Biblical Discussions

 

To Ray-Son of God created

 

Thursday, 16-Mar-2000 08:40:24 

 

Hello Ray, As usual, I’ve tried to trim some of the fat from our dialogue, discarding that which we seem to have gotten past for the most part. The trouble is, while it seems our volume of words may be dwindling in one area, they appear to be growing in others, so I don’t know if I’m going to make this thing any smaller or what, but anyway, here goes: 

 

You stated: Ray says…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?

 

Wrench replies: Well, I do continue to research this topic from time to time and I am continuing to find interesting things among the words of Trinitarians in relation to what we are discussing. But, more on that a little later.  When I say that the “orthodox” position is unprecedented, there is really no denying that, because even if it would be determined that their interpretation of Revelation 3:14 is correct, which is far from the case of happening, but even if it were determined, the interpretation would STILL be unprecedented in relation to the word meaning “source” because there is not another clear case of the word being used that way in the LXX or NT. THAT is what I MEAN when I say it is “unprecedented”.

 

Likewise, even if it were determined to be correct, which as I said before, it hasn’t, but even if it were determined to be such, it would STILL be unprecedented when compared to every other “arche with a genitive” in the Bible. That fact in itself is really uncontested. And it would as well be unprecedented in relation to the way in which John used the word “arche” EVERY OTHER time. THAT is a fact that is not debated. So, me saying “unprecedented” in relation to their interpretation in view of the above observances is certainly not saying too much. It is simply the facts, whether or not Revelation 3:14 is determined to have to mean something other than the interpretation that we offer, which is, Christ was the “beginning” (timewise) of the creation by God.  

 

Wrench continues:  Since you have called the WT so far into the foray of things, I feel I don’t have much choice but to break stride with my normal stance, and start quoting what they DO say when needed in relation to the things we are talking about to demonstrate the position that I have taken. 

 

 I don’t want you to think that I am somehow opposed to the explanation of John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 being different time references, because I am not. I simply happen to think that them being the same time reference makes more sense TO ME. I have offered that to you and you have objected by means of appealing to the WT as being in disagreement with me, who I claim to uphold as God’s authority on these matters. That disagreement, as I hope to show, is debatable in itself, but, regardless, don’t be fooled into thinking that I can’t defend the position that you say the WT is insistent upon, that being John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 are referring to “different” time references with the phrase “in the beginning”. I can defend it just as easily as the position that I personally prefer, in fact, you may find that it doesn’t require much “tweaking” at all to simply “shift” to the other position, because it is certainly valid and defendable. I just happen to think that the explanation I have offered makes better sense to ME. But, more on this later as we continue.  I will also share with you some interesting comments from Trinitarians in relation to “arche” further on in this post, as well as some comments from the WT.

 

Ray said:  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

 

Ray continues: 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 intermediate 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 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.

 

Wrench replies: Thank you for fully explaining your view of Christ’s connection with creation, I truly appreciate it. However, I would like to inquire further if you don’t mind.   First, I am wondering, other than the possibility of Col. 1:15-17 implying to you that Christ was considered a ‘creation” (in the manner you describe), what other scripture do you know of that ACTUALLY CALLS Christ a “creation”? What I mean is, it appears that this would be the only one that does so. Although you mention Phil. 2 as calling him a servant and a man, it doesn’t actually speak of him as “included” in creation. It doesn’t call him a creature or a creation. Is there a scripture other than Col. 1:15-17 (possibly, as you say), that actually calls Christ a creation via his incarnation in the flesh?

 

 Also, in relation to these words of yours,

 

“the WT’s view stumbles clumsily over Paul’s words “he is before all things” in verse 17, ALL CREATION AS YOU”VE ADMITTED.”

 

 I think I need to make you aware of what I actually did say when you posed the Col. 1:15 question. First off, I do not think that the “ALL THINGS” is ALL CREATION, because I believe that it obviously excludes Christ himself who I do view AS a creation.   This was my response:

 

---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.---

 

  I think you can see from the above words that I did NOT view “all things” as synonymous with the “all creation” that Christ was the firstborn of. The “all things” are those which came THROUGH Christ, which would therefore obviously exclude him who I feel is a PART of the “all creation”.  And, as well, I see no clumsy handling of the matter from the WT.

 

Ray said:  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 resulting from personal conviction (bias) with regard to Rev 3:14? Sorry, Wrench, but NO YOU DID NOT! Instead you tried to live off the possibility…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 acknowledged 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… RRR

 

 Wrench replied: 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.

 

Ray replies:  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.

 

Wrench said: Let me review the steps that I see so far in this “bias” discussion, and you tell me if this is how you see the progress.  When it came to Grimm’s definition for “arche” (source), I stated that you could not dismiss the possibility of bias as the reason for him choosing that as a definition. Obviously, that can’t stand alone, I have never intended for that stand alone. It seemed to me though, that from your words in defense of a ‘non-biased’ position for Grimm, you were trying to claim that there was no possibility of bias (I realize now that you are not claiming that) on Grimm’s part because of what you perceive as a sweeping endorsement of Trinitarian and Unitaraian scholars alike of his work. You supplied an example of where Grimm exhibits a ‘non-biased’ assessment in relation to the word “theos”. Therefore, you are challenging me to supply evidence in relation to Rev. 3:14, that Grimm’s choice was one of a biased leaning. Without that, then I am presenting a meaningless defense. Does that sound like a fair assessment of what is happening? If not, you can point out what you feel has been missed.  I suppose if I had heard you say the words that you say later in this post, much of this dialogue could have been avoided, but then again, maybe not. We seem to shoot right past each other sometimes and not quite understand what the other one is getting at. Anyway, later you say,   ---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.---  From the start of this “bias” conversation, Ray, believe or not, that was what I was waiting to here from you. Thank you.

