Biblical Discussions

To Ray-The Son of God Created-Part 1 Sunday, 23-Apr-2000 10:28:42  Hi Ray:  Oh boy , is this thing ever long.  Shall we begin? My recent comments are in blue.  You stated:   I would agree with your statement if we approach the issue like a side blinded team of Amish horses with tunnel vision. In other words, with a confused sense of priorities. If we overlook that the expression in Rev 3:14 is attributive and not predicate of itself, and placed in apposition, and if we overlook that your numerous examples do not contain the same referents (Christ and all creation) and subject material (relationship between Christ and all creation at the beginning), and if we thus restrict ourselves to a such criterion of judgment, we could indeed regard the orthodox view as "unprecedented".  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ My, you do like to exaggerate, don’t you. I see you explain later what you mean about attributive and not predicate of itself, so I will address those concerns later. What do you mean when you say it is in apposition. I am not familiar with this so if you want to get more Greek on me you are going to have to explain. If I were to venture a guess, I would say that none of those things mentioned necessitate us reading the phrase under discussion any differently. Am I right? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

On the other hand,  if we approach the issue with a proper set of priorities, and thus look to see what the teaching of the New Testament is on this particular subject (elsewhere), we shall have to conclude with the general consensus of reliable scholarship that the NT elsewhere clearly shows that Christ was NOT the first of Jehovah's creations, but actually pre-existed all creation (John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17).  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I agree that we must take all that the scriptures say on any matter to be conclusive, but, I am sure as you know, so far, the two scriptures you reference have not been shown to weigh heavily enough against the natural reading of Rev. 3:14 OR Col. 1:15, to cause anyone to read them in an unprecedented manner. But, much more on this later. It’s interesting how you conclude that my priorities are the wrong ones and yours are the right ones when I think it is obvious that the things I present are PART of what ALL the scriptures demonstrate concerning those phrases and the way they naturally read. So, although, they are not specifically speaking about Christ’s relationship to creation, they certainly give a criteria for how those phrases are naturally understood. I don’t see how you can promote the idea that they are of no concern, to the degree of comparing their significance to a side-blinded horse with tunnel vision. Me thinks you protest too much. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

It is important to note that each of these two examples presents clear predication of the subject material, thus John 1:3 makes the statement two different ways to prevent confusion....it first says positively that all things "came into existence" THRU the logos, and then seals it by stating negatively that there were no exceptions to this (not even one!). Thus the logos is distinguished from all creation without exception at the beginning, and that by priority of existence. Then Col 1:16-17 says the same thing just as clearly, even stipulating things visible and invisible. So clear was this that even the NWT translators could not allow it to stand as Paul said it. So, Wrench, if we approach Rev 3:14 with the right set of priorities, the orthodox interpretation will have the precedence, and the appositional expression in Rev 3:14 should be taken in conformity with it.  

 

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

Well, I don’t see John 1:3 the way you do, obviously. The “all things’ came THROUGH Christ without exception, with that, we both agree, but, we disagree as to what the “all things” constitutes, or do we? (more on that later) Now, obviously, the “all things” does not include Christ, again, we would agree, but we disagree as to the reason he is not included. Again, it is evident that Christ PRE-EXISTED the “all things”, otherwise they could not come THROUGH him, again we would agree, but we would disagree as to how far back Christ pre-existed the ‘all things’. So. As far as the way we both read the verse 3 we agree as to the natural way that it reads. The “all things’, without exception came through Christ, who pre-existed the “all things”. So, I don’t see me reading anything unnatural in to that phrase at all. Where the difference comes in, is in relation to the “beginning” and what it means and HOW it affects the context. I think it is quite obvious that the “all things” came THROUGH Christ after the “beginning” elapsed. There is nothing unnatural in looking at it that way.

 

 The “really” big difference is what we believe the “beginning” was. I believe that the beginning was that period of time, which had a beginning and an end of it’s own, in which God created the Son. Once that beginning ended, then came the “context dependent” all things THROUGH the Son. I see absolutely nothing unnatural about the way that reads.  You say I am “asserting” this position without proof, but let me remind you of what it is I “have” to do in relation to John 1:3. Contrary to your insistence that I have to absolutely prove that the interpretation I offer is the correct one, all I really have to do is to demonstarte that it does not carry a Trinitarian force behind it strong enough to overturn the natural reading of Rev. 3:14. You have stated that the scholars and what-not evidently felt that John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 were so solid for a Trinitarian interpretation that they were “heavy” enough to cause one to interpret Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 in the “light” of those two scriptures. What I have demonstrated, without corrupting any natural reading of John 1: 3 is that it does not possess that kind of Trinitarian “weight” behind it. (I believe that is also true in the wau we read Col. 1:16, but much more on that below) I don’t have to prove it at all, Ray. I just have to show that it isn’t strong enough to overturn the natural reading of “beginning of the creation by God”.

 

That is what you were relying on in order to not accept the the interpretation that JW’s have of Revelation 3:14. You were counting on John 1:3 being understood “naturally” only one way, your way, but what I have shown, and I have done so without appealing to any unprecedented elements, without destroying the natural meaning of the words, and well within the bounds of grammar and syntax, I have shown, that really, are far as verse 3 is concerned, we both read it the same way. We differ as to whether “all things” means “everything created”, but as far as the way the sentence reads, it’s not much different. The real difference in our understanding is the phrase “in the beginning” and the effect that it has on the rest of the passage, as I explained above.  (I understand that the Trinitarian interpretation might be a way of looking at those verses but that interpretation is far from a “given”, it is far from a necessity to see it that way, and because of that, John 1:3 is far from making any natural reading of “beginning of all creation” to be overturned. As I have stated before and will state again, it is not a “pendulum” scripture as you and others have hoped it to be.)  The reason, again, that the “all things” does not include “everything that was made” is because it doesn’t go so far as to say that. Now, as you have noted, some translations read that way, but we know that is not an absolute by a long shot and many Trinitarians and translations acknowledge the NWT reading as the correct one anyway. So, the verse did not say with any certainty “and apart from him not even one thing came into existence that HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE”. What it says is “all things without exception came through the Word”, but, that pre-supposes the existence of the Word, which you agree upon, so again, the real problem is, did the Word exist eternally or was he created. I am saying, and now that you have made me analyze this interpretation fully, I’m not so sure that it is not the more valid way of looking at it, that the phrase “in the beginning” is the “beginning of God’s creation”, which according to Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22, read in their most natural manner, is the creation of the Son of God.  (Please take note that from here on out I’m not trying to promote the idea that the “all things” is John 1:3 is just the “physical creation”. You wanted me to take the high road and agree fully with the WT, so that is what I am doing. Not that I think the other explanation is no longer a consideration, because I do, but, I think I can now see that the explanation I am currently offering, the one you have been wanting me to offer all along, is really quite adequate and answers all the tensions very well. I suppose I should thank you for your persistence because in all of this I’ve learned something.)  I’m sure you are going to complain that this argument concerning John 1:3 is circular when I use Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22 to support the belief that the “beginning” is the creation of Christ, since these are the very scriptures that are being questioned, but, frankly, I don’t see how this discussion can’t become some what circular for there are only so many scriptures that deal with the Son’s connection and relationship to creation, and it is those very scriptures that we have to use to figure what that relationship is. I don’t see it any more circular then when you say that Rev. 3:14 can’t remain in it’s natural state of understanding because of John1:3 and Colossians 1:16, when the very understanding of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 are also under question. Circularity does not necessarily mean error, so many times, if the argument is necessarily somewhat circular, as this one will probably remain so, you have to go with where the weight of the evidence leads you. And the way I see the weight of that evidence is like this:  (This is just a brief summary. Detailed discussions of these will follow either in this post or subsequent posts)  Rev. 3:14 I see as weighing heavily in our favor from a grammatical, syntactical and phraseological point of view. (I realize of course you disagree because of John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, but I will talk about those in a minute.)  Colossians 1:15 I see as again weighing heavily in our favor from grammar, word meaning, syntax and phraseologically.(Colossian 1:16 below)  Proverbs 8:22 I see as weighing again heavil;y in our favor since most Trinitarians that I have read on the subject agree that it refers to Christ and because of the consistent, exceptionless meaning given to “qanah”.   John 1:1-3 I see as a passage that could be taken either way but I see things in the context and other lexical problems with the way trinitarians interpret the verse. (For instance, the difference in meaning between the first God and the second god that they must employ in order to retain their doctrine). If this verse were alone in revealing the Son’s connection with creation, I don’t think we could do much to settle the question. I think there are still some grammatical considerations left to consider about this verse, concerning intermediate agency, which I will address later in this post. I don’t see this as a Trinitarian plus by any means.  Col. 1:16 I see as very much in the same way as I see John 1:3, but because of the qualifying statement in verse 15 that Christ is “part” of creation, at least according to all the examples of “prototokos” in a genitive phrase, I have even less concern over this being a Triunitarian stronghold. Verse 16 by itself wouldn’t really “settle” the issue for Trinitarians because again of the intermediate agency that it puts the Son in, and also because of that fact that Trinitarians themselves admit that the phrase in 15 could be partitive, as you have admitted. I think that in itself plays a crucial role as to whether the “all creation” and “all things” are identical. I will address those things more fully later in this post. But, all considered so far, I don’t see this as a Trinitarian plus either, even less so than John 1:3.  Hebrews 1:2 we haven’t talked about much, but I don’t see this as very helpful to the Trinitarian cause either since the Son is again obviously the agent of creation rather than the active cause.  1 Cor. 8:6 I see as no help whatsoever to the Trinitarian side of the issue even when it is compared to Romans 11:36 but this is still yet to be discussed in detail which I will address later in this post. I just wanted to give you a quick glance at my thoughts on these things. Details will follow where necessary.  Now, it seems to me that we are going to have to solve the problems we are faced with primarily with the scriptures that I mention above, because as far as I have seen, these are the ones that deal with creation, God and the Son all in the same context. Obviously they are going to be used to bolster each other on both sides of the argument, so things are just going to be a little circular. I see no way out of it.  Anyway, when I look at the above scriptures, and when I think of the way I approach any question of doctrine, I always interpret the non-absolutes in the light of the absolutes. Or maybe I should say, I interpret the ambiguous contexts and scriptures in the light of things which are not ambiguous. Or maybe even more accurately than that, I interpret the ambiguous things in the light of the “less” ambiguous things. I do not see ambiguity in Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22 for the reasons that I have outlined in my treatise. When it comes to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 and the others that you have offered in defense, I see ambiguity galore. That is why, in my honest opinion, you don’t have a case. But, I also know we are not done yet either, so, I will resist being too dogmatic at this point. More on John 1:3 later and Col. 1:16 below. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

You seem to be taken up with a non sequitur based on what you see as a consistent pattern. Thus you use expressions like "everywhere else..."...or "EVERY OTHER TIME", with regard to "arche with the genitive". However, the conclusion you reach is non sequitur because the pattern, no matter how consistent it seems, cannot negate or overrule the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere. And we must recall that even the WT Society has not relied on or used yours (or Greg's) argumentation in the past, and they would have no natural bias against it since they teach the same conclusion. Therefore I don't think the scholars have "missed" what you think they have, rather they have simply recognized that clear, unambiguous, and predicated statements of scripture elsewhere (like John 1:3 & Col 1:15-17) carry the day.  Obviously we will go into this more deeply later in this letter.  

 

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

Yes, I’m sure we will. But, as I mentioned above, I see plenty of ambiguity in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16. I think I have outlined my reasons concerning John 1:3 clearly above, but we will discuss this again below as well. Col. 1:16 will be addressed below, too. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

As a loyal witness you should be eager to stick with the WT since you SAY you consider them God's authority on such matters. What was it Jesus said about "honoring me with their lips"? And so you say you trust them as a safe guide, but you couldn't prove it by me so far in our discussion.  

 

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

All I can say is that you are mistaken about what you have surmised as to my feelings toward the WT. More below. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  ?

 

Watch as you haggle and boggle over your previous attempt to connect up "the beginning" of Gen 1:1 with "the beginning" of John 1:1 in order to sustain your attempt to restrict the "all things" of John 1:3 to only the physical universe. I brought it to your attention that any attempt to connect up these two beginnings opposes the WT's teaching that there was an interval of time between them during which the creation of the spirit angels occurred. Note:  $$$$$$ ". I don’t want you to think that I am somehow opposed to the explanation of John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 being different time references, because I am not. I simply happen to think that them being the same time reference makes more sense TO ME. I have offered that to you and you have objected by means of appealing to the WT as being in disagreement with me, who I claim to uphold as God’s authority on these matters. That disagreement, as I hope to show, is debatable in itself, but, regardless, don’t be fooled into thinking that I can’t defend the position that you say the WT is insistent upon, that being John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 are referring to “different” time references with the phrase “in the beginning”. I can defend it just as easily as the position that I personally prefer, in fact, you may find that it doesn’t require much “tweaking” at all to simply “shift” to the other position, because it is certainly valid and defendable. I just happen to think that the explanation I have offered makes better sense to ME. But, more on this later as we continue." $$$$$$$   Ray replies: As we shall see in a bit the problem for you lies in your attempt to restrict the "all things" of John 1:3 to just the physical universe in order to escape the clear and unambiguous language that the logos pre-existed all creation. Since the passage actually states no exceptions, this could only mean that the first thing that ever came into existence did so THRU him. So your motivation for wanting to place a restriction on the "all things" is exceedingly obvious. More on this later...  

 

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

Well, according to your wish, I am no longer trying to link the two together, nor am I trying to say that the “all things” is just physical creation, so, the point is a little moot from here on out.  You mention time and time again in this post about clearing up this problem with the WT between me and the things I have presented in the “other” explanation. I will address those things at the appropriate places below, but please take note that I am no longer offering that explanation, according to your wish.

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

 

After clarifying my meaning about exactly how Christ has identified with creation as a result of John 1:14, you make further inquiry as follows:  $$$$$$ "However, I would like to inquire further if you don’t mind. First, I am wondering, other than the possibility of Col. 1:15-17 implying to you that Christ was considered a ‘creation” (in the manner you describe), what other scripture do you know of that ACTUALLY CALLS Christ a “creation”? What I mean is, it appears that this would be the only one that does so. Although you mention Phil. 2 as calling him a servant and a man, it doesn’t actually speak of him as “included” in creation. It doesn’t call him a creature or a creation. Is there a scripture other than Col. 1:15-17 (possibly, as you say), that actually calls Christ a creation via his incarnation in the flesh?" $$$$$$$$  Not that I'm aware of with that specific term, but then again I'm not aware of that specific term being applied to lots of creatures the bible talks about. Such is the importance of context when it comes to interpretation. The bible records where in the past some angels took the human appearance, but they did not do so through the birth process, and so we know that they were not truly human by nature. Thus the logos became truly human by nature (John 1:14) and we agree that all true humans possess the nature of a creature, do we not? Yet the bible teaches us that this creature is unique in that he had a pre-existence as "theos" (John 1:1c), and in the same context it tells us plainly that all creation without exception came into existence thru Him (John 1:3...Col 1:16-17), thus setting Him apart from the whole category of creation relative to the beginning. So balancing the Scripture we see how he pre-existed all creation in the beginning, and yet entered the category taking on the nature of a creature when he "became flesh" (John 1:14, Phil 2). He could thus identify with BOTH sides, and so be a sympathetic and proper mediator between them, for only He knows what it's like to actually be both. Gabriel couldn't have done that. Why? Because although he may have been able to become truly human and know what that's like, he could never know what it's like to be truly God. When the truth of this hits you between your eyes, Wrench, you will be stricken to your knees, as Saul was on the road to Damascus... and I guarantee that no earthly organization will ever take it from you! Consider Thomas as he was suddenly delivered from a state of unbelief, and could not contain himself as he peered into the Master's eyes, he blurted out "and said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28)...and note the capital "G" in the NWT :-)   Interestingly, note also in Phil 2... how Paul uses the metaphor "slave/servant" (doulou) in reference to Christ becoming truly human, and then being obedient even "unto death". The same metaphor is used in Rev 19 and 22 to depict an angel in a context where creature worship is expressly denied. The angel is identified as a "fellow slave (or servant..doulos)" with men, thus a fellow creature. So John is warned that creature worship is a no no....and he is instead admonished to "worship God". When Christ took the nature of a "slave/servant", this is when he became a creature, for obviously he wasn't a slave before he became one, right? But who was he before he became truly human? The bible says He was "theos" and also that He pre-existed all creation (John 1:1c; John 1:3; Col 1:16-17), and that makes Him TRUE theos, doesn't it? Sure it does, for only true God exists before all creation.  

 

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

Actually no, Ray. It says he pre-existed “all things”, not all creation, specifically. We both agree that the Son pre-existed all things. We both agree that the “all things” came through him and we both agree that the all things do not include him. As you say, that is the natural way to read the words of verse 3. We simply disagree as to the reason that the all things do not include him. You say it is because he is the Creator and that the words MUST include anything that was made. You appeal to the words that you say are generally appended to verse 3 “that was made” as more evidence for your interpretation but you must have forgot that many Trinitarians agree with the rendering of NWT. (JB, NAB, NEB, RS ftnote). You claim that the NWT “solved” the problem in an interesting way. You failed mention that these Trinitarians agree with that rendering, some even suggesting it as the stronger rendering. (NAB) What were these Trinitarians trying to “solve”, Ray?  You claim that regardless, the words state negatively what they just stated positively, so, according to you, this HAS to include all creation. But, it really necessitates no such thing, Ray. All it tells us, positively and negatively, is that there were no exceptions in the all things that came through the Son. Can’t you see that the word “through” already presupposes his existence? Well, yes, you can, because you believe that, too. The “all things” are “all things” after the beginning took place, Ray. This is exactly like the “former” explanation, only the “beginning”, instead of refering to the beginning of just the “physical creation”, it refers to the “beginning” which is the “creation” of the Son, which is attested to by Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22. The all things, which we know is context dependent, are “all things”, again, that came after the point in time known as “in the beginning”. Hardly anything changes from one explanation to the next, except the definition of what the beginning is. The “all things” that came into existence without exception through the Son, are “all things” that were brought about “AFTER” the “BEGINNING” had elapsed. There is nothing unnatural or stretched in order to look at this verse that way. The “all things” include “all things” after the “beginning”, which was the creation of the Son. I see you as having the same problem with this explanation as you did with Greg’s, and your only defense against Greg’s presentation was the fact that you have figured that it is in disagreement with the WT. Well, since this agreement is not in conflict with the WT, that certainly can’t be your objection. Again, John 1:3 does not hold sufficient weight to overturn the threefold natural readings and word meanings of the three scriptures I offered in my treatise.

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

 

Ok, Wrench, I pointed out that the Trinitarian view can easily accomodate the expression "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15), 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. This reminder apparently sounded an alarm inside your mind, for you react in the following way: "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." You then quote your response to my recent question about whether you regard the "all things" of Col 1:16 as being restricted to only the physical universe as you've recently attempted to maintain with the same expression in John 1:3. But my statement about your admitting that the "all things" is all creation, was not based on this answer alone, but on something you admitted in an earlier letter. I noticed it then and brought it to your attention. I knew it would be important to remember...and now we see why. Let's take a look at your letter dated 11-29-99 (your first response to me). I refer back to this in my letter dated 12-01-99 as follows:  “In seeking to prove your point, you refer to the "hoti clause" in verse 16. I do not want to misrepresent you so I will actually paste your words here...."Verse 16 is telling us the BECAUSE behind the title "firstborn of all creation". He is among creation BECAUSE of the fact that, word for word from Greek to English, "in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth, the (things) visible and the (things) invisible..." I'm sorry I must disagree with your understanding of this verse. It actually DISTINGUISHES him from all creation, for notice what Paul goes on to say in verse 17: "Also, he is before all things...". So, if he's before all things..all things were made "by means of" him...we must admit that he being distinguished from all creation by priority of existence (before). So you have misunderstood the hoti clause by failing to pay attention to the context. I'm heartened that you recognize that all things here refers to all creation, though, for this is a very important point, as we shall soon see.  The hoti clause indeed provides the REASON for the application of the title, its just not what you want. The reason is because he was BEFORE all things...in other words he was DIRECTLY responsible for the creation of all things (hands on--Heb 1:10)., just as we see in John 1:3 "all things came into existence through him, and without him did not even one thing come into existence that has come into existence."   Notice above that you base your conclusion that He was the first creation (your claim as to the meaning of "firstborn of all creation") on the hoti clause in verse 16. You say "Verse 16 is telling us that BECAUSE of the fact that, word for word from Greek to English, 'in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth, the (things) visible and the (things) invisible...' Then I disagreed with you pointing out that the passage actually distinguishes him from all creation by priority of existence. Then I said the following:  "I'm heartened that you recognize that all things here refers to all creation, though, for this is a very important point, as we shall soon see."  This was back in my letter of 12-01-99, and so as early as 11-29-99 you actually based your belief that "firstborn" means first creation on the hoti clause in verse 16, while maintaining the connection between verses 15-16-and 17. However, were this true, it would place the Apostle Paul in outright contradiction to himself from one verse to the next. In verse 15 you would have him place Christ as the first of all creation, but in verse 16 you would have him denying that he's to be numbered among them. I simply pointed out back then that Paul is actually distinguishing him from the whole category in verse 16 and 17 by priority of existence (before).  Now, in your recent answer to my question, we must keep in mind what the question was , and why I asked it. In your attempt to accomodate the language in John 1:3 by restricting the "all things" to only the physical universe (Gen 1:1), I was naturally curious as to what you would say about the same expression in Col 1:16-17. You must have seen that you could not restrict the "all things" in Col 1:16 to just the physical universe because it flat out says "visible and invisible". And so you decided to suck it right up and declare boldly that they are not the same. Note how you worded yourself: "Whereas Christ is included among the "all creation" by being firstborn of that class, I do not believe he is included among the "all things" that came THROUGH him for the obvious reasons." Please excuse me, friend, for you seem to be taking back with one hand what you had just given with the other. For the JW who takes the phrase "firstborn of all creation" as meaning "first of that category", you cannot BASE that conclusion on the hoti clause of verse 16 and at the same time deny that He's to be numbered among them. You cannot have it both ways.  

 

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

I have read the above two or three times, Ray, and I am still having a hard time deciphering exactly what the confusion is. Let me go through this agian in realtion to Colossian 1:15 and see if this helps. Verse 15 tells us that Christ is part of creation, of that, I am convinced, and nothing you have said undermines that, especially when you admit that in a “special” way, you could agree. (More about that “special” way later). Now, when the “all things” comes up, it must be understood in the light of what verse 15 just stated, that Christ is part of creation, one way or another. I listed numerous examples of how “pantas” could be supplied with the word “other” as it happens in other translations as well. In response to these examples you say that Col. 1:16 is different because it doesn’t make it obvious, as did the other verses, that the first referent was a part of the group. However, I beg to differ, because that is exactly what verse 15 does. Let me explain it this way.  In each of the cases I cited you stated that there was no argument as to whether the first referent was a part of the group mentioned, whereas there was a big argument as to whether Christ was or not. First of all, I don’t think the argument is that big since you yourself admit that in a “special” sense it could be including him among creation, regardless of whether we settle the “first one of creation” issue or not at this juncture. We both agree that the words could place him among the creation that is spoken of, right? I certainly agree and you admit the possibility. I also notice that Grimm himself considers Col. 1:15 partitive asdoes Nigel Turner. The problem I have with this then is, if you admit that he could be among creation (specially), how can you say that the “all things” then discards him from creation in the very next breath if you also think that the “all things” and the “all creation” are identical? I do not happen to think that the “all things” are identical with the “all creation” and I believe the NWT translators inserted the word ‘other’ to be sure no one would confuse the two. I don’t see it as a left-handed admission that they felt the “all things” would naturally be “all creation”, by their inserting of the ‘other’. I believe that the verse could have stood without the “other” in there just as readily because there is no reason to conclude that the “all things”, which are context dependent, are identical with the “all creation”. Again, I believe God’s choice of words were for a purpose. Could he not have simply repeated the words “all creation” in verse 16 instead of saying “all things”? He certainly could have, but he didn’t, and, again, I think it to be for a reason. The “all things” are all things that came through the “firstborn” of all creation. Again, I see a time indicator involved, as is in John 1:1-3. After the firstborn of all creation, the “all things” came through that “firstborn”. Again, we agree that the “all things” do not include the Son. We disagree as to WHY the Son is not included. You say his exclusion removes him from “all creation”, but you contradict yourself and Grimm and others surely contradict you when they admit that Col. 1:15 is partitive. Can’t you see that if 15 is partitive that there is no way for the Trinitarian to hold to the view that the “all creation” is therefore identical with the “all things”? More on this below. I say his exclusion removes him from the “all things” which are JUST those things that came THROUGH him, NOT all creation. We agree that the “all things” came THROUGH the Son, which presupposes his existence. Why did he exist? Because verse 15 tells us he was part of creation. I see verse 15 as giving the reason why he is not included among the “all things”, that being he was already a part of creation by being the firstborn, which again, predominantly means the “first one in sequence”. I see nothing unnatural or twisted in reading that passage in that manner. Where does it violate the words used? Where is the unambiguous Trinitarian stronghold in this scripture to cause us to read “firstborn of creation” to not be a ‘partitive genitive’, or to cause us to read Rev. 3:14 differently then the way it naturally reads whether it is in apposition, or attributive or not predicate if itself? It doesn’t carry enough weight, Ray, to do so. I don’t see how you will ever convince me otherwise. Because of that I see the three fold witness presentation to clearly show where the precedented understanding of those phrases should rule the day, and not the Trinitarian option.

