Re: The Son of God..Part1

 

Posted by Ray on November 30, 1999 at 09:05:24:

In Reply to: Re: The Son of God Created-3fold witness posted by Wrench in the works on November 29, 1999 at 11:54:55:

 

Hi Wrench. You begin your response by saying the following: "So far, in all that you have said, I find this to be the first real point in your defense to the information I presented." Then we need to clarify the situation. I'm specifically addressing myself to the CLAIM you made based on that information, namely that it establishes the conclusion that the Son of God was the first creation of God. At the moment, Wrench, I'm not making a judgment on the correctness or incorrectness of that information. That may come at a later time, if I feel that the situation warrants it, but right now I'm merely looking into your CLAIM that you put forward. Does it require the conclusion you claim it does?

 

The first question I introduced was whether or not that conclusion was reached in the scholarly community, for if the info you presented is as compelling as you claim (that it establishes the point), then it seems reasonable that we would find some indication of that in the scholarly community. I then proceeded to point out the conclusions reached by Thayer/Grimm...BAGD...and WORD STUDIES by Zhodiates,  as well as Dr. Robertson. I made the point that either these authors were ignorant of the info you presented, or perhaps they were biased against your view, for they all adopt the opposite meaning from what you claim. Only one of the above included a parenthetical statement that the meaning you contend for is "linguistically possible", reminding you though,  that they themselves adopt the other meaning...so thus it can hardly be thought of as a "ringing endorsement", certainly nothing that can be considered as justifying your claims. After asking whether these Scholars were ignorant of or biased against your conclusion, I indicated that either would be difficult to establish. So your first response to that was to that ....well let's just get your words before us, OK?

 

“So far, in all that you have said, I find this to be the first real point in your defense to the information I presented. However, upon closer examination of 'Thayer's lexicon' I think a few interesting things come to light. The poster called "In behalf of wrench" was correct in the information he gace you concerning "Thayer's". The words you quote from Thayer's are really the words of the "Trinitarian" Grimm, who I believe was a Lutheran. I think you first need to revise your claim that "it would be difficult to suggest that Thayer was a biased witness in favor of the Orthodox viewpoint that Christ was not an original creature." Since these are the words of a Trinitarian in actuallity, I believe the probability for 'bias' is still very much in tact”

Then let's consider whether the probability for bias is "still very much in tact". Actually I've had a copy of Grimm/Thayer for many years now and I use it all the time.  In the Preface to the Lexicon, Dr. Thayer has the following to say beginning on page 11: Of Professor Grimm he says:

"He devoted more than seven years to his task. The successive Parts of his work received, as they appeared, THE OUTSPOKEN COMMENDATION of scholars DIVERGING AS WIDELY IN THIER VIEWS AS HUPFELD AND HENGSTENBERG; and since its completion in 1868 it has been generally acknowledged to be BY FAR the best Lexicon of the New Testament extant.
quote continues: "...Meantime a new edition of Professor Grimm's work was called for. To the typographical accuracy of this edition liberal contributions were made from this side of the water. It appeared in its completed form in 1879. "Admirable", "unequalled", "invaluable", are some of the epithets it elicited from eminent judges in England. Both Professor Grimm and his publisher courteously gave me permission to make such changes in his work as might in my judgment the better to adapt it to the needs of English-speaking students. But the EMPHATIC COMENDATION it called out from ALL QUARTERS, in a strain similar to the specimens just given, determined me TO DISMISS THE THOUGHT OF ISSUING A NEW BOOK prepared on my predecessor's as a basis, and--alike in justice to him and for the satisfaction of students--to reproduce his second edition in its integrity (with only the silent correction of obvious oversights), and to INTRODUCE MY ADDITIONS in such a form as should render them distinguisible at once from Professor Grimm's work. (see [ ] in the list of 'explanations and Abbreviations" given below.)

 

 ....But notwithstanding all minor drawbacks the procedure will, I am sure, commend itself in the end, not only on the score of justice to the independent claims and responsibility of both authors, but also on account of the INCREASED ASSURANCE (or, at least, the broader outlook) thus afforded the student respecting DEBATABLE MATTERS,--whether of philology, of criticism, or of interpretation. "
and Thayer continues on page 13: "Professor Grimm, in his Preface, WITH REASON calls attention to the labor he has expended upon the explanation of doctrinal terms, WHILE YET GUARDING HIMSELF AGAINST ENCROACHING UPON THE PROVINCE OF THE DOGMATIC THEOLOGIAN. In this particular the editor has endeavored to enter INTO HIS LABORS...."

