I apologize for sending this letter to B-Greek twice in one day,
but I accidentally sent the first copy without ever finishing the
composition! Here is the continuation of my original discussion.
Please forgive me if my message seems to echo what other may have said
thus far about this issue, for I only receive the digest form of
B-Greek. Thanks and Charis!
My comment to you all has to do with the on-going discussion of how
Romans 9:5 should be translated. When the Greek is read, one of two
translations is possible which supports either (A) the Christ and God
are the same person; thus, Christ is God, or (B) Christ is a different
person from God; thus, two individuals are mentioned in the verse.
The [only] passage which support Christ is God is the New International
NIV--Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human
ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!
The passages which support Christ and God are two different individuals
RSV--to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the
flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
YLT--whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to
the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.
DBY--whose [are] the fathers; and of whom, as according to flesh, [is]
the Christ, who is over all, God
blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV--Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
It seems to me that since there are at least two ways of translating
the syntax of the Greek, both translations are possible. The only way
to decide on which to follow is to do an exegesis on the entire
passage. Anyone has any results from an exegesis?
BTW, I looked at the footnote for the NIV and it coincides with the
majority of translations which mention God and Christ Jesus as two
separate individuals! The footnote says:
NIV footnote: Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or
Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!
Oh well, my suggestion is to follow the most convincing exegesis of the
PS I would love to read how scholars have exegeted this chapter of
Romans, but I am too busy reading the gospel of Thomas!