 

Now, as you say, I can proceed to show you why I think what Grimm did with “arche” at Rev. 3:14 is the result of his personal conviction rather than substantial evidence.   In regard to the references cited at the point in question by Thayer, I am only a little closer than I was to locating these things. The Tdf reference refers to Tischendorf’s Editio Octava p. 308 but I have been searching high and low for this and have not found it. I located his Greek text but the critical apparatus was not included with it so I am continuing to look. Thilo I believe refers to Johann Karl Thilo who I know was responsible for some Apocryphal translation but I still have no clue what the reference refers to. I am completely clueless about who Teichmuller is and I have still not figured out what Sylb. stands for.

 

  Since, as of yet, I have not located the references referred to in Thayer’s brackets, although I think I am getting closer, I will have to rely on what other Trinitarians say about the rendering "arche" as “source”.   First of all, although not directly related to the source rendering, but I thought it should be mentioned, you have mentioned one Trinitarian comment on the “linguistic possibility” of the phrase “beginning of the creation of God” meaning the FIRST of created things.

 

However, there are many other Trinitarians who acknowledge this “linguistic possibility” even though they obviously opt for another meaning.  For instance: A Greek-English Lexicon, page 111-2 agrees in both possibilities:

 

 "Arche ... 1. beginning ..... c. beginning, origin ... 2. the first cause ... Rv 3:14; but the meaning beginning = first created is linguistically possible." (Which is the one I believe you have referred to in the past)

 

 Also note the publication The Apocalypse of John by Isbon T. Beckwith, page 488.

 

 “the beginning of the creation”: grammatically these words can mean the first of created existences, cf. Apxn tekvwv, Gen. 49:3, Dt. 21:17....” (More on Beckwith below)  Also notice what Albert Barnes has to say in his commentary on Rev. 3:14: “If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it can not be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact.” 

 

Now obviously, Beckwith and Barnes do not agree with that rendering and they go on to explain why, which in short, are very near the same reasons you have offered because they feel that John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 present him as the creator and therefore, overrule that rendering. But we will talk more about that below. Regardless, there are a number of Trinitarians who acknowledge the fact that those words linguistically and grammatically and appropriately express the idea that Christ was the FIRST of creation.  As I continue to find quotes of this nature I will forward them to you via our posts.  Now, as regards “source” for “arche”, I think it is also interesting what Barnes says concerning this. He first offers 3 possible ways to take “arche”, which are the three that we are familiar with, which is basically 1.source 2.beginning 3.ruler.  Notice what he has to say about the rendering “source”:

 

 “As to the three significations suggested above, it may be observed, that the first one-that he is the ‘author’ of the creation, and in that sense the beginning-though expressing a scriptural doctrine (Jn. 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16), is NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPER MEANING OF THE WORD HERE USED-arche.(emphasis mine) The word PROPERLY refers to the commencment of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes PROPERLY primacy IN TIME, and primacy IN RANK, but NOT PRIMACY IN THE SENSE OF CAUSING ANYTHING TO EXIST....The word is NOT, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the SENSE THAT HE CAUSED IT TO HAVE AN EXISTENCE.”

 

  Now, Barnes, obviously opts for the word “ruler” as the correct way to view “arche”. More on this toward the end of this post. However. I find his words concerning the “source” or “author” rendering to be remarkably candid and in complete harmony with what I have stated about “arche” NOT being rendered properly as “source” or “author”. So now we have some among the Trinitarian camp in harmony with what I have said concerning Grimm’s handling of arche.  Barnes is not alone in this recognition, obviously, because notice what is stated by the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 1, pages 164, 166 ---

 

"Arche ... It means (a) beginning, start ... (a) It denotes the point at which something new begins in time. ... (c) First cause. It is a CONTROVERSIAL POINT OF EXEGESIS (emphasis mine) whether this meaning of arche may be assumed in ... Rev 3.14....”

 

  Even Beckwith struggles with the problem. Notice what he says: After giving his reasons as to why “first created” is not right he goes on to say.

 

“The words mean rather “the one from whom creation took its beginning,” i.e. through whom it came into being; NOT THE CREATOR AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE, for that is God in our book (4:11, 10:5), as elsewhere in the Scriptures, but the CREATIVE AGENT of God, as in Jno. 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2.”