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

 

On the other hand, as the Trinitarian view believes, Christ could enter the category of creation later (Jn 1:14), thus becoming part of creation without being the first in the series. Then He could be recognized as deserving of the title "firstborn" because He was before all creation and was hands on responsible for it at the beginning, and also hands on responsible for its redemption as our Kinsman Redeemer. Just like David, he wasn't the first king of Israel, was he? No, but he was elevated to the STATUS of firstborn, most high of the kings of the earth. (Ps 89:27) He wasn't the first King, but dovetailed into category. As the WT says, because he was "preeminent". Thus we can accomodate Paul's language with no problems in both verses 15 and 16. But the WT's view stumbles clumsily over Paul's words in verse 17... " he is before all things". You see, the same problem that you tried so hard to escape in John 1:3 clings to you in full measure at Col 1:16-17. Moreover, as we shall see, your attempt to restrict the "all things" in John 1:3 to only the physical universe is fraught with all sorts of difficulties.  

 

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

Well, I see the phrase “firstborn” as meaning “first one born” which carried with it the “preeminent” position among sons. The WT didn’t stumble at all. They merely “clarified” the passage with the word “other” so there would be no confusion, just like many other translations put the word ‘other’ in, even where it was not absolutely needed, just to help ‘clarify” the passage. Even among the Trinitarians who adhere to the partitive genitive in 15, the word “other” should not be a problem, because if it is partitive, and Christ is PART of the “all creation” in verse 15, the Trinitarian then can not hold to the opinion that the “all things” are identical to “all creation”, because whereas Christ is included in the “all creation”, he would not be included in their “all things”, so, they can not be identical, and the word “other” would clarify that. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

After I rehashed our see-saw argument about "bias" in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon, noting the slow progress we have made...to the point where you now see that whoever relies on "corruption based on bias" as an explanation must show specific examples of it right where he claims it must have occurred... in order to verify the explanation. You present your understanding of the problem as follows:  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Let me review the steps that I see so far in this “bias” discussion, and you tell me if this is how you see the progress. When it came to Grimm’s definition for “arche” (source), I stated that you could not dismiss the possibility of bias as the reason for him choosing that as a definition. Obviously, that can’t stand alone, I have never intended for that stand alone. It seemed to me though, that from your words in defense of a ‘non-biased’ position for Grimm, you were trying to claim that there was no possibility of bias (I realize now that you are not claiming that) on Grimm’s part because of what you perceive as a sweeping endorsement of Trinitarian and Unitaraian scholars alike of his work. You supplied an example of where Grimm exhibits a ‘non-biased’ assessment in relation to the word “theos”. Therefore, you are challenging me to supply evidence in relation to Rev. 3:14, that Grimm’s choice was one of a biased leaning. Without that, then I am presenting a meaningless defense. Does that sound like a fair assessment of what is happening? If not, you can point out what you feel has been missed. I suppose if I had heard you say the words that you say later in this post, much of this dialogue could have been avoided, but then again, maybe not. We seem to shoot right past each other sometimes and not quite understand what then other one is getting at. Anyway, later you say, ---Wrench, did you really think that anyone would deny that everyone who does such a work has personal convictions, and that fact alone ALREADY establishes the possibility.--- From the start of this “bias” conversation, Ray, believe or not, that was what I was waiting to here from you. Thankyou. " $$$$$$$$$$$$$  Your analysis doesn't quite go back far enough. Actually I was the first to broach the subject in my very first letter in anticipation of your reply to my presentation about Rev 3:14. I made a short statement at first as follows: "And I think it would be difficult to suggest that Thayer was a biased witness in favor of the Orthodox viewpoint that Christ was not an original creature." Now, how you could have taken from this that I was claiming it was impossible is beyond me. A little further down the same letter I said this: " If they weren't ignorant of them, should we assume that they were all prejudiced against your view including Dr. Thayer? I don't think we could successfully maintain that ..." Again I fail to see how you could have gotten "impossible" out of such words. But actually, Wrench, you started off claiming PROBABILITY rather than just possibility anyway.   Your response was to echo your friend's claim that Thayer was actually translating the words of a Trinitarian and therefore "the probability of bias is still very much in tact". You of course adjusted this to "possibility" later, whereas I have been steady from the beginning in saying that "corruption based on personal conviction (bias) in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish", consistently reminding you that since you are relying on such a claim, it's up to you to show specific examples of such corruption right where you claim it occurred....in order to verify your explanation. Otherwise you have no explanation as to why your interpretation of Rev 3:14 has such little support among the reputable Lexicographers and Greek Scholars. I'm just glad you now acknowledge the necessity to verify your explanation. The failure to do so right where you claim it occurred remains as a mark against the goals you have set for yourself when you reframed your treatise.

 

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

Well, I believe I have pointed out that in order to establish “probability”, you have to at least establish “possibility”. I switched to “possibility” because, as I stated above, I wasn’t even sure I was getting that from you in relation to “Grimm”. Now that we are straight on that, we can talk about the “probability” factor. So, I wasn’t trying to change my original contention about the probability of bias. Keep in mind, Ray, that the ‘probability of bias” remark has to do with Grimm’s definition of ‘arche’ as “active cause” or “source”. That’s what I cast the “bias” shadow on.  Now, you say I have to show bias “right where you claim it occurred”. Are you actually suggesting that I’ve got to show from Grimm’s own words where he admits he’s bias. You know, it’s one thing for a person to be able to say things that make them appear unbiased because that is what they want everyone to think, but to find something that they say in their own publication that spells out bias is a little ridiculous to ask for. They are not going to do that. I’m not going to find from Grimm’s words himself that he is biased, so what exactly is it you are asking for? If I can’t even understand the abbreviations of those bracketed remarks, Ray, how am I even supposed to track them down? The only other choice that I have is to go outside of that publication and find what other “Trinitarian” scholars have to say about that renedering. The only way for me to show that Grimm was probably biased in his choice is to gather evidence from his own doctrinal comrades that would show his choice of definitions of “arche” to be a bad choice and a bad choice that he should have known about, and that is what I have been doing. I have been asking and searching high and low for those bracketed quotes and have found a little bit of nothing. Let me ask you, then, Ray. Do you know what they are and you’re just holding out on me? Now, if you do know what they are then point me in the right direction and I’ll go do the research but if you don’t know either then what other choice is there but to go outside the publication and look elsewhere. The result is the same if “Trinitarians” agree that source is “improper” or highly questionable or controversial. Let’s face it, those bracketed quotes direct us to information that is OUTSIDE Grimm’s publication so what is the differenc when I find the same thing by other scholars that may not be mentioned in Grimm’s or Thayer’s references? You say later that even if the evidence points to disagreement with Grimm it still wouldn’t “prove” that Grimm had bias. Well, don’t YOU change it from “probabililty” to “proof”, Ray. Just like you tried to chasetise me for changing it from “probability” to “possibility”. I’m not out to “PROVE” bias, merely to raise the “probability” of it, which I believe that the quotes I gave you certainly head in that direction. And, as well, I am continuing to research that meaning as to whether it is valid or not. So, patience, friend, this doesn’t have to be setltled in the span of one letter. And please be reminded that the “bias” claim really had nothing to do with my treatise to begin with. I stated that the reason Grimm gave that definition as “source” or “active cause” was probably due to bias, because of not being able to show ONE clear example of where “arche” means “source” from the scriptures. I think the fact that he does have to go outside the scriptures to find an example for support is another telltale sign of bias. Beckwith, who surely should have been familiar with Grimm’s research, did not opt for the “SOURCE” meaning. He opted for “agent” as the meaning. The reason I say he was ‘struggling’ with it is because he mentions the three possibiliies of the meaning of the word, beginning, source and ruler and doesn’t choose any of them, he actually invents a new meaning for the word by opting for “intermediate agent”. In my opinion, that looks like he was having a difficult time trying to fit the phrase into his theology since he opted for a non-lexical meaning.

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

 

Also, the bracketed remarks in Rev 3:14 more than likely suppliment Grimm's references, for note Grimm's referral to the 8th Century B.C. Philosopher who was said to be the first to use the word in the way he says. Note the bracket that follows. This appears to be a suppliment, for Thayer says when he introduces a different or opposing opinion, he usually includes representative arguments from both sides. Then comes Grimm's ref to Rev 3:14 where he calls Christ "the divine logos", and invites us to compare Dusterdieck on location as well as Clemens of Alexandrinus (about 200ad) Protrept. 1, page 6 edited by Potter, the following bracket seems clearly supplimental..e.g. another comp.  But the extra biblical Greek expression seems easy enough to translate, and fits well Grimm's reference to Christ as the divine logos. "ho logos arche theia twn pantwn". Here the nouns logos and arche are both in the nominative case, but since logos has the article we recognize it as the subject. Arche is most likely definite without the article (like our "at home"..comp John 1:1a). So since there is no verb and the adjective follows arche, it's attributive and we should place "arche theia" in apposition with ho logos. Normally when the adjective does not have the article in front of it, it's considered predicate, but that assumes that the noun has the article. When the noun is anarthrous, though, all bets are off, and whether the adjective is predicate or attributive is determined by the context. So I would translate... "the Word, the divine beginning of all things", or possibly "the Word, divine beginning of all things." Either way it goes nicely with the orthodox interpretation of Rev 3:14. And note, Wrench, this is not predicate in itself... just like the expression in Rev 3:14 is not predicate in itself. Instead it's just something he is called, therefore it's attributed to him. hmmm... What Grimm has found is that this meaning had been a live option from 8 centuries before NT times, and was still such at approx 200 years or so after the birth of Christ, and the small bracket seems clearly meant as a supplimental reference. You may complain that this is only an "extra-biblical" example, and there are no biblical examples of this. However, the examples you cite of arche with the genitive do not contain the same referents (Christ and all creation) so as to show the relationship between them at the beginning. In fact there are no examples of "arche with a genitive" that exihibits your meaning with Christ and all creation as the referents! And as we've seen, the plain teaching of Scripture elsewhere in the NT is that Christ was not the first of Jehovah's creations, but pre-existed all creation without a single exception (John 1:3 & Col 1:16-17).   

 

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

Well, I certainly do have a problem with having to use only extra-biblical examples for a support. I think the scriptural precedent should weigh far more than anything extra-biblical. And, as well, the fact that Rev. 3:14 is the only occurence with Christ and creation as referents doesn’t change the natural way it should read, it is still “arche” followed by a genitive and we know how those read everywhere else. And what you call PLAIN teaching is far from being plain or unambiguous.

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

 

Yet even if further searching reveals a disagreement in one or more of the bracketed remarks, that still would not prove that Grimm's work was corrupted by his personal convictions (bias), for he may not have had access to the referenced material. Nor should it be assumed ipso facto that the opposing view is correct. No matter how you approach it, as I've repeatedly stated, bias (corruption based on personal conviction) in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish. But the burden is on you to do so in order to verify your explanation.   In the absence of specific examples of corruption based on bias, you next go on to cite three references that acknowledge your meaning as "linguistically possible". First is the BAG or better known now as the BAGD. But as I pointed out in my initial reply, although they acknowledge your meaning as "linguistically possible", their scholarly opinion, however, is that the orthodox meaning is better supported by the evidence...and with that I agree. Would you agree that since they actually adopt the orthodox meaning, this is not meant as a "ringing endorsement" of your view?  The next source you cite is Beckwith's "The Apocalypse of John", 1922, p.488: Where although, like the BAGD above, he acknowledges that your meaning is grammatically possible, he nevertheless believes that the orthodox meaning has the better case in the N.T. However, what you've shown so far seems more supportive of my view than yours. Let me address this point from you about Beckwith...  $$$$$ "....” Even Beckwith struggles with the problem. Notice what he says: After giving his reasons as to why “first created” is not right he goes on to say. “The words mean rather “the one from whom creation took its beginning,” i.e. through whom it came into being; NOT THE CREATOR AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE, for that is God in our book (4:11, 10:5), as elsewhere in the Scriptures, but the CREATIVE AGENT of God, as in Jno. 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2.” It sounds as though Beckwith understands the problem with “source” and then vies for a totally different meaning as the “agent” of God’s creation. I think it is interesting that he uses the word “agent”, for we would agree that Christ was God’s “instrument” (agent) for creation. And, he applies that same “agency” (instrumentality) to all the “pendulum” scriptures that you have mentioned for swinging away from the natural and precedented meaning of those words. I think it is quite apparent that the problem with “source” as a “highly questionable” if not “incorrect” rendering of “arche” is well known among the Trinitarian camp. It is because of these statements presented that I think Grimm succumbed to his ‘personal conviction’ rather than to the facts surrounding the “proper” meaning of the word. I would find it hard to believe that someone so highly regarded among the scholars of his day, did not know about this controversy as Barnes was one of his contemporaries and Beckwith wasn’t far off. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   I looked over Beckwith's presentation, Wrench, and I honestly can't see what makes you think he's "struggling with the problem"? I believe exactly as he does, but I don't feel in the least as if I'm "struggling" with anything. Since the bible portrays God as a plurality of Persons (US MAKE--OUR IMAGE...GOD (Gen 1:26-27), we don't have a problem with one member of the Godhead occupying an intermediate role as the hand's on Creator of all things. As he says, This would be quite properly referred to as "the instrument of true deity"...within the framework of the Trinity, we often recognize the Father as the Primary source...for the simple reason that we hold that such was God's plan for the members to occupy different primary roles...yet all the while we may say that God did this or God did that. Trinitarians do not feel it is a "struggle" at all, in certain contexts where more than one member of the Godhead remains in view, to distinguish the Personalities by applying distinctive terms.  

 

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

Regardless, he did not opt for and objected to the meaning of “source”. I wonder how even you can opt for the meaning of source. How can the “Son” be the “source” and the “intermediate agent” at the same time? The FATHER is not the SON, and the Father is the source, right? How then can you opt for source in a text that is clearly speaking of the SON? I think Beckwith makes a good point that it is surely not “source”, for that is GOD (meaning no doubt the Father), to him.

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

 

A good example of this in the bible itself is in 1 Cor 8:6...where Paul is constrasting the true Deity over against the false deities in paganism. So on the true side of the comparison he at once maintains the distinction of Personalities by applying the term God to one and the term Lord to the other....yet note that he's in context contrasting the true over against the false!   Now, does Paul really include these two ultimately in the "true God, Jehovah"? Sure, notice that he says of all things...they are "out of" the Father, and "thru" Jesus Christ. Do you see the "out of" and "thru"??? OK, now turn to Romans 11:36 in the NWT, and what do we find? It tells us that "all things" are out of (ek) and thru (dia) Jehovah...same Paul...so when he wants to distinguish them, he does, and when he wants to meld them together as Jehovah, he does that too...no big deal. Would you say that Paul was "struggling" here? ? When I pointed this out to SOTB, he attempted to argue that the preposition "dia" doesn't mean "between or through..or agency" when used of the Father, citing the BAGD. However, as I replied to him, there is nothing in the context of Romans 11:34-36 that restricts its application to only the Father.  

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

And there is nothing in the context to suggest that the Son is included in this either. It’s merely your wish that includes the Son, certainly not a necessity, so there is no reason to think that they were ‘melding’ something together here that was clearly differentiated elsewhere such as was done at 1 Cor. 8:6.

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

 

 Instead terms are used that elsewhere are applied also to Jesus. Hence the BAGD's opinion is neither here nor there and must be recognized for the assumption that it is. There is nothing to prevent the preposition from having the same force here as in John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16. And since Romans, 1Cor., and Col. were written by the same Paul, and all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, the burden is on any who would claim a different meaning for these prepositions. What is most important for us is to compare scripture with scripture, and let the bible speak for itself. So, when we compare Roman 11:36 with 1st Cor. 8:6, keeping in mind that Paul wrote both, and both were inspired by the same Holy Spirit, we see that Jesus occupies the intermediate role as the agency of true Deity ( Jehovah being a plurality of Persons including Jesus). So, the logos occupied the intermediate role NOT from the standpoint of being an original creature, but from the standpoint of being God (not the Father!), as depicted for us in John 1:1c through 1:3.   

 

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

You have to keep in mind that in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, there are two in the context and only one in Romans. In both John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 isn’t it true that God is in the ‘active’ role where the Son is in the “passive” role? I don’t see a ‘passive’ role in Romans, but then my greek is poor. It is just God throughout the context, with no differentiation between the Father and the Son as there is in the other two examples of John and Colossians. Are you saying that Paul has to include the Son whenever he speaks of the Father’s role in our existence? I don’t think so. I don’t see any reason why he would have to do so and I think it is presumptuous to think that Romans 11:36 is a melding of what is stated 1 Cor. 8:6. Paul simply spoke of the Father’s role in Romans and he spoke of both the Father and the Son’s role in 1 Corinthians. There is no “weigfht” to your claim, Ray, it’s simply your interpretation and Trinitarians like BAGD would certainly not be biased against you, would they? You claim their estimation is an assumption, well, what is yours other than that? Nothing you have presented carries enough weight to overturn the natural reading of the ‘three’ different verses that touch on the relationship of Christ to creation as being the “beginning” and the “firstborn”, John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 included. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

From the above we can see that anything God does is done directly by the Logos as the intermediate, not from the standpoint of him being ultimately a creature, but from the standpoint of him being ultimately God Himself (not the Father now). When one wants to go to God for salvation, he must go directly to Jesus "no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14). But Jesus is the intermediate agency again, NOT from the standpoint of being ultimately a creature, but from the standpoint of being ultimately true God by nature...just as he is depicted as the intermediate agency in John 1:1c—1:3. When Jehovah predicted in Isaiah 40:3 that the baptist would prepare the way for "our God", Jehovah, guess who showed up? You betcha, it was Jesus "our God"..."God with us". Now the same tension occurs here as with the intermediate role the logos played in the creation of all things. Witnesses are taught to think ONLY in terms of representation...meaning the Son is merely representing the Father. Thus they continue the assumption that only the Father is Jehovah. Whereas if they would only stop to think and LOOK at the language of Scripture at the same time (instead of listening to the WT), they could see that the bible actually said in plain words right there in Is 40:3 that the baptist would clear the way for Jehovah "our God"! So when the Logos came in the name of Jehovah he came representing God ...NOT as a mere creature representative, as the WT would claim, but as true God Himself by nature (my Lord and my God, confessed Thomas).   

 

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

I understand what you believe in regard to this, Ray, but I think you realize that there are other ways to look at the passages you cite, including Isaiah 40:3. I think we have enough to discuss with out bringing in other scriptures that don’t have a pertinent bearing on the Son’s relationship to creation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

How best to represent but to do so as an actual member or the Godhead? This is the actual language the Scripture used...but the WT couldn't handle it, so they made up something else for you to accept. The Son is a mere creature representative who comes in the name of Jehovah. Jehovah is not to be restricted to only the Father like you are taught to assume...rather the Son is included within Jehovah, for Jehovah is in reality a plurality of Persons.."LET US MAKE....IN OUR IMAGE"..(Gen 1:26) Us make is more than one, Wrench, and yet they are said to be God! The Bible shows that we had a plural MAKER, and we should we believe the bible, not cling to the doctrines of men?   

 

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

There is a difference between make and create, Ray. I find it significant that that scripture didn’t use the word create. It was certainly available, wasn’t it? The Father created that which was needed for the Son and Him to make all things. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

So I think you've merely participated in your own deception when you kid yourself into thinking that Trinitarians are "struggling" when they are simply accepting and working out the actual language of Scripture pertaining to Christ's ultimate identity, and then going on to reason from that standpoint.   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, I don’t expect you to agree Beckwith was struggling with it, that is just how it appears to me. I did say that was how it “appears”. It wasn’t a dogma. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   So we see the interdependence of the members of the Godhead as an eternal reality (frozen in the context of eternity). This of course is primitive, since I am myself only a finite creature, but try to think of the sun...the sun rays...and the heat...I think of the nature of true Deity as eternally existing in a frozen state where as long as the sun is alive the rays will be...and so also the heat. So by correspondence, as long as the Father is alive so also will the Son be...and the Holy Spirit. Now we could approach this example with our finite minds, and thus reason, "well, then the rays and heat are dependent upon the sun for life", and if God were finite and subject to the limitations of time and space, that may well be so. On the other hand it may also be God's condescending way of helping us to understand something about his infinite nature from our finite platform. So if we correct for God's eternal and infinite context, perhaps it is the heat that keeps the sun going with the intermediate rays performing as the eternal lifeline of God. So, condescending to our level (Isaiah 55:8-9), the bible presents the eternal God as a plurality of Persons who have arranged themselves according to their own plan...to bring to pass the will of God for His creation. Maybe that will help you to see that the terms "source" and "intermediate" are not things trinitarians "struggle" with. In fact I'm of a mind that those who are REALLY "struggling" are those who try to escape the plural God reality and excuse themselves on the false notion that it's "unreasonable", as if the incomprehensible God must be reasonable and explainable in order to deserve acceptance. hmmm...   

 

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

Well, that’s why we are here, Ray. The way I see it is when people have to appeal to the unprecedented or the remote options or to the unlikely to hold on to their doctrine time and time again, that would feel like a struggle to me, and so far, from what I have seen, that is what the trinitarians do over and over. When it comes to defending their doctrine they more often than not find themselves opting for an unlikely meaning or an unprecedented one altogether or for some remote explanation that doesn’t fit with anything else. I think that is called ‘special pleading’ their case. I wouldn’t mind if a teaching opted for a remote meaning in a case or two, I am sure that can happen, but it seems to me that this remote, unprecedented, and unlikely stance has to be taken many, many times by trinitarians to hold on to their doctrine. I don’t see them as allowing the scriptures to form their doctrine as much as they try to form the scriptures “around” their doctrine.

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

 

Next is Albert Barnes' "Notes on the Book of Revelation", 1852...page 122. But here Barnes begins the discussion on this subject as follows: "The phrase here used is susceptible, properly, of only one of the following significations"...he then goes on to reject the first two, and adopt the "ruler" meaning (same as NIV). Note the original copywrite of 1852, he was probably not aware of some evidence brought out by Professors Grimm and Thayer...as well as later works. So he adopts the "ruler" meaning. Although I think the "beginner meaning" is better attested to elsewhere in the N.T. (John 1:3 & Col 1:15-17), the ruler meaning is not without some support, if not to be understood as the primary meaning..at least to be included WITHIN the orthodox meaning as ancillary to it. In other words, because Christ existed before all creation (Col 1:17), and was hands on responsible for it (John 1:3; Heb 1:10), he can rightfully be regarded as the ruler of it. Yet, as we are about to see, he was wrong to assume that there is no precedent in Scripture for "arche" with the "originator" meaning.   By the way, Barnes was not a lexicographer, and perhaps uses the terms "proper/improper" to distinguish the literal/fig useage of words, at this stage he does not acknowledge the usage of "arche" in the "originator or source" sense, but later on page 501 he does just that as he also identifies Jesus (the Redeemer), as the "Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end". He repeatedly refers to Jesus as "the Redeemer" throughout his notes. Thus on page 501, about 22:12-13 he says, "And behold, I come quickly...These are, undoubtedly, the words of the Redeemer", and on down the page he continues "13. I am Alpha and Omega, & the first and the last---the beginning and the end. He originated the whole plan of salvation, and he will determine its close; he formed the world, and he will wind up its affairs. In the beginning, the continuance, and the end, he will be recognized as the same being presiding over and controlling all." Notice please what he just said; "He originated..." do you see it, Wrench? There he acknowledges "arche" being used and applied to Jesus as the one who "originated" or as the one who "formed" the world as its originator"! That he's referring to Jesus here is undeniable for he had just quoted "my reward is with me" (v 12) and tied it to Matt 16:27, where we discover that it's "the Son of Man" with whom the reward will be.   

 

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

All I can say is that it is too bad Barnes wasn’t consistent. Too bad he is not around to ask him to clarify what he meant. But now, we have to ask ourself, was he careless in his explanation of Rev. 22:13 or was careless in his words about “arche” earlier. In my opinion, since he spent nearly two pages on his rejection of “source” for arche that he would feel his error lied in his explanation of Rev. 22:13 but, I guess we will never know without getting it from him. 

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

 

Yet you don't think he considers his own choice, "ruler", as wrong, do you? Of course not...Instead, the right and correct meaning is the one he finds support for elsewhere in the bible. But notice also how easily the "ruler" meaning ties in with the meaning, "originator"...the one being naturally ancillary to the other. Then note what he said with regard to the meaning YOU contend for "That this is not a necessary signification of the phrase, since no one can show that this is the only proper meaning which could be given to the words, and therefore the phrase cannot be adduced to prove he is himself a created being."   

 

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

Well, of course he has to disagree with the “created being” meaning. What else would we expect, but he does make it apparently obvious that without his disqualifiers, it could certainly mean that. And, as I said before, even if ruler were opted for, although John doesn’t use “arche’ for ruler anywhere else, it doesn’t remove him from creation.  I would like to present some more to you in relation to the word “arche” and the meaning “source”. Besides what Barnes and Beckwith said about that emaning for “arche”, I keep finding things in relation to that meaning that are interesting. It just doen’t seem to add with everything I find. Let me explain what I mean by that. (Please note this isn’t what I am calling conclusive, bit certainly indicative of something peculiar about that meaning)  For instance:  When I looked up arche in Kittel’s TDNT, under it’s usage in the LXX, I see no mention of the “source” meanign at all, under the NT meanings, the no. 1 meaning is “beginning” with many examples and no questions asked. The no. 2 meaning is “power” again with many examples and no questions as to the validity of that meaning. When it comes to the third meaning they don’t even subhead what that 3rd meaning is but go into an explanation that is hard to make heads or tails of for me. I surmise that they are offering the “active cause” meaning, in particular with Col. 1:18, but then they wonder themselves about applying that to Rev. 3:14, so I didn’t see that as much of an endorsement for “active cause” as the meaning for Rev. 3:14, especially after what Barnes and Beckwith said.  So then, I went to Vine’s and found this. “Source” is not listed, so I looked up “cause” which did not list “arche” as a word that would translate as “cause”. So, I looked up “origin” and it was not listed. So I looked up “root”, thinking of synonyms, and found “rhiza” which has the meaning “root, origin, or cause”. But, there was no “arche” offered as a synonym or a noun that could mean the same thing. So, I looked up “beginning”. Now here, Vine’s offers the meaning “active cause” only in relation to Col. 1:18, but strangely enough, doesn’t even mention Rev. 3:14 at all. So, I went to the back under the Greek Word Index and looked under “arche”. The meaning “source, active cause or origin” was not mentioned in that index for arche. So, again, it just doesn’t seem to follow through the way it should.  So, I checked Strong’s Concordance and in their Greek Dictionary you don’t find the meaning origin, source or cause given. It seems to me it should be in these places if it is ‘really’ recognized as a valid meaning to this word and not some stretched definition.  So, I thought I would just share some things that seem peculiar with that meaning of “active cause”. It is interesting what some have to say about the meaning of “active cause” or “source” such as Beckwith and Barnes and Kittel, and on the other hand, it’s interesting what others DO NOT say about the word in relation to that meaning and Rev. 3:14.  It seems that many places that I look in these theological references and others the “active cause” for “arche” keeps coming up short or under question, And again, I wouldn’t think that even YOU would think of the Son as the “active cause” of “creation”, when you and others have indicated that that would be the Father and the Son would not be the active cause but the intermediate agent of creation, as Beckwith noted.