OK, Wrench, note that the above comes straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Dr. Thayer himself. Let's list in summary a few of the things he himself points out:

1. Professor Grimm devoted more than seven years to his task.

 
2. His work was received with high commendation from scholars WIDELY DIVERGING in their views.

 

3. It was generallly acknowledged BY FAR as the best NT Lexicon extant....

4. The new edition completed in 1879 was described as "admirable, unequalled, and invaluable"

5. He said these emphatic commedations from ALL QUARTERS determined him to dismiss his previous thoughts of producing a new Lexicon....imagine that Wrench!

6. He says He inserts his own remarks in bracketts to distinguish his from Grimm's so that the student can have INCREASED ASSURANCE respecting debatable matters.

7. He not only acknowledges with approval Professor Grimm's labor NOT to encroach, but endeavors to ENTER INTO HIS LABORS.

OK, now Wrench...let's note the drift of all this: Right from the horse's mouth we learn that Dr. Thayer himself disagrees with you that the reason Grimm doesn't adopt the meaning you claim in Rev 3:14 is because he was biased against your views. If you will simply browse the lexicon you will see that Dr. Thayer is not a bit bashful at putting his own remarks into bracketts when he thinks something may be debatable so as to help the reader get the whole story. Yet at Revelation 3;14 he offers not a syllable. hmmmm.... And could any Lexicon receive much better of a "ringing endorsement" than he gave this one? And these commendations he acknowledges were from widely divergent views...even. He was so impressed that he dismissed his thought of publishing a new book. Wow!

So in light of this I have to reject your invitation to revise my statement...I think pure intellectual honesty is going to require you to revise yours. Bias at Rev 3:14 in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish...actually in light of the above from Thayer himself, I think we have to admit the exact opposite, don't you?

Then we must notice that the other sources mentioned (BAG...Robertson..Zhodiates), reached no different conclusion at this point.  So if you cannot establish bias with Grimm/Thayer, and the others reached no different conclusion at this point, where does that leave your claims about these sources?

 
Next you find it interesting that Grimm's meaning (and the other sources as well) is not supported by any other biblical witness. OK, I will accomodate you here, Wrench, and assume for the sake of the argument that you're right about that. Nevertheless those scholarly sources did not feel the least bit inclined to adopt the meaning you contend for, and we've seen how difficult it will be to establish bias as the reason. If these Scholars, including Dr. Thayer with what he says above, did not feel compelled to adopt your conclusion, we might think long and hard before adopting such a conclusion ourselves. My goodness, Wrench, if the evidence were really as compelling as you claim, don't you think Dr. Thayer, himself agreeable to your views, would have at least included some remarks in bracketts to aid the student in getting the whole story? Surely he would have...yet he didn't. And as I've already said, Thayer shows that he's not a bit bashful about putting his remarks into brackets when he feels something is debatable...

Next you ask me that if I were to present an array of Scriptures to prove something, and you quoted only JW apologists or Unitarian apologists who disagreed with my conclusion, would I think that things were on the up and up?

 

 If ALL such sources you cited disagreed with my conclusion, I imagine that I might be a little suspicious. But on the other hand, if one of the sources you appealed to were agreeable to my ultimate views on the subject, and If I knew he translated that source and that he wasn't bashful about making sure the reader got the whole story (concerning evidence favorable to my views) by inserting his remarks into bracketts, I'd probably be wrestling with my conscience, on the one hand wanting desperately to claim bias with credibility and on the other knowing that my own guy was right there, elsewhere quick to comment, and doesn't lift a finger where I wished he would...Honestly, Wrench, I would wonder where I went wrong. Maybe I was a bit grandiose with my claims. Especially if you were willing to not even contest the evidence I had amassed (for the sake of the argument). I'd have to say "wow, he's giving me every possible courtesy, not contesting my evidence, and I STILL can't prove the conclusion I think that evidence proves.

 

I mean if all these scholars, including my own guy, agree together and adopt the opposite meaning from what I claim, things ain't looking so good for the home team here. And imagine me, Wrench, trying to convince myself and others that all your sources were biased against me, and my own guy steps up and lavishes all kinds of praise on one the sources you cited...telling me that it was acclaimed as the best source extant from scholars with widely divergent views. I'd probably think to myself… "sheesh...with friends like that who needs enemies? Better a thousand times if he'd switch to the other side! Yes, I can imagine your frustration, but I can't help it.

