placing the English of the AV on Bible and English grammar sites for study

Steven Avery

Administrator
Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

Here the question is straight English reading, we are not concerned with
1) doctrinal preferences
2) authorial consistency
3) Greek source punctuation
4) supposed changes in commas or hyphens since 1611
And italics are simply part of the text

There are three major possibilities for reading the AV text.

1) God (be/is) blessed for ever.............................. by creation, his people, or the author Paul
2) (Christ is) God (who is) blessed for ever ........... by creation, his people or the author Paul
3) Christ ... (is) ... God blessed for ever ................ God blesses Christ

This can be a good question for forums and English grammar experts.

Dec 12 - ADDED
4) Israel ... (is) God blessed for ever ................ God blesses Israel ... (or Israel and its Messiah)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, JND and Green's Literal Bible. And the Douay Rheims.
https://christianity.stackexchange....f-the-english-text-of-the-authori/87373#87373

=================================

Most are different than the AV:

Hexapla
https://books.google.com/books?id=IYNPAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA40-PA19-IA1

Wycliffe
1639066157512.png


Tyndale
http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Tyndale/45/9
whose also are the fathers and they of whome (as concernynge the flesshe) Christ came which is God over all thinges blessed for ever Amen.
https://archive.org/stream/0410Tyndale1534NT#page/n245/mode/2up
Tyndale from Hexapla
1639065621570.png


Coverdale,

Matthew's Bible,

Great Bible,

Geneva Bible,
Of whom are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen.
Hexapla
1639065416294.png

https://books.google.com/books?id=twtOAAAAcAAJ

Bishops' Bible,
JND
Green's Literal Bible.

Douay Rheims from Hexapla
1639065492371.png

 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"God blessed" would be acting as a compound adjective for Christ
Doubtful; in that particular situation, the most likely English rendering would have been blessed by God; indeed, it would be a translational hapax, were that truly the case, which I highly doubt.

On the final point:
In the English text there would be three alternative ways to have Christ blessed by God.

(1) blessed by God
(2) God-blessed (with hyphen)
(3) God blessed.

The AV was carefully following the Greek word order, so they would not use (1). And they were not hypen-happy, so (2) would be unlikely. Even
"only begotten" was never hyphenized, not in 1611 or the later updaets.

As for it being a hapax, this again is a forward push from the Greek NT. There was never "God blessed" in the Greek NT, except here. Murray Harris discusses the word order a lot, and writes of a natural association between the Greek words God and blessed.

========================


Thanks Lucian!
On the final point:
In the English text there would be three alternative ways to have Christ blessed by God

(1) blessed by God
(2) God-blessed (hyphen)
(3) God blessed.

The AV was following the Greek word order, so (1) was unlikely. And they were not hypen-happy, contra (2). Even "only begotten" was never hyphenated, in 1611 or later updates.

re: hapax, a forward push from the Greek NT. There was never "God blessed" in the Greek NT, except here.

Murray Harris discusses word order, and writes of a "natural association" between the Greek words God and blessed.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
When the apposition is claimed, it requires an awkward double ellipsis.
This is due to the natural association of God and blessed, and no punctuation after God.

==============

Christ came, who is over all,

(he is) God (who is) blessed for ever.

==============

The claim can be made that the first ellipsis is an apposition, not an ellipsis.

However, that is, of course, placing the horse behind the cart. Circular reasonsing.

It is ONLY an apposition if you assume the ellipsis.
There are actually about four ways to read the AV text, and only one claims an apposition.
 

Brianrw

Member
There is no double ellipses here, it's not circular reasoning because that's how an apposition works. As the one respondent notes in your Reddit post, "he is" is not an ellipsis because "God" is an appositive set off by a comma, by which your comment itself "it is ONLY an apposition if you assume the ellipsis" leads me to believe you don't truly understand what an apposition is. The second instance is indeed an elliptical phrase, and the type of which we often use in English when a predicate adjective connected to "who is" is involved.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
There is no double ellipses here, it's not circular reasoning because that's how an apposition work.

Circular.
Many say there is no ellipsis, no apposition.

You want to assume the apposition, to claim there is no ellipsis, which is circular to the max.
Hilarious, actually.

You are struggling with Logic 101, as did the fella on the forum.

You should have the integrity to acknowledge that your interpretation of Romans 9:5 is a double ellipsis, starting from the AV text..

When a person thinks through doctrinal glasses, their mind fogs up.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Circular.
Many say there is no ellipsis, no apposition.
Who, specifically? You produced a couple of strange websites and only one author who read the English the same as you. I'm not seeing "many." Almost every author I've found, Greek and English, is in agreement that the passage speaks of Christ as God. I've provided specific references.

The problem is you've decided you're right. Everything you are doing now is geared toward proving that, which is the very definition of "circular."

You are struggling with Logic 101, as did the fella on the forum.
Have you even considered the possibility that you're wrong? If not, you'll continue to us every dishonest debate tactic in the book to come out on top. The more you don't like answers, the more you start making these kinds of remarks which are not substantive.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Who, specifically? You produced a couple of strange websites and only one author who read the English the same as you. I'm not seeing "many." Almost every author I've found, Greek and English, is in agreement that the passage speaks of Christ as God. I've provided specific references.

