Ray's Feb 21, 2000 Reply to Wrench

 

 

Ray Goldsmith

alka1@sssnet.com

 

Hi Wrench:  I will once again intersperse my comments between yours,  and although some repetition will be in order, I will also look for ways to shorten things up and get to what really matters. If it gets too lengthy I’ll have to divide it up into parts.   Capital "R"s will separate my comments.

RRRRRRRRR

 

Hello Ray,
I've tried to trim what wasn't necessary so this thing wont be so long, but it is still very long. If I leave out something important, please just reintroduce the point and I will try to address it.

 I'm not sure what you want from me. I told you I have may have worded things incorrectly. I even stated that if my wording was misleading, I apologize. I even stated if I did all I can do is say I’m sorry, restate my case, and proceed from there. I hope you have seen that I have “tweaked” my presentation so as not to overstate it. Also this, "You may be right, I may have framed it incorrectly so allow me to put it in a new frame as I stated above."&&&&&&&&&&

 

What you said above was fine,  if only you had left it that way.  But alas for the vanity of human wishes,  you went on to imply that I had misinterpreted your words in the original treatise.  And  that left me no choice but to either let your implication stand,  or defend myself,  and I chose the latter course.  That’s why this thing has drug out so long.  Now you have reframed it without blaming me, and that’s fine.  So we can move on without further ado. And again,  no apologies were in order either J   Here now is your reframing: RRRRRR

 

&&&&&  : (((I believe the real issue is this. I intend to demonstrate that the natural understanding of the phrases in that threefold witness I have presented weigh heavily against the Trinitarian. Individually and ‘certainly’ collectively. I can’t think of any reason why the unprecedented interpretation would prevail without some  VERY COMPELLING, nearly UNDENIABLE evidence being presented in the converse...It is the ‘collective’ force that I am appealing to more than the individual source. The individual force is very strong in itself but that is why the ‘witness’ of two or three is needed to establish a point.))) :     &&&&&

 

RRRRR…  OK,  let’s review  the above goals or standards you say you intend to meet. First,  you will demonstrate that the natural understanding of the phrases in each of the three witnesses  in your treatise “weigh heavily against the Trinitarian”.  You say this is so individually and certainly  collectively.   Interestingly you characterize the orthodox interpretation as “unprecedented”,  and on such grounds you think it should not prevail without some very compelling, nearly undeniable evidence presented in support.  Well, we know this much;  the orthodox interpretation HAS prevailed throughout the centuries,  and it is  the evidence you’ve presented  about “arche with the genitive” that seems to have escaped everyone throughout the history of Christianity,  including the WTBTS.  Hmm…and I’ll just go ahead and ignore your final statement about  establishing the point,   because I’m sure you don’t want to contradict  yourself and go  back to square one J

RRRRR

 

&&&&  I had stated:
: Aren't you arguing both sides of the fence here, Ray.  Do you believe that Col 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 put Christ among creation or not? If not, then I will continue along the lines of trying to demonstrate that. If you do, then I will continue along the lines of showing you why I think he is the "first". Again, I think the collective force would be strongly in favor of his being the "first". If you don't know for sure, that's fine, I will continue to try to convince that first he IS numbered among creation and then demonstrate him being the "first" one. But, if you are just intentionally being a moving target, I don't really know why we are doing this at all, then. Can I ask you, do you really want to get to the bottom of the matter, or is your goal to try and throw in enough variables and possibilities to endlessly evade what was intended by those words? God had something in mind when he had them recorded. And I'm sure it wasn't just a range of possibilities. I really want to know what he meant by them and I hope you do to.

RRRRRRR

"What we have here...is a failure to communicate" (Cool Hand Luke :-))   I guess I shouldn't have taken for granted that you were well aware that the Trinity position holds that at a certain point in history the Logos "became flesh" (John 1:14)...and thus came to be "among creation". Apparently this is something you had not known before, and as a result.. my bringing it out makes you think that I'm trying to argue both sides of the fence.

 

My point, Wrench,  is that you seemed to be assuming that any passage that portrays Christ in the role of a creature was ipso facto and automatically detrimental to my view and in favor of yours. This misconception seemed to be at least partially responsible for your tendency to overassess and overstate the strength of your case. For any passage that portrays Christ in the role of a creature does NOT damage the Trinitarian position in any way, and so it does NOT provide an argument of independent value for your side (this is the strawman I was referring to). You see,  the real difference between our positions lies in whether Christ was the ORIGINAL creature... in whether he was  "among creation" BEFORE he took the form of a servant (Phil 2:6-8).   That's what you need to address yourself to. But you were trying to get trinitarians to just see that "Christ was among creation"...and you needed much more than that! Given the trinitarian position that at the incarnation, Christ took on the nature of a creature,  for you to say that you were merely trying to get us to see that he was "among creation"...is about like saying "I'm going to teach a fish how to swim" ...So this is not something I've recently made up...it has always been a vital part of trinitarianism... and so if that is to be regarded as "arguing both sides of the fence"....so be it.

No,   as  I've shown in my recent responses,  I don't believe that Col. 1:15 or Rev 3:14 "PUTS" Christ among creation...and I never have. In fact I've shown that Col. 1:16 says that Christ is "before" all creation. Now does this mean that I'm saying that Christ never was "among creation"? Not at all...I'm just saying that the passages you've appealed to do not "put" him among creation in such a way as to require the conclusion that he was the first creation...first in the series..etc  I have never changed or veered from this, Wrench.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Let me see if I have this right. Trinitarians view Christ as having been "among creation" due to the fact that he, the Logos, became flesh on earth, right?   However, you do not believe that the scriptures that I have offered actually PUT Christ in the position of a "creation" or a "creature", right? That appears to be your position. In fact you say have NEVER thought that Col 1:15 or Rev. 3:14 have put Christ among creation.

The thing that confuses me again is the manner in which you word your following statement, ""the passages you've appealed to do not "put" him among creation IN SUCH A WAY as to require the conclusion that he was the first creation." Do you see why I am confused? It sounds as though what you could be saying is that it "puts" him among creation but not IN THE WAY I think it puts him among creation. So, at this point I'm still not sure whether you think that Col. 1:15 and cntxt. puts Christ "among" creation IN ANY WAY AT ALL. This is what I need clarified, Ray.

 

In one of your very first letters you stated this about Col. 1:15

(((Because even if we accept the partitive meaning, that can be accomodated by the fact that even the Orthodox position teaches that the logos "took on our nature" at the incarnation (John 1:14..Phil 2) and thus the application of the term would not require him to be the original creature or the first in the series, and can thus be satisfied by him becoming "one of us" later in history.)))

I took from this that you were entertaining the possibility that Christ WAS numbered among creation, but in a different way as you state above, by becoming one of us. Do you see why I thought that? You presented it as a possible interpretation, didn't you?

Later you stated this:

(((Next comes the expression "firstborn of all creation" in Col 1:15. I began by pointing out that my position doesn't require me to deny the partitive meaning for the genitive case. That doesn't mean that I think it's demanded. In fact I recognize that some take it as comparitive. So I'm merely going along here to illustrate that even if we do accept the partitive meaning, it still would not satisfy the burden of proof for you. Your burden is to prove that he was the FIRST creature in the series (numerically), as you set forth at the outset of this treatise.)))

 

Did you or did you not call this your "position" not requiring you to deny the partitive meaning? Aren't you still presenting this as a possible interpretation at the point of this response above?

The following statement indicates the same attitude:

(((You say that regardless of how we understand verse 16 "creation", it has nothing to do with his becoming a man. No we cannot go that far. Why? Because as the context moves into verses19 and 20 we see Paul portraying him as on a mission to reconcile all creation by means of his shed blood on the cross of Calvary. So the relationship is constant from start to finish, Jesus was "hand's on" responsible for all creation in the first place, and for its reconcilation in the last place. That's why he deserves the title "firstborn of all creation". Praise His Holy Name Forevermore!)))