 
As a matter of fact, Wrench, I can remember back when I bought Thayer's Lexicon. At the time I had just started my studies with AMG and needed a good lexicon. So it was down to either the BAG or Thayers. I had been warned against Thayers because they said "he's biased because he's a unitarian. So you don't want your head filled with false doctrine",  but the more I thought about it the more I realized that if I wanted to ensure that I be exposed to both sides of the story, Thayer's would actually be my best bet! So I bought it fully aware of that point. That's why I don't think your suggestion against me is fair. I didn't try to "stack the deck" against you...I can't help it if most of the scholarly community agrees with the views I've accepted. Put yourself in my shoes. What would you do? And over the years I've never been sorry I made that decision in buying Thayers. And, Wrench, I also accumulated loads of JW literature as well...never turned it down (why should I be afraid?). And at one time I came very close to being baptized as a witness...it was a complicated time for me because I was also being warned against the JWs and trying to complete my Greek studies too. That's another story. I just want you to understand that when we go to the scholarly community, we don't have much choice but to accept what's there. Even the WT has to face that...But you know, it's kind of funny, really, how people see the same thing differently, for example I tend to view Thayers as my "safe-guard" against not getting a one-sided view, you regard it as my "trump card" J.  As they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Next you say that I claimed that the scholars weren't ignorant of the passages you referred to, and you ask how I would know for a fact. Well first of all I didn't put quite that way. What I said was that I doubted if you’d claim they were ignorant of them. But it appears that you'd like to entertain that notion. Of course I don't know for sure, but the burden isn't on me here, Wrench. You're the one who accepted that at the beginning of your treatise. I think you'll have a difficult time proving that too. Why? Because at least some of the passages you cited were listed under the various meanings, and still they must not have been compelling enough to move them to agree with your conclusion. I wonder if you realize how hard it is to satisfy the burden of proof? It's not supposed to be easy. It's really tough because it means you can leave no possible alternative standing.

Well, Wrench, I'd love to continue and finish this up, but I have to go to the clinic for the better part of the day, so I'll just label this part 1 and try to finish this response later today

or tomorrow.  Have a nice day,  Ray…..       

 

Posted by Ray <mailto:alka1@sssnet.com> on December 01, 1999 at 19:10:28:

In Reply to: Re: The Son of God Created-3fold witness <3849.html> posted by Wrench in the works on November 29, 1999 at 11:54:55:

 

Hi Wrench: Continuing with my response to your first reply, I had left off by suggesting a possible reason why the Greek Scholars did not reach the same conclusion as you with regard to Rev 3:14. Thus Robertson mentions a few passages which convinced him otherwise. In response to this, you complain that Robertson's examples "were not in response to the arguments I gave for arche followed by a genitive phrase for that aspect is not even mentioned in his discusson." However, Dr. Robertson is actually offering minimal commentary on the whole Apocalype, and so when he arrives at Rev 3:14, he comments on the whole idiom, pointing out that your conclusion is not the right one, and that the other one is. I am very sure that if he were intending a polemic on the specific subject his explication would have been much more extensive. Yet obviously the verses he mentions in passing are those which he feels settles the issue with regard to the conclusion you reached. So then, in view of the burden you took on at the beginning of your treatise, you must now disprove any possible alternative conclusion. So I would say that you must disprove the conclusion he and others of us who accept the Orthodox view understand from those passages he mentions. And I would add, many others that HE did not mention on that occasion.

 

Now with regard to John 1:3, I myself offered a few comments in agreement with Dr. Robertson's understanding of it. Your response to my points wasn't specific but general. It went like this: "I think you will find in the aftermath of a thorough discussion, John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 will not nail anything down for your position." But hold on, Wrench, in our discussion I don't need to "nail anything down", I just need for you to not disprove that possiblity. You see, friend, you're the one who has to do the "nailing down" in order to sustain your claims at the beginning of your treatise. If you leave a single alternative on the table, you fail. It is indeed a tall order you've taken on here.

 

Now with regard to Greg Stafford, although I would not buy his book I would consider whatever you would offer to prove your case and thus satisfy the burden you took on. If you feel that his argumentation does that, give it a whirl.

