Plus I needed a direct url to the page, you gave one to the huge JSTOR article, hard to navigate.
You can download the text as a PDF. On my notes, I only mark the beginning pages in surveys (a survey is a quick view of the evidence). You can assume that elsewhere also.
I constantly see you shading what folks write, and sometimes I take the time to check it out, and yep, the shading is there.
Didn't you first quote this work to me? I assumed you had actually read it and were already familiar with its contents.
Examples please, otherwise the generality is slander. As for usual the six post flurry of responses, I have noted specific examples where you have misread or misinterpreted your sources so that you have opportunity to make appropriate corrections. Quote mining isn't a good practice; you can do so as a survey, but you need to go back and make sure you understand what you are quoting and revise accordingly before actually using the information.
He spends 18 pages on it, not just the snippet above. I used the JSTOR because it reproduces the Journal article
. Abbot writes, p. 112, "But the construction followed in the common version is also grammatically
objectionable (
sic); and if we assume that the Apostle and those whom he addressed believed Christ to be God, this construction likewise suits the context." You have filled in your own assumption about what he may be saying (he does not offer the alternative you seek), but in truth the point of that thought is encapsulated after some 3 points discussion on p. 125, where he writes, "Taking all these fact into consideration, is it probable that at this early day the Jewish Christians and Gentile believers at Rome . . . Accustomed to the representation of him as being distinct from God, would they not have been startled and amazed beyond measure by finding him described as 'over all, God blessed for ever'"? And this is the manner in which he rejects the AV translation.
It is rendering 2 on p. 89, "who (
or he who) is over all, God blessed for ever" The section begins under Roman numeral II on p. 111. There is not a single place where he offers any interpretation of the translation other than that it makes the passage speak of Christ as God. How he understands it is evident in how he comments on it (e.g. pp. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118; especially 122 paragraph 2 and p. 125; p. 129).
The problem was not removing "God" (a diversion), it is your attempt to move it a different spot than in the AV text.
I am not moving it to a different spot. I simply translate from the Greek what it is when it is not functioning as an appositive. I have no idea why you keep accusing me of changing or wanting to change the text. I think you just don't understand why pulling the Greek out of the passage changes how it comes into English.
The problem was not removing "God" (a diversion), it is your attempt to move it a different spot than in the AV text.
Do you not even remember what you wrote? You
asked who would do the blessing if "God" was removed. I answered your question. How is that a diversion?
Yet when it comes to two verses (Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13) you want to change the AV text to make it singular addressing. Why not just accept the pure Bible?
You really should stop accusing me of trying to "change the AV." I'm not saying the AV needs to change, but that in those particular cases
you are simply reading the English wrongly. May I remind you that it was you who brought up the topic of the Greek, to which I responded that your assessment of the two passages is inaccurate, and your attacks on the Granville Sharp rule are unwarranted.