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

 

Now Beckwith's book was copywritten in 1919 and reprinted in 1922, this was after Grimm/Thayer, and after the discovery of the Papyri and Adolph Deissman's "Light from the Ancient East" 1st ed. Yet in reference to the idiomatic phrase in Rev 3:14, note how he likewise ties in with the Alpha & Omega as a "self-designation" for Jesus as "the beginning and the end", he says on page 489, "Since Christ's creative relation to the world does not form one of the topics of this epistle, or of the book in general, these words are probably meant to express the preexistence of Christ before all creation (cf. Holtzm. Theo. I. 547), i.e. one aspect of that eternal existence emphasized in his self-designation, cf. 1:17, 2:8, 21:6, 22:13. The words, then, like the fuller phrase, 'I am the beginning and the end', assert the majesty of the Lord in his eternal being..." Hence Barnes at the earlier time (1852) failed to note at 3:14 that "arche" is indeed used properly elsewhere in Scripture to mean "originator", but acknowledges it later on page 501 of the same book.  

 

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

There is no reason one has to view the “beginning” at Rev. 22:13 as a place where “arche” means “source” or “active cause”. Even Grimm himself places those references under a different meaning in his lexicon, as do most that I have seen. I find the meaning of “source” applied to “beginning” in at Rev. 22;13 to be a little weird as far as the way it works out with the other half of the phrase, that being “the end”. To say he is the ‘source’ and the ‘end’ of everything would mean that he is going to bring an end to everything, and I don’t think either of us believe that. I agree with Grimm in this case because he let’s us know that the “beginning” here is the first one in a series. Obviously, God is the “first and the last and “the beginning and the end” of all that is in the class of Almighty God. He is in a class by Himself. That is the most natural way to read those phrases. Surely it doesn’t mean he started everything and then he is going to end everything, but that is the way it sounds if you opt for “active cause” at Rev 22:13. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

It is interesting to note that the general consensus of belief among the scholars we've seen so far... is that the one thing they AGREE on is that the meaning you contend for is not the right one, and they all reject it for the same reason too...because it is not supported by the teaching of Scripture elsewhere. In fact they are of the opinion that the Scripture elsewhere flatly denies the meaning you contend for at Rev 3:14. And I have also found that to be the case.  

 

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

Yes, so far, but then again, what would you expect Trinitarians to say?

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

 

Perhaps I should say something about what it means to say that something is "grammatically or linguistically possible". I've noticed that JWs seem so desperate as they search through different scholastic sources for anything to support them in their beliefs, that when a scholar mentions that a certain meaning or rendering they like is "grammatically possible", off they go to the races.They seldom stick around long enough to hear the rest of the story. As I mentioned to Kazz once, one might say that "it's possible" to get to the eastern seaboard of the U.S. by going westbound out of Indianapolis. Yes, that's possible, but it's not the easiest, it's not the best, and it's not the right way to go. But it IS possible...if one can maintain his ambition and stay on course long enough! However, if one wants to get to the eastern seaboard from Indianapolis, the best and right way to go, for ordinary people, is eastbound ;-) Now obviously not every little conceivable detail coincides when comparing bible interpretation with this example, but the main principle is very clear. When you read that something is "possible", stick around for a while in order to hear the rest of the story!  

 

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

Well, I’m still here. I haven’t seen a big change in the plot, yet.

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

 

Concerning the so-called “bias argument” with reference to Grimm/Thayer, you don’t seem to be contesting my point that since you’re the one who claims corruption based on personal conviction (bias) at Rev 3:14, that it’s your burden to show specific examples of such corruption right where you claim it must have occurred. After I explained my own exasperation in trying to get this point across to you, you respond that “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.”…  Yes, I agree that we should put that behind us. So what is next on the agenda is for you to see that you’ve put forth a claim of corruption based on personal conviction (bias) on Grimm’s part, and so it is your burden now to show specific examples of such…right where you claim it must have occurred (Rev 3:14), and the failure to do this will remain as a mark against your stated goals in the reframing of your treatise. In other words, your first witness (based on Rev 3:14) will be unable to accumulate to the sum total you say you intend to “demonstrate”. As we’ve seen above, in the absence of such specific evidence, you have cited a few scholars who say that your meaning is “possible”. However, as we also saw, each of them adopted a DIFFERENT meaning from the one you contend for. This could only mean that they felt that the other meaning acquitted itself better in the light of the available evidence, especially elsewhere in the New Testament. This is really logically difficult for you. How do you take advantage of the one without acknowledging the other? How do you rely on their “credibility” when they say your meaning is “possible”, and ignore the same “credibility” when they adopt a different meaning? But this is just one mark against your demonstration. There are more that must be cared for, such as the evidence elsewhere in the N.T. against the conclusion you are contending for. We shall be turning to the other evidence shortly, but I need to address a few other points you mention first.  

 

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

When I quote Trinitarian scholars who may agree with a certain aspect of my presentation, I am not quoting it for my support alone, Ray. I am quoting it to show you that that particular aspect is even agreed upon by some Trinitarians. That should help you to see that what I am saying in regard to that particular aspect is not just an invention of the WT or me or someboby else. And you certainly can’t claim bias when even Trinitatians agree with a certain point I am making. It doesn’t mean I am in complete agreement with everything they say. Everyone on both sides of the theological fence uses quotes in the same manner without agreeing with everything else. I’m sure you do it yourself. You have quoted the WT to adjust my thinking, and I am sure you don’t agree with all they say. Do you agree with everything Grimm says because you agree with his “source” rendering? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

You ask about Abbot, namely “What exactly was the variant-verse notation that he contributed, and what would that have to do with anything doctrinally?” Thayer doesn’t elaborate beyond mentioning that these were the result of an investigation later given to “the learned world” and published in Tischendorf’s “Critica Major”. I know that Abbot was a very highly respected scholar in the area of textual criticism of the NT manuscripts, even though he was known to be unorthodox in his personal beliefs. Hence, then, I would aver that he probably went through Thayer/Grimm’s manuscript with the latest discoveries of textual variants or disagreements based on the interpretation of the same,   

 

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

Wait a minute, Ray, I think you are adding something there. Nothing was said about “disagreements based on the interpretaion of the same”. Your just inventing that. What was said was “variant verse-notation”. Nothing about “textual” variants or “disagreements” over them, it was simply “variant verse-notation”. Now, once again, I would like to ask. What does that have to do with anything doctrinally? How can you take from “variant verse-notation” that even Abbott agreed with the “source” rendering from Grimm. There is no way that “variant verse-notations” amount to what you want it to here. It sounds to me to be not much more than a variant on how to notate verses. Notation is defined as a system of signs, figures, or abbreviations used for convenience in recording something. It doesn’t have to do with text as much as it has to do with how the verse is notated when it is cited. It certainly doesn’t have to do with interpretation.

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

 

or other new discoveries that may bear on the meaning of the NT text. Interestingly he mentions that his investigation was published in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s “Critica Major”. I know that Dr. Tischendorf was the finder of the Sinaiticus manuscript “Codex Sinaiticus” so named because he discovered it at at St. Catherine monastery on Mount Sinai.  As I recall he was part of a team sent from Leipzig University in Germany to the Holy Land to look for ancient manuscripts. While talking to one of the attendents at St. Catherines he noticed a couple waste baskets full of what looked like Greek manuscripts…he casually reached down and picked a page up and discovered that it was indeed part of an ancient bible writing on parchment (LXX). Years later he went back to get the rest, this time representing the Russian Czar. He suggested that the monks should donate as a gift to the Czar the rest of the ancient manuscripts they had. He showed them the published LXX he had recently done, and the monk replied “we have one of those too”…and quickly set before him sure enough a copy of the LXX, but guess what was with it? Yep, the Sinaiticus manuscript in Uncial script…I think this is the only manuscript that contains the entire NT. Even the Vaticanus is missing some. So, since this all occurred right around the same time that Grimm published his first edition (1840-1860), the study of that manuscript would be contemporaneous with both Abbot and Thayer. Both Abbot and Thayer were experts at other ancient writings contemporary with bible times. So, given his zeal for fighting against the Trinity, if he were aware of some evidence, biblical or otherwise, that either denigrated the orthodox view, or supported his own personal belief, it’s very hard to think that he would not have made that unambiguous.  

 

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

Abbot never got the chance, Ray, that is all too apparent from what Thayer has to say about him. “Variant verse-notation” was surely not an avenue for correcting anything in regard to Rev. 3:14. And since we still don’t know what Thayer was, there is still no evidence that the Unitarian side of the fence was blown away by Grimm’s extra-biblical research. In all honesty, Ray, do you think that a Unitarian would be blown away by that when we all know that the most common meaning of the word was “beginning”? They would have to be Unitarian idiots to think that Grimm’s reference to some thing in the eight century bc and Clement of Alexandria would be so strong that nothing else could fit at Rev. 3:14. Do you really believe they wouldn’t have something to say in relation to the meaning “source” with such a glaringly obviously alternative that has all the scriptural precedent in the world? Do you expect ME to believe that? When I said that “bias” was probable in relation to Grimm, you automatically think that I am trying to say that it was an unfair prejudice on his part, but if you look up the definition of bias, Ray, it can simply mean a mental tendency. Now you can not deny that it was Grimm’s mental tendency or preference that caused him to choose “active cause” as his meaning because if he would have relied solely on the scriptural examples he wouldn’t have chose that option. It was his belief in the Trinity that caused him to choose “active cause” or “source” It was his preference or mental tendency, not necessarily his “unfair prejuduce”. I’m not saying that Grimm was purposely corrupting something, but I am saying that it was his predisposition, his bias in that sense, to the Trinity that caused to him to render it the way he did. Bias is not ALL negative, Ray, because you and I both have it, everyone does, to one degree or another, you just seem to think it is always a bad thing. When I said bias was responsible for Grimm’s rendering, I am saying it was his mental tendency because of the trinity that caused his choice to be what it was. You are making a stand against this bias comment because you think it means Grimm was corrupt. BIAS does not equate CORRUPT. If you come to appreciate that maybe we can put this dead horse to rest.

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

 

Years ago I found and photocopied several pages of Abbot’s “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel”, and he was quite vocal in his denial of the Trinity. It’s also important to understand the he and Thayer were friends and neighbors, so to speak, being professors at nearby Colleges…hence there may have been some influence there as well. So although you may think he was “sounding a little wimpy when it comes to standing up for what he believed”, perhaps the real explanation is that the evidence he needed just wasn’t there for Rev 3:14.   

 

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

That is just ridiculous, Ray. The scriptures ar FULL of examples where “arche” means “beginning”. It is full of examples, as Barnes pointed out in his examples, where arche followed by a genitive carried the meaning of “beginning”. What, pray tell, was the lack of EVIDENCE? There was evidence galore to give “arche’ another meaning at Rev. 3:14. Any novice Unitarian student could figure that out. If Thayer was a Unitarian, he truly dropped the ball, unless those references reveal something redeeming in his favor) And if Abbot would have had the opportunity to go through Grimm’s work and add his “remarks”, which he didn’t, I think we would have seen something from him concerning Rev. 3:14.  You know that I have been looking for these references high and low, Ray. Do you know what they are? If so, why don’t you share them with me? If you don’t and I can’t find them, then I’m afraid they are not going to be pertinent to our discussion if we can’t access them. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

After my further explanation that the logos took the nature of a creature when he became flesh (John 1:14), you say the following:  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I understand that you say he TOOK ON the nature of a creature, but that doesn’t give me the differentiation I was needing. Does that mean he then WAS a creature? For instance, when angels would appear, they would take on the nature of a man, right? But, did that mean that they WERE a man, or were they still an angel wearing the nature of man? Do you see the difference I’m after? Where, in your opinion, does the Bible actually SAY that Christ was a creature. Not just the word “slave” or “man”, but a creature or “part” of creation? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  Yes I would say of course he was a creature when he took that nature on. As I’ve already explained, when angels appeared as humans they only appeared to be such, and did not come through the birth process. They were NOT truly human by nature. However, this is one thing the WTBTS and Orthodox Christianity agree on, that Jesus was truly human by nature (qualitative) and thus a creature. If you’re looking for the word “creature” itself, I don’t think the bible explicitly applies the term, as I said earlier, but it doesn’t explicitly apply the term to lots of characters in the bible whom we agree were creatures. Should we deny that any of these (Cornelius for example) really were creatures, if the word was not explicitly applied to them? Should we doubt that they were really creatures? And we know that he could die, because he did. So there can be no doubt that he was really a creature.  

 

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

You know, Ray, I just don’t see the logic that if God became a man, that he would become a creature. He might look like a creature, but he wouldn’t BE one. A creature is something that is created. And something that is created is made from nothing from God himself. God would have been MADE a man, but I don’t see how anyone can say he was CREATED a man just because he became one, especially when the scriptures NEVER come out and say that he was specified as a creature according to you. The example about Cornelius isn’t really much of a comparison since we know he was just a man, and always a man, and we can trace all men back to an act of creation, but what you are talking about is someone who was never created and became a man. For the life of me, I don’t see how that equates to being a creature simply because he changed his nature to that of a human and that seems to be the way the scriptures present it. He took the “form of man”, “became manifest in the flesh”, things like that, but NEVER he became a creature, so again, as is often the case with trinitarian word-magic, I just don’t see the precedence for such a statement. Are there any scholars who explain this in the way you have, Ray? I would like to see what they have to say on this. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

And if we interpret the genitive as partitive in Col 1:15, it may suggest that he was part of creation, but it would not prove that he was the first creature in the series. The “part of the category” would be suggested by the “of all creation”, but “prototokos”, as I’ve shown, does not always have a numerical significance. So then, we would learn from Col 1:15 that he was “part of creation” (Jn 1:14), but from verses 16 & 17 we also learn that he was not numbered among creation at the beginning, because he was BEFORE all things.  

 

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

Well then, it seems you are doing the same thing I am doing. I am separating the “all things” from the “all creation” by telling you they are not identical, and you are doing the same thing, because your above explanation does not allow for the “all things” to be completely identical with the “all creation”, because your all creation would include Christ but your all things wouldn’t. It’s funny how you allow yourself to get by with things like this and you wont allow me to do the same thing. You’ve been trying to convince me that the “all things” has to be “all creation” yet here you just came up with an explanation that separates the two. I’m sure you have heard the expression that if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Now does the expression “all things” in Col 1:16 and 17 mean all creation? Yes, decidedly so,  

 

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

Not according to you above.

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

 

and the NWT Committee inadvertantly establishes this point in the very act of trying to escape it. They render the passage “all other things”…so had Jesus NOT been included, they admit that it would be “all creation”.   

 

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

Or was it just for the sake of clarity? How can you object to “other” if you admit it could be partitive? That admission ruins your claim. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Or, if it has not YET been proven that he was the first creature in the series, it would not be feasible to do the math you do about the “all things” not being all creation. You see, Wrench, upon arrival at verse 16 there is no proof that he was the first creation, hence no justification for the intrusion of the word “other” in this place, and no justification for assuming it either. If you disagree, then show me the proof.  

 

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

Verse 15 gives a very strong indication that he is part of creation, you yourself have admitted that is possible. Then, after this admission, you claim that the all things do not include him, the very same thing that I am claiming. The only difference is you think he became a “creation” by becoming a man which makes no sense to me. I say he is not included in the all things because it is obvious that the all things are those things which come THROUGH him, yet, we would both agree, according to your explanation above, that he is still a creation. The “other” is inserted for the sake of clarity as it is inserted by other translators for the sake of clarity in different passages. If they are justified in doing so for the sake of clarity then that certainly justifies it for us in this case.  The only meaning given to “prototokos” in Thayer’s lexicon is “the firstborn whether of man or of beasts”. Grimm even admits that Col. 1:15 is a ‘partitive genitive’. He does not assign the meaning of “superior” to “prototokos”. In fact, I have never seen a lexicon that assigns THE MEANING SUPERIOR TO PROTOTOKOS THAT DOESN’T INCLUDE THE ‘FIRST ONE BORN’ MEANING AS WELL. Liddell and Scott doesn’t. BAGD doesn’t and the New International Dictionary of New Testament theology doesn’t. The example of Psalm 89:28 does not give a “new” meaning to “prototokos”, it is simply demonstrating the result of God PLACING or PUTTING someone in the position of the FIRST ONE born. Jehovah PLACED David AS the FIRST ONE BORN, and because of that, David, held the position of pre-eminence. It seems to me to be highly questionable for someone to give “prototokos” a meaning that completely divorces it from it’s only lexical definition of FIRST ONE BORN but that is exactly what you want me to believe. You want me to believe that “prototokos at Col. 1:15 means JUST “SUPERIOR” without containing with it the only lexical definition that it is given. The two meanings go hand in hand because the FIRST ONE BORN held the pre-eminence in the family, but nowhere, including Psalm 89:28, where David was RECKONED or PLACED as the FIRST ONE BORN, do we see a “new” meaning given to “prototokos” that separates it from it’s meaning of FIRST ONE BORN.  You offer an obvious symbolism by the way of Job 18:13 to try and escape the consistent “first one born” meaning, saying that it only stresses the pre-eminence, but, how you can say that about something obviously symbolic? It could easily still carry the meaning of the “first one born” in a symbolic fashion and because of the symbolic nature, you can’t rule it out. So, again, the only lexical meaning of “first one born” is still the only meaning that it has. There is no eveidence to the contrary. There are no translations that O know of that take “prototokos” and translate it as “superior” only, with the exclusion of the meaning “first one born”. If “superior” only was a valid rendering, why do we never see it that way?  Because of the fact Grimm, who you obviously hold in high esteem, recognizes Col. 1:15 as a partitive genitive, it would also be necessary for him to not include the Son among the “all things” that came through him, even though he admits, that in some sense at least, that the Son is ‘part of all creation”. This admission therefore forces him to take the “all things” as not including the Son, showing that, just like us, he believes that the “all creation” that includes the Son, because it is partitive genitive, is NOT the same as “all things” which does not include the Son. So, with or without the word “other” for clarification, those Trinitarians who recognize Col 1:15 as partitive genitive, would agree by necessity that the “all things” are not the same as “ the all creation”, the same as JW’s do.  Now, let’s look a little more at the word translated “all things”. It is “ta panta”, ‘panta’ coming from the word ‘pas’ or ‘pan’. The words ‘pas’ and ‘apn’ do not always have an all inclusive meaning as I pointed out before in my last post. 2 Timothy 1:15 states: “All the men in the district of Asia turned away from me.” First of all, Paul was obviuosly just referring to “Chistian” men and what is more not really “all” of them, becuase in verse 16, he mentions Onesiphorus as one that did NOT leave him. So, in this case, pas/pan only referred to “most of Christian men in Asia”.   We know, as shown from the example above, that pas/pan has different meanings in different contexts. This is admitted by some translators when they insert the word other and they don’t treat it as an insertion, but as a legitimate part of pas/pan in a given context. Examples: (Mt. 26:35 NIV)-(Luke 3:19-NIV)-(Luke 13:2-NIV)-(1 Cor. 6:18-NIV-NAB) We will talk about these examples and your objections to them later, but these examples show that in a given context, pas/pan can carry the word other with it as a legitimate part of it’s meaning. With that in mind, from a linguistic point of view, the translation “all other” is perfectly legitimate in Col. 1:16. No one is saying it is mandatory, but it is certainly possible. In fact, to EXCLUDE the rendering “all other things” in Colossians 1:16, one MUST demonstrate that “ta panta” is ‘identical’ with ‘pases ktiseos’ in verse 15, and you and Grimm and others have already admitted that IF it is partitive, which at least Grimm agrees it is, it can not be, nor is it, even in your own estimation, identical with “ta panta”, because we ALL agree that “ta panta” does NOT INCLUDE the Son, which IS included in “all creation”, IF verse 15 is partitive, which you admit it very well could be. Why can you separate them according to your “accomodation” explanation, but I can’t in relation to the JW explanation? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Ray, I would think things like this are easily missed. This is not just the meaning of a single word or it really doesn’t have to do with some “rule” of grammar. It has to do with something that is not so obvious, that being the way a particular syntax or word order is used in relation to one particular word. I’ve posted this same treatise many, many places to be viewed and commented on by Trintarians galore, and not one has ever seen the presentation of these facts. And besides, I didn’t come up with this myself, but it was first mentioned, as far as I know, by both Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford, both who have studied and possess degrees in the ancient languages of the Bible. To say that they could not discover a new aspect in relation to the way “arche” is used with a genitive, is beyond me. You may think it remote, but you can’t deny the fact that the the claims are valid when it comes to the Biblcal examples. Do you really think we’ve come to the end of the road when it comes to discovering things like this? If so, maybe I should cancel my subscription to JBL because that is about the only reason I get it, is to keep abreast of what the current scholarly discoveries and opinions are. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  Ray says: The more I think about this the more I’m beginning to think that the learned world has not been ignorant of the info Stafford amasses for Rev 3:14… “arche” with the genitive, but merely recognized the teaching elsewhere in the bible as making impossible such a conclusion at Rev 3:14. Look already at Barnes’ notes (1852). Although he overlooked his own later admission of the “beginner or originator” meaning for “arche”, he does at least point out the same NT passages that would support the “first in the series” meaning, which demonstrates that he was not ignorant of them having that meaning. He then nevertheless adopts a different meaning, pointing out that the “first in the series” meaning is rejected because the Scripture elsewhere contradicts such an idea. See, he doesn’t ignore it, he rejects the conclusion Stafford reaches based on it. It may be countered that the “arche” with the genitive examples show a consistent “first in the series” meaning in the bible, however, how many of those examples contain the same referents (Christ and all creation) and subject material (showing the relationship between them with reference to the beginning). I’m not aware of any that do that. Hence, two points have emerged to show the precedence of the “originator” meaning as decisive at 3:14, and thus show the superficiality of Stafford’s argumentation. Point number one is the precedence of passages like John 1:3, Col 1:15-17, and Rev 22:12-13 cf. Matt 16:27 that do contain the same referents and subject material. And point number two that none of Stafford’s examples do the same.  

