substantives, adjectives, and participles, in agreement either with subject or object, are more common in Greek than in English, and often call for special shifts in translation: μετεώρους ἐξεκόμισαν τᾱ̀ς ἁμάξᾱς they lifted the wagons and carried them out X. A. 1. 5. 8. Cp. 1579.


Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (p. 257). American Book Company.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I'm not using it incorrectly. I've explained ad nauseam how I read the text -- a string of nominatives all with the same referent. We don't need fancy grammatical categories to explain this text, and wouldn't need it if there weren't a history of interpretation involving critical theology. This citation from Smyth is a bit more relevant:

915. Predicate substantives, adjectives, and participles, in agreement either with subject or object, are more common in Greek than in English, and often call for special shifts in translation: μετεώρους ἐξεκόμισαν τᾱ̀ς ἁμάξᾱς they lifted the wagons and carried them out X. A. 1. 5. 8. Cp. 1579.


Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (p. 257). American Book Company.
May be you are wrong to imply a grammatical referent. A substantive doesn't require a grammatical referent. The only allowable implicit referent is one that is exegetically implied. As to exegesis, in no other place in the NT is ὁ Χριστὸς a referent for ὁ θεός, which never needs a referent, and rather is itself a referent for the Father, not the Christ. Taking ὁ Χριστὸς as a referent leads to the wrong result; and the heavily-leaning-towards-Paul letter to the Hebrews, in Heb 2:7, ηλαττωσας αυτον βραχυ τι παρ αγγελους, also directly contradicts your exegesis of Rom 9:5.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. If that were the case, I would take the party line τὸν θεόν = the Father in John 1:1, but I don't. Lots of evidence for the Trinity in the NT, which you and your "compeers" twist, try to find obscure grammatical principles (which usually don't apply), and so forth. As my current graduate work heats up, looks like it's time for me to take a really long hiatus from this group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect you are a KJV Onlyist? As it is, biblical languages are the languages the Bible was originally written in, namely Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Some people include early versional languages such as Latin, Syriac, or Coptic but not on the same level as the actual languages of inspiration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I already told you that English wasn't a biblical language, so your comment makes no sense. You appear to be a propagandist for some ultra narrow minded denomination or point of view. I wonder which one?

You've also disclosed no knowledge of Greek since you've been on this thread. Now's your opportunity to say why Rom 9:5 is correctly translated by the KJV, bearing in mind that ὁ ὢν is the name of God from Ex 3:14 εγώ ειμι ο ων. and it appears in Rom 9:5 appositive to ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. (An appositive phrase usually follows the word it explains or identifies, but it may also precede it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I already told you that English wasn't a biblical language, so your comment makes no sense. You appear to be a propagandist for some ultra narrow minded denomination or point of view. I wonder which one?

You've also disclosed no knowledge of Greek since you've been on this thread. Now's your opportunity to say why Rom 9:5 is correctly translated by the KJV, bearing in mind that ὁ ὢν is the name of God from Ex 3:14 εγώ ειμι ο ων. and it appears in Rom 9:5 appositive to ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. (An appositive phrase usually follows the word it explains or identifies, but it may also precede it.)
Infact English did not even exist at the time the NT was written in Koine, roughly 2000 years ago.
 
As a generalization, I think it is untrue. May be true for a few specific words: but you are asserting meanings have been lost since 1611, which I can't credit in the least as all books around in 1611 survive to this day (presumably).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're completely wrong. For a start all the scriptures were translated to Latin which never died out. Knowledge of Koine Greek always survived amongst scholars, and in the eastern Roman empire. I can't see you've got anything credible to say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top