 

 It sounds as though Beckwith understands the problem with “source” and then vies for a totally different meaning as the “agent” of God’s creation. I think it is interesting that he uses the word “agent”, for we would agree that Christ was God’s “instrument” (agent) for creation. And, he applies that same “agency” (instrumentality) to all the “pendulum” scriptures that you have mentioned for swinging away from the natural and precedented meaning of those words.   I think it is quite apparent that the problem with “source” as a “highly questionable” if not “incorrect” rendering of “arche” is well known among the Trinitarian camp. It is because of these statements presented that I think Grimm succumbed to his ‘personal conviction’ rather than to the facts surrounding the “proper” meaning of the word. I would find it hard to believe that someone so highly regarded among the scholars of his day, did not know about this controversy as Barnes was one of his contemporaries and Beckwith wasn’t far off.

Ray had said: 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?  

 

Wrench replies:  I hope the above information will help us move past this.

 

You stated:  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. 

 

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

 

Ray said: 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 for yourself in the re-framing of your treatise.

Wrench replies:  See above.

 

Ray  said:  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.

 

Ray continues: 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! ?

 

Wrench replies:  I guess I just needed to here you acknowledge in words the possibility. I didn’t feel I was getting that, but maybe I was and wasn’t catching it, whatever, I think we can put that behind us, I hope.   One thing though, in relation to Abbot. What exactly was the variant-verse notations that he contributed, and what would that have to do with anything doctrinally? I fail to see how providing variant verse notations is some kind of stamp of approval on everything that was said by Grimm. I mean, what kind of Unitarians are we dealing with here? Do you really expect me to believe that Abbot would have had nothing to say about Grimm’s handling of “arche” at Rev. 3:14. Do you think he would have just went belly up for that rendering with all the “controversy” surrounding that? Abbot never had the chance before his death to read the final proofs, right? He didn’t contribute a single commentary or remark, right? Just variant verse –notations? What exactly is that and what bearing would that have on Abbot agreeing or disagreeing with Grimm’s handling of “arche” at Rev. 3:14 and other things for that matter. It seems completely irrelevant to doctrine. And if Thayer was a Unitarian, he sure is starting to sound a little wimpy when it comes to standing up for what he believed.

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

 

 Ray said: 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 pre-existed 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.

 

Wrench replies: I understand that you say he TOOK ON the nature of a creature, but that doesn’t give me the differentiation I was needing. Does that mean he then WAS a creature? For instance, when angels would appear, they would take on the nature of a man, right? But, did that mean that they WERE a man, or were they still an angel wearing the nature of man? Do you see the difference I’m after? Where, in your opinion, does the Bible actually SAY that Christ was a creature. Not just the word “slave” or “man”, but a creature or “part” of creation?

 

Ray continued:  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.

 

Wrench replies:  I understand your view here, but I don’t see why he actually had to be GOD HIMSELF to identify with the other side of mediation. He was so much like his Father, I think he truly appreciated that element of the mediation. He was the Wisdom of God in personal existence, so I think he would know and appreciate all the nuances of what was transpiring.

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

 

I had said:  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 said: 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 occurs, 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… 

 

Wrench replies: Well, I’m willing if you are. I do enjoy our conversations, despite the intermitent frustrations. You’re clever and you have a wit about you and even when it’s tough going, it can still be fun. So, I’m in for the long haul, and maybe some day we can learn to trust each other more than we do now.

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

 

Ray had said earlier: 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.

 

 

Wrench replied:  Ray, I would think things like this are easily missed. This is not just the meaning of a single word or it really doesn’t have to do with some “rule” of grammar. It has to do with something that is not so obvious, that being the way a particular syntax or word order is used in relation to one particular word. I’ve posted this same treatise many, many places to be viewed and commented on by Trintarians galore, and not one has ever seen the presentation of these facts. And besides, I didn’t come up with this myself, but it was first mentioned, as far as I know, by both Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford, both who have studied and possess degrees in the ancient languages of the Bible. To say that they could not discover a new aspect in relation to the way “arche” is used with a genitive, is beyond me. You may think it remote, but you can’t deny the fact that the claims are valid when it comes to the Biblical examples. Do you really think we’ve come to the end of the road when it comes to discovering things like this? If so, maybe I should cancel my subscription to JBL because that is about the only reason I get it, is to keep abreast of what the current scholarly discoveries and opinions are.

 

Ray went on:  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 replies:  Maybe they have never seen it before, but one thing is certain, they’ve seen it now because I know that they have copies of both Greg and Rolf’s books, and they’ve had them for quite some time. Now, what have they done with that information? Let see, did they DF Greg and Rolf for running ahead? No. Did they discipline them and remove them from their responsibilities in the congregation? No. Did they come out and tell us not to read their books, since they have to know that 1000’s are? No. Have they even given us a “generic” warning about such books? No. Not to date. So, what does that tell me as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? It tells me that your view of their “realm of control” is a bit exagerrated and that their warnings of “independent thinking” were not in regard to things of this nature.

 

The WT has many times offered more than one explanation for a few verses or passages, but it is never in contradiction with the fundamental teaching that touches on those verses. For instance, in relation to John 20:28 (and I’m not throwing this in to the discussion, it is just an example), you will notice the Aid Book gives a number of possibilities in explanation of that verse,  but none of them violate what they have determined to be true elsewhere in the scriptures. I could name numerous other examples where such is the case, the point being that it is not as crucial as you are making it sound to merely puppet in robot fashion only what the WT has said in relation to the application of a particular verse, or the explanation of a particular verse and the way it fits into the scheme of things. I think those examples show the tolerance of that. The important thing is obviously to remain within valid exegesis and to not violate the “fundamental” teaching that is at stake. Otherwise, I think both Greg and Rolf would have been disciplined to send a clear and certain signal to the rank and file JW.