 

Your statement that my appeal to Trinitarian scholarship who agrees with me is "completely without value since none of them addressed specifically "arche followed by a genitive phrase" is already responded to in the above two paragraphs. Wrench, in light of the claims you make at the beginning of your treatise, it's your burden to disprove what THEY say, not their's to disprove what you say. In other words, to sustain your claims that Christ was an original creature (the first creation of God), you have to face and refute THEIR evidence, the evidence they offer in adopting the opposite conclusion from what you claim your evidence demands. And again,  please recall that at least one of the sources was overseen by Dr. Thayer, and he shows that he's not a bit bashful about putting remarks into brackets when he thinks the situation is debatable. He highly praised that lexicon, pointing to the high commendations it received from scholarship of widely divergent views. And none of the others reached a different conclusion, did they? Did they? Then if you cannot prove bias in Grimm/Thayer, and they reached no different conclusion, you're stuck in the mud. Without even an ounce of protest from Dr. Thayer, who was in undeniable oversight, these sources reached the opposite meaning for the idiomatic unit "he arche tes ktiseos tou theou" of Rev 3:14. Robertson casually mentioned a few verses in passing suggesting why he reached that opposite meaning. You must refute them to sustain your case. I think the real problem, Wrench, is the way you framed the whole thing.

 

I'm no Greek scholar, but I have a hunch that you will eventually discover that the problem will be found in the methodology. What are the pitfalls and dangers involved in defining idioms. Sometimes certain word or case relationships are used in the construction of an idiom that may or may not determine it's ultimate meaning. That's the problem when trying to understand these scholars as they place their opinions in print. If we could somehow place side by each, their pool of evidence and experience with history and word meanings, with ours, the comparison would be paltry...about like trying to compare an ocean with a creek.

 

Next you launch into a small discussion about being out on a limb, and unless I misunderstand your intent, it looks like you are laboring under the assumption that the right way to determine the meaning of an idiomatic unit is to break down its individual parts, word by word, case by case...etc. So then, it seems to you that the weight on the limb is getting heavier and heavier, and you can hear it starting to crack. However, please compare John 1:3 with Rev 3:14. In John 1:3 we have a statement being made, but in Rev 3:14 we have an idiomatic title being applied. We don't want to know what "arche" means or even "arche with the genitive", we want to know what the whole unit means since it’s APPLIED to Christ. And according to the scholars (Robertson...and the rest I cited) passages which make a statement about Christ weigh heavier than an idiom being applied. Hence, then, they are more inclined to reconcile Rev 3:14 with John 1:3 than the other way around. That's why the BAG put the terms "linguistically possible" in between quotation marks. There's more involved in determining the meaning of an idiom than just breaking down each individual word or case. The more logical and likely place for THAT is in statements...like John 1:3 for instance. For example, what do we mean when we say "I have a frog in my throat"? I don't know French (ha) but I've heard that in France they say the same thing by "I have a giraffe in my throat" :-) True or not, the point is worth considering.

 

So as it stands right now, Wrench, you have failed to prove bias with the sources I cited (claiming it and proving are two different things)...The Grimm/Thayer Lexicon was according to Thayer's own words highley commended by scholars from widely divergent views. He says he sat in oversight, and DEMONSTRATES that he's not a bit bashful to include his remarks in brackets when he feels the situation is debatable. The others reached no different conclusion with regard to 3:14. You have not yet refuted the specific passages cited by the Scholars when setting forth the meaning they give. Therefore, at this point, you have not satisfied the burden of proof you accepted at the outset of your treatise. Let's move on now to the next "witness" you refer to in your quest.

 

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.

 

In seeking to prove your point, you refer to the “hoti cause” in verse 16. I do not want to misrepresent you so I will actually paste your words here…

 

“verse 16 is telling us the BECAUSE behind the title "firstborn of all creation". He is among creation BECAUSE of the fact that, word for word from Greek to English, "in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth, the (things) visible and the (things) invisible..."

 

I'm sorry I must disagree with your understanding of this verse. It actually DISTINGUISHES him from all creation, for notice what Paul goes on to say in verse 17: "Also, he is before all things...". So, if he's before all things…all things were made "by means of" him...we must admit that he being distinguished from all creation by priority of existence (before). So you have misunderstood the hoti clause by failing to pay attention to the context. I'm heartened that you recognize that all things here refers to all creation, though, for this is a very important point, as we shall soon see.

