The Son of God Created-May 13-2000-Part ? Saturday, 13-May-2000 17:50:57   

 

Hello Ray, You’ve done a great job of cutting down the size of our discussion. Maybe we can agree to keep these things to no more than 70 or so pages at a time. If they get bigger than that we should just limit our discussion to the more pertinent issues and try our best to explain things in less space. Well, let’s get started.  

 

You started: I will focus on three main points in this letter. Revelation 3:14, John 1:3, and Col. 1:15-17. We are pretty much finished with Rev. 3:14 as far as the Lexical context is concerned. There remain a few points to settle. First we saw that the meaning you contend for is not well supported in the Lexicons. Only one that I could find acknowledged that the "first in the series" meaning is "linguistically possible" at Rev. 3:14 (BAGD), and yet their scholarly opinion is that the orthodox meaning is to be preferred.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, I wouldn’t say that we are pretty much finished yet with where the Lexical context is concerned. Tell me, Ray, and I am asking because I really don’t know, are there any Lexicons that are done by Unitarians available? Does Abbot have a commentary avialable on the NT? Or others who are Unitarian (not strictly, however) in their beliefs? It would be interesting to see what they have to say in relation to the Orthodox view of Revelation 3:14 and their rendering of “active cause”. Of course you may say that you only found one that stated it was linguistically possible, yet, I hope you are not forgetting that I demonstrated there were other Trinitarians as well, which you acknowledge below, that stated that it was certainly possible to render it that way. True, being Trinitarian, they would not opt for that designation, as it would destroy their doctrine, so they really have no choice, but then again, in opting for the “active cause” rendering they do so without any clear scriptural evidence as I have pointed out. 1.) There is no clear case from the scriptures where “arche” means “active cause”. 2.) John, elsewhere, always uses “arche” to mean” beginning”, not ”beginner” or “ruler” and he had other words to choose from in the Greek to designate “active cause” (rhiza) and “ruler” (archon) which he uses elsewhere when it is clear he wanted to designate those meanings to something. 3.) The “arche” followed by a gentive phrase point that I have mentioned many times. (to be discussed further below) 4.) The Father is elsewhere designated as the “active cause” and the Son is the “intermediate agent”. How can the Son be the active cause if the Father is, is without drfiting into modalism? Beckwith’s objection to viewing the Son as the “source/active cause” is something I think presents a problem for the Trinitarian rendering of “arche” as “source/active cause”, since they would acknowledge that the the Father is the “source/active cause” and the Son is the “intermediate agent”. 5.) The only clear references to “arche” meaning “source/active cause” are from ‘extra-biblical’ references . 6.) There are other Greek words available to designate “source/active cause” that could have easily been used to do so at Rev. 3:14. 7.) The meaning “source/active cause” seems to come up short in many places in the reference books. I am going to pull up from the bottom the P.S. that you appended in order to addres this number 7 a little more closely. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 With reference to your additional referrals, first to Kittel’s, That the “orginator” meaning is not clearly represented in the LXX is not a brand new revelation, Wrench. We’ve already learned that from the Lexicons. Yet on page 479 they cite a reference to the 8th century philosopher “Anaximander” as set forth in Aristotle’s Phys., III, r, p. 203b to show an extra-biblical example of “first in the series” meaning, but interestingly they missed another usage by the same Philosopher, from the same Aristotle’s that illustrates the “originator” meaning as cited by Grimm himself in the “arche” entry. That I found to be extremely interesting. Also, they DO show an alternative meaning to “first in a series” in the LXX, namely “dominion or power”…a la Barnes, and NIV, which means that based strictly on the LXX, it cannot be established that “first in a series” is a necessity.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It really escapes me as to why you would expect me take seriously the usage of “arche” made by not only ‘extra-biblical’ references, but Greek philosophers at that, people who were not men of the God of the Bible. I fail to see, and probably always will, how this should have a bearing on what God inspired the writers to use and how He inspired them to use it. Any one should see that the evidence for “active cause” in the scriptures is microscopic at best. The fact you find extra-biblical references as “extremely interesting” is “extremely interesting” to me. Extra-biblical usage should really not have an important bearing on how we define a word. The Biblical evidence, when there is a discrepancy, should be that which is taken seriously, not the other way around. “Ruler” of course is unprecedented in relation to John’s usage of the word. If we stick to ‘biblical’ and Johannine usage, the meaning would be “beginning”. The Trinitarian must go outside the bible to find a clear reference to “active cause” for arche, and the evidence even outside the Bible for that rendering is meager. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Now Kittel’s does cite another example from Anaximander which illustrates a very interesting concept with “arche”, it is the concept of taking with the middle and ending as a circle of connotation, which immediately reminds us of infinity, a distinguishing characteristic of God. In fact they even cite a quote from the Greek which translates like this: “Arche de panton mia kai teleute panton mia kai he autee teleute kai arche”…in English “but the beginning of all things one also the end of all things one and the same end also the beginning” and what do we have but a description of infinity. This confirms Grimm’s reference to Anaximander beautifully for the “originator” meaning (from infinity). While I was at it, I went ahead and read the entire article…and noticed some things that deserve mention. For example, on page 482 we read: “In 1 Jn. 2:13 f. we have the masculine, but again without a noun, namely, He who was frm before time. With reference to Christ, this includes the assertion of eternity, for that which or he who was from all ages can only be that which or He who is included in the being of God. This gives us pre-existence in the strict sense”. b. This is even more plain in the parallel saying in Jn. 1:1f. Here, however, the term logos is used. In a Gospel it is almost impossible not to objectivise the It or He. The loaded term logos is an attempt to express formally what is said more exactly in 1 Jn. 1:1; 2:13 f. Here, then, that which is en arche is that which is ‘before’ all time, or, more correctly, that concerning which no temporal statement can be made…” And last, notice the following connection with Rev. 22:13, where they identify the Alpha and Omega as “God and Christ”. Understand, Wrench, that the title “Christ” is a transient title depicting his Messianic role, and tells us nothing at all about his ultimate identity, but Alpha and Omega does! So note what Kittel’s says on page 484 about Rev. 3:14: “It cannot be said with certainty whether arche is used in the same sense in Rev. 3:14. This is not unlikely in view of 21:6; 22;13. The arche/telos statement in relation to God and Christ (…A/O) is wholly along the lines of philosophical usage…Thus in Rev. the One who sits on the throne, or Christ, is the One who is pre-temporal and post-temporal, to whom the categories of time do not apply.”  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, I am sure there are many things to talk about in relation to those evaluations. Suffice it to say that I think there are quite a few errors and assumptions in what was said, but I don’t think we need to throw this into the mix at this time, do you? Otherwise we will swell this post to where it was before, but, it seems to me, that again, the “active source” rendering has doubt cast upon it by what is stated. When Kittel said “It cannot be said with certainty whether arche is used in the same sense in Rev. 3:14.”, the footnote seems to tell what sense that is, being, “The principle and origin of creation” (Had. Apk. Ad loc), Otherwise the usage reflects Rabbinic influence and the Messiah is before the world, yet Himself created."  This seems to be another admission that the words used as such would mean what we understand them to mean. But regardless, it appears that the “active cause/source” meaning at Rev. 3:14 is questioned by yet another reference work. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Next you cite Vine’s under the entry “beginning”, and point out that he mentions “first cause” but only cites Col. 1:18 and not Rev. 3:14 as an example. This is a no-brainer, Wrench. The reason he doesn’t cite Rev. 3:14 is because he know that there is a dispute as to whether it should be understood as “ruler” or “originator”, and so opts to cite an example which is not disputed. Makes sense. However, he’s not by “silence” trying to suggest any support whatsoever in Rev. 3:14 for “first in a series” meaning, which should be obvious to you since he himself is an Orthodox Christian. See my point?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Not really, Ray, and here is why. You seem to know things that are not stated about Vine’s that you would have no way of knowing. Just how do you know that is the reason that he left out Rev. 3:14 under “arche”? Aren’t you being a little presumptuous here? I haven’t noticed him shying away from controversy in other areas where there was a question as to what the word should mean, in fact, he is quite verbal about things like that. Have you ever read what he has to say about “stauros”? No, Ray, I don’t think that is the reason that he left it out, given that he is usually very verbal about other discrepancies. Let’s go a little further into Vine’s and some other comparisons and see what that reveals. We discussed what he has to say about “arche” and the “active source” meaning for Rev. 3:14 surely comes up short there. Notice under “Cause (noun and verb)”. We don’t even find a hint of “arche” as being offered. Look under “Root”and again, we don’t even find a hint, yet, we find “rhiza” which is given the same meaning that you are offering for “arche”, that being “cause, origin, source”. I find it “extremely interesting” that “arche” is missing from these places if it actually carries that meaning with it. Look at “Author” and we find one of the synonyms for “Cause” mentioned, but no mention of “arche”, just archegos, somewhat similar, but truly different. And then, even in the index, under “arche”, “active cause, source or origin” are NOT offered as equivalents to the word in English. That’s what I find extremely interesting, Ray. The meaning “source/active cause” just seems to get ignored, left out altogether or put in a questionable light in one reference after another. Now, I find that strange that you don’t find that even a little bit strange and even stranger that, with this lack of evidence where you would expect it, you find “extremely interesting” the support for such a rendering, all from extra-biblical references. You have to admit, Ray, that what you are offering is not much to hold on to. I also found it interesting that you admit that there is ‘controversy’ about how Rev. 3:14 should be rendered. What exactly do you know about this controversy, Ray? Hmmmm? You did say that it was a “no-brainer”. You must know something. What is it? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Last you cite Strong’s Concordance, and specifically the Greek lexicon entry for “arche”. You say it doesn’t mention “source or origin or cause”, however although this IS an exhaustive concordance, it doesn’t purport to be an exhaustive lexicon, but it does mention this it’s used in a wide variety of applications of time, order, rank…etc. Hence it may allow for a time BEFORE as per Paul’s statement in Col. 1:17 “he is before (pro) all things”, not that time was a reality before creation but merely that he (like the Father) was before “all things” in timeless existence (compare the two uses of “all things” in 1st Cor. 8:6). A similar situation can be seen by looking in the KIT at Colossians 2:17, for there the Greek word “soma” is rendered “reality” by the anonymous translation committee, but if you look up that word in Strong’s lexicon, it doesn’t mention that meaning specifically, but just that it is used in a wide variety of ways both fig. and lit. At any rate, I don’t think we should assume that Strong’s lexicon intends to compete with the major lexicons we’ve already consulted, do you?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ No, I certainly don’t view it as exhaustive in lexical meanings, but, I do find it significant that such an ‘important’ meaning (to Trinitarians, that is) was left out. Strong’s was a Trinitarian, right? If, Strong’s was the only one that did it, then you might be able to wiggle out, but when I see the same thing happen in Vine’s index and I see Barnes throw a veritable fit over the meaning, and I see Beckwith object to the Son being designated the “source”, I have to think that Grimm was biased with his choice of meanings, especially since many Trinitarians opt for “ruler” without thinking that they are jeapordizing their doctrine and the fact that you seem to have some knowledge of a controversy over whether Rev. 3:14 should be rendered “source”.. I also noticed in Greg’s book he makes mention of C. F. Burney who wrote an article in the JTS. Burney stated of Rev. 3:14 that exegetes “have not a shadow of authority for limiting in meaning to “the source of God’s creation”. So, we can add another scholar to the list who calls into question the validity of “arche” as “active cause/source” (JWD-239) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 You continued: Certainly commentators acknowledge that the word "arche" can and does mean "first in the series", but none that we've seen so far, nor any of the lexicographers have indicated that they think it means that at Rev. 3:14. I reminded you that this is logically difficult for you. How do you take advantage by pointing to their credibility when they say your meaning is "linguistically possible", but reject the same credibility when the source adopts a different meaning.