 

Even when it came to them cautioning brothers who put up pages on the net in defense of the WT and NWT, it WAS NOT forbidden, it was stated that THERE WAS NO NEED for such a thing, and that those on the net should be extremely cautious who they choose to dialogue with and to have no dealings with those who were known to be what we would view as apostate.  I recall years ago another brother who compiled a book entitled “The Trinity Examined in the Light of History and the Bible”, or something like that. I obtained a copy of it and he too sent a copy to the Society. This brother is still strong in the truth today and even had a hand in helping Greg with his book. Greg even mentions his name in acknowledgment. Now the Society has had years to catch up with this “lawbreaker”, but, did they? In fact, it wasn’t long, although admittedly a few years, before the Society began to use, or at least repeat some of the very arguments he presented in his book.

 

The WT is certainly cautious before using information like this especially if it is relatively unchartered. They may wait to examine the evidence theirself or see how it pans out in the scholastic world before commiting to it’s usage. They are God’s appointed authority against heresy, Ray, and that is the way they are viewed. They give the food at the proper time to the household of God but they do not dictate to the nth degree how to view the understanding of each and every verse in the Bible as long as that understanding stays within the proper framework of context, grammar and true doctrine. The “independent thinking” they warn of has to do with taking a stand “against” that authority in the area of doctrine and moral values. Let’s be realistic, we all have to have independent thinking to one degree or another or we wouldn’t be able to make any decisions about anything in relation to the all the things we have to handle in life. The “independent thinking” comments should be kept in THEIR proper context as well.

 

Wrench said again: 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 against 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.

Wrench replies: Exactly, but have they cited them for the reasons that I have presented? Scriptures are cited all the time for many different things, but that is a far cry from saying that therefore every aspect of grammar and syntax is understood in relation to other examples of like occurrences. Being AWARE of a passage has NOTHING to do with knowing all that might bear in ON that passage.

 

Ray went on:  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 referents, 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.

 

Wrench said:  Likewise, I will wait to comment on those verses, but, let me assure you, that now, since you make the complaints that you do about my “maverick” ways, I will take the “high” road and present what the WT has obviously offered on the area of John 1:3, and not the “possible” understandings that they have not elaborated on so maybe we can dispense with so much verbiage about the WT and what it requires of me in relation to exegesis. Beside, you are already familiar with the “other” explanations I have offered, so, you can choose which one you want to address, maybe both, because either interpretation can be shown to be valid as I hope to demonstrate.

 

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 anointed. 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.

 

Wrench replies: What Greg presents is not outside or in opposition to the teachings of the WT. He too, presents both explanations of John 1:3 in his book, and doesn’t land on either one conclusively. He also presents the reasons why he feels the WT has “hinted” at the possibility of the understanding that I have previously presented. You see, Ray, I try to use not only my brains, but all the brains I can borrow, too. When I say that the WT writes primarily for the rank and file, I mean they don’t generally write things from a highly technical Greek point of view. I wasn’t trying to remove Greg or myself or anyone from the status of rank and file, I was merely stating that as one reason why they have never presented the information as such because of the highly technical Greek aspects of what is presented. They probably don’t feel the need to as their presentation of such things as is, is certainly solid and valid as I hope to show.

 

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.

 

Wrench replies: I don’t regard what I am doing as “disobedient”. I think I am well within the framework of what is allowed. I am not in opposition to anything that they have written. They have not stated that we are only allowed to puppet what they have said in every regard, and nor do they expect that. I am extremely cautious when I present anything or at least I try to be. As long as we remain within the framework of the “truth” that they have determined, there can be more than one way to look at certain scriptures that properly support those “truths” and I think the facts bespeak that stance as I mentioned earlier.

 

Ray said:  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……

 

Wrench answers:  I haven’t commented on this because I haven’t read Greg’s response yet and don’t plan to for some time, I just don’t have the time to spare. I would have to familiarize myself with the whole line of thought before I comment. Besides, I would have to see if the WT would have a problem with that statement or not. Maybe by this time, they are in agreement with what Greg stated, I don’t know. But, as it is, I certainly didn’t use that info for anything, what I did use were scriptural examples that establish a point. I used scripture throughout my entire treatise. I appreciated the points about this that were touched on by Greg and Rolf and I formulated it into a presentation but you will notice I did not quote them for anything, I consistently quoted scripture to establish the arguments. So, it is not like I am in anyway violating scripture or valid exegesis or taking a stand against the WT’s position on this information. That is why I feel I am well within the bounds of what they allow. There treatment of Greg and Rolf and others who have written books of this nature bespeak that to be the case.   You know, you could ask Greg about this yourself and let me know what he says. He is only an email away.

 

Ray went on:..A similar situation to this occurred at Bethel about 20 years ago, I think, and it came to a head in the spring of 80. 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?

 

Wrench answers: Yes, I have. The warnings about running ahead are always in the context of taking an “opposing” view to what they have determined to be the true teachings of the scriptures.

 

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?