 

The hoti clause indeed provides the REASON for the application of the title, its just not what you want. The reason is because he was BEFORE all things...in other words he was DIRECTLY responsible for the creation of all things (hands on--Heb 1:10)., just as we see in John 1:3 "all things came into existence through him, and without him did not even one thing come into existence that has come into existence." Yet this one was in the world and the world didn't even recognize him (Jn 1:10)...wow, the world didn't even recognize it own "hand's on" Creator (Hebrews 1:10). I'm not meaning to discount the Father's role in Creation, but only to give the Son the recognition he deserves. You cannot dishonor the Father by honoring the Son, but you can by DIShonoring the Son (John 5:23-24). By the way, I don't mean to imply anything like that about you personally. Knowing you from watching you on this board, I'd have to say that if you DID dishonor the Son, it would have to be by mistake, certainly not on purpose. I'm very sorry, Wrench, that I cannot say the same about the NWT Committee in these verses (15-18).

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 verses 19 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!

 

As you go into verse 17 you acknowledge that it says "before all things" and you say that is a "time element" and not a "status element".  But I believe you have missed ship's movement here, Wrench, because you have apparently failed to understand the difference between meaning on the one hand, and application on the other. The hoti clause provides the reason or grounds for the APPLICATION of the title, not the meaning of the title. Let the bible illustrate this. One of the examples I referred to in my last post had to do with Joseph and his first and second born sons (Gen 41:51)...note that Manasseh was first and Ephraim was second. Yet we see in Jerimiah 31:9 that the STATUS shifted to Ephraem and the time element dropped off with regard to the meaning of the term. However, in Col 1:16 the hoti clause tells us the time element, not involved in the MEANING of the title itself (which we've just seen is not restricted in numerical order), but the time element as to the REASON for the application of the title. What was the reason? He was before all things...before all creation. Yet the STATUS meaning of the term remains... because he was appointed heir of all things. Do you see the mistake, Wrench?

No matter how we turn the dictionary, a couple constants remain here...The above example illustrates that numerical order with regard to applying the title "Firstborn" doesn't mean a Buffalo Nickle to God, and the other is that Paul stated that the REASON for the application of this title is because He pre-existed all creation and was actually directly "hand's on" responsible for it...start to finish...so Paul shows us in verses19-20 how this one reconciles all creation back to God...by means of the Cross of Calvary.

Although in light of the burden you took on at the beginning, I only needed to show a single example where the title "firstborn" was applied" where numerical order was not the emphasis, I showed three. Apparently in NT times, as well as the generations immediately following, the expression "firstborn of...." became stereotyped.

POLYCARP studied at the feet of St. John, and of course John was contemporary with the Apostle Paul and inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Polycarp died in the year 155. But he wrote an epistle to the Phillipians and I just happened to stumble across this in Vol. 1, page 34:

Chapter VII--..."For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist, and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, if of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. "

 

Note that the subject of the idiom here is left hypothetical (whosoever) by Polycarp. Well then, what's happened to the time-element with the meaning of this title? It has dropped off,  and is no longer the emphasis of the idiom.  But what has remained?  You bet, STATUS. Polycarp's meaning is exceedingly obvious to the most casual observer, Satan would be proud of WHOEVER would do this...like his firstborn son, ha!  See what can happen with idioms and titles, sometimes, if we try to make them work a million miles of miracle for us.

 

Before leaving this illustration, what about the authenticity of Polycarp's epistle? Let me read from Vol. 1, pages 31-32 of Robertson and Donaldson's,  "Ante-Nicene Fathers" concerning this epistle: "The authenticity of the following Epistle can on no fair grounds be questioned. It is abundantly established by external testimony, and is also supported by the internal evidence. Irenaeus says (Adv. Haer., iii. 3): 'There is extant an Epistle of Polycarp written to the Phillipians, most satisfactory, from which those that have a mind to do so may learn the character of his faith,'..etc. This passage is embodied by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (iv.14); and in another place the same writer refers to the Epistle before us as an undoubted production of Polycarp (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36). Other ancient testimonies might easily be added, but are superfluous, inasmuch as there is a general consent among scholars at the present day that we have in this letter an authentic production of the renowned Bishop of Smyrna. "

I did not get this off the internet, Wrench..I have these volumes.

I'm really getting exhausted and so it looks like I won't finish up my reply with this post either. I'll probably label it part 2...and finish up tomorrow sometime. I'm sure you understand how other responsibilities have to be cared for. But before I close, there's a few more points I'd like to make about "firtborn". Instead of directly responding to my examples pertaining to Job 18:13 "firstborn of death"..meaning the most deadly of diseases, and David's elevation to the STATUS of firstborn (Ps 89:27)...you just placed a statement "covered" in parenthesis? I looked before that, but could find nothing that relates to them. But I did find the following in "Aid to Bible Understanding", Page 584, and it fits my examples to a tee. Here is the WT Society:

 

"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the "first-born", due to Jehovah's elevation of David to the preeminent postion (did they say preeminent?) 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 Psalms 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Heb 1:5."

Interesting, don't you think? Did the "time-element..or numerical order" meaning have anything to do with the application of this title to David? Was he Jesse's firstborn? No! Was he Israel's first King? No, yet and neverthless he was chosen and according to the WT he prefigured Christ! Status with David...Status with Christ.

 
Now about a year ago I went thru this with Wes Williams and he too was trying to make this passage "prove" that Christ was an original creature. We got to the same point, Wrench, and Wes had nowhere to turn...the only thing he could do was complain about it being "figurative", ha. But that's no biggie....as I explained to him...this happens throughout the bible...all the time. The BAG lists this in Col 1:15 under the figurative classification. It is obvious why the WT wouldn't want to go along with that...they need it to bolster their claims about Christ. Yet even they with similar terms admit have a figurative application...for example with the very next entry in the AID book, "firstfruits", they set apart a paragraph labeled "FIGURATIVE AND SYMBOLIC USE". So I think Wes was simply between a rock and hard place and could find nothing better to complain about...bottom line is that he could not prove his case. I pointed out to him concerning the examples in the OT that "God did it and it’s a beautiful thing". We can go thru the bible and find all kinds of titles applied to Christ, some of them seemingly contradictive, Shepherd-Lamb...Priest-Sacrifice...Root and offspring of David--Bright and morning star...Son of man--Son of God........ The bible literally bristles with these sort of titles figuratively applied to Christ and others.

Well, Wrench, I'll close for now, but tomorrow I'll try to finish up...if I can get to it. Take care, friend...Ray

 

Posted by Ray on December 03, 1999 at 10:45:22:

In Reply to: Re: The Son of God Created-3fold witness <3849.html> posted by Wrench in the works on November 29, 1999 at 11:54:55:

Hello Wrench: Continuing with my response we move now to the final "witness" you appealed to, to prove that Christ was an original creature (God's first creation), Proverbs 8:22. Because I pointed out the obvious that we cannot say that God's Wisdom once did not exist, you think I must not have read your words very carefully. Yes I read them very carefully, and I thought my response addressed your point.

 

Why do you suppose, Wrench, that I immediately observed that the NWT's choice of text in Proverbs 8:22 was the Masoretic (produced), and not the one behind the LXX's (created). Because in your otherwise lengthy discourse the NWT's rendering of this passage was conspicuous by its absence. hmmm

 

As you go into this you quote several OT passages in which the Hebrew word "qanah" is rendered in various ways depending on the context..thus "acquire...get....buy...possess", terms which seem to cover both sides of the verbal cognate. However, that is just my point, Wrench. The fact that this term is capable of having these various meanings INCREASES the difficulty factor of satisfying the burden of proof. In not a single one of your quotes could you demonstrate "no previous existence of a person", and yet THAT is your burden! It's one thing to "acquire a field", quite another to say that Jehovah "acquired Wisdom". See my point?

 

Thus after quoting these examples you then say: "Therefore, what is spoken of at Proverbs 8:22 can NOT be the "quality" of wisdom, for it should be apparent to anyone who is a believer in the Almighty God, that he did not have to "acquire" the quality of wisdom , but ALWAYS POSSESSED it. The wisdom that was "qanah" in Proverbs 8:22 is one that HAD TO BE OBTAINED in some fashion according to the consistent meaning of the word…quote continued ..."...Therefore, the question arises. What is the "wisdom" that was acquired by God before the earth was made according to the context, who was with God as a workman by his side as the later verses reveal.?"