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The answer to that is simple, Ray. I explained in my last letter. Did you read it all? When I quote something from a Trinitarian source that agrees with what I am saying, it is more for your benefit than mine, for sure. It should show you that what I am saying is not just due to a personal conviction but that there is evidence for it, even from your doctrinal comrades. Haven’t you done the same thing yourself with others? Do you agree with everything that a lexicographer has to say because you agree with something he said in one place or even under the same article? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Your response to this was first to claim that all my sources were trinitarians, which was proven wrong.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Oh please, Ray, nothing of the sort has been proven. More below. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Grimm/Thayer was overseen by one who was probably a unitarian (Thayer), and another who was definitely a unitarian (Abbot). We somehow crossed signals and got into a lengthy and somewhat ridiculous exchange about whether the sources were "biased", where you started off claiming that corruption based on bias was a probability in Grimm/Thayer.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I don’t think I used the word “corruption”, Ray. That has been your word. It just recently dawned on me the implications of that word. I just kept reading it and sort of equating it with “bias”, but bias can certainly mean something different than corruption. What I said was that Grimm’s choice for “active cause/source” was probably due to bias, or what we could call a theologically driven preference, which with what I have found here and there, and still continue to look, seems to be accurate. Some of the reasons for that are above. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 I obviously argued that this would be difficult to establish, and you say you took that to mean I was denying even the possibility. This seems strange because in every letter I wrote, I carefully worded myself in the following manner "corruption based on personal conviction (bias)"…etc, which was in itself an acknowledgement of personal convictions. The question is whether their works were corrupted by such personal convictions (bias). I repeatedly reminded you that if you claimed "corruption based on bias" as an explanation for the poor support your view has in the Lexicons, the burden is on you to show such "corruption" right where you claim it occurred...in order to verify your explanation. Every time I reminded you of this...you would scurry back to the possibility square again. Finally, though, you saw that you would eventually have to show specific examples of such corruption in order to verify your explanation. The bracketed remarks in 3:14, as I've said before, most likely supplement Grimm's references, for Thayer says that whenever he brings a different opinion in, he includes representative discussions from both sides...and nothing like that appears here.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Don’t you again, think that is a little presumptuous? Neither of us know what those references say, how can you claim that nothing like that appears if you haven’t seen it? How do you know for a certainty that Thayer has not offered a differing opinion? And what is more, if you really believe that Thayer’s bracketed references all supplement Grimm’s choice for “active cause”, how could you turn around and still believe Thayer to be a Unitarian? His actions would completely contradict his theology. You say that Thayer whenever he brings a different opinion in he includes representative discussions from both sides. I notice that this statement is precluded by the words, “On the comparatively few points respecting which DOCTRINAL MATTERS STILL DIFFER”. Now, let’s be honest, Ray. If Thayer was a Unitarian, did him and Grimm have doctrinal differences in relation to Revelation 3:14? They most certainly did. Is it not presumptuous for you to think that all the supplements were in agreement with Grimm’s findings on “active cause” if you honestly think that Thayer was a Unitarian? There is no basis for you to state that there “is nothing like that there” unless of course, you have actually read the references yourself, and if you have, and they all agree, I don’t know how you could possibly still think that Thayer was Unitarian. Your logic with this is just not making sense to me. What is more, notice what Thayer’s has to say in relation to his Explanations and Abbreviations under [] Brackets. Since I know you have the book, I’ll let you read it. It would seem the brackets would be more likely not to be there if everything was in agreement with what Grimm had to say.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 You've tried to track down the references to see if they disagree, but so far you 've not been very successful in finding what you're looking for. I've also reminded you that should one or more of the bracketed references indicate a disagreement or different opinion, it still would not prove that Grimm succumbed to his personal convictions (bias), for the info may not have been available to him at the time.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, he certainly had to do some extensive research to find his ‘extra-biblical’ references. It would seem funny that he would miss something if it was there with such a thorough investigation going on. Grimm had to go “looking” to find something to “agree” with his position on Rev. 3:14. It wasn’t a meaning that he clearly found in the bible, that’s for sure. He had to find support from a Greek philosopher. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

And now in this latest response you ask if I know anything about the references, and if I'm "holding out on you", ha...I laughed when I read that. No I wouldn't do that, Wrench, though I tried once to help you and got accused of being dishonest out of it ?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Did I not apologize, Ray? Do you think I have ever thought you were dishonest without some reason for it? Maybe the reasons were misinterpreted but I just don’t accuse someone of dishonesty without some inkling that something isn’t adding up. Didn’t we concur that we both may have misunderstood each other somewhat?  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

What is the old saying, a good deed never goes undone? Here is another example of you asking me for help, and let’s notice how you reacted when I tried to help you. 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,

 

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

 

Ok, wrench, I don’t know how to switch the font color back to black for this little insertion, so I’ll just do it in blue with a slightly larger font size. Please notice that my very first statement in reply to you was: “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….Ok, can you see that after making it clear what was “elaborated upon” by Thayer in the preface. I then said “I know”??? What does that mean? I thought that’s what you wanted me to do was share with you what I knew, I didn’t know you wanted me to go out and do your homework for you, or that you would accuse me of inventing something if I didn’t. For Goodness sakes, Wrench, it’s hard enough to find the sources you DO appeal to in the course of your presentation, than to go back out and research this stuff all over again just to keep you from accusing me of inventing something. I would think that you’d have been grateful for me sharing with you what “I know”, and that you would have taken that as a clue or something to work with in the course of doing your OWN homework about Abbot. Instead I get accused of inventing something, now isn’t that a fine howdy-do? My time is limited too, friend. But since you did make the accusation, I went searching through my files, and back to the Library, and so now I’ll try to provide you with the specific references I had previously studied, information which had contributed to what “I Know”. When I said I knew that Abbot was a very highly regarded scholar in the area of textual criticism, you can verify this in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, published in 1950 by Baker Book House, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 4 & 5 under the entry “ABBOT, EZRA”….I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up by quoting a couple quotes so that at least you’ll see that I didn’t just “invent” what I know. Here goes “He was a scholar of rare talents and attainments. He stood first and foremost among the textual critics of the Greek Testament in America; and for microscopic accuracy of biblical scholarship he had no superior in the world…(please don’t accuse me of leaving out important info just because I’m trying to save a little time and effort by using the ellipis)…so I continue with the quote a little later in the article… “His most valuable and independent labors, however, were devoted to textual criticism and are in part incorporated in Gregory’s Prolegomena to the Ed. Viii. Critica major of Tischendorf’s Greek Testament; the chapter De versibus (pp. 167-182) is by him, and he read the manuscripts and proofs of the entire work. His services to the American Bible Revision Committee were invaluable. The critical papers which he prepared ON DISPUTED PASSAGES were uncommonly thorough, and had no small influence in determining the text finally accepted. His defense of the Johannnean authorship of the fourth Gospel (the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; External Evidences, Boston, 1880; reprinted by his successor in the Harvard Divinity School, J. H. Thayer, 1888) is an invaluable contribution to the solution of that question.” Ok, I hope that helps you to see that I didn’t just invent something about Abbot or pull it out of “thin air”. And now I’ll quote one of his footnotes in his defense of the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel so that you can see his particular area of expertise firsthand, remember now…this is just one example from one of his footnotes: Here goes: “It may be satisfactory to refer here also to the places where this expression occurs in some other writers, who have been erroneously cited as authorities for monogenes theos in John 1:18. See pseudo-Ignat. ad Philad. C. 7 (the larger recension): Const. Apost. Iii. 17; v. 20; vii. 38, 43; viii. 7, 35; Arius. Ap. Athanas. De Syn. C. 15, Opp. I. 728e, but not ap. Epiph. Haer. Lxix. C. 6. Opp. I. 73rd, pleres theos, monogenes; Asterius. Ap. Athanas. De Syn. C. 18, p. 732b; Eunomius, Expos. Fid. C. 3. And Apol. cc. 15, 21, 26 (ap. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Tom. Viii.); Greg. Naz. Epist. 202, ad Nectarium, Opp. Ii. 168e; Gaudentius, Serm. Xixl, in Migne’s Patrol. Xx. 990b; Ferrandus, Epist. Iii. Cc. 2, 7, 9-11; v. 2, 5; vii. 12; in Migne, lxvii.” OK, Wrench, this should help you to see that my “aver” was not something I just invented. I knew what he did best, and made my judgment accordingly. In castigating me you say you looked up the word “notation”, but did you look up the word “variant”? That might have helped. Or better yet “variant verse”, ?. So since you broke into the middle of my paragraph, I’ll allow it to take back off and I may have something more to add a little further down in your complaint. Here goes the rest of my paragraph now:  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Sorry, if I misunderstood you. In one way I think I did but in another, possibly not. Let me try to explain. It appears that Abbot was an expert at ‘disputed passages’ as you have adequately shown. I thought that “variant verse notation” was nothing more than ‘variations’ on how verses were notated for reference. I now see that it did involve ‘text’. Again, sorry for my ‘greenness’ in this area. However, I think the question remains for this reason. It appears that what Abbot was doing was in relation to what I have always called “textual variants”, or, in other words, not necessarily the rendition of the Greek words used but, the manuscript differences of the actual Greek, similar to what Bruce Metzger has done in his “The Text of the New testament”. This seems to be accurate in relation to what you said above as well, “The critical papers which he prepared ON DISPUTED PASSAGES were uncommonly thorough, and had no small influence in determining the TEXT finally accepted.” What he was doing was in relation to the text of the Greek that was disputed, not necessarily the translation of an “undisputed” Greek text.  So again, what bearing would his work have on Rev. 3:14 which the text is not disputed in? The “rendering” may be disputed, but the actual text of the Greek is not. He only commented on “disputed” texts of the Greek, not just disputed translation of the Greek or disputed “renderings” of the Greek, and since Rev. 3:14 is not a text that I have ever seen disputed as to the way it reads in the Greek, what bearing would Abbot’s work, which would naturally not take him to Rev. 3:14 for a “textual variance”, have on whether or not Grimm’s choice was disputed by him. As I said before, he never got the chance, and now, that should be clear, because Rev. 3:14 IS NOT A DISPUTED TEXT OF THE GREEK! He would have had NO reason to go there yet. And, before he did get there, he died! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  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.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  You stated: Abbot certainly “had the chance” and he had pen in hand. And now I’ve even shown you that he had the expertise to do so. The one thing you can’t seem to fathom, Wrench, is the possibility that although he may (may heck, DID) disagree with the Orthodox interpretation of Rev. 3:14, perhaps he knew of nothing to legitimately counter Grimm’s understanding. Not that he was ignorant of the “arche with a genitive” examples, but that he just knew they did NOT contain the same referents and subject material, and therefore they would not hold up against Grimm’s decision based on other NT passages that DO talk about the same referents and subject material, and DO indeed seem to back up Grimm’s entry. He doesn’t have to agree with Grimm, Wrench, but he does have to weigh the evidence he’d like to use and consider if it will hold up. See my point? You are completely sold out on the “arche with the genitive” examples, and so you can’t imagine how they can’t have influenced Abbot like they do you.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ This entire reasoning is misplaced, Ray, because, surely, Abbot never got the chance to comment on Rev. 3:14 because it is not one of those DISPUTED passages of ‘textual variance’. You are the one who made this point, so why not just come to terms with that fact that Abbot never GOT to Rev. 3:14 before he died. He wasn’t yet to the point of doing that aspect of his work, he had only dealt with the passages of “disputed Greek text” as revealed in the different manuscripts, of which, Rev. 3:14 was not included. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 The reason is because you are oblivious to the strength of the other NT examples that do contain the same referents and subject material. You know, one would think that the very fact that the WT Society hasn’t even used these “overwhelming” examples of yours would cause you to sit there and rub the hair on your chinny-chin chin. Doesn’t that tell you something? How clear and overwhelming can they be if the WT Society didn’t even recognize their value? Please try to focus just on that one point for a few minutes, ok? If Stafford’s examples are so dog gone strong and overwhelming, why hasn’t the WT already used them?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, they have certainly spelled out their concurence from the following points contained in these articles:  *** w75 3/15 175 A Grand Spokesman-Who Is He? *** At Revelation 3:14 the Son is called “the beginning of God’s creation” (Revised Standard Version), “the origin of God’s creation” (An American Translation) or “the beginning of the creation of God.” (Authorized Version) Many argue that this means that the Son was the Originator or Author of the creation. But that is not what the text says. Even some Trinitarians admit that such an explanation is wrong. Says theologian Albert Barnes regarding the Greek word translated “beginning” or “origin”: “The word properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. . . . The word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence.”—Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, p. 1569. Thereafter this theologian acknowledges that Revelation 3:14 could properly mean that Christ was created, saying: “If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact.”  Here they cite Barne’s article against “active cause” for “arche”, and part of the reason for Barne’s rejection of that rendering was the “arche” with a gentive phrases that he makes mention of in his article. The WT concurred with Barne’s findings in that area, did they not? Also this:  *** g79 4/8 28 Jesus Christ as "the First-Born of All Creation" *** The Bible’s View Jesus Christ as “the First-Born of All Creation” TO THE congregation at Colossae, Asia Minor, the apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ, according to the Common Bible: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”—Col. 1:15-17. What did the apostle mean by calling Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Paul’s further words enlarge on the matter: “He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”—Col. 1:18, CB. Here we find that the Greek words for both “first-born” (protótokos) and “beginning” (arkhé) describe Jesus as the first one of a group of class, “the body, the church,” and therefore he has preeminence in this respect. He also has preeminence in being the first one resurrected to endless life from among all the human dead.—1 Cor. 15:22, 23. The same Greek words occur in the Greek Septuagint translation at Genesis 49:3: “Ruben, thou art my first-born [protótokos], thou my strength, and the first [arkhé, “beginning”] of my children.” (Compare Deuteronomy 21:17, Septuagint.) FROM SUCH BIBLICAL STATEMENTS IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SON OF GOD IS THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION IN THE SENSE OF BEING THE FIRST OF GOD’S CREATURES. In fact, Jesus refers to himself as “the beginning [arkhé] of God’s creation.” (Rev. 3:14, CB) The New World Translation renders the phrase in this verse: “the beginning of the creation by God.” There are many who object to the idea of Jesus as being a created person. They argue that since “in him all things were created” (CB)—during his prehuman existence in heaven—Jesus himself could not be a creature. Such individuals believe that Jesus is himself Almighty God, the second person of a “trinity” of three coequal, coeternal persons in one “godhead.” Individuals of that persuasion interpret the Greek expression (at Revelation 3:14) for “the beginning of God’s creation” as meaning “the origin (or ‘primary source’) of the creation of God.” One who prefers this idea is the noted Greek scholar Henry Alford. NEVERTHELESS, IN HIS WORK THE GREEK TESTAMENT, ALFORD CONCEDES: “THE MERE WORD ARKHÉ WOULD ADMIT THE MEANING THAT CHRIST IS THE FIRST CREATED BEING: SEE GEN. XLIX. 3; DEUT. XXI. 17; AND PROV. VIII. 22. AND SO THE ARIANS HERE TAKE IT, AND SOME WHO HAVE FOLLOWED THEM: E.G. CASTALIO, ‘CHEF D’ŒUVRE:’ ‘OMNIUM DEI OPERUM EXCELLENTISSIMUM ATQUE PRIMUM:’ [MEANING “THE FIRST AND MOST EXCELLENT OF ALL GOD’S WORKS”] AND SO EWALD AND ZÜLLIG.”  I have highlighted the parts I want you to particularly notice. Notice the first one I capitalized. “FROM SUCH BIBLICAL STATEMENTS”. What biblical statements, Ray? Did you notice the two verses they give? They are both examples of “arche” followed by a genitive phrase!! So, it appears they concur with the concept after all and ‘were’ aware of it and used it. I again thank you for keeping me on my toes to continue to research this.    Also included is a quote from the Reasoning book to let you know the point about John not using the word that way is fully agreed upon.  *** ti 14 What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus? *** Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was “the first-born of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15, NJB) He was “the beginning of God’s creation.” (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). “Beginning” [Greek, ar·khe'] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the ‘beginner’ of God’s creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe' more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning.” Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God’s invisible creations.  Maybe these points will help put to rest the claim that the WT would not concur with what has been stated about “arche” followed by a genitive since they concur and quote for support the very scholars who have used like arguments to establish the same points and they have mentioned “such biblical statements” theirself. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 So if you have a mind to get on Abbot’s case and call him a wimp, remember to apply the same criticism to the WT, for they’ve done no different than him, right?   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Wrong. See above. And what is more, the wimp comment had to do with Thayer, not Abbot, and the wimp comment for Thayer is certainly not a given either, for we still do not know what the references say that he cited in relation to the problem and we still do not know if he was a Trinitarian or not. I will comment on his “divine” quote below when you mention it. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 You know, once a person has something cemented in his mind, it’s next to impossible to drag him away from it, it doesn’t make any difference HOW strong and unanswerable the evidence is. I think it’s just human nature. A man convinced against his will, is a man who will remain unconvinced still. You say we still don’t know what Thayer was. I stumbled across something the other day, Wrench, that will surprise you. You know I’ve got some pretty strong evidence that Thayer probably was a unitarian, and nothing to prove or even strongly suggest that he was a Trinitarian. And so the other day I was glancing through a file of photo-copies I have accumulated of various relevant material, and came to a copy of page 28 of the Society’s brochure “Should you Believe in the Trinity”. Well, guess what I noticed? The WT Society actually quotes Thayer at the top of the page, then highlights that quote in huge print in the middle of the page. Here’s what the quote reads: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself”. Now from this we may safely conclude that Thayer was not a Trinitarian. So no wonder he couldn’t sign the Orthodox Creed and remain on as a Professor at Andover. And almost immediately after resigning his chair at Andover, he takes over for the Unitarian Ezra Abbot at Harvard. Hmm…. Maybe you should try to find out something about this quote in SYBT and if you can get a copy (of the original quote of Thayer himself), send me one. I happen to have a copy of all the references in that brochure from the WT Society, and this one is listed as reference # 125, and reads as follows: “Joseph Henry Thayer’s personal copy of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer’s handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved.” So this pretty much settles the issue for us as to whether he was a Trinitarian or not, wouldn’t you say?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Not really, Ray, because I’ve heard other trinitarians say as much to protect themselves from modalism at John 1:1. You yourself believe that statement don’t you? The Son is NOT the DIVINE BEING himself, right? The DIVINE BEING is a TRINITY. Otherwise, it would be a promotion of modalism, so I don’t see this quote by Thayer as anything conclusive for his Unitarian status at all. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Ok, let me continue on with my own original answer to you about Abbot. Here goes: 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.