The problem is you've decided you're right. Everything you are doing now is geared toward proving that, which is the very definition of "circular."

Have you even considered the possibility that you're wrong? If not, you'll continue to us every dishonest debate tactic in the book to come out on top. The more you don't like answers, the more you start making these kinds of remarks which are not substantive.

Actually, you have made 5 and more “dishonest“ errors with the English text, a new one tonight about comms and apposition.

Those who deny your apposition claim include every writer who does not see “Christ is God” in the text starting with Clement of Rome, then additional Ante-Nicene writers.
 

Brianrw

Member
Actually, you have made 5 and more “dishonest“ errors with the English text, a new one tonight about comms and apposition.
So you didn't bother reading the Grammarly link I sent you. Not altogether unexpected. I think you read about 10% of what I write, and that's only to word catch. But go ahead and name, specifically, the five errors where I was "dishonest." I haven't lied to you, but if I made any mistakes I'm willing to acknowledge that. I expect assertions, but we'll see what you come up with.

Those who deny your apposition claim include every writer who does not see “Christ is God” in the text starting with Clement of Rome, then additional Ante-Nicene writers.
And, specifically, which writers do not see that here? Clement of Rome does not quote Romans 9:5, but describes Jesus as having descended from Abraham "according to the flesh." I'm not sure how you infer from this that Clement does not "see 'Christ is God'" in the text? The qualification (τὸ) κατὰ σάρκα "according to the flesh" as concerning the descent of Christ is not only found in Romans 9:5, but also in Acts 2:30 and Romans 1:3. In other words, it was a common qualification to distinguish Christ as an Israelite according to the flesh, but the Son of God in truth.

These are all things you need to factor into your research, if you want a good result.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
So you didn't bother reading the Grammarly link I sent you. Not altogether unexpected. I think you read about 10% of what I write, and that's only to word catch. But go ahead and name, specifically, the five errors where I was "dishonest." I haven't lied to you, but if I made any mistakes I'm willing to acknowledge that. I expect assertions, but we'll see what you come up with.

Brian, I am not your lap dog to jump "how high". Some times I get back to a point when I can give it proper consideration.

It turned out that your Grammarly url refuted your position.

Fantastic. Grammarly confirms your error on what has become a fundamental point, your false claim that your theorized apposition in the English AV text does not need a comma after God.

Notice that this example has ZERO commas. (Did you even read the page??)
Thus it is obviously irrelevant to your Romans 9:5 claims, where you falsely claim that the singular comma before "God blessed.." creates the apposition.

You should acknowledge your blunder on this point and look at the English text with a tabula rasa.

A bit more detail at the previous post.

This was a MAJOR refutation of a claim you have repeatedly made about the English text of the AV. You blundered claiming the single comma meant an apposition. Busted.

Question: will you have the integrity to acknowledge your error?
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Brian, I am not your lap dog to jump "how high". Some times I get back to a point when I can give it proper consideration.
I don't expect that. However, is it polite to respond when you didn't first read what you are responding to? I can wait weeks for your response. But you seem to want to push out six responses for my every one, within the day, and post libelous statements about my all over the forum that I can't possibly keep up with them. Take your time, read it, think it out, then respond.

It turned out that your Grammerly url refuted your position.
It didn't, but you managed to read an irrelevant rule and offer it as though it refuted what I was saying. For example, you didn't consider or even mention that a nonrestrictive apposition, when it falls at the end of a sentence, is set off by a comma (as Grammarly notes). In addition, you have also failed to consider the presence of a relative clause before "God," which is also bracketed in commas.

This was a MAJOR refutation of a claim you have repeatedly made about the English text of the AV. You blundered claiming the single comma meant an apposition. Busted.

Question: will you have the integrity to acknowledge your error?
Get the rules straight, then try again.

I'm still waiting for the "5 errors." It's impolite not to substantiate accusations.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
and post libelous statements about my all over the forum

There are zero "libelous" statements.

Now I know you are not happy when I say you are weak in English, but that has become abundantly clear by how you have handled the English of the AV of Romans 9:5, with various errors about commas, hyphens and apposition.

What is becoming the central spot for documenting these is:

circular grammatical claims of zero merit

In some cases I plan to add more to the url or outline there.

Take your time, read it, think it out, then respond.

It took a couple of days to get to it, I knew it would be interesting but wanted to give it solid attention. If you think I missed something vital, you can always note or bookmark it, and come back a few days later. As has happened a couple of times.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
It didn't, but you managed to read an irrelevant rule and offer it as though it refuted what I was saying. For example, you didn't consider or even mention that a nonrestrictive apposition, when it falls at the end of a sentence, is set off by a comma (as Grammarly notes).

You are questioning

If the noun or phrase is placed at the end of a sentence, it should be preceded by a comma.

This would not apply, because the phrase is independent to the previous part, with multiple interpretations, a natural association of God and blessed, and no mandatory apposition.

If the ending was "God, the giver of life" you would in fact have your apposition as per the end of the sentence, with an adjectival phrase, as it is not an independent phrase. This is obviously totally different.