 

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

As I have shown, there is no Trinitarian weight to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16. The “all things” in John 1:3 ARE “ALL THINGS” after ‘THE BEGINNING’ ELAPSED and in relation to Col. 1:16, “all other things” is certainly linguistiically acceptable as from other examples (and for that matter, “other” could fit in John 1:3 as well), even according to your own admission and Grimm’s, that if 15 is a partitive genitive, the “all things” and “all creation” are NOT identical. They have no “weight” to them, from a Trinitarian standpoint that is strong enough by a long shot to overturn the natural meanings of the words and phrases that are used in Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 and Prov. 8:22.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

Keep in mind also that the phrase in Rev 3:14 is not predicate of itself, so we might expect its meaning to be determined elsewhere in the New Testament. Perhaps this is why the WT hasn’t been so quick to adopt Stafford’s points. Where’s the real scholarship, Wrench, with Stafford or with the WT Society, whom you believe to be God’s authority in such matters? Do you feel like a man with mixed loyalties? Perhaps like the man who’s mother-in-law went over a cliff in his brand new car… that he forgot to buy insurance on. Talk about hurt so good.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ This question of loyalty is your concern, Ray, not mine. I have no loyalty to Greg Stafford as my authority, and he is certainly NOT in opposition to the WT. The WT has consistently taught Rev. 3:14 puts Christ among creation as the “beginning” of it as does Prov. 8:22. They have quoted Barnes and others in relation to the “source” rendering as inaccurate, so if they considered Barnes words at Rev. 3:14 then obviously they DID know of the “arche” with a genitive since you agree that Barnes pointed it out. They certainly didn’t offer an objection to Barnes findings on that, just as they have offered no objection to Greg’s findings or Rolf’s findings or Firpo Carr’s findings or Nelson Herle’s findings. And what is more, some of those ones are STILL publishing about like matters and they STILL are elders and have much respect and responsibility in the congregations. Your viewpoint of this is obviously maladjusted. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     Wrench in the Works

 

Part two (4-23-00)

 

Re: To Ray-The Son of God Created-Part 2 Sunday, 23-Apr-2000 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 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.  Ray says: Perhaps, but I have a gut feeling that it won’t be long and they will have to clamp down. Otherwise they will lose control and the asylum will be run by the inmates. I don’t say that lightly, but I base it on my own knowledge of WT history with regard to this kind of activity. Historically the Society has not tolerated very well any of their “sheep” stealing their thunder, so to speak. I don’t think they necessarily want to clamp down, but they’ve been burned before (from their perspective) because they didn’t do so soon enough. Remember me mentioning the problems at Bethel in the late 70s and early 80s? How much do you really know about what went on during that time? This has to be put in context, but it was not long after the fiasco about 1975, and many witnesses were leaving the organization, being upset because the Society tried to, as they had done with the 1925 “ancient worthy” failure, blame the sheep for their own actions that stirred expectation about that date (75). In the 75 yearbook, a history of JWs in the United States, they present a completely distorted recollection of their failed date-setting with regard to 1925, and actually blamed the sheep for “reading too much into” what they had written. So by the late 70s and early 80s there was much unrest in the rank and file, and this naturally manifested itself at Bethel Headquarters. It soon looked like the sheep were losing confidence in the Slave as a safe guide. Now, with this background in mind, note the date and context of these WT articles.   Watchtower magazine -- Jan 15, 1983, page 27 “Fight Against Independent Thinking…As we study the Bible we learn that Jehovah has always guided his servants in an organized way. And just as in the first century there was only one true Christian organization, so today Jehovah is using only one organization. (Ephesians 4:4, 5; Matthew 24:45-47) Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: ‘This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe.” This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous? Such thinking is an evidence of pride. And the Bible says: “Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.” (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organizatin?’ No, we cannot! – Compare Acts 15:2, 28, 29; 16:4, 5.”  Ray says: Do you see what they are worried about, Wrench? If they give the sheep too much “space” they are in danger of deciding that based on the Slave’s history of leading them all over the map, so to speak, you may decide to do it yourself. What if everyone started thinking like that, what would become of the Governing Body? They must protect their perceived position of authority. They must inform you that such “independent study” is not a good thing. Of course what they really mean by “independent thinking” is doing it without their direct supervision or their publications. Their own “fears” can be seen in the statement “If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves:…” Remembering the trouble in paradise (Bethel) that came to a head in the early 80s, the so-called witchhunt, Consider what was happening among the rank & file right after the “75 fiasco” when people were leaving the organization in droves. Only a year after that we read:  Watchtower magazine 5/15/76, p. 298 “ Does not this wavering from one position to another raise questions as to the sincerity of these opposers? Most of them were former church members who came to declare that such doctrines were false, originating in non-Christian religions. While they were associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses they offered proofs of their conviction to others as they preached to them. Are these men, when turning against Jehovah’s Witnesses, following the pattern of the apostle Paul? He once was a firm believer in Judaism, believing that he could gain righteousness by works of the Mosaic law. But he threw these things down when he became a Christian. His opposers said that Christians should return to subjection to the things of the Law, and trust in such works for salvation. Paul answered: ‘If the very things that I once threw down I build up again, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.’’- Gal. 2;18.  It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back the very doctrines that, by years of study [[what kind of study, WT supervised?]] we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating—‘wishy-washy’—about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?”  So switching back forth is “wishy-washy’ and not worthy of confidence, right? Well, Wrench, what are they worried about? You may already be aware of the following, but when I saw it I about fell out of my chair! Yet I really shouldn’t have been surprised by it. When the WT goes back and forth in their teachings, and gets caught, what did they call it?   The Watchtower magazine 12-01-81, only six years after 75…they had just been having a dog fight at Bethel, and had been lambasted with their own shortcomings by the “opposers”, and so they respond to the complaints like this: “However, it may have seemed to some as though that path has not always gone straight forward. At times explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case. This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as “tacking”…”   And then they launch into a discussion about “tacking in the wind”…ha….Hence, when others do it, it’s “wishy-washy” and not worthy of confidence, but when we do it, “why we’re just tacking in the wind…you can still trust us…Ahhhhhh, right! ? But what was it they were REALLY worried about back then? You have reasoned that it’s Ok to seek guidance elsewhere from the Slave as long you don’t reach a different conclusion than they teach. I’m sure as a loyal Witness you are well aware of the Society’s policy when it comes to apostate literature. They discourage you from even reading it, and why, if you don’t reach a different conclusion from what they teach? Note the following as the WT actually envisions your rationalistic thought processes…  Watchtower magazine 3-15-86 , page 12: “ The Apostle Paul expressed this concern: ‘I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, you minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ.” (2nd Cor 11:3)……Have no Dealings With Apostates…Now, what will you do if you are confronted with apostate teaching—subtle reasonings—claiming that what you believe as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the truth? For example, what will you do if you receive a letter or some literature, open it, and see right away that it is from an apostate? Will curiosity cause you to read it, just to see what he has to say? You may even reason: ‘It won’t affect me; I’m too strong in the truth. And, besides, if we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test.’ In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt. (Compare James 1:5-8.) So remember the warning at 1 Corinthians 10:12: ‘Let him that thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.” Then at the bottom of the page comes the proverbial question: “(b) As regards safeguarding oneself from the influence of apostates, why is overconfidence dangerous?”   Then you may even reason that what you’re doing in following Greg and Rolf is “different” from reading apostate literature, but do you think that justifies your bypassing the Slave in order to read and accept their arguments or points? If so, take a close look at the following after the Society allowed the dangerous independent behavior to get out of hand…note the difference in attitude on their part….  Watchtower magazine 8:15-81 (note the date..and remember the house cleaning at Bethel).. “From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. They do not want to serve ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the worldwide brotherhood. (Compare Ephesians 2:19-22.) Rather, they present a ‘stubborn shoulder’ to Jehovah’s words. (Zech. 7:11, 12) Reviling the pattern of the ‘pure language’ that Jehovah has so graciously taught his people over the past century, these haughty ones try to draw the ‘sheep’ away from the one international ‘flock’ that Jesus has gathered in the earth.[[[I’m not saying that you’re doing anything like that now, but only that the WT says this is how it starts..nice and innocent like.]]] (John 10:7-10, 16) They try to sow doubts and to separate unsuspecting ones from the bounteous ‘table’ of spiritual food spread at the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses, where truly nothing is lacking.’ (Ps. 23:1-6) They say that it’s sufficient to the read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christiandom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago,[[[like Barnes and Beckwith, LOL]]] and some have even returned to celebrating Christendom’s festivals again, such as the Roman Saturnalia of December 25! Jesus and his apostles warned against such lawless ones.—Matt. 24:11-13; Acts 20:2;8-30; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22.”…..  Wow, finally after they, through independent thinking come out against the Society’s teachings, the WT drops the hammer on them, so to speak. But many of these ones had witnessed the Slave’s leading them all over the map, and decided that they needed to look around on their own…even looking into “Christendom’s Commentaries”! Such a terrible and dangerous thing to do. So maybe the WT today is suffering from their slowness in the past at nipping such rebellious behavior in the bud before it gets off the ground. After all, Wrench, look at how you’re so willing to walk along the edge of a cliff….reasoning “as long as I don’t step over that line right there….I’m ok”. Hmm….  But is it not obvious to you that they’d rather you guys not “sniff around” away from the bounteous table they’ve spread…where “truly nothing is lacking”. They see a danger, and they have a history to remind them of that danger. Now do you see why I’m so interested in watching to see what the Society does about you guys “sniffing around” on your own. But note especially their reminder that at their bounteous table “truly nothing is lacking”. Remember this, for it will resurface shortly.   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, you start off this whole barrage of quotes by saying “perhaps”. There treatment of those who have published information about different topics should tell you that THIS IS NOT what they are worried about. In each case you mention, there was an “apostasizing” involved. They took a stand “AGAINST” God’s appointed authority in the area of “doctrine”. Greg, Rolf, Firpo, Herle and others have done no such thing and the fact that they have not pulled the “plug” on them, proves that your evaluations of loyalty are out of focus. Firpo and Herle have been published for years. Never once, has there been a word to disregard or to not read their books so, frankly, Ray, I am done with this much belabored question of loyalty to the WT. I KNOW I am loyal to them in all that they teach, and the different interpretation that Greg has offered on John 1:3 is no exception. He is not stating that the WT has “REPUDIATED” their documented explanation, he is merely stating that it could be viewed as an alternative way to look at it, the same way the WT treats other scriptures where one or more explanations may fit the bill. The WT just recently had an article about the three syllable translation of the divine name, and guess who had the very same topic in the first part of his book. In fact, the WT used some of the VERY SAME examples that Greg used to show the three syllable pronunciation. Now, if you think that they wanted to shut Greg up over some supposed ‘disagreement’ that they would repeat nearly word for word in some cases the same information he had in his book? They have done the same with Firpo Carr’s information and the have also quoted other brothers who have written books about and in defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. So, you can continue to harp on this all you want, Ray, but, I feel I am done with the subject and wont continue to waste valuable time and space on an already nearly unmanageable discussion between me and you. I feel well within the bounds of what is acceptable and loyal to the WT, and there responses to these “mavericks” is evidence of that, so, why don’t we just leave it at the PERHAPS that you started out with. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Wrench says: 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.  Ray replies: Yes they do show a tendency to be unstable at times. For example, note above where the WT says they had been accused of sometimes reverting back to a previous point of view (WT magazine 12-01-81) and then they denied it by saying that such had not actually been the case. Well, what would you say if I said I could prove that they had indeed reverted back to a previous point of view? You may be aware that up till 1929 the WT had taught that the “higher powers” in Romans 13 were human governments. But in 1929 they claimed they had received “new light” revealing that the human government interpretation was a lie, and so they replaced it with the “truth” that the higher powers were “Jehovah God and His Son Jesus Christ”. This was given out as new light and the rank & file said “amen”, and it was vigorously defended in the field service until one morning in 1962, the Witnesses woke up and the Society had quietly reverted back to the previous view that the higher powers were human governments again.   What I find so instructive, though, is how this was given out and accepted by the rank & file. The WT boldly declared the truth to be a lie, and held up a lie as the truth…and the witnesses followed along like sheep after the bell-wether, looking neither to the left nor to the right. After all, this was God’s organization….God’s only channel, and surely at their table nothing was lacking! Now, Wrench, I would never make a charge like this if I couldn’t prove it to the hilt. So if you’d like to see the evidence, just me know and I’ll include it.   

 

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

Ray, I have seen this kind of stuff a hundred times over and I don’t think that NOW is the time to go into this stuff. It can wait until we get through what we already have on the table. Don’t you think we have enough to talk about as it is? This discussion, on Microsoft Word is now over 244 pages, and I am not going to introduce another topic at this time and I am little surprised that you would want to either. This can wait if we ever get through what we have. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

 

You mention how the WT holds up a number of “possibilities” to explain John 20:28, but the one they refuse is the most natural one. Heavens forbid that Thomas, having just come from a state of unbelief to belief, spontaneously blurted out and said to Jesus, “my Lord and my God”. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when the anonymous translation Committee was discussing how to render this into English. Should they use a capital “L” for Lord and a small case “g” for God? Naw, that wouldn’t look good. How about both a small “l” and a small “g”?…Naw, that wouldn’t look good either. Did Thomas mean “my true Lord and my untrue god”? That had to be an interesting discussion. At any rate they ended up with big “G” for Jesus.   

 

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

Later on this, too, Ray.

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

 

Wrench says: 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.  Ray replies: Well then, the info I’ve shown above shows the results of too much tolerance for too long. So obviously one wonders how far the WT will let it go before deciding to say “thus far you may go…and no further”. By now, If you’re the loyal witness you say you are, then you know that all the WT has to do is to show concern for such activity, and if you have any aspirations for advancement to a place of responsibility in God’s organization, your best bet is to refocus your priorities. For example, if you are a Ministerial Servant with a good looking beard, and the Society publishes an article in the WT showing concern for beards, perhaps pointing out that they may be harbingers for all sorts of germs….etc….if you would like to be recommended to be an Elder, your best bet is to shave the thing off. They run a tight ship…as they speak softly and carry a big stick. I think I read somewhere where Greg says he’s been pressured from higher up to dispense with his internet dealings and focus more attention on “kingdom activities” is he wants to advance to a position of responsibility in the congregation. I’ll bet he won’t get it till he does.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The concern about Greg was that he was posting on “apostate controlled” boards, and having dealing with “apostates” on those boards without even knowing it. He is still actively posting and Greg is still an elder in his local congregation as far as I am aware of. Enough of this conversation, Ray, let’s please move on. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

Wrench: 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. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  Ray says: Here you make my point for me. I think you are probably referring to Nelson Herle. I know of him and of his book, but have never seen it. But this is the very problem that may have started a new slide down the slippery slope. Because he supported them and remained loyal they refrained from disciplining him, having just come through a terrible storm at Bethel. So they held off, and then along came Greg Stafford or Rolf Furuli..Firpo Carr…Al Kidd (don’t know who came first) and likewise bypassed the Slave by researching independently and publishing their books. So now, who’s next? It won’t be long and it will be every man for himself and who’s gonna care what the WT says about anything anymore? After all, if they didn’t discipline them, why pick on me...will be the new battle cry. Have you ever heard of Jay Hess, Wrench? I’m not sure if he’s the same one I remember, but when I was attending the meetings a story was going around that there was a brother from down south somewhere who had written a book defending the WT Society from charges of false prophesying…apparently he published his book without the WT’s sanction and blessing. This would have been in the 70s sometime I think. I heard he was disciplined and I don’t know if he da’d or was df’d. But I did hear that he has become a real Christian now. So yes, the WT may have sat on it too long, and that’s why I’m wondering what’s coming down the pike. Look at yourself for example. Even you’ve tried to leave the WT out of our discussions. More about this shortly.   

 

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

The ONLY reason I have ever left the WT out of any discussion is because people do not generally respect what they have to say. If I can accomplish the same points without having people object to the fact that it is WT thinking, then that is what I will do. It has NOTHING to do about a question of loyalty. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

Wrench says: Well, even you have mentioned above that there is from time to time, newly discovered information. What is being presented here in relation to "arche" with a genitve phrase could be that, right? If not, why not?  $$$$$$$$  Ray had said: Well, I suppose that a tornado tearing through a junk yard could produce a 747, but the odds seem to be aganst it. It’s not that scholars haven’t noticed the partitive interpretation of the genitive case, because they obviously have. It’s the conclusion you’ve reached that they’ve not reached… that seems to be a problem for you. For example, we cannot say that they have been unaware of the passages you appealed to, for they cite them many times for various reasons.   Wrench replied: Exactly, but have they cited them for the reasons that I have presented? Scriptures are cited all the time for many different things, but that is a far cry from saying that therefore every aspect of grammar and syntax is understood in relation to other examples of like occurences. Being AWARE of a passage has NOTHING to do with knowing all that might bear in ON that passage. $$$$$$$$$$$  Ray replies: Well, we know that at least Barnes did back in 1852 as far as the NT examples go. He cited them to show the same as you claim, didn’t he? And yet he nevertheless rejected the conclusion you reach on the grounds that the Scripture elsewhere proved otherwise. So the more I think about it the more I’m inclined to realize that the assumed strength of Stafford’s evidence is more apparent than real…in other words it is superficial, since not one of his examples contains the same referents and subject material, Christ and all creation to show the relationship between them with reference to the beginning. Instead clear, unambiguous and predicate statements elsewhere in the N.T. (John 1:3, Col 1:15-17, Rev 22:12-16 cf. Matt 16:;27) prove the exact opposite is the truth.   

 

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

I’ve been through this above, Ray.

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

 

$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench says:  Likewise, I will wait to comment on those verses, but, let me assure you, that now, since you make the complaints that you do about my “maverick” ways, I will take the “high” road and present what the WT has obviously offered on the area of John 1:3, and not the “possible” understandings that they have not elaborated on so maybe we can dispense with so much verbage about the WT and what it requires of me in relation to exegesis. Beside, you are already familiar with the “other” explanations I have offered, so, you can choose which one you want to address, maybe both, because either interpretation can be shown to be valid as I hope to demonstrate. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$  Ray replies: LOL…you’re a good man, Wrench, and I take nothing away from you. But the outward appearance of things doesn’t look very good when you try to run away from the WT Organization…no matter what excuse you use. I have no doubt about your sincerity either. If I were in your shoes, I also would dread having to defend the shifting sands of Watchtowerism. It’s about like trying to hold down seven jack-in-the-boxes…no small order!……over here!…….no, over here! …….no, over here!  Ray had said: As I understand it, the GB is the spokesman for the Slave, and the Slave is made up of the whole class of annointed. And you say that they “for the most part write things for the rank and file.” Well, what about Greg Stafford, isn’t he part of the rank & file? It looks to me like you either don’t understand the authority of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, or you are simply doing the Tennessee bird walk to pass off the problems created by both God’s bypassing of the Slave, and then Greg’s bypassing of the Slave as well when he did the independent research and published his book. This wasn’t bad enough, apparently, but then you guys likewise bypass the Slave and eat at the table set by Greg. RRRRRR  Wrench says: 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 replies: When Greg published he did so without waiting for their approval. And by taking this course he showed disrespect for God’s organization by holding himself up as superior to the Slave at defending what he believes to be the truth. Did he wait on them? Did he even allow them to disseminate the info? No he did not, and thus he actually thumbed his nose at Jehovah’s arrangement by usurping the Slave’s place as God’s spokesman. I really wonder if you realize what this looks like from our vantage point? It brings reproach upon the WT Society because it puts on display for all the world to see the disarray that has become Jehovah’s Witnesses of the past several years. When one of the rank & file who’s not even a bethelite, much less a member of the annointed class, runs off on his own to publish a book defending JWs…it’s the same thing as saying to the Slave, “look out, you dummies couldn’t fight ur way out of a paper bag, I’m taking over…I’ll do it!”. If that’s not the message he sent, what is? I can tell you now, that’s the message that’s been received! And those brothers who’ve jumped on his bandwagon, though I doubt if they meant to, have likewise participated in sending that message.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ That’s garbage, Ray. Absolutely no one I know of had any thoughts even remotely resembling what you portray above, certainly not I. If the WT perceived it this way, you can bet your sweet bippy they would have put an end to it long ago, but their stance disproves your claims. That’s why I am done with this topic because it is an endless merry-go-round with you and I keep telling you the same thing over and over.

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

 

You say Greg also presents both ways of explaining John 1:3 and doesn’t land on either one conclusively. Well, then, if he doesn’t land on either one conclusively, perhaps he shouldn’t be in the cockpit either.  

 

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

He isn’t. Maybe you need to read his Introduction, now that you have the book.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  As to John 1:3 and the meanings you’ve attempted to maintain, we will come to them soon, but I need to address a few other points first.You explain that when you say that the WT writes mainly to the rank & file, you mean that they don’t generally write things of a highly technical Greek nature…not that they couldn’t if they chose, but that they’ve determined that it just isn’t needed, probably because most JWs wouldn’t be able to keep up, and that’s a common problem everywhere. So I can understand your point about that. But there is also a point of contradiction. The WT also makes it plain that there is nothing lacking at the table they set. So, if you really believe that, why look elsewhere? Isn’t it obvious that Greg wasn’t satisfied with the table the Slave had set? See my point? He must have felt that something was lacking.   

 

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

I read things of this nature because I am very interested in the implications and conclusions that can be arrived at through the original language considerations. Is it needed? Absolutely not. I do it because I love to do it. There is nothing lacking at that table when it comes to person’s spirituality or relationship with God. We all don’t have to be scholars or even understand a word of the original languages to be saved, do we? This is an aspect of Bible research that I happen to be fascinated with, but, I’ll tell you what, Ray, even though my intention is to stay with this till the end, if it really bothers you that I am doing this with you, if it causes you to look at the WT with even more criticism, then I WILL stop. All you have to do is say the word and we are done. But if you do, remember, it was your choice to end it, not mine. I certainly don’t want you to think less of the WT or even me because of my actions, so, it is your choice if you want to end it. 

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

 

$$$$$ Wrench says:  I don’t regard what I am doing as “disobedient”. I think I am well within the framework of what is allowed. I am not in opposition to anything that they have written. They have not stated that we are only allowed to puppet what they have said in every regard, and nor do they expect that. I am extremely cautious when I present anything or at least I try to be. As long as we remain within the framework of the “truth” that they have determined, there can be more than one way to look at certain scriptures that properly support those “truths” and I think the facts bespeak that stance as I mentioned earlier. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  Ray replies: But that did not answer my question directly. My question was “did you wait for direction from God’s organization before you accepted it as from the Lord and true? And the answer is “no”. See my point? Can you honestly say that when you obtained Greg’s book, you really believed with regard to the Slave’s table, there was truly nothing lacking?  

 

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

Nothing lacking when it comes to providing what is needed to have a meaningful relationship with God and to be a spiritual person. I don’t think they have ever provided a deck of cards for recreation or a volley ball net, and certainly recreation is needed. What Greg did was not NECESSARY, Ray, but, it certainly provides a convenience for those who are deeply interested in these things. I do not believe the WT has any problem with what has happened in relation to these authors, their stance indicates that, so I do not feel I am being disloyal by any stretch, But, if you think so, then I don’t want to continue to stumble you and I will continue my discussions with other people. It’s up to you.

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

 

 In fact didn’t Greg supply what you felt was lacking from the Slave’s table? The same was so with Kazz, and Martin Smart, Wes Williams, Barry Klooney, and SOTB…Greg supplied for all of you what was lacking from the Slave’s table.   

 

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

Not.

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

 

 $$$$$$ Wrench says: I haven’t commented on this because I haven’t read Greg’s response yet and don’t plan to for some time, I just don’t have the time to spare. I would have to familiarize myself with the whole line of thought before I comment. Besides, I would have to see if the WT would have a problem with that statement or not. Maybe by this time, they are in agreement with what Greg stated, I don’t know. But, as it is, I certainly didn’t use that info for anything, what I did use were scriptural examples that establish a point. I used scripture throughout my entire treatise. I appreciated the points about this that were touched on by Greg and Rolf and I formulated it into a presentation but you will notice I did not quote them for anything, I consistently quoted scripture to establish the arguments. So, it is not like I am in anyway violating scripture or valid exegesis or taking a stand against the WT’s position on this information. That is why I feel I am well within the bounds of what they allow. There treatment of Greg and Rolf and others who have written books of this nature bespeak that to be the case.   You know, you could ask Greg about this yourself and let me know what he says. He is only an email away. $$$$$$  Ray replies: No you wouldn’t need to familiarize yourself with the whole line of thought to recognize that Greg believes he’s qualified to sit in judgment over the WT, and thus declare that they relied too heavily on Harner. Obviously he considers himself superior to the Society so that he could know when they had relied too heavily on him. In doing that, he believes they were wrong, and he himself right. You see, this is what the WT says is a natural result of independent reasoning…he has become inebriated with himself. One thing is for certain, the cat is out of the bag on this one. Seems like everyone knows about it, and Greg will not escape having to face it. If you’d like, I can have Robert send you a copy of his letter, but it may even be posted on Dave Sherrill’s board. You’ve been honest in admitting that you got some of these ideas from Stafford, but I figured as much anyhow. I know you probably think I’m giving you the third degree, and I have been, but there’s a good reason for it, and by now you should already have it figured out. And last, If Greg wishes to speak with me, I’m not hard to find.  

 

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

I will let Greg and the WT hash that out if they ever see the need. Certainly haven’t seen any chastisement yet. I’ve explained my position too many times already, Ray. If you can’t get past this, as much as I would hate losing our connection, I’m not going to keep going through this. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Ray said: A similar situation to this occurred at Bethel about 20 years ago, I think, and it came to a head in the spring of 81. Bethelites were being DFd all over the place, brothers were ratting on each other so as to not be part of the “conspiracy”. Many bethelites considered this to be a “witchhunt”. And the WT says it all came about because of “independent thinking” on the part of some at headquarters. Many of the Bethelite brethren were having private meeetings and bible studies without supervision from the WT material, and this even resulted in a GB member being DFd (Ray Franz). In the end, Ray was actually Dfd for having a meal with someone else who had been DFd (Peter Gregerson) who was his employer! You may say and think that you aren’t leading a “sect”, but who knows what will happen down the road a tad? What if Greg decides to DA, and go off and start his own organization of “truth’? You’ve already gone out ahead of the Slave anyway, and accepted his “stumbled upon” 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 replies: 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. $$$$$$$$$$$  Ray replies: Hold the phone a minute: I’ve always thought that if any witness “runs out ahead” of the organization with an opposing view, he will either give it up post haste or be df’d. Running ahead means finding information on your own, even if it’s true, and then going with it without waiting on God’s organization to bring it out. After all, according to them that’s their job, and Jesus gave it to them.   

 

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

Again, their stance does not indicate that and I don’t know how many more times I have to say this. In fact, I don’t want to say it again.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

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? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench replies: I think he was well within the bounds of what he would be allowed to do from their standpoint, as their treatment of both him and Rolf would establish. Rolf is very active within the organization and used quite frequently. Greg has many responsibilities in his home congregation. Greg and Rolf are not presenting the information they have in the format of being God’s appointed authority on the matter and neither am I.  $$$$$$$  Ray replies: I think the above applies equally here. I don’t see how you can say he showed respect for Jehovah’s theocratic arrangement… when he published it himself…without waiting on them to bring it out as God’s appointed spokesman. But if they choose to do nothing, they may be making their own bed. It’s no skin off my nose, but I’m thinking there’s gonna be a train wreck somewhere down the line here. Either that or the JWs will go the way of the Roman Empire. Governing Body? What’s that?  

 

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

And I think not.

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

 

3. If, as you’ve shown here, it is possible to ascertain the “truth”, and disemminate it without going thru the Slave, what real need is there for the slave? If anything will get the WT’s attention, this one will! $$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench replies: Greg did not establish the “truth” that Christ is a created being. The WT, by means of the Bible DID. What Greg has done is to show auxiliary evidence that supports and confirms what they have already found to be true. There is nothing wrong with that. Is it NEEDED? No. But the fact that it is not needed, does not mean that it is forbidden, otherwise Greg and Rolf would not be where they are and they would not be used in the manner they are used. $$$$$  Ray replies: Pretty much handled above. But we see that it was the “auxiliary evidence” that had been lacking from the Slave’s table.   

 

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

I certainly didn’t or don’t NEED anything that has been written from Greg or Rolf or any of the others, but it certainly saves a lot of time for them to have compiled and collated all this information. I was busy defending the WT 25 years ago and have never had a problem, long before Greg or Rolf or any one else ever published a book. I am sure if I would have inquired of the WT Society on any information that I needed, they could have supplied like information themselves.

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

 

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’”! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I explained what I meant by this phrase earlier. Yes you did…. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  5. Please explain how the WT Organization is God’s “only channel on earth”, if it is true that God channels the truth THROUGH the scholarly community, and also if it is OK to bypass the Slave in ascertaining the truth and disemminating it around the Slave? Are you sure you believe that the WT Society is God’s only channel?  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench answers: 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 thinkYOU 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.   Ray says: You seem to overlook who is supposed to disseminate this, the Slave! The WT used to claim that the Supreme Court in heaven (Christ Jesus) actually interpreted the bible and these were delivered by angels to the Slave at the temple in Brooklyn. Were you aware of that? But now you say they don’t believe that anymore? And yes I believe that some Scripture is understood progressively, which shows the hypocrisy on the part of JWs who have attacked Trinitarians on such grounds. Witnesses don’t have much wiggle room here.   

 

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

Are you trying to say that the Trinitarians are behind in their understanding or what? I don’t believe anyone should attack anyone who is willing to sit down and discuss something although I am sure there have been many who have, on both sides of the fence. I know the WT has stated things that could certainly be viewed as carrying an idea too far, but they have qualified themselves time and again as NOT being inspired or infallible and sometimes we and they can let there own ideas get in the way of what God wants. But the scriptures are clear that God has appointed SOMEONE as an authority against heresy and to protect the truth. I believe wholeheartedly that the WT is that authority as reflected in the governing body. They are not perfect and don’t claim to be, but as I stated, God does not reveal things to them in a direct fashion but prods there thinking in the right direction. Sometimes they make errors because of this procedure, but I view it this way. To me, it’s much like the way God has delivered the scriptures to us. We know the originals were inspired, but God did not see it necessary down through the ages to make sure every copy of the bible made was without error, yet, through trial and error and correction, we today have what we can reasonably rely on as an accurate reflection of what was written by the original writers. Mistakes were made, but not to the extent that the fundamental truths of the bible were ever destroyed. In the same way, I think he deals with his appointed authority the same way today. He doesn’t inspire them to protect them from every error, but their errors are not so great or damaging so as to destroy the fundamental truths of God’s Word. As he no doubt prodded individual translators and sincere students of the bible in the past to correct the errors of previous translations and to come to appreciate the errors “so-called orthodox” teaching, I believe that he today continues to prod his sincere followers in the right direction toward an understanding and clarity of truth. That doesn’t mean that it is always a forward motion either because humans can, by there own misled preferences dampen the light of truth for a time but if they are sincere, God will prod them until they get it right, and I believe the WT continues to get it right despite the errors and setbacks along the way. 

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

 

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 replies: You say the knowledge they take in is not “just a WT invention”?? What about when they suddenly in 1929 said they had received new light which revealed to them that the human government view of the higher powers in Romans 13 was a lie, so they replaced it with the truth. And “all God’s chillen said ‘amen”. Then they quietly switched back in 1962. You don’t think that was a WT invention? Hmmm  

 

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

They were wrong. And what I said it was not “JUST” WT INVENTION. That doesn’t mean that they have never derived truth or error, for that matter, on there own. 

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

 

Ray had said: You mention calling the Watchtower Soceity, Wrench, and although I’ve never meant to hurt anyone on a personal level, if you would be willing to come out in the open and use your real name, we might indeed be able to bring the Society to bear on some of these things which have been going on. Including Greg Stafford’s book. At least he has revealed his name, right? I’d really like to see how the WT would react to some of this stuff because of the way they’ve reacted at an earlier time., when similar activity was going on at Bethel Headquarters in Brooklyn. I’ll leave that up to you.  $$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench replies: The WT already knows of Greg’s book so what is the point of telling them about it? I decided before I ever got on the net that I preferred to stay anonymous for various reasons, least of which is worrying about the WT. They know Greg and Rolf are both on the net and what have they done? They know others are on the net, too, and they know their names and how to get ahold of them, and what have they done except caution everyone to be extremely careful and to tell them that they don’t NEED these brothers to do such a thing, but it has NOT been forbidden. That tells me something about their stance that is different then the way you are presenting it. If they really wanted us to not do this AT ALL, it wouldn’t have been hard to just say it when they addressed it before. $$$$$$$$$$$$$  Ray says: I think I’ve read recently where Greg has admitted he’s getting some pressure from higher up to curtail his net activities and focus more on congregational duties. And in the years preceding the house cleaning at Bethel in the Spring of 1980, they had also tried to hold back…but it finally got out of hand, from their perspective. Shucks, Wrench, we’re liable to end up with a whole new generation of apostates…  

 

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

 I am sure you would like that but I think not.

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

 

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 revelled in it, and written 365 tracts a year to defend it as a glorious and indispensible truth. And yet you tell me that you got it from Greg and this other guy…”?  $$$$$ Wrench replied: And who is to say they wont yet disseminate the information once they feel inclined to do so? They’ve done it before so it appears from the example I mentioned earlier. They will no doubt be doubly sure before they do though. $$$$$  Ray replies: Why would they NOT feel inclined to do so if the evidence is as convincing as you think? Why wouldn’t such decisive evidence already be on the Slave’s table, where they had said “truly nothing is lacking”? Just doesn’t add up, does it?   

 

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

I am sure they are quite secure in what they have already printed concerning the Trinity. It has been my experience in studying with people that it is not a hard thing to get them to reject it. The information we have is quite adequate. If they feel they want to share the info that Stafford and Rolf have gathered with all the flock, then I am sure they will, but, I am also sure that they know that there are more pressing concerns on the minds of people today than the Trinity doctrine.

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

 

 As I said, I’m beginning to think you’ve been sold a bill of goods by Stafford with regard to the “arche with a genitive” evidence in the bible. Again, think now, remember that even Barnes cited the NT references as having the “first in the series meaning”, right? Yet he nevertheless rejected that meaning for 3:14 on the grounds that it was contradicted by the New Testament elsewhere with regard to the same referents and subject material (the relationship between Christ and all creation relative to the beginning). So how many of Greg’s examples of “arche with the genitive” actually contained the same referents and subject material?  

 

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

Whether they carry the same referents or not does not necessarily effect the way all arches followed by a genitive are read and understood. It’s merely one facet of the overall picture, but certainly not the deciding facet, and the examples given as has been shown, are nowhere near “unambiguous”.

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

 

 If none do, how can this be taken as decisive at Rev 3:14? Since passages like John 1:3, Col. 1:15-17, (Rev 22:12-16 cf. Matt 16:27) make unambiguous predicate statements regarding the same referents and subject material, setting forth the reality that the logos preexisted all creation with not even a single exception, they should be regarded as decisive when interpreting Rev 3:14. Now that would explain why Greg’s examples did not create so much as a ripple in the scholarly community throughout all the centuries, and it would even have the added bonus for loyal Witnesses of exonerating the Slave for not having cited it either.

 

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

Well, we know they considered Barnes info the subject since they quoted some of the same quotes that I did to you. Time will tell whether they present the info or not. I know that after Nelson Herle came out with his publication and sent the Society a copy, they printed much of the information that came from his book in quite a few succeeding articles. They have already, in a sense, put an approval on what Greg and Firpo have offered in regard to the Divine name. Don’t be so sure that the information about Rev. 3:14 will never hit the press because I would venture to say that you are wrong.

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

 

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.  Ray says: How then do they justify calling themselves “God’s only channel”?   Wrench had said: The Society through research into certain words have drawn their conclusions because of the work of scholars on the subject. The "truth" that they dispensed came through scholastic evident and dligent research into an area. What did they research? The scholastic evidence that is available from the scholastic world. Now, as they research this evidence, does God's spirit help them and prod them in the direction of a better understanding? I would say so. So whereas it is under the direction of God's spirit, it is not without the considerations from the scholarly world, be that from Greg or Rolf or somebody else. You may think that me or anyone else to use this information is cart before the horse or in some way "against" the authority of the WT, but I don't see how it hardly could be when it is in complete agreement with the evidence that supports their viewpoint concerning Rev. 3:14. They are not going to worry about whether or not I'm using something that is in complete agreement with their findings, even if it is a new aspect of what they have covered. It certainly isn't the promoting of a sect as spoken of in Titus 3:9-11. It 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 replies: Note above how you acknowledge the Society’s research into certain words, and then you say that they are prodded by the Holy Spirit to a better understanding. Well, we know that Jws believe the Slave is made up of the “annointed class…likewise known as the chosen ones…Christ’s spiritual brothers. Now please tell me if you think the Holy Spirit prodded Greg, Rolf, and the other scholars of the world before the Slave? In other words, did God’s Spirit bypass the Slave in order to prod Greg and Rolf to a “better understanding” first? He bypassed his only channel?  

 

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

Greg and Rolf’s professions are ones of scholarship, both having received degrees in the original languages. Rolf is currently a semantics lecturer at Oslo University and I think Greg is now teaching. They have the right to make scholarly observation but they will tell you in no uncertain terms that they are not involved in the process of the “slave’s” job to feed the sheep and dispense the truth for the congregation of God.. Rolf and Greg have offfered what they have found in regard to the original language implications and they have every right to do so. It is not a usurpation of the “slave’s” authority. They have not seated themselves in the chair of the “slave” as if the slave was too feeble to care of themselves.

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

 

 Let’s take this a step further. Do you also believe the Holy Spirit prodded Greg to publish his book first and disseminate this better understanding around the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

 

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

Who said it is better? How do we know that the slave wouldn’t agree that they over estimated Harner’s information? I am not familiar enough with the evolution of that line of thinking to know what the current thought is. If Greg steps out of bounds in their estimation, believe me, they WILL correct him, and if I know Greg at all, he will comply immediately. The WT’s treatment of Greg and Rolf disproves your views that you have presented in this regard and as I have said I am tired of talking about it. If you can’t get past it, if I am stumbling you in some fashion by my actions, then I will move on to other discussions with other people and you can do what you want to.

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

 

Though the Society has said that with regard to the table set by the Slave, “truly nothing is lacking”. I’m sitting here thinking of an alternative explanation that probably makes better sense, but I wonder if you will have the personal integrity to admit it. What is it?  

 

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

What are you talking about? Now, you are questioning my personal integrity? Over what?

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

 

Could it be that you simply agreed with Greg when he got tired of waiting for the F&D Slave to put on the table what the rank & file had been craving for, namely something to fight back with?  

 

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

That is a pathetic evaluation, Ray. Believe me, there was plenty to fight with and without those publications there still is.

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

 

And so when he finally got a belly full, he went off on his own, as if to say to the Slave “get out of the way, if you won’t do the job, I will”, and so when he began to publish his “stumbled upon findings” you, like Wes Williams and the others, became infatuated with him and he became your hero. I have a hunch that this probably comes closer to the real deal than anything else.  

 

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

You are deluding yourself with what you want the situation to be.

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

 

Wrench had 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 then: 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 replies: In a discussion such as ours it should be obvious that I would hold you to the authoritarian structure of the organization you profess allegiance to. And should I neglect to do so I would be in dereliction of duty. It is not a question of being “forced” into it. Rather, my attitude is that I would shout it on the housetops if I thought it would help you and others in your situation see what I’m trying to show you. If I could afford it, I would take out a full page add in the USA Today, if I thought it would do that. Also, please understand that my actions do not spring from a heart filled with hatred, nor do I speak from a platform of arrogance. It is my desire to show the inconsistencies and difficulties any attempt to defend the Watchtower Society will lead its defenders into. And I do this with genuine concern for another equal human being who comes across to me as a decent and honest individual.  

 

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

I’m not calling into question your integrity, Ray, but I honestly don’t think I am in some kind of breach of allegiance with the WT. If I find I am wrong, then I will personally apologize to you, abandon any argument that they haven’t promoted theirself and proceed from there. I am not so proud that I couldn’t do that, but, I see their stance toward these authors as an indication that what they have done is not a rebellion, and they know guys like me and others are reading this stuff and using it to some degree. I do not think MORE of what Greg has said than what the WT has said and the only reason I adopted the earlier explanation of John 1:3 is because I do see an indication that they themselves may have left an opportunity open to look at things like that. Obviously they didn’t “repudiate” either viewpoint, and it would appear that the explanation that I give now is their preferred explanation. The “arche with a genitiive” I see to be in full compliance and agreement with what they have found to be true, especially since I know that they considered and quoted for the rank and files consideration, Barnes article on arche which considered many of the NT references of arche with a genitive. The fact that they have not specifically deemed an article of that nature as necessary, doesn’t mean that the information can not be used if it is accurate, and there is nothing innacurate about it, because truly, every case where arche is followed by a genitive, it is part of the genitive that follows it, that should be uncontested (not including our topic scripture, of course) by anyone who looks at the information.

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

 

Ray had answered: 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 Organization, 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!  

 

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

Well, the new and improved (with extra whiteners added!) version of John 1:3 that I am now offering is certainly in agreement and as I said, I would have never offered the other had I thought that it was an outright disagreement with the WT, nor do I think Greg would have done so, and nor do I think they would have tolerated such as they have in relation to what Greg has written and the others. So for now, as I’ve said, I feel I am done with this topic. If something significant arises in relation to this then we can talk about it, but, for now, it’s taking up a tremendous amount of time and space that it doesn’t need to.

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

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench said: Just WHERE is the DISAGREEMENT? That hasn’t been clearly established at all. $$$$$$$$$$$  Ray replies: I thought I’d already shown that, but we shall go through it again, this time in a little more detail. Standing as obstacles to the goals you had set forth in the reframing of your treatise are passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17. The reason they should be recognized as obstacles is because they contain the same referents and subject material, and because they express themselves in straight- forward and unambiguous language. Thus John 1:3 reads as follows in the NWT:  “ All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.”  There is a question as to whether the final “what has come into existence” belongs to verse 3 or 4. It begins with a neuter relative pronoun “ho” and has the appearance of the masculine article, except for the accent. Most translations and commentaries that I’ve seen, including the Diaglott, tend to take the expression with verse 3 by appending it, not after a full stop, but after a comma and using in English “which or that”. Taken with verse 3 it tends to strengthen the language in that verse. The NWT Committee solved the problem in an interesting way. They refrained from including it in verse 4, but isolated it on a separate line from verse 3. Either way, the language in verse 3 remains unambiguous.   Note what the passage says as long as it is allowed to speak for itself with no “help” from Ray or Wrench. It begins with the generic expression “all things”. We do NOT read “all other things”. We do not read “all physical or material things”. It simply and clearly says “all things” (panta). Then comes the pronoun “him” (autou) placed before the verb for emphasis. Notice that “panta” and “autou” are distinguished, one being in the nominative and the other the genitive case. In the same way “logos” and “theon” are distinguished from each other in 1:1b. Now, if the passage ended right here, the Jehovah’s Witnesses would be in pretty good shape. They could easily show examples elsewhere in the bible where although a passage used the generic “all things”, the context nevertheless showed an exception. And many of the Witnesses have attempted to do the same thing here. However there is a snag…a problem if you will. What is it?  The passage continues, and states negatively what it had just said positively. In the first part of the verse it says positively that “all things came into existence through him”, and in the latter half it negatives even a single exception (not even one). The latter half of the verse contains a clarifier that none of the verses the Witnesses cite contain. So the clarifier puts this verse in a class by itself, and indicates in no uncertain terms that John’s intent here is to prevent anyone from playing a shell-game with his words. When he says “all things” he means it! So then, if left alone to speak for itself, this verse would distinguish the logos from everything that ever came into existence…without exception. And this would obviously set the logos’ existence as a fact prior to the coming into existence of the first thing that ever did so.   I think most JWs would be frank enough to admit that if this passage goes against them, their ship is sunk. The JW edifice will tumble to the ground like a house of cards. Indeed their whole safety rests, in the last resort, upon holding this fort against attack. As Provost Salmon had said, we face an adversary who has been driven from one fortress after another, but now secures himself with special confidence in his last. If he fails here he must fall back in a rout.   You have written a treatise, Wrench, and you were even given a chance to reframe the goals and standards you intend to meet. You said you intend to demonstrate that the natural understanding of the phrases in the three-fold witness you cite weighs heavily against the Trinitarian, both individually and collectively. Against that claim I and others of Orthodox persuasion have cited John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17, the natural understanding of which would rule out your interpretation of Rev 3:14 (the first of your three-fold witness).   It is extremely important at this point to make sure we keep our eye on the ball. All I need here is for you to leave this passage as it reads by itself…naturally. Because by itself it says all things generically, and denies even a single exception. And thus the logos’ existence would be a fact prior to the coming into existence of the first thing that ever did so. Obviously this would rule out your interpretation of Rev 3:14. So you cannot afford to leave it as it states…instead if you wish to sustain your interpretation of Rev 3:14 you must first remove this obstable by not allowing it to have it natural unmanipulated meaning. You do not have the liberty, Wrench, of just pointing to the possibility that it could mean something else….Why? Because that would also admit that it could mean what it says naturally…and it is your treatise that is on the line. Let the passage speak for itself, and you’re sunk. And if you can’t prove your alternative, it must be left to speak for itself…and it will!  So then, with this in mind, you addressed yourself to this passage. What was your solution? Your response was to claim that the “all things” of verse 3 must be restricted to all physical things. If you could maintain such, that would allow for non physical things to come into existence outside the scope of the passage. Hence, then, “all” would be understood within a controlled sphere. We must be reminded, however, that if you can’t prove your claimed limitation, the passage will speak for itself without any limitations or controlled sphere except the category of creation. In other words, left alone speaking for itself, the passage is not subject to the controlled sphere, and the logos’ existence is a fact before all creation…physical or non physical…with not a single exception.   Now your first attempt to infuse a controlled sphere into the text of John 1:3 was by trying to connect it to the beginning in Genesis 1:1. This you explained refers only to the creation of the material universe. The problem for this is that there is nothing in the context of John 1 that even remotely restricts the “all things”, but also nothing that clearly attaches the beginning to Gen. 1:1. In the absence of contextual indicators, your only hope is that the WT Society would give you something in their reference bible to point to.   Thus, when you presented me with this alternative my first order of events was to ascertain the WT’s official explanation of the order of creation. I soon discovered that they did not leave the matter uncommented upon. In fact they provided a rather detailed and elaborate order of events in their bible dictionary “Aid to Bible Understanding”. They point out in plain words that the beginning of John 1:1 refers to “the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works”, which to them was the logos’ creation. Next, then, comes an interval of time during which the logos created the spirit creatures, after that comes the creation of the physical universe (Gen. 1). So this was the WT’s official position on the order of creation as early as 1971 when the “Aid” book was copywritten. Now, how well established was this order of events in the WT’s mind? Was it just haphazardly thrown down? Well, since my last letter, Wrench, I have discovered that this elaborate and clearly set forth order of events was even passed on to the new dictionary (2 Volumes of Divine Insight) in exactly the same order and published in 1988.   The WT posits a time period of indeterminate length between the beginning of John 1:1 and the beginning of Gen 1:1 during which occurred the creation of the spirit angels. So according to this clearly established order of events by the WT the beginning being referred to in John 1:1 was the one before the creation of spirit angels…and hence before the physical universe. So at that point your suggested solution was at variance with the official position of the WT, and I pointed it out to you. How did you respond to this?  Ray continues: First, before getting into that, let me ask you to consider a question. Have you ever taken a few moments to ponder over what might have led the Watchtower Society to adopt and publish the order of events in such detail in the above publications? Consider John chapter 1 for example. What could have led them to identify the beginning mentioned in verse 1 with the creation of the logos?  I hope you can see, Wrench, that the WT too, like most anyone who reads this, was struck by the way John was inspired to set this forth step by step. First he starts by identifying the logos with God in the beginning…then the next step John mentions the coming into existence of “all things” generically presented, and he flatly denies any exceptions to this. Well, imagine how the WT, having taught for decades that the logos was the first of Jehovah’s creations, would be led to connect up this beginning in verse 1 with that. They felt as though they had the context with them. In other words, if any should wonder, they could say “well, we are merely taking it in the order John lays it out for us”, so right after he shows us the logos and ton theon (God) together, he then puts the logos in the middle and the next creation in the order occurred (all things generically including the spirit angels that followed the logos’ creation). Do you see how at least the Society could say they were interpreting this passage in accordance with its context…right down the line? I’m sure you can see that. But something was wrong, dreadfully wrong. What was it?  John 1:3. Although the WT may have felt they had the context with them in recognizing this order, the witnesses out in the field were getting beat over the head with John 1:3, and the WT’s identification of this beginning as the very beginning of Jehovah’s creative works was like a millstone around their necks. As long that order were adhered to, they could not get around the “all things” of 1:3, which distinguished the logos from the whole category of creation without even a single exception…at the beginning.

 

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

Everything that you have presented thus far I have covered above in relation to John 1:3, but, this comment here is not accurate. It does not say that the “all things” are without exception AT the beginning. It says that the “all things” are without exception as having come THROUGH the Logos. The phrase “in the beginning”, as I have pointed out refers to a time period that began and ended, therefore, the all things are “all things” AFTER the “beginning” concluded and elapsed, and that beginning, was the creation of the Logos (Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15 and Prov. 8:22)

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

 

And so it was seen by the rank & file that they could not allow themselves to be so concerned with following the context in this place. To do so would lead to the ruin, the irretrievable ruin of their whole position. They saw that they could not afford to be too concerned with the immediate context and staying in perfect agreement with it. Eventually it was seen that what was needed was some way to account for verse 3 without having to admit that the logos existed before the first of Jehovah’ creations (the all things generically). For them it was time to be pragmatic…don’t worry about the context, our whole ship is on the line here. And so a solution had to be found because it was required by the system. An exigency of the system, it’s called. Our system requires it, therefore it is so.  

 

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

This problem you present is in your own mind, Ray, for it has never been in mind or any witness I know of in relation to John 1:3 and I don’t think there has been a problem thus far since I have adopted, at your prodding, the interpretation that is in the Aid Book that you say, should be tying me in knots. 

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

 

With this in mind, how did you respond to the order of creation presented by the Society in their dictionaries, both the 1971 Aid book, and the 1988 Insight Volumes? Did the WT give up this detailed order of creation in order to “free up” their followers? Let’s take a look at your reaction, Wrench.   Wrench had said: Well, anyway, regardless of that. Let's take another look at what the WT DOES say about John 1:1 and it's connection with Genesis 1:1. knowledge page 394 Jesus Christ-The Key to the Knowledge of God John 1:1 says that “the Word” (Jesus in his prehuman existence) was with God “in the beginning.” So the Word was with Jehovah when “the heavens and the earth” were created. God was addressing the Word when He said: “Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:1, 26) $$$  Ray replied: Of course it is true that the Word was with God when the heavens and earth were made, but how does that equate the beginning of Gen 1 with the one in John? Sure the Son was with the Father when "the heavens and the earth" were created, problem for you is that the context in John 1-4 doesn't use these specific terms...so there's nothing in THIS context to authorize such a restriction. You can't sneak'm in Wrench :-)  And now note the following admission you make with a priceless naivety that can only spring from the basic honesty in your heart.   Wrench said: 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: Ok, at this point, it’s time to bring not only to our attention, but to the attention of anyone who may be following this exchange. Applying that basic honesty one more time, between the two of us, who is it at this point who cannot allow the bible to speak for itself in the actual words expressed. Who cannot, for example, allow the words “all things” expressed generically to really mean that without even a single exception. Who is constrained to apply a restriction to the scope of the “all things”, a restriction that is not stated in the text itself? The obvious answer is that it is you, Wrench. You have seen that if you don’t do that, the JW ship is sunk. Thus you have a motive for searching to find some way to not be held to the WT’s elaborately expressed order of creation.   

 

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

I think this is passe, Ray, don’t you?

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

 

With that in mind, as you rummage your way through other WT publications you come across the above and suddenly you see it. Hey, could the WT be allowing here for some connection of the beginning in Gen 1:1 with the beginning in John 1:1? Could I take it that way? I’m sitting here trying to imagine the struggle that must be going on inside the mind of a basically honest person who is trying to maintain his personal integrity on the one hand, and find some way to hang on by the eyelids to a previously believed point of view on the other. So you feel compelled to admit “it’s not conclusive in restricting John 1:1 with Gen 1:1, but I could see how it could be taken to be opening up the possibility of that interpretation…”   Do you know, Wrench, if the WT actually repudiates their previously elaborated upon order of creation? I get the impression that you are not really sure of that. And indeed the wording in the Knowledge book doesn’t make that clear at all. All the statements they make in the Knowledge book would be just as true with their previously published order in place. Could there be some convenient interpretation going on here? I would be interested to find out for sure about that. Could you check it out for me, Wrench. In regard to the order the WT’s presents as their official position in the “Aid and Insight” dictionaries, there can be no doubt whatsoever, but as even you seem to admit, it is not at all clear that they meant to actually repudiate themselves in the Knowledge book. Btw, I’ve been thinking about that book…if it was a little dark red book, I remember having a copy of it, and I loaned it out and never got it back. Am I right? If so, then I have been through it. Guess I’ll have try to find another.   

 

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

No one ever suggested a repudiation of one viewpoint over the other except you, Ray, because you find it convenient to try to make that seem the case, but, I have not or any other witness that I know of has made it seem like a repudiation. Greg and others, including myself, have felt that there was an opening for another way to view these things by the WT itself, for if we had felt we were in disagreement with them , it would not have been promoted. I think you may have a habit of overstating things and then attacking the overstatement.