 

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

 

And now, after what I just went through, here you are asking me for help again with the references in Grimm’s Rev. 3:14 entry…LOL! As I’ve already said, though, I don’t know any more than you…sorry. But look at yourself above, completely sold out about the examples of “arche” meaning beginning, but do you even once acknowledge above that the WT Society hasn’t used them? Why does that point keep escaping your notice?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Ah, but I believe they have. See above. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  Why do remain oblivious to this as you carry on and on about how clear and overwhelming they are? Would you please answer this question for me? I’m really curious about that. If you’d only remember about the WT Society, you wouldn’t/COULDN’T be so sold out. It would seem like a loud bell would go off inside your mind. Well, so much for this little detour…now let go clear back to this current letter and carry on. I’ll just make a demarcation line…   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, I think it is as clear as a ‘bell’ that they are aware and concur with the conclusions drawn from “SUCH BIBLICAL STATEMENTS”. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

In the absence of specific examples of corruption based on personal conviction, you cited a couple Commentaries (Barnes and Beckwith) which also acknowledge the “first in the series” meaning for the word “arche”, yet both of them adopted a different meaning from yours…explaining that the New Testament elsewhere ruled out the meaning you contend for. I pointed out that this is logically difficult for you to “cash in on”, for how can you point to the credibility when a scholar acknowledges that your meaning is “linguistically possible”, and reject the same credibility when he adopts a different meaning.   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I feel I have answered that question enough. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

You attempt to portray Beckwith as “struggling” with terms (source…instrument…agency), yet I showed where we do not struggle with such terms at all. They make perfectly good sense within the framework of the Trinity. Christ is the “agency of true Deity” or “intermediate” in the creation of “all things”, and He was this “intermediate agency” NOT from the standpoint of being ultimately an original creature, but as a member of the Godhead (Jehovah)…as depicted for us in John 1:1c through 1:3. When examining these two Commentaries I discovered that they both identify Jesus as the Alpha & Omega of Rev. 22:12-13, and Barnes was specific in showing from this the “originator” meaning for “arche”. You pointed to the Grimm/Thayer lexicon, saying that even Grimm lists 22:13 as “first in a series”, which of course would have you do some “fancy” interpretation to keep from suggesting that God the Father is a creature, ha.   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well then, what fancy step was Grimm getting ready to do? It was him who said that Rev,.22:13 carried the meaning of “first in a series”. You don’t think Grimm thought the Father was a creature, do you? It should be clear that God is the “beginning and the end” of the series of all that is Almighty. He is in a class by Himself. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

However, Grimm elsewhere affirms the Almighty God as the source. He just doesn’t think it has that emphasis in 22:13. And Barnes elsewhere affirms that Christ was the originator of all creation, but doesn’t see that emphasis at 3:14.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ He does more than just ‘not see that emphasis’, Ray. He flat out disagrees with it. When he got to Rev. 22:13 he obviously didn’t check himself well enough in his words. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Interestingly the WT Society agrees with Barnes in 22:13, for note what they say in the “Aid” book page 666 “As the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13), he brings to a successful conclusion that which he begins. (Rev. 1:8; 21:5, 6)”

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, the Aid Book has been revised, has it not. Notice what the revised “Insight” book has to say about the “beginning and the end”. The WT obviously recognized the error of the Aid book statement and has changed it.  *** it-1 81 Alpha and Omega *** The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.  *** it-1 970 God *** As the Alpha and the Omega (Re 22:13), he is the one and only Almighty God; he will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, being forever vindicated as the only Almighty God. (Re 1:8; 21:5, 6)  *** re 20 4 Jesus Comes With Encouragement *** Jehovah’s calling himself by those two letters stresses that before him, there was no almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion, for all eternity, the issue of Godship. He will be forever vindicated as the one and only almighty God, Supreme Sovereign over all of his creation. So, no, Ray, the WT does not agree with the “source” designation in the title “the beginning and the end”. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Now we might wonder how the Alpha & Omega could be thought of (by Grimm) as the “first in a series”, and I would suggest that such a comparison simply compares things in existence. Hence, of all things in existence, the Alpha & Omega was first. This does not mean or make the Alpha & Omega a creature, for the comparison is not restricted to things that have come INTO existence, but only things IN existence.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But that only takes in half the phrase. Can’t you see that? He is not only the “beginning” of something, he is the “end” of that same thing, as well. He is the “beginning” of the series of that which is Almighty and he is the “end” of that same series, because he is the one and only Almighty God, in a series or class by himself. Isn’t that clear that what ever he is the beginning of he has to be the end of that same beginning? Otherwise, as you do above, you only consider half the phrase and if we followed your explanation to it’s conclusion it would mean that God was the “last” thing in existence. Is all creation now headed for extinction, Ray, since God is going to be the last thing in existence? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 However Barnes and the WT Society see this as having the originator meaning.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I hardly think Barnes knew the consequence of what he was saying in his interpretation of Revelation 22:13. People don’t set out to contradict themselves, those are usually due to oversight. And it is quite obvious that even though the WT made the same error initially, they have corrected their view. It would seem that Barnes would have done the same had it been pointed out to him. I’m sure he just wouldn’t let the contradiction ride. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