 

Wrench says: I think he was well within the bounds of what he would be allowed to do from their standpoint, as their treatment of both him and Rolf would establish. Rolf is very active within the organization and used quite frequently. Greg has many responsibilities in his home congregation. Greg and Rolf are not presenting the information they have in the format of being God’s appointed authority on the matter and neither am I.

 

3.       If, as you’ve shown here, it is possible to ascertain the “truth”, and disseminate 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!

 

Wrench replies: Greg did not establish the “truth” that Christ is a created being. The WT, by means of the Bible DID. What Greg has done is to show auxiliary evidence that supports and confirms what they have already found to be true. There is nothing wrong with that. Is it NEEDED? No. But the fact that it is not needed, does not mean that it is forbidden, otherwise Greg and Rolf would not be where they are and they would not be used in the manner they are used.

 

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’”!

 

Wrench responds: I explained what I meant by this phrase earlier.

 

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 disseminating it around the Slave? Are you sure you believe that the WT Society is God’s only channel?

 

Wrench says:  The WT is the only ORGANIZATION that God is using today to spearhead the true message of God’s Kingdom. They are the dispensers of truth and nothing we have done denies that if we stay within the framework of what is allowed. I believe we are within that framework. The WT does not claim inspiration and they study what is available about the original languages like anyone else. However. It is believed that God’s Spirit directs them in a prodding fashion to discern the truth. He doesn’t give them instant understanding in every area but ‘prods’ them in the proper direction to arrive at that correct understanding. That is no different then you feel about the way any individual gets the “truth”. It is how you would think YOU got what you think is the “truth”. Unless of course, you think you understood it all from the very beginning in your sojourn as a Christian.   The WT takes in the knowledge and then God WORKS with that knowledge, but the knowledge that they take in is not just WT invention, it is knowledge that has been accumulated by them AND what has been presented from the scholars and theologians before them. They “constantly” quote scholars to support the points they have found to be true. God continues to nudge them in the right direction through their own personal study and research into what ever is available from their own writings and the writings of others.

 

Ray said:  You mention calling the Watchtower Society, 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.

 

Wrench replies:  The WT already knows of Greg’s book so what is the point of telling them about it? I decided before I ever got on the net that I preferred to stay anonymous for various reasons, least of which is worrying about the WT. They know Greg and Rolf are both on the net and what have they done? They know others are on the net, too, and they know their names and how to get ahold of them, and what have they done except caution everyone to be extremely careful and to tell them that they don’t NEED these brothers to do such a thing, but it has NOT been forbidden. That tells me something about their stance that is different then the way you are presenting it. If they really wanted us to not do this AT ALL, it wouldn’t have been hard to just say it when they addressed it before.

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

 

Ray had said:  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 reveled in it, and written 365 tracts a year to defend it as a glorious and indispensable truth. And yet you tell me that you got it from Greg and this other guy…

 

Wrench replies:  And who is to say they wont yet disseminate the information once they feel inclined to do so? They’ve done it before so it appears from the example I mentioned earlier. They will no doubt be doubly sure before they do though.

 

Wrench had said:  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 diligent 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 is 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

 

 Ray says: Already dealt with above.

 

Wrench replies: Likewise, I hope.

 

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 replied:  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?

 

Wrench replies:  Well. I didn’t think you would view the WT as “scholarly”. When I spoke about from a scholarly view, I was in reference to those YOU would agree with as scholarly, and also the evidence straight from the pages of the Bible. I am beginning to realize that this WT angle is obviously your only defense when it come to me dismantling your “pendulum” verses because you have certainly not attempted to defeat my reasoning from any other source except the WT angle and somehow,  I think you would if you actually had the evidence to do so. So,  I am realizing that you are kind of forced to take this position with me in order for your proffed ‘pendulum’ scriptures not to fall by the wayside and you would be left with no convincung evidence to cause the natural reading of Rev 3:14 and Col. 1:15 to be overturned.

 

Ray said:  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!

 

Wrench replies: Just WHERE is the DISAGREEMENT? That hasn’t been clearly established at all.

 

Ray said :  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 re-framed treatise. But let’s get your own words of re-framing before us first…here’s what you say you are going to do…. 

 

Wrench says: 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.)))

 

Ray says: Very well, then...here we go: RRRR  

 

Wrench says:  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.

 

Wrench replies:  The Knowledge book is not sectioned off as you anticipated. It is a paragraph by paragraph publication that we use in our studies with individuals who are interested . I have shown you the section before that makes the comment in question but I will show you again. I don’t have any way to photocopy so I’ll have to just quote it for you. Here is the whole paragraph in question.  Knowledge (1995)-page 39-paragraph 13. Chapter “Jesus Christ-The Key to the Knowledge of God” “Jesus was called God’s “only-begotten Son” because Jehovah created him directly. (John 3:16) As “the firstborn of all creation,” Jesus was then used by God to create all other things. (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14) John 1:1 says that “the Word” (Jesus in is pre-human existence) was with God “in the beginning”. So the Word was with Jehovah when “the heavens and the earth” were created. God was addressing the Word when He said: “Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:1, 26) Likewise, the Word must have been God’s beloved “master worker,” described at Proverbs 8:22-31 as wisdom personified, laboring at Jehovah’s side in the making of all things. After Jehovah brought him into existence, the Word spent ages with God in heaven before becoming a man on earth.”