 

You seem to be defending the position that you say you never did. I hope you can understand now the reasons for my confusion as to your position on Col. 1:15. So please tell me, do you or do you not REJECT the partitive meaning in Colossians 1:15? I think from your most recent statement that you DO, but I just want to be sure, OK?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

RRRR   Well,  let me see if I can clarify myself then.  I guess what I meant to say overall, Wrench,  is that I never have felt that Col 1:15-18 or Rev 3:14 identifies Christ with creation in any way that gives an advantage to your view about His ultimate identity. When you say “puts him among creation”,  I  already know that your view is that he’s restricted  to the category of creation,  and so when I say I don’t think they “put” him among,  I really mean I don’t think they restrict  him to such a category,   for the bible teaches that his ultimate existence transcends the period of his existence as a creature. In other words,  I don’t think these passages require a conclusion that he was the first in the series..or category…which is the ONLY  thing that would give your view an advantage over mine. Neither do I think these passages deny that he was among or participated in the nature of a creature.  See my point?  The reason I worded it the way I did is because I wanted you to see-saw it back and forth inside your mind and bring yourself to the same conclusion.  Once this point is understood,  only THEN will you really understand my statement that my position doesn’t require me to accept or deny the partitive interpretation of the genitive in Col 1:15.  Why?  Because we already believe that He took the nature of a creature as per John 1:14  (pitched his tent with us).   It doesn’t NEED to be proven.   It may well be that the genitive is partitive or even relative (comparitive) or even both… but what DOES need to be addressed is whether he was the first of Jehovah’s creations.  See my point now?  You know what this reminds me of? The tricky math problem where a bus stops from the terminal first,  and picks up five passengers,  goes three blocks..makes a right,  and drops off 2 but takes on 7,  makes another right, proceeds to the city news stand and stops,  lets off 4 but picks up 13,  makes a left goes to the high schoool,  drops off 6 and picks up 1….and on and on. Until finally the question is popped … “how many right turns did the bus make”?  J

 

Later in this post you indicate that you kind of had the notion that trinitarianism saw Christ as a man,  but your understanding has been perhaps hazy at best.  Thank you for your honesty,  and that’s the best thing I’ve always noticed about you,  Wrench.  That  makes me want to try even harder to help you to understand the Trinitarian position. But yes,  that is indeed a fundamental part of the doctrine as we see it.  He existed as God (not the Father) before all creation,  he was directly hand’s on responsible for all creation with not even a single exception (this is his intermedate role……between God  and  all creation….yet in this role he himself is God by nature and not an original creation).  But at a certain point in time he ENTERED the category (John 1:14),  and became “flesh” or truly human by nature.

 

 This is likewise referred to in Phil 2:6-8 where he is portrayed as having pre-existed in the “form of God”,  but at the prescribed time he took “the form of a slave or servant (doulou).  See the contrast, Wrench?  Now we know from Rev 22 that angels are fellow-servants with men,  so in Phil 2:7 Paul not only says that he took the form of a slave (creature),  but specifies that it was the human nature specifically that he took on when he became a “slave”.  And yet it makes sense that he wasn’t a slave until he “became” one, right?   Of course he wasn’t a slave (creature) until he became one.  That’s the unique thing about this creature….he had an existence before that as a non-creature (God..not the Father).   I think that once this point begins to take root in your mind,  many many other passages will make better sense to you.  When you see that he wasn’t an angel (fellow creature with men) before he became a slave/creature,  then the passage that has all God’s angels worshiping him will make better sense (Heb 1:6)…he is distinguished from all God’s angels!  When you see, for example,  that he pre-existed John 1:14 as a non-creature (God… not the Father, but equally God by nature nonetheless),  it then makes sense that we should honor the Son “just as” we honor the Father.  It  makes MUCH better sense.

 

I think the net result of Col. 1:15-18 will be that the trinitarian  position will be able to easily accommodate both the “firstborn” expression in verse 15,  as well as the “before all things” (visible and invisible)  expression in verse 17,  for that is exactly what the trinitarian view holds….He existed before all creation,  and yet became recognized as “firstborn” where numerical order was NOT the emphasis,  but status….as with David who prefigured Christ.  David was not Jessie’s firstborn,  nor was he the first King of  Israel…yet  Jehovah nevertheless elevated him to the STATUS of   “firstborn”.   So the trinitarinan view can easily accommodate the context of Col 1:15-18,  but the WT’s view stumbles clumsily over Paul’s words “he is before all things” in verse 17,  all creation as you’ve admitted.  That is why I had you clarify this separately recently,  and  you answered that the “all things” in Col 1:16-17 is indeed all inclusive and not restricted to the physical universe,   as you’ve claimed with the “all things” of John 1:3.  RRRRRRRRR

 

Hopefully I will save us a lot of repetitious mumbo jumbo with regard to my reference to Grimm-Thayer’s Lexicon.  I’ll try to draw some conclusions based  on what we seem to agree on.  For example,  we agree that corruption from personal conviction (bias) is not an everywhere thing (not a slam dunk, in other words)….so we should be able to agree that therefore,  wherever one relies on corruption from personal conviction (bias)  as an explanation,  at that SAME point he must accept and carry out the burden of showing specific examples of that right at the point where he claims it.

 

   So,  at Rev 3:14,  you relied on that as an explanation for why your meaning of the passage wasn’t adopted by any of my sources,  including Grimm/Thayer.  So,  did you show any specific examples of this corruption resultiing from personal conviction (bias) with regard to Rev 3:14?  Sorry, Wrench,  but  NO YOU DID NOT!  Instead you tried to live off the possiblity…as if that’s all you needed to do.  I contend that if you refuse to show examples of the corruption you claim right where you claim it occurs,  you have failed to verify your explanation as to why your meaning  was not adopted by any of the Lexicons I cited.   And you have  not tracked down the bracketed statements there either…so,  since they could just as easily suppliment Grimm’s references,  we are still waiting for you to verify your explanation.  Hence,  all we have so far is that all my sources agreed among themselves AGAINST  your view.  Only one acknowedged  your view  as “linguistically possible”,   but they adopted the other meaning themselves ….hardly a ringing endorsement!  And although you failed to cite a single example of corruption from personal conviction (bias) at the point where you  relied on it,   I did cite a strong example where Grimm refused to call Christ God in John 1:1c and John 20:28,  explaining that this was still a matter of dispute among theologians.   So I think I’ve presented the better case here,  Wrench,  with regard to Grimm/Thayers.   You haven’t yet cited a single example... where you relied on it (Rev 3:14),    but I did…

RRRRRRR

 

&&&&  Well, again, Ray, I think you surmise too much.  I think his remarks about "reserve" and "embarrassment" could easily be taken that he may have found 'bias' on Prof. Grimm's part. Below, you try to get me to accept that what Thayer meant by those words is he felt "reserve" and "embarrassment" over sitting in judgment of Prof. Grimm's writings. &&&&

 

RRR  No, only that he might appear to be sitting in judgment.  But you need  to show specific examples of corruption (bias) right where you put forward such a claim as an explanation (Rev 3:14).   The  “may have found  ‘bias’”  cannot be accepted as verification for your claim…you’ve left it unverified at this point.  Since you ‘ve admitted that corruption resulting from personal conviction (bias) is not a slam dunk or an “everywhere thing”,  and you are still relying on it,  so  you have to verify the claim!  Sorry,  Wrench.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You stated in part:

From Hupfeld to Hengstenberg...or...from a position left of the WT Society all the way to a position square in the middle of the Orthodox camp.

RRRRRR: $$$$$$$$
: I fail to see how any of this removes the possibility of bias in certain areas. As I demonstrtaed above, I don't think Thayer himself was denying the possibility of error or bias.
RRRRRRRRRR

 
At first I felt a little miffed at this rather short response to the preceding results shown from your own investigative work and my further analysis as compared with the WT's input. Upon further thought, however, I asked myself, "well, what could Wrench have said? Could he deny my points or the conclusions drawn accordingly? Nope, that could not be done." Actually from your vantage point, your response was kind of forced...unless you just want to give up the ghost. So in light of that, I guess I don't feel so bad that this is all you could muster up. I think you should, however,  note the similarity of Hupfeld's problem with the inspiration of Scripture with that of the radical unitarian,  and compare that with your statement that you did not see how their diversity had anything to do with the unitarian issue. The whole thing shows very clearly the even someone further removed from orthodoxy than the WT Society could still embrace Grim's lexicon, just as Thayer related!

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ray, I do not see a similarity between 'scriptural inspiration' and the 'unitarian' position to be related. Because a wide swing of theological thought can be demonstrated in one area, does not mean that a wide swing is clearly portrayed in another. And, as I said above, it does nothing to separate the possibility if bias existing at the very least to some small degree.
$$$$$$$$

 

Ok Wrench,  It looks like what is happening inside your mind is that you are trying to keep yourself in a straight-jacket of labels.  For just a few moments,  lay aside the labels and try to picture in your mind the QUESTION we are exploring.   What is the question? What do we want to know?  We want to know if this Author’s (Grimm) personal convictions corrupted his work at Rev 3:14.  Now if we just keep that question in our minds,  I think Thayer’s referral to the wide diversity of beliefs makes logical sense. In  passing,  as he made the point,  he referred to a couple well known names of the time,  scholars whom were well known to be far apart from each other in their beliefs.  So, what’s my point?  It is this:  If someone (Hupfeld) could be further removed from the Orthodox view than even the WT Society,  and could still embrace Grimm’s lexicon,  it doesn’t seem to agree very well with the idea that the Author’s Work tended to be corrupted by his personal convictions (bias).  Thayer is actually bragging on Grimm’s lexicon and using the wide diversity between Hubfeld and Henstengberg to illustrate the point.  These points suggest that it’s going to be a hard task to show corruption based on personal conviction (bias) right where you claim it must have occurred.  And the fact that you haven’t verified it with specific examples  falls right in line with that!  Now once the main point is recognized, then,  if we’re looking to categorize by labels,  we may try to do so….and so what about Hupfeld and the problems he had with the inspiration of Holy Scripture? 