And I’m sure you know, Wrench, that we will go into the identity of the Alpha & Omega at some point, for it will likewise be decisive in our discussion. You accuse me of “exaggerating” in my reply to your claim that the Orthodox interpretation of 3:14 is “unprecedented”, and then immediately confess that you have a hazy comprehension of the terms I used. Obviously the confession casts a shadow across your accusation.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But I was convinced that none of the things you mentioned NECESSITATED us to read Rev. 3:14 any differently, right, Ray? All those things that you mention do not mean that we should read “beginning of the creation” any differently then it naturally reads. They are merely considerations that have a bearing on the uniqueness of the text, but as many Trinitarians acknowledge (and you can add Henry Alford to the list from above), the words can mean what we say it means, so, yes, I think you exaggerated even if I wasn’t sure about all the meanings behind the things you listed. More on this “exaggeration below. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  I have no motivation to “get more Greek on you”, as you put it, but I do have a desire to make sure you understand the points I’m trying to make. When something is predicate or predicated it means its being verbalized, whether the verb is present or implied. When something is “attributive”, it’s something attached or something he or she or it is called. This difference is bedrock in understanding the NT Greek, and is learned in the first semester. Many Greek idioms rely on one or the other of these. The usual example used to aid the initial understanding is the following in English; there is a difference between saying “the word is good” and “the good word”, the first is verbalized and makes a direct statement about the word (predicate), and the second is “referred” or “attributed”…or “called”; The attributive is saying “not just any word, but the GOOD one. The term apposition refers to a phrase placed in concurrence with a preceding phrase…and supplements or adds to…or is a further extension or description of the preceding phrase. The genitive case is sometimes used like this (epexegetic). There was no exaggeration, Wrench.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ First of all, Ray. The exaggeration comment had to do with comparing the evidence I offered as about as significant as an Amish horse with tunnel vision. THAT was what I refer to as an exaggeration, NOT the fact that those things you mentioned were true or not. They probably are, but when you try to make it sound as though those things are the only things that should be considered and the things I offered are meaningless, then you have exaggerated the insignificance of the evidence I offered. Now, I suppose if you want to, we can get into another I said this and you said that argument, but I sure hope we don’t as I don’t see how it is going to offer any true enlightenment on the issues at hand and we really can’t afford the space.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 In fact you may have been tempted to accuse all the scholars through the centuries of being “biased” against your view, for Stafford’s examples of “arche with the genitive” have created nary a ripple in the scholarly community when it comes to the interpretation of Rev. 3:14. But the one thing that discouraged you from making such an accusation was the fact that the WT Society also has not used these examples to support their view, which of course is the same as yours. Thus you saw that it would not be “feasible” to make such an accusation, and the best you could do was convince yourself and argue that it was simply unknown and undiscovered until Stafford…etc. However, the more we look into this, we discover that these scholars were not unaware of these examples (note Barnes and Beckwith), but were not impressed by them. In other words, they did not think such examples negated the clear teaching of the N.T. concerning the SAME referents and subject material.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Let’s not lose our place too much here, Ray. The ‘bias’ comment had to do with “arche” and the “active cause/source” meaning. It did not have to do with why the “arche with a genitive” was not more considered by the scholars. Barnes and Beckwith ARE Trinitarian, Ray, so they are forced to opt for another meaning than “beginning”. Both Barnes and Beckwith reject the meaning “active cause/source” for “arche” at this verse, which, coming from Trinitarians, is quite significant and with good reason. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17 were considered to be much more determinative and decisive in the matter. As I explained very early in our discussion, Wrench, these contain predicate statements about the same referents and subject material. And the fact that the WT Society has not used them (Stafford’s examples) in the past limits your ability to credibly accuse your opponents of anything sinister. So when I say your priorities are wrong, I am agreeing with the reliable scholarship throughout the centuries who have likewise regarded John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17 as being the decisive factor at Rev. 3:14. John 1:3 Both John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17 stand as obstacles to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14 because of the precise language that they use.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But in order for John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 to weigh heavier than the natural reading and use of words in Rev 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Prov. 8:22, they would have to be nearly undeniable in their interpretative conclusions, and they are not, as we will no doubt consider below. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 In order to discuss this I think it would be better if we have the first three verses of John 1 before us. So I will quote them here from the NWT… 1. In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2. This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence. Now at the beginning of our correspondence I had no idea what was in Greg’s book, and only had the bible and my previous experiences with JWs to go by. Your first attempt to explain this passage was, as I now know, to adopt an explanation set forth by Stafford on pages 315-320 of his book. You had apparently become convinced that this explanation was to be “preferred”. The problem for anyone who claims that Jesus was the first of Jehovah’s creations is twofold in this context. First is the failure to mention or even imply a “coming into existence of the logos” in an otherwise fairly comprehensive and specifically relevant context,  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It is easy to imply from the phrase “in the beginning” that it includes the Son’s creation because of the fact that Rev. 3:14 and Prov. 8:22 and Col. 1:15 all identify the Son as the beginning of God’s creation according to their most natural readings. The context is not giving a comprehensive list of creation but is highlighting the irony of how the world came into existence through him yet the world did not know him. He gave them life, all of them, yet they did not know who he was, it was not a list of created things that was being iterated or discussed, and the fact that, elsewhere, Christ IS called the beginning, and he IS included among creation, the phrase “in the beginning” can easily, without any violation to context, be interpreted as including the Son being the “beginning” of God’s creation.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  and second is the generic and unambiguous language that appears in verse 3, language which if taken naturally would seem to rule out such an idea. Not only does it say that all things came into existence through him, but it then says that there was nothing that ever came into existence that didn’t do so through him, not even one. Obviously, if everything that came into existence did so through him, how could it be said that he himself came into existence?   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ This problem has actually been covered before. The all things that came through the Son are AFTER the time period known as “in the beginning” which started with the creation of the Son.. If you keep that straight, there is no problem as you present. “In the beginning” is a time reference which we can work from, and the “all things” are after that “beginning”. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 I’m going to have to digress a little here, Wrench. Now that we understand the problem JWs are confronted with in this passage, your initial explanation was to connect up the beginning of Genesis 1:1 with the beginning referred to in John 1:1, and THEN take the “all things” of verse three in a controlled sphere, thus allowing for the coming into existence of some things before the “all things”…it being believed that Genesis 1:1 restricts itself to just the physical creation. Such a view would then have John saying “all things after Christ came into existence”, came into existence through him…with no exceptions. This was thought to at least account for the “no exception” clause. When you presented this as an explanation, my first reaction was to try to find out what the Watchtower’s official position or order of creation was. That is when I determined that your explanation was not in agreement with that order, and so I pointed it out to you. You then replied that this was your “preferred” view, and you obviously were not very comfortable with the WT Society being included in the mix. But I was having none of that, because I am quite familiar with the hierarchical structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and knew full well that the “Slave” is considered God’s Authority on such matters…in fact God’s ONLY Authority on earth. So if this was their official position and you were out of step with it, this would have to be resolved. I did have a hunch that you were probably following Stafford here, but without his book on hand, the best course for me was to ask you to resolve this discrepancy. You came back complaining at first because I had brought the WT Society into it, and then you admitted that your “preferred” explanation reflects a departure from the WT’s previous position, but in an obvious attempt to carry water on both shoulders, you indicated that although you preferred to connect the two beginnings (made better sense to you), you didn’t want me to get the idea that you couldn’t defend the other explanation…(so far so good?) You offered a rather unclear quotation from the “Knowledge” book that you thought justified a new way of looking at John 1:1. At this point we might wonder why you or any other JW would be looking for another explanation from the established one? I think it is obvious that there was some dissatisfaction with the WT’s official order of creation, because it “complicated” the rank & file’s understanding of verse 3.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well I have certainly felt no complication in this regard with the most preferred understanding of the WT on this passage. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the rank and file JW was dissatisfied. I certainly don’t see it that way and I never have, and I know of no other Witness that has expressed such, and I know a bunch. I took Stafford’s words at face value when he stated that the new understanding was brought out in the Knowledge book, and still do not know for sure whether this is really the case or not. But, to satisfy your complaints, I have presented the more precedented view of the WT and can see how it certainly is adequate and can answer all the tensions as well, and since it is the most precedented view, according to the publications prior to the Knowledge book, and the Knowledge book is a bit vague, I have decided it is certainly an adequate interpretation. I wasn’t out “looking for” some alternative, Ray, but the explanation offered by Greg certainly seems to fit well with the evidence, too. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 After receiving Stafford’s book, I quickly discovered what was going on. Think about this, Wrench. If Stafford was completely satisfied with the WT’s official order of creation, it seems reasonable that he would have jumped on it like stink on you know what, and you couldn’t have separated him from it with a crow-bar. But when he voluntarily looks around for another explanation, we can be sure that there must have been some dissatisfaction on his part with the previous explanation of John 1:3. Be that as it may,  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, once again you seem to know things about Greg’s thinking that you have no way of knowing. It’s funny how you keep doing that. Are you psychic, Ray? And as you say, “be that as it MAY”. You certainly can’t know for a certainty what he was thinking, and I am not Greg’s guardian, nor would he appreciate me trying to be a spokesman for him.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 you’ve now come full circle, and you have decided to skedaddle back to Seattle, with a renewed appreciation for the WT’s official position. So now you are no longer claiming that the “all things” of John 1:3 is restricted to “only the physical creation”, and this of course means that you are no longer denying that the “all things” of Col. 1:16-17 is the same as the “all things” of John 1:3. Since receiving Greg’s book, I’ve continued to look through WT literature and have discovered that the order of creation presented in both the Aid and Insight Volumes has actually been the WT’s view at least as far back as 1927 when J.F. Rutherford published “Creation”. The same order is presented in the 1941 publication “Children”, so you were definitely correct in recognizing this as their official view. I am curious about one thing, though. When I asked you to check and clear up whether the WT was intending in the Knowledge book to repudiate their previous order, you immediately balked and suggested that they didn’t mean to do that. I’m still curious to find out, Wrench, for Stafford presents the view gathered from the Knowledge book as the “Witnesses’ present understanding” (JWD 316), for notice what he says: “Whatever the case, the Witnesses’ present understanding of the ‘beginning’ of John 1:1 can be gathered from the following: ‘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)” The reason the Witnesses at one time thought John 1:1 was referring to the origin of the Word was because of the use of arxn (arche, ‘beginning’) in Revelation 3:14 and the LXX of Proverbs 8:22. However, the entire context of Genesis 1:1 shows that the creation of the physical universe is in view, not the creation of the heavens where God resides, nor his heavenly creatures, and thus it does not refer to a so-called ‘absolute beginning of time.’ The heavenly hosts had apparently already been created some time prior to Genesis 1:1 (and, hence, John 1:1 as well),…” Note Stafford’s words above “can be gathered from the following”…what does he mean by that? When he says “…the Witnesses’ present understanding”, is he speaking for all Witnesses? Well, he’s not speaking for you any longer for you’ve returned to the previous understanding. But if per chance he is indeed speaking for all Witnesses, then you are at the present time in error. I would think that you’d want to clear this up yourself. I know I would if I were in your shoes. I hope you can see why I’m emphasizing this.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Since nothing that I have seen since the Knowkedge book confirms the question one way or another, there is no way at the present time to know if the Knowledge book was attempting to present a different view. But, as I have said before, the presenting of a different view is not necessarily a repudiation of one view over another, but merely an alternative way of looking at the situation. So, the way I see it, either view could be entertained at this point without some “violation” of the WT standards of interpretation, but, to appease your whinings about this, I took a very close look at the prior view or the more precedented view from the past and see that adopting it fits very well with the context and is quite adequate in it’s interpretation. So, the way it appears to me, either view could be entertained as different views have been entertained before in relation to other passages that might be viewed one way or another. Regardless, the fact that the Son was created is not violated by either view. I am sure that if the WT ever views this as a problem, they will clarify it, but, so far, they haven’t seen the need. Maybe it is their intention to offer two possibilities for the same passage, it’s been done before and I am sure will be done again. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Now let’s consider the passage and perhaps we may discover what it was that induced Stafford to adopt a different explanation, and also what induced you to accept that different explanation as your “preferred” view. In setting forth this explanation, Wrench, you point out that there is nothing unnatural about your interpretation. Is that true? Let’s compare your explanation with the Orthodox explanation to see which of them gives the best account of itself in light of the information in the text. First the passage says in verse 3, “all things came into existence through him…”, and how do you explain this? You say “this means all things AFTER the logos was created”, but then the question comes up, well just where does it say in this context that the logos had a beginning or was created? Immediately we see the problem. In order to understand the “all things” as referring to everything after the creation of the logos, the coming into existence of the logos must first be assumed.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It is not assumed when you keep in mind that a passage does not stand alone. We are told elsewhere that the Son was created as the “beginning” of God’s creative process. So, when you see the phrase “in the beginning” it is not a mere assumption that it includes the “creation” of the Son. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Then you arbitrarily decide to take the “all things” as following the assumption. However, if your position requires you to assume the conclusion at the outset, it cannot be rightfully regarded as the “natural” meaning of the words. Especially since the Orthodox conclusion can be reached strictly from the information in the text, and does NOT need to be assumed. Your explanation is an example of faulty deductive logic. Deductive logic begins with the conclusion, then interprets the evidence in agreement with that conclusion, then returns to the conclusion with a satisfied mind.   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But again, you forget that elsewhere the scriptures fill us in on what that beginning obviously included, that being, the creation of the Son of God according to the natural language and precedented word usage of those verses I have mentioned a hundred times. Taking “in the beginning” the way we do is not an assumption when our understanding of those verses is considered. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 In full contrast, the Orthodox view can be reached strictly from inductive logic. Inductive logic moves strictly from the evidence to the conclusion, and in John 1 the Orthodox conclusion that Christ was not the first creature results naturally from the clear words of verse 3, “all things came into existence through him…and without him did not even one thing come into existence…” So, since no restrictions are present in the text, we give them the generic meaning, and we deny any exceptions because that is what it says. So all things without a single exception requires the conclusion that the logos was not that first thing, for IT came into existence through him!   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But I could claim that the Orthodox view ignores the time reference that is stated in the very beginning, that being the phrase “in the beginning” which the scriptures elsewhere define as including the “beginning of God’s creation, the Son. The all things does fall after that time reference in the natural order that the sentences are presented. So, the all things without exception are from a certain point in time, a time after the “in the beginning”, which included the Son’s creation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