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

 

Guess what, my friend? I just received a copy of Stafford’s and Furuli’s books in the mail. I remember saying to you that I would not buy Greg’s book, and I did not. I’m off work sick right now, but even if I could afford it I don’t know that I would have bought it…though I must admit that I’ve been tempted. My brother in the Lord, Dave Sherrill, God bless him, purchased them both for me and had them shipped here. But as I peruse through Stafford’s book I now see where you got the “Knowledge” reference. I honestly had most of this letter already written, up to the previous paragraph…so I’m sure I’ll have more to say later in this regard. Greg’s book is pretty thick and seems well organized. Looks like it’s gonna be a good read.   As I look over Greg’s presentation, it seems that you aren’t quite ready to claim boldly that the Knowledge reference is really an intended repudiation on the WT’s part of their order of creation as set forth in Insight Volumes of 1988. According to Greg, this order of creation was still the “truth” as recent as 1993 (page 315), so unless you or he can show that the WT indeed has repudiated this order, we must not take for granted that they did. Greg doesn’t cite any other WT references, and even you’ve admitted that it seems inconclusive. If a more clearly worded statement of repudiation were available,  he most likely would have cited it, don’t you think? Now it begins to make sense, and now I see why you seemed in limbo, not knowing which way to go, yet willing to go either way.  

 

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

Again, there was no repudiation indicated and I think you know that, and this supposed quandry that you think I am in is again, in your own mind.

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

 

 I think I’m going to end this letter with a simple reminder that if you choose to deny the WT’s elaborate order of creation as applicable in John 1, you will have to do what you said you’d do in the reframing of your treatise. You said you would “demonstrate” that the natural meaning of the phrases in the three-fold witness weigh heavily against the Trinitarians. So you’ve indicated and acknowledged your willingness to take the bull by the horns, so to speak. As I pointed out earlier, Wrench, given the goals you set for yourself, if you allow John 1:3 to speak for itself without intruding something foreign to the context, the plain and natural sense of the words in this verse will destroy the JW position. They appear in a generic way “all things” it says, and YOU have to start playing fast and loose, haggling and boggling, over trying to limit the natural generic language that led the WT Society to see that the beginning in John 1:1 indeed referred to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works….and thus NOT the beginning in Gen. 1:1.  

 

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

You know, Ray, I am wondering if you actually read the rest of my response concerning John 1:3 because I would think that you would see that this is passe. I’ve moved past it, and I sure think that you should, too. As I have shown, there is surely no destruction of our position in adopting the precedented position that the WT has on John 1:3. Your assuming too much.

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

 

Therefore it will be your burden to prove that the language in 1:3 cannot mean what it says generically “all things”…with not even one exception. Remember, Wrench, possibilities will do you no good here. You must prove that the “all things” of 1:3 MUST be restricted to all physical things. Anything short of that will mean that the natural language it comes with will be all inclusive and admit of no exceptions. Thus your first witness has failed to acquit itself so as to add to the collective force of your treatise. In addition, you have not yet verified your “explanation” of corruption based on “bias” at Rev 3:14 for the Grim/Thayer Lexicon, and until you do by showing specific examples of such “corruption” right where you claim it occurred, it will remain as a mark against your treatise.  

 

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

Your appraisal here is in error and certainly premature. Again, as I stated at the beginning of this response, I will repeat here:  You say I am “asserting” this position without proof, but let me remind you of what it is I “have” to do in relation to John 1:3. Contrary to your insistence that I have to absolutely prove that the interpretation I offer is the correct one, all I really have to do is to demonstarte that it does not carry a Trinitarian force behind it strong enough to overturn the natural reading of Rev. 3:14. You have stated that the scholars and what-not evidently felt that John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 were so solid for a Trinitarian interpretation that they were “heavy” enough to cause one to interpret Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 in the “light” of those two scriptures. What I have demonstrated, without corrupting any natural reading of John 1: 3 is that it does not possess that kind of Trinitarian “weight” behind it. I don’t have to prove it at all, Ray. I just have to show that it isn’t strong enough to overturn the natural reading of “beginning of the creation by God”. That is what you were relying on in order to not accept the the interpretation that JW’s have of Revelation 3:14. You were counting on John 1:3 being understood “naturally” only one way, your way, but what I have shown, and I have done so without appealing to any unprecedented elements, without destroying the natural meaning of the words, and well within the bounds of grammar and syntax, I have shown, that really, are far as verse 3 is concerned, we both read it the same way. We differ as to whether “all things” means “everything created”, but as far as the way the sentence reads, it’s not much different. The real difference in our understanding is the phrase “in the beginning” and the effect that it has on the rest of the context of the passage, as I explained above.

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

 

To establish this new JW idea of identifying the beginning in John 1:1 with the beginning in Gen 1:1 and restricting the generic “all things” to only physical things, the burden is on you to show how the context of John chapter one requires that, or even remotely suggests such a restriction. The WT doesn’t see it in their order of events, and I would observe that Greg does not display much enthusiam or confidence in defending the new suggestion, for after admitting that the WT’s order of creation as elaborated upon in their “Insight Volumes” (1988) were still the “truth” as recent as 1993, he introduces his new idea from the Knowledge book with the words “Whatever the case , the Witnesses’ present understanding of the “beginning: of John 1:1 can be gathered…”. Is this just his interpretation of that reference? Then on the next page, after explaining where everything ends up after applying the new idea, he says “When John said the Word was “en arxn” (en arche, ‘in the beginning’) he undoubtedly had in mind the same ‘beginning’ of Genesis 1:1….”…yet a little further down the page we read “However, no one can be dogmatic here, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not dogmatic about it.” But hold the phone! He humbly admits here that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not dogmatic about it, but just a moment ago had said “When John said the Word was ev arxn (en arche, ‘in the beginning’) he undoubtedly (what? Undoubtedly?) had in mind the same ‘beginning’ of Genesis 1:1…” Do you understand what he’s suggesting here, Wrench, without even realizing it? He’s making it rather clear that in his mind the WT Society “undoubtedly” had their heads in their rear ends when they for all those years distinguished the beginning of John 1:1 from Genesis 1:1. No doubt he did not consciously intend such a thought, but that is the natural conclusion that one could draw based on the order of events he himself has admitted to.  

 

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

Your language is becoming more and more offensive to me, Ray, and I don’t like talking to people who can’t keep the peace. If you want to ask Greg about this then ask him, but I am not going to continue to try to defend him on everything you bring up that he says because believe me, he can surely take care of himself, and I think you know that, because he isn’t that hard to find. I’ll give you his email address and I would love to sit back and observe what goes on between you two in this regard. You obviously outdistance me when it comes to the Greek so I suppose that in that sense, I am out of my league, but I know he does know the Greek and could certainly toe to toe it with you on these issues. Are you interested in running this stuff by a studied JW in the Greek or do you just like to try to the novices in knots?

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

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  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 prehuman existence) was wiat what was needed was some way to account for verse 3 without having to admit that the logos existed before the first of Jehovah’ creations (the all things generically). For them it was time to be pragmatic…don’t worry about the context, our whole ship is on the line here. And so a solution had to be found because it was required by the system. An exigency of the system, it’s called. Our system requires it, therefore it is so. With this in mind, how did you respond to the order of creation presented by the Society in their dictionaries, both the 1971 Aid book, and the 1988 Insight Volumes? Did the WT give up this detailed order of creation in order to “free up” their followers? Let’s take a look at your reaction, Wrench.   

 

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

Ray, I am sorry, but this portion of your response is very confusing. If you wouild like to restate this I would appreciate it. It’s hard to tell where I stopped and you started and the first part of your remarks are obviously missing. And again, there is no giving up one position for another, merely another way of interpreting to the same passage was offered in my estimation and others. You bring up this same point of repudiation again and again in the rest of your post so take note that it has been commented on and is really quite passe. The same is true with the constant recurrence of your question about the “all things” meaning just the “physical creation”. It’s been covered above and there is no need to keep repeating myself. If I am missing something that is glaringly obvious, then chalk it up to having a difficult time deciphering what went where in this latest response of yours. Half the time I can’t remember if what you are saying is from before or it is current. I’m getting very confused about which response of yours is the latest one. So, if I miss something, I’m not dancing or running or avoiding it, I probably feel that it has been covered or I have simply missed it altogether, but, I don’t run.

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

 

$$$$$$$ You stated: Ray said: Look again at John 1:2….and what is the first Greek word in this verse??? It is a pronoun, a demonstrative pronoun “this one”(masc. nom, sing), and when a sentence or clause begins with a pronoun it usually or more naturally looks to the preceding context for it’s referent. Take the simple expression “Jack lost his hat”…the pronoun “his” refers to “Jack” in the preceding context, right? Jack is then the contextual antecedent of “his”. Ok, in John 1:2 “houtos een” means “this one was”. What is the contextual antecedent of “this one”? It goes to the Logos in the preceding verse, this one who was with God in the beginning there. So the contextual antecedent for “this one” in verse 2…goes to logos in the PRECEEDING ‘beginning’ (Jn. 1:1a) as its referent. Thus the NWT’s attempt to cross-reference Gen. 1:1 with John 1:2 is quite arbitrary and simply ignores the contextual antecedent for “this one”.    $$$$$$ But don’t you see that the alternate way of looking at this would also CHANGE THE PRECEDING TIME REFERENCE AS WELL. What is possibly being suggested in verse two is that the “beginning” is in reference to Gen. 1:1 and that necessarily runs backward to include the “beginning’ in John 1:1.    Ray replies: Not when they published the reference bible, for even Greg admits that the previous order remained the truth until 1993. But I short-circuited the whole thing with the following:    RRR....Do you know, Wrench, if the WT actually repudiates their previously elaborated upon order of creation? I get the impression that you are not really sure of that. And indeed the wording in the Knowledge book doesn’t make that clear at all. All the statements they make in the Knowledge book would be just as true with their previously published order in place. Could there be some convenient interpretation going on here? I would be interested to find out for sure about that. Could you check it out for me, Wrench. In regard to the order the WT’s presents as their official position in the “Aid and Insight” dictionaries, there can be no doubt whatsoever, but as even you seem to admit, it is not at all clear that they meant to actually repudiate themselves in the Knowledge book. Btw, I’ve been thinking about that book…if it was a little dark red book, I remember having a copy of it, and I loaned it out and never got it back. Am I right? If so, then I have been through it. Guess I’ll have try to find another. RRR $$$$$$ The opposite way is also the same result. IF John 1:1 refers to “the very beginning of God’s creative works” then it necessarily means that for John 1:2.$$$$$$$$$$$ RRRRR Not until at least 1993, Wrench, according to Greg. (JWD 315)...hence when they published the reference bible...they did not have the new idea in mind, but only as Greg says, to the beginning of Jehovah's creative works...so they couldn't have had that in mind then, unless Greg missed the boat :-)  

 

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

Who says the WT didn’t have the alternative way of looking at in mind? You surely can’t know that for a certainty, and as I said, they may have not made the connection back then for some doctrinal point, but merely connected a similar phrase as they have done in other areas. What they cross-reference is THEIR choice and it is not always necessary to go through and “RE_CROSS_REFERENCE” every scripture back to one that is cross referenced to begin with. You are trying to make up rules and regulations concerning cross referencing that you have no way of knowing that is what they intended.

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

 

$$$......Wrench says:But both ways of looking at it present no problem. I have already presented my “preferred” understanding of this as you are well aware so let me present the other one so that you will see that there is still no problem in reference to the “all things” of verse 3. If the “beginning” means the very start of God’s creative activity we first have to realize that this “beginning” had a START and an ENDING in relation to the event that constituted it. You see, by the time the first THING, that makes up the “all things” of verse 3, came THROUGH the Word, the event known as the “beginning”(the creation of the Son) had concluded.$$$$    Ray replies: Wrench, can't you see that you're ASSUMING that the logos was the first of Jehovah's creations? Only AFTER you assume that can you say what you just said. This is called "begging the question". You can't assume that UNTIL you prove that the "all things" means all physical things.

 

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

You obviously missed that this was the ‘new and improved’ version of John 1:3 that is not holding to the “physical creation” point.

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

 

Only then can you escape the natural language of 1:3 with it's explicit denial of any exceptions. Until you prove that it means "all physical things", it's going to continue as it is…generic…no exceptions...it amazes me that you apparently can't see this. You seem to be assuming the convenient stance that it's the other side's burden to prove you wrong, and from that assumed stance you say "but both ways of looking at it present no problem". This says "I can assume I'm right until you prove me wrong"...Do you see this? However, that is an illogical and illegitimate stance for you here? Why? Because of the way it is WORDED in the test itself. That status quo condemns you already...hence you have to save yourself FROM that by proving that it doesn't mean what it seems to say naturally.   

 

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

Covered

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

 

 $$$ Wrench says: “In the beginning” was a segment of time in which the Logos was created. That time segment concluded before the “all things” commenced coming THROUGH the Word who was already there, being created during the segment of time known as “in the beginning”. Therefore, the “all things”, without exception, that came through the Word are “all things” AFTER the time segment known as “in the beginning” had concluded with the completion of the creating of the Son and his existence with his Father for who knows how long before the commencement of “all things” were created THROUGH him by God. I think you would agree that the phrase “all things” is many times context dependent as I certainly believe that it is here.$$$$$$$    RRR...Ray replies: Then here you are taking the WT's position as set forth in their "Aid and Insight Vols"...which was that these were two different beginnings separated by an interval of time I know you believe it is "context dependent" here (you better!). And yet of course EVERYTHING is "context dependent". The problem is that you don't PROVE it, you only haul off and ASSERT it. When you are in John 1:3, all of a sudden you seem to forget the difference between assertion on the one hand, and proving it FROM the context on the other. Instead you equate them. You can't seem to understand that the passage (status quo) is that is presented GENERICALLY with an express and explicit denial of any exceptions  

 

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

Covered

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

So, then, until you prove the restriction...it will continue going on down the road meaning what it meant without anyone fooling with it. What did it mean without anyone fooling with it...it meant all things...no exceptions...so, then, Wrench, your burden is to PROVE the restriction you claim FROM THE CONTEXT, not assert it. Pointing to the other places where "all things" was "context dependent" doesn't prove it here...here the context proves the opposite...for we have in the same verse a very specific denial of any exceptions...not even one ...it says. In not one of the places you cite does such a clarifier appear...hence, John 1:3 is in a class by itself. The generic language is the status quo...meaning all creation UNTIL you prove different. This means that as a JW you are ALREADY condemned by the natural generic way this is presented in the text. To save yourself from this condemnation you must FIRST prove the explanation you claim, and until that... you remain condemned by the way this is worded in the text itself. So where's the proof? So far all you 've done is assert and assert. I could assert that the moon is made out of swiss cheese too :-) RRR   

 

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

Covered. If you don’t think so, then tell me why not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

$$$$$$The Word obviously already had to be in existence before the “all things” could proceed THROUGH him. He came into existence during the time of “in the beginning” by means of creation by God. That time period elapsed and then the context-dependent “all things” came THROUGH the Logos. $$$$$$$    Ray says: LOL! I know you are sincere, Wrench, but you're begging the question again. You're imagining this stuff without pointing to the where the context says it or proves it. Your reasoning is similar to this: Little boy to his daddy: "Daddy, how come the sun shines in the daytime when we don't need it, and not at night-time when we do?" You're doing the same thing here as you did with the bias argument...you think all you need is the possibility, but just as in that case...you need to prove this, and if you don't...the passage will mean exactly what it says. Let me try another example to illustrate the kind of reasoning you seem to be involved in: " Two little boys standing on the corner and a man walks by. First little boy says to the other, "see that man over there, he's a religious man." Second little boys says, "how do you know that?"...First little boy says: "He talks to God everyday"...Second little boy says, "how do you know that?"...first little boy says "because he told me he does". Second little boy says, "well, he could be lying"...and the first little boy says, "Why that's ridiculous, would a man who talks to God everyday tell a lie?"...:-) RRRR   

 

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

This point of circularity was covered much earlier

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$ You stated: Ray said: In John 1 the bible writer moves smoothly from verse one, through verse two, and into verse three with no apparent shift of reference. In fact these verses are tied to each other by the use of pronouns and the natural tendency to find their referents in the preceding context. Thus verse 2 is tied to verse 1 with the demonstrative pronoun “houtos”, and verse 3 is tied to verses 2 and 1 with the pronoun “autou”. Also note in Jn. 1:3 the NWT cross-references Col. 1:16 “all things”, and yet you’ve recently denied that the all things of Col. 1:16 is the same as the “all things” in John 1:3. Hmmm did you say you don’t think you disagree with the Watchtower Society?   $$$$$ Well, as I said before, cross-references are not necessarily connected to show a solid connection between the two verses but sometimes to show a remote connection or just similar phrases, but, with the explanation offered above, then there would certainly be a synynomous connection between the “all things” of both scriptures. Both of them referring to “all things” that came THROUGH the Word.#$$$$   Ray replies: Who's stretching things at this point, Wrench? When you first brought the cross reference up to me, what explanation were you contending for at that time? What did the NWT cross-reference mean in John 1:1? And again, according to Greg, the WT was not thinking along the lines you mention until at least 1993...read his reference and footnote. ) JWD 315...RRRRRR  

 

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

 I’m not stretching anything, Ray. Because they may have been demonstrating a teaching point by the cross-references in John 1:1 doesn’t mean that they are demonstrating teaching points with every cross-reference. That’s not that hard to grasp, is it? It’s possible they connected John 1:2 with Gen. 1:1 just out of similarity of language as they do elsewhere, but I can also see that it might be the hint of another way of looking at the phrase.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     Wrench in the Works

 

 

Wrench to Ray 4-23-00 Pt. 3

Re: Re: To Ray-The Son of God Created-Part 3 Sunday, 23-Apr-2000 10:56:54  $$$$ You stated: Ray said: OK, Wrench, we have allowed the Watchtower Society to establish the intercalary boundaries with reference the “beginning” in both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, and they have made it clear that they are NOT the same, but distinguished from each other by an intervening period during which occurred the creation of spirit creatures such as angels.    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench replies: I hope I have demonstrated why this is isn’t an iron-clad conclusion. $$$$$$   RRRRR...What you have succeeded in establishing is the utter confusion that reigns among JWs as aided and abetted by the WT Society. First it's this...then it's that...round and round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows. Have you ever heard of the keystone cops?..;just kidding...but think about it anyway. Again, here's what I included in my letter to try to clear this up...    RRRR Do you know, Wrench, if the WT actually repudiates their previously elaborated upon order of creation? I get the impression that you are not really sure of that. And indeed the wording in the Knowledge book doesn’t make that clear at all. All the statements they make in the Knowledge book would be just as true with their previously published order in place. Could there be some convenient interpretation going on here? I would be interested to find out for sure about that. Could you check it out for me, Wrench. In regard to the order the WT’s presents as their official position in the “Aid and Insight” dictionaries, there can be no doubt whatsoever, but as even you seem to admit, it is not at all clear that they meant to actually repudiate themselves in the Knowledge book. Btw, I’ve been thinking about that book…if it was a little dark red book, I remember having a copy of it, and I loaned it out and never got it back. Am I right? If so, then I have been through it. Guess I’ll have try to find another. RRRR   

 

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

Covered. How many times do you actually repeat this same paragraph?

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You stated: Ray had said: As I said in a previous letter, obviously the WT Society teaches that the logos was the first of God’s creations as the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. So from this we see just where they are when they use the expression “beginning of Jehovah’s creative works”, they are way back before the creation of the heavenly spirit angels, and thus also NOT at the beginning of Gen. 1:1 (physical universe), right? Do you see this?    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench says: 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.    RRR...Do you know, Wrench, if the WT actually repudiates their previously elaborated upon order of creation? I get the impression that you are not really sure of that. And indeed the wording in the Knowledge book doesn’t make that clear at all. All the statements they make in the Knowledge book would be just as true with their previously published order in place. Could there be some convenient interpretation going on here? I would be interested to find out for sure about that. Could you check it out for me, Wrench. In regard to the order the WT’s presents as their official position in the “Aid and Insight” dictionaries, there can be no doubt whatsoever, but as even you seem to admit, it is not at all clear that they meant to actually repudiate themselves in the Knowledge book. Btw, I’ve been thinking about that book…if it was a little dark red book, I remember having a copy of it, and I loaned it out and never got it back. Am I right? If so, then I have been through it. Guess I’ll have try to find another. all ready posted....RRRRR 

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Here we go again.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You stated: Ray had said: Ok, please turn to page 918 in the “Aid to Bible Understanding” book, and look at the top left. Right after quoting John 1:1 the Society says “This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 15:3), the Word’s being with God from the “beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.”….and to make undeniable their meaning they then cite other verses the JW’S believe refer to the creation of the logos (Col. 1:15, Rev 3:14). So there can be no doubt that the WT is pointing here to the beginning PRIOR to the creation of the spirit angels and therefore also a different beginning than that at Gen. 1:1. Do you see it?    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  Yes, but then again, things do change.    RRRR...Do you know, Wrench, if the WT actually repudiates their previously elaborated upon order of creation? I get the impression that you are not really sure of that. And indeed the wording in the Knowledge book doesn’t make that clear at all. All the statements they make in the Knowledge book would be just as true with their previously published order in place. Could there be some convenient interpretation going on here? I would be interested to find out for sure about that. Could you check it out for me, Wrench. In regard to the order the WT’s presents as their official position in the “Aid and Insight” dictionaries, there can be no doubt whatsoever, but as even you seem to admit, it is not at all clear that they meant to actually repudiate themselves in the Knowledge book. Btw, I’ve been thinking about that book…if it was a little dark red book, I remember having a copy of it, and I loaned it out and never got it back. Am I right? If so, then I have been through it. Guess I’ll have try to find another. RRRRR All ready posted...   

 

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

Gues what?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

$$$$$$ You stated; Ray said: Well then, when you try to equate these two different beginnings and have them both refer to the creation of the physical universe, you stand in opposition to the Watchtower Society. Note what you said in your post of Jan 23rd, 2000: “The question is reasonable enough and deserves a reasonable answer. I first think it is important to realize that these words are set within the frame of happening after the words "in the beginning" of verse 1. The 'beginning' in John 1:1 certainly reminds us of the words of Genesis 1:1. I think it easily stated that the beginning here in John 1:1 could be the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. The 'beginning' in Genesis really limits itself to the creation of the physical universe. The 'all things' mentioned in John 1:3 could be limited therefore to the 'physical universe or even the physical things of this earthly realm”…   $$$$$$ Ray had said: Wrench, I even have the WT with me in rejecting your attempt to remove the beginning of John 1:1 from the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works and restrict it to the physical creation. And also with me in saying that the first creation of John 1:3 likewise goes back to the beginning of John 1:1...and is not restricted to the physical universe. Hence, whether you came up with this yourself, or got it from Greg's book, it needs to be resolved with the WTBTS.    $$$$$$$$$Wrench says: I believe I have resolved it.    RRRR.Ray says:...As I look over Greg’s presentation, it seems that you aren’t quite ready to claim boldly that the Knowledge reference is really an intended repudiation on the WT’s part of their order of creation as set forth in Insight Volumes of 1988. According to Greg, this order of creation was still the “truth” as recent as 1993 (page 315), so unless you or he can show that the WT indeed has repudiated this order, we must not take for granted that they did. Greg doesn’t cite any other WT references, and even you’ve admitted that it seems inconclusive. If a more clearly worded statement of repudiation were available, he most likely would have cited it, don’t you think? Now it begins to make sense, and now I see why you seemed in limbo, not knowing which way to go, yet willing to go either way…LOL!...RRR Already posted. I just want you to clear it up first, Wrench…then we will know what's what.   

 

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

There was never a repudiation suggested.

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

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  You stated: Ray said: Note also the NWT’s cross-reference of Col. 1:16 with John 1:3…hmmmm But haven’t you denied that these refer to the same thing recently? And you say you don’t see any disagreements you have with the WT Society?    $$$ I believe this has also been resolved. $$$    RRR...Ray replies: You have?  

 

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

Taking into consideration that not every cross reference is a teaching point, but can connect similar phrasing and similar, but not necessarily exact, ideas, yes. Besides, I think we are past that now with the ‘newer’ explanation. Shall we deal with that, then?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    

 

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

 

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

Covered. Yes? No?

