circular grammatical claims of zero merit - apposition, second predicate

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thus the Greek construction you are asking for, under the requirements above is ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν. This uses the perfect participle (i.e., verbal adjective) form of the verb ευλογεω to form an adjectival phrase describing Christ as "blessed (v. blest) by God."

You did not give a full sentence example.
That’s ok for now.

Since this theory of yours is refuted here:

Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!
Post # 27
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...an-errors-on-both-sides.2285/page-2#post-9230
 

Brianrw

Member
Since this theory of yours is refuted here:
Responded to here. I have no idea what kind of nonsense I just read--a noun and a nominalized verb becoming two nouns strung together and forming a relative clause involving a preposition. (It's just a noun and an adjective. No verb. No preposition between "God" and "blessed," No relative pronoun after "over all").

Good sources are important in making good judgments. If I had to put my faith in a forum member named "Spin," whom I know nothing about, in opposition to the unanimous consent of the early Christian writers who spoke the language natively and used the passages to refute the heretics for centuries, I'm going to go with the early Christian writers.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Responded to here. I have no idea what kind of nonsense I just read--a noun and a nominalized verb becoming two nouns strung together and forming a relative clause involving a preposition. (It's just a noun and an adjective. No verb. No preposition between "God" and "blessed," No relative pronoun after "over all").

Good sources are important in making good judgments. If I had to put my faith in a forum member named "Spin," whom I know nothing about, in opposition to the unanimous consent of the early Christian writers who spoke the language natively and used the passages to refute the heretics for centuries, I'm going to go with the early Christian writers.

Since it looks like I will be posting your position at BCHF, there is a new, condensed thread:

spin at BCHF on Romans 9:5 and Brian's response
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-bchf-on-romans-9-5-and-brians-response.2368/

btw, my textual and grammatical faith is in the AV.
You are changing it, I am not.

You are wrong about the unanimous consent obviously. However, I want to stick on the issue at hand. Plus, you are talking in a circular fashion, those who say the NT has Jesus is God verses, you like, those who do not see and declare such verses you automatically call heretics. The AV, however, does not support your position.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
btw, my textual and grammatical faith is in the AV.
You are changing it, I am not.
I haven't changed it. You're reading it wrong.

Christ (subject) . . . who is over all, God (appositive to Christ) blessed (bles-sed, adjective in the postpositive position) for ever.​

With the exception of the notes on how it's supposed to be read in parenthesis so you know how I read it, that is the AV reading. That is how the Orthodox English commentators understood it. It's also how the Greek, Latins, etc. understood it. You're confused in taking "blessed" as a past participle verb (pronounced blest), while saying I'm inserting all kinds of things into the passage.

There's a difference between the AV text, and Steven Avery's private interpretation of it. You're reading, "blessed by God," cannot be gotten from the Greek construction in Romans 9:5.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I also don't place a comma after God because it does not need one, this is also something you invented out of your own head. When an adjective is in the postpositive position (by this I only mean it is placed after the noun it modifies) and sets off a new clause,

Most of your post I handled on another thread. The one about the English AV text.

The comma after God is rather common, precisely because it would actually support apposition.

There is no clause beginning with blessed.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The next error from Brian is a super-doozy.

Brian was trying to support his wacky idea that the AV text of Romans 9:5 must be an apposition of Christ and God. He claimed this was shown by the comma before God. And I went to a grammar page to show tha truth about apposition and commas. Brian tried to trump this with Grammarly, without noticing that his page destroyed his position. Grammearly was excellent, showing that the normal method to show apposition would be two commas or zero commas, with examples. There was no example analogous to the AV of Romans 9:5.

This is so fundamental that it could use its own new thread.

And Brian could acknowledge his error, but that would be an admission that he is attacking the AV text.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Nonrestrictive appositional clauses at the end of a sentence are set off by a comma. You stated rules that apply to a restrictive clause. Do you even know the difference? I'm not attacking the AV, but reading it the way I learned it and the way it was understood among the English commentators of the time period, as well as the Greek authors going back as far as we have record.

A restrictive cause would not have a comma ("from whom Christ came God blessed for ever"). Is that your reading? What about the verb supplied by the translators in italics?

I'm simply saying you are not reading it correctly. You don't even seem to understand what an apposition is and how it functions. I don't feel the need to further waste my time trying to explain it to you.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
You are using circular reasoning again. If Christ is blessed by God it is not a non-restrictive clause. Similar with other non-appositional interpretations.

You even de facto acknowledge the circularity with :

Nonrestrictive appositional clauses

Please make an effort to avoid circular reasoning in grammatical claims.

Thanks!
 
Top