So there’s no way to legitimately argue that your explanation results from a “natural” understanding of the words in the text, if you are required to assume the conclusion in the first place, and you are. This defective procedure is called “begging the question”, or making what you would prove, the presupposition of your exegesis. It is therefore exceedingly obvious that the Orthodox interpretation gives the best account of itself from the information in the text, and it doesn’t have to “assume” its conclusion at the outset, and therefore has a much better claim to a natural understanding of the words. It is therefore the superior explanation.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I obviosly do not agree, Ray, for all the reasons above. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

You see, friend, that is why Stafford has abandoned this “old interpretation” and traded it for the new. He knew that it is simply ridiculous to try to convince himself that by assuming the conclusion at the outset, this view is still a natural understanding of the words in the text.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Ray, your psychic powers are amazing. You have no way of knowing anything that Greg was thinking,. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

But what does Stafford see as an “improvement” over the old view? Ah, well, he sees that the begging of the question in this new view isn’t nearly so obvious and is somewhat hidden by the apparent ability to account for the “no exception” clause. Yet, when you get right down to it, even the new view requires him to assume the coming into existence of the logos, even if he restricts the “all things” of verse 3 to just the Physical universe…for he still can’t find in the text of John 1 the coming into existence of the logos, and so it must still be assumed, and he must still arbitrarily claim that “all things” follows the assumed creation of the Logos. Now that we understand why the Orthodox view is to be regarded as the superior view in John 1:1-3, your plea that you only need the possibility is unacceptable. These words understood naturally, refute your view, and so it is your burden to prove that your view is required. No possibilities allowed here, Wrench, if you leave these words to their natural meaning, they already refute the WT’s claim that the logos was the first creation. So you can’t afford to leave it in that condition. Why? Because your view requires you to beg the question by assuming the conclusion at the outset. In contrast, the Orthodox interpretation results from the natural meaning of the words AS THEY ACTUALLY APPEAR IN THE TEXT ITSELF! Now do you see why the scholars have all rejected Stafford’s “arche” arguments, and have instead taken passages like John 1:3 to be decisive at 3:14?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ This has been addressed above. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

And the advantage John 1:3 has is that the information is presented predicatively, and has direct relevance to the same referents and subject material. It is a losing case for you, friend. You seemed to foresee these problems with your view, hence your discussion about circular reasoning. But the one thing your discussion failed to address was what I covered above. If one view must assume its conclusion at the outset, then arbitrarily take the “all things” in agreement with it, and the other view can be reached without assuming its conclusion, and reached strictly from the evidence in the text, the latter has a much better claim to adherence to the “natural” meaning of the words. It is this advantage which has caused the scholars to see these passages as decisive in the interpretation of Rev. 3:14. And it was the obviousness of this advantage that induced Greg Stafford to look around for another explanation. But as I said before, Greg doesn’t exhibit much enthusiasm in setting forth this “new idea”, and really who can blame him? He can find absolutely nothing in the context of John 1 that clearly connects up these two beginnings as you yourself at first attempted. Look at the bottom of page 316 and you’ll see what I mean, for there he points to the context in Gen. 1, but does he show specific points of connection? Does he? You bet your bottom dollar he would if he could, and the only reason he didn’t is because he couldn’t.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Covered above. I do not take your rendition of Greg’s thought process seriously, Ray, since you have no way of knowing what he was thinking about these things. You present some imagined quandry, but he presents no such quandry of thought anywhere in his writings. This is just your opinion of what happened, and opinions are a dime a dozen. Why don’t you ask him about this and let me know what he says? Do you actually expect me to confirm or deny what his thought process was? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Since you’ve returned to the WT’s official order of creation, to your credit, you try to defend the view that the “beginning” in John 1:1 makes reference to the creation of the Logos. This is of course presented by the WT Society in both the “Aid and Insight Volumes” (but Gregg Stafford rejects it). Let’s therefore examine this context to see if such a conclusion is warranted. Now I’m not interested at this point in entering into a discussion pertaining to the best or correct way to translate 1:1c, for such if need be will occupy us at a later time. What we will do is take the verse one clause at a time to see if anything in there even remotely suggests a coming into existence or creation of the Logos. Beginning with the first clause it reads: “In the beginning was the word”. The clause starts with a preposition “en”. This preposition can have a wide range of semantics, and may refer to a duration of time, or a specific point of time. For example the NWT renders the same preposition “at” in 2nd Thessalonians 1:7, where we read that a sudden switching of roles will occur, where Christians who are suffering tribulation will receive “relief” and those who had been persecuting them will receive judgment “at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels”. Note that what will occur in an instant is the sudden switching of roles…hence “at” not “in or during.” Now in your previous attempt to explain this passage you had taken the prepositional phrase as durative (period of time), but since you now believe this refers to the creation of the Logos, perhaps you may be inclined to understand it in a less durative sense.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ As I stated before, the “beginning” is a certain period of time that has a beginning and an end of it’s own. The “beginning” of the “beginning” is the creation of the Son as is attested to in Rev. 3:14 and Prov. 8:22. The creation of the Son started the point of time known as the “beginning” which lasted for some duration in which he was with his Father. Therefore he was WITH his Father IN the Beginning of John 1:1, or ‘during’ that beginning.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 But what is actually being said in this clause? To determine this we need to understand the exact force of the verb. Since I have no way to reproduce Greek characters on my keyboard, I will use a double “ee” to represent the “eta”, to distinguish this verb from the preposition. So we have the verb “een”, which is the 3rd person singular, imperfect, of the verb “eimi”. In order to understand the points I’m about to make, I have to make sure you understand a couple basics of Greek grammar. Perhaps you will already be familiar with the following, and if so please forgive me for wasting time. In the present tense the Koine Greek does not distinguish between a meaning that is durative or a meaning that is punctular. For example in the present tense the Greek does not distinguish between “ I am running” or “I run”, the former being durative or continuous (lengthened out) and the latter being punctular. Only the context can help decide the best way to bring it out in English. This is known as verbal aspect. However, in the indicative mood, in past time the Greek makes a sharp distinction between these two kinds of meaning (aspect). The difference is so strong as to deserve a different designation. So the imperfect tense is past tense continuous or customary, while the aorist is past tense punctular. So in past tense we would use the imperfect to say “I was running”, but the aorist to say “I ran”. In other moods the aorist does not signify past time, only (aspect). So we must notice a couple important points about the function of the verb in John 1:1. In the first clause it merely states existence, but it is in the imperfect NOT the aorist.

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I just thoguht I would mention here some things that I found in Robertson’s big grammar concerning the things you are saying. Robertson states on page 883 "Hence we need not insist that "en" (John 1:1) is strictly durative always (imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also."  Also, down the page a bit he states, "Sometimes the change from aorist to imperft. or 'vice versa' in narrative may be due to the desire to avoid monotony."  Also page 882 he states in part "it is not possible always to tell whether some forms are aorist ind. or imperf. ind."  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

This suggests a manner of continuous or customary existence, as the next clause requires. So we read in 1:1b “and the word was (een) with God (ton theon). Now a Witness doesn’t have any trouble understanding God’s existence as continuous or customary relative to the beginning, so it is instructive to notice how John builds his case here. He first states the existence of the logos as continuous, then further cements that connotation by making that existence “with ton theon”. Do you see it, Wrench? One can no more deduce from this that the logos had a beginning than he can that ton theon had a beginning, for there is just as much evidence for the one in this verse as there is for the other. Please think that through carefully. In a moment you will see why I took the time to explain the difference between “imperfect” and “aorist” (verbal aspect).   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Why do you keep thinking that I am trying to prove that the SON WAS CREATED WITH John 1:1? I have never set out to do that. I am demonstrating about John 1:1-3 that it does not thave the force that you think it does in making the Son the “creator”. Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Prov. 8:22 already supply enough evidence for me to take the phrase “in the beginning” as a reference to the Son being created in the “beginning” of the “beginning” referred to at John 1:1. I admit, my Greek is poor, but I don’t see where the things you have considered thus far, negate that understanding. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 So as we move into the 3rd clause we will find the verb functioning as an equative or copulative verb, meaning that it equates the subject with the subject compliment in a predicate nominative construction. I’m not intending to argue at this point whether “the Word was God” or “the Word was a god” is the right way to render it. Just note for now that “was” in the third clause equates “logos with theos”.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Are you equating the Logos with “the God” in the second clause of John 1:1? Are you sure? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

And verse 2 merely restates 1:1b. But when we come to verse 3, suddenly a different verb is applied to the “all things”, a different verb than “een”. Not only is the verb different in meaning, but this verb is also in sharp contrast to the “imperfect” of eimi in verses 1 and 2, and is “aorist” in aspect. Now what did we say about the aorist aspect? It is punctular and not durative. So then, in verse 3 an aorist form of the verb “ginomai” is applied to the coming into existence of “all things” …this form is “egeneto”. This is what is so overwhelming with the Orthodox view of this context. Note the contrast, Wrench, between the “een” which had been applied to the logos in verses 1 and 2, and the “egeneto” (aorist) applied to the all things in verse 3. Not only is the distinction maintained between the verbs, but also between the logos and “all things”. So from the above, it should be quite apparent that there is no possible way we can gather a coming INTO existence of the logos from verses 1, 2, or 3.   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But when other scriptures help us to appreciate that the creation of the Son was part of that beginning, it can easily be deduced that the Son was created at the outset of “in the beginning” at John 1:1. The difference between the imperfect and the aorist could simply be demonstrating the difference between the Son that existed “in” the beginning” and the “all things” that “came into” existence after that. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 I want you to look closely at the context of John 1, Wrench, and notice that the first time the verb “egeneto” is actually applied to the logos is in verse 14 when it says he became flesh. Do you see this? Let me ask: Do you think the contrasting verbs and verbal aspects are just a coincidence between verses 1 and 2, and verse 3? Not at all. John wants us to know that ho logos is distinguished from ton theon, but not in the sense that he came INTO existence, for he portrays them both side by each …both relating in the exact same way to the beginning.   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It shows them to have been “with” each other “in” the beginning. It does nothing to rule out the notion that the Son’s creation was the event that “started” the beginning. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Whatever you think to do with the one, can just as legitimately be done with the other. If ton theon’s existence is continuous and customary relative to the beginning, ho logos’ existence is too. Why? Because they are presented side by each and the same verb is equally applied to them both. 

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Because they were both in existence ‘during’ the time spoken of as “in the beginning”. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  We should consider one more thing before moving on, and that is the force of the preposition “dia” in verse 3. This prep is here used with the genitive case and thus means “through or by” with the idea of intermediate agency. So then, the logos operated as the intermediate agency of true deity in the coming into existence of all things. Obviously JWs would be inclined to take the intermediate agency as a member of creation performing in that capacity, but the context of John 1 presents an obstacle to such thinking. The main point in such thinking remains unexpressed in the text and must therefore be assumed at the outset, as we’ve seen above. But the Orthodox view doesn’t have to assume anything here, and can be reached inductively from the info in the text to the conclusion, but the conclusion is something the Witnesses don’t want.   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ For someone who has no intention of getting “more Greek” on me, you are sure doing a poor job of that here. All in all, and I can’t swear I am really understanding all your points here, I have never tried to establish from John 1:1 alone that the Son came into existence. In fact, I have never tried to use John 1:1 to show that the Son was created. Your objections are, therefore, appear to me to be misdirected. That determination comes about from other scriptures that tell us what that beginning included, that being the creation of the Son as the ‘beginning’ of the ‘beginning’. I am really not qualified to argue much of this, Ray, because I feel I am just barely getting the thrust of what you are saying, but maybe the information in Rolf’s book would help you to see an alternative look at these things. If you have alot to say about this after reading those portions, let me know, and maybe I can get Rolf to address your points or Greg or one of the other brothers who are familiar with these things. But, at first glance, I don’t see anything ‘iron-clad’ or remotely so against the things I have offered in relation to John 1:3. Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation (Rolf Furuli)-pages 208-210.   I believe you would benefit form a reading of Rolf's book. The reason is that one’s premise under which they approach interpretation is sometimes subject to question. Words CONTRIBUTE to context. We need to understand what words themselves mean, and THEN consider the context. Otherwise, persons who start with presuppositions of what the scriptures should teach will READ THEIR DOCTRINAL UNDERSTANDING into the words! On the other hand, an honest student of the bible will start with the MEANINGS of the words themselves and THEN humbly ask "How does the meanings of the words adjust the understanding of my personal belief?” $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

The conclusion is that the Logos did not come into existence, but simply as “theos” stepped into the intermediate role and operated in that capacity, NOT as a creature ultimately, but as a member of a plural Godhead…recall “Let US MAKE…in OUR image”   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ In regard to the Genesis scripture, God created everything. God and the Son “made” man together out of the materials for man that God had created. The Son was his instrument in creation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  (Genesis 1:26). Now in your last letter you were still holding to the claim that the “all things” in Col. 1:16-17 was not the same as in John 1:3, but now you agree that that was wrong, and that they are really referring to the same thing. But in my last letter I had pointed to a comparison of 1st Cor. 8:6 with Romans 11:34-36 to show how the plural members of the true Godhead can be distinguished in one verse, and presented as Jehovah in another…by the same bible writer. Of course Witnesses cannot allow this for it undermines their whole case. But the protests seem lame. For example I pointed out that SOTB had tried to escape the connection by appealing to the BAGD which said that the prep doesn’t have to mean “thru” when applying to God the Father. But there is nothing in this context that restricts the application to the Father, for terms are used that are elsewhere applied to Jesus by the same bible writer, and that with reference to the same subject material! You of course disagreed with this, saying: “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.” Yes, there are the same terms here which are elsewhere applied to the Son, even by Paul. For example “Kyrios” is applied to Jesus in 1st Cor. 8:6 and there the same preposition “dia” is also applied to Jesus concerning the same subject material!