In the actual AV text, you would have to bookend God to claim apposition, as many do, and as I have shared with you again and again.
I'm glad you brought this up, since it highlights your problems more excellently!

In addition, you have also failed to consider the presence of a relative clause before "God," which is also bracketed in commas.

Nothing in Grammarly.
Feel free to state your new theory.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Nothing in Grammarly.
Feel free to state your new theory.
What new theory? I'm not sure why you keep seeing "new theories" and "new attempts" when I keep saying the same things over and over again. I explain things from multiple angles hoping that will give you a broad enough understanding to get my point, that does not mean I'm constantly forming "new" theories. Since I'm a teacher, I have to approach from different angles because different people learn differently.

This would not apply, because the phrase is independent to the previous part, with multiple interpretations, a natural association of God and blessed, and no mandatory apposition.

If the ending was "God, the giver of life" you would in fact have your apposition as per the end of the sentence, with an adjectival phrase, as it is not an independent phrase. This is obviously totally different.

In the actual AV text, you would have to bookend God to claim apposition, as many do, and as I have shared with you again and again.
I'm glad you brought this up, since it highlights your problems more excellently!
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, it's more like grammatical gobbledygook. For example, "Zeus, god of thunder" is an apposition. "Christ, God blessed forever," is an apposition.

There's a difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive that you are not discerning, so you are stating the wrong rules. "Who is over all" is referred to as an appositive relative which is a non-restrictive relative clause that contains additional information about the subject. "God blessed forever" is also considered a nonrestrictive clause, since it contains additional information about the subject.

A nonrestrictive clause can be removed without changing the meaning. Restrictive clauses require no punctuation; nonrestrictive clauses are usually separated from the independent clause with commas​

Your mistake is treating a nonrestrictive clause as restrictive. The essential point of Romans 9:5 is that Paul wishes that he himself could be accursed from Christ instead of his kinsmen (the Israelites), to whom pertains the adoption, giving of the law, etc. and from whom is Christ according to the flesh. The rest contains additional information about Christ. An apposition itself is a relative clause that would otherwise follow the construction "who is," "which is," etc.

And again, I don't see anyone reading the passage as you do, which leads me to conclude your interpretation is far more obscure than you seem to think. Long story short, the Orthodox English commentators are unanimous from 1611-1798. The heterodox, on the other hand, are absolutely inconsistent. There is an observable pattern that this type of phenomenon happens when someone approaches a verse from the angle of "it can't mean this," when "this" is the obvious meaning.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
There's a difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive that you are not discerning, so you are stating the wrong rules. "Who is over all" is referred to as an appositive relative which is a non-restrictive relative clause that contains additional information about the subject. "God blessed forever" is also considered a nonrestrictiveclause, since it contains additional information about the subject.

A nonrestrictive clause can be removed without changing the meaning. Restrictive clauses require no punctuation; nonrestrictive clauses are usually separated from the independent clause with commas​

Your mistake is treating a nonrestrictive clause as restrictive. The essential point of Romans 9:5 is that Paul wishes that he himself could be accursed from Christ instead of his kinsmen (the Israelites), to whom pertains the adoption, giving of the law, etc. and from whom is Christ according to the flesh. The rest contains additional information about Christ. An apposition itself is a relative clause that would otherwise follow the construction "who is," "which is," etc.

Take out "who is over all", the only actual non-restrictive phrase.
Make the beginning simpler.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

The English then is simple, with four possible interpretations, including the one that looks back to Israel or Israel through Christ.

Israel's wonderful Christ came, God blessed for ever.

1) Wonderful Christ, (he is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by the people). - Brian, double or triple ellipsis
2) Wonderful Christ, (he is) God blessed for ever. - proposal
3) Wonderful Christ, (Israel is) God blessed for ever. forum proposals
4) Wonderful Christ, God (be) blessed for ever (by the people). - Dualists

Without mucking around, there is simply no way from the English AV text that (1) is better than (2). 2 is clearly simpler.

Your attempts to use grammatical categories are invariably circular.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Take out "who is over all", the only actual non-restrictive phrase.
Make the beginning simpler.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

The English then is simple, with four possible interpretations, including the one that looks back to Israel or Israel through Christ.

Israel's wonderful Christ came, God blessed for ever.

1) Wonderful Christ, (he is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by the people). - Brian, double or triple ellipsis
2) Wonderful Christ, (he is) God blessed for ever. - proposal
3) Wonderful Christ, (Israel is) God blessed for ever. forum proposals
4) Wonderful Christ, God (be) blessed for ever (by the people). - Dualists

Without mucking around, there is simply no way from the English AV text that (1) is better than (2). 2 is clearly simpler.

Your attempts to use grammatical categories are invariably circular.
Your arguments are heading into the absurd, and you're finding no agreement with them in the forums.

As I've said elsewhere, you can't mix singular and plural pronouns in Greek. If a reference is made to a plural noun, a plural relative is used. You can't make ὁ ὢν refer back to Ἰσραηλῖται (plural). You need a plural pronoun, ὧν (not ὢν, which is a participle verb) to do that. Amazing that you have to redefine the function of an appositional phrase.
 
Top