 

However, wrench, this fails to even consider the possibility that the Masoretic/NWT's rendering in Proverbs 8:22 may be correct, for notice that they render this neither "acquire" nor "possess". And yet their rendering "produced" may have a broad enough semantical range to allow for the meaning "produce-bring to bear-focus", as "produce one bit of evidence", and so the evidence is produced or "brought to bear" in the case, without meaning "no previous existence".  This then would be in perfect agreement with the Scripture elsewhere where we learn sure enough that God's wisdom was brought to bear in the creation of all things (John 1:3, Col 1:16-17). Once must CHOOSE to give it a meaning that contradicts outright the Scripture elsewhere (John 1:3), and why would we do that? So then, your question above "what is the 'wisdom' that was acquired by God..." , takes your conclusion for granted. In other words, it begs the question by making what you would prove the presupposition of your question!

 

Hence, then, you're making choices here, Wrench, but they aren't NECESSARY ones, and unless they ARE necessary you have failed to satisfy the burden of proof. I've seen nothing so far in your argumentation that requires the meaning "no previous existence of a person". Not even a single one of those examples you quoted required such a thought, and when you got to Proverbs 8:22 you went off onto a tangent with the word "acquire" without even considering the possibility that the NWT's rendering may be correct...and the possible range of semantics for that term ...depending on the consistency of Scripture. Also "Possessed" wouldn't require “no previous existence” either, especially in God's context!

 

So in view of the fact that none of your examples require the meaning "no previous existence of a person", and in view of the fact that you failed to even consider the possibility that the NWT's rendering or the "possessed" rendering may be correct, in since you did not even consider the semantical range of "produce" or "possess", and compare that with what the bible elsewhere says directly about this particular subject (John 1:3...an actual statement..not just an idiom), we must reject your claim. So let me review the conclusions reached with regard to all three 'witnesses' you claimed proved that Christ was the first creation of God.

 

First I did not even see a need to contest your arguments about determining the meaning of the expression "beginning of the creation of God". Why? Because I could see right away that you had overstated your case with the evidence, for surely if it were as compelling as you claim, it would show up somewhere in the scholarly community. You don't claim to be a NT Greek scholar do you? Neither do I, and yet the most I could find among them was a parenthetical statement that the meaning you contend for was "linguistically possible". Even you agree that such a statement doesn't match the strength you believe your arguments have, right? Yet there ought to be enough candor to admit that the other meaning is equally possible (if not more so), since it is the latter that the BAG adopts! You could not prove bias against your view in all the sources I used, for Grimm/Thayer was overseen by Dr. Thayer, himself agreeable to your views on this subect, and he not only highly recommended Grimm's as being the best Lexicon of the NT "extant", but shows that he's not a bit bashful to include his remarks in brackets when he thinks something is debatable. This came straight from the horses mouth, Wrench. And yet the others reached no different conclusion....so in Rev 3:14 you could not establish bias against you...you can claim it all day long....but you can't prove it...and the case REALLY looks bad for such a claim in view of Dr. Thayer's high praise for that Lexicon..as well as his oversight to ensure that the STUDENT gets the whole story. Nor have you yet refuted the passages the scholars point to when adopting the other meaning. So I'm sorry, Wrench, but your first "witness" has not been established.

 

And your 2nd "witness" also failed to prove your case...for all I needed was a single example where the title "firstborn" was applied without numerical order being the emphasis...and I showed three...two of which revealed the mind of God Himself on the matter! And the WT Society also backed them up as meaning just as I said (Aid the Bible Understanding). Also we saw in Col. that you admitted that the "all things" there refers to all creation...and Paul said in plain language that he was "before all things"...hence he was " before all creation", according to you, LOL! So this so-called "witness" also failed to satisfy the burden you took on.

 

And last, although you quoted a bunch of passages, your argumentation for Proverbs 8:22 turned out to be nothing but a trojan horse. Not a single one of the passages you cited actually required the meaning you are contending for in Proverbs 8:22 (no previous existence of a person)...and at the same time you applied "acquire" to Prov 8:22 without even acknowledging much less considering either the "possessed" meaning or the Masoretic/NWT''s "produced" rendering and its possible semantical range. Then you adopt a meaning that contradicts the Scripture outright without resolving that (John 1:3)...so how can we consider this, Wrench, as satisfying the burden of proof? Sorry, friend, but we cannot! Take care...Ray

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