This is taken directly from an earlier thread:
Messiah is Son of God - starts on p.5
And am attempting to pull out the grammatical substance, with a minimal amount of the doctrinal.
spin - page 2
spin - page 3spin wrote: ↑Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:59 amJeez, 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—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!"
(οι πατερες εκ ων)
(the fathers from whom)
το κατα σαρκα
according to the flesh
ο ων επι παντων
who is over all
θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας
God blessed for ever
The last line is Greek working differently from English. We'd use a subordinate clause, "who God blessed forever." The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever". God is the one doing the blessing and the Christ is the one blessed. However, the trinitarian Christian oblivious to the fact that Paul is not trinitarian (or even binitarian) happily reorganizes the sentence to make the messiah God. This is amazing doctrinal manipulation of the text. It shows just how easily faith clouds judgment even of those who are supposed to be supplying the best tools for the faithful to use. Instead, they are letting their readers down.
Add Rom 9:5 to your list. If the translation equates the messiah with God you know its a crap translation.
spin - page 4spin wrote: ↑Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:48 am
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 - page 5
rakowsky - p.5spin wrote: ↑Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:23 amThat should tell you that we are dealing with something else and that Rom 1:25 sheds no light on 9:5.rakovsky wrote:Check out where Paul uses a similar phrase in Greek:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Notice that Paul supplied "who is" there, inserting a verb into the clause.
Yes. Go back and read whay I wrote about it. While you are at it go and learn a bit of Greek grammar to understand the ways you can subordinate clauses.The same thing is in the Greek with the verb.
Over in Rom 9 :5, Paul writes "who is over all God blessed forever", but he does not use any verb in the ending clause after "all" or "God." Does "God blessed[noun] forever" sound normal in Greek?
spin p. 6rakovsky wrote: ↑Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:00 pm
Over on the Biblical Greek forum, the writers agree that there is no grammatically set translation:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... f=6&t=1587
I invite you to produce a scholarly discussion on the verse that says that the verse definitely says exactly what you claim, and I can show it to my Greek colleagues.
rakovsky - p.6
spin - p. 7rakovsky wrote: ↑Sun Dec 25, 2016 1:07 pm
Anyway, I am sincerely interested if you can produce detailed scholarship saying your translation of Rom 9 5 is the only right one grammatically, because it's an interesting issue for me.
More narrowly on Rom 9 5 what you and I were discussing, I would love to see some scholarship saying grammatically your translation is the only one.
spin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:49 am
Lol. I've already stated a few grammatical issues regarding reading god with blessed. Once again you are trying to change the topic onto scholars. This is apparently because you've been bullshitting your way through the discussion, relying on translations, tendentious rubbish translations. You need to admit that you are at the mercy of those who believe their dogma ahead of their ability to translate.