But I didn't call it "the object of an action verb," did I? I called it an accusative of reference--hence, a "limiter." I don't possibly see how you could have missed that since I said it in my original post in the companion thread, and multiple times above. It serves to restrict the scope of Christ's descent to "the flesh."This has to be the joke of the week. σάρκα is accusative because the preposition κατὰ takes the accusative here not because it is the object of an action verb. What a joke.
I might just as easily say it is laughable to me that you view the Greek so restrictively, both here and in other places where you apparently can't see the forest for the trees. You are aware that ἦλθεν is also in the third person singular? And that just because a verb is omitted in the Greek, it does not automatically mean a form of εἰμί must be supplied? Also, you are aware that that it reflects Paul's style elsewhere, e.g. ὅτι Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον (1 Timothy 1:15), that Christ "came into the world"? That same verb has been inferred by other translators and is present in multiple English translations of the Bible, and there is nothing in the usage of ἐξ ὧν that is prejudicial to that? Now, I've taken to translate it conservatively as, "from whom is Christ," and you can check that from my past comments. That doesn't make it the only, or even necessarily the best solution.Lol. ..You couldn’t find any canned arguments, could you ? Hence the laughable assertion. You probably have never paid attention to what comes before this clause ( look at red below):
οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι,
ὧν εἰσιν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
So all the assumed verbs are of the third person verb ( see bold above).
Do you have anything of substance to contribute, rather than one disingenuous remark after another?
Acts 13:1 above is completely mistranslated. The text is Ἦσαν δὲ τινες ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν, "Now there were in the church which is at Antioch..."Very weak. There are other instances where we can translate idiomatically-used participles of εἰμί as "existing."
Acts 13:1 κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν : in the existing church
Acts 14:13 ὅ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως : the high priest of Zeus, the one existing outside the city.
Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς : God existing above all
You've also mangled 14:13, ὅ δέ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν, "Now the high priest of Zeus that was just outside their city..." (or, "whose temple was...")
I made it succinctly in my original post in the companion thread to this one. It's very simple: ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject, ὁ ὢν takes ὁ Χριστὸς as its antecedent, and θεὸς is a predicate of ὁ ὢν; τὸ κατὰ σάρκα operates as a limiter to ἐξ ὧν. That's one sentence. The ones making it complicated are both of you.Dwight - something of a wind bag. I've said before about Harris, and I'll say it again, if you can't make your point about Rom 9:5 very succintly, it's probably not worth making at all.
Both of you keep spinning the Greek worse and worse--you both are the ones who are being verbose, making up rules, and asserting things about the Greek that aren't true. As I said, Abbot agreed with Dwight, and offered his own thoughts in addition. I don't even see the argument you are making in any modern commentary, for the very simple reason that it didn't pass muster.
Last edited: