john 20.28 nom for nom.

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
No problem. :wave:



Fair enough. Whoever 'they' are, they are talking gibberish. ^_^



Well, you need more punctuation, for a start. You can choose either:

Oh, my God, C are you serious? where C is vocative. or
Oh my God, C, are you serious? where Oh my God is vocative.

Either way, there is a vocative there. It depends what bit the 'Oh' attaches to.



As I said before, this is a reference to Psalm 22.



This is also a reference to Psalm 22.



'Oh my God' is vocative. In my Bible the two are identical, and both reference Psalm 22. If there is a difference in the original texts, that may well only illustrate that Mark was not a Jew, but a Roman, and that his Hebrew was a bit defective. Matthew on the other hand was a Jew, and he got it right. :)
IN Greek exclamations have the noun with the nominative ending. Mark is using Good grammar.
Catherineanne said:
You really need to go back to the Hebrew Scriptures, and find out what their words are in Psalm 22. That is what Christ quotes from the cross, and that is the form that both Mark and Matthew reference.
Jesus saying "O my god" in the nominative one time, and another time saying the same thing except he is addressing God with "My God" doesn't affect negatively both statements as referencing ps. 22. NT scriptures are not direct quotes of OT scriptures, they are interpretations of OT scriptures which is why they don't line up word for word.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I do not much speak Greek, ancient or modern, but I know that this is not the case.

Even in English, where case inflection is pretty well non existent, the nominative and vocative cases can still be distinguished by meaning.

Addressing someone directly is vocative. Using a name as the subject of a sentence is nominative. Using a name as the object of a sentence is accusative. Denoting possession is genitive. Etc etc.

If a person is addressed, translated in English as 'Oh Whoever', then that is vocative, regardless of whether the vocative case form is identical to the nominative case form or not. It is not a nominative vocative; it is still a vocative.

If a language is inflected to have a separate nominative and vocative form, the vocative form will be used to address people. If the nominative form is used in any particular place, then that cannot by definition denote a vocative, but must denote an affirmative.
Well, it's different in Greek


"(g) IN EXCLAMATIONS. The nominative is natural in exclamations, a sort of interjectional nominative.1 So Paul in Ro. 7:24, ταλαιπωρος εγω ανθρωπος, and 11:33, ω βαθος (a possible vocative) πλουτου. So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. Cf. χαρις τω θεω (Ro. 6 : 17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. Cf. χαρις τοις θεοις, B.U. 843 (i/A.D.)."



Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A.T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D., 1919, George H. Doran Company.


Romans 7.24 isn't an O exclamation but Romans 11.33 is.

(Rotherham) Romans 11:33 Oh! (omega)the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments! and untraceable his ways!


Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Romans 11:33 | w <5599> {O} baqoV <899> {DEPTH} {N-NSN} ploutou <4149> {OF RICHES}

Paul is speaking to Depth in an exclamation, it's actually an apostrophe (speaking to someone who isn't there, or isn't a person). And that exclamation is in the nominative case as it always is in NT koine Greek. In koine NT Greek a vocative exclamation is always in the nominative case. IT's kinda fuzzy about interjections as to whether one is speaking to the person or not,, which makes sense why the Greeks would put the noun in the nominative case. (My observation). If one says "O God, why am I in this mess", to me it's kinda fuzzy as to whether that person is speaking to god saying "O god" or if he is just speaking into the air in an exclamation. When I say "O my God I can't believe it." In my mind I am not speaking to God ,I'm just uttering an exclamation. In my mind, if I say "O God, what's happening to me" It's not the same as if I say 'Dear God, what's happening to me". In the first instance, i can't tell if "o god" is addressingor not addressing God, it's too fuzzy. But not in the second instance. Note Robertson's remark in parentesis above about Romans 11.33, where he says "a possible vocative". In other words it's fuzzy even to Robertson whether ''O depth' is vocative exclamation or just an exclamation. Is paul talking to Depth? or is he just uttering the exclamation "O Depth"? Obviously even if it is vocative it would still be an exclamation because of omega depth. Omega is the exclamation O.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, it's different in Greek
"(g) IN EXCLAMATIONS. The nominative is natural in exclamations, a sort of interjectional nominative.1 So Paul in Ro. 7:24, &#964;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#953;&#960;&#969;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#947;&#969; &#945;&#957;&#952;&#961;&#969;&#960;&#959;&#962;, and 11:33, &#969; &#946;&#945;&#952;&#959;&#962; (a possible vocative) &#960;&#955;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965;. So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. Cf. &#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#962; &#964;&#969; &#952;&#949;&#969; (Ro. 6 : 17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. Cf. &#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#953;&#962;, B.U. 843 (i/A.D.)."

Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A.T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D., 1919, George H. Doran Company.
Romans 7.24 isn't an O exclamation but Romans 11.33 is.

(Rotherham) Romans 11:33 Oh! (omega)the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments! and untraceable his ways!

Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Romans 11:33 | w <5599> {O} baqoV <899> {DEPTH} {N-NSN} ploutou <4149> {OF RICHES}


Paul is speaking to Depth in an exclamation, it's actually an apostrophe (speaking to someone who isn't there, or isn't a person). And that exclamation is in the nominative case as it always is in NT koine Greek. In koine NT Greek a vocative exclamation is always in the nominative case. IT's kinda fuzzy about interjections as to whether one is speaking to the person or not,, which makes sense why the Greeks would put the noun in the nominative case. (My observation). If one says "O God, why am I in this mess", to me it's kinda fuzzy as to whether that person is speaking to god saying "O god" or if he is just speaking into the air in an exclamation. When I say "O my God I can't believe it." In my mind I am not speaking to God ,I'm just uttering an exclamation. In my mind, if I say "O God, what's happening to me" It's not the same as if I say 'Dear God, what's happening to me". In the first instance, i can't tell if "o god" is addressingor not addressing God, it's too fuzzy. But not in the second instance. Note Robertson's remark in parentesis above about Romans 11.33, where he says "a possible vocative". In other words it's fuzzy even to Robertson whether ''O depth' is vocative exclamation or just an exclamation. Is paul talking to Depth? or is he just uttering the exclamation "O Depth"? Obviously even if it is vocative it would still be an exclamation because of omega depth. Omega is the exclamation O.

Remember that question you keep asking me? You just answered it here.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Remember that question you keep asking me? You just answered it here.
The question is, does 'o &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;' translate to 'o God' or is 'o God' and interpretation of 'o &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;'. There is no disagreement that &#969; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; should be translated always as 'o God'. I searched differnet Greek grammars and found no comment on the subject of our disagreement, but I did find this which sheds some light in that direction.

In the English language one does not employ the phrase "Thomas answered to him". One employs the phrase "Thomas answered him". The issue is the English rendering, not the Greek.

Now as to the phrase "My Lord" and "My God" being an exclamation of surprise rather than an instance of direct address, do keep in mind that neither Koine Greek nor Jewish custom of the first century utilized vocatives (the case used in John 20:28) for oaths. Simply put, the phrase "O my Lord! O my God!" wasn't an expression of surprise or derogation in those cultures. But then again, the phrase is being addressed to Jesus himself, as our text clearly notes: "Thomas answered him" (i.e., Jesus). Our rendering doesn't say "Thomas answered", which would have been one way to express surprise: i.e., "Thomas answered 'O my Lord! O my God!" -- That's how you make the Greek phrase into an exclamation of surprise. Which, by the way, is not what the Greek is saying.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ne+Greek+exclamation&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


The above is the offical web site of the NIV bible. hopefully that is sufficent credintals for you to consider what they say.
So that negates the argument that Thomas would have been using the name of the Lord in vain. But to the point of whether O theos means or is interpreted to mean 'O god" this guy says that the way you say "O my god' as an exclamation of surprise is to say "&#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;" . If ''&#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;" is how you say "O my God" in Greek, then to me that would mean that 'o' means 'O' in this usage of "o'.

I don't really see how it makes any difference if you say "and thomas said to him" or "and tomas said", certainly it makes no difference in English. this guy is saying that o my god only becomes an exclamation of surprise if the verse had just said "And thomas said 'o my god.." this lines up with other verses where o theos is translated as O God. Certainly saying o God isn't bad, so why whould saying 'O my god" be bad? it wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The question is, does 'o &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;' translate to 'o God' or is 'o God' and interpretation of 'o &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;'. There is no disagreement that &#969; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; should be translated always as 'o God'. I searched differnet Greek grammars and found no comment on the subject of our disagreement, but I did find this which sheds some light in that direction.

In the English language one does not employ the phrase "Thomas answered to him". One employs the phrase "Thomas answered him". The issue is the English rendering, not the Greek.

Now as to the phrase "My Lord" and "My God" being an exclamation of surprise rather than an instance of direct address, do keep in mind that neither Koine Greek nor Jewish custom of the first century utilized vocatives (the case used in John 20:28) for oaths. Simply put, the phrase "O my Lord! O my God!" wasn't an expression of surprise or derogation in those cultures. But then again, the phrase is being addressed to Jesus himself, as our text clearly notes: "Thomas answered him" (i.e., Jesus). Our rendering doesn't say "Thomas answered", which would have been one way to express surprise: i.e., "Thomas answered 'O my Lord! O my God!" -- That's how you make the Greek phrase into an exclamation of surprise. Which, [express surprise:] by the way, is not what the Greek is saying.

John 20:28 ” Is "My Lord and my God" an Exclamation or an Address?

The above is the offical web site of the NIV bible. hopefully that is sufficent credintals for you to consider what they say.
So that negates the argument that Thomas would have been using the name of the Lord in vain.

What you quoted from the NIV website does not even address this point!

But to the point of whether O theos means or is interpreted to mean 'O god" this guy says that the way you say "O my god' as an exclamation of surprise is to say "&#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;" . If ''&#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;" is how you say "O my God" in Greek, then to me that would mean that 'o' means 'O' in this usage of "o'.

The article you quoted does NOT say that &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; is how you say "O my God!"

I don't really see how it makes any difference if you say "and thomas said to him" or "and tomas said", certainly it makes no difference in English. this guy is saying that o my god only becomes an exclamation of surprise if the verse had just said "And thomas said 'o my god.." this lines up with other verses where o theos is translated as O God. Certainly saying o God isn't bad, so why whould saying 'O my god" be bad? it wouldn't.

Saying "O God" is common place in 21st century USA, but the 1st century Jews had great respect for God
and went to great lengths to avoid saying "God."


 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
What you quoted from the NIV website does not even address this point!



The article you quoted does NOT say that &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; is how you say "O my God!"



Saying "O God" is common place in 21st century USA, but the 1st century Jews had great respect for God
and went to great lengths to avoid saying "God."


Do you like my 55 studebaker champion avatar?
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
John 20.28 cann be nothing other than an exclamation because it satisfies all of the 3 requirements to be an exclamation. One doesn't even have to satisfie 3 of them but john 20.28 does.

&#8220;Robertson points out that this is &#8220;a sort of interjectional nominative,&#8221; something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (1) the lack of a verb (though one may be implied), (2) the obvious emotion of the author, and (3) thenecessity of an exclamation point in translation. Sometimes &#969; is used with the nominative.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An ... - Google Books

Thomas uttered no verb. thus satisfying the first requirement i.e. lack of a verb.
"MY lord and my god" no verb.
2. the emotion of Thomas is obvious, thus satisfying a second requirement.
and
3. the necessity of an exclamation point, vs. a vs.

[SIZE=+0](NKJV) John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0](Rotherham) John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said unto him--My Lord, and my God! [/SIZE]


GodsWord) John 20:28 "Thomas responded to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"

(NASB) John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Wey NT) John 20:28 "My Lord and my God!" replied Thomas.

Thus john 20.28 is an exclamation and according to the NIV source it should be translated 'O my Lord and O my god!"

[SIZE=+0](LITV (Green)) John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! [/SIZE]

French LS) John 20:28 Thomas lui répondit: Mon Seigneur et mon Dieu!

[SIZE=+0](German Luther 1912) John 20:28 Thomas antwortete und sprach zu ihm: Mein HERR und mein Gott! [/SIZE]

German Elber) John 20:28 Thomas antwortete und sprach zu ihm: Mein Herr und mein Gott!

(Spanish RV) John 20:28 Entonces Tomás respondió, y díjole: &shy;Señor mío, y Dios mío!



Whether one says the greek letter omicron is translated as O or interpreted as o is immaterial, since both are the o sound and since that is how you say "O my God" in Greek, &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;.

THus John 20.28 is not an example of nominative for vocative nor is any other scripture. Thus the nominative for vocative grammar rule is nonexistant in koine NT Greek. Thus nominative for vocative is a phoney grammar rule,.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
John 20.28 cann be nothing other than an exclamation because it satisfies all of the 3 requirements to be an exclamation. One doesn't even have to satisfie 3 of them but john 20.28 does.

&#8220;Robertson points out that this is &#8220;a sort of interjectional nominative,&#8221; something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (1) the lack of a verb (though one may be implied), (2) the obvious emotion of the author, and (3) thenecessity of an exclamation point in translation. Sometimes &#969; is used with the nominative.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An ... - Google Books

Thomas uttered no verb. thus satisfying the first requirement i.e. lack of a verb.
"MY lord and my god" no verb.
2. the emotion of Thomas is obvious, thus satisfying a second requirement.
and
3. the necessity of an exclamation point, vs. a vs.
[ . . . ]

Deliberate misrepresentation of the source! Your quote from GGBB, by Wallace refers to the Nominative of exclamation (corrected) and you omitted the first, the key sentence in the meaning, "The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence." And it lists three examples Rom 7:24, 11:33, and Mark 3:34. Wallace also says that, "The Nominative of exclamation (corrected) is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for vocative!"

John 20:28 is Thomas replying directly to a request from Jesus so it very definitely is connected to the rest of the sentence. That automatically excludes it from the category of Nominative of address.

Also Wallace, and Robertson whom he quotes, lists John 20:28 as Nominative for Vocative, pg. 58. Wallace lists nineteen examples of Nominative for Vocative, beside John 20:28, John 17:25, Matt 16:17, Rom 1:13, Mark 9:19, Gal 3:1, Matt 17;17, Mark 9:19, Luke 9:41, 24:25, Act 13:10, 18:14, 27:21, Rom 11:33, Mark 5:8, Luke 8:54, John 19:3, Eph 5:22, Rev 15:3, Heb 1:8.

Whether one says the greek letter omicron is translated as O or interpreted as o is immaterial, since both are the o sound and since that is how you say "O my God" in Greek, &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;.

What a Greek letter sounds like is irrelevant! Modern scholars READ the language and can easily recognize the difference between an omicron and an omega.

THus John 20.28 is not an example of nominative for vocative nor is any other scripture. Thus the nominative for vocative grammar rule is nonexistant in koine NT Greek. Thus nominative for vocative is a phoney grammar rule,.

Robertson taught Greek for 47 years, Wallace has taught Greek for 30+ years, and both have written many peer reviewed books. When you can match those qualifications, and can conduct a discussion without deliberately misrpresenting evidence, your opinion might be meaningful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Your quote from GGBB, by Wallace refers to the Nominative of address and you omitted the first key sentence in the meaning, "The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence." And it lists three examples Rom 7:24, 11:33, and Mark 3:34. Wallace also says that, "The Nominative of address is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for vocative!"


John 20:28 is Thomas replying directly to a request from Jesus so it very definitely is connected to the rest of the sentence. That automatically excludes it from the category of Nominative of address.
It isn't a nominative of address it is a nominative of exclamation.

Thomas didn't say "and Thomas answered him". Thomas only said "O my Lord and O my god". There is no verb in what Thomas said, what thomas said is an emotional outburst, and it does require an a exclamation point. Rules of grammar are for what people say, and what Thomas said fits. for what Thomas said to be considered a nominative of address and not a nominative of exclamation Thomas would have to have said more, like' My Lord and my god you have risen from the dead. John 20.28 is quoting something Thomas said And what Thomas said was not a complete sentence, it was an emotional outburst. Your way if anyone quotes someone uttering an emtional outburst, well then it ceases to be an emotional outburst cause you quoted him.

And Suzie answered him " O Golly Gee wizz!!!" Suzie uttered an exclamation just as Thomas did.


This use of the nominative is actually a subcategory of the nominative for vocative. However, we will treat it separately and make this (somewhat) arbitrary distinction: Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax: The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated.
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An ... - Google Books


Suzie exclaimed the emotional topic "O Golly Gee Wizz!!!" without any verb stated.
Thomas exclamed the emotional topic "O my Lord and O my god" without any verb stated.
. John 20.28 is not an exclamation only what Thomas said is an exclamation.


Der Alter said:
Also Wallace, and Robertson whom he quotes, lists John 20:28 as Nominative for Vocative, pg. 58. Wallace lists nineteen examples of Nominative for Vocative, beside John 20:28, John 17:25, Matt 16:17, Rom 1:13, Mark 9:19, Gal 3:1, Matt 17;17, Mark 9:19, Luke 9:41, 24:25, Act 13:10, 18:14, 27:21, Rom 11:33, Mark 5:8, Luke 8:54, John 19:3, Eph 5:22, Rev 15:3, Heb 1:8.
they are all exclamations, take john 17.25 for example.

(NKJV) John 17:25 "O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me.

Every supposed examples these scholars list are all in fact really just exclamations.

Der Alter said:
What a Greek letter sounds like is irrelevant!
that's just your opinion. No one says whether omicron was used or not used as the exclamatory sound O. All we have to go on on that issue is that &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; is translated as O God in several places in the NT. And that the sound of omicron and omega are very similar or exactly the same. and that omega was definitely used as the exclamatory O sound.

No scholar comments one way or the other. my opinon is just as good as your's or anyones. In your opinion it is irrelevant, in my opinion it is relevant. My opinion is that it is highly likely that omicron was used to mean the exclamatory O sound based on the above 3 mentioned facts. It is only your opinon that he above 3 mentioned facts are irrelevant. Scholars offer no opinon or facts either way.


Der Alter said:
Modern scholars READ the language and can easily recognize the difference between an omicron and an omega.
Modern English readers READ the English language and can easily recognize the difference between an "Oh!" and an "O!". But they are just different ways of spelling the same exclamation O sound.
anyone can recognize the difference between an omicron an an omega. what would be relevant would be can anyone recognize the difference between the sound of an omicron and an omega to any significant degree? the answer is NO. what is relevant is did Greeks use the O sound as an exclamation, answer is yes. what is relevant is is &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; ever translated as "o God", the answer is Yes. what is relevant is do any scholars say if the o sound of omicron was ever used or not used as the exclamatory O sound, the answer is that they make no comment on the issue.
Robertson taught Greek for 47 years, Wallace has taught Greek for 30+ years, and both have written many peer reviewed books. When you can match those qualifications, ............., your opinion might be meaningful.
Yea and you could say something similar about Ehrman, but Ehrman's theology is garbage cause he is an athiest. Scholars theolgoy isn't gauranteed cause they are scholars. Ehrman's theology causes him to wholely misinterpret the facts about the ending of Mark. He interprets the facts to mean that Mark ends with verse 8, 'they were afraid". Because he wants to find ways to support his athiesm. He interprets the fact that the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts omit the traditional ending of Mark to mean that they aren't scripture. I interpret facts he doesn't consider, such as one of the aforementioned manuscipt has the ending of Mark written in large letters as if to fill up the page left blank previously. and the second has a blank page, the only blank page where the traditional ending of Mark should be , to mean that the traditional ending is valid. Scholars draw invalid conclusions based upon facts, just like everyone else does at times.

all Greek scholars agree that what Thomas said could be an exclamation. They dismiss what Thomas said as being an exclmation based on their theology and their OPINION that O my god is taking the name of the lord in vain.. They do not dismiss what Thomas said as being an exclamation based on Greek grammar. Based solely on Greek grammar, what Thomas said can be nothing other than an exclamation because if fulfills all 3 requirements that identify something as an exclmatation. I'm just applying their grammar rules , and they are applying thier theology.. In the realm of theology accuracy isn't dependant upon how intelligent or knowledgeable you are it's dependant upon how willing you are to be led by the holy spirit into all truth. On that theology level, I am their equal. It is their OPINON, not grammar, that Thomas would have been uttering god's name in vain.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It isn't a nominative of address it is a nominative of exclamation.
If that is what you are trying to prove then quote what Wallace said, in context, which you did NOT do, as I pointed out!
"Deliberate misrepresentation of the source! Your quote from GGBB, by Wallace refers to the Nominative of exclamation (corrected) and you omitted the first, the key sentence in the meaning, "The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence." And it lists three examples Rom 7:24, 11:33, and Mark 3:34. Wallace also says that, "The Nominative of exclamation (corrected) is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for vocative!"

John 20:28, is Thomas replying directly to a request from Jesus so it very definitely is connected to the rest of the sentence. That automatically excludes it from the category of Nominative of address.

Also Wallace, and Robertson whom he quotes, lists John 20:28 as Nominative for Vocative, pg. 58. Wallace lists nineteen examples of Nominative for Vocative, beside John 20:28, John 17:25, Matt 16:17, Rom 1:13, Mark 9:19, Gal 3:1, Matt 17;17, Mark 9:19, Luke 9:41, 24:25, Act 13:10, 18:14, 27:21, Rom 11:33, Mark 5:8, Luke 8:54, John 19:3, Eph 5:22, Rev 15:3, Heb 1:8."​
Thomas didn't say "and Thomas answered him". Thomas only said "O my Lord and O my god". There is no verb in what Thomas said, what thomas said is an emotional outburst, and it does require an a exclamation point. Rules of grammar are for what people say, and what Thomas said fits. for what Thomas said to be considered a nominative of address and not a nominative of exclamation Thomas would have to have said more, like' My Lord and my god you have risen from the dead.

This argument is totally irrelevant. It does not address my reply! You tried to quote bits and pieces of Wallace as support for your argument but ignored everything he said which proves your argument for the rubbish it is. Which I quoted and which you have ignored!

John 20.28 is quoting something Thomas said And what Thomas said was not a complete sentence, it was an emotional outburst. Your way if anyone quotes someone uttering an emtional outburst, well then it ceases to be an emotional outburst cause you quoted him.

Thomas exclamed the emotional topic "O my Lord and O my god" without any verb stated.
* * * Irrelevant English examples omitted! * * *
John 20.28 is not an exclamation only what Thomas said is an exclamation.

In light of the several scholars I have quoted, your opinion means absolutely nothing!

they are all exclamations, take john 17.25 for example.

(NKJV) John 17:25 "O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me.

Every supposed examples these scholars list are all in fact really just exclamations.

Your opinion is irrelevant! Even if true, so what? According to Robertson and Wallace Nominative of Exclamation is a subcategory of Nominative for Vocative.

that's just your opinion. No one says whether omicron was used or not used as the exclamatory sound O. All we have to go on on that issue is that &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; is translated as O God in several places in the NT. And that the sound of omicron and omega are very similar or exactly the same. and that omega was definitely used as the exclamatory O sound.

Try paying attention! The sound of Greek letters is irrelevant! Greek scholars don't translate based on the sound but how the letter is written. There is no way any Greek scholar could mistake the letter, omicron, &#959; for the letter, omega, &#969;. Nor would any Greek scholar mistake the letter, omicron´, &#8057;, for omicron &#770; , ô.

No scholar comments one way or the other. my opinon is just as good as your's or anyones. In your opinion it is irrelevant, in my opinion it is relevant. My opinion is that it is highly likely that omicron was used to mean the exclamatory O sound based on the above 3 mentioned facts. It is only your opinon that he above 3 mentioned facts are irrelevant. Scholars offer no opinon or facts either way.

I cannot prove a negative but read any grammar and see if there is one, anywhere, which mentions translating based on the sound of the letters omicron or omega?

anyone can recognize the difference between an omicron an an omega. what would be relevant would be can anyone recognize the difference between the sound of an omicron and an omega to any significant degree? the answer is NO.

Irrelevant scholars today and ancient scholars did not write based on the sound of letters!

Yea and you could say something similar about Ehrman, but Ehrman's theology is garbage cause he is an athiest. Scholars theolgoy isn't gauranteed cause they are scholars. [ . . . ]

Ehrman would only be relevant if he wrote anything on the topic of Nominative for Vocative!

all Greek scholars agree that what Thomas said could be an exclamation. They dismiss what Thomas said as being an exclmation based on their theology and their OPINION that O my god is taking the name of the lord in vain.. They do not dismiss what Thomas said as being an exclamation based on Greek grammar.

Where does any of the Greek scholars cited in this thread agree that John 20:28 could be an exclamation?

Based solely on Greek grammar, what Thomas said can be nothing other than an exclamation because if fulfills all 3 requirements that identify something as an exclmatation. I'm just applying their grammar rules , and they are applying thier theology..

Wallace, whose rule you misquoted, says of the Nominative of exclamation, in the very first sentence of the definition, "The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence!" WWBB, Wallace, pg. 59. The words of Thomas in John 20:28 are a direct reply to Jesus' command to Thomas, therefore it is excluded by the very first requirement of the rule<period> end of story!