 

 Here is the significant piece that I see in this “latest” explanation. It first says that John 1:1 states that Jesus was “in the beginning” with God. It then cites Genesis 1:1 right after that as if those two references of “in the beginning” are the same. It is for that reason I feel well within my rights to say that it is possible for John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 to be the same time reference, and yes, that would be an updated understanding in regard to the Aid book which was written prior to this. I have not found anything written since then that would deny that understanding either. 

 

Ray said:  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 re-framing of your treatise. In fact the WT Society argues conclusively AGAINST such a restriction, unless they contradict themselves outright in the two publications. 

 

Wrench replies: One could simply be an updated explanation of the other. That DOES happen. Or,  it could be viewed as an alternate way of approaching that phrase “in the beginning”, as they have offered alternate ways of understanding certain passages in the past without demanding compliance to one view or the other, as long as both views do not contradict the basic “truth” at stake or as long as the explanantion does not violate the context and proper grammar and word meaning.

 

Ray continued:  For example, and I found this VERY interesting, Jehovah’s Witnesses see certain distinctive time points throughout 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’ 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. 

 

Wrench says:  I don’t.

 

Ray said:  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. 

 

Wrench responds: Then, yes, but have they offered an alternate way to look at things? I think they have. But, nonetheless, I can easily defend the position presented in the Aid Book as well, and it really doesn’t change much of anything. More on that below.

 

Ray said:   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!

 

Wrench replies:  I am sure at the time the NWT was prepared, that was the stronger position that they took, for it is the one that they elaborated on at different times. It is possible they simply mentioned Gen.1:1 at John 1:2 to show a “similarity” between the expressions. At this point, there is no way to know for sure, but with the Knowledge Book it appears to me the link is much stronger because of the way it connects the phrase “in the beginning” with both John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1. The WT doesn’t necessarily use ‘cross-references” in the NWT as connective teaching points. Many times it is used to show similar wordings without trying to identify one solidly with the other, so I am sure we can’t rely too much on the mere “cross-reference” connection.   I think you are simply hoping that I can’t defend the other position in relation to the “all things” of John 1:3, but I don’t think that is going to be a problem. In fact, it is nearly the same explanation as you will see.

 

Ray stated:  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. hmm …..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 with Jn. 1:1a…etc…

 

Wrench replies:  Not necessarily as I stated above. As well, the separation and the difference between the “cross-references” of John 1:1 and 1:2 could have been intentional to establish both possibilities separately without confusing the two.

 

Ray stated:  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 reference 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.

 

Wrench replies:  Well, at least you admit that they could have been offering an alternate way of looking at it. That is what I have been saying and that is why I feel I have the leaway to present it that way. And now for the BIG PROBLEM.

 

Ray stated:  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 referent. 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”. 

 

Wrench says:  But don’t you see that the alternate way of looking at this would also CHANGE THE PRECEDING TIME REFERENCE AS WELL. What is possibly being suggested in verse two is that the “beginning” is in reference to Gen. 1:1 and that necessarily runs backward to include the “beginning’ in John 1:1. The opposite way is also the same result. IF John 1:1 refers to “the very beginning of God’s creative works” then it necessarily means that for John 1:2. But both ways of looking at it present no problem.

 

 I have already presented my “preferred” understanding of this as you are well aware so let me present the other one so that you will see that there is still no problem in reference to the “all things” of verse 3.  If the “beginning” means the very start of God’s creative activity we first have to realize that this “beginning” had a START and an ENDING in relation to the event that constituted it.  You see, by the time the first THING, that makes up the “all things” of verse 3, came THROUGH the Word, the event known as the “beginning”(the creation of the Son) had concluded. “In the beginning” was a segment of time in which the Logos was created. That time segment concluded before the “all things” commenced coming THROUGH the Word who was already there, being created during the segment of time known as “in the beginning”.  Therefore, the “all things”, without exception, that came through the Word are “all things” AFTER the time segment known as “in the beginning” had concluded with the completion of the creating of the Son and his existence with his Father for who knows how long before the commencement of “all things” were created THROUGH him by God. I think you would agree that the phrase “all things” is many times context dependent as I certainly believe that it is here. The Word obviously already had to be in existence before the “all things” could proceed THROUGH him. He came into existence during the time of “in the beginning” by means of creation by God. That time period elapsed and then the context-dependent “all things” came THROUGH the Logos.

 

Ray stated:  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 referents 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?

 

Wrench says:  Well, as I said before, cross-references are not necessarily connected to show a solid connection between the two verses but sometimes to show a remote connection or just similar phrases, but, with the explanation offered above, then there would certainly be a synynomous connection between the “all things” of both scriptures. Both of them referring to “all things” that came THROUGH the Word.

 

Ray said:  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.

 

Wrench replies: I hope I have demonstrated why this is isn’t an iron-clad conclusion.

 

Ray stated:  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?

 

Wrench answers: I fully understand both views and have presented them to you. It is your choice as to which one you want to attack, or both.

 

Ray stated:  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?

 

Wrench answers:  Yes, but then again, things do change.

 

Ray stated:  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 23rd, 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.