 

The “related” you are referring to is the fact that both Hupfield and the radical unitarian are further removed from the orthodox camp than even the WT Society (it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s on a single view or a range of views),  and yet Hupfield could embrace Grimm’s lexicon.   The “relation”,  Wrench,  is the distance from the camp of Orthodoxy they both are (Hupfeld & radical Unitarians) as compared to the WT Society. (with regard to the inspiration of Scripture,  Hupfeld was further away from the Orthodox view than the WT Society).  Do you see  now?   If Hupfeld could embrace it,  being further away from orthodoxy than you and the WT,  the burden is even GREATER on you to show a specific example of this corruption resulting from personal conviction (bias) right where you rely on such as an explanation (Rev 3:14).   Yet you keep trying to live off the possibility….I guess it’s because it’s the only thing you can do, I don’t know.   Is that it?  Well,  your claim then remains unverified at this  point.  What can I say? RRRRRRR

However it had nary a thing to do with Thayer's thinking of bias in Grim's work. Such bracketed statements, even should they contain a contrary conclusion, may be explained WITHOUT bias or corruption from personal conviction being the cause. RRRRRRR

 

$$$

But then again, it could. You were not part of Thayer's thinking process. All I am after at this point is to demonstrate the "possibility" of bias. Further considerations will determine if that possibility stands or falls.

 

Ray Responds:  Maybe If I word it this way,  you’ll see my point: “And then again, mabye it won’t…so where does that leave us now?  That’s what I’ve been saying all along….but it looks like you are beginning to see that you need more than just “the possiblity” to verify your explanation.  That is progress, I guess….LOL!
$$$$$$$$

 

RRR  Looks like you are beginning to see that trying to live off the possibility is not a good option for you,   since you’re the one who relied on this as an explanation… so suddenly you say:    “well,  it will do for now…I’ll verify it later”… OK, Wrench, as long as you see that such an explanation remains unverified until you do,  and that does not comport very well with the goals you’ve set for yourself …in the reframing of your treatise. In other words,  this remains a mark against your first witness…

RRRRRR

 

RRRRRRRR

Yes, I think it IS what I said, that Thayer doesn't include a syllable of protest. And again, you've overlooked his statement also that when he introduces a different opinion,  he usually tries to include representative statements from both sides of such a disagreement. So, where were such representative statements from both sides of a disagreement? You didn't cite any...and neither did Thayer.….and as I pointed out, bracketed statements without commentary ususally suppliments Grim's references.

RRRRRR

 

$$$$$$$$$$
Well. "usually" is not always

 

Ray responds:  Of course not,  but you need to be specific to verify your explanation!!  If you continue with the “not always” answer, without showing specific examples right where you claim corruption occurred,  you lose the point… because your explanation remains unverified.  Think about it.  It is your explanation that needs to be verified,  to keep it from being a point against your treatise.   RRRR

****************************************

 

Ray says:

: Bracketed remarks without commentary more than likely suppliments Grimm's references, but even should they reveal a disagreement it wouldn't prove that Grimm allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work (bias), for he may not have had access to the referenced material at the time. RRRRR

 

$$$$$$    Wrench says:

: True, but it doesn't erase the possibility either.

 

Ray says:  The possibility doesn’t verify your claim…..and that’s what you need. Otherwise the fact that your view is not well received in the scholarly community will count as a point against the goals you set forth for yourself in the reframing of your treatise.

RRRRR

 

Ray says: The Watchtower Society doesn't think that such a possibility is a slam dunk, otherwise they'd have rejected the Westcott Hort Text on such grounds. So who's right, Wrench, you or them?

 

$$$$$$
I never presented it as a slam dunk, Ray. From the beginning I have said one can not dismiss the POSSIBILITY of bias. That is the initial point Im am making. And I believe it has been made.

$$$$$$

 

Ray says:  You’ve treated the possibility AS IF it were a slam dunk…meaning that you  have treated and relied on the possibility as if that’s all that is required of you.   But I’ve contended that since we both admit that corruption based on  personal conviction (bias) is NOT an everywhere thing,  then right where you rely on it,  you must go beyond the possibility and show specifically what you claim for an explanation.  In other words, show specific examples RIGHT where you rely on it. But what have you been doing?  Instead of showing specific examples,  thereby verifying your explanation,  you have  simply fallen back on the “possibility”…look above for example-note: “True, but it doesn’t erase the possibility either”…etc.  See what you’ve been doing?  Treating that possibility AS IF  it  were all you needed to do.   I can only ask,  therefore,  when will you  go beyond that,  and really verify your explanation?  Because until you do, friend,   your explanation remains unverified,   and therefore also your stated goals!

 

You seem to recognize the need to verify your claim of bias right at the point where you claim it must have occurred (by showing specific examples),  for notice how you  pointed  to the bracketed statements in the Rev 3:14 entry,  but as we’ve both agreed,  these may  not be examples of corruption from bias at all,  and may simply suppliment Grimm’s references.  My point is that since YOU  relied on this as an explanation,  it is therefore up to you to show that these bracketed statements are indeed examples of such corruption based on bias.  Do you see my point?  And until you do, this will have to remain as a mark against the goals you set forth for your treatise.  Why?  Because your explanation hasn’t been verified yet. RRR

 

***************************

But  since you've reframed your treatise to lighten your burden,  even the reframed treatise leaves you in a rather compromising position because of the WT's acceptance of the WH  text despite your complaint that "no one is perfect..we all make mistakes"..etc. You can hardly claim that the WT Society is biased against you....so once again you are left in the lurch. This time by the WT Society. You may ask "why and how am I left in the lurch by the WT Society"...the answer is because they acted in complete defiance to your claims (not denying them…but not being deterred by them either!) that everyone makes mistakes, and everyone has personal convictions or biases. That they could walk right by your fears and warnings and nevertheless adopt the WH Text and still conclude that they could thus give you guys the "faithful sayings of Jehovah"...leaves you and your complaints in the lurch....it did NOT deter them as you say it should! RRRR

 

$$$$$$$
I have never claimed that because 'bias' exists in one area, or in a relatively small amount, that the work is without value. There are many great works by many scholars that I respect a great deal, but I am not so blind as to think that SOMETHING they say could not be biased. It is the same with the WH and WT's usage of it. Just because it may have error in it in a relatively small amount, from bias or whatever, it does not mean that on the whole, it should be canned. That is the value of other sources and other opinions on the questionable areas. I have in no way taken some kind of stand against the WT nor should I be deterred for they would agree wholeheartedly with what I am saying. I would think anyone would.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

RRR…Very well, then,  you must concede my point that since corruption based on bias is not everywhere present,  if you rely on corruption at any point as an explanation,  then  the burden is on you right at the point where you claim it must have occurred….so you have to show specific examples of this corruption you claim,  or we cannot consider your explanation verified.  It will then remain as a mark against the goals you set forth for your treatise.  Up to this point,  you keep running back to the “possibility square” as if that were good enough.J  Now you seem to be saying “all I was trying to do was offer the possibility for the meantime”  however,  this is the first I’ve seen of the “meantime” explanation, but,  ok,  if that’s all you’re doing,  no problem,  but at some point you need to get more specific right where claim corruption must have occurred.  After all, we gotta have something to go by,  right?

RRRRR

 

Now with regard to Dr. Thayer’s views,  I agree that we should drop the dishonesty stuff because it doesn’t  look like either of us had such a motive,  and the situation was indeed complicated.  And I do have this new research  material that  I’d like to get to you some way,  just name it.  I still believe that the positive evidence points to him being    a Unitarian,  but  I was hoping that looking at Thayer’s entire letter in   “The Congregationalist”  would bridge the gap for us,  but  it was not to be,  for it seems that he had an aversion to acknowledging exactly what his theological views were.  But what he says seems contradictory to what he did.   At any rate, though,  I’m sure you will enjoy poring over this extra evidence.  The instructive thing about following this evidence is the importance of  remaining IN TUNE with the contemporary situation…Just let me know where to send it,  ok?    

