Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

rakovsky wrote:

spin wrote:

rakovsky wrote:Romans 9 says:
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!"

Jeez, I have to thank Rakovsky for leading me to another hopelessly tendentious christian translation that should be in your list of indicators of crap translations. I'd say "dishonest" if I thought the translator was deliberately trying to mislead readers, but I think it is more shoehorning the text into christian presuppositions. Here's a literal translation of the parts of Rom 9:5—

...
Looks like a lot of discussion on this, depending how the phrases are broken up:

(οι πατερες εκ ων) (the fathers from whom) ο χριστος the Christ το κατα σαρκα according to the flesh ο ων επι παντων θεος who is over all God ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας blessed for ever

Can the last line be read as, "blessed forever" when the Greek uses a verbal form blessed as a noun, with the word "God" belonging to the previous phrase "who is over all God"? We might try "blessed forever" where Christ is over all God and Christ is blessed?

but if Paul wanted to say He is God, wouldn't he use the phrase word order differently in Greek as as "according to the flesh, who is God over all"?

I'm sorry. Do you like self-flagellation? I explained the grammar fairly simply. If there is something you did not understand you should ask, rather than trying shift text around willy-nilly in the hope of confirming your bias. There are so many tendentiously awful translations out there I can understand the confusion. That's why I generally recommend the (N)RSV, which strongly attempts to reproduce the original sources as neutrally as possible.

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"), both nominative singular masculine, so you naturally link them together (just another indicator). But if you can propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing the first with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with, I'll be willing to read it, but I won't hold my breath. Perhaps you might like to reorder ο ων επι παντων θεος as well to help you. I won't mind. Honest.

spin wrote:

rakovsky wrote:

spin wrote: Jeez, I have to thank Rakovsky for leading me to another hopelessly tendentious christian translation that should be in your list of indicators of crap translations. I'd say "dishonest" if I thought the translator was deliberately trying to mislead readers, but I think it is more shoehorning the text into christian presuppositions. Here's a literal translation of the parts of Rom 9:5—

...
Looks like a lot of discussion on this, depending how the phrases are broken up:

(οι πατερες εκ ων) (the fathers from whom) ο χριστος the Christ το κατα σαρκα according to the flesh ο ων επι παντων θεος who is over all God ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας blessed for ever

Can the last line be read as, "blessed forever" when the Greek uses a verbal form blessed as a noun, with the word "God" belonging to the previous phrase "who is over all God"? We might try "blessed forever" where Christ is over all God and Christ is blessed?

but if Paul wanted to say He is God, wouldn't he use the phrase word order differently in Greek as as "according to the flesh, who is God over all"?

I'm sorry. Do you like self-flagellation? I explained the grammar fairly simply. If there is something you did not understand you should ask,
.

Do you think I asked a question above?

spin wrote:

rakovsky wrote:

spin wrote: Jeez, I have to thank Rakovsky for leading me to another hopelessly tendentious christian translation that should be in your list of indicators of crap translations. I'd say "dishonest" if I thought the translator was deliberately trying to mislead readers, but I think it is more shoehorning the text into christian presuppositions. Here's a literal translation of the parts of Rom 9:5—

...
Looks like a lot of discussion on this, depending how the phrases are broken up:

(οι πατερες εκ ων) (the fathers from whom) ο χριστος the Christ το κατα σαρκα according to the flesh ο ων επι παντων θεος who is over all God ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας blessed for ever

Can the last line be read as, "blessed forever" when the Greek uses a verbal form blessed as a noun, with the word "God" belonging to the previous phrase "who is over all God"? We might try "blessed forever" where Christ is over all God and Christ is blessed?

but if Paul wanted to say He is God, wouldn't he use the phrase word order differently in Greek as as "according to the flesh, who is God over all"?

I'm sorry. Do you like self-flagellation? I explained the grammar fairly simply. If there is something you did not understand you should ask, rather than trying shift text around willy-nilly in the hope of confirming your bias. There are so many tendentiously awful translations out there I can understand the confusion. That's why I generally recommend the (N)RSV, which strongly attempts to reproduce the original sources as neutrally as possible.

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"), both nominative singular masculine, so you naturally link them together (just another indicator). But if you can propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing it with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with,

blessed for ever.
Sounds better than just
Forever.

rakovsky wrote:

spin wrote:

rakovsky wrote:Can the last line be read as, "blessed forever" when the Greek uses a verbal form blessed as a noun, with the word "God" belonging to the previous phrase "who is over all God"? We might try "blessed forever" where Christ is over all God and Christ is blessed?

but if Paul wanted to say He is God, wouldn't he use the phrase word order differently in Greek as as "according to the flesh, who is God over all"?

I'm sorry. Do you like self-flagellation? I explained the grammar fairly simply. If there is something you did not understand you should ask,
.

Do you think I asked a question above?

You basically ignored what I wrote and sought confirmation for an alternative. No substantive question.

Who is over all God
Blessed forever

Vs.

Who is over all
God Blessed[noun] forever

I read that in Greek the sentence is clunky in the text and the translation depends where you put the comma.

rakovsky wrote:

spin wrote: On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"), both nominative singular masculine, so you naturally link them together (just another indicator). But if you can propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing it with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with,

blessed for ever.
Sounds better than just
Forever.

Because I'm writing this on a phone I had to correct the last sentence for clarity in order to help you understand.

spin wrote:

rakovsky wrote:

spin wrote:[

Do you think I asked a question above?

You basically ignored what I wrote and sought confirmation for an alternative. No substantive question.

Is asking about an alternative substantive?

rakovsky wrote:Who is over all God
Blessed forever

Vs.

Who is over all
God Blessed[noun] forever

I read that in Greek the sentence is clunky in the text and the translation depends where you put the comma.

How does each nominative singular masculine relate grammatically to the sentence, how are they attached. Explain the grammar and stop fucking around.

rakovsky wrote:

spin wrote: You basically ignored what I wrote and sought confirmation for an alternative. No substantive question.

Is asking about an alternative substantive?

It's merely a transparent deflection from someone not dealing with what is in front of them.

Russian translators also said Over All God here:
от них Христос по плоти, сущий над всем Бог, благословенный во веки, аминь.
From Christ by the flesh, existing over all God, blessed in ages Amen.
Over all God sounds fine in Russian, since word order is less important than in English.