 

  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The point is that there is no necessity to think that Paul had to include the Son at Romans. He could have merely been in reference to the Father’s role at Romans. Nothing negates that view. More on this below. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

In fact “dia” is applied to Christ in John 1:3, 1st Cor. 8:6 and in Col. 1:16, and every time with reference to “all things” . But I have a very interesting question for you Wrench. We’ve already seen you switch from claiming that “all things” in Col. 1:16-17 is different from “all things” in John 1:3…to where you now acknowledge that they refer to the same thing. Now I’d like to ask you to look again at 1st Cor. 8:6 and notice that “all things” appears twice there in rapid succession. Would you say the meaning and reference is the same in each case? Does it refer to all creation the first time? The second time? Hmmm….Please make sure to deal with this question, OK?

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, since the same referents and subject material at 1 Cor 8 is paralleled at John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17, I would say that the context dependent “all things” are the same in all three places, the first and the second occurence in 8:6 included. The “all things” in those three passages refer to the “things” which came “through” the Son as the intermediate agent, but “out of” the Father as the “active cause/source”. They would therefore be the same as the “all things” in John and Colossians. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Concerning my point about Romans 11:36 you wrote: “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.”  First it is important to understand that I’m not offering this to “prove” the case, but merely as supportive evidence. You complain that in Romans 11:34-36 only one is mentioned, however, that shouldn’t be much of a hurdle for you as a loyal JW. In the Gospels when it refers to the faithful and discreet slave, it is presented as one…a single person. But rank & file witnesses don’t have any trouble accepting the WT’s explanation that it really refers to a plurality of persons. By the same token, you shouldn’t have a problem with this being a reference to a plurality of persons, especially since we can go elsewhere in Scripture and see how more than one person WAS involved with the “all things”. See my point?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But there is nothing to conclude that the Son must be included in Romans, and that is my point. You might think of it as supportive evidence but there is no demanding reason why I would have to view it that way. Romans speaks of those things which are “out of” something, and the Son is spoken of as those things being “through” him, not “out of” him. The “out of” is designated to the Father. I would think that you would agree with that. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

You further complain on the basis of active/passive, but the complaint fails to understand the perspective of Scripture from one place to another. For example, in one place we read where Christ was “sent” and “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death”, but in another place the same thing is referred to as Christ emptying himself, and taking on the form of a slave. So the same thing may occur in reference to the creation of all things. In one place it may appear that Christ plays a passive role, such as in Heb. 1:2, but in another place we are confronted with a different perspective, such as for instance “Let us make…in our image” it seems more like a joint effort. So it’s difficult to prove or disprove anything from the perspective of Scripture. No it doesn’t mean that the BAGD is biased against me, after all we’re not running a cult here, so we all don’t have to agree with the prophet…or slave. We don’t believe God has picked out one earthly organization to speak for Him as his only spokesman.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well. as you say, nothing is “proven” by the things that you have offered. You refer to it as “may occur”, but no one is under necessity to se it that way, especially when Trinitarians themselves (BAGD) admit to it. What is more, autonomous lone-rangerism is unscriptural. There is an appointed authority by God to protect his people against heresy and we are to be obedient to them, but then, that is another topic for another time. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

You see, Wrench, the bible warns us that if the blind follow the blind, not only the leaders but also the followers will end up in the pit. That’s why I’m willing to consider the opinions of others, but at the end of the day I realize that God will hold me personally responsible for the decisions I make as to what to believe. But again let me remind you that I did not offer the above as “proof”, but only as supportive evidence to the natural understanding of passages like John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-17 and Rev. 22:12-13. You point out that I took the BAGD’s estimation an assumption (it is), and so you ask “what is yours then”. Well, if I presented it to prove my case, you’d have a good point, but since I didn’t, you don’t. All I can do is put the goods in the window and let the punter decide. So I’ve presented my case here for supportive evidence, I’ve dealt with your complaints, and asked you to make some comparisons of Scripture, and I asked you one good question. I’m willing to commit this therefore to your personal integrity to decide for yourself if I’ve presented a good case or not. Just please don’t measure it with the wrong yardstick, and remember that I presented it as supportive evidence not “proof”.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I hope I have demonstrated why I do not accept your case as presented for the reasons above. I don’t see a problem with what you have presented in the Greek concerning John1:1-3 since I am not using that passage to demonstrate that the Son was created. That is determined elsewhere which then has a bearing on the phrase “in the beginning”. I do not see Romans especially, or the “all things” question at 1 Cor. 8:6 to be a deciding factor in any of this as I have explained above. I do not see John 1:3 or Col. 1:16 as weighing in favor of the Trinitarian, even more so now then ever, and certainly not a pendulum scripture to sway us away from the natural way all three of those verses I have offered read. The fact that they all three naturally and in a precedented way read the same way, to me, sticks out like a sore thumb and I do not see the same sore thumb scenario sticking out for the Trinitarians.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Next you make a nonsensical statement where you seem to have had a momentary lapse of mental coherence…note: “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.” According to the Watchtower Society the only thing the Father created was the Son. Have you thought of something else?

 

  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ What are you talking about, Ray? The Father created the Son AND EVERYTHING else! Where did you get the idea that he only created the Son? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Actually the terms are used interchangeably both in the immediate context of Genesis 1:26-27, and elsewhere in the bible. And the same interchangeable use appears in WT literature. Maybe a simple quote from the immediate context will convince you of this fact. So here is the way it reads in the NWT of Genesis 1:26-27: 26. “And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness… 27. And God proceeded to create the man in his image…” *************   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Right, Ray, and in that context I think the difference between make and create is very significant. God created all things, but the Son, as the instrument of God “made” those things along with God as I explained before above. God supplied the material for the creation out of nothing and, together, Him and his Son made “all things”. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 You rattle off a list of complaints about trinitarians and their interpretive ways, things that really seem to upset you. Let me just paste your words in: “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.” I think I understand the frustration you feel, but most of your complaints are either subjective in nature, or discovered to be not what you thought they were when scrutinized. For example we discovered that what you thought was “unprecedented” was actually according to the natural understanding of the words of Scripture elsewhere in the New Testament. John 1:1-3 for instance where you had to assume the conclusion at the outset then arbitrarily take the info in the text in agreement with that assumption.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, I certaily don’t agree with that evaluation as I have stated above the reasons, so your objection to my objection is the one that is discovered to be not what you thought it was. I see no ‘assumption’ that “in the beginning” includes the creation of the Son because of what Prov. 8:22, Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15 tell me in their most natural states. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Then when we examined the examples you cited for “arche with a genitive” we discovered that the one thing missing from them was the main thing, same referents and subject material! No wonder you were so at a loss for an explanation as to why such “clear” evidence had produced nary a ripple in the scholarly community for all those centuries…even in the WT Society. See what I mean, Wrench?  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ And as I stated before, the fact that the other examples do not have the same referents and subject are not the deciding factor in how we should read those words, not only because of Col. 1:15 and Prov. 8:22, but also because no one calls into question the natural reading of any other example of arche with a genitive just because no other arche with a genitive has the same referents or subject material. In fact there are hardly any two examples of arche with a genitive that have the same referents and subject material and no one questions the natural readings of those examples so it does not necessitate us by any means to read the arche with a genitive at Rev. 3:14 any differently than the rest of the examples. There is no loss for an explanation and as we have seen the WT did appeal to “SUCH BIBLICAL STATEMENTS” that were “arche followed by a genitive phrase” in the article I cited above. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

We scrutinize your complaint and what do we find? The devil is in the details.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Or could it be that the devil is in the details of the “scrutiny” and not the complaint? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

But even so, you continue along, undaunted, in setting forth your litany of complaints. You say trinitarians “more often than not” adopt unlikely meanings or unprecedented one or a remote explanation that doesn’t fit with anything else. Well now, that’s a subjective statement if I’ve ever seen one. You seem oblivious to the fact that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Hence, what may seem “unlikely” to you is a sure thing to someone else.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I don’t think of it as subjective at all. Just in the three examples I have given of Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Prov.8:22 they have to appeal to the unprecedented in each case to esacpe the natural language that occurs there. 1.)“Arche” means “active cause” where there is no clear case of that anywhere in the Bible. 2.)“Prototokos with the genitive” is not partitive when everywhere else it occurs in scripture, it is. I am sure as we continue that it is going to happen over and over, and I “will” point it out to you each time. Time and time again they have to come up with the remote meaning, or the unprecedented meaning or the unlikely meaning in order to hold on to their doctrine. How is that observation subjective? It appears to me to be simply the facts. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  But your last complaint takes the cake. Concerning trinitarians you say “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. You don’t say? Well, let’s consider John Chapter one again. In that context between us, who must assume their conclusion at the outset and then arbitrarily take the “all things” in agreement with it, huh?

 

   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Again, considering the other scriptures that talk about the “beginning” and “creation” and the Son, there is nothing assumed for they reveal the Son to have been God’s “beginning” of creation. His creation is the beginning of the beginning at John 1:1. There is nothing remote, unprecedented or unlikely in looking at “in the beginning” as a reference to the time duration that began with the creation of the Son because of what other scriptures reveal about the phrase “in the beginning”. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

Yet the Orthodox conclusion can be reached strictly from the information in the text itself, inductively too. So who’s forming the scriptures around their doctrine in that context? See what I mean?

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But as I stated before, one could easily accuse the Orthodox position of ignoring the import of the very first phrase and what it means. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 So Wrench, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your complaints too seriously, because they just don’t hold up under scrutiny.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ But then again, I don’t see your scrutiny holding up under the counter-scrutiny. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

With regard to Barnes’ notes and how he acknowledged the “originator” meaning in scripture for “arche”, you reply as follows: “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.”  I’m not surprised that you would find Barnes in error at Rev. 22:13, and we will be getting into this passage before long. We will try to navigate our way through the confusion which has reigned among Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the identity of the Alpha & Omega through the years, a confusion not only among the rank & file in the field, but also among the leadership at Bethel.  

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I am sure that discussion will prove to be interesting. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Let’s now go into our discussion concerning Col. 1:15-17, but since I’m trying to follow your responses to me as we move through this letter, some switching back and forth between the main subjects will be unavoidable. Col. 1:15-17 We had reached the point in our discussion about “prototokos” in Col. 1:15, where you had adopted a faulty thought process, not that you recognized it as such, but faulty nonetheless. Recall that initially you maintained the position that the “all things” in verses 16 and 17 were different from the “all things” of John 1:3, where you had arbitrarily restricted the “all things” of John 1:3 to only the physical creation, but claiming that the “all things” in the Col. Passage was “more extensive”. Your current position is that they refer to the same thing. Hence, then, since they do refer to the same thing, let’s also recall that in your attempt to explain the context of John 1:1-3 you have no choice but to assume the creation of the logos at the outset, then arbitrarily take the “all things” as only subsequent to that assumed creation. As I pointed out earlier in this letter, such a line of reasoning begs the question by assuming the conclusion at the outset, and such reasoning is illogical because it makes what you would prove, the presupposition of your exegesis.