 

Wrench says:  I believe I have resolved it.

 

Ray stated:  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?

 

Wrench says:  I believe this has also been resolved.

 

Wrench stated:  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?

 

Ray said:   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?

 

Wrench replies:  I believe the explanations above have satisfied these tensions that you present. When I was asking you: “Could you please explain to me from a scholarly point of view why Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 can't connect?” I was in reference to scholars OTHER THAN the WT. Do you have any thing from them to refute the connection? As well, Ray, how do you, personally feel about the connection? I’ve asked this before.

 

Ray stated:  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?

 

Wrench replies:  I have sent the only pertinent information that is contained in that publication. I have offered both ways of looking at the “in the beginning” phrase so there should no longer be a need to try to beat me over the head with the WT any longer. Although, I’m sure you will, if you can think of a way.

 

Ray stated:  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?

 

 Wrench says:  Well. It’s certainly their choice as to what they want to cross-reference and where they do so. I am sure there are a lot of other places where Genesis 1:1 is cross-referenced that are not in turn cross-referenced at Genesis 1:1. That doesn’t detract from the connection in the least. Genesis 1:1 is cross-referenced with 39 other verses in the Bible, yet none of those verses appear at Genesis 1:1 to be cross-referenced back. It obviously is not an indication that they don’t connect.

 

Ray stated:  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 ? 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)

 

Wrench says:  I hope both explanations have been presented clearly enough for you to answer these things for yourself. You say that the reason they didn’t cross-reference John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 back in the Genesis reference column was because they would have been embarrassed. Did they forget that embarrassment when they came to John 1:2?

 

Ray stated:  Ok, I’m sure I have established beyond a reasonable doubt the battle you end up with between you and the WT Society. Let me state it one more time for good measure: Whereas the WT posits an intervening period between the beginning of John 1:1__________and the beginning of Gen. 1:1,  a period in which they say the creation of the spirit creatures occurred (including the angels), you have overlooked this intervening barrier and have attempted to connect up the beginning of John 1:1 with the beginning in Gen. 1:1. That… plus your claim that the “all things” of Jn. 1:3 must be restricted only to the physical creation leaves no place or time for the creation of the spirit creatures such as angels. See If you can squeeze’m in somewhere Wrench ;-) Also, please answer why the NWT did not cross-reference Gen.1:1 with John 1:1, if you say they are to be connected up. I’ve already shown that their attempt to cross-reference Gen. 1:1 with John 1:2 was quite arbitrary and in complete violence to the smoooth flow of context this section shows from one verse to the next. (remember the pronoun “houtos” and its contextual antecedent?).

 

Wrench replies:  I have demonstarted why I don’t see myself or Greg or Rolf or any other JW that is busy doing like things as having a BATTLE with the WT. I have also offered both explanations which present no problems with the phrase “all things”. I do not see John 1:3 as having sufficient weight whatsoever to swing one away from the natural reading of Rev. 3:14. To demand a different understanding of Rev. 3:14 because of John 1:3 is simply a demand without the authoritative weight to do so. It is therefore a demand based upon personal conviction. It is NOT a pendulum scripture because it is easily accounted for from our point of view.

 

Ray stated:  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 a lot 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 Wrench says:  This has been commented on above.

 

Ray stated:  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.

 

Wrench responds:  I do not see the necessity of Paul’s iteration of the all things as unambiguously referring to ALL creation because as I have mentioned, “all things” is many times context-dependent. Again, as I mentioned in the latter explanation of John 1:3, the “all things” are those things, without exception, that came THROUGH the Son. There is no reason for anyone to demand that the “all things” are synonymous” with the “all creation” in verse 15. Many times, when “all things” is used in scripture, it is used in a way that excludes the one in the context. Let me demonstrate what I mean.  Mt 26:35 Peter is mentioned in the same context as PANTES the disciples. However, this does not mean that Peter was not also a disciple. Peter is also included. The NIV here adds "other" to reflect this and to smooth out the English translation effectively translating PANTES as all the other.   Matthew 26:35 NIV But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

 

Wrench continues:  Mt 13:32 The mustard seed is mentioned with the class of PANTWN the seeds. Does this mean that the mustard seed is not a seed? No. The New American Standard Versions reflect that understanding in their translations Matthew 13:32 NAS and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES. "  Matthew 13:32 NAB and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES." 

 

 Lu 3:19 Herod's taking of his brother's wife is mentioned in connection with PANTWN Herod's Evil deeds. This would not mean that the taking of his brother's wife was not also an evil deed. Luke 3:19 NIV But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and all the other evil things he had done,  

 

Luke 11:42 The mint and rue were garden herbs (or, vegetables) and are mentioned in context with PAN the garden herbs. This would not except the mint and rue from being garden vegetables. They are also included.  Luke 11:42 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.  

 

Luke 13:2 Here the Galileans in the subject are of the same class as PANTAS the Galileans. In English a translator might choose to use "other" to show that understanding and to smooth out the translation. Luke 13:2 NIV Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?  Luke 13:2 NAS And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate?  Luke 13:2 NAB And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?  Luke 13:2 NRS He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?  Luke 13:2 NKJ And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things?  