In the realm of theology accuracy isn't dependant upon how intelligent or knowledgeable you are it's dependant upon how willing you are to be led by the holy spirit into all truth. On that theology level, I am their equal. It is their OPINON, not grammar, that Thomas would have been uttering god's name in vain.

Thus saith every false religion follower out there, e.g. JW, LDS, UU, OP, WWCG, non-trin MJ, kristadeklfian, Jim Jones, Davide Koresh, etc.

John 20:28 according to the early church.
The Treatises Of Cyprian Book II [A.D. 170-236]

Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.” So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness.” Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Also in the same: “The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.”
Also Paul to the Romans: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.” Also in the Apocalypse: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [a.d. 210-280.]

Repeating this same thing, He says: "Father, glorify me with that glory wherewith I was with Thee before the world was."90 And if this Word came down from heaven as a bridegroom to the flesh, that by the assumption of flesh He might ascend thither as the Son of man, whence the Son of God had descended as the Word, reasonably, while by the mutual connection both flesh wears the Word of God, and the Son of God assumes the frailty of the flesh; when the flesh being espoused ascending thither, whence without the flesh it had descended, it at length receives that glory which in being shown to have had before the foundation of the world, it is most manifestly proved. to be God. And, nevertheless, while the world itself is said to have been founded after Him, it is found to have been created by Him; by that very divinity in Him whereby, the world was made, both His glory and His authority are proved. Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him. But we cannot say that nothing was made by Him, when we observe it written that all things were made by Him. He is not therefore subsequent to all things; that is, He is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since God is prior to all things. For He is before all things, because all things are by Him, while if He were only man, nothing would be by Him; or if all things were by Him, He would not be man only, because if He were only man, all things would not be by Him; nay, nothing would be by Him. What, then, do they reply? That nothing is by Him, so that He is man only? How then are all things by Him? Therefore He is not man only, but God also, since all things are by Him; so that we reasonably ought to understand that Christ is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since by Him all things were made. For how can you say that He is man only, when you see Him also in the flesh, unless because when both aspects are considered, both truths are rightly believed?​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Greek scholars don't translate based on the sound but how the letter is written.
omicron theos is translated as O God in heb. 1.8 and other verses, therfore omicron means the exclamation O, or they wouldn't have translated it that way.












 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
John 20:28 according to the early church.
The Treatises Of Cyprian Book II [A.D. 170-236]
Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: &#8220;Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.&#8221; So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: &#8220;Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.&#8221; Also in the eighty-first Psalm: &#8220;They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness.&#8221; Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: &#8220;Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.&#8221; Also in the Gospel according to John: &#8220;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.&#8221; Also in the same: &#8220;The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.&#8221;
Also Paul to the Romans: &#8220;I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.&#8221; Also in the Apocalypse: &#8220;I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.&#8221; Also in the eighty-first Psalm: &#8220;God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.&#8221; And again in the same place: &#8220;I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.&#8221; But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [a.d. 210-280.]

Repeating this same thing, He says: "Father, glorify me with that glory wherewith I was with Thee before the world was."90 And if this Word came down from heaven as a bridegroom to the flesh, that by the assumption of flesh He might ascend thither as the Son of man, whence the Son of God had descended as the Word, reasonably, while by the mutual connection both flesh wears the Word of God, and the Son of God assumes the frailty of the flesh; when the flesh being espoused ascending thither, whence without the flesh it had descended, it at length receives that glory which in being shown to have had before the foundation of the world, it is most manifestly proved. to be God. And, nevertheless, while the world itself is said to have been founded after Him, it is found to have been created by Him; by that very divinity in Him whereby, the world was made, both His glory and His authority are proved. Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him. But we cannot say that nothing was made by Him, when we observe it written that all things were made by Him. He is not therefore subsequent to all things; that is, He is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since God is prior to all things. For He is before all things, because all things are by Him, while if He were only man, nothing would be by Him; or if all things were by Him, He would not be man only, because if He were only man, all things would not be by Him; nay, nothing would be by Him. What, then, do they reply? That nothing is by Him, so that He is man only? How then are all things by Him? Therefore He is not man only, but God also, since all things are by Him; so that we reasonably ought to understand that Christ is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since by Him all things were made. For how can you say that He is man only, when you see Him also in the flesh, unless because when both aspects are considered, both truths are rightly believed?
just some guys opinon. Holds no more weight than anyone elses opinon.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
omicron theos is translated as O God in heb. 1.8 and other verses, therfore omicron means the exclamation O, or they wouldn't have translated it that way.