 

And in conclusion about Grimm/Thayer’s,  we must admit that the original claim that I used only trinitarian sources was wrong.   Thayer most likely was and Abbot certainly was a Unitarian,  and both made contributions to this lexicon that at least Thayer considered valuable and meaningful (and you yourself have admitted as much),  and so far  you’ve not been able to cite a single specific example of this corruption based on bias where you claim it must have occurred. You did attempt to downplay  the value of Abbot’s contribution, but please read what Thayer says again about it.  No doubt had he lived longer he may have done MORE than he did,  but look again at what Thayer says he did:  He did,  however, go through the manuscript and add with his own hand the “variant-verse notation,  in accordance with the results of investigation subsequently given to the learned world in his Excursus  on the subject published in the First Part of the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Editio Octava Critica Major.”  You see, Wrench,  the expertise that was later given to the “learned world” in Tischendorf’s works,  was put to use right there in Grimm’s Lexicon,  and given Abbot’s  well known zeal,   It would be hard to say that he was blinded by his own prejudices against you.  And  I don’t think we should think of Abbot in any sense as a radical Unitarian,  for in his  “Defense of  the Fourth Gospel”,  he does seem to accept the Gospel’s  pre-existence of the Logos,  albeit with an arian interpretation.

 

 I’m not trying to present Grimm’s as an ideal Lexicon (Thayer did that),   but make it clear to you that if you’re going to rely on corruption based on bias as the explanation for why this source didn’t agree with your meaning for Rev 3:14,   you’ve got an uphill battle to climb…corruption based on bias in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish. ((not the possibility now, for we both agree that you need more than that))...the kind of corruption you claim right where you claim it occurred is what I’m saying is going to be difficult to establish.  You know,  Wrench,  elsewhere you seem to suggest exasperation on your part with me,  and so you say “with you I feel like I have to take a class on composition”…etc..  Funny, friend,  for I feel the same way about you.  For instance, look what I’ve gone through with this “bias” argument.  How many times have I said that ‘bias” in this Lexicon is going to be difficult to establish,  only to have you come right back and say “bias is still posssible”…etc.  Finally,   I had to narrow it to,   “corruption based on bias right at the point where you claim it occurred”...then suddenly a light turns on inside ur head,  and you say “OH, well,  I’ll get to that,  I was just meaning to establish the possibility first”..ok.  Oivey!  J

 

You continued: RRRRR

Let's reassess...first,   you've not shown a single instance that demonstrates that Grimm

allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work as a lexicographer...yet I did show at least one instance where he wouldn't even declare that Christ was being referred to as God in 1:1c and John 20:28,  saying instead that this is still in dispute among theologians. And how many times do I have to show you that the WT Society did NOT reject the Westcott Hort Text based on your fears that "no one is perfect.….all works are biased"..etc. They just didn't buy what you are trying to sell.  They knew that such thinking is besides the point....we STILL must try to find the best evidence available at the time...hence they did that with the WH Greek text and I did it with Grimm/Thayer's Lexicon. Yet, according to the Society,   from the WH text they were thus able to provide you guys with "the faithful sayings of Jehovah"...so its up to you to do the math here Wrench!  RRRR

Wrench says:   Well, once again, it's all or nothing, Ray. I think you know my position on this in relation to Westcott and Hort.  The WH was not the sole piece of scholastic evidence the WT used to establish their text. You speak as though it was. And once more, showing me places where an author has shown a good middle of the road attitude does not PROVE  (((((not my burden, Wrench)))))) in anyway that he can't be biased elsewhere. I hate to keep repeating myself but I have to as long you are beating this drum.  $$$

 

Ray responds: The only problem is that you said you were going to take the bull by the horns (demonstrate), yet you’ve been over there pounding your feet on the floor of possibility when you OUGHT TO BE over here beating on the drum of veryifying your explanation,  and doing so right where you claim this corruption occurred J   When I showed you the specific example,  I was actually doing what you’re SUPPOSED to be doing.  But you know,   this does kind of bring the chickens home to roost.  Remember how frustrated you got when you wanted to reframe your treatise,  and it looked to you like I kept  “beating you up”????  Well,  you should at least understand why I had to keep defending myself since you kept beating on the drum of implying that I had misinterpreted your words….funny how that stuff happens…huh?

 

Ray says:  Since you are the one relying on “corruption resulting from personal bias”  as an explanation,  the burden is on YOU,  to verify this explanation.  But it seems that we are making some progress,  for at least now you’re acknowleging this,  but saying that you wanted to “establish the possibility”  first.  However,  Wrench,  did you really think that anyone would deny  that everyone who does such a work has personal convictions,  and that fact alone ALREADY establishes the possibility.   So now you can do what you should already be doing,   what’s that?  Verifying your explanation that corruption from personal bias was responsible for the fact that your view has such little support in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon.   

RRRRRRRRR

 

$$$$$$$$$$

I stated:

: Well, as I mentioned earlier, I need to know where you are landing on the issue so I know how to proceed. Do you believe he IS numbered among creation at Colossians and Revelation, or are you just undecided? Whether or not John and Colossians that you mention actually weigh heavier for the Orthodox view I think remains to be seen. If the subject wasn't Christ at Revelation 3:14 I don't think there would have been a batting of the eye as to what that phrase "beginning of the creation" meant.  $$$$$

 

RRRRR  This was clarified earlier in this post. You should disabuse yourself, however,   of the false notion that I've been a moving target on this, because it just isn't so. I have been very consistent right down the line. I haven't made up anything nor appealed to anything that is not a fundamental part of the Trinity view on the subject…

 

$$$$$$
I have explained earlier and even quoted you as to why it seems you were entertaining both sides. If you noticed, Ray, I wasn't accusing you in some foregone conclusion that you WERE being a moving target, it was an INQUIRY as to whether that was what you were doing. An inquiry is not an accusation. Believe me, I've been in many conversations where they have admitted just wanting to run me around,  so excuse if I am a bit trigger-happy. I just wanted to know.  $$$$$$$

 

Ray says:   I  had  not understood you  correctly  when you brought this up,  so my reaction was a bit overbearing,  and I’m sorry for that . You went on to clarify what you took to be arguing both sides of the fence,  and hopefully I addressed your questions more clearly earlier in this post.  But if you still have questions,  feel free to fire away.  I’m not guaranteeing that I can answer them all (especially to your liking),  but I will do my best.   RRRR

 

Wrench says:

I am aware that Trinitarians have spoke of Christ as being "among" creation, but I haven't thought of it as a "statement" that he actually "is" a creation.  Do Trinitarians regard Christ as A CREATURE,  as created because he became flesh?  I would like to know, Ray,  I'm not being sarcastic. Or, do they simply view him as being "among" in the sense of "in the midst" of creation when he was a man? Do they think of him as a "creature" or as "possessing the nature of a creature" while in the flesh?  I think knowing this differentiation would help.

 

Ray says:  Yes indeed,  we do believe that when he  “became flesh” this is when he first took that nature of a creature.  Of course this means he differs from other creatures in that while other creatures had no previous existence,  this one pre-existed  as the Logos,  truly God by nature.  Now we believe that in that pre-existent state he was not a creature,  but actually pre-existed “all things….visible and invisible’….meaning that he preexisted all creation.  This of course must mean that he was true God,  for only true God exists before all creation.   We think of his creature nature as an additional nature he took on.  The bible doesn’t elaborate on all the details as to how he did it, but in our opinion it does teach that he did.

 

As the one mediator between God and men,  he still exists as a creature…albeit it a glorified one due to His resurrection.  But now maybe you can see the force in the argument that the reason he had to become one of us and actually live on earth for 30 some years was so that he could  sympathize first hand with being truly human, and by the same token,  to be a proper mediator,  he also needed  to identify with the other side of the spectrum by actually being God.  This he already was from all eternity, and once he came to earth and died on the Cross,   he is now qualified as the proper mediator between  both sides.. that only he can truly identify firsthand with!!!   This is the uniqueness of the blessed savior.  ….RRRR

 

*****
Ray replies: I know what you're trying to do, Wrench, but you've got to get the notion out of your head that I'm going to sit still and let you imply that I misinterpreted your original treatise and the way you framed it. That is not true, and your original words bear me out on that. ---------

 

$$$$$$$$$$
Ray, for goodness sakes, I'm not trying to say that. I have told you that all I can do is apologize, restate it, and move on. I thought I did that. I'm not trying to pin some blame on you. For you, I should have worded it differently, okay? I'm trying to do that now, okay?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You continued:

You tried to haul in a few summary statements to support your implication, saying to me "I chose these words on purpose, Ray"...but forgot to acknowledge and explain your initial words....words that you ALSO included on purpose. So friend, you can take it to be hardnosed if you want...you can take it that I'm "beatin up on you" if you want, but as long as you continue to suggest that I misinterpreted your words,  I'm going to defend myself. If you feel that you need to change the frame work....no problem, just do it and don't try to blame me for it. I know you feel weary, Wrench, but notice that you did not address my points here.  RRRRR

 

$$$$$$$
Would you please tell me what I am currently saying that makes you think I am accusing you of misinterpreting my words? I'm not trying to do that, Ray, so, if I am, please point it out and I will work out the proper wording. Goodness, with you I think I should have taken a composition class before starting a discussion.    $$$

 

….Ray says: Currently nothing,  but my response that you’re reading now wasn’t meant to apply to what you are CURRENTLY saying…but to what you already said.   Of course I see your frustration, Wrench,  and I think part of the problem can be found in our tendency to repeat ourselves so often in these posts….so that once a clarification or correction occurrs,  it takes a while for the ancillary posts to get the message….ha!   Please understand, though,  that  I’m very sincere and serious-minded, and it is not my nature to do “mischief” just to confute the other guy.  On the other hand,  I  think BOTH of us are conditioned by previous experiences,  &  in time we will come to understand and know each other better.   For example,  I will  know when you weren’t meaning to imply something,  and you’ll know when I wasn’t meaning to do the same….and this hopefully will head off a lot of over- reaction.  For now it seems that we just have to tough it out….RRRRR

 

$$$$$I stated:

: I would think that you would realize as well as anyone that "new" aspects of a certain occurence in linguistics come up all the time. My goodness, without that happening, the Journal of Biblical Literature would get pretty boring. If it hasn't been considered, I certainly think that it is high time that it does get considered and addressed by the Trintarian camp  $$$$$$

 

RRRRRRRR
OK, Wrench,  please try to see that what you say above is neither here nor there. We have a bottom line here. No one in the scholarly community seems to have ever been aware of the arguments you've put forth...and yet you are so convinced inside your own mind that these points are overwhelmingly in your favor.  So,  how is this reality to be explained? Apparently here you don't think claiming that they are all biased against you throughout all the centuries is a reasonable argument, and I would agree that it's a stretch to say the least.  So here you seem to be suggesting that somehow this overwhelming evidence was  "missed" by everyone throughout all the centuries,   not only by the mass of pious Christians,  but also by the best minds the Church had, everybody missed it. Now stop to think, this is not just some little verse that perhaps a nuance was missed,  oh no, this is a whole big BUNCH of verses. I'm trying my best to understand how you can inside your own mind brush this off.  Maybe you really do believe that its just because they are all biased against you,   and such a thought has placated you, but you don't want to appear to be one of those guys who's always looking for black helicopters.

 

 But you know, at first when I thought about it, I hadn't considered whether the WT Society had ever set this evidence forth...and when I thought it over,  I realized that I'm pretty familiar with WT literature clear back even before the turn of the last century, and I don't recall anything that even remotely resembles such an argument.   So although you might be able to convince yourself that "everyone is biased against me",  and live with that explanation, it's just impossible to offer the same explanation for the WT's not setting it forth.  Even you don't believe that they are biased against you, do you?  More in a moment about this.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench says:

Well, even you have mentioned above that there is from time to time, newly discovered information. What is being presented here in relation to "arche" with a genitve phrase could be that, right? If not, why not?
$$$$$$$$

 

Ray says:  Well,  I suppose that a tornado tearing through a junk yard could produce a 747,   but the odds seem to be aganst it.   It’s not that scholars haven’t noticed the partitive interpretation of the genitive case,   because they obviously have.  It’s the conclusion you’ve reached that they’ve not reached… that seems to be a problem for you.

 

For example,  we cannot say that they have been unaware of the passages you appealed to,  for they cite them many times for various reasons.  So I’m inclined to think that the real answer is simply an interpreter’s priorities as he assesses the evidence.   In other words they see other evidence which seems more compelling to them.  And we have to remember that even the WTBTS  hasn’t presented these same evidences in the same way,  but  we can hardly think that “bias against your view” has been their motivation.  Do the scholars DISAGREE with your interpretation of the grammar in these other places?  I’m not sure if you’ve made that clear.   But it seems the specific elements necessary  (Christ and all creation at the beginning)  are not the contextual referents in most of these examples,  are they?  Yet when we come to Rev 3:14,  it  happens that we have other teaching in the New Testament about these specific referrants,  other teaching which shows that this one (Jesus) was not the first of God’s creations  (John 1:3, Col 1:15-17),   and such being the case,  a different conclusion seems called for.  We will be addressing these other places shortly…so I’ll wait till then.    RRRR

 

Ray had said:

And I have another question too.  How about the WT Society?   Stop to consider, if anyone had an incentive to deal with such "compelling evidence", it would be them since they claim the same as you,  yet have they ever dealt specifically with what you claim in order to persuade and convince?  Where have they pointed to all the examples of "arche" with the genitive...making the same claims as you? Or are you saying that you know more than them....that God by-passed them to reveal these things to you? I think we have to look for a better answer friend.   RRRRR

 

$$$$$$$$$$$
: I think you have to realize that the WT for the most part writes things for the rank and file. They seldom write anything that goes to great depth in the original languages because most simply would be lost. How do I know that they haven't considered this? I know one thing, it has been submitted to them for consideration. I'm certainly not the inventor of this aspect. As far as I know, Greg Stafford and Rolf Furuli are the first to mention it in their publications. I'm simply repeating their arguments in my own words.
: $$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray says:  As I understand it,  the GB is the spokesman for the Slave,  and the Slave is made up of the whole class of  annointed.  And you say that they  “for the most part write things for the rank and file.” Well, what about Greg Stafford,  isn’t he part of the rank & file?  It looks to me like you either don’t  understand the authority of the Faithful and Discreet Slave,  or you are simply doing the Tennessee bird walk to pass off the problems created by both God’s bypassing of the Slave, and then Greg’s bypassing of the Slave as well when he did the independent research and published his book.  This wasn’t bad enough,  apparently, but then you guys likewise bypass the Slave and eat at the table set by Greg.   RRRRRR

 

Ray says:

You say this evidence has been submitted to the WT,  but did you wait for direction from God’s Organization before you accepted is as from the Lord and true? Hmm…. Then you say that if the WT comes out and says “whoa Nellie”, you would gladly give it up.  That seems inconsistent to me.   You say they are authoritative and trustworthy enough to warrant obedience later on,   but not enough to wait on direction from in the first place.  I can tell you now,  friend,  this is not going to fly.

 

Watchtower Society says:

FIGHT AGAINST INDEPENDENT THINKING: "As we study the Bible we learn that Jehovah has always guided his servants in an organized way ((stumbled upon???)) And just as in the first century there was only one true Christian organization, so today Jehovah is using only one organization. (Ephesians 4:4-5; Matthew 24:45-47) Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: 'this shows that we have to make up or own mind on what to believe.' This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous?

Such thinking is an evidence of pride. And the Bible says: 'Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before a stumble.' (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: 'Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God's organization?' No, we cannot!--Compare Acts 15:2;, 28, 29; 16:;4-5."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, once again, I think the warnings against independent thinking were not in relation to the kind of situation that is happening with the information that Greg or Rolf or any of the other Witnesses have done in presenting scholastic information for consideration and evidence that already lines up with what the WT teaches. Titus 3:9-11 says to reject a man that promotes a sect. The information that I am presenting to you is hardly the promotion of a sect against their authority to protect the congregation against division. Hebrews 13:17 tells us to be obedient to those taking the lead among us because they will render an account for our souls. I don't see that any of these things that you mention are a 'disobedience' to the slave. They have not commented on this as you say, so at this point, there is nothing wrong with using scholastic information from Greg's book or even from Trinitarian sources that might help establish the truth of what they already teach. If they determine his work is in error, then I wont use it, but I have a feeling they wont.
$$$$$$$$$$

 

Hey Wrench,  although of course the promotion of a sect is a no no,  and likewise a danger,   Titus 3:9-11 doesn’t seem to be the only danger mentioned in the WT’s article above….try to address yourself to what they actually SAY in the article,  OK?  For example,  if you really had confidence in the Slave as a safe guide,  why would you look elsewhere?  HOW can they be God’s ONLY channel on earth?  The WT is very familiar with the dangers of   “independent thinking”…and again,  look at what it did for Greg, as he suddenly declared his own judgement superior to the WT’s by saying that they relied “too heavily” on Harner’s article (in his response to Robert Hommel).  Has Greg got to thinking that he knows more than the Organization?  Why didn’t you answer this?  As I said,  the WT knows well the dangers of independent thinking….for……

 

A similar situation to this occurred at Bethel about 20 years ago,  I think,  and it came to a head in the spring of 81.  Bethelites were being DFd all over the place, brothers were ratting on each other so as to not be part of the “conspiracy”.  Many bethelites considered this to be a “witchhunt”.  And the WT says it all came about because of  “independent thinking” on the part of some at headquarters.  Many of the Bethelite brethren were having private meeetings and bible studies without supervision from the WT  material,  and this  even resulted in a GB member being DFd  (Ray Franz).  In the end,  Ray was actually Dfd for having a meal with someone else who had been DFd  (Peter Gregerson) who was his employer!  You may say and think that you aren’t leading a “sect”, but who knows what will happen down the road a tad?  What if Greg decides to DA,  and go off and start his own organization of “truth’?   You’ve already gone out ahead of the Slave anyway,  and accepted his “stumbled upon”   as findings as truth,  haven’t you?  Let me ask you to deal with a few questions about what I think the WT Organization cannot afford to let pass.

 

1.     Have you not heard of the Society ‘s teaching about getting out ahead of the Organization or the Slave?

 

2.     Do you think that Greg was showing respect for Jehovah’s theocratic arrangement  when he went out on his own for research, and  by-passed the Slave and published his book?

 

3.     If,  as you’ve shown here,  it is possible to ascertain the “truth”,  and disemminate it   without going thru the Slave,  what real need is there for the slave?  If anything will get the WT’s attention,  this one will!

 

4.     In light of your statement above that the WT writes mainly to the rank & file (who is Greg?) and they seldom write anything “that goes to great depth”,  would you please explain the WT’s meaning in the WT magazine of 7-1-73,  page 402:  “How very much true Christians appreciate associating with the only organization on earth that understands the ‘deep things of God’”!

 

5.     Please explain how the WT Organization is God’s “only channel on earth”,  if it is true that God channels the truth THROUGH the scholarly community,   and also if it is OK to bypass the Slave in ascertaining the truth and disemminating it around the Slave?  Are you sure you believe that the WT Society is God’s only channel?

 

 

You mention calling the Watchtower Soceity,  Wrench,  and although I’ve never meant to hurt anyone on a personal level,  if you would be willing to come out in the open and use your real name,  we might indeed be able to bring the Society to bear on some of these things which have been going on.  Including Greg Stafford’s book.  At least he has revealed his name,  right? I’d really like to see how the WT would react to some of this stuff because of the way they’ve reacted at an earlier time.,  when similar activity was going on at Bethel Headquarters in Brooklyn.   I’ll leave that up to you.

 

RRRR   Anyway, let me say something here.  As I related in my last post,   if anyone had an incentive to disseminate this info you're referring to,  it would be the WT Society,   for they teach in a leadership capacity the same thing you claim. But I would submit, that if they had been aware of this evidence and its supposed strength, they would have revelled in it,  and written 365 tracts a year to defend it as a glorious and indispensible truth.  And yet you tell me that you got it from Greg and this other guy…”   RRRRRR

 

$$$$$$$
We do recognize the governing body as that which dispenses the truth to us,  as you say. But nothing in the manner in which they come to an understanding about something denies that it can't come from the scholarly world, even if it were not a JW.

 

 The Society through research into certain words have drawn their conclusions because of the work of scholars on the subject.  The "truth" that they dispensed came through scholastic evident and dligent research into an area. What did they research?  The scholastic evidence that is available from the scholastic world. Now, as they research this evidence, does God's spirit help them and prod them in the direction of a better understanding? I would say so. So whereas it is under the direction of God's spirit, it is not without the considerations from the scholarly world, be that from Greg or Rolf or somebody else. You may think that me or anyone else to use this information is cart before the horse or in some way "against" the authority of the WT, but I don't see how it hardly could be when it is in complete agreement with the evidence that supports their viewpoint concerning Rev. 3:14. They are not going to worry about whether or not I'm using something that is in complete agreement with their findings,  even if it is a new aspect of what they have covered. It certainly isn't the promoting of a sect as spoken of in Titus 3:9-11. It s merely the evidence from a scholastic source that completely supports their position.

 

 Now, if they come out and say, whoa nellie, this information is all screwed up, then I would be more than willing to cast it aside because I know they would explain why that was the case……$$$$$$$

 

RRRR:  Already dealt with above.

 

Wrench says:

They have not commented on this as you say, so at this point, there is nothing wrong with using scholastic information from Greg's book or even from Trinitarian sources that might help establish the truth of what they already teach. If they determine his work is in error, then I wont use it, but I have a feeling they wont.

$$$$$$$$$$

 

Wrench stated: Let me get this straight. My explanation wont wash because you don't think it agrees with the WT. That's an interesting approach, Ray, but I don't find it very convincing or scholarly. If you have read my writings for very long, you will notice I rarely if ever call the WT as a witness for what I believe. It's not because I am ashamed of them, not at all, I just know that generally, people have no respect for their writings, and besides, as they too espouse, the truth lies in the Word of God, not in the words of men. It just surprises me, that no matter how hard I try to share scriptural and scholarly evidence, I end up having to quote a WT because people wont leave them out of it. $$$$$$$$$

 

Ray says:  Wrench,  would you please reconcile for me your two statements placed in juxtaposition above?  On the one hand,  you portray yourself as someone who chooses not to hold up the Watchtower Society as an object of comparison,  and you actually seem to be complaining about having to quote them because people won’t leave them out of it…however,  just before that you suggested that there’s nothing wrong with holding up the WT Society as an object of comparison when using scholastic information from Greg’s book or even from Trinitarian sources  “that might help establish the truth of what they teach”.   I guess I’d like for the real Wrench to stand up.  You bring in the WT Society yourself as an object of comparison (when no one’s lookin),   but when I do the same, to show where you disagree with them,  suddenly you change hats on me,  and complain that you don’t find the procedure “very convincing or scholarly”.  Well,  my friend,   I’d say it’s just as broad as it is long,  wouldn’t you?   J

 

Of course I’m going to point out wherever I can where you disagree with the Watchtower Society.  After all,  you regard them as God’s Organiization, and what loyal witness would want to be found in public disagreement with God’s Organization? On the other hand,  you might wonder why you cannot defend them without ending up in disagreement with them in the very act of trying to defend them!

 

OK,  we are starting to go into the discussion about the “natural” meaning of the words in John 1:1-4  as compared to the claims you make in your reframed treatise.  But let’s get your own words of reframing before us first…here’s what you say you are going to do….

 

$$: Restating the issue I said this:

: (((I believe the real issue is this. I intend to demonstrate that the natural understanding of the phrases in that threefold witness I have presented weigh heavily against the Trinitarian.  Individually and ‘certainly’ collectively. I can’t think of any reason why the unprecedented interpretation would prevail without some VERY COMPELLING, nearly UNDENIABLE evidence being presented in the converse...It is the ‘collective’ force that I am appealing to more than the individual source. The individual force is very strong in itself but that is why the ‘witness’ of two or three is needed to establish a point.))) $$$$

Very well,  then..here we go: RRRR

 

$$$$$  Well, anyway, regardless of that. Let's take another look at what the WT DOES say about John 1:1 and it's connection with Genesis 1:1.

knowledge page 394 Jesus Christ-The Key to the Knowledge of God

John 1:1 says that “the Word” (Jesus in his prehuman existence) was with God “in the beginning.” So the Word was with Jehovah when “the heavens and the earth” were created.  $$$$$

 

Ray replies: Of course it is true that the Word was with God when the heavens and earth were made, but how does that equate the beginning of Gen 1 with the one in John? Sure the Son was with the Father when "the heavens and the earth" were created, problem for you is that the context in John 1-4 doesn't use these specific terms...so there's nothing in THIS context to authorize such a restriction. You can't sneak'm in Wrench :-)
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

God was addressing the Word when He said: “Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:1, 26)
$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray replies: First, we don't know who the actual speaker was here, it may have been Father and it may also have been the Logos (spokesman), BOTH are identifed as God in connection with the Creator/creation context..right? But it is heartening to see you acknowledge that we had a plural maker (US MAKE)and so if you'd only see that this plural maker is identified in the next verse as "God"...and remember that Heb 3 says that the maker of all things is God, you'd be well on your way to understanding why we Trinitarians believe as we do.  RRRRR

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I can see that the words in the Knowledge book are not conclusive in restricting John 1:1 to Gen 1:1. On the other hand, I could see how it could be taken to be opening up the possibility of that interpretation, because there is a direct connection made between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 and the Aid book that you quote always restricts Genesis 1:1 to the material creation. You say below that a reference on page 392 says that Geneisi is not restricted to the material creation. I can't find that statement. What I do find in relation to Gen. 1:1 on page 390 and 391, that each time it is referenced it is applied solely to the physical creation. So the connection in the Knowledge book ceratinly leaves room for that understanding. And the fact that John 1:2 cross references Gen 1:1 on the phrase "in the beginning" allows for that understanding as well, since they have consistently applied Gen 1:1 to just the physical creation.  $$$$$$$$

 

Ray says:  I’m sorry,  Wrench,  but I don’t have the “Divine Knowledge” publication.  But  let me get this straight.  Are you saying that the WT Society teaches differently  about this in the Divine Knowledge publication than they did in the “Aid” book?  Here’s what you could do for me,  which would of course be very much appreciated.  Please photocopy for me the following sections (if such there are) from the Divine Knowledge  publication: “Creation”… “Genesis”… “God”… “Jehovah” … “Jesus”…. And in the meantime I’m going to proceed as if the WT doesn’t teach differently in these two publications. 

 

You acknowledge above that “the words in the Knowledge book are not conclusive in restricting John 1:1  to Gen 1:1.  Well,  since you admit this,  I don’t know how you can claim,  with any personal integrity,  that  you have met the goals you set for yourself in the reframing of your treatise.   In fact the WT Society argues conclusively AGAINST such a restriction,  unless they contradict themselves outright in the two publications.

For example,  and I found this VERY interesting,  Jehovah’s Witnesses see certain distinctive time points throughtout Jehovah’s creative process.  First is what they call “the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works”…which to them is the creation of the logos. Next is the logos’s creation of all the angels and other invisible things,  then comes the creation of the physical universe (as depicted in Gen. 1).  They see a time period of indeterminate length between the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works and the creation of the physical universe.  Let’s first allow them to establish the creation of the spirit creatures such as angels BETWEEN the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works…and the creation of the physical universe. Page 391 of “Aid to Bible Understanding”,  first column: 

              “After creating his only-begotten Son, Jehovah used him in bringing

                the heavenly angels into existence. This preceded the founding of

                the earth,  as Jehovah revealed when questioning Job and asking him:

                ‘where did you happen to be when I founded the earth…when the

                morning stars joyfully cried out together…and all the sons of God

                began shouting in applause?’ (Job 38:4-7).  IT WAS AFTER THE

               CREATION OF THESE HEAVENLY SPIRIT CREATURES THAT

                THE MATERIAL HEAVENS AND EARTH AND ALL ELEMENTS

                WERE MADE OR BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE, and since Jehovah

                Was the one primarily responsible for all this creative work,  it is ascribed to

                 Him.—Neh. 9:6;  Ps. 136:1, 5-9.

                        The Scriptures, in stating, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens

                 And the earth’ (Gen 1:1) leave matters indefinite as to time.  Their  re-

                 Ference to “the beginning” is therefore unassailable, regardless of the

                 Age scientists may seek to attach to the earthly globe and to the various

                 Planets and other heavenly bodies.  The actual time of creation of the

                 Material heavens and earth may have been billions of years ago.”

 

Note Wrench,  that  the creation of the spirit angels is posited BETWEEN the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works (John 1:1)  and  the creation of the physical universe (Gen 1).   A clear and undeniable separation between John 1:1 and Gen 1:  timewise and eventwise.  Ok, does the Society depart from this in the Knowledge book? I doubt it very  much.  Note also for the record,  their reference to Gen 1:1’s not being time specific. I gave you the wrong page number for this..sorry…Anyway,  Gen 1:1 isn’t time specific as to the time of it occurrence,  so Scientists cannot undermine creationism,  but at the same time the WT says there was  indeed a time period between the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works and the creation of the physical universe….and that the spiritual angels were created during this intervening time period.  Do you see this?  No way to equate or connect the creation of the physical universe in Gen 1: with the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works in John 1:1…according to the Watchtower Society.

 

So then,  once we see these time/events as separate units with time between them,  there is no logical way to equate them.  You mentioned that the WT’s reference bible cross-references Gen 1:1 with John 1:2…..and I found that extremely interesting.  Let’s have a brief discussion about that,  shall we?  Notice in the same reference bible the cross references in the column of John 1:1…do you see Genesis 1:1, Wrench?  Nope,  it’s not there.  In fact,  with reference to the beginning in John 1:1a, the NWT cross references three other passages,  namely Pr 8:22,  Col 1:15, & Rev 3:14.   Now let me ask you a question.  Why didn’t the WT cross reference Gen 1:1 along with these other three if these two beginnings  are the same?  This answer is exceedingly obvious,  isn’t it???   They knew they could not connect them because they themselves have erected a barrier between these two beginnings. What was that?  The intervening time period during which the spirit angels are created….THAT’S the barrier!

 

So,  not being able to cross-reference the beginning in Gen 1:1 with the beginning in Jn 1:1,  the WT tries a neat little trick in John 1:2….and there they cross reference “the beginning” in verse 2 with Gen 1:1. hmmmm ….This is a no brainer , Wrench.  They obviously can’t be equating them or they’d have included Gen 1:1 along with Prov 8:22, Rev 3:14 as cross-referenced wth Jn 1:1a…etc…But they anticipate a problem coming up in the next couple verses, and so they want to try to “set up” a possible explanation.  Here’s their reasoning:  Well we know that the logos was also with God at the beginning of the creation of the material universe too,   so let’s cross reference the beginning in John 1:2 with Gen 1:1…so that when we get to verse 3,  and need to restrict the “all things”…at least we can claim it goes to the beginning in verse 2 which according to our cross referecne is the same beginning as Gen 1:1 (physical universe)…that way we don’t have to take “all things” in the all inclusive sense.   BIG PROBLEM for this Wrench. It is too easy to refute to allow you any comfort.

 

Look again at John 1:2….and what is the first Greek word in this verse???   It is a pronoun, a demonstrative pronoun “this one”(masc, nom, sing),  and when a sentence or clause begins with a pronoun it usually or more naturally  looks  to the preceding context for it’s referant. Take the simple expression “Jack lost his hat”…the pronoun “his” refers to “Jack”  in the preceding context,  right?  Jack is then the contextual  antecedent of “his”.    Ok,  in John 1:2  “houtos een”  means “this one was”.  What is the contextual antecedent of “this one”?  It goes to the Logos in the preceding verse, this one who was with God in the beginning there.  So the contextual antecedent for “this one”  in verse 2…goes to logos in the PRECEDING ‘beginning’ (Jn 1:1a) as its referent.  Thus the NWT’s attempt to cross reference Gen 1:1 with John 1:2 is quite arbitrary and simply ignores the contextual antecedent for “this one”. 

 

In John 1 the bible writer moves smoothly from verse one,  through verse two,  and into verse three with no apparent shift of reference.  In fact these verses are tied to each other by the use of pronouns and the natural tendency  to find their referants in the preceding context.  Thus verse 2 is tied to verse 1 with the demonstrative pronoun “houtos”,  and verse 3 is tied to verses 2 and 1 with the pronoun “autou”.   Also note in Jn 1:3 the NWT cross-references Col 1:16  “all things”, and yet you’ve recently denied that the all things of Col 1:16  is the same as the “all things” in John 1:3.   Hmmm   Did you say you don’t think you disagree with the Watchtower Society? J

 

OK,  Wrench,  we have allowed the Watchtower Society  to establish the intercalary boundaries with reference the “beginning”  in  both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1,  and they have made it clear that they are NOT the same,  but distinguished from each other by an intervening period during which occurred the creation of spirit creatures such as angels.

 

As I said in a previous letter,  obviously the WT Society teaches that the logos was the first of God’s  creations as the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.  So from this we see just  where they are when they use the expression  “beginning of Jehovah’s creative works”, they are way back before the creation of the heavenly spirit angels,  and thus also NOT at the beginning of Gen. 1:1 (physical universe),  right?  Do you see this?

 

Ok,  please turn to page 918 in the “Aid to Bible Understanding” book,  and look at the top left.  Right after quoting John 1:1 the Society says “This one was in the beginning with God.”  Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 15:3),  the Word’s being with God from the “beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.”….and to make undeniable their meaning they then cite other verses the JW’S believe refer to the creation of the logos (Col 1:15,  Rev 3:14).  So there can be no doubt that the WT is pointing here to the beginning PRIOR to the creation of the spirit angels and therefore also a different beginning than that at Gen 1:1.   Do you see it?

 

Well then,  when you try to equate these two different beginnings and have them both refer to the creation of the  physical universe,  you stand in opposition to the Watchtower Society.  Note what you said in your post of Jan 23^rd, 2000:

 

“The question is reasonable enough and deserves a reasonable answer. I first think it is important to realize that these words are set within the frame of happening after the words "in the beginning" of verse 1. The 'beginning' in John 1:1 certainly reminds us of the words of Genesis 1:1. I think it easily stated that the beginning here in John 1:1 could be the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. The 'beginning' in Genesis really limits itself to the creation of the physical universe. The 'all things' mentioned in John 1:3 could be limited therefore to the 'physical universe or even the physical things of this earthly realm”…$$$$$$

 

Ray says:

Wrench, I even have the WT with me in rejecting your attempt to remove the beginning of John 1:1 from the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works and restrict it to the physical creation.  And also with me in saying that the first creation of John 1:3 likewise goes back to the beginning of John 1:1...and is not restricted to the physical universe. Hence,  whether you came up with this yourself, or got it from Greg's book, it needs to be resolved with the WTBTS.

Note also the NWT’s cross-reference  of Col 1:16 with John 1:3…hmmmm But haven’t you denied that these refer to the same thing recently?  And you say you don’t see any disagreements you have with the WT Society???

$$$$$$$$
Already resolved above. Could you please explain to me from a scholarly point of view why Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 can't connect?
$$$$$$$$$$

 

As I said,  Wrench,  you have not resolved this at all,  and THIS post demonstrates that even more clearly.  You ask me to explain "from a scholarly point of view why Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 can’t connect?”

…..I just did that,,,, even the WT agrees that these two cannot connect because there is POSITED between them the creation of the spirit angels. Thus the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works (Jn 1:1)….then the creation of the spirit angels…then the creation of the material heavens and earth (physical universe Gen 1:1) as set forth on page 391 of “Aid to Bible Understanding”…and if you don’t think that’s scholarly,  you should take it up with the Watchtower Society.   And I’d be VERY interested to see if the Society  changes this teaching from the one publication to the other.  What do you do with the intervening period during which the spirit angels were created….if you connect up these two beginnings?  The period during which the spirit angels were created?  So how do you get the beginning of Gen 1:1 to connect up with the beginning of John 1:1 without going through that intervening period?   And also without incorporating the spirit angels WITHIN the all things of John 1:3?   Please answer,  OK?

 

Obviously with regard to the Divine Knowledge publication,  I would need to review exactly what the WT says….and compare it with that they said in the “Aid” book. As far as the Aid book goes,  I have just shown above where you very clearly depart from what they say about the beginning of John 1:1 and the beginning of Gen 1:1.   Thus,  whereas you connect them up,  the Watchtower Society posits the intervening creation of the spirit creatures such as angels BETWEEN these two beginnings (page 391 of the Aid to Bible Understanding book).  Now please tell me how you reconcile that?  If you connect them,  where would the creation of spirit creatures (angels..etc.) occur on such an agenda?  And how would you do that without  including the spiritual things (angels and the like) within the “all things” of Jn 1:3???    I’m very anxious to see if the WT has redone everything in the Divine Knowledge publication.  Please photo the sections I mentioned earlier and let me examine them,  OK?

 

You mention that Genesis 1:1 is cross referenced at John 1:2,  but  if they are to be connected,  why wasn’t Genesis 1:1 cross-referenced to John 1:1??? Please answer that, OK?   In fact Gen 1:1 is conspicuous by its absence in the center column references to John 1:1….I’ve already explained this earlier in this post..please read it again…  The obvious reason they did not cross reference Gen 1:1 with John 1:1 is because they knew they COULDN’T.  Why?  Because to do so would leave them embarrassed as to what to do with the creation of the spirit creatures such as angels…..the creation of which they have already posited between the beginning of John 1:1_____________and the beginning of Gen 1:1.   Try bridging this gap,  Wrench,  and see which way the creation of the spirit creatures goes…get the spirit creatures created without including them within the “all things” of John 1:3 J    And remember what the WT says on page 918 of the Aid  book about the beginning of John 1:1,  as well as what they say on page 391 of the same book.  Hash it out,  friend,  and show me what they did….with the creation of the spirit creatures (angels).   We’ve seen what they did with that in the Aid book (page 391).

 

Because of what I’ve gone thru above,  I will skip over several of your short posts which merely inquire about the information  written  above.   Here’s an opportunity to shorten this thing up somewhat. RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

 

Recently you have responded on your board to a question I posed about the “all things” of Col 1:16-17 and the “all things” of John 1:3….surprisingly admitting that the “all things” of Col 1:16 is not the same as in John 1:3.  You explained that the “all things” of Col 1:16 includes both the visible and invisible things and thus must be understood as “all inclusive”.   Here’s your own words…to compare..

 

Briefly, without alot of detail, as far as Col. 1:15-17 and the "all things" of that passage, I think that there is a difference between that "all things" and "all things" mentioned in John 1:3. Whereas I feel that the "all things" in John have to do with the physical creation starting from Genesis 1:1, Paul expands on the things created through the Son, including not only "the things visible" but also the "things invisible" so it appears to me that he makes a far more inclusive statement regarding the things made through the Son, yet, I think he is careful to point out that Christ is "the firstborn of all creation", showing that he is not uncreated, but had an origin unlike that of any other created being. Whereas Christ is included among the "all creation" by being the firstborn of that class, I do not believe he is included among the "all things" that came THROUGH him for the obvious reasons.   $$$$$$

 

Ray says:  I’m glad we got this cleared up now,  because I’m sure it’s going to be very relevant  soon.  The NWT does not agree with you very well that the “all things” are not the same as in John 1:3,  for they cross-reference John 1:3 with Col. 1:16,  and likewise they cross Col 1:16 with John 1:3.  Also please note your own statement above “I do not believe he is  included among the “all things” that came THROUGH him for obvious reasons.”   Good,  for when we see that Paul’s language is unambiguous in referring to all creation,  (heaven & earth,  visible & invisible, thrones or lordships or governments or authorities),  it then should be just as obvious that Paul’s purpose here is to distinguish him from all creation with regard to his ultimate identity,  and it is that distinction that shows us the exact force intended by the title "firstborn”.  Thus,  since he was not among them,  he couldn’t have been the first of them (numerically).  So then,  we must understand the application of this title to him in similar fashion to the way it was applied to the one who prefigured him,  David.  

 

Was David Jessie’s  first son?  First child?  No,  he was actually the youngest.  Well then, was he Israel’s first King?  No, he was the second.  Yet we read in Psalms 89:27 that God elevated him to the status of  “firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth”.  You see, friend,  it had nary a thing to do with numerical order.  Instead it had to do with STATUS.  Note what the WT Society says about David in regard to “firstborn”, on page 584 of  “Aid to Bible Understanding”…

 

           “David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah

            the ‘first-born’,  due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the pre-

            eminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant

            with David for a dynasty of Kings. (Ps.89:27)  In this position David

            prophetically represented the Messiah”…Compare Psalm 2:2;, 7 with

            with first Samuel 10:1;  Hebrews 1:5…

 

Also,  it is very interesting to note what the WT says about whether Jehovah should be held hostage to the terms or customs of men,  in order to prove or disprove a supposed teaching of Scripture. Look for example on page 597 of the “Aid to Bible Understanding” book…

 

           “This foreseen dominence also pointed to the gaining of the right of

             the firstborn by Jacob,  a right that brought along with it the privelege

             of being of the line of descent through which the Abrahamic ‘seed’

             would come. (Gen. 27:29; 28:13, 14)  By this means Jehovah

             God made it clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses

             Is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming

             To men’s expectations.”

 

Wrench,  we’ve gone into Col 1:15-18 in some detail earlier,  and I’m sure we will again,  but from the above you should be able to see that your 2^nd installment as a witness in your  treatise is in for a rough ride….no less so than the first witness you referred to…Rev. 3:14

 

Ok,  it time to summarize what we’ve learned so far in our discussion of your treatise.

First we discovered that with regard to your first witness (Rev 3:14),  the meaning you contend for,  first creature in the series,  has not been well received in the scholarly community. Of all my sources,  only one even acknowledged your meaning as “linguistically possible”,  but they adopted the orthodox meaning themselves,  as did all the others.  Your first response accused me of using only trinitarian witnesses  who were tainted and biased against your views. The charge of using all trinitarian sources was proved wrong by the inclusion of both JH Thayer (probably a Unitarian)  and EA Abbott (definitely a Unitarian). 

 

Although you made the charge of corruption due to personal conviction (bias) rather specific (Rev 3:14),  you have so far not shown a single example of such corruption to verify your explanation. Thus, not being able to show a specific example of corruption at the point where you say it must have occurred (Rev 3:14),  you tried to use the possibility of corruption from bias as a “city of refuge”, although in this latest post you seem to acknowledge that you need to show specific and relative examples…in order to verify your explanation.   So as it stands now,  you’ve not provided a reasonable explanation for why your meaning has not been received or born out in the scholarly community.

 

And last but not least,  your attempt to deal with a passage that clearly presents an obstacle to your view (treatise) by presenting Christ as pre-existing all creation without a single exception (John 1:3)  has left you in a battle with the very organization you’re trying to defend,  the Watchtower Society. A battle over the intercalary bounderies (as JWs have drawn them) between the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works (John 1:1…..The intervening period of creation of spirit (angels),   and the creation of the material or physical universe (Gen 1).  Whereas you try to connect the two beginnings in order to restrict the “all things” of  Jn 1:3 to the physical creation,  the WT has erected a barrier you cannot get around between them….hmmm…

 

In view of the above summary,  I think it is fair to conclude that you have not met the goals or standards you set for yourself,  even in the reframed treatise.  Your first witness has not survived scrutiny,  and so your conclusion must at this time be rejected.  It seems like a long and hard task,  but I do get the impression that given more time to go into these things we can both come to know each other better and make real progress. That is what I’m hoping and praying for anyway.  Thanks for your patience, by the way,  I ‘ve been a little under the weather lately.  God bless you Wrench,  and just let me know where to send the stuff.  Take care,  friend,  Ray.