 

Wrench continues:  Luke 13:4 Luke 13:4 GNT hH ekeinoi hoi dekaoktw ef hous epesen ho purgos en tw Silwam kai apekteinen autous, dokeite hoti autoi ofeiletai egenonto para PANTAS tous anqrwpous tous katoikountas Ierousalhm;  Luke 13:4 NKJ "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 

 

1Cor 6:18 Immortality (or fornication) is mentioned in the immediate context with PAN sins. I appreciate all the responses I received in response to my post on this verse. The conclusion is that fornication is also a sin and included in the category of "sins" 1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.  1 Corinthians 6:18 NAS Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.  1 Corinthians 6:18 NAB Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.  

 

1Cor 15:27 In the following, TA PANTA grammatically includes God himself in the context who did the subjecting. But evidently to avoid any misunderstanding, Paul explicitly excepted God. This explicit exception would not have been necessary if it were grammatically unambiguous. However, even if Paul did not except God explicitly, a reader using reasonableness should know to except God anyway. But the grammar itself allows for ambiguity. 1 Corinthians 15:27 NAB  For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.   In conclusion, TA PANTA grammatically may or may not include the one in the context. In other words, one cannot make a theological statement about the one in the context. I suppose one could, but they should do so with knowledge of the weakness of the statement.

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

 

Ray had said:  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 first Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5…

 

Wrench replies:  But David got the status as a result of being PLACED as firstborn. The status is a connotation that comes along with the MEANING of the word. It is not an actual meaning of the word but a connotation that comes along with it. If it is actually a valid definition of the word, why then do we never see it translated as such in any bible or lexicon, at least the ones I’ve seen? From what I have seen, “prototokos” is invariably rendered as “firstborn”. But, I really don’t even have to argue the meaning of the word, because that does nothing to overturn the fact that “prototokos followed by a genitive” is always a part of the group OF the genitive”. There are no exceptions to that regardless of what the word means, and to say that one is the “pre-eminent” of all men would not mean that they were not a man but would actually indicate that they were. You still have NO valid example from the scriptures that shows an exception to this type of occurence, so to take a stand against the results of that kind of occurence is an unprecedented position in relation to the scriptural occurences of that syntax.

 

Ray continued:  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.”

 

 Ray continues:  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 2nd 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

 

Wrench says:  I think from what has been presented, both are still very much in tact as weighing heavily against the Trinitarian interpretation. You must admit,  that the trinitarian position is unprecedented in relation to “arche” followed by a genitive and the way that should naturally be read and you must admit that their position is unprecedented in relation to “prototokos” followed by a genitive phrase and the way that should naturally be read. You have appealed to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 as being heavy enough to swing this solidly established precedent into a different meaning but I have seen no evidence to that even beginning to secure such a thought, especially when Trinitarian after Trinitarian admits that the language of both John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 presents Christ as the intermediary agent in those verses. One of the meanings of agent is “INSTRUMENT” and that smacks exactly with what we have said all along. God used Christ as his instrument in creation. They simply do not weigh heavily enough to cause an overturning of the natural flow of those two verses mentioned and we haven’t even talked about Proverbs 8:22 which, MOST Trinitarians (from what I have read) admit, refers to Christ.

 

Ray stated:  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).

 

Wrench replies:  Well, I think I have presented much more Trinitarian thought that needs to be dealt with. Some concur that “source” is an improper definition for “arche” and is highly controversial. Many also recognize the validity of the natural meaning of those words which is echoed by every other example in the Bible of arche followed by a genitive. As well, even if “ruler” was appealed to, that would not remove Christ from the category of belonging to creation. If I tell you that you are the ruler of men, you are still a man. Besides, Beckwith acknowledges something in this regard that is interesting. Notice what he says:  Page 489 in his Apocalypse of John he states:  “Some take arche in our passage (Rev. 3:14) to mean Head, Lord; but for that idea ‘archon’ would be used, cf. 1:5”  Now why did Beckwith say that “archon” would be used when he knew that “arche” is used that way elsewhere? He evidently realizes as I pointed out that John NEVER uses “arche” in that sense. He even cites John at Rev 1:5 to demonstrate his point that John uses a different word for “ruler”. So, even if one wanted to go with “ruler”, which wouldn’t disqualify him from being a creation, they would still have to take a completely unprecedented stand in relation to the way John uses the word everywhere else.   It seems as though these Trinitarians cancel each other out, leaving our understanding the most reasonable and with the “weight” of the pendulum being removed, there is nothing to make it swing the other way.

 

Ray stated:  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.

 

Wrench says: Covered above.

 

Ray stated:  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 boundaries (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…

 

Wrench says:  Covered above.

 

Ray statd:  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 re-framed 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.

 

Wrench replies:  I think from what has been presented, the first two witnesses are on very solid ground and the unprecedented stand of the trinitarian again puts them out on the cracking limb of interpretation. I believe the problem for the Trinitarian interpretation will grow in regard to the third witness of Proverbs 8:22.  Thank you too, Ray, for not many people are willing to stick this long to something that can be so grueling at times. I appreciate all your time and your efforts and I will be patiently awaiting your responses.  Agape, Wrench 

 

P.S. I will let you know where to send the stuff later. I am still making arrangements for that.        Wrench in the Works