Unless, ô or &#969; occurs in the Greek text, anywhere an exclamatory "O" appears in the English text, it is only the translator's interpretation! See e.g. Heb 1:8 which you ignored before!
WH Heb 1:8 &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962;G4314 PREP &#948;&#949;G1161 CONJ &#964;&#959;&#957;G3588 T-ASM &#965;&#953;&#959;&#957;G5207 N-ASM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962;G2362 N-NSM &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;G2316 N-NSM &#949;&#953;&#962;G1519 PREP &#964;&#959;&#957;G3588 T-ASM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#945;G165 N-ASM | [&#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962;]G165 N-GSM | &#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962;G165 N-GSM | &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#951;G3588 T-NSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962;G4464 N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962;G3588 T-GSF &#949;&#965;&#952;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962;G2118 N-GSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962;G4464 N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962;G3588 T-GSF &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962;G932 N-GSF | &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965;G846 P-GSM | &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS |​
Both, &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; and &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; have the same definite article in the same case, T-NSM, and &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; is NEVER written as "O throne"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Treatises Of Cyprian Book II [A.D. 170-236]

Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.” So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness.” Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Also in the same: “The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.”
Also Paul to the Romans: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.” Also in the Apocalypse: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [a.d. 210-280.]

Repeating this same thing, He says: "Father, glorify me with that glory wherewith I was with Thee before the world was."90 And if this Word came down from heaven as a bridegroom to the flesh, that by the assumption of flesh He might ascend thither as the Son of man, whence the Son of God had descended as the Word, reasonably, while by the mutual connection both flesh wears the Word of God, and the Son of God assumes the frailty of the flesh; when the flesh being espoused ascending thither, whence without the flesh it had descended, it at length receives that glory which in being shown to have had before the foundation of the world, it is most manifestly proved. to be God. And, nevertheless, while the world itself is said to have been founded after Him, it is found to have been created by Him; by that very divinity in Him whereby, the world was made, both His glory and His authority are proved. Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him. But we cannot say that nothing was made by Him, when we observe it written that all things were made by Him. He is not therefore subsequent to all things; that is, He is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since God is prior to all things. For He is before all things, because all things are by Him, while if He were only man, nothing would be by Him; or if all things were by Him, He would not be man only, because if He were only man, all things would not be by Him; nay, nothing would be by Him. What, then, do they reply? That nothing is by Him, so that He is man only? How then are all things by Him? Therefore He is not man only, but God also, since all things are by Him; so that we reasonably ought to understand that Christ is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since by Him all things were made. For how can you say that He is man only, when you see Him also in the flesh, unless because when both aspects are considered, both truths are rightly believed?​

just some guys opinon. Holds no more weight than anyone elses opinon.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​
The early church leaders all spoke and understood Greek, completely, you don't! I quoted the ONLY extant history of that church in the 1st three centuries of the church. So where is any history of any organized body of believers who believed and practiced as you do, between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the late 19th century when virtually all false religious groups came into existence, e.g. OP, UU, LDS, JW, WWCG, kristadelfian, etc?

And OBTW remember this reply! You will see it again, I guarantee it!

just some guys opinon[sic] Holds no more weight than anyone elses opinon.[sic]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Unless, ô or &#969; occurs in the Greek text, anywhere an exclamatory "O" appears in the English text, it is only the translator's interpretation! See e.g. Heb 1:8 which you ignored before!
That's just your opinon.
Der Alter said:
WH Heb 1:8 &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962;G4314 PREP &#948;&#949;G1161 CONJ &#964;&#959;&#957;G3588 T-ASM &#965;&#953;&#959;&#957;G5207 N-ASM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962;G2362 N-NSM &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;G2316 N-NSM &#949;&#953;&#962;G1519 PREP &#964;&#959;&#957;G3588 T-ASM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#945;G165 N-ASM | [&#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962;]G165 N-GSM | &#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962;G165 N-GSM | &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#951;G3588 T-NSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962;G4464 N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962;G3588 T-GSF &#949;&#965;&#952;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962;G2118 N-GSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962;G4464 N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962;G3588 T-GSF &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962;G932 N-GSF | &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965;G846 P-GSM | &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS |
Both, &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; and &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; have the same definite article in the same case, T-NSM, and &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; is NEVER written as "O throne"
It would be written as O throne if someone was exclamating "o &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962;". One can say 'O throne! why have you left me?" in Greek. There are lots of things that are never said in the NT, that doesn't mean they can't be said. Everyone, except maybe the JW bible, all translate &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; in heb. 1.8 as ''O God". It is just your opinon that that is an interpretation and not a translation. The fact that they all translate it as "O God" makes it highly unlikely that it is an interpretation, for all of them wouldn't be that unfaithful to the Greek text.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The early church leaders all spoke and understood Greek, completely, you don't!
And the numerous non orthodox denominations of their day spoke and understood Greek, and they didn't agree with orthodoxy, such as sabiens, nestorians, etc. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the church , the called out ones of God, the people who make up the body of Christ. The gates of hell have prevailed against lots of other things, such as church history, and scripture. It wasn't God who instigated all those people to be burned at the stake for anti trinitarianism, It wasn't God who prevailed to have all the scriptures changed that were changed to fit somones doctrine. The Devil had done some horrible things to followers of Christians even through Christians. Even today, as always,the devil gets Christians to do some horrible things. one doesn't become a christian then he becomes immune from demonic influences. Not then and not today. All christians have to run the race to the end. And even christians who make it to the end stumble numerous times along the way. Others drop out completely.
Der Alter said:
I quoted the ONLY extant history of that church in the 1st three centuries of the church. So where is any history of any organized body of believers who believed and practiced as you do, between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the late 19th century when virtually all false religious groups came into existence, e.g. OP, UU, LDS, JW, WWCG, kristadelfian, etc?
first century christians were monothiest like me, that the church slipped into polythiesm of sorts, is no proof that polythiesm is correct. Paul said there were ravening wolves in his midst. False doctrine was brought into the church even in Pauls day. It's still here, all over the place. But God has a plan to get the church back to the faith once delivered unto the saints.

Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


When you see a body of believers who have attained unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, that body will have the unity of the faith, they will have unadulterated truth, they will havethe knowledge of the Son of God, they will be fullgrown men.

. No denomination has achieved any of this currently. But God will Get the chruch to that place, and one of the things he is doing to achieve that is driving false doctrine out of his Church.
Der Alter said:
And OBTW remember this reply! You will see it again, I guarantee it!
nothing new. to argue that something is true because some orthodox guy said it in 200 A. D. is not sound reasoning at all. You can find scholars today saying john 20.28 could be an exclamation, and from a grammatical stand point it can be nothing else ( as I clearly demonstrated with how john 20.28 fulfills all three requirements for an exclamation), but both 200 A. D. orthodox writers, and 2010 orthodox writers all rely upon theology to translate john 20.28 as a nominative for vocative address. Something nonexistant in the entire NT.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Der Alter said:
Your quote from GGBB, by Wallace refers to the Nominative of exclamation (corrected) and you omitted the first, the key sentence in the meaning, "The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence." And it lists three examples Rom 7:24, 11:33, and Mark 3:34. Wallace also says that, "The Nominative of exclamation (corrected) is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for vocative!"

John 20:28 is Thomas replying directly to a request from Jesus so it very definitely is connected to the rest of the sentence. That automatically excludes it from the category of Nominative of address.

In all three examples of how a nominative is used in an exclamation, the entire sentence is what someone says. John 20.28 is not an equivalent example. the entirety of what Thomas said, is an equivalent of the three examples that Wallace gave.

[SIZE=+0](NKJV) Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0](Young) Romans 7:24 A wretched man I [am]! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?



' wretched man I', fulfills all 3 requirements of what Paul is saying.

likewise what Thomas said, "o my Lord and O my god' fulfills all 3 requirements of for a nominative substantive to be a nominative of exclamation.

If Peter had quoted paul as saying this exclamation, it would still be an exclamation, it wouldn't cease to be an exclamation because someone quoted Paul.

Peter writing

.And Paul said, O wretched man I! who shall deliver me from this body of death?


And Paul said ,Is not part of the equation in determing if what Paul said is an exclamation. Likewise John saying "and Thomas said" is not part of the equation in determining if what Thomas said is an exclamation. What Thomas said and what Paul actually said is to be used in determining whether what they said is an exclamation or not. Someone quoting them such as John in scripture, and Peter in my analogy, is irrelevant to deciding if what someone says is an exclamation or not.


Clearly , the whole idea that Thomas was calling Jesus god is based on theology and not grammar. Greek grammar strongly condemns that interpretation/translation.



[/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In all three examples of how a nominative is used in an exclamation, the entire sentence is what someone says. John 20.28 is not an equivalent example. the entirety of what Thomas said, is an equivalent of the three examples that Wallace gave.

(NKJV) Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

(Young) Romans 7:24 A wretched man I [am]! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?


' wretched man I', fulfills all 3 requirements of what Paul is saying.

likewise what Thomas said, "o my Lord and O my god' fulfills all 3 requirements of for a nominative substantive to be a nominative of exclamation.

If Peter had quoted paul as saying this exclamation, it would still be an exclamation, it wouldn't cease to be an exclamation because someone quoted Paul.

Peter writing

.And Paul said, O wretched man I! who shall deliver me from this body of death.

And Paul said ,Is not part of the equation in determing if what Paul said is an exclamation. Likewise John saying "and Thomas said" is not part of the equation in determining if what Thomas said is an exclamation. What Thomas said and what Paul actually said is to be used in determining whether what they said is an exclamation or not. Someone quoting them such as John in scripture, and Peter in my analogy, is irrelevant to deciding if what someone says is an exclamation or not.

Clearly , the whole idea that Thomas was calling Jesus god is based on theology and not grammar. Greek grammar strongly condemns that interpretation/translation.

John 2:28 is one complete sentence. The first clause, "And Thomas answered and said unto him. . .," makes no sense without the second clause! The second clause, "My Lord and my God," makes no sense without the first clause!
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.​
Since you fail to understand this simple fact of grammar, your entire argument is meaningless! Please note highlights?
VI Nominative of Exclamation
A. Definition
The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence.

B. Clarification and Significance.
This use of the nominative is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for Vocative [ . . . ] The Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated.

Robertson points out that this is “a sort of interjectional nominative,” something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (1) the lack of a verb (though one may be implied), (2) the obvious emotion of the author, and (3) the necessity of an exclamation point in translation. Sometimes &#969; is used with the nominative.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59-60.​
You pick out bits and pieces of sources, twisting them to suit your purpose. If a source does not support your argument, in context, DON'T quote it!
 
Upvote 0