the English AV pure Bible text of Romans 9:5 - claims of apposition

[Steven Avery]

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.

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

Lenski gives a humorous, circular reverse logic claim.
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/romans-95-and-christs-deity.html

Lenski wrote:
"Christ is over all, i.e., the supreme Lord. This apposition is complete in itself. If no more were added, this apposition makes Christ God, for we have yet to hear of one who is 'over all' and is not God."

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Charles Ernest Burland Cranfield (1916-2015)

Charles Cranfield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

does a decent job showing the English distinctions.

Romans: A Shorter Commentary
By C. E. B. Cranfield
http://books.google.com/books?id=ILfaNNqGeSsC&pg=PA222

Omitting a worthless #6

Cranfield correctly only refers to apposition in (v) when there is a comma after God.

(ii) is the AV text, however the English allows but does not demand "the whole as referring to Christ"

(i) is an attempt different from the AV

 

[Steven Avery]

In English you can easily see the natural association of "God blessed".

Some potential translations to adjust the AV break that association.

Christ ... who is over all, God, blessed for ever - add a comma, create apposition, people/creation do the blessing
Christ ... who is over all, (he is) God blessed for ever - add (he is), create apposition, people/creation do the blessing

These keep the natural association

Christ ... who is over all, God (be) blessed for ever - add (be) or (is)

Christ ... who is over all, God blessed (is Christ) for ever -

 

[Steven Avery]

This gentleman, Jared Chambers, criticizes the AV text precisely because it keeps the God blessed association. We can ignore the word trinitarians, which only adds confusion.

Language Pattern Evidence in Romans 9:5
https://www.greeknewtestament.io/ask-dennis/2019/6/8/language-pattern-evidence-in-romans-95

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

The King James translators hesitated to give the modern trinitarian interpretation of Rom 9:5, possibly because they did not find a precedent or possibly because the general lack of explicit trinitarian passages in Paul. However the standard English meaning of God blessed is “blessed by God” which is not what the Greek says.

Brian is similarly criticizing the AV text, while struggling hard to be in denial. e.g. His comma theories where he tried to discount the comma placement.

 

[Steven Avery]

Three complementary threads, with references in agreement on no apposition

Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...istology-unitarian-errors-on-both-sides.2285/

Romans 9:5 - God blesses Christ, no apposition - why not with TR Greek?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ist-no-apposition-why-not-with-tr-greek.2323/

the English AV pure Bible text of Romans 9:5 - claims of apposition
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...text-of-romans-9-5-claims-of-apposition.2365/

 

[Brianrw]

Charles Ernest Burland Cranfield (1916-2015)

Charles Cranfield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

does a decent job showing the English distinctions.

Romans: A Shorter Commentary
By C. E. B. Cranfield
http://books.google.com/books?id=ILfaNNqGeSsC&pg=PA222

Omitting a worthless #6

View attachment 2115

Cranfield correctly only refers to apposition in (v) when there is a comma after God.

(ii) is the AV text, however the English allows but does not demand "the whole as referring to Christ"

(i) is an attempt different from the AV

Cranfield, p. 224, clearly states that reading (ii), the AV rendering, affirms the divine nature of Christ, who is by nature "God blessed for ever" and on p. 223 that a (false) argument produced against reading (ii) is that Paul would not refer to Christ as "God."​

It helps to read the whole commentary here.

 

[Steven Avery]

Divine nature is not deity.

Many, including Arians, can call Christ God by divine nature

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

Crawford skillfully separates 5, his apposition reading, from 2, which is essentially the AV reading.
Thus he refutes your apposition claims on the AV text.

He may or may not be consistent in follow-up, see divine nature above, but fuzziness is common under the doctrinal pressures of the day.

===========

What God is Christ if he is not God the Fatherr?

Explain how you separate God from God the Father?

See Thomas Hubeart.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Key posts where it is proved that the AV text has no mandatory apposition.

(To be clear, Brian could offer a claim that the AV non-apposition understanding is false, but he declined to make any such effort. This will be revived if he does make an effort.)

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

Worthless circularity again. And I proved above that the English text of the AV is far more natural without an apposition claim. No. An appositional phrase is a relative clause in which "who/that is" is omitted, and in nonrestrictive clauses it is set off by a comma, including at the end of a...

purebibleforum.com

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

Worthless circularity again. And I proved above that the English text of the AV is far more natural without an apposition claim. No. An appositional phrase is a relative clause in which "who/that is" is omitted, and in nonrestrictive clauses it is set off by a comma, including at the end of a...

purebibleforum.com

 

[Brianrw]

Crawford skillfully separates 5, his apposition reading, from 2, which is essentially the AV reading.
Thus he refutes your apposition claims on the AV text.

He may or may not be consistent in follow-up, see divine nature above, but fuzziness is common under the doctrinal pressures of the day.

This is just absolute nonsense. You're calling it fuzzy and inconsistent because like all other commentaries where you see "God blessed," you read in your own personal interpretation and fail to understand the function of a predicate adjective in the postpositive position (or even a simple postpositive adjective in some instances).