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

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench says: I believe the explanations above have satisfied these tensions that you present. When I was asking you: “Could you please explain to me from a scholarly point of view why Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 can't connect?” I was in reference to scholars OTHER THAN the WT. Do you have any thing from them to refute the connection? As well, Ray, how do you, personally feel about the connection? I’ve asked this before.$$$$$   Ray replies: I see no way to prove it. Can you show me what proves it? Nor do I see any reason to restrict the "all things" in verse three to Gen. 1:1. It seems to suggest everything since it contains the immediate contextual clarifier that actually STATES: not even a single exception. So this is the natural meaning...and this is the status quo...until you PROVE different.    RRRR You stated: Obviously with regard to the Divine Knowledge publication, I would need to review exactly what the WT says….and compare it with that they said in the “Aid” book. As far as the Aid book goes, I have just shown above where you very clearly depart from what they say about the beginning of John 1:1 and the beginning of Gen 1:1. Thus, whereas you connect them up, the Watchtower Society posits the intervening creation of the spirit creatures such as angels BETWEEN these two beginnings (page 391 of the Aid to Bible Understanding book). Now please tell me how you reconcile that? If you connect them, where would the creation of spirit creatures (angels..etc.) occur on such an agenda? And how would you do that without including the spiritual things (angels and the like) within the “all things” of Jn. 1:3? I’m very anxious to see if the WT has redone everything in the Divine Knowledge publication. Please photo the sections I mentioned earlier and let me examine them, OK?   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I have sent the only pertinent information that is contained in that publication. I have offered both ways of looking at the “in the beginning” phrase so there should no longer be a need to try to beat me over the head with the WT any longer. Although, I’m sure you will, if you can think of a way. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    Ray replies: As I look over Greg’s presentation, it seems that you aren’t quite ready to claim boldly that the Knowledge reference is really an intended repudiation on the WT’s part of their order of creation as set forth in Insight Volumes of 1988. According to Greg, this order of creation was still the “truth” as recent as 1993 (page 315), so unless you or he can show that the WT indeed has repudiated this order, we must not take for granted that they did. Greg doesn’t cite any other WT references, and even you’ve admitted that it seems inconclusive. If a more clearly worded statement of repudiation were available, he most likely would have cited it, don't you think? Now it begins to make sense, and now I see why you seemed in limbo, not knowing which way to go, yet willing to go either way…LOL! You stated: Ray said: You mention that Genesis 1:1 is cross referenced at John 1:2, but if they are to be connected, why wasn’t Genesis 1:1 cross-referenced to John 1:1??? Please answer that, OK?    $$$$$$$ Well. It’s certainly their choice as to what they want to cross-reference and where they do so. I am sure there are a lot of other places where Genesis 1:1 is cross-referenced that are not in turn cross-referenced at Genesis 1:1. That doesn’t detract from the connection in the least. Genesis 1:1 is cross-referenced with 39 other verses in the Bible, yet none of those verses appear at Genesis 1:1 to be cross-referenced back. It obviously is not an indication that they don’t connect.$$$$$    RRRRRRRR..It was when they published the reference bible Wrench...as Greg says on page 315 of his book...The WT was very specific about the beginning of John 1:1 up till 1993. And if it was not an indication that they don't connect, why didn't they include it among the others in verse one's cross reference with all the others that according to them point to the same thing...hunh??? And we need for you to clarify afterwards...OK? RRRRRR  

 

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

I’ve explained this above.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    

 

$$$$ You stated: Ray had said: In fact Gen. 1:1 is conspicuous by its absence in the center column references to John 1:1….I’ve already explained this earlier in this post…please read it again… The obvious reason they did not cross-reference Gen. 1:1 with John 1:1 is because they knew they COULDN’T. Why? Because to do so would leave them embarrassed as to what to do with the creation of the spirit creatures such as angels...the creation of which they have already posited between the beginning of John 1:1_____________and the beginning of Gen.1:1. Try bridging this gap, Wrench, and see which way the creation of the spirit creatures goes…get the spirit creatures created without including them within the “all things” of John 1:3? And remember what the WT says on page 918 of the Aid book about the beginning of John 1:1, as well as what they say on page 391 of the same book. Hash it out, friend, and show me what they did…with the creation of the spirit creatures (angels). We’ve seen what they did with that in the Aid book (page 391) RRR    $$$$$$ I hope both explanations have been presented clearly enough for you to answer these things for yourself. You say that the reason they didn’t cross-reference John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 back in the Genesis reference column was because they would have been embarrassed. Did they forget that embarrassment when they came to John 1:2?$$$    Ray replies: No, perhaps they overcame it, necessity being the mother of invention. Who knows, maybe they were trying to carry water on both shoulders and thus give you guys something to point to, if not in the context itself, at least in their center column, right? That's why I want you to clear this up first before we go any further. That shouldn't be too hard to do, heh? Let's eliminate the shell-game, what do you think? Why not let the movers and shakers at Bethel know that they need to either poop or get off the pot on this? RRRRRRRR   

 

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

Another example of your insults, Ray. Let’s not start this kind of language because if we can’t do this with a mild temper and deep respect, we shouldn’t be doing it? You seem to keep asking the same question over and over that I think I have commented on about these footnotes. Footnotes are NOT NECESSARILY teaching points. I can’t be sure why they connected Gen. 1:1 with John 1:2, I can only guess, but this is really done and over with because, thanks to you, I am no longer connecting them. Why don’t we deal with what I am now presenting rather than dealing with something that I presented before and can’t be sure about in relation to the WT’s acceptance of it. Maybe you are right, Ray. Maybe they never did connect it and Greg screwed up in trying to connect himself, and I screwed up by doing the same but, be that as it may, what bearing does it have on our conversation at this point?

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

 

$$$$ Ray had said: You 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 smooth flow of context this section shows from one verse to the next. (remember the pronoun “houtos” and its contextual antecedent?). RRRRRR   

 

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

Commented on above, I hope this takes care of this which swells these posts to unmanageable means.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench says: I havedemonstarted why I don’t see myself or Greg or Rolf or any other JW that is busy doing like things as having a BATTLE with the WT. I have also offered both explanations which present no problems with the phrase “all things”. I do not see John 1:3 as having sufficient weight whatsoever to swing one away from the natural reading of Rev. 3:14. To demand a different understanding of Rev. 3:14 because of John 1:3 is simply a demand without the authoritative weight to do so. It is therefore a demand based upon personal conviction. It is NOT a pendulum scripture because it is easily accounted for from our point of view. $$$    Ray replies: No, you haven't "demonstrated" anything, Wrench, all you've done is CLAIM something. We're still waiting on the demonstration :-)...and in the meantime the wording of Scripture as it stands destroys your claims that the Logos was the first thing that ever came into existence, for it declares flat out that there's nothing (not one thing) that ever came into existence that didn't do so through him! RRRRR   

 

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

Covered

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

RRRRR...John 1:3 reads naturally against you because it is PRESENTED generically with a specific clarifier in the verse that denies even one exception. This is the status quo...and it will continue with that natural meaning until you prove otherwise. You can't just claim that it's possible, Wrench, because that would leave it admittedly (by you) also possible that it means what it says, and thus is an obstacle to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14. The only way to keep it from being an obstacle is to remove it by proving what you claim. Nothing short of that will remove it...and thus it would remain as an obstacle against your 3:14 interp! RRRR   

 

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

This “proving” point has been covered.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

$$$$ you said Ray said: Recently you have responded on your board to a question I posed about the “all things” of Col. 1:16-17 and the “all things” of John 1:3….surprisingly admitting that the “all things” of Col. 1:16 is not the same as in John 1:3. You explained that the “all things” of Col. 1:16 includes both the visible and invisible things and thus must be understood as “all inclusive”. Here’s your own words…to compare..    ".....Briefly, without a lot of detail, as far as Col. 1:15-17 and the "all things" of that passage, I think that there is a difference between that "all things" and "all things" mentioned in John 1:3. Whereas I feel that the "all things" in John have to do with the physical creation starting from Genesis 1:1, Paul expands on the things created through the Son, including not only "the things visible" but also the "things invisible" so it appears to me that he makes a far more inclusive statement regarding the things made through the Son, yet, I think he is careful to point out that Christ is "the firstborn of all creation", showing that he is not uncreated, but had an origin unlike that of any other created being. Whereas Christ is included among the "all creation" by being the firstborn of that class,...........[[[[[But so far you havn't proven that "prototokos" must mean "first in the series", you've simply taken it for granted as you come to verse 16]]]]] ............ I do not believe he is included among the "all things" that came THROUGH him for the obvious reasons. $$$$$$   Ray says: I’m glad we got this cleared up now, because I’m sure it’s going to be very relevant soon. The NWT does not agree with you very well that the “all things” are not the same as in John 1:3, for they cross-reference John 1:3 with Col. 1:16, and likewise they cross Col. 1:16 with John 1:3.    $$$$$$$$$ Wrench replies: This has been commented on above    Ray:says........Yes, I've also covered it in this current letter.   

 

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

And now, with the latest explanation, there is no discrepancy between Col. 1:16 and John 1:3 and the “all things” for they would be the same.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

Ray said: 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.    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I do not see the necessity of Paul’s iteration of the all things as unambiguously referring to ALL creation because as I have mentioned, “all things” is many times context-dependent.$$$$$$$    RRRRay: Fine, as long as you can prove it. Otherwise it means what it says. And everything is context dependent! After all, how could he have been more all encompassing... he refers to all things, visible or invisible, heaven or earth, whether they be Lordships or principalities...etc. Wouldn't you agree that he seems to be trying to eliminate putting limitations on "all things"? Why would Paul go through all these hoops and forget the icing on the cake with the word "other"? I think any fair-minded person won't have any trouble seeing who is haggling and boggling with the wording of Scripture here, which is fine with me (argumentatively speaking...not in my heart), because this attitude and behavior will mitigate the verdict on the stated goals you have set for yourself in your treatise...I will simply place it side by side with your declaration "I will demonstrate".    $$$$$Wrench said: Again, as I mentioned in the latter explanation of John 1:3, the “all things” are those things, without exception, that came THROUGH the Son. $$$$$    RRRR>>>>Ray says: Wrench, look at your word "that" above. You keep trying to predicate it "all things that"...however, John and Paul didn't do that. "they both simply stated "all things came into existence thru him"...so the "that" is yours, not the bible's predication. This is your way of begging the question. You have to rehearse the bible's predication...not your own! Part 2 declares that there's nothing that came into existence that didn't come into existence through him. So the UN-manipulated wording destroys the JW view and of course presents an obstacle to the goals you have set for yourself in your treatise. What was it you said about the natural meaning of words? :-)   

 

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

This point about the “natural meaning of this phrase was covered early on in this post.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

$$$$Wrench says: There is no reason for anyone to demand that the “all things” are synonymous” with the “all creation” in verse 15.$$$$$$$    Ray replies...First, we aren't saying they are "synonymous", but identical…for this is what Paul goes on to actually describe…look at his description and see that it's all encompassing. Look at it , Wrench....it's right there. So there IS a reason to demand it...Paul gives it to us. Besides that, the burden is on you anyway, friend...it's part of your three-fold witness, remember? RRRRR  

 

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

Any trinitarian, such as yourself and Grimm, who admit verse 15 is partitive genitive, as I have shown above, also admits that the “all things” are not identical with the “all things”. You can do it, but we can’t, hmmmm.....

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

 

$$$$ Many times, when “all things” is used in scripture, it is used in a way that excludes the one in the context. Let me demonstrate what I mean. Mt 26:35 Peter is mentioned in the same context as PANTES the disciples. However, this does not mean that Peter was not also a disciple. Peter is also included. The NIV here adds "other" to reflect this and to smooth out the English translation effectively translating PANTES as all the other. Matthew 26:35 NIV But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.$$$    RRR...Ray says: In this place the meaning does not change whether or not the word "other " is used, but in Col. 1:16-17 the meaning changes completely, 180 degrees! Without the word "other" it states "he is before all things' and thus distinguishes him from them, but with the word "other" in the text, it changes the meaning and perspective..making him the first. Hence these two passages do not parallel, and the decision to insert the word "other" at Col. 1:16-17 is quite arbitrary. Once again you seem to be tricked by the mere sound and appearance of words. The Matthew passage actually quotes Peter denying a separation with a double negative "ou mn" and there is no doubt whether Peter was numbered among them, whereas in Col. Paul instead uses the preposition "pro" (before). And last but not least, upon arrival at verses 16-17 it has not yet been proven that he was numbered among them as the first of the series. Verse 15 could not do that because as I've shown, the word prototokos does not always have a numerical significance.  

 

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

But even Grimm and you yourself have admitted that 15 could be partitive. Grimm, in fact, says that it is. If that is the case then you too, would accept the fact that the “other” could be justified with the “all things” for the sake of clarity because IF 15 is partitive, for any reason, the “all things” are NOT identical with the “all creation”. Whether it proves him to be first or not is something that I have not spent much time on with you as of yet because of other details that need cleaned up first, such as the very one above.  True, Matthew 26 is not a theologically important passage, but that should not be the determining factor as to whether “other” could be used there, either.

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

 

Should I put the examples in front of you again, and remind you that some of them even exemplified the mind of God Himself on the subject? Even the WT acknowledged this, did you know that Wrench? Note what they say on page 856 of the Insight Vol. 1:   "By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the USUAL customs or procedures conforming to men's expectations" So when you arrive at Col. 1:16-17 you have not yet established that Christ was numbered among creation as the first of the series...nor can you prove it by appealing to the "usual expectations of men"...so there's no justification for assuming it when you get to verses 16-17, which is what you must do. Hence this passage fails to accumulate strength to your original treatise. Do you know of any other translations that inserted the word "other" in Col. 1:16-17? After all, whenever the WT can, they always cite other translations that "did it too" to justify their rendering, right? Did they do that here? Would they if they could? Don't you think the motivation is pretty obvious in this context? Wrench, please make sure you address all these points, OK? RRR   

 

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

Whether he is the FIRST one or not, as I said, has not been debated yet to any great detail, as it has been more important to first establish whether or not 15 is partitive or can be, and whether or not it is necessary that the “all things” be thought of as identical with the “all creation”. Then, we will get to the “first” consideration. I am looking for ways to trimline our discussions, so I don’t think that this has to all be settled and commented on in the span of one post. We are involved in a “process”, Ray, and I am sure you know it will take numerous more posts to get where we are going with all of this.

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

 

$$$$....Mt 13:32 The mustard seed is mentioned with the class of PANTWN the seeds. Does this mean that the mustard seed is not a seed? No. The New American Standard Versions reflect that understanding in their translations Matthew 13:32 NAS and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES. " Matthew 13:32 NAB and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES." $$$$    RRR Ray says: A man half-asleep can see that Mt 13:32 STATES that the mustard seed IS a seed, whereas Col. 1:15-17 does NOT state that Christ was the first creature in the series. So this is not a parallel passage either…hence no justification for inserting the word "other" when that word WOULD change the meaning...and it does. If you deny that it changes the meaning, then you have to prove that he was the first creature in the series, for that has to be an established fact before you can take the "all things" as you do. But you have not done that yet, have you? Where? You can't claim you proved it in verse 15, because you did not. I showed where it does not always have to have a numerical significance, but can be used with reference to STATUS, and I even showed where such was the mind of God on the subject. Did you refute these? Not that I'm aware of, so you have not proven from 1:15 the Christ was the first creature in the series.   

 

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

I don’t believe that your objection here is correct in light of the fact that 15 can be considered partitive, even by Trinitarians. Because if it is, even you could see the reason for “other” for the sake of clarifying the difference between the all things and all creation, of which Christ, would be a part of. It is not necessary at this point to prove he is “FIRST”. It’s just necessary to show that 15 is partitive, which Grimm agrees it is and you have admitted the possibility.  I could easily say, and Grimm would probably agree, that since 15 IS partitive, that it does state that Christ IS a creation, just like Mt. 13:32 clearly stated that the mustard seed was a seed, yet the word other was used for clarity.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.    

 

Further, there are a couple interesting things in Matt. 13:31-32 that do not appear in Col. 1:15-17, things that absolutely establish that the seed was a seed in embryo. In verse 31 Christ uses the dative form "kokkw" to liken the Kingdom of the heavens to a "grain" (dative of respect), then we come to verse 32. There is a Greek idiom that by syntax sets up or anticipates a contrast or comparison of some kind. It is the "men de" idiom. So note in verse 32, after the relative pronoun with the comparative (mikroteron) comes "men" sets us up for a contrast...with what? Ah…the relative pronoun with "mikroteron" reaches back to verse 31 for its antecedent which was "kokkw" (grain), so the contrast will be between the grain of mustard and the following "de" that starts the description of the grown opposite. But all the while here the comparison remains within the category...from smallest to largest. Now, there is nothing like this at all in the Col. passage. Instead, without having established in verse 15 that Christ WAS the first creature, we go on to read "and he is BEFORE all things"...a prepositional phrase. This is NOT a comparison within a category, but a distinction FROM a category. This therefore is the natural meaning of the passage! RRR   

 

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

Again you harp on the “first” detail, but, as I have reminded you, IF verse 15 is partitive, the “other” is warranted, and you reluctantly have and certainly Grimm has admitted it is.

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

 

$$$$$$$$ Lu. 3:19 Herod's taking of his brother's wife is mentioned in connection with PANTWN Herod's Evil deeds. This would not mean that the taking of his brother's wife was not also an evil deed. Luke 3:19 NIV But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and all the other evil things he had done...$$$    RRR...Ray replies: Aren't you reading these, Wrench? Here's another passage that makes it explicit that Herod's sister-in-law is included within all Herod's evil deeds, and yet that is the one thing that's MISSING from the context of Col. 1:15-17. You keep "forgetting" that you haven't established from verse 15 that Christ was the first creature SO AS TO AUTHORIZE what you haul off and do in verse 17. Yet in all these examples it IS established, and that's why they don't parallel Col. 1:15-17. You are taking that for granted, but what you are taking for granted simply isn't so. :-) RRRRRRR   

 

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

Same objection as above and my response is the same as well.

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

 

$$$$ Luke 11:42 The mint and rue were garden herbs (or, vegetables) and are mentioned in context with PAN the garden herbs. This would not except the mint and rue from being garden vegetables. They are also included. Luke 11:42 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. $$$$$$$$$   RRRRR...Ray replies: Once again, there is no disagreement that the mint and rue were vegetables, but in Col. 1:15-17 there IS a disagreement whether Christ was the first creation. This is the problem that keeps sailing right over your head. You and Greg and the WT Society can scream and holler all day long that "prototokos" must mean first in the category, but the examples I showed prove otherwise. And until you refute those examples, your assumption at Col. 1:15-17 is unauthorized...illegitimate. :-). RRRRRRRR   

 

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

Nor is there any disagreement that Christ is called a creation, if 15 is parttive, as Grimm admits it is.

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

 

$$$$$ ...Luke 13:2 Here the Galileans in the subject are of the same class as PANTAS the Galileans. In English a translator might choose to use "other" to show that understanding and to smooth out the translation. Luke 13:2 NIV Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? Luke 13:2 NAS And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? Luke 13:2 NAB And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? Luke 13:2 NRS He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? Luke 13:2 NKJ And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? $$$$$$$    RRR...Ray replies: Can you see, Wrench, that the above context shows a relationship withIN a category (Galatians), but in Col. 1:17 reveals a distinction FROM a category because of the preposition? And can't you also see that the near demonstrative "these" sets up that conrtrast withIN the category? Now, can you show me a parallel construction in Col. 1:15-17 that requires the same conclusion (comparison withIN a category) that cannot be explained otherwise. If you think you can, please account for my point that the logos may have entered the category at a later time (John 1:14 for example) which would not require that he be the first in the series. So far you've not done that. This is what I mean when I say you can't prove he was the first in the series upon arrival at verses 16 and 17. And since you cannot prove that FIRST, then we must allow the "all things" in verses 16--17 to have their natural generic meaning...which in turn would place Christ before the whole category without identifying him as the first of that category...thus identifying him as existing before all creation. But the biggest thing I'm noticing, Wrench, is that you don't seem to be actually READING these examples, or you would see that they don't parallel Col. 1:15-17   

 

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

Well. If I am missing the point, you are going to have to explain why, because, I don’t see it. What I see is that IF 15 is partitive, “all creation” is not identical with “all things”. You would have to see that yourself, so, what objection could there be to the word “other?” With that established, I think I can then show you, at least beyond too much doubt, that the context of Col. 1:15-20 is placing Christ FIRST in all things, not just “pre-eminent” wise, but timewise as well, because from the very word prototokos”, I can’t imagine how you can take it to mean JUST pre-eminent to the exsclusion of the frist one born, since the “first one born” is the only lexical meaning that is given to the word. True, it carries with it the idea of pre-eminent, but how can that connotation destroy the actual meaning of the word? I realize that in David’s cas he was not the first one born, but he was PLACED in that position by God, but here, God is not stated as PLACING the Son in that position. It is his position naturally. But, there is more in the context that goes along with this but I am going to let that wait to see how HUGE our next step of posts are going to be. These things are ridiculously long. We are writing books back and forth to each other at this point and I really think we need to find some way of cutting down on the points we are trying to cover at once. There is no reason to be in a hurry and try to put everything in that needs to be said, I am not going anywhere unless you want me to.

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

 

$$$$$ Luke 13:4 GNT hH ekeinoi hoi dekaoktw ef hous epesen ho purgos en tw Silwam kai apekteinen autous, dokeite hoti autoi ofeiletai egenonto para PANTAS tous anqrwpous tous katoikountas Ierousalhm; Luke 13:4 NKJ "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?$$$$$$$$$    RRR>>>>Ray says: I fail to see the parallel here with Col. 1:15-16. Weren't the 18 men...men?  

 

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

But don’t you see, if 15 is partitive, I could say, isn’t Christ a “creation”? And the answer would be yes.

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

 

Well, then, how does that square with your situation in Col. 1:15-17 with regard to my previous argumentation? Come on, Wrench, if you're not going to take the time to explain yourself, why place these passages before me? Why do you quote this passage and then run off? :-)  

 

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

What are you talking about? I’m not running from you at all. How can you say that? Do you expect me to anticipate everything you are going to say and respond to it before you say it?

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

 

...If you're trying to say that this parallel's your CLAIM at Col. 1:15-17 that's perfectly understandable. And now for some proof that Christ was the first of creation? Did you refute the examples I showed where "prototokos" does not always signify numerical order? So far I haven't seen any attempt to do that. Maybe you will do that later here...we shall see. RRRRR   

 

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

Ahhhh, finally, yes, Ray, later. First things first.

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

 

$$$$$$1Cor 6;18 Immortality (or fornication) is mentioned in the immediate context with PAN sins. I appreciate all the responses I received in response to my post on this verse. The conclusion is that fornication is also a sin and included in the category of "sins" 1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 NAS Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 NAB Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.$$$$    RRR...Ray says: In the above there is no dispute that they are all sins to start with. Hence the context can do what it did. Now…please pay attention, Wrench. In Col. 1:15-17 there is a GREAT BIG DISPUTE as to whether Christ was the first of creation.   

 

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

Ahh, but, again, is there a GREAT BIG DISPUTE as to whether Christ IS a creation? No! So, your objection to the use of other is unwarranted as I see it. If my Amish horse has gone totally blind then point it out to me in your response.

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

 

I have shown that dispute and placed evidence in front of you that deals with that GREAT BIG DISPUTE...this is so funny.. Now, the next step should have been for you to DEAL with that evidence I showed where "prototokos" doesn't always mean "first in the series", but instead of doing that, you forget ALL about it, and place this verse in front of me. friend, I am prevented from following you by the verses I showed you that you've not refuted yet. Maybe you'll do it later in this letter. hmmm....RRRR Lord give me patience, and I need it right now :-) I'm just kidding, please don't take it seriously.    $$$$..1Cor 15:27 In the following, TA PANTA grammatically includes God himself in the context who did the subjecting. But evidently to avoid any misunderstanding, Paul explicitly excepted God. This explicit exception would not have been necessary if it were grammatically unambiguous. However, even if Paul did not except God explicitly, a reader using reasonableness should know to except God anyway. But the grammar itself allows for ambiguity. 1 Corinthians 15:27 NAB For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. In conclusion, TA PANTA grammatically may or may not include the one in the context. In other words, one cannot make a theological statement about the one in the context. I suppose one could, but they should do so with knowledge of the weakness of the statement.$$$$$   RRR..Ray replies: First of all let's observe something here in this context. Look first in the NASB, KJV, NIV, and most major translations, even the Diaglott, and you will see that in verse 25, they all include a couple "he's" or pronouns, whereas in the NWT there appears in the second instance "[God]". This is interesting because it is not at all certain that God should be understood at this juncture. The first "he" is the actual pronoun "auton" so that is cut and dry. But in the second instance the person is contained withIN the verb form--third person singular. Thus "thee" is a subjunctive form of the verb meaning "place" (titheemi), being in the third person singular.

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I’m sorry, Ray, you lost me.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

 Now I'm not saying that the NWT translators are completely alone in making this connection, as they are with their insertion of "other" in Col. 1:16-17, but they are in the minority that go beyond the actual text, thus translating in accordance with their interpretation. But others (Zhodiates for example) see the same application as the first "he" with "Christ" as the referent. Thus both "he's" as Christ in 15:25 would portray Christ as the "putter under"or "subjector" and would have him subduing his own enemies and putting them "under his own feet", and so they have taken this as additional evidence supporting the true Deity of Christ. So, when we come to verse 27 we see that there the writer draws a clear distinction between the subjectER on the one hand, and the one to whom "ta panta" is subjected on the other. Hence in this verse the "he" would necessarily refer to God and the one to whom "to panta" is subjected to Christ. So there's really nothing ambiguous about verse 27, both the subjectER and the Christ being distinguished from "ta panta". What is being made clear here is the same thing he made clear a little earlier in this letter. What?    That BOTH God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are distinguished from "ta panta". Have you ever noticed this before, Wrench? For example, looking at 1st Cor. 8:1-6, notice that Paul draws a distinction between true Deity on the one side, and the false deities of the pagans on the other. Yet on the true side of the comparison he includes both the Father and Son, right? No way around this. Then also notice that BOTH the Father & Son are likewise distinguished from "ta panta". Do you see this...do you see how they are both distinguished from "ta panta" by priority of existence? Ok, now stop to think, Wrench. If you pick one of the two out (the Son) and say quite arbitrarily that the distinction between him and "ta panta" can only be AFTER he was created, why don't you do the same with the other...the Father? The answer is very obvious... Your position as a JW requires you to beg the question with the one, but not the other. hmm...But the bible teaches I us differently. They are BOTH distinguished from "ta panta" by priority of existence as we also see in Romans 11:36 and John 1:3. Remember what I was saying about how they have arranged themselves as having certain priorities or primary roles, and yet not without including the others. So as we compare Scripture with Scripture we recognize that the Father creates, the Son redeems, and the Spirit calls. Such is the infinite and incomprehensible God.  

 

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

 I’m sorry, Ray, but you lost me on this one. As you said, we are not the only ones who take the Father as included in the “all things”, but frankly, after that, I am not at all sure what your point was. Don’t we both agree that the Son is not a part of the “all things”? And again, I don’t know how you can object to us distinguishing between the “all creation” and the “all things” when you, Grimm, Nigel Turner and probably other Trinitarians agree that verse 15 could be and is, by some, considered partitive. If it IS partitive then I would hope by now you would get the point that the “all things” are not “identical” with the the “all creation because the “all creation” would INCLUDE the Son, but as we both agree, he is NOT included in the “all things”.

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

 

Here's the problem for you as I see it. To say that "all things" is context-dependent, is a no brainer. Of course everything is context-dependent. So here the context makes it plain that there are 2 distinctions from "ta panta", The Father and Son, just as he had done in 1Cor. 8:6. OK? Now, since you admit this, let's see what happens with you in the context of John 1:3. Now notice that in the above (1 Cor 15:27) you were a SHOW-er, showing how the context itself made this clear. Yet in John 1:3 you suddenly turn into a SHOUTER(well not really that bad :-)), and forget all about showing me. Suddenly for you assertion becomes the same thing as showing. Do you see the difference between what you did at 1 Cor. 15: 27 and what you do at John 1:3? In the one place you say "hey, looky here, it draws a clear distinction"...but in the other place you say "Well, you know it could be restricted to just the physical universe". What has happened to you as you shuttle back and forth between these two places? In the one place you seem to have your... "here it is"... hat on, while in the other place you have your "could be" hat on. But when I read your treatise, I did not see a "could be" hat, instead all I saw was you with your "here it is" hat...or "I intend to demonstrate" hat.    Ok, friend, here's what I would ask you to do with John 1:3. First recognize that the language as it appears in the text is generic, and explicitly STATES no exceptions. It says plainly in the latter half of verse 3 that there's nothing that ever came into existence that did not do so through the logos. Do you see that before you go any further?  

 

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

Yes. But I see it as AFTER the “beginning” elapsed. After the beginning, in which the Logos was created, the “all things”, yes, “everything” came through the Logos without exception.

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

 

Right then and there, that particular wording CONDEMNS you as a believer in the JW conclusion that the logos was the first creation. That's the way it is presented and presented naturally. Now, understanding that you would like to hang on to your belief that the logos was the first creation, you must deliver yourself out of this condemnation by taking the bull by the horns and proving FIRST that this context demands a restriction of the "all things" in verse 3 to "all physical things".  

 

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

I can’t believe we are back to the “all things”/”physical creation” point. Can’t you see that has changed in this recent explanation?

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

 

Now you can't assume your conclusion first, and then reason backwards from there (that's illogical). Instead you have to establish without assuming the conclusion that the context of John 1 demands the "all things" to mean "all physical things", and you must understand that you remain condemned by these words and the way they are presented UNTIL you do this. Possibilities will not deliver you. Possibilities will not justify your conclusion. Instead the "natural meaning" taken together with your failure to subvert them or prove the restriction, will keep the JW's under condemnation. The ball is in your court…the burden is yours. Only the Orthodox can take these words as they actually are presented and survive.   

 

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

I have shown you that as far as the way verse 3 reads, we actually read it the same way. The problem is back in verse 1 and 2 with the phrase “in the beginning” and what it means and how it would bear on the “context-dependent “all things”.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

Pointing to the other passages that use "all things" and then shows an exception, is cancelled out by the fact that John 1:3 contains an explicit and unambiguous DENIAL of even a single exception. It states that there was nothing that ever came into existence that did not do so through the logos. This clarifier sets John 1:3 in a unique class by itself, and thus puts an even greater burden on you. You can find no precedent for doing this IN THE FACE of a flat out denial of even a single exception in the same verse.   

 

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

There is no problem when you figure the “all things” after the point in time known as the beginning had elapsed, in which the Logos was created according to Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Prov. 8:22 and the most natural way of reading them and adhering to the natural meaning of the words used.

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

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You stated: Ray 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…  

 

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

I think this has been covered, but, if I am missing something obvious, please repeat it. You might ask though, did Jehovah PLACE David as firstborn so that he would parallel the Son as the ‘real’ firstborn. You see, it appears you think that because David had to be PLACED as firstborn, that means that the Son really wasn’t the firstborn either, but , that is not a conclusion that is necessary at all. David could be PLACED as firstborn in order to parallel the Son, the “REAL” firstborn of all creation.

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

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench replies: But David got the status as a result of being PLACED as firstborn. The status is a connotation that comes along with the MEANING of the word. It is not an actual meaning of the word but a connotation that comes along with it. If it is actually a valid definition of the word, why then do we never see it translated as such in any bible or lexicon, at least the ones I’ve seen? From what I have seen, “prototokos” is invariably rendered as “firstborn”. But, I really don’t even have to argue the meaning of the word, because that does nothing to overturn the fact that “prototokos followed by a genitive” is always a part of the group OF the genitive”. There are no exceptions to that regardless of what the word means, and to say that one is the “pre-eminent” of all men would not mean that they were not a man but would actually indicate that they were. You still have NO valid example from the scriptures that shows an exception to this type of occurrence, so to take a stand against the results of that kind of occurrence is an unprecedented position in relation to the scriptural occurrences of that syntax. $$$$$$$$    Ray replies: That is just the point. We also know that Christ was "appointed heir of all things", Heb. 1:2, wasn't he? And we also know that the judgment of the world will occur by means of "a man whom he has appointed", isn't that so? Sure it is, so we have no problem understanding him as "Firstborn of all creation", and "Lamb of God"… or "Shepherd", or a host of other figurative titles that are conferred on him in the bible. And as I pointed out before, but you didn't respond, many of these titles conferred on him at first blush may even seem contradictory...thus Shepherd/Lamb, Priest/Sacrifice, Master/Slave, Son of God/Son of Man...etc. And your question about if it's a valid definition, why is it never translated as such in any bible, have you forgotten the examples I pointed out to you?  

 

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

You seem to ignore the fact that in each of those cases the word is still translated “firstborn”, Ray. Again, if “superior” is a valid meaning to the exclusion of the “first one born” designation, then WHY don’t we see “prototokos” translated as “superior” only? I’ve not seen a translation that does so.

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

 

They are in the NWT bible, Wrench. You say it "does nothing to overturn the fact that 'prototokos followed by a genitive' is always a part of the group". No problem, as I've shown you, we can accomodate such an assumption if need be, for according to the Trinitarian view Christ took on the nature of a creature when he became a man (John 1:14), and so thus he would be reckoned as deserving of such a title. But that would not require that was the FIRST creation in the series. Even the WT admits that it doesn't always mean "first in the category", as I pointed out...in their "Aid" book they say on page 584: "At Job 18:13 the expression 'first-born of death' is used to denote the most deadly of diseases." We read nothing here about "placed as". And yet this does NOT stress the first disease in the category either, but the "most deadly".   

 

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

Job 18:13 was covered much earlier. A clearly symbolic reference is hardly one to build a case on.

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

 

Ray had said: 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 dominance also pointed to the gaining of the right of the firstborn by Jacob, a right that brought along with it the privilege of being of the line of descent through which the Abrahamic ‘seed’ would come. (Gen. 27:29; 28:13, 14) By this means Jehovah God made it clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses Is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming To men’s expectations.” Wrench, we’ve gone into Col. 1:15-18 in some detail earlier, and I’m sure we will again, but from the above you should be able to see that your 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  

 

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

I believe the rough ride is simply your estimation, Ray. I think I have demonstrated that your two predominant examples of John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 do not amount to any ‘proof’ or of even a sufficient weight to regarded as heavy enough to sway the reader away from the natural readings and word meanings of the three scriptures that I have offered as the threefold witness. The WT understanding and interpretaion of those verses is in complete harmony with the way those words are read naturally? The reasons for me saying this are clearly outlined in all that I have stated above.

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

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Wrench says: I think from what has been presented, both are still very much in tact as weighing heavily against the Trinitarian interpretation. You must admit, that the trinitarian position is unprecedented in relation to “arche” followed by a genitive and the way that should naturally be read and you must admit that their position is unprecedented in relation to “prototokos” followed by a genitive phrase and the way that should naturally be read.$$$$    RR Ray replies: Hold it...Wrench, you forgot to respond to my pointing out that even the WT agrees that "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". Please make sure you address this, OK? It's from the WT Society too!!! So...so far you've not been able to "demonstrate" what you claimed in Rev 3:14, having not verified your claim of "bias based on personal conviction" in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon...  

 

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

First of all, what I claimed about Rev. 3:14 had nothing to do with Grimm’s words initially. All the ‘bias’ conversation had to do with was whether or not Grimm allowed bias to cause him to choose “active cause” as the mening for “arche”, and whether or not other Trinitarians have fallen into the same bias as him. Anyone can see that “source”, if not improper altogether, is certainly a remote meaning given to “arche”. Since no. 1-There is no other clear example in the scriptures where “arche” means “source”. No. 2- There were other words in the Greek that better fit the bill, such as “rhiza”. No.3-John consistently uses “arche” to mean beginning in every other place that it occurs in his writings. No.4-arche followed by a genitive every where else uncontestedly places arche with the group in the genitive. No 5-John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 do not fall in ‘favor’ of a Trinitarian argument. No. 6- How can the trinitarian admit intermediate agency of the Son and yet make him the “active cause all in the same breath?(remember Beckwith’s objection), all these factors are involved in my claims about Rev. 3:14, not just whether the trinitarian camp allowed bias, or their theological preference, which is what I mean by bias, to govern their choice of definitions for arche, because if they had just relied on biblical usage, other choices are surely more apparent. I think I have shown some information that would certainly cause one to question this meaning given to arche as to whether or not it is really appropriate and I am sure I will continue to find more as my research commences.

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

 

you've not yet even got the WT's blessing for the "arche with a genitive" argument, much less have you shown where the natural understanding of John 1:3 does not present itself as an obstacle and thus show itself to be deserving of being the deciding factor at Rev 3:14.   

 

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

Since the WT quoted Barnes article on “arche” and he himself lists many of the same scriptures that I did to demonstrate the “arche with a genitive”, and they have certainly seen Greg’s explanation of the same, and they have offered no objection to such things, and the information is really uncontestably correct from a statistical side at the very least, I have every right to use what is obviously true, especially since it is in entire agreement with and complete harmony with what they teach in regard to Rev. 3:14. Now, in relation to John 1:3, you might call a foul since their precedented explanation presented something different then the first explanation I offered, but, in relation to Rev. 3:14, there is no such conflict and since the evidence is really there for anyone to see, there is nothing false or contradictory being stated and it is in complete agreement with all that they have said about the verse, they themselves even pointing to Barnes article who mentions some of the same features.

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

 

And now with your second witness, I've shown how the Trinitarian view can accomodate your "partitive genitive" line of argument, without requiring him to have been the first creation in the category. Hence, you cannot prove from Col. 1:15 that Christ was the first creature in the category in order to justify your arbitrary handling of "all things" in verses 16 and 17. Therefore, the natural understanding will have to prevail in these verses too...and that means that Paul explicitly placed Christ's existence before "all things"...described in context as all creation.   

 

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

You can not have Christ as a part of the “all creation”, and hold onto to the view that the “all things” and the “all creation” are identical, can’t you see that? That should be amply apparent by now. If the “all creation” includes Christ, which you say it does above, but the “all things” obviously DO NOT include Christ, how can you say the two phrases are ‘identical’? You can’t have it both ways, Ray.

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

 

$$$$Wrench says: You have appealed to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 as being heavy enough to swing this solidly established precedent into a different meaning but I have seen no evidence to that even beginning to secure such a thought, especially when Trinitarian after Trinitarian admits that the language of both John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 prersents Christ as the intermediary agent in those verses. One of the meanings of agent is “INSTRUMENT” and that smacks exactly with what we have said all along.$$$$$$    Ray replies: I've already dealt with these above, and the "instrument" argument earlier in the first section of my letter. A member of the Godhead could and did step into the intermediate role as the "instrument of true deity", both for the creation of "all things", but also for the "reconciliation of all things" as well. He became the mediator because only He could truly identify with both sides of the spectrum, for only He knows what it like to be both.  

 

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

For you to say that the Son as a creature could not be used in this capacity is pure speculation. Surely the Son could relate to the situation having been with his Father from the ‘beginning’ of creation, because he was the beginning. What in the world makes anyone conclude that the Son couldn’t be used for this as God’s instrument of reconciliation, as a creature, is really beyond me.

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

 

Did you know, Wrench, that besides Pastor Greber, the WT still cites another spirit medium in support of their translation of John 1:1? The reason I bring this up is because this person actually himself appealed to the same expression as having been given him from the spirit world about how to refer to Jesus. If you look in the current KIT, in the appendix on page 1139, you will see that the top a list of translations the WTBTS cites to support their "a god" translation. The second one down dated in 1829 is by John S. Thompson. Well, several years ago I took the time to track this guy down, and I found and article printed about him way back as early as 1830 in "The American Quarterly Review", Vol. 8, for Sept/Dec, 1830. This article chronicles Thompson's "dabbling in the spirit world" as reported in his own words. Under the sub-title "Fanatical Guides", page 227, they feature the following: " 1.---The Christian Guide to a right understanding and chronologically arranged, in a New Translation, on the basis of Wakefield's Version. To which are prefixed, a brief Memoir of the Author, and a copious Introduction to the New Testament. By John S. Thompson, Minister of the First Universalist Society, Utica, New-York. Utica...    Now notice, Wrench, how the spirit tells Thompson to emphasize the same thing in an effort to deny Christ's deity...which is what Thompson does throughout. He says to Thompson, "In all your writings be careful to represent Jesus as only the instrument of God in all he does"....can you believe this? ...amazingly similar to your thought processes, and the way you've been taught to see things...But let's allow Thompson say it in his own words, it will astonish you...   ...... "My honesty in expressing my sentiments, nearly destroyed my fellowship with the whole body of professing Christians, and caused me much bitterness. I appeared almost as an isolated individual, feeling no interest in any party, n or almost in any terrene object. The subject of religion seemed to me to wear a gloomy picture. For a time, I desisted from every religious meeting whatever, and for several months dreaded insanity. My application to study was in-expressably intense: I never slept more than two or three hours. The deity of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, and some other subjects, continually kept my mind in excitement. Having adopted Materialism on the Priestleyan plan, I could not admit the existence of spirits in our world: for all antiquity supposed spirits to have been originally men: but if there had been no resurrection, there could be no human spirits.    I will now proceed to relate things, just as I have before done, agreeably to the views and impressions I then had: leaving every one to form his own opinion. I acknowledge, my mind was in a state of great excitement, at the time I had these extraordinary impressions: but it did not then seem to me, nor does it yet, that the degree of the excitement was adequate to the phenomena. I awoke, one night, and heard a considerable noise in my room. I listened carefully for some time, and the sound was that of a thousand pens, writing in great haste what was dictated. I heard a voice very distinctly, saying,---'In all your writings, be careful to represent Jesus as only the instrument of God in all he does'--I immediately interupted, by exclaiming, --'Silence! I'll not believe one of you.' The noise immediately stopped: and I was often afterward sorry that I had interrupted the dictation. I examined: but there was no person in the room, the door being locked, and none had yet arisen in the house. "Not long after, sleeping in the same room, I awoke by pressure, which removed immediately on awaking. I began to reflect, whether it was a dream, or an external force applied to my body. Whilst I doubted, some being took hold of my hands, and pressed them with violence, which excited in me great surprise. My hands were let loose, but, in one minute, they were again seized, with renewed violence. I then cried--'Let me loose! I believe! do not injure me! I am entirely satisfied of your existence!' ......" ...and so on and so forth.    So anyway, I know you are aware of Pastor Greber and the WT's history with him, but your mentioning the "instrument" argument reminded me of this article that I had tracked down. Thought you might find it interesting and relative. Isn't that a coincidence? And yet this spirit medium is still being held forth in support of the "a god" translation by the WT Society. Again, I only remembered I had this when you laid stress on the "instrumental" use of Jesus. That's exactly how the spirit world would coach their captors too...to persuade the unsuspecting to believe the lies about Jesus. Shouldn't you be concerned that so much of this "spirit dabbling" seems to be appealed to by the WTBTS...and in perfect agreement too with their "language" as they vehemently attack and deny the deity of Christ? You should honestly be deeply concerned about this Wrench. Something is surely wrong in Denmark...don't you think? Just let me know if you'd like a copy of this. RRR**************************************  

 

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

No, Ray, I am not interested in a copy of this. You have presented enough here. Why don’t you send this info to the WT and I am sure they will deal with it appropriately. And don’t forget, the Trinitarian camp speaks of Christ “instrumentally”, too, for they view him as the intermediate ageny, which is defined as well, as an ‘instrument’.

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

 

Wrench continues:...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. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   RRR... Ray had said: Ok, it’s time to summarize what we’ve learned so far in our discussion of your treatise. First we discovered that with regard to your first witness (Rev 3:14), the meaning you contend for, first creature in the series, has not been well received in the scholarly community. Of all my sources, only one even acknowledged your meaning as “linguistically possible”, but they adopted the orthodox meaning themselves, as did all the others. Your first response accused me of using only trinitarian witnesses who were tainted and biased against your views. The charge of using all trinitarian sources was proved wrong by the inclusion of both JH Thayer (probably a Unitarian) and EA Abbott (definitely a Unitarian).    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Wrench replies: Well, I think I have presented much more Trinitarian thought that needs to be dealt with. Some concur that “source” is an improper definition for “arche” and is highly controversial. Many also recognize the validity of the natural meaning of those words which is echoed by every other example in the Bible of arche followed by a genitive. As well, even if “ruler” was appealed to, that would not remove Christ from the category of belonging to creation. If I tell you that you are the ruler of men, you are still a man.$$$$$$    RRR Ray replies: This is all dealt with fully in this letter above...RRRR   

 

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

likewise.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   

 

$$$$Wrench continues: .. Besides, Beckwith acknowledges something in this regard that is interesting. Notice what he says: Page 489 in his Apocalypse of John he states: “Some take arche in our passage (Rev. 3:14) to mean Head, Lord; but for that idea ‘archon’ would be used, cf. 1:5” Now why did Beckwith say that “archon” would be used when he knew that “arche” is used that way elsewhere? He evidently realizes as I pointed out that John NEVER uses “arche” in that sense. He even cites John at Rev 1:5 to demonstrate his point that John uses a different word for “ruler”. So, even if one wanted to go with “ruler”, which wouldn’t disqualify him from being a creation, they would still have to take a completely unprecedented stand in relation to the way John uses the word everywhere else....$$$$$$$$$$    Ray replies: “Archon” is the more common noun signifying "ruler", but even the NWT uses the plural of “arche” to signify "government officials" in Lk. 12:11. It may be countered that this is only the plural, but plural or singular, this still represents the usage of that noun with the "ruler" sense...even by the "anointed translation committee". Even in English we sometimes use different words to refer to the same thing, and sometimes the literal root of the different words may be suggestive of different emphases. For example, we sometimes refer to graduation exercises as "commencement exercises", but graduation is probably the more common term. Yet looking at their roots might suggest a different emphasis. Graduation seem to be suggestive of "movement forward or upward"...while "commencement" is more suggestive of "beginning", so graduation is looked at differently…sometimes as a "moving up" and other times as "a beginning to a new life"...etc. Yet both are used of the same thing. And as I pointed out earlier, the "ruler" idea is easily harmonized with the "first cause…beginner meaning"...thus, since he was hand's on responsible for all creation, it stands to reason that he could well be considered the ruler of it. And the complaint that John didn't use it elsewhere, is not as strong as its opposite. In other words usage elsewhere for confirmation is more forceful than none-usage would be to rule out a first time example. Nor should we overlook the supervision of the Holy Spirit. RRRR   

 

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

Ruler and “first cause” are surely not synonyms, even if they could go hand in hand in a given context, but that has surely not been demonstrated in regard to Rev. 3:14, and I think the Holy Spirit had other words to choose from to designate “ruler” or “source” without using a word that predominantly means a “beginning”. Your explanation doesn’t deny the fact that it would be unprecedented, for that is really uncontested

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

 

Wrench continues: 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 replies: Most of them seem not far removed from each other when the comparison is a contemporary one. But some bible commentators do not pretend to be Lexicographers, and visa versa. As I pointed out, though, the one thing they do agree on is that your meaning is not supported by the teaching elsewhere in the N.T. Also, I pointed out that it is logically difficult for you to "thread the needle" by relying on a scholar's credibility when he acknowledges your meaning is "linguistically possible", and rejecting the same credibility when the same scholar adopts the other meaning! Oh consistency, where art thou? :-)*********   

 

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

Oh please, Ray. I don’t think any of these commentators and lexicographers were saying things that they felt might be inaccurate. They believed what they said no matter what their field of expertise was and Im am sure the commentators knew how to read the lexicons and what they had to say and vice versa. These objections have no weight to them. And what is more, I’ve explained before that if I quote a Trinitarian who in part may agree with something I have offered, that is for “your” benefit, Ray, because you surely can’t call ‘bias’ on their behalf against you.

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

 

Ray had said: 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.  

 

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

I am not saying that Grimm was purposely corrupting something, I am saying that he allowed his theology to cause him to choose what he did, not the preponderance of evidence. 

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

 

 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. 

 

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

Well, because, so far, all appear to be Trinitarian and I believe that ‘personal preference’ or ‘bias’, which I am using synonymously here, is what has caused their choice to be what it is, not the preponderance of evidence.

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

 

Ray said: And last but not least, your attempt to deal with a passage that clearly presents an obstacle to your view (treatise) by presenting Christ as pre-existing all creation without a single exception (John 1:3) has left you in a battle with the very organization you’re trying to defend, the Watchtower Society. A battle over the intercalary bounderies (as JWs have drawn them) between the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works (John 1:1 & Gen.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… RRRRR   $$$$$$$$$$$ Covered above.   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You stated: Ray said: In view of the above summary, I think it is fair to conclude that you have not met the goals or standards you set for yourself, even in the reframed treatise. Your first witness has not survived scrutiny, and so your conclusion must at this time be rejected. It seems like a long and hard task, but I do get the impression that given more time to go into these things we can both come to know each other better and make real progress. That is what I’m hoping and praying for anyway. Thanks for your patience, by the way, I‘ve been a little under the weather lately. God bless you Wrench, and just let me know where to send the stuff. Take care, friend, Ray.   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrench says: 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. Thankyou 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    Ray says: OK, Wrench, I'll just include here the rest of my letter that I included as part 2, though you still didn't get it all posted...maybe this will clear everything up. Sorry if I'm at fault for this, but I hope this will be satisfactory. Please take whatever time to deal with all these points too, Wrench...I'd like to know what your personal feelings are. So long for now, friend, RayG......    To establish this new JW idea of identifying the beginning in John 1:1 with the beginning in Gen 1:1 and restricting the generic “all things” to only physical things, the burden is on you to show how the context of John chapter one requires that, or even remotely suggests such a restriction. The WT doesn’t see it in their order of events, and I would observe that Greg does not display much enthusiasm or confidence in defending the new suggestion, for after admitting that the WT’s order of creation as elaborated upon in their “Insight Volumes” (1988) were still the “truth” as recent as 1993, he introduces his new idea from the Knowledge book with the words “Whatever the case , the Witnesses’ present understanding of the “beginning: of John 1:1 can be gathered…”. Is this just his interpretation of that reference?    Then on the next page, after explaining where everything ends up after applying the new idea, he says “When John said the Word was “en arxn” (en arche, ‘in the beginning’) he undoubtedly had in mind the same ‘beginning’ of Genesis 1:1….”…yet a little further down the page we read “However, no one can be dogmatic here, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not dogmatic about it.” But hold the phone! He humbly admits here that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not dogmatic about it, but just a moment ago had said “When John said the Word was ev arxn (en arche, ‘in the beginning’) he undoubtedly (what? Undoubtedly?) had in mind the same ‘beginning’ of Genesis 1:1…” Do you understand what he’s suggesting here, Wrench, without even realizing it? He’s making it rather clear that in his mind the WT Society “undoubtedly” had their heads in their rear ends when they for all those years distinguished the beginning of John 1:1 from Genesis 1:1. No doubt he did not consciously intend such a thought, but that is the natural conclusion that one could draw based on the order of events he himself has admitted to.   

 

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

Why don’t you ask Greg about this, I didn’t write it. I am not going to try to figure what and why he said everything he said, he can answer for himself. Even you admit, that he didn’t intend such a thought, that is what ‘editing’ and revisions’ are for, to correct things you may have stated in a way you didn’t want them to sound. So, tell him about it, not me.

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

 

So I’ll close this letter for now, and take some time to read Greg’s book and the other one as well. I think there is plenty here for you to deal with, Wrench, and I’ve made it very clear that no matter which way you choose to go, your burden will be to show how you are adhering to the context of John 1:1 in trying to restrict the “all things’ to only physical things, and show how you are adhering to that context more clearly than the WT says it was in setting forth the order of creation in the Insight Volumes (88).  

 

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

You really need to move past this, Ray. I have.

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

 

Please don’t leave it unsettled as to whether the Society intended to repudiate their previous order in the Knowledge book that you and Greg point to. Clear it up.  

 

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

Repudiation is your word, Ray, not ours. There was never such a claim.

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

 

Remember also that you’ve still not verified your explanation that “corruption based on bias” was the reason your view has such little support in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon. You need to show specific examples of such “corruption” right where you claim it occurred. And until you do, this will remain a mark against your first witness and prevent it from adding to the collective force of your treatise.  

 

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

If I actually used the word “corruption”, then I was wrong. I was merely stating that ‘bias’ was probably at work when the trinitarian camp came to Rev. 3:14 because they knew they could not leave it in it’s most natural state. I will continue to find what I can in relation to this rendering, but I did not mean to indicate that I thought Grimm was “corrupt”, just ‘biased’ in his view because I do not equate bias with corruption in every instance. Ares you sure corruption was my word and not yours?

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

 

 I really took a lot of time to go into some new material in this letter, much of it based on your questions to me. So I hope you will pay me the same respect of going through them in detail as well. So long, friend, and God Bless…Ray Goldsmith  

 

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

If I forget something, Ray, it is never out of disrespect for your words and your efforts. I try to address everything that seems pertinent to address. If I offend you by forgetting something, it wasn’t on purpose. I probably thought that it was covered before, or not pertinent to the issues that are on the table or I simply missed them due to being too long infront of the computer screen and suffering from fatigue.   I will be patiently awaiting your responses.  Agape, Wrench  P.S. If you want, there would seem to be much of this post that could be deleted and ignored since alot of it is passe, such as the WT loyalty stuff and the “all things/physical creation” parts or whatever else you feel has been sufficiently covered. At this point, this post is 333 pages long in Microsoft word. This isn’t a response, it is a book, so please, let some of these other issues go for a later time that really don’t have a direct bearing on the “threefold witness” treatise that I have offered. The choice is yours.    Wrench in the Works