 

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Once again, let’s keep straight the fact that I am not trying to prove that the Son was created just from the language of John 1:1. What I am showing in relation to John1:1-3 is that there is no reason one has to take the words of that passage as some iron-clad reference to Christ as the CREATOR. You seem to have lost why we are even talking about this scripture in the first place. I didn’t come to this scripture with the idea of trying to prove that the Son was a creation, I came here because YOU stated that this verse was iron-clad, or as much as, in it’s reference to the Son as THE Creator. That is why I am here discussing the implications of the language, not just to prove that the Son is a creation, so, to say that I am assuming the conclusion at the outset is really missing the mark of what I am even talking about here to begin with. I am not assuming the creation of the Son to prove the creation of the Son at John1:1-3. I am deriving from the implications of other scriptures that the “beginning” includes the creation of the Son, and there is certainly nothing unprecedented or remote about concluding that from Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Prov. 8:22, in fact, deriving that from those verses follows the the most natural understanding of what those verses have to say. So, I am not begging the question at all, because I did not set out to prove that the Son was created from discussing John1:1-3, I set out to show, which I believe I have, that this passage is not an iron-clad pendulum scripture that reads in the favor of the Trinitarian so that it would be strong enough to overturn the natural understanding of scriputures such as Rev. 3:14. So, if I don’t take your objections about this seriously, these are the reasons why. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 Now let’s see if you follow the same line of illogical reasoning in your explanation of Col. 1:15-17. We read in Col. 1:17 that “he is before all things”. So the question is pregnant for Jehovah’s Witnesses: how could Christ be “before all things”, and still be a creature himself? The Witness has no choice, he must assume that the “all things” here is not a reference to “all creation”, for if it is, Christ would have to be regarded as a non-creature at the time he was “before” the “all things”. But a better way of wording the question will help you to see what you really need to have already established BEFORE you assume the all things doesn’t mean all creation. Consider this question about “he is before all things” in verse 17, how could he be “before all things” and still be a creature? How could he be “before all things” and not be God? The only way you can do this math, Wrench, is to regard him as the FIRST creation, not just taken apart from the category at some later time after creation began. Again, if was “before all things”, but wasn’t God, the only way, for you, that could be true is if he was the FIRST creation. So, when you arrive at verses 16 and 17, it’s not enough for you to think that all you needed was to show he was “a part” of creation…no, you must have already established that he was the FIRST creation to account for verse 17. You appear to be thinking that all you need is just to prove that he was “part” of the category at any time, then he can be assumed as taken apart from it (the math you do at verses 16 and 17. That’s why you are having a hard time understanding the point I’m making. Before the subtraction you do with the “all things” to claim it does not mean “all creation”, you have to account for how he was before “all things” without being God, and the only way you can do that is to assume he was the FIRST creation, then all OTHERS followed (hence the NWT’s rendering). Now do you see this? Hopefully you do now. This has to be an accomplished fact when you arrive at verses 16 and 17 (in your mind) to do that math you do. So is it? Is it already proven that he was the FIRST creation when you arrive at verse 16? Well, you’ve tried to prove something from verse 15, but what WAS it you tried to prove from verse 15? Did you prove he was the first creation, or just that he was “part” of the category? Please think about it, Wrench? What did you prove from verse 15? Yet I’ve been trying to get you to understand that proving he was “part” of the category just isn’t enough for you. Why? Because the Orthodox view can accommodate that and still maintain that he was not an original creature, but only dovetailed INTO the category later in history, So to justify your assumption that “all things” doesn’t mean “all creation”, you must first have already proven that he was the first creation when you come to verse 16, otherwise you can’t account for “before all things” and still keep him in the creature category. If all you end up establishing from verse 15 is that he was “among creation”, I’ve already shown you how we can accept that without believing that he was an original creature. He was “theos” before “all things without exception” came into existence, but later after the category had run its course for quite some time, he entered or dovetailed into the middle of it, and took that nature of a slave (fellow-creature with angels Rev 19 and 22). Hence, when you come to Col. 1:16 and 17 you do the exact same thing you do at John 1:1-3, you assume that he was the first creation, and THEN do your math. You didn’t prove it from verse 15. See my point? The only thing you may have ended up establishing from verse 15 is that he was “part of” the group. Yet when you come to verses 16 and 17 you assume that he was the first creation, not just “part of it”, though you mistakenly THINK you have proven he was the “first” by the term “firstborn”. I hope from this you can better understand what’s needed for you when you arrive at verses 16 and 17, and whether you’ve really proven that or not. So what you do in John 1:1-3, you also do in Col. 1:15-17. What’s that? You start off assuming the conclusion, and then arbitrarily make the “all things” agree with the assumption. So, in both John 1:3 and in Col. 1:16-17, since you had to assume the conclusion first, you cannot argue that you’re taking the language at face value or “naturally”. But the Orthodox view can be reached by assuming nothing and moving strictly from the evidence in the text to the conclusion that he, being before all things, was “theos” and not the first creation. In both places, Wrench, the Orthodox view is demonstrably superior to your view. And you can’t claim that I’m just “asserting” it, I’ve shown you why I say it. So when you deal with this, you’re going to have to really deal with the points I’ve mentioned. At this point I want to remind you of the question I asked you to deal with earlier, drawn from 1st Cor. 8:6. Do you remember what it was? There the expression “all things” appears twice in rapid succession, so do you think it means the same thing both times? Does it refer to all creation the first time? The second time? What I want you to try to do is see if you can sneak your math in here, the same math you do at Col. 1:16-17. Try it and see if you don’t immediately recognize the obvious arbitrariness in the procedure. Now, continuing with our discussion about Col. 1:15-17, I’m going to once again challenge what you THINK and BELIEVE you’ve established from verse 15. This is where I think you’re hung up. You really believe in your heart that you’ve proven from verse 15 that Christ was not only “part of” the category of creation, but that he was the “first creation”, and the reason you believe this is because you THINK “firstborn” proves that. Here’s where you seem to have another lapse of mental coherence. You can’t seem to get it into your head what it means to prove or establish something. If only you could get this right, things would suddenly clear up for you like a bright spring day with nary a cloud in the sky. When you have LEGITIMATELY proven something, Wrench, it means that no other explanation is possible. That’s what it means…period! Now then, if you are going to use the word “firstborn” to prove that he was the first creation, then I better not be able to find a single example where it doesn’t mean or emphasize numerical order, because if I do, there went your “proof” down the drain. And you need that here so badly…in order to be able to claim that you are following the “natural” meaning of the words used in verses 16 and 17. If you fail here, you have no choice, then, but to come to verses 16 and 17 empty-handed. Can you pass this test? So I went to the bible and showed where this term doesn’t always carry the connotation of numerical order. And I showed examples that EVEN reveal the mind of God on the subject! Remember where in Gen. 41:51 Joseph called his “firstborn” Manassah, and in verse 52 he called his second born “Ephraim”. So are we all set with this? Manassah was first and Ephraim second. So how does God view such matters? Look in Jeremiah 31:9 and we read “…For I have become to Israel a Father, and as for Ehpraim, he is my firstborn.”. Can’t you see from this that being the first numerically doesn’t mean a buffalo nickel to God, when it comes to applying “firstborn” to someone. I’m going back through these, Wrench, because you didn’t really take these one at a time and discuss them. Then of course, not to mention Jacob and Esau, we read in Psalms 89:27 that Jehovah would place David as “firstborn” most high of the kings of the earth. Again, David was neither numerically first among the sons of Jessie, nor was he the first king of Israel, but that didn’t deter God one bit, did it? Of course not, for in God’s mind “firstborn” doesn’t need to have a numerical significance. And as I pointed out in my last letter, it will not do to try to escape this from the term “placed”, for when someone is “placed” as firstborn he’s known as such, and Christ in his messianic mediatorial role was “appointed heir of all things”, and besides we can show another example of where “firstborn” doesn’t have anything to do with numerical order, nor anything to do with “placed”…etc. So this response is bogus. Look in Job 18:13 and we find the term being applied to the most deadly of all diseases. Nothing about “placed” here. So such would not be a necessity anyway. You know what this reminds me of, Wrench? It reminds me of a “spite check” in a chess game. That’s when a guy knows he’s about to be mated the next time his opponent gets a free move, but in the meantime he sees where he can check the other guys king three or four times first, so he whups the check on the other guy, and check again, and check again, until he runs out of checks…then it’s the other guy’s turn to move…and so he topples his own king in defeat. The checks didn’t really mean anything, and merely put off the inevitable for a few moves. However there was no doubt about the outcome in either of their minds. It’s the same thing here. In my letter of December 1st, 99, I presented the following piece of evidence to show how the term “firstborn” had gained a stereo-typed meaning that did not emphasize numerical order during NT times and the generations immediately following. And you completely ignored this and said not a syllable about it. So let me put it before you again and ask you to consider and comment upon it. Here goes: “Apparently in NT times, as well as the generations immediately following, the expression "firstborn of...." became stereotyped. POLYCARP studied at the feet of St. John, and of course John was contemporary with the Apostle Paul and inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Polycarp died in the year 155. But he wrote an epistle to the Phillipians and I just happened to stumble across this in Vol. 1, page 34: Chapter VII--..."For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist, and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, if of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. " Note that the subject of the idiom here is left hypothetical (whosoever) by Polycarp. Well then, what's happened to the time-element with the meaning of this title? It has dropped off, and is no longer the emphasis of the idiom. But what has remained? You bet, STATUS. Polycarp's meaning is exceedingly obvious to the most casual observer, Satan would be proud of WHOEVER would do this...like his firstborn son, ha!” A couple of letters ago I quoted from the Watchtower Society to show how they agree that Jehovah cannot be pigeonholed or put on a leash as far as requiring Him to conform to human or finite terms as He does His thing. But you failed to comment upon it, so in my last letter I reminded you that you overlooked to deal with it, and you came back dealing with another point, but not the one I wanted you to face. This time I’m going to place it before you again, only I’ve found an interesting argument from Greg Stafford, presented by him in the same context we are now dealing with…in other words the following quote is RELEVANT to our discussion and subject material. I will first quote Stafford’s comments, and then the WT’s. Please compare them and offer your comments, OK? JWD page 277: “The Bible uses human words that, to the greatest extent possible, communicate what is really the case with corresponding items/beings in the spirit realm. Thus, since we are not told that ‘firstborn’ as used of Christ in Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:6, does not convey the lexical sense of temporal priority, and since Jesus is not said to have been “placed as” or “given” the position of ‘firstborn,’ it seems that the best and most natural way to understand the term is to recognize what is true about a father and his firstborn son, and transfer the same sense to Jesus and his Father, especially since that is how they are described to us, throughout the New Testament.” Now we have to give Greg his due here, he’s trying hard to convince us to be persuaded to accept the literal numerical sense to the term “firstborn” and apply that sense in Col. 1:15. But NOW compare what the WT Society says about the same subject on page 597 of “Aid to Bible Understanding” “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.” Again, please compare what Stafford says with what the WT says, and see if you can reconcile them, OK? I’ve shown God’s mind on the subject, and just as the WT says he was not “bound” by “usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations”. How could anything be more clear than this? So, as I have repeatedly stated, when you arrive at verse 16 you have come empty-handed with regard to the necessity (for your view) to have Christ be the first creature. You are really assuming it again, though you THINK you’ve proven it from verse 15. See my point now? Why is it necessary for you to believe he was the “first creation”? because of verse 17 “he was before all things”…so, how in your view was he before all things and was yet a creature, if he wasn’t the first one? Think it over. How could he be before “all other things”, and still be a creature, if he weren’t the first one?   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I am going to address these points in relatively a reverse order back to the same conclusions I have made before and see if I can get you to see why I do not accept your objections as valid. First-Let’s look at what the Aid Book said and see if we can reconcile this problem. Actually the very same point is reiterated in the Insight Book which replaced the Aid Book. From what I can see, the point of the statement has nothing to do with God calling Jacob the firstborn in the sense of “status only”. Jacob came to “reckoned” as the firstborn by purchasing the “right” of the firstborn. He purchased the rights to be reckoned as the one who was born first, so there is still no change in the actual meaning of the word “firstborn”. It still means the “one born first” (male, that is). Jacob purchased the “right” as firstborn, and therefore received the privileges that came with it, but nothing in that exchange changed the meaning of the word. It still meant “first one born”. The statement about Jehovah not being bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations” means that he wasn’t bound to the “real” firstborn child (Esau), which Esau himself expected to receive the firstborn blessing and Isaac expected to bless Esau as the firstborn. Jehovah wasn’t bound to accept Esau as the firstborn simply because he was “really” born first” but he could accept Jacob as the “firstborn” because of his appreciation of the “right of firstborn” and by the fact that he purchased the right to be “reckoned” as firstborn. But again, in all of this goings on, the word never changed in meaning. It always meant “first one born”. So, I see no problem at all between what Greg stated and the WT regarding the meaning of the word firstborn. Therefore, Greg’s point stands on solid ground. Second, let’s take the point concerning Polycarp’s usage of the word. First, it is extra-biblical and because of that I would not hold it in any high regard to have a bearing on the scriptural usage of the word. But, in actuality, I do not think it presents a problem, because as you admit in your own summation of the phrase, it is metaphorical. It is obviously to be taken as a symbolic statement, as you say, the one would be LIKE Satan’s firstborn. It is a metaphor by your own admission. The meaning of the word hasn’t changed, because the one would be LIKENED (METAPHORICALLY) to Satan’s first born child. Third, is Job 18:13, which I commented on in my last letter, which you admittedly didn’t read all of it, merely scanning ahead to see if you covered everything. Job 18:13 again is obviously a symbolic reference to the disease AS IF IT WERE the first born child of death, carrying with it of course, the status of the firstborn son of death. Nothing in that reference indicates the meaning “firstborn” has been changed to “status” only. I think you need to find references that are not obviously symbolic. How can you deny the numerical usage in a “SYMBOLIC” reference? That’s guesswork at best since there is no way to tell how far to carry the symbolism in that scripture. So again, I see no indication of the term “firstborn” dropping the numerical designation. Foruth, claiming that the response about David being PLACED as firstborn is bogus does not navigate the problem at all. David WAS PLACED “AS” FIRSTBORN. In other words, he came to be “reckoned” as the firstborn, or came to be “reckoned” as the one born first. Nothing changed the meaning of the word again. It still means “first one born”. It was not a status only designation without the reference of time involved because he came to "viewed"”as the one born first "timewise"”even if he wasn't. “Prototokos” did not change it’s meaning to status ONLY. Now, the questions becomes “Why does Jehovah refer to “David my servant” as firstborn, when David was not a firstborn son?” Well, since you are so fond of WT literature (ha!), maybe you will appreciate what they have to say about this. Notice the following: *** it-1 836 Firstborn, Firstling *** Why does Jehovah refer to “David my servant” as firstborn, when David was not a firstborn son? In Psalm 89 Jehovah refers to “David my servant” and reviews the covenant for the kingdom that was made with him. In the midst of this is the statement: “I myself shall place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth.” (Ps 89:20, 27) David was not a firstborn son. (1Ch 2:13-15) So it seems that Jehovah was referring prophetically to the one foreshadowed by David, God’s own “firstborn” Son in heaven upon whom He confers kingship more exalted than that of any human ruler.—Compare Eze 34:24, where Messiah is spoken of as “my servant David.” Well, so much for that objection. Why was the Son “appointed as heir of all things”? Because he is the firstborn Son. He is not the “firstborn” because he was appointed as the heir, but the other way around. Simple as that. Fifth-At Jeremiah 31:9, the reference to Ephraim as his firstborn had to do with the fact that Ephraim came to stand for the ten-tribe northern kingdom of Israel. Since Israel was God’s first nation due to the Abrahamic covenant it is spoken of as God’s firstborn son, so, naturally, when speaking of Israel as Ephraim, the most influential tribe of the northern kingdom, Ephraim could be called God’s firstborn because it came to stand for Israel who was God’s firstborn nation and covenant people. It wasn’t a reference to the “person” of Ephraim, per say, but was a reference to the “TRIBE” of Ephraim which was the most influential tribe, in a bad way, upon the ten-tribe kingdom of Isreal. So, I have gone through your “firstborn” examples one at a time and showed you how in each and every case, the meaning of the word never changed from “first one born” even when special circumstance were present. The word can not be shown “anywhere”, including Polycarp’s extrabiblical example, which really means didley-squat to me, it can’t be shown anywhere to clearly mean STATUS ONLY without the inherent meaning of first one born. Again I ask the question, if “prototokos” can mean status only, then why is there no translation that renders it as such? They all render “prototokos” as “firstborn”, even in the places where you say it means status only. Nearly every lexicon (Trinitarian in nature) gives only one lexical meaning to the word “prototokos”, that being, the first one born. Why is that? So, when I come to Colossian 1:15, I am not assuming anything. The Son is never spoken of as being PLACED “AS” FIRSTBORN, he is not spoken of as ever having usurped the position of another FIRSTBORN through purchase such as Jacob, and as Greg stated, in your above quote: JWD page 277: “The Bible uses human words that, to the greatest extent possible, communicate what is really the case with corresponding items/beings in the spirit realm. Thus, since we are not told that ‘firstborn’ as used of Christ in Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:6, does not convey the lexical sense of temporal priority, and since Jesus is not said to have been “placed as” or “given” the position of ‘firstborn,’ it seems that the best and most natural way to understand the term is to recognize what is true about a father and his firstborn son, and transfer the same sense to Jesus and his Father, especially since that is how they are described to us, throughout the New Testament.”-And there is absolutely no conflict with what was stated in the WT by those statements as I have shown. Now, returning then to Col. 1:15-17, this is what we have. We have the Son who is called the “firstborn” of all creation. First, since the Son is never “given” the title by some other means as has been discussed, and the fact that every biblical usage of “firstborn with a genitive” is partitive, I think you are being a bit thick in trying to say that I have “assumed” something in relation to the meaning of “firstborn of all creation”. You are the one who had to try, and unsuccessfully at that, to find some way of changing the natural meaning of the words and phrases. For you to seek another meaning at Col 1:15 reveals an underlying motive to support a preconceived doctrine. So, when you come to Col. 1:15, I think you are the one who is given to an assumption, that being, that the Son can not be a creation, and also the assumption that the “all things” and “all creation” are identical. I mentioned this in my last letter and you did not comment on it even though I mentioned it many times. I need an answer to this problem, Ray, as follows.  If you and Grimm and Nigel Turner and others ADMIT that Col. 1:15 is partitive, meaning that the Son is PART of the “creation” in the phrase “firstborn of all creation”, yet you in no way accept that the Son is one of the “all things, which we would both agree on, how can you say that the “all creation” MUST BE IDENTICAL with the “all things”? Can’t you see the contradiction there that is as plain as day? If you really think about it, Ray, any Trinitarian that claims verse 15 is PARTITIVE, cannot claim that ALL CREATION is identical with ALL THINGS in that passage, because, as I have mentioned before, IF 15 is PARTITIVE, then the Son is a PART of the ALL CREATION, and EVERYONE HERE agrees that the ALL THINGS “DO NOT” INCLUDE the Son, so, they are by necessity NOT IDENTICAL “IF” verse 15 is PARTITIVE. Therefore, ANYONE who admits that 15 is partitive, which a number of Trinitarians do, should have NO objection to the word “other” there in verse 16 as a word added to clarify the DIFFERENCE between the ALL CREATION and the ALL THINGS. I don’t know how to make this any clearer. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

 

I’m already on page 24 in Microsoft Word, I’ve noticed, so if I try to follow your other letters, we’re going to end up with another book, and I’m sure you don’t want that any more than me. Besides, most of what appears in the extensions is my own typing with your comments interspersed. I believe I dealt adequately with your repeated references to “all things” elsewhere, and I don’t think your interspersed comments changed anything or requires me to revise anything. But if you disagree, just kindly point it out to me in your responding letter and I will gladly take up the point again. What I don’t want you to think is that I’m skipping over anything to avoid them, because it just isn’t so. I honestly think I’ve covered the main points of our discussion, but I will continue on for a page or two and try to gather up any loose-ends. If there’s something I overlook, just present it to me again, and I’ll do my best to deal with it. Now, with regard to the questions and comments about the WT Organization, and Greg Stafford, and whether he and others have shown disrespect for God’s theocratic arrangement, I profusely apologize if anything I said really offended you, Wrench, for that just is not my motive. I honestly believe these questions and comments, if considered without getting bent out of shape, will help you to see that attempting to maintain the WT’s theocratic structure and defend their teachings at the same time is an exercise in futility. I see where, instead of giving me an ALTERNATIVE way of looking at things, you just simply cried “fowl ball”, and I want to know why you responded like that? If you really believe in your heart that my understanding is wrong, then offer me an alternative to consider, ok? Don’t just respond “this is garbage” and leave it at that. Instead say “this is garbage, here’s why this was done…or here’s what I had in mind” or “here’s why he wrote the book”…etc. You see, Wrench, if you just deal with the point, instead of crying fowl ball, only then will you disabuse me of the way I’m seeing things. Don’t complain that it’s a waste of time, for it only takes a minute or two to give me an alternative scenario to counter mine…give me something else to think about, OK? For example, are you saying Greg published his book because he was perfectly satisfied with the WT’s presentation of their case in their publications? Does that make good sense to you? See what I mean? Come on, friend, what’s wrong with applying some common sense once in a while, and applying it to our consciences? When I used the word “perhaps” before the quotations from the Watchtower, I wasn’t meaning to agree with you that these guys weren’t doing anything wrong, and you should have known that. I had two things in mind at the time. First, I wanted to acknowledge that “perhaps” the WT hasn’t done anything yet, and second, I wanted to come across to you a little more conciliatory, hoping from that that you’d be more inclined to enter into my thoughts on what may be in the future with regard to the WT’s patience. But you seem to have completely misunderstood my use of the term, and that is unfortunate. In another place you seem frustrated because as you’re working your way down through my letter, I’m not yet aware that you’ve switched to the other view about John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17, so you complain as follows: “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?” Not really, Wrench, because you were STILL writing the letter in which the “change” is revealed to me, and I hadn’t got that letter yet, because you weren’t through writing it yet, LOL! This kind of stuff is no big deal, I get all cornfused sometimes too, ha! Kind of reminds of the lady from Arkansas who, in writing a letter to her son far away, began her letter by saying “Dear Son, I’m writing this letter slow because I know you can’t read too fast”…?   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well. actually Ray, the reason I was complaining is because I had explained it the new way in the post before that one. You simply must have missed it. If you go back and check you will see that is the case. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

  And another spot that I found hilarious was when I had somehow gotten my cut and pastings all screwed up and mixed a couple paragraphs together. Here was poor old Wrench, trying to figure where he stopped, and I started. When I read that, I lost it…laughing. Oh God, that was so funny. You were certainly right, me and these word processors just don’t get along very well. You gotta hand it to me, though, anyone who can type up 330 pages in three weeks is flat putting some time and effort into it. We don’t always have to be serious, Wrench, we can sometimes laugh at the situation. I’m just gonna bring this thing to a close for now, and like I said, if I left something out that you’d like me to deal with, just remind me in your responding letter and I’ll address it. 26 pages is more than enough at one time. So long and thanks, Wrench, for hangin in, and Oh, by the way, if you want me to send that stuff about Thayer, just give me a place, OK? So long and God bless you, friend. Ray Goldsmith   

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Since we are now up to about 50 pages or so in this response I think I will defer some the above points to the next post in hopes that maybe we’ve trimmed some more off of the discussion. Let me just say this about Stafford’s book and the others who have printed. I thought I really covered this thoroughly in the last letter but then again, I know how hard it is to read 330 pages and even retain a third of what was said. I think the WT’s stand in regard to these brothers who have written books that touch on doctrine is clear by the way they have responded to them. As I said, Firpo Carr has had books out for years about the Divine Name and he is still in good standing in the organization with many assignments. They have even used information from his books in the literature, or at least have published material that parallels the same points that he has made. The same is true of Nelson Herle, Rolf Furuli, Greg Stafford and others that I can’t remember the names of at this time. One brother I believe even wrote a book about 2cnd Century Orthodoxy which I believe the WT has quoted at different times concerning 2cnd century thought. Now, Ray, if these brothers are still in good standing in the congregation, and the WT has offered no warnings or cautions about their publications, and they KNOW WE ARE READING THEM, what does that tell you? Well, what it tells me is that you are more worried about this then they are. I told you, why don’t you read Greg’s opening remarks to his book and he explains why he wrote it. When you read that, tell me what you think. Maybe you could go back to the post before this one and read what I had to say in realtion to this. As it stands at this point, I believe I have demonstrated why I consider Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15 weighing heavily against the Trinitarian position.(Proverbs 8:22 to follow eventually) John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 ARE NOT pendulum scriptures by any means, without us destroying in any way the natural reading and flow of those passages, but in fact, adhering to it. I will be awaiting your responses. Agape, Wrench P.S. If I missed something pertinent, please let me know.      Wrench in the Works: