God the Son—Hands on Creator of all things!

Ray's June 21, 2000 Reply to Wrench

 

 

Ray Goldsmith

alka1@sssnet.com

 

 

 

Hello Wrench.  I’m thinking that interspersing with the cut and paste method seems to be the major cause of our letters being so lengthy, or appearing to be anyway.  So I tried to reduce the amount of C&P interspersing in my last letter, and instead just explain our recent points in somewhat shortened fashion. Even 70 pages at one sitting seems a might much for anyone to read and get something out of it.  If we both work together we can keep these letters at a manageable level.  So I’m going to follow the same style in this letter, and invite you to try the same in return.  OK, let’s get started.

 

When I said “We are pretty much finished with Revelation 3:14 as far as the lexical evidence is concerned”, I didn’t mean that we could never return to the point. Obviously if new or other relevant info comes to the surface, we will take it as it comes.  But we have examined the major Lexicons and Commentaries, and discovered that the meaning you contend for in Revelation 3:14 is not well supported. But we are still hammering away at some points, as I alluded to, and we will continue along these lines in this letter as well.

 

You ask if I know of any lexicons or commentaries that were done by Unitarians. Not that I’m aware of except to the extent indicated in the article about Ezra Abbot, and perhaps what we can learn about his successor in the Harvard Divinity School, Professor  Thayer, whom we will address more fully later in this letter. What we can learn about how unitarians respond to theology in general can be found in quotations from various sources. Men like Joseph Thayer and Ezra Abbot earned their keep, so to speak, in the scholarly community, even though their views were considered suspect…they nevertheless exhibited an acute awareness of the issues involved in both biblical and extra-biblical sources.

 

I seem to detect some frustration on your part about the poor job you think Thayer and Abbot have done in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon in defending your view of how Rev. 3:14 should be understood. But in setting forth this frustration you seem to be participating in the gentle art of self-deception. How does that work?  Well, although you have admitted that the commentators base their denial of your meaning (first in series…beginning of existence) on the teaching of the New Testament elsewhere pertaining to the exact subject material and referents of 3:14, you then seem to tuck this information into a deep dark crevice in your mind, and quite arbitrarily assume that word-usage for “arche” is the major and dominant decider of the issue. The reason you have done this is exceedingly obvious, but it is just as obvious that maintaining your position requires you to adopt a “tunnel vision” attitude in picking and choosing what should be the determiner of the issue. What do I mean by “tunnel vision”?

 

Well, for example, in your first few paragraphs you launch into a discussion where you put the emphasis on “word-usage and meaning”. Thus you list seven points which mostly address themselves to that issue.  But the reason cited by the scholars is other context in the N.T. having to do with the same subject material and referents as in 3:14.  This gets very little attention at this point in your discussion, except for a couple questions you ask about “active agent and intermediate agent”…

 

Never mind that John One presents us with a very comprehensive and directly relevant context, and strangely in that context your main claim to fame is missing…the coming INTO existence of the Logos. Not only is that missing completely from the context, but it also declares in unambiguous terms the existence of the logos before everything ever came into existence…without even a single exception. Instead of this, you assume and treat word-usage elsewhere as if it should be considered the decisive issue at 3:14, and from that assumption you then go on to portray the other side as lacking evidence, or as relying on extra-biblical evidence for support. There is your tunnel vision in action, Wrench.  It’s convenient for you to assume that the other side is basing their conclusion on this, and it is unpleasant for you to remember what they really said their reason was.  

 

Now please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not meaning to suggest that I think you are consciously doing this, in fact I believe the opposite. I think you just get locked into a certain thought process without being consciously aware of what’s being left out. After all, water does run downhill. But when it’s all said and done the scholars have made it clear that they base their denial of your view of 3:14 on other contexts in the NT which have to do with the same referents and subject material, and no amount of front flips or back flips with the word-usage tangent is going to change that. Remember me pointing out that your priorities seem confused? Well, that is exactly what I was referring to.  These scholars have not been deterred by word-usage elsewhere, because they know that  context is rule number one, and NT context even trumps over word-usage elsewhere, no matter where it is. So that is what you will have to come to grips with to meet the goals and standards you set for yourself in your treatise, even in the re-framing of it.

 

On the other hand, I am sensitive to your feelings, and therefore I will take your 7 points, one at a time, and try to offer some relevant comments. Before getting started, however, I think it should be pointed out that you seem to confuse the terms “rendering” and “meaning”. For the most part, with the exception of the NIV, Trinitarians have not disputed the rendering of the passage “beginning”, though they have taken issue with the NWT’s,  “…creation BY God”, pointing out that such would seem to require the presence of the preposition “hupo” to conform to the idiom. But as far as “beginning” goes, most have not disputed that…but have argued that context elsewhere in the NT rules out the “first in the series” MEANING with this particular subject material, and so they have adopted the “active or primary cause meaning (origin)”.  With that in mind, let me address your 7 points.

 

1. There is no clear case from the scriptures where “arche” means “active cause”

 

First of all “no clear case” is a subjective statement determined in the eyes of the be-holder.  Many scholars indeed see such an emphasis at Revelation 22:13, even if Grimm does not, and it is not at all certain that he doesn’t. Hang on, Wrench, we will discuss this point in greater detail a little later in this letter ;-)  Secondly, even if that were true, context elsewhere in the NT, with or without “arche”, could STILL rule out the “first in the series” meaning at 3:14.  And interestingly “arche” does appear in John 1:1, but this context places the Logos in the SAME relationship to “arche” as it does “ton theon”,  suggesting no more that the Logos came into existence than that “ton theon” came into existence.  Have you ever really considered this point? Or is it one of those points that is “inexpedient to inquire about”?

*****

 

2. John, elsewhere, always uses “arche” to mean “beginning”,  not “beginner” or “ruler” and he had other words to choose from in theGreek to designate “active cause” (rhiza) and “ruler” (archon) which he uses elsewhere when it is clear he wanted to designate those meanings to something.

 

Once again, context elsewhere in the New Testament could STILL rule out “first in the series” meaning at 3:14, with or without the word “arche”.  Yet “arche” appears in both John 1:1 and Rev. 22:13.  As just explained the word appears in John 1:1a, but there both the Logos and Ton Theon are related to it in the exact same way, and yet there is no more suggestion in that context that the Logos had a beginning than there is that Ton Theon had a beginning.  In fact the exact opposite would be the more natural meaning of the words there.  And in 22:13, many take this as having the “beginner” meaning, just as the term “end” there can only mean “ender”, for surely you wouldn’t argue that there will be an end to the Alpha and Omega’s existence because He is the “end”, would you? Again, this point will be covered in greater detail shortly.

 

 

 

4. The Father is elsewhere designated as the “active cause” and the Son is the “intermediate agent”.

 

First of all, one must have already reduced the infinite God to finite limitations in order to even participate in this kind of reasoning. This is the one common thread that seems to wane its way through all detractors of the Trinity. Somehow they have convinced themselves that it’s perfectly legitimate to measure the infinite God with a finite yardstick. They seem blinded to the fact that God’s ways and thoughts are highER than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9), and they can’t imagine how God would not be subject to finite limitations. Thus, if we ourselves think one thought at a time (in a straight line), God of course must do that too. If we can only be in one place at a time, of course the same must be so with God.  After all, didn’t God use our terms? 

 

Yet even within the context of finite limitations, there is logically no necessary correlation between “ cause” and “source”.  The semantical range of the words “active cause” can be easily harmonized with “intermediate agent”, especially when the intermediate agent is said to be “theos” in a context which portrays all things as having come into existence through him. Thus, the intermediate agency is the agency of true Deity who performed the hand’s on …or DIRECT creation of all things, so relative to creation this individual could well be considered the active or direct cause of creation. And we should not expect the members of the Godhead to work independently each other. Thus, considering God the Father as the “source” and the Son as the intermediate agency would not require the “cause” to be restricted to or limited to the source. Even a former President of your organization, although as a witness he of course believed that Christ was the first creation, could nevertheless apply the term “active agent” to the one who was the intermediate agency. Judge Rutherford, in his “Creation”, page 13, said:

 

“After his creation God made the Logos his active agent in the creation of everything that was created”

 

So even Rutherford  recognized how the intermediate agency could be considered as the active agency, though he of course tries to give his version of God ( only the Father) all the credit for creation,  whereas the bible shares the credit among them , thus: “Let US MAKE…..in OUR IMAGE”…note Wrench, we do not read “Let me make”, but “let US make”….one person is not being portrayed as the maker, but a plurality is. See it? More than one is getting the credit here. So as I said before, relative to creation, the Logos may well be considered as the active or direct cause or agent. For you to assume that “cause” must be necessarily correlated with “source”, you have to be thinking in a finite context of limitations, thus the cause begins here (with the Father) …etc.  Not true if God is infinite, for there never was a movement from one to another in eternity past…they have been eternally connected to each other. Nothing started,  traveled, or transferred in time.  Thus we see the Father directly addressing the Son, saying: “And you at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of YOUR hands” (Heb. 1:10)…So who’s getting the credit here?

 

 

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 address this number 7 a little more clearly.

 

What are you saying? Not at Revelation 3:14, my friend.  In fact most of the Reference books we’ve consulted agree that the “beginner” meaning is correct at 3:14, and again, just what do they base that conclusion on? Hmmm… And ALL the Reference books we’ve consulted so far have agreed that the YOUR meaning is not applicable in 3:14. So it’s really your meaning that comes up short in the Reference books. You must be reading these books with your detractor spectacles firmly in place J

 

Now I think it would be better if I do C&P the next couple paragraphs from both of us in our previous letters.  This will address your appeal to certain reference books for the purpose of supporting your attempt to portray word-usage elsewhere as IF it were the dominant decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14.  But before we get started, the reason my responses appear as an appendage is because my initial impression of your referrals was that they merely sidestep the real issue, which as the scholars have said is NT teaching elsewhere pertaining to the same subject material and referents, as the reason for their  rejection of the your meaning. And so I was simply going to point this out to you and let it stand. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that I don’t want to be rude, and I don’t want you to think that I’m not interested in your point of view. Neither of these is true. So please understand while I am in the middle of dealing with your 7 points, that I’m not in the least diverted from or incognizant of the real issue. I know right where the ball is, and I know that it’s your treatise that is on the line, OK? Now let’s post a couple paragraphs, first mine then yours:

 

  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.

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

Because you introduced these referrals I went to the College Library and looked into them. And again because I address myself to them does not mean that I’ve lost sight of the real issue as made clear by the scholars.  So, in addressing myself to your referrals, not only did I deal with the specific point you referenced, but I went on to read the rest of the whole article in Kittel’s, and decided to point out a few other things I happened to notice. But you begin your responding paragraph AS IF you think I agree that the issue in Rev. 3:14 is properly decided in THIS arena of evidence. And so, across the stage you go, saying,

 

 “It really escapes me as to why you would expect me to 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,…”

 

Ahem!, Yes Wrench, you do fail to see.  First you fail to see that you’re the one who introduced this reference not me. Secondly you fail to see that your opponents have NOT relied on word-usage elsewhere as the decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14, and so you take for granted that my answer reflects or agrees with you that it should, then you assume that this is the reason I’m pointing it out, THEN you huff and puff and blow down your own straw-man ;-)

 

 I would just ask you to relax for a moment, and stand back and look at the stance you’re taking, and the assumption you’re making about your opponents IN ORDER to make your stance seem coherent. Your stance only makes sense if your opponents really DO appeal to word-usage as the decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14! For you to assume they do, as you are doing here, can only mean that you are suffering from a bad case of “tunnel vision”. You’ve unconsciously tucked the REAL REASON your opponents cite as the decider of the issue into a deep dark crevice in your mind. As I said, it’s convenient for you to assume that word-usage elsewhere is or should be “the decider of the issue” at  3:14, and therefore it is not pleasant for you to remember what the scholars have said is the deciding issue for them. So here you are going ninety miles an hour down a dead-end street, completely oblivious to the real situation. Thus you continue a little later…

 

”Any one should see that the evidence for “active cause” in the scriptures is microscopic at best. The fact you find extra-biblical references “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.”

 

Well,  first the “extra-biblical reference” I’m referring to here is of YOUR meaning,  “first in the series” ;-), and so what I found interesting is that both Kittel’s and Grimm refer to the same Greek philosopher, Animaxander.  Kittel’s cites your meaning, and Grimm’s cites the other meaning as exemplified by the same source. But where did you get the idea from this that anyone was saying or suggesting that this is or should be the decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14? How many times have we read from the scholars that the REAL decider of the issue for them is other teaching in the N.T. pertaining to the same referents and subject material? Yet you somehow leave this little detail out of the mix, then have your hissy fit about word-usage elsewhere and “extra-biblical references”. Why don’t you understand that your opponents have not based their decision about Rev. 3:14 on word-usage elsewhere? Why do you “fail to see” that? Look again at your final statement in this paragraph:

 

“The Trinitarian must go outside the bible to find a clear reference to “active cause” for arche, and the evidence even outside the bible is meager.”

 

First of all this is not so, and secondly it’s not cited by the reference works we’ve seen as the decider of the issue in 3:14 anyway.  Many Scholars cite Rev. 22:13 as an example of  “beginner, origin, or active cause” (Dr. Zhodiates, for example).  So your statement is untrue to start with, and mostly irrelevant anyway, because you’re out in left field pretending to yourself that word-usage elsewhere is or should be the decider of the issue at 3:14, and yet what have the Commentators said is the decider? See the faux pas?  And you should run away from Professor Abbot as fast as your feet will carry you. Why? Because he so often referred to “extra-biblical” sources as he disputed the meaning of several passages and words that appear in the N.T.  Just look again at the footnote I cited for you.  And  the same was true with Professor Thayer!

 

Now after dealing with the point you raised in Kittel’s,  I presented a fews things also in the article that I noticed.  For the most  part you brushed this aside, suggesting that to deal with it would “swell” our discussion even further. Well, gee, maybe I should have done the same with your referrals, then our letters would have been even shorter. But somehow I think I know what your reaction would have been ;-)  What do you think, Wrench? It’s OK though.  But you do offer a short response to Kittel’s final statement about 3:14, saying:

 

“…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 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.”

 

However, you must have read this while being half asleep. Kittels opts for the “principle and origin of creation” MEANING (not rendering), while citing not only the previous context dealing with Col.1:15-18,  but also based on the Alpha/Omega passages… for when quoted more fully they say: “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. And in the footnote you refer to,  Kittel’s is saying that the alternative to their own preference would be a reflection on Rabbinic influence, which they say would represent YOUR idea.  Well, Wrench, the Rabbis in Israel were those who opposed Jesus himself,  those who are referred to in Mark 7:9-13;  in conflict with the Rabbis, Jesus said:

 

“Further, he went on to say to them: AdroitlyYOU set aside the commandment of God in order to retain YOUR tradition. For example, Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and , ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death,’  But YOU men say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother: “Whatever I have by which you may get benefit from me is corban, (that is, a gift dedicated to God,):….YOU men no longer let him do a single thing for his father or his mother,  and thus YOU make the word of God invalid by YOUR tradition which YOU handed down. And many things similar to this YOU do.”

 

By following their tradition, and holding the people to them, they made the word of God of no effect (nullified it).  These were the Rabiis who used to walk around with their broad phylacteries mounted  to be seen of men (Matt. 23:5).  Jesus called them snakes to their faces and blind guides (Matt. 23:16; 26, 33).  So Kittel’s is saying that the meaning you contend for in 3:14, Wrench, is that which would reflect Rabbinic influence.  You seem to have read this carelessly, because I’m sure you really don’t want to align your view with Rabbinic influence, do you?

 

And so if you REALLY thought that the orthodox view is being questioned here, note Kittel’s concluding remarks;

“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.”

 

So much for Kittel’s, or whether this reference book questions the orthodox view of Rev. 3:14, or promotes yours. It is sad that you could read this article and get what you got out of it. It perplexes me because I’m convinced that you are sincere and a basically honest person. So I wonder how you could read this and get that out of it. I can only think that there must be some sort of disconnect or short-circuit in your thinking. I don’t know what I could do about it, but it seems clear that it has to start with convincing you that there really IS something wrong somewhere in your analytical process. Only then might you be willing to begin to wonder why it occurs and how. I have no arrogance or feeling of superiority as I write this, in fact the exact opposite. Right now the only thing I can think of that may bypass this short-circuit is to place before your eyes, your final statement about Kittel’s, and Kittel’s final statement, and ask you to try to reconcile them with each other. So I’m going to do that here, and please really consider them, and if you see that they don’t agree, be willing to explore possible reasons, OK? Now here is your final statement about Kittel’s:

 

“This seems to be another admission that the words used as such would mean 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.”

 

And now Kittel’s concluding statement:

 

“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.”

 

Now Wrench,  can you reconcile these two statements with each other so as to justify yours?  Can you show from Kittel’s concluding statement how they agree with you that they are questioning the orthodox interpretation of Rev. 3:14, or promoting your view? If you can’t do that, then you MUST be misrepresenting them in your concluding statement, and since you’re not dishonest,  the only other explanation  is that some sort of disconnect or short-circuit has taken place in your analysis…so that you unconsciously turn things from their orginal position and make them fit into a pre-conceived perception that you have. I have a sincere desire to help you see that something is wrong somewhere, friend.  Really compare these two concluding remarks I’ve placed before you, OK? Give me a chance, Wrench, I have no ulterior motive here whatsoever. Either these two concluding remarks can be reconciled with each other or they can’t. If you want to know what the real case is, then try it yourself. Whatever, please don’t dismiss this with a wave of the hand, and pass on, Ok?

 

Next is your referral to Vines’ entry for “beginning” (arche), where you had pointed out that Vines mentions “first cause” but only cites Col. 1:18 and not Rev. 3:14 as an example. I responded that it’s a no brainer that Vines is aware of some Trinitarians who see the “first cause” emphasis as applicable in 3:14  and some who see the “ruler” emphasis as primary there,  so he decides to use an example that all can rally around. Makes good sense to me. What really amazes me, Wrench, is that you could raise the issue of meanings that  “come up short”,  and forget to acknowledge that your meaning is the one that really comes up short at 3:14,  in this reference book as well as the others we’ve seen so far. Here, I think,  is your “tunnel vision” working overtime again, friend. I hope you don’t drive a car like this ;-) 

 

At this point I could offer one small paragraph of argumentation to refute your whole line of reasoning, and I will, but I will also go into some of your points in more detail because much of what I’m about to discuss will have application elsewhere in this letter. Here is the simple refutation…

 

You spend all this time in Vines dwelling on word usuage elsewhere as IF it is, or should be the decider of the issue at 3:14, when for the umpteenth time we’ve seen that it is the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere which has decided the issue AGAINST your meaning at Rev. 3:14.  No matter what you assume or how you cut it, “arche” and “telos” cannot mean that the Alpha & Omega had a beginning of existence or will have an end of existence in Rev. 22:13. We will presently see that in fact the Alpha & Omega was the “beginner” as the “arche” and the ender or concluder as the “telos”,  and if such could be the case here, it may be in 3:14 as well …if required by the N.T. teaching elsewhere. 

 

 Nevertheless you disagree with my offered explanation for what Vines did or didn’t do, and start off by accusing me of  seeming 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?”

 

Your question above is much the same as your question at the end of the paragraph, where you apparently think you’ve got something but don’t know what it is yet, ha! I think it is obvious that I know at least as much as you,  if not more about this controversy. Weren’t you the one who referenced Barnes’ notes to me? Don’t you know about the NIV? Sure, we both do. As a matter of fact, you indicated that you were aware of this “controversy” way back in one of your very first letters to me. So now what kind of a deal are you suddenly putting on display here?  Please answer.

 

Also, with regard to these two primary emphases, do you remember me saying that I didn’t see a real disconnect between them? Either can accommodate the other, and all these reference works we had cited agreed that the New Testament ruled out your  meaning in 3:14,  teaching instead that Christ was in existence before all creation, rather than being the first one into existence. So let’s discuss these two meanings again. It amounts to a simple matter of emphasis, Wrench.  Since the NT rules out the first in the series meaning at 3:14,  the logos as the intermediate agency of true Deity (hand’s on, cf. Heb.1:10) would,  as the beginning,  be the beginner/direct cause of all God’s creation,  just as in Rev. 22:13 the Alpha & Omega would, as the “end”, be the ender, for surely you would not argue that the Alpha & Omega has an end to existence, would you? Of course you wouldn’t, for then you’d be cutting your nose off to spite your own face!  But how is it that the Alpha & Omega could as the “end” be the ender,  and as the “beginning”  be the beginner? Once again, as we are about to see, it is a simple matter of emphasis.

 

 In my last letter I dealt with the parallel usage of “arche” between 3:14 and 22:13. I said earlier in this letter that we would deal later with this issue in greater detail, so this is as good a place as any to do that. The point I was trying to get across is that just because someone is called “the beginning” doesn’t ipso facto mean that he HAD a beginning. I was aware of three main points while setting forth this parallel. First, I was aware of Barnes’ identification of Christ as the Alpha & Omega, second I was aware of Grimm’s listing of 22:13 under the “first in a series” emphasis, and third I was aware of the WT’s teaching that the Alpha & Omega as the “beginning & end” did not mean a beginning or end to the Alpha & Omega’s existence, and hence I saw an agreement with Barnes’ way of taking the term “beginning” as meaning “ ruler/ originator” and “end” as “ruler/ender” in 22:13. 

 

So in the interest of trying to cover all bases, I brought up and discussed these three main points. Now the next point is very instructive.  To show the WT’s agreement with Barnes at 22:13,  I was aware of the “Alpha & Omega” quote in both the Aid book and the Insight Volumes,  having both on hand here.  But the Aid book happened to be handy at the time (sitting next to me on the desk), so I turned to the page and typed out the quote. How did you respond  to this? As I said, this is very instructive, so please pay close attention here. Here is how you responded to my quotation from the “Aid book”:

 

“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”.

 

Ray replies: What are you saying?  Are you saying that God the Father was not the “source” now?  That would be interesting, wouldn’t it?  Because He called himself the “end”, does that mean that he will HAVE an end?  Why not?  Because the Alpha & Omega calls himself  “the beginning…arche”, does that mean he HAD a beginning? If not, why not?  Again, you say the WT would not agree that God the Father was the “source”? Yet isn’t that what you’ve been claiming all along? This seems to be quite a reversal.

 

Let’s allow the Alpha and Omega to explain what he means when he identifies himself as the “beginning (arche) and end (telos)”.  Look at another place this occurs in the bible, in Rev. 21:5-6

 

“And the One seated on the throne said: ‘Look! I am making all things new.” Also, he says: ‘Write, because these words are faithful and true.’

  And he said to me: ‘They have come to pass! I am the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free.”

 

Note the expressions “I am making all things new”…and “They have come to pass”.  Then he says “…I am…the beginning and the end”. Well, does he mean he HAD a beginning?  Or will have an “end”? No he does not mean that! He means, as just indicated, He was the beginner of what began and will be the ender of what ends…he is in charge of what begins and ends because of his sovereignty.  So we see that no matter how the word is used elsewhere, or how often, it’s application does not automatically signify that one HAD a beginning.  Now of course you’d like for it to bear that sense in 3:14, but as the Scholars and Commentators have made clear, it cannot have the “beginning” meaning there because it is ruled out elsewhere in the NT…and the same is true for 21:5-6 and 22:12-13….the words “arche and telos” in these places cannot have the meaning you want so badly at 3:14.  Ok now, let’s look at the so-called “correction” you say the WT made from the Aid book to the Insight Volumes…

 

The mistake comes in your assumption that the “revision” constitutes a different meaning. Does it really, or could it be a mere sharpening of the focus that has no bearing on my argument? Is the WT arguing in the Insight Volumes that the Alpha & Omega as the “beginning” was not the beginner? And are they denying that the terms “beginning and end, first and last, are placed in contextual contrast, so that as the “end” the Alpha & Omega will NOT be the ender or concluder? Of course not, that is obvious. You see, apart from creation the “issue” would be non-existent.  So the “revision” appears to be a mere sharpening of the focus. The instructive thing, though, is your assumption that because they used different wording, this somehow negatively affects my argument. Note please that the WT, in the Insight Volumes, says that the Alpha & Omega, as the “end” or as “last’, is the CONCLUDER and will not have an ending of existence. Do you see the real emphasis? The “arche” in context is placed in contrast  to the “telos”.  So if the Alpha & Omega as the “end” will not have an “ending”, but will in fact be the “ender/concluder”, the contrast to that would be that the same Alpha & Omega, as the “beginning” did not HAVE a beginning, but was in fact the beginner!  Thus we read in Heb. 1:10

 

 “And: ‘You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands.’”

 

Do you realize that the Father is directly addressing the Son here, Wrench?  Imagine that!

 

 The issue is a matter of emphasis, and the emphasis has to do with the Sovereignty of God. That is why Grimm could recognize such an emphasis here in 22:13 without any implication that the Alpha & Omega as the “beginning, had a beginning. Instead he merely recognizes that being the eternal God, the Alpha & Omega was first IN existence and so has the sovereignty and thus as the “beginning” he was the beginner, and as the “end” he will be the ender. The same is true with the eternal Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

The key to recognizing this particular emphasis at 22:13 is to note that the terms “he arche kai to telos” are presented without stipulation or specific reference. Whereas in 3:14 the reference of comparison is stipulated “creation of God”.  So then, since the WT says the reference in 22:13 is more sharply focused on “the issue concerning Godship”, it would necessarily include creation, for there could be no issue about Godship apart from creation. And by the way, note also that 22:13 does not specify its reference as “the issue over Godship” either, right? Other Scholars, Dr. Zodhiates for example, recognize that “arche” here simply means “active beginning or beginner”. Note what he says in “The Complete Word Study Dictionary NT”, page 260, under “arche”

 

“746. Arxn arche; gen. Arches. Beginning. Arche denotes an act. cause, as in Col. 1:18; Rev. 3:14 (cf. Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Christ is called ‘the beginning’ because He is the efficient cause of the creation;   ‘the head’ because He is before all things, and all things were created by Him and for Him (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10). Arche may also mean a pass. beginning of something, as the beginning of a line, road, and so forth  The line or road is conceived in one’s mind, but where he touches the paper to draw the line is the pass. beginning of the line (Matt. 19:8; Mark 1:1; 10:6; 13:8).” 

 

Note how Zodhiates cites the teaching of the N.T. to support his definition, and recall the same from A.T. Robertson in his “Word Pictures in the New Testament”. This is why these scholars have rejected the meaning you contend for at 3:14, because the teaching of Scripture elsewhere should ultimately decide the issue at 3:14 just as it does for the Alpha and Omega (21:5-6;  22:12-13).  You can claim all day long that Dr.Zodhiates was biased, but the question is can you prove it at 3:14?  I’ve noticed that JWs are very good at the former, but not so good at the latter, and so far you’ve proven to be no different.

 

So recognizing the Sovereignty emphasis, Grimm lists “arche” in 22:13 as “first of a series” meaning first in existence and not first INTO existence, and THUS the beginner and concluder as the “beginning and end”. See it?  Though they approach it from different angles (22:13) both Grimm and the WT end up with a somewhat similar focus, Grimm emphasizing the Sovereignty of the Alpha & Omega as the first IN existence, and thus the source of that which begins or concludes, and the WT eventually reaching a similar emphasis by sharpening the reference to “the issue over Godship” (though not specified in the text), an issue that would require the Sovereignty of God and the existence of creation.

 

However, since in 3:14 the reference to “arche” is stipulated “, the Lexicon’s we’ve consulted have rejected the “first in the series” emphasis (including Grimm) because it would contradict the clear teaching of the NT that Christ was not the first creature, but is clearly distinguished from that one in passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17. Thus the eternal Son, being included IN the Alpha & Omega, is the beginning of God’s creation in the same sense as he identifies himself as the beginning in 22:13…first IN existence not into existence, and thus the beginner of what begins and the ender of what ends.

 

In conclusion, concerning Grimm’s listing of 22:13 under the “first in a series” meaning, if you doubt my explanation of Grimm’s meaning (a meaning that emphasizes Sovereignty based on eternality), check out his definition of “telos” and you will see that he consistently cites 22:13 (meaning—last in a series) as applicable to the Alpha & Omega, not to suggest that the A & O will have an ending of existence, but to emphasize his eternal Sovereignty.  Here is his entry for the “telos” of 22:13:

 

“b. the end i.e. the last in a succession or series: (he) arche kai (to) telos, of God, who by his perpetuity survives all things, i.e. eternal, Rev. i.8 Rec,; xxi.6; xxii.13.”

 

Now Wrench, does Grimm, by his “first in a series” listing for 22:13 mean that the Alpha & Omega HAD a beginning? Of course not. But does he deny that the Alpha & Omega as the beginning was the “beginner/cause”?  Of course not. On the other hand, does Grimm by his “last in a succession or series” listing for 22:13 mean that the Alpha & Omega will have an end? Of course not. But does he deny that as the “end” the Alpha & Omega is the “ender”? Of  course not again!

 

Note, Wrench, what the WT says in the Insight Volume right at the same location from which you extracted one of your quotes: page 970

 

“His Position.  Jehovah is the Supreme Sovereign of the universe, the King eternal. (Ps 68:20; Da 4:25, 35; Ac 4:24; 1Ti 1:17) The position of his throne is the ultimate for superiority. (Eze 1:4-28; Da 7:9-14; Re 4:1-8)  He is the Majesty (Heb 1:3; 8:1), The Majestic God,  the Majestic One. (1Sa 4:8; Isa 33:21) He is the source of all life.—Job 33:4; Ps 36:9; Ac 17:2;4, 25.”

 

Can you see the relevance of the “ruler” meaning to the above? I am very sure you can, if you want to ;-)  And so it appears that Barnes sees Christ as INCLUDED in the Alpha & Omega, and thus sees no problem in recognizing him as the “ruler/originator” not the first INTO existence, and Beckwith and other Trinitarians see Christ ALSO as included in the Alpha & Omega, and therefore see no problem understanding Christ as the “beginner/active cause” of God’s creation in 3:14. You see, Wrench, within Trinitarianism because Christ is included in the Alpha & Omega, the two meanings “ruler” and “beginner” can easily accommodate each other. So the “controversy” is not such a big deal since it boils down to a simple matter of primary emphasis, neither of which would exclude the other.

 

How does this square with your own attempt to explain how the Alpha & Omega is the “first in a series” without suggesting that he’s a creature?  Do you restrict the “series” to the UNcreated in order to escape suggesting that the Alpha & Omega is a creature? Grimm didn’t  do that, did he? Nor the WT Society. And if you DO restrict the series in such a manner, how do you resolve that with the WT’s teaching even in the Insight Volumes that the Alpha & Omega as the “end” …“will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship”?  Please explain how you reconcile your explanation with the WT’s, OK? Do they restrict the “end” to the Uncreated?

 

Ok, now that we have dealt with the “controversy” that you seem so surprised over, let me deal with your accusation the I’m being presumptuous in suggesting that Vines would defer listing 3:14 as an example of any of the three possible meanings. You say:

 

“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?”

 

Well, in the first place, Wrench, how would you know whether I have any way of knowing or not? For all you know he might be my Uncle ;-)  But on a more serious note, this is not the first time you’ve attempted to castigate me from a platform of ignorance (I don’t mean ignorance in a mean-spirited or name-calling way). It’s just that you get a little presumptuous yourself while making such accusations, and then it turns out that I did know what I was talking about, and didn’t invent what I know, as you had accused me of doing. From this I don’t mean to suggest that I think I know everything either. I do the very best I can with the information I have, and that’s what I’ve done here.

 

But let’s go down thru your points and I will comment when I think it is appropriate.You reject my suggestion that Vines most likely deferred from citing 3:14 an example of “active cause or beginner” meaning because of the controversy between the “ruler” and “beginner” meanings. It appears that your mind once again took off to the races. Your reply is that you “haven’t noticed him shying away from controvery”…and then you cite a couple places without being specific as to what your point is in them. But hold on. I did not mean that Vines “shys away from controversy” in general, as you seem to be taking my point. What I was referring to as “controversy”  is whether “Ruler or beginner” is the correct primary emphasis at 3:14.

 

I checked Vines again under the listing “ruler” and discovered that although he cites “arche” as one Greek word that does have that meaning, he STILL does not cite 3:14 as an example.  Then I thought for a second,  “he doesn’t cite 3:14 for “beginner/cause” and doesn’t cite it for “ruler”,  I wonder if he cites it for your meaning? I double-checked and found out that he didn’t do that either!  Now that is interesting since these are the only emphases acknowledged for the word. Well, there HAD to be a reason he didn’t cite 3:14 for any of them.  Is it possible that he recognized your meaning as a strong candidate at 3:14 but was just biased? The key is NOT does he consider the word a strong candidate for your meaning, but does he consider it a strong candidate for your meaning IN REV. 3:14. Let’s consider this…

 

If we look under his entry for “first-begotten or firstborn” (prototokos), he cites the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere as Authority for his belief in the eternality of the Son, and he even rejects the partitive emphasis of the genitive in Col. 1:15,  opting for the objective emphasis instead as per Col 1:16.  So, since he is quite clear that he does not believe Christ was the first creature,  we can draw the conclusion with as much certainty as the method of inductive logic will afford us that he would NOT consider your meaning as likely in 3:14. In fact, believing in the eternality of the Son, as he does, he would therefore not even consider your meaning as a strong candidate in Rev. 3:14. In other words, for him, your meaning would not even be considered as possiible in 3:14. That leaves just the other two possible meanings, ruler or beginner (active cause).

 

 Now it stands to reason that Vines himself would regard either of the two remaining  meanings as agreeable with the N.T. teaching elsewhere, since he does acknowledge both as possible meanings for the word .But at Rev. 3:14 he doesn’t even consider your meaning POSSIBLE.  So it seems quite reasonable that he simply had no particular preference at 3:14 between Ruler and beginner/cause as the primary emphasis, hence he deferred listing 3:14 under both.  However, this does not mean to suggest that he always avoids controversy in general, or as a general rule. When he has a preference, as you’ve said, he is quite vocal, but when he doesn’t, he is not. Makes good sense to me. Thus whether “ruler or beginner/cause” is the correct primary emphasis at 3:14 is the “controversy” Vines seems to have no particular preference for. And yet either of the two emphases could accomodate the other anyway. Perhaps that is why he had no particular preference, or at least refrained from citing it under either meaning. And that he would cite another passage that all could rally around as an example of the meaning “active cause or source”,  makes good sense. Yet you STILL try to make “word usage” elsewhere the dominant factor or decider of the issue at 3:14. Wild goose chase, friend, since the scholars we’ve seen uniformly cite the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere as the reason your meaning should be rejected at 3:14.

 

These other words you mention are neither here nor there; the fact is they were not used at 3:14 and so have no force in the discussion, your attempt to lure me offpoint notwithstanding.  Offpoint?  Yes, the issue is NOT word usage elsewhere like you keep assuming,  but the teaching of the New Testament elsewhere, as the scholars have indicated.  I find it very amusing that you keep trying to beat this dead horse to death!

 

Once it is recognized that you’ve got yourself stuck in the wrong arena for determining the proper understanding of Rev. 3:14,  then all of your statements predicated on that platform become correspondingly suspect.  Take this statement you make about Vines,  for example:

 

“Notice under ‘Cause (noun or 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”

 

Does that mean, Wrench, that the Alpha & Omega couldn’t have been the “cause” as the “arche”, and would it mean that the Alpha & Omega had a beginning of existence because He said “I am the beginning (arche)…”? Why not? After all, look what that word means elsewhere, right?    

 

Now look at your argumentation in the above quotation. Do you see where your thinking is? You’re in the wrong arena, Wrench!  But you seem completely sold out and oblivious to it. Once again, it is the teaching of the New Testament elsewhere which has been indicated to be the decider of the issue against your interpretation at 3:14…but you keep plugging away at word/usage elsewhere…LOL!

 

And now for one of your final statements that you conjure up and present while waiting at the airport for your train to land, you say:

 

“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 to find 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.”

 

Consider what you are saying, and I ask “where are you getting this from?” What “lack of evidence”?  Can you not see that you’ve ASSUMED that the proper arena (decider of the issue at 3:14) is word-usage elsewhere? Then, once you make that assumption,  you say to yourself triumphantly “he hasn’t got any evidence”. Note how you ramble on and on about “extra-biblical evidence. Really? Is that what the Commentators have said in reference to Rev. 3:14  when rejecting your view? What does the Alpha & Omega mean when he calls himself “the beginning”? Does it mean he HAD a beginning? Wasn’t the Alpha & Omega in fact the “beginner” and won’t he in fact be the “ender”? You see, I’ve been “offering” this all along, but you seem to be conveniently oblivious to it, the scholars have “offered” this all along too, but you seem to have “tucked this into a deep dark crevise of your mind”…THEN you take a deep breath and say: “You have to admit, Ray, that what you are offering is not much to hold on to.”  Well, what can I say, my friend, except that the train you’ve been looking for will not be landing at the airport soon. Your best bet is to head for the train station J

 

In presenting this “problem” you found in Vine’s,  that he does not cite 3:14 as an example of the “active cause/beginner” meaning,  what I have shown above is that your explanation is not the only one available. So much for your referral to Vines.

 

 

Next is your referral to Strong’s Concordance. You had once again cited the Greek entry for “arche”,  saying that it doesn’t mention “source or origin or cause”, and in response I pointed three things out. First I observed that this is not intended to be an exhaustive Lexicon nor does it intend to compete with the major lexicons that DO cite “active cause/beginner” as the meaning of the word (all the major Koine Lexicons that I’m aware of) in Rev. 3:14, then I observed that Strong’s DOES say that it is used in a wide variety of applications of time, order, and rank…etc, pointing out that this may allow for a meaning such as we see in Col. 1:17 “he is before all things”.  I also directed you to the NWT’s translation of Colossians 2:17,  and pointed out that Strong’s does not mention  “reality” as a meaning of “soma” either, but in a similar way to “arche” it does say that it was used in a  wide variety of applications…etc.  

 

Now from your response it appears that most of this went right over your head. At least your mind seems to have been somewhere else other than my answer. Thus the only thing you acknowledged from my response was that Strong’s is not intended to be an exhaustive Lexicon. You ignored everything else! 

 

Be that as it may, now you say of Strong’s that you “find it significant that such an ‘important’  meaning (to Trinitarians, that is) was left out.  Well then, notice that the meaning “reality” is also “left out” for SOMA in the same publication, and compare that with the NWT’s rendering of Col. 2:17. Yet you wouldn’t question the anointed Translation Committee’s rendering on such grounds, would you?  Of course not, for Strong’s does allow for such a meaning by pointing out that the word is used in a wide variety of ways. The same is the case in Strong’s entry for “arche”.

 

“If, Strong’s was the only one that did it, then you might be able to wiggle out, but when I see the same things 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.”

 

Finally, the true motivation for all your “references” comes to the surface. Look at your words above “I have to think that Grimm was biased with his choice of meanings”. Now we see what you’ve been “looking for”. In the past you’ve been somewhat embarrassed by your inability to verify your claim of bias leveled against Grimm’s lexicon at Rev. 3:14. I did what I don’t think you expected me to do;  I called your bluff, and when I did, you were suddenly bankrupt. All you could find were the bracketed statements which have no introductory clues. You even admit that you’ve “looked high and low” trying to find out what’s in them, no doubt hoping to find something that comes against Grimm’s classification of this as meaning “active/cause/beginner”. 

 

The evolution of this  “bias” claim of yours is very revealing. Do you remember the time line of it all? Remember what we went through with your initial claim in agreement with your friend that Thayer was a Unitarian? But, you argued, he was only a translator, so the Lexicon was actually the work of a Trinitarian.  Remember? This was the gist of your original argument in order to sustain your claim of bias at 3:14. You were trying to suggest that even though Thayer was a Unitarian, he really didn’t do much else than translate, and so “the probability of bias remains in tact”.  At that point in time, I could not challenge your claim that he was a Unitarian, even though I had researched Thayer about year earlier and could not prove conclusively that he was a Unitarian, though the only positive evidence I could find indicated pretty strongly that he was. So, not being about to challenge you and your claim about Thayer, since I had no idea what evidence you may have accumlated about him, and believing him to probably be a Unitarian anyhow, I went with you and your friend.

 

Two weeks later you write me a separate (side letter) in which you reveal that you are having second thoughts about Thayer, and that you were now wondering if he was, after all,  a Unitarian. You asked me what I might have on hand to clear up the matter. So I, wanting to help you, wrote and shared with you my own findings from a year previous. Being obviously confused about the time-line of these things over the previous 3 weeks or so, you then accused me of being dishonest, because I knew that he might not be a Unitarian. However, once we got the time-line in proper sequence, it was obvious that I simply had no way to challenge YOUR claim prior to your revealing to me that you had no proof either, I had not actually claimed him to be a Unitarian. In other words, before you acknowledged him as a Unitarian, I had quite carefully refrained from such a statement, and kept my arguments well in line with the evidence  I had accumulated up till then. Your claim of dishonesty was presaged by what you took as a dogmatic statement from me that Thayer turned out to be quite an embarrassment to you. You wondered how I could say that, since I knew that he might not be a Unitarian. However, I knew nothing of the kind at the time I made that statement to you. What I “knew” was that he probably was a Unitarian and that I didn’t have anything to challenge your statement that he was. Hence, at the time I made that statement, I was correct in what I said…you WERE feeling exactly as I had intimated.

 

 Hence, from all of this came what you took to be a possibility that Thayer might not be a Unitarian and might yet be a Trinitarian. At least you didn’t think I could prove he was Unitarian, and so you felt kind of let off the hook, so to speak, and thought you could still claim that all my references were the sole work of Trinitarians. Then, I noticed what Thayer himself says about Abbot being involved in the project as well, and quickly pointed out to you that Abbot definitely WAS a Unitarian. Hence, back we came to the same problem you THOUGHT you had gotten rid of with Thayer, ha.  Suddenly it was deemed necessary to switch tactics again. Now the contents of the bracketed statements at 3:14 suddenly took on a great significance to you …so you can at least consider it possible that Thayer or Abbot may be countering Grimm in them.  But although you hunted “high and low” you were not able to track them down. And in the meantime you were being challenged to verify your claim of bias in Grimm’s at 3:14., and because you were unable to do so, it would be a mark against your treatise, even in the re-framing of it.

 

Now, with your statement above about the results of your “findings” in the reference books you cited, that you  “have to think that Grimm was biased with his choice of meanings.” It becomes obvious that you’ve been trying to find a way to verify your  claim of "bias” against Grimm. Aha!  Yet, in light of my responses above to your “findings”,  perhaps we should take your “have to find bias” statement  as the desired results of a “fishing expedition”.  What do you think, Wrench?  ;-)

 

Why should we not be surprised by that? You see, your attitude toward my counter discoveries in Kittel’s kind of sets the tone here, doesn’t it?  And yet, to aid yourself in the eye-brow raising bit, you first closed your eyes and made a huge assumption. What was it? Throughout all these referrals of yours, you have conveniently taken for granted that word-usage elsewhere is and should be the “decider” of the issue at 3:14. If only it were true, then you’d have a real case. But since it’s not true, you’ve been huffing and puffing at your own strawman ;-)….

 

Ok, finally let’s move along. After pointing out that “certainly Commentators acknowledge that the word “arche” can and does mean “passive beginning or first in a series”, none that we’ve seen so far, nor any of the lexicographers have indicated that they think it means that at 3:14. And also my point that this is logically difficult for you, in that, how do you take advantage their “credibility” when they acknowledge that your meaning is “linguistically possible”, but reject the same credibility when they adopt a different meaning themselves?  Note your response to this:

 

“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?”

 

Of course I read it, friend, but you fail to see that this answers a different point. I’m not referring to when they may agree with you on one point, and disagree on another, which your “answer” addresses, but rather to ONE SINGLE POINT where you ASSUME they are agreeing with you, and they PROVE that they aren’t. It went right over your head. They aren’t agreeing with you, like you assume, otherwise they’d adopt your meaning at Rev. 3:14. See it? Hence, your reply addresses a different situation, one in which they AGREE with you. Then your argument here would make sense. But the real case is that they DON’T agree with you at 3:14.  See how you’ve gotten things out of whack again?

 

 

What went right over your head, Wrench, is that they are really saying that if it weren’t for the precedence of context and teaching elsewhere in the New Testament, the words taken by themselves could have such a meaning, but when New Testament context is consulted…it brings them to a different conclusion, one that DISAGREES with you at 3:14. They are making it clear what the real “decider” WAS for them, and you’re on your way to the airport to wait for your train to come in. Do you see it? Apparently you haven’t so far, or you’d see the point I’m making about this circumstance being “logically difficult” for you. I hope it’s a little more clear now.

 

After pointing to your claim that all my sources were trinitarians, and saying that this was proven wrong. You take umbrage with my statement, saying:

 

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

 

But wait, have we not seen at the very least that Thayer was probably a Unitarian, and Abbot was definitely one? Is Thayer not listed as a Unitarian by the publisher of the Lexicon?  Did not Thayer take over for Abbot as Bussey Professor at the Harvard Divinity School? And have you proven that Thayer was a Trinitarian…since you made the original charge? I Don’t think so ;-) As a matter of fact, you really didn’t prove that Grimm himself was a Trinitarian, did you? Or the authors of the BAGD? Zodhiates, I can attest to on a personal basis, is definitely a Trinitarian. The others I’ve not seen any verification for, though the Luthern Missouri Synod is mentioned as deeply involved in the Introduction of the BAGD, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. So I don’t know for sure that they weren’t, and I don’t know for sure that they were. Then again, I didn’t make the charge anyway, did I?  Nope, the charge was yours, in an effort to explain why your view of 3:14 had such little support in these reference works. And yes we will cover this in more detail a little further down in this letter.

 

After explaining how we had gotten into a somewhat ridiculous exchange about whether my sources were “biased”, meaning that you were claiming that the truth (as you claimed it to be) had been “corrupted” by their personal convictions (bias was your term). You explain in this letter that you only recently recognized the implications of the word, “corruption”, and that is has been my word. That is true. You then go on to say that you kept equating “corruption” with your term “bias”, and now you explain that “bias can certainly mean something different than corruption. You continue, “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.”

 

The real question, Wrench, is NOT whether bias can mean something different from “corruption”, but whether is DOES mean something different as you presented it in your discussion of my sources. What was your charge? You seem to be saying that their personal convictions, whether conscious or unconscious, were corrupting the truth as you claim it to be, so that the truth is not represented in their entries for the term. So in that case my use of the term “corruption” perfectly fits your charge. In fact my reason for using that term was to nail down the charge in the first place…and not allow a later “explanation” that bias doesn’t have to be conscious or necessarily bad. I knew what you were claiming as an explanation for why they didn’t support your meaning very well. I also knew I was going to hold you to it, and that you weren’t going to like it. So I chose “corruption” to nail ur charge to the wall. There’s no way around it, friend, you were claiming that the real truth was being “corrupted” because of their personal convictions, conscious or otherwise, and such personal convictions were causing a clouding or misrepresentation of the truth (as you saw it) in their works.

 

 

 

After pointing out that the bracketed statements in 3:14 most likely supplement Grimm’s references because we see no evidence otherwise, and Thayer had said that his usual practice when introducing a contrary opinion or disagreement was to include representative discussions from both sides. Nor do we see any other hints, such as “but see…” or “however see…”…which may have suggested a piece of contrary evidence, whether known or unknown to Grimm. In other words, even if it could be shown that one or more of the bracketed statements includes contrary evidence, that would not ipso facto reveal  bias (as you’ve applied the term) on Grimm’s part, for he may not have been aware of such a reference. But in the absence of  tell-tale signs, the bracketed statements do appear to suppliment Grimm’s references. Apparently my assessment about this upsets you, for note how you react…

 

“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.”

 

If I declared outright that they suppliment Grimm’s references, THEN you might say that I’m being presumptuous. But that’s not what I’m doing, Wrench? I’m merely stating the facts without distortion. As long as I acknowledge (and I do) that the bracketed statements COULD show a disagreement or contrary opinion, I’m perfectly free to state my opinion of what is before us.  I think what really upsets you is that fact that what I’m saying DOES appear to be the case, and THAT in addition to the fact that the entry does support my view and not yours. However, there is nothing I’ve said that is not factual. I’m sure, argumentatively speaking, that you’d love for me to declare dogmatically that the bracketed remarks DO supplement Grimm’s references, especially if you could then find one or more of them that disagrees with Grimm. But I’ve not said dogmatically that they DO supplement Grimm, but only that they appear to, and they do.

No dogmatism here, in fact I think I’ve protected myself pretty well.

 

I don’t know why this bothers you so much, but in trying to counter it you appeal to what you think is logical or illogical. Thus you suggest that my thinking is contrary to good logic because it would make Thayer out to be NOT a Unitarian. But you’re the one being illogical here, Wrench. How so?  Because in order for you to think like this, you have to assume in the first place that Thayer being Unitarian would always have contrary evidence to counter Grimm with. However, no matter WHAT position Thayer holds, he still has to count the cost, so to speak, and determine if such contrary evidence will actually get the job done. And that of course assumes that he HAS contrary evidence. Not only that, but Thayer being a real scholar (even if he were a Unitarian),  probably understood the REAL crux of the matter at 3:14 ( Teaching of the N.T. elsewhere, and not word-usage elsewhere as the decider of the issue).  And by the way, did you notice that the bracketed remarks refer to, God forbid, extra-biblical sources? So what good would they do you anyhow, since you’ve already ruled them out of court?

 

But in conclusion, as I’ve repeatedly said, you are welcome to research them and share your discoveries. I’m willing to take the evidence as it comes. But since you’ve made the charges against these references works, it is obvious that the greater burden is on you in this area, because you have to verify your claim of “bias” leveled against these sources as an explanation for why your view has such little support. So far you’ve not been able to verify that claim, and thus it remains as a mark against your treatise. Now the following I found to be not a little amusing. First my statement, followed by your response:

 

“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.”

 

Wrench says: “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.”

 

LOL!  It is amazing how we get ourselves locked into certain thought processes, sometimes.  My laughing is not meant in any kind of a ridiculing sense, it’s just plain funny. So sold-out and engrossed are you within this assumption of yours (that word usage elsewhere is or should be the decider at 3:14, that you even believe Grimm and the other scholars are locked in WITH you, and once you assume this, off you go…making judgments about Grimm and the others as well. Judgments such as “he had to do this, and he had to do that”…etc. One could not ask for a better illustration of tunnel vision in action than this.  It doesn’t seem to occur to you that “extensive researching” and “going lookin” is what Lexicographers do. But when you THEN go on to assume that this was the basis for their decision at 3:14, you’re at the airport waiting for your train to land J

 

And while we are on this particular point, I referred to your asking me if I knew anything about the bracketed remarks in Grimm/Thayers at 3:14, and if I was “holding out” on you, which made me chuckle again. I responded that “No, I wouldn’t do that” and then recalled how earlier I had tried to help you and got accused of being dishonest as a result. You replied by saying that you had apologized, and that you wouldn’t have accused me if you didn’t think that things weren’t “adding up”. Well, obviously I believe that about you, but that’s beside the point.  My point was that when I do try to help you, you can’t seem to restrain the cultish  “boogie man around every corner” attitude, which then causes you to attack my motives, even before you know the facts. In your mind I’m either dishonest, or I invent and make things up. Such an attitude on your part is not exactly conducive to my continuing to want to help you when I can. One could even consider that as being a little “presumptuous” on your part, right?

 

Now this naturally leads into your asking me about Abbot, and your accusations against me on that score as well, that I just invented what I said. But as I’ve shown, I did not invent what I knew about Abbot either. Both Abbot and Thayer were experts in the area of textual variants and disputes. They were both quite adept at… “going looking” for  sources of reference to facilitate the tracing or etymology of words, whether biblical or extra-biblical. You see, Wrench, we know that Abbot had the expertise, and we know that he had the opportunity to write or say something, and we also know that he himself was a Unitarian. So if nothing specific and clear is said in this entry for “arche”, either against the orthodox view or favoring the opposing view, such a circumstance is more of a problem for your side than mine. Bottom line is that you’ve accused Grimm and the other Lexicons of “bias” based on their personal convictions, whether conscious or unconscious, and this has “corrupted” the truth (as you claim it to be) in their works. So, since you made the accusation, you have to verify it. After you accused me of “adding or inventing” something about Abbot, and I replied back, note your reaction:

 

“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!”

 

Your logic escapes me, I must admit. What I can’t understand is how do you know how far along Abbot was when he croaked. Are you assuming he’s sitting at his desk, blind-folded & in a straight jacket? Apparently you have discovered some inside information that reveals something to the effect that “he was about half way through the manuscript or something like that, when he up and died on us”. I can’t speak to something like this, because to me it is nonsensical. This may sound silly, but I’m honestly trying to make some sense out of your point. Perhaps you are trying  (in your own mind) to put Abbot into a straight jacket…so that in your mind he sits there like a mechanical robot, following a rigid procedure of…first this...then that…and don’t jump ahead now, no-no Dr. Abbot, you can only go there if it has to do with such and such…no peeking ahead now, …and from this you calculate that he might be able to work his way about halfway through the variant verses of the New Testament  (without peeking ahead…or at any theological hot spots) when he suddenly died. And then you say to me,  “He would have had no reason to go there yet.”  Well, what reason did he need, Wrench, as a Unitarian? Your mind seems to be on the outskirts of reality about both Abbot and Thayer.

 

Note your words: “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?”

 

 This seems so silly, but again, Thayer does not elaborate, but perhaps he could have emailed Dr.Thayer and said something like: “Hey, Joe, you know I don’t think we should let Grimm get away with this; you know such and such of the 1^st century flat contradicts what he says…and he was directly connected with apostolic influence”…etc.  Now honestly, Wrench, apart from the non-existence of computers and email in those days, since they WERE friends and neighbors, I just don’t think it’s a stretch that Abbot could have informed Thayer of something he just happened to know that would at least cancel out or neutralize Grimm’s position. That is, if he were AWARE of something that could do that. That’s what you seem to have such a hard time with. His fellow scholars make it clear that their decision is based on NT teaching elsewhere and not on word usage elsewhere.  In other words, Abbot and Thayer may have understood something that you don’t. What’s that? They just may have understood that word usage elsewhere, NO MATTER HOW MANY MILLIONS OF EXAMPLES THEY COULD CITE, would not adequately address Grimm’s reason for rejecting the “beginning of existence” meaning in 3:14, and so what COULD they do to undermine Grimm and the others?

 

Actually all I need is the possibility that he COULD have done that to undermine your charge of “bias, because all were trinitarians”. If you wish to sustain YOUR claim (in order to meet your goals and standards in your treatise), it’s up to you to prove that neither Abbot nor Thayer COULD HAVE in any way influenced, added or subtracted anything , or offered contrary remarks to Grimm…in other words, to sustain your previous claim that these reference books were the sole works of Trinitarians (with your use of the term “bias” lurking in the background)…against that backdrop, all our side needs is just the possibility of some oversight or influence from a non-trinitarian, and we have that, at the very least with Abbot, and probably with Thayer as well. But we will soon take another look at Thayer because of some evidence I have noticed only recently.

 

Now, please note your GREAT BIG ASSUMPTION as you write the following:

 

“…Abbot never got the chance to comment on Rev. 3:14 because it is not one of those DISPUTED passages of ‘textual variance’.”

 

…OK, Wrench, look intently at your words “never got the chance”, and let me ask you a question: When Abbot was going through the manuscript of this lexicon, was he breathing, and was his heart beating? If so, then he had “the chance”;-)  But you suggest that THE REASON he “never got the chance” was because 3:14 is not one of those disputed passages of ‘textual variance’. I see, and from this we can safely assume that as a Unitarian he would naturally have no interest whatsoever in checking out certain hot-spots throughout this lexicon that may pertain to the identity of God and Christ. Why, of course we can just take that for granted, right?  In fact, we can go ahead and assume that he wouldn’t even be aware of where they might be, because he was on a different “avenue”, right?

 

  You amaze me, friend. Do you honestly believe that this well know Unitarian had no interest in checking out Rev. 3:14 or other hotspots throughout this lexicon? Do you imagine him saying: “well, let’s see, I’d like to…nope, no I wouldn’t either, I’m only interested in variant verse notation at this point, and nothing else. No siree bob, I don’t care how much knowledge or expertise I have, if I’m not specifically working on THAT aspect, I refuse to look elsewhere. Yep, that would be the most natural thing in the world that we would expect from Dr. Abbot. Come on, Wrench, give me a break! He had EVERY chance to comment on 3:14 if he so desired, he was certainly qualified, and he had immediate access to Dr. Thayer…do you think Thayer would have said: “You know, Ezra, you’re not allowed to comment on this because it’s not one of those “textual variant” passages,  now you just go on back to the job I gave you, and make sure you don’t get yourself off onto any more of these detours like this into stuff that you don’t know anything about”, LOL! With his expertise, would he be unaware of what various sources have said about Rev. 3:14 through the centuries, perhaps something that would counter Grimm (with all of that “overwhelming” evidence, that you say has “all the scriptural precedence in the world”?)  Sorry, Wrench, but I can’t buy the attempt to put Abbot into a straight jacket, because it does not even meet the standards of common sense;-) 

 

You may wonder, “well then, if he had the chance, and if he was a Unitarian, why did he NOT comment or say something against Grimm.”? Well, let’s think , what could he say? To point to word usage elsewhere would be fruitless since his fellow scholars made it clear, as the others who have rejected your interpretation of 3:14, that their decision was  not based on word usage elsewhere, but on the teaching of the NT elsewhere. And, being the scholar he was, he knew who would have the burden of proof in passages like John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-17…and elsewhere in the NT, to maintain the “beginning of existence” meaning in 3:14. So if he could not actually refute Grimm’s references, what could he do? What could he say? Could he say or claim that Grimm’s meaning was impossible, when he knew it was not…with his references?  Do you think Abbot was ignorant of Rev. 21:5-6 or Rev. 22:12-13 where “arche” appears again WITHOUT  meaning that the Alpha & Omega had a “beginning of existence”?

 

No, I’m sorry, Wrench, but neither Thayer nor Abbot was in a straight-jacket, and both had the expertise and knowledge to have challenged Grimm. We know Abbot was not a Trinitarian and that he had immediate access to Thayer, and the evidence continues to mount that Thayer also was not a Trinitarian, as we are about see. Hence, not everyone involved in these references was “biased” against you, or had a proclivity toward favoring the Trinitarian viewpoint. You’ve made the charge, but so far you’ve not been able to verify it, and thus it remains as a mark against your treatise.

 

Next we come to the question of  “arche with the genitive evidence”, pertaining to the scholars throughout the centuries and even the WT Society over the past hundred years or so. To understand this, we must first get ourselves into context.  In my previous letter, after showing that I had NOT “invented” what I knew about Abbot, as you had accused me of, and that he indeed “had the chance” and the expertise to have challenged Grimm, I pointed out that you’ve been completely “sold out” on the “arche with the genitive” examples, and so you can not imagine how they couldn’t have influenced Abbot as they do you. You thought I had gotten the entire reasoning “misplaced” and explained that “Abbot never got the chance to comment on 3:14 because it is not one of those DISPUTED passages of ‘textual variance’.  I believe this is adequately responded to above. Abbot was a famous Unitarian, and that’s all that is needed to undermine the claim that my references were the sole work of Trinitarians. And yet, as we are about to see, Thayer will prove to be the real “fly in the ointment”.

 

 Yet from the very beginning of our correspondence, Wrench, between the two of us, I’m the one who has said that the scholars throughout the centuries have not been ignorant of the examples of “arche” with the genitive, and you seemed to resist the idea whenever I mentioned it.  In addition to that, my point about the Watchtower Society was that I was not aware of them independently using or relying on the “arche with the genitive” grammatical examples to prove their case.  Apparently you’ve suddenly woken up about this, and so I say “welcome aboard”, my friend.

 

But now that you HAVE woken up, you seem to have “matured”, shall we say, on the significance of the “specifics” about the “arche with the genitive” examples.  Whereas in the past I’ve been suggesting that the Scholars through the centuries were not unaware of these examples,  but had rejected the conclusion YOU draw from them in favor of what they considered as MORE decisive at 3:14 (other NT teaching concerning the same referent and subject material), but each time you would “question” whether they dealt with the “specifics” of the Arche followed by a genitive. We shall in a moment see that this is EXACTLY the stance you have taken. But then I suddenly threw a monkey wrench into your line of reasoning. I pointed out that I had never seen the WT Society lay any particular stress on the “arche followed by the genitive” grammatical points to prove their case,  my point being that you could hardly claim “bias” as the reason for it, which you may have been trying to suggest about the scholars. I think the realization of this was a little disconcerting for you, for you knew that the WT had no natural bias against your conclusion.

 

Let me first establish beyond dispute our previous stances on this issue. And as you  review these quotations from our previous letters, please pay close attention to the points I was making, and your reaction to them. And with regard to the WT Society, really pay close attention to the specific point I made about them (and why). Here we go:

 

11-30…Ray to Wrench
“Next you say that I claimed that the scholars weren't ignorant of the passages you referred to, and you ask how I would know for a fact. Well first of all I didn't put quite that way. What I said was that I doubted if you’d claim they were ignorant of them. But it appears that you'd like to entertain that notion. Of course I don't know for sure, but the burden isn't on me here, Wrench. You're the one who accepted that at the beginning of your treatise. I think you'll have a difficult time proving that too. Why? Because at least some of the passages you cited were listed under the various meanings, and still they must not have been compelling enough to move them to agree with your conclusion. I wonder if you realize how hard it is to satisfy the burden of proof? It's not supposed to be easy. It's really tough because it means you can leave no possible alternative standing.”

 

Notice my suggestion that even though the scholars were not ignorant of your “arche with the genitive examples” yet they still were not considered compelling enough to “move” them to agree with your conclusion. Can there be any doubt as to the direction of my thinking at this early point in our discussion?  I’m suggesting already (11-30-99) that they must have had a different set of priorities which they felt were more “decisive” at 3:14. Let’s move on….

 

12-01-99… “Hi Wrench: Continuing with my response to your first reply, I had left off by suggesting a possible reason why the Greek Scholars did not reach the same conclusion as you with regard to Rev 3:14. Thus Robertson mentions a few passages which convinced him otherwise. In response to this, you complain that Robertson's examples "were not in response to the arguments I gave for arche followed by a genitive phrase for that aspect is not even mentioned in his discusson." However, Dr. Robertson is actually offering minimal commentary on the whole Apocalype, and so when he arrives at Rev 3:14, he comments on the whole idiom, pointing out that your conclusion is not the right one, and that the other one is. I am very sure that if he were intending a polemic on the specific subject his explication would have been much more extensive. Yet obviously the verses he mentions in passing are those which he feels settles the issue with regard to the conclusion you reached. So then, in view of the burden you took on at the beginning of your treatise, you must now disprove any possible alternative conclusion. So I would say that you must disprove the conclusion he and others of us who accept the Orthodox view understand from those passages he mentions.”

 

Note here that I once again stress that these scholars were relying on a different set of priorities at 3:14, citing Robertson specifically here to illustrate the point. THEN note how you responded to this.You complained that his examples “were not in response to the arguments I gave for arche followed by a genitive phrase for that aspect is not even mentioned in his discussion.”  Any doubt, Wrench, that you are laying stress on the grammatical “specifics” about Arche with the genitive?  Both of our stances can be seen clearly at this early stage of our correspondence.  Let’s move on…for I’m about to throw a monkey wrench into this mix one week later by observing something about the WT Society.

 

01-06-00

Wrench says: "You say that some of the passages are listed under the various meanings, tell me, however, when they listed some of those passages under the various meanings, did they address the point about 'arche' followed by a genitive phrase. We both know that there are many reasons why one might choose to quote a passage. Did any of the references you checked with actually deal with the problem as I presented it? Do you know of any scholar, to date, from the Trinitarian camp who has addressed the problem as I have presented it and in turn, commented on it's implications? Just because a passage is cited doesn't mean he was considering the aspect of that verse I referred to."....I reply: That's just the point, Wrench, I asked you the same questions...if this evidence is as compelling and obvious as you claim it is, how can YOU explain that no one seems to deal with it? And I have another question too. How about the WT Society? Stop to consider, if anyone had an incentive to deal with such "compelling evidence", it would be them since they claim the same as you, yet have they ever dealt specifically with what you claim in order to persuade and convince??? Where have they pointed to all the examples of "arche" with the genitive...making the same claims as you? Or are you saying that you know more than them...that God by-passed them to reveal these things to you? I think we have to look for a better answer friend. Context is always rule number one when it comes to bible interpretation. Hence then, when we want to understand the meaning of Rev 3:14, other passages directly related to the contextual matter (the relation between the Son and creation at the beginning) will carry much more weight than examples of grammar, especially when most of the examples have little or nothing to do with the contextual matter.”

 

 

 

Notice that in response you AGAIN lay particular stress on the “specifics” about “arche followed by a genitive phrase…as I [you] presented it”…So you are still trying to suggest that the Trinitarians have ignored the grammatical “specifics” about “arche with the genitive”,  but suddenly I decided to throw a monkey wrench into the mix.  I asked you if the WT Society had 

 

 “ever dealt specifically with what you claim in order to persuade and convince??? Where have they pointed to all the examples of ‘arche’ with the genitive…making the same claims as you”?

 

For if the WT Society had not dealt with or laid any particular stress on the specifics about “arche with the genitive”, when they obviously had no natural bias against your conclusion, it would now be “difficult” for you to suggest that “bias” was the reason the Trinitarians had not stressed the same. I merely observed that I had not seen the WT lay any such stress on those “particulars” in arguing for their conclusion. So now you were confronted with a problem. How can you continue believing, cynically, that the reason the Trinitarians avoided dealing with the “specifics” you had been stressing…was because of “bias” on their part, or a proclivity to avoid unpleasant evidence, when now it seemed that even the WT Society had not laid any particular stress on the same grammatical “specifics”…and you could NOT believe the same about them. At this point I think you were forced to recognize an inconsistency in your own cynicism. Yet my original thoughts remained unchanged on the matter…note in the same letter…

 

“ Perhaps they have a different set of priorities that lead them to see a stronger case for other passages that deal contextually and specifically with the relevant subject material, (in this case the relation between the Son and creation at the beginning),  and THIS carries more truck with them than a whole truck load of grammatical examples...the majority of which do not deal with the exact subject material. I don't know for sure, but those are my thoughts off the top of my head.”

 

So there it is. I have traced our stances on this point from the beginning of our correspondence, and we have discovered that my original thoughts remained and became more firmly entrenched as we went along. Whereas your attempt to place stress on certain grammatical  “specifics” eventually resulted in your having to recognize the inconsistency in your own cynicism as to the reason the “specifics” had not been dealt with according to your original complaint. Any attempt to pin “bias” on the other side was wearing rather thin…and you knew it because of the failure of the WT to likewise lay any particular stress on such grammatical “specifics”…hmmm…Now let’s watch what happens in this latest letter from you, as you attempt to let the WT off the hook, yet in doing so you also tacitly VINDICATE my thoughts as I’ve related consistently from the beginning.

 

After you had “assumed” that Grimm was relying on the extra-biblical examples to justify his rejection of your meaning at 3:14, and due to your newly explained claim of “bias” (which in no way, even now, affects my point anyhow), I tried to get you to see how you had been exaggerating the strength of your own evidence, and misplacing the arguments from your opponents (by forgetting the REAL reason they had rejected your meaning at Rev. 3:14, and conveniently assuming that word usage elsewhere was or should be the decider of the issue at 3:14)  I pointed to the fact that the WT hasn’t laid such stress on the strength of the “arche with a genitive” evidence as you had done in the past (both in your treatise and in our previous letters)  and that this should cause you to rub the hair on your chiny-chin-chin, note:

 

“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?”

 

Now, Wrench, notice how you address this last point from me. Will you show where the Society DID lay particular stress on the “specifics” about arche with the genitive that you’d been claiming all along in our correspondence?  Nope, but you instead attempt a side-door maneuver. Suddenly the charm of laying specific stress on the “particulars” begins to wear off…and now all the WT has to do is “concur” with the scholars they cite, or make reference to a passage or two with “arche” in them, in order to let them off the hook J  I’m sorry, Wrench, but this was hilarious. Note your response: I hate to paste it all in here, but it’s the ONLY way to address your attempt to make further points in the midst backing away from the position you had been maintaining from the beginning of our correspondence…here goes:

 

“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:

 

 

 No, Wrench, you’ve missed Barnes’ point, as did the WT Society. According to Barnes, the “test” he lays down has NOT been met (demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, IN FACT, a created being, and the first that God had made…”) And because he does NOT believe that this test has been met, he DISAGREES with the Watchtower Society and does not acknowledge that Rev. 3:14 signifies that Christ was created.  In fact Barnes believes that Christ is eternal and has always existed (Logos).  And your concluding statement that the WT concurred with Barnes’ findings about “arche” merely acknowledges that my thoughts have been correct all along…that these scholars have been aware of these passages and specifics about “arche” with the genitive. Yet the WT itself lays no particular stress on this, do they?  Nope, they do not…and that’s consistent with what I had said in my earlier letters about them. Hence, you’re the one who is “adjusting” his position here, my friend. ;-)  What’s become of your previous attempt to suggest that these scholars didn’t really “deal” with these specifics? Will you answer this question, or will you ignore it?

 

 

*** 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.”

However, Alford himself does NOT agree with this meaning at Rev. 3:14, otherwise he could not be a Trinitarian.  He believes that Christ has always existed, hence he would reject your meaning of 3:14.  Same as above about Barnes,  the test has not been met, according to this scholar. Hence the WT’s use of the word “concedes” should be taken here with a grain of salt. In fact, some might even consider it as another attempt to deceive the unwary reader.

 

 I’ve always thought highly of you, Wrench, and considered you a basically honest individual, and careful…definitely NOT a “loose cannon”.  So when I see something like the above quotation of Alford being cited by you, and presented as above, I’m inclined to think that you must not have gone out and tracked down this source to examine the context from which the quote was extracted.

 

I did, and so I’m sitting here wondering how you might react to what Alford said right before and after the quote. Now, please don’t misunderstand me, the WT does acknowledge him to be a Trinitarian, so I’m not claiming they misrepresented him THAT way.  But the particular way they “framed” the quote is not what I’d consider fair and above board, but carefully chosen by them to either “sing to the choir”, or persuade an unwary reader to become suspicious of their opponents…perhaps assuming them to be “biased” in their decision to reject the WT’s claimed meaning in 3:14.  In other words, they framed it in such a way as to have the desired effect on a certain constituency like you (you do seem to be given over to the cultlike “boogie man around every corner” proclivity toward Trinitarians...extremely cynical).  I recognize this as a common trait of any cult. The leaders work hard to instill within their members an innate and automatic distrust of everyone but the “prophet or cult leaders”.  So with this in mind, let’s just take a look at what Alford said right before the quote, and I mean RIGHT before it:

 

“In Him the whole creation of God is begun and conditioned; He is its source and primary fountain-head”

 

What does this mean but that He was the “beginner” as the beginning?  And why do you suppose the WT did not allow the reader to see the above little statement right before the part they quoted? Surely you can’t think it would have been too difficult to include, right? To have included this little sentence would have INTERFERED with the desired effect they were trying to get from the way they framed the quote. Now let’s look at what comes right after the quote, and I mean RIGHT after it too:

 

“But every consideration of the requirements of the context, and of the Person of Christ as set forth to us in this book, is against any such view.”

 

Now, looking at the above sentence, what did Alford “concede”? Look again at the frame words “nevertheless concedes”, and tell me what did Alford “concede”? Certainly not what the WT wants the reader to think he conceded (that “arche” could agree with them in 3:14). Actually and honestly Alford didn’t concede anything, but merely argued that the decider of the issue in 3:14 should be “the requirements of context, and of the Person of Christ as set forth to us in this book”.  Please consider, friend, why do YOU suppose the WT Society didn’t allow the reader to see the above sentence that came right after the part they quoted?  If you go and look this reference up, here’s the way it will actually appear in the book itself…only this time including both the preceding and following sentences:

 

“In Him the whole creation of God is begun and conditioned: He is its source and primary fountain-head. The mere word arche would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Gen. xlix. 3; Deut. xxi.17;  Prov. Viii.22.  And so the Arians here take it,  and some who have followed them: e.g. Castalio, “chef d’oeuvre:” “omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum:” and so Ewald and Zullig. But every consideration of the requirements of the context, and of the Person of Christ as set forth to us in this book, is against any such view.”

 

Now let me ask you, Wrench, did you go out and find this particular reference before you presented it to me? And yet, apart from the preceding and following sentences, there is STILL a “clue” within the quoted portion that might have tipped you off that this was NOT meant by Alford as a concession. Do you see it? Look intently at Alford’s  “the mere word arche would admit…”.  What, “mere word”? “mere word”? What does this suggest, my friend?  It’s your conscience…and your personal integrity, right? Now to the next point…

 

  Also, Christ had predicted himself that “I will build my church, which is his body”(Matt. 16)…so as the builder of it, he was NOT it’s first member, except in the sense of being its architect or builder.  On the other hand, he could be recognized figuratively as the “the stone the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner”. What we have seen from the mind of Jehovah himself is that He is not “bogged down” with numerical order in applying the term “firstborn”, and neither should WE be. To ignore the demonstrated mind of God on the matter, and accept the WT’s claims is to follow after the doctrines of men.

 

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. 

Ray says: Responded to more fully below.

 

Wench: 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.

 

However, we’ve seen how John not only used the word “arche”, but also what he was inspired to make clear about the Logos and the Alpha & Omega with respect to that word. For example, in John 1:1a, the term “arche” is used, but here both the Logos and ton theon are placed in the exact same relationship to it, suggesting no more that the Logos came INTO existence than that ton theon came into existence. And then, 2 verses later,  the Logos is unambiguously distinguished from the first thing that ever came into existence (1:3)…then the word appears AGAIN in Rev. 21:6 and 22:13, without meaning to suggest that the Alpha and Omega had a beginning or will have an end. So if you really want to be “on your toes”, please deal with this as well, OK?

*** 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.

 

No particular stress is being placed here on the grammatical argument of  “arche with the genitive case”…of  course they KNOW the word “arche”, LOL….And according to the scholars, even the ones they cite above, the word cannot be interpreted to have YOUR meaning at Revelation 3:14.  Isn’t that really a no brainer, Wrench, since each of the above rejected your meaning at 3:14?  A lot of this is just plain common sense, friend. You know what I could do, if winning the argument was the ONLY thing I cared about? It would be so simple for me. I would just adopt the “ruler” meaning too, then you’d be busted as far as the word usage elsewhere tangent is concerned. I then could show the ruler meaning in the LXX, just like you, and elsewhere in the NT, too…and on top of that, the same NT teaching that rules OUT your meaning would still rule out your meaning at 3:14. See how easy I could make it for me, if winning the argument was all that mattered? Hmmm…

 

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.”

 

No, I’m afraid not, friend. The claim was NOT that the WT would not “concur”, you’ve simply constructed a strawman here…by “adjusting” the so-called claim YOUR OWN SELF in order to make room for this attempt to let them off the hook. But notice that this attempt also tacitly lets the Trinitarian scholars off the hook as well, by your no longer claiming that they didn’t deal with the “specifics” as you had been accusing them all along. Now comes the plaintive with his hat in his hand, admitting that they DID deal with the specifics about “arche with the genitive” after all, and the WT “concurred” with that  ;-)

 

But in your concluding remarks about the above WT quotes, notice how you “relax” the requirements a little to claim that the WT is presenting the same arguments that you had earlier suggested that the Trinitarian scholars had not dealt specifically with.

 

“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.”

 

But hold the phone. The WT Society is not laying any particular stress on the grammar.. i.e… genitive case.  We don’t see them presenting us with a list of examples of such, while claiming any kind of a grammatical consistency as you had done, do we? And yet here was your attitude toward the Trinitarian scholars about the same:

 

 Wrench says: "You say that some of the passages are listed under the various meanings, tell me, however, when they listed some of those passages under the various meanings, did they address the point about 'arche' followed by a genitive phrase. We both know that there are many reasons why one might choose to quote a passage. Did any of the references you checked with actually deal with the problem as I presented it? Do you know of any scholar, to date, from the Trinitarian camp who has addressed the problem as I have presented it and in turn, commented on it's implications? Just because a passage is cited doesn't mean he was considering the aspect of that verse I referred to."...

 

Here follows a very clear setting forth of our thoughts about whether the scholars thru the centuries had been ignorant of your grammatical “specifics” in regard to “arche with the genitive case” as you admittedly had gotten from Stafford and Furuli. You will note that my thoughts were that the scholars were NOT ignorant of these grammatical “specifics” throughout the centuries, and the point I made about the WT is that holding them to the same standard had caused me to conclude that they would have to be placed in the same category as you had been assuming was true of the Trinitarian scholars…ignorant of the grammatical “specifics”….note especially,  Wrench, how in reply you still suggested that everyone (scholars and WT alike) were equally ignorant of these grammatical specifics.

 

“So here you seem to be suggesting that somehow this overwhelming evidence was just "missed" by everyone throughout all these centuries, not only by the mass of pious Christians, but also by the best minds the Church had...everybody missed it. Now stop to think, this is not just some little verse that perhaps a nuance was missed, oh no, this is a whole big BUNCH of verses. I'm trying my best to understand how you can inside your own mind brush this off. Maybe you really do believe that its just because they are all biased against you, and such a thought has placated you, but you don't want to appear to be one of them guys who's always looking for black helicopters. But you know, at first when I thought about it, I hadn't considered whether the WT Society had ever set this evidence forth...and when I thought it over, I realized that I'm pretty familiar with WT literature clear back even before the turn of the last century, and I don't recall anything that even remotely resembles such an argument. So although you might be able to convince yourself that "everyone is biased against me" and live with that explanation. It's just impossible to offer the same explanation for the WT's not setting it forth. Even you don't believe that they are biased against you, do you? More in a moment about this.

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

 

THIS has been your thinking all along, Wrench, but my thoughts were the opposite, and I emphasized that being a consistent taskmaster would result in the conclusion that the WT Society was equally “ignorant” of the same “grammatical specifics”. A conclusion that you accepted above, when you were still attempting to maintain that the Trinitarian scholars had not dealt with the “specifics” as YOU had gleaned from Stafford.

 

So, where does the WT in the above quotes deal with the problem as you presented it?  And just how DID you present the problem?  Did you provide a list? Did you lay a particular stress on the grammatical case “genitive” and did you stress consistency of such, since this is what you were expecting from the Trinitarian Scholars to meet the test, shouldn’t we expect the same from the WT Society as well? That they would point to a verse or two with the word “arche” is no big deal, and exactly what we might expect, but that’s a far cry from “the way you presented the problem”, isn’t it?  Nor is it the way I countered about the WT in our earlier letters.

 

 If you really want to know what the issue has always been about, just go back and trace our stances from the beginning of our correspondence, as I did above.  You will see that it’s always been your suggestion that the scholars didn’t really deal with the “specifics” about “arche with the genitive phrase”…over and over you took this stance, did you not? And then, when I countered your suggestion about these “specifics”, I was very clear that I had not seen the WT independently lay any particular stress on the same “specifics” themselves, and I even asked you point blank if the WT Society had….

 

“ever dealt specifically with what you claim in order to persuade and convince??? Where have they pointed to all the examples of ‘arche’ with the genitive…making the same claims as you”?

 

What has become of your previous attempt to suggest that the Trinitarian scholars didn’t really deal with the ‘specifics’ of  “arche followed by a genitive phrase? You see, my friend, the only thing the WT’s quotations above show is that my thinking has been correct all along that these scholars had not been ignorant of these “specifics”, but had merely rejected the conclusion you drew from them. The WT quotes vindicate MY thinking, but…since the WT still hasn’t been shown to lay any particular stress on the specifics of  “arche with the genitive phrase” THEMSELVES, making the same claims as you had done, my counter charge seems now to be vindicated as well. Please don’t ignore my question twice presented above, and yet now a third time: “What has become of your previous attempt to suggest that the Trinitarian scholars didn’t really deal with the specifics of  ‘arche with the genitive phrase’”?  The answer is as plain as a pikestaff, Wrench…Your thinking has “matured”, suddenly, to escape having to admit that you had been exaggerating about the overwhelming force of this evidence, you found it convenient to let the Trinitarian scholars off the hook in order to let the WT off too ;-) 

 

Actually, though, when you get right down to it, you probably found it “necessary” to do so, since it is becoming increasingly obvious that the scholars throughout the centuries have been aware of the “specifics about arche with the genitive”, and thus increasingly difficult for you to suggest otherwise…hence, then, you might as well cut your losses and let the WT off the hook too.  As I said, friend, welcome aboard, it’s good to watch you “mature” as we go along J

 

Next comes my statement that if you have a mind to get on Abbot’s case and call him a wimp, remember to aply the same critcism to the WT, for the’ve done no different. How did you respond to this?  Note…

 

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.

 

Well, yes, please do “see above”,  and notice that my thoughts all along have been borne out that the scholars through the centuries have not been ignorant of the grammatical “specifics” you had been emphasizing, but merely rejected the conclusion you reached based on them. Your quotes from the WT Society actually vindicated my thoughts on this, and your decision to let the WT off the hook, reflects a certain “maturing” on your part as to the necessity and importance of the grammatical “specifics”. But, as far as the “wimp” statement goes…I think if we get your entire statement before us, you will see that my point was still applicable…in context. So here goes:

“I mean, what kind of Unitarians are we dealing with here? Do you really expect me to believe that Abbot would have had nothing to say about Grimm’s handling of “arche” at Rev. 3:14. Do you think he would have just went belly up for that rendering with all the “controversy” surrounding that? Abbot never had the chance before his death to read the final proofs, right? He didn’t contribute a single commentary or remark, right? Just variant verse –notations? What exactly is that and what bearing would that have on Abbot agreeing or disagreeing with Grimm’s handling of “arche” at Rev. 3:14 and other things for that matter. It seems completely irrelevant to doctrine. And if Thayer was a Unitarian, he sure is starting to sound a little wimpy when it comes to standing up for what he believed”

 

 Note your use of the plural “Unitarinans”…and then you present the “logic” that you don’t think Abbot had gotten to 3:14,  because to believe he did would  be suggestive of him going “belly up” with all the controversy surrounding it.  Then your further aver that if Thayer was a Unitarian, he was starting to sound a little “wimpy”…OK, Wrench, given your statement about Thayer sounding wimpy, how far would that be from going “belly up” that you had just applied hypothetically to Abbot? Not far at all, I’d say.  Yet since you start with the PLURAL “Unitarians”, I don’t think it’s that far off to at least include Abbot in the spirit of the “wimp” statement as well.

 

 

 

But what about this most recent point I mentioned about Thayer?  That the WT Society actually quotes Thayer on page 28 of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?”.  I pointed out that this pretty well settles the issue for us as to whether Thayer was a Trinitarian. How did you reply?

 

“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.”

 

However, the “other trinitarians” you heard of were not addressing themselves to the specific statement the Watchtower quotes from Thayer, were they?  But even so, I must admit that your reply surprised me, though in retrospect I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at all by that.  You see, Wrench, the WT Society is presenting this quotation against the Trinity.

 

Although I do appreciate your agreeing with our side that the WT Society is to be regarded as untrustworthy in this Brochure, and definitely NOT a safe guide,  the reason we should not be surprised that you would come out against them is that you have a clear history of disagreeing with the WT Organization in our correspondence. This was so noticeable at first as to cause me to wonder if you were even an ACTIVE witness, for I had not seen a loyal witness so nonchalantly disagree with the Society in all my dealings with JWs for many years.  Remember me saying this?

 

Yes, you were at first upset that I would bring the WT into our discussion, and then we discovered that you had departed from their official position on the order of creation, and had adopted Stafford’s new idea. You even said at first that this new idea was your “preferred” view.  Yet when I asked you to verify from the Society if they indeed intended to repudiate their previous order as reflected in both the Aid and Insight volumes, you balked at this and suddenly decided to get back in step with “God’s Organization”.

 

And now, here we go again. In an effort to hang on by the eyelids to your original claim that all my sources were Trinitarians, once again you decide to come out against  “God’s Authority on such matters”, and resist admitting with the WT Society that Thayer was not a Trinitarian. 

 

Be that as it may, let’s consider the specific quotation from Thayer as highlighted by the Wt Society against the Trinity.  Again, although your agreement with us that the WT is not a safe guide here is welcome, yet even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while ;-)  Here’s the quote: SYBT, page 28…

 

“Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, simply stated: ‘The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.’”

 

 

Now the reason we should not take Thayer’s description as an attempt to protect against modalism can be seen in his choice of  words that goes beyond the text of John 1:1, in that he employs the term “Being” in a way as to restrict its application to a single person, and seals the restriction by applying the personal intensive pronoun to the one from whom the Logos is distinguished.  Whereas Trinitarians remain true to the actual wording in the text itself, and therefore are not hampered from understanding that the Logos issues, not as a division of, but as an eternal extension of the Divine Being (the same of course being true of the Holy Spirit). Thayer’s choice of words denies that, whereas the text itself does not.

 

So we leave this point, with the Watchtower’s agreeing with us that Thayer was not a Trinitarian, and your attempt to “save” your argument that all my sources were Trinitarians once again leads you to come out against the Organization you say you regard as “God’s Authority on such matters”….leads you to acknowledge that the WT Society is not to be regarded as a safe guide here.  What can I say, Wrench, except that,  not only do we have Thayer’s refusal to sign the orthodox creed at Andover, which forced his resignation because, as he said, it was important for him to be known as an honest man,  but even the WT’s agreement that he was not a Trinitarian and wrote against such a doctrine.  Tough choice for you, isn’t it?

 

The next few points in succession of your letter have already been dealt with earlier in this letter. So I will browse on down until I come to a point I don’t think I’ve covered so far. (Obviously if I miss something, friend, just kindly point it out to me…I have no motive to skip over anything, yet I’m human).

 

As I browse, I notice that in short response to my reminders that you HADN’T  (up till this current letter) denied that the WT was just as ignorant of the grammatical “specifics” as you had been suggesting all the Trinitarian scholars had been through the centuries, you now respond: “Ah, but I believe they have. See above.”…yes, please DO see ALL the above, including my going back and tracing our stances on this point throughout our correspondence. You seem to have a bad habit, Wrench, of whenever “maturing”  on something and adjusting your thinking, you forget where you used to live. This “see above” of yours merely reflects your MATURED recent conclusion…not to what my point was addressing itself to. I just wanted to make that point clear. So when you see me say “welcome aboard”, you’ll know what I mean.

 

Here’s another:  In response to yet another reminder of your previous stance, you reply like this: “Well, I think it is as clear as a ‘bell’ that they are aware and concur with the conclusions drawn from ‘SUCH BIBLICAL STATEMENTS”……again, Wrench, I say to you “welcome aboard, my friend”… Now you’ve simply relaxed the requirements of dealing directly with the grammatical “specifics” for everyone (Trinitarian scholars thru the centuries AND the WT Society) in order to recognize it as “clear as a bell”, but it sure hasn’t been so clear for you since the beginning of our correspondence, has it?  Let’s not lose sight of the time-line here ;-)

 

I had pointed to your “discovery” ha, that Grimm had listed  “arche”in 22:13 as “first in a series”, and that your attempt to accommodate that classification led you into some “fancy” interpretation to avoid suggesting that God the Father was a creature.

You respond by asking what fancy step Grimm was getting ready to do. Well, I have already gone through this earlier, but it might be good to say here that neither Grimm NOR the WT Society have attempted to restrict the “series” to the uncreate as (as you’ve tried to do). Instead both had placed the “first and last” ideas of Alpha & Omega as indicative of God’s Sovereignty…thus because he was first IN existence (not into) he was the beginner as the “arche’, and the ender/concluder as the “telos”. You see, Wrench, these terms are placed in contextual contrast…so that if, as the “end” the Alpha & Omega is the ender, then as the beginning he was also the beginner. The Alpha & Omega determines the beginning and ending of everything. Nothing fancy about that…right?

 

In response to my pointing out that Barnes elsewhere affirms that Christ was the originator of all creation, but doesn’t see that emphasis at 3:14, you reply:

 

“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”

 

I reply:  Please forgive me but I think that’s what I said. If you’re setting forth what you see at a given place (emphasis), obviously then you flat out DISAGREE with other possibilities. Right? Your rhetoric at this point seems nonsensical, about like saying “it’s not only not a car, it’s not an automobile!”  It’s kind of amusing, really, I’m thinking of this guy down south who is stooped down changing a tire, and this other guy rambles up and says, “tire go flat?” First guy looks at him funny, and says “naw, I was just standing here and the other three filled up with air all of a sudden, just like that, can’t figure it out! “Here’s your sign”, LOL! But on a more serious note, did you notice that Barnes not only didn’t see YOUR meaning as the emphasis (3:14), he flat out disagrees with it too? Lord help me!

 

Next, as I browse, although I’ve already dealt with the following in detail earlier in this letter, from what you are saying here, I cannot leave this complaint of yours alone. I’m going to take time to cut and paste…it’s the only way…here goes:

 

Ray says: 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.

Wrench replies: 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?

Of course I see that, Wrench, and I wonder what makes you think I don’t? Please try for a moment to quit skimming the surface.  The association of the terms “first and last” as related to “Alpha & Omega” must conform to the Sovereignty of God. Hence, because of the Alpha & Omega’s eternality, he was first in existence. This speaks to His Sovereignty and makes him, as the beginning, the beginner. Then because of that same Sovereignty, God had in the course of creative history conferred immortality on certain creatures, and so because of that act of Sovereign will there will never be a sequential “end”…so that only the Alpha & Omega will be in existence again…and so He could never be “last” in that literal sense. But the terms can be understood figuratively and with hypothetical extension, meaning that, barring such an act of Sovereign will as the conferring of immortality, this Alpha & Omega would be last in such a sequence. In others words, the Sovereignty of God does not diminish because it is applied in the course of creative history. Please go read Grimm’s entry for “telos” and you will see what I mean. Hence, the Alpha & Omega doesn’t need to have HAD a beginning to be the beginner, nor does he have to HAVE an end to be the ender (or as the WT puts it “bring to a successful conclusion). And by the way, your explanation for the sequence needs to be resolved with the WT explanation “brings to a successful conclusion”…you see, Wrench, as the “end” He will be the ender/concluder.  The terms “arche” and “telos” are placed in converse here…meaning that if as the “end” he will be the ender, then as the “beginning” he was the “beginner”.  Browsing on, I notice this from you:

 

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.

 

However, Wrench, we differ on how he may have corrected it. It is quite possible that he would have revised he earlier denial that “arche” can have the originator emphasis as primary. And on your point that the WT corrected their “error”, I’ve already pointed out earlier that the WT may have merely sharpened the focus, for the explanation in the Insight Volumes does not deny that the Alpha & Omega is the source of all creation, nor do they argue that the Alpha and Omega as the “end” will not be the concluder.

 

 

As we come to the point where I had used the “team of Amish horses” metaphor to describe a thinking attitude I honestly felt one would need to adopt to convince himself that the Orthodox view is “unprecedented” at 3:14, you thought I was “exaggerating”. And you also thought I had mis-applied your exaggeration comment.  You explain that your exaggeration comment was directed to my “Amish horses” metaphor.  Please understand, Wrench, that I knew that.  Therefore I must conclude that you failed to catch the significance I intended with that metaphor.  Let me try again to get this point across to you. You made a choice in your letter previous to my “amish horses” metaphor to describe our view of the meaning of “arche” in 3:14 as “unprecedented”, and you said point blank that this could not be disputed. So I disputed it.  How?  By trying to get you to SEE that you were over in left field reasoning on these things, and ASSUMING that you had everybody else with you there in that arena…once you made that big assumption, then you made your comparisons…and presto, the others that you’d assumed were with you were bankrupt for evidence. I was trying to get you to see that in making that big assumption you were acting like the horses with blinders…the blinders are meant to narrow their field of vision. This was your attitude, Wrench. This was your mental proclivity. But in taking ON that mental attitude, you were acting just like those side blinded horses in my illustration.

 

Where SHOULD you have been?  You SHOULD have been in right field with all the Trinitarians that you were disputing. Why? Because your treatise is on the line, and if you are not willing to meet your opponents on their ground, and prove them wrong about what should decide the issue, then you’ve not met the goals and standards you set for yourself  in the re-framing of your treatise.  Do you see my point now? Always, remember, that between you and me, your treatise is on the line, and whatever choices you make along the way in our discussion will have some affect on whether you’ve met the standards you set for yourself. This is the ball, my friend, and we should never lose sight of it. I can assure you that I won’t. 

 

Now earlier in this letter I applied ANOTHER metaphor (or illustration) to try to get you see that you’re in the wrong arena of consideration by taking for granted that word usage elsewhere is the proper decider of the issue at 3:14. Remember me saying how you had earlier acknowledged that your opponents cite the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere as the decider of the issue at 3:14? And yet I pointed out, even though you had acknowledged this initially, you must have stuffed this admission into a deep dark crevice of your mind, never to find its way to the surface again. It’s important that you see what I’m saying.

 

One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out WHY you’d like to restrict everyone to the word usage elsewhere arena as you assume that that is the proper decider of the issue at 3:14.  You’re convinced that you have the better case in that arena. Problem is, for you, that your opponents keep making it crystal clear that they are NOT rejecting your view of 3:14 based on word usage elsewhere, but on the teaching of the NT elsewhere.  Do you understand this now, Wrench? OK, being confronted with this reality, what do you do? How do you think?  Well, nothing could be easier, you just haul off and assume that the word usage elsewhere arena is the proper arena, then you make your comparisons of examples, then you huff and puff and huff and puff and huff and puff again, until you blow the strawman down.

 

But while you’re off onto this wild goose chase of yours, the scholars have been influenced by the teaching of the context elsewhere in the New Testament, context that relates to the exact same referents and subject material.  This is the arena Beckwith was in, and Barnes, and Robertson, and Zhodiates, and little old me (no intent to suggest that I can in any way be compared with these eminent bible scholars.).  I just happen to be the guy you’re dealing with here. As I said, earlier in this letter I used another illustration to try to get you to SEE how you’ve gotten yourself off onto this word usage tangent. I pointed out that the train you’ve been waiting on won’t be landing at the airport any time soon. Your best bet is to head for the train station.

 

Now let’s apply this to your “unprecedented” comment.  Yes, it appears to you that our meaning is unprecedented if you shut out all other possible deciders at 3:14, and take yours for granted. In other words, if you go to the airport and assume that that’s where you need to be when your train comes in, get it?  Now, am I exaggerating about that? Nope, I’m sure not, Wrench. You really are doing that in your mind. You really are forgetting what your opponents have cited as the reason they reject your meaning at 3:14.  Every time you assert “unprecedented”…every time you use adjectives such as “overwhelming evidence”…or “all the scriptural precedence in the world”…or “evidence galore”…etc. Every time you do that, Wrench, you’re at the airport looking for your train to come in.

 

When you took the hissy fit about “extra-biblical examples”, you were at the airport waiting on your train…why?  Because you were ASSUMING  that your opponents had based their decision to reject your view on that “extra-biblical” evidence, when they themselves have repeatedly stated that the decider for them was the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere.  See it, friend? The only thing about you is that… I just don’t think you’re doing it dishonestly.  You just don’t see how illogical you’re being. You’re off to the races, 90 miles an hour down a dead-end street, looking neither to the left nor to the right. You see, my “Amish horse” illustration was not an exaggeration…in fact I know it hit the nail smack dab on the head.

 

Sooner or later, Wrench, being the honest and sincere person you are, you’re going to HAVE to come to grips with this point.  Make it a specific project for you to go into. Choose to address this issue of what ought to be the proper arena at 3:14.  But whatever you do, please don’t ignore what your opponents have SAID was the real decider for them, OK?  Don’t assume that it’s word usage when you know they didn’t. Don’t give them false credit for something you KNOW they aren’t arguing. Don’t take for granted that because they cite the extra-biblical reference that that’s been their decider at 3:14. What might trump over that, friend?  You bet, context elsewhere in the N.T. can even trump word usage elsewhere as the dominant decider.  But if you keep running off onto this tangent…at some point your personal integrity is going to suffer, and I don’t believe you want that.

 

 

 

Let’s examine this statement from you:

 

“But I was convinced that none of the things you mentioned NECESSITATED us to read Rev. 3:14 any differently, right, Ray?”

 

Now stand back for a moment and think. Look carefully at your capitalized word. What  are you saying, Wrench?  Let me try to give you a clue. What you’re saying in the above quote is: “But I was convinced that YOU had the burden of proof to show me why it’s necessary for me to see Rev. 3:14 differently, right Ray?”…

 

Do you see this?  Hold on a minute, budrow.  Who’s treatise is on the line in our discussion?  You bet, yours is. If you wish to sustain your treatise or the conclusion you set forth in it, YOU have to take the bull by the horns…and YOU have to demonstrate (not assume) that you’re way of looking at it is the right way…the burden is yours to satisfy, otherwise you fail to meet the goals and standards you had set for yourself in your treatise.  You’re really no different than any other JW that I run into all the time, Wrench.  They love to assume and reason AS IF their opponents had the burden at any given time. For they find it much easier to sit there like a big indian and “examine” the other side’s arguments to see if they “get the job done”..hah!  It’s not as much fun if they have to prove the point.  But I know right where the ball is, and I know that it’s your treatise that is hanging in the balance here. J

 

Seems that your attitude is  “I can just assume I’m right, and it’s up to Ray to show me why it’s necessary for me to see it differently than I already do.”  Do you see how utterly illogical that is, friend? If I were the author of the treatise, THEN you’d have a point in assuming such a stance (based on your introductory remarks in the treatise), but since you’re the author of the treatise, guess what?  I do hope that you will come to see that you have got it bassed-ackwards, and you do that  quite a lot ;-)

 

 “…All those things that you mention do not mean that we should read “beginning of the creation” any differently then it naturally reads…”

 

We don’t READ it differently (with the exception of the NIV’s “ruler”), we understand it differently (than you do). I can accept the reading “beginning” here, but I understand it to MEAN beginning in the sense of beginner, like an archetect can be the beginning of a building.  You seem to have these terms totally confused in your mind, Wrench. Remember me mentioning that I thought you were confusing “rendering” with “meaning”….

 

Ok, now, finally we come to the discussion of  John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-17.  Let’s try to get one thing cleared up at the outset. I had pointed out that passages like these were considered by the scholars as much more determinative and decisive in the matter. (of Rev. 3:14)…because unlike 3:14, they contain direct predicate statements which have to do with the exact same referents and subject material. And so, when I used the “Amish horses” illustration to describe your wrong priorities,  I also made the point that when I said that your priorities were wrong,  I was simply agreeing with the reliable scholarship through the centuries who have likewise regarded these passages as the REAL and PROPER decider of the issue at 3:14. Let’s see how you replied to this:

 

“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”

 

However, look at your procedure of thinking here…your expression “because of the fact that”. Do you see this?  The first passage you mention makes no predicate statement at all. The second passage comes from the Old Testament and cannot therefore be the decider of the meaning of John 1. (more about this soon).  And the third passage says plainly in context that Christ was before all things. Hence, there is no way these three passages can be decisive or indicate that the logos HAD a beginning at John 1. Nor can they decide whose position conforms more to the natural meaning of the context. But, since YOUR view cannot be drawn from the text itself (John 1) and the other side’s can, the orthodox position has a much better claim to adhering to the natural meaning of the words here. This is really a problem for you, Wrench.  Why? Because of how you re-framed your treatise… “I will demonstrate…” Very well then, we shall see…J

 

As we go along here, please notice how you keep trying to “switch” the burden to the other side…by reasoning AF IF the other side has it. It may become necessary therefore to remind you every so often of your own re-framing of your treatise and what you SAID you were going to do.

 

You say “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, ….”  Sorry, Wrench, but it was indeed a list of created things, for nothing that came into existence can be excluded from the category of created things. The emphasis YOU mention comes later in the context (verses 10-12) where the term “kosmos” appears for “world”. But earlier in verse 3 we find a more general and generic term “panta” (all things).  You see, friend, you’ve already acknowledged that since you have abandoned your previous position on the order of creation (Stafford’s current new idea…on pages 315-317 JWD), now you admit that the “all things” of Col. 1:16 is the same as  “panta” of  John 1:3.  So, since Paul doesn’t restrict the “all things” to just the world (kosmos) but to things in heaven and on earth,  “panta” of John 1:3 cannot be so restricted either.

 

Now, you say the context is not giving a comprehensive list of creation. But I wonder what you mean by that?  In verses 1 thru 3 we have a sequence placed before us, starting with John’s relating EQUALLY the logos and ton theon to the beginning. Do you understand what I’m saying here? Do you know what I mean by relating them equally to the beginning? If not, please make sure I know that you don’t understand my point, OK? I’m asking you to observe for yourself that the one is related to the “arche” no differently than the other. Please really look at this in your bible, Wrench, OK?

 

From John 1:1,  there’s no more there to suggest a coming into existence of the logos, than there is to suggest a coming into existence of ton theon.  Instead one verb “een” is applied to them both at the same time. After this comes the coming into existence of “panta” through the Logos, and so we see the distinction maintained between ho logos and “panta”.   Now, Wrench, observe please.  Of the three (ton theon, ho logos, & panta), only one of these three are said to come into existence. Can you tell which of the three it is? Sure you can, but you probably don’t want to. However, I’m not concerned with what you want, or don’t want….just what is.

 

Wrench says: “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”.

 

Well, you called it by its right name, for you anyway. It is indeed a problem. In this context it is NOT “the all things”, but “all things”.  You say “all things”came through the Son AFTER the time period known as “in the beginning” which started with the creation of the Son”.  Really?  Surely, then, you can put your finger on this momentous event that you call “the creation of the Son” in this context, right? J…. I’m sitting here thinking, “there’s no way Wrench can be reading this without having a big smile on his face right now”. Am I right?  Obviously we both know, and anyone who is reading this knows, that this momentous event you call “the creation of the Son” is a figment…in YOUR mind no doubt, but not in this context.  Ton theon is here…ho logos is here…panta is here, but this “creation of the Son” is glaringly absent.  Hence, Wrench, you’re flying by the seat your pants at this point…And you wrote the treatise!

 

Well, it is bad enough that such a momentous event as “the creation of the Son” would surely be… is mysteriously absent from this context, but verse 3 really throws a monkey wrench into your scheme. The problem compounds for you in this verse by telling us plainly that “panta” came into existence through the logos.  Now… not only is such a momentous event absent from the description, but it plainly says that all things came into existence through the logos.  And then it compounds it AGAIN by saying that nothing that ever came into existence did so without doing do through the Logos. This presents me with a problem about you. What? Well, I’m convinced, Wrench, that you are a sincere and basically honest person, a decent guy…and I want to believe that you have a conscience before Jehovah. Can you see my problem? I just can’t reconcile how you can maintain a pure conscience before God and participate in the armchair gymnastics it takes to keep your head above water at this point. I wonder “what does he tell himself?  How does he console himself?”

 

Can you not think this through…if ever there were a context where we have a right to expect such a momentous event as “the creation of the Son” to be straight-forwardly included, it would be here, since the beginning is here….ton theon is here…ho logos is here…and the coming INTO existence of “panta” is here. Yet you’re bidding us believe  it’s no big deal that the momentous event called  “ the creation of the Son” is just left out…while all these other details are included. Wow! I guess I have to remind you again of what you SAID you would do when you reframed your treatise…you said “I intend to demonstrate…” Well,  it’s probably no secret,  but I intend to hold you to it too J

 

Quite evidently you must compartmentalize my comparison of our views for the purpose of determining which best agrees with the natural wording of the text. The reason I say you must compartmentalize this is because only one of our views can be reached strictly from the information in this text…the Orthodox view.  There’s just no way you can undermine or diminish this fact. You have no choice but to assume the very premise of your view (the coming into existence of the logos)…or bring something from outside into the text (legitimate or not). And because YOU have to do that, and the Orthodox view does not, the Orthodox view has a better claim of agreeing with the natural meaning of the words here.  Remember your treatise, Wrench?  Remember what you said you would do when you reframed it?  Here are your own words “I INTEND TO DEMONSTRATE” Then obviously we will have more to say about this later.

 

As I went into our discussion pertaining to John 1:1-3, I digressed and recalled the order of events we both had gone through in our correspondence up till that time. I wanted to remind you of how everything had come down to where we were.

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

I guess what bothers me most is that you seem to be not on good old terra firma with your doctrinal consistency. Good grief that sounds arrogant, and I can only trust that you know me well enough by now to know that I don’t mean it that way. I’m just being honest in my assessment, and I get the impression of a very dedicated and sincere man, who truly loves God and his fellowman. Yet from your explanation above, for example, your acknowledgement that the article in the Knowledge book “is a bit vague”. I can’t help but wonder, was it Greg’s argumentation that convinced you to accept the new idea as your “preferred view”…in SPITE of the vagueness of the Knowledge book article?

 

You must have known when you purchased Greg’s book that it was  not sanctioned by the Society, right?  Why then would you allow yourself to become convinced to choose a new idea based on a vague article in the Knowledge book..and stray from the well established and precedented (at least by the WT) order of creation? That bewilders me. Can you see why? You say you accepted Greg’s new idea as your “preferred view”, which implies that you must have made some kind of a comparison in order to reach that point. Then you explain that to satisfy my complaints you were willing to turn back from your “preferred view” to the WT’s view that you call adequate and precedented. Do you see from this why I get such an unstable impression of you? You say you didn’t feel such complications, and you don’t know what I’m talking about with regard to the rank & file Witnesses being dissatisfied.

 

Well, earlier you had acknowledged that Greg Stafford himself is part of the Rank & File, did you not?  He writes a book and calls it “Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended”,  published it,  and you picked it up and read from it.  You then became convinced to accept a new view based on a vague article in the Knowledge book,  brought to your attention by an unsanctioned publication. Why did he write it? Why do rank & file witnesses obtain and read it? And why are some supposedly loyal witnesses persuaded to accept a new view from it, if there is no dissatisfaction in the ranks? You see, your answers are belied by the actions just described. In other words, they don’t jive.

 

Ray continued: 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,

 

Wrench replied: 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.

 

Of course I’m trying to reason this out as logically as I can, and why does this seemingly bother you so much?  Do you realize, Wrench, that you do the same thing all the time? And if I replied as you have done above, perhaps it’s forgivable to wonder if you’d accuse me of skirting the issue. Here’s a simple example of the same sort of logical reasoning from you…earlier in this letter of yours (5/13):

 

“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.”

 

Now just look at yourself in the above quote, my friend. What if I had responded by asking you if you were “psychic”? Or said… “your psychic powers are truly amazing? Give me a break, Wrench, I’m merely trying to reason with you. Instead of being so put off or “upset”, why not just reason it out with me. Greg didn’t write his book because he had nothing better to do. Seems reasonable that he must have had a purpose in mind, as he even relates in his introduction. Your terse assertion that you’re not “Greg’s guardian” reminds me of Cain’s answer to Jehovah “I do not know. Am I my brother’s guardian?” (Gen. 4:9).  Of course I’m not meaning to suggest that you “slew” Greg, LOL! My wife has noticed Adam’s response to Jehovah, after he had hidden himself for being naked, and God questioned him “did you eat from the forbidden tree”? Adam responded “The woman thou gavest me…”..ha J   Let’s move on…

 

“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.”

 

Well, yes there is a way to find out once and for all. Now I’m quite familiar with the pressures involved in such a thing. In a religion with a hierarchical structure such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, one must pick and choose his words very carefully so as not to offend the “prophet” or the “slave”. Certain attitudes and questions are frowned upon in such groups. And so, depending on the situation, anyone who aspires to advancement in “God’s Organization” must not give the slightest impression of having doubts, for fear that someone might become “suspicious”.  Now I have an Elder friend who works at a place I used to unload (Semi driver), and I remember that he wrote to the Society at least twice about a problem that we had encountered, and we were finally able to get the matter cleared up. So I’d say that if you REALLY wanted to, you could do the same, and I cannot imagine why you wouldn’t want to clear this up. After all, Greg seems to be speaking for all Witnesses on page 316 of his book:

 

 “Whatever the case, the Witnesses’ present understanding of the ‘beginning’ of John 1:1 can be gathered from…”

 

And you’ve now departed from that “present understanding”. See what I’m driving at? For you, it should be a matter of primary importance. On the other hand, I said I could not imagine why you wouldn’t want to clear this up, but upon reflection, it may be that you just don’t want to “rock the boat” too hard.  In other words,  making a federal case out it may put the Society on the spot with Gregg’s book, you know,  and other rank & file Witnesses reading it and adopting his arguments, even when he departs from certain solid teachings taught by the Society for many years. Rock the boat too hard, and it may capsize. Thus,  perhaps you are afraid of starting a fire you can’t put out.

 

Ok, as I went into our consideration of John 1:1-3, since you had said in the reframing of your treatise that you would “demonstrate that your view comports better to the natural meaning”,  I started with the following paragraph:

 

Ray said: 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.

Wrench replied: 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.

However, your reply fails to address my point in its context. If you recall, in the reframing of your treatise you had said that you would demonstrate that your view comports better to the natural meaning.  So, in that context, and since you had said that there was nothing unnatural about your view, I decided to compare our views to see which of them comports best with the natural meaning of the words in the text itself. Of course a text does not stand alone for interpretation,  but to answer the question as to which of our competing views comports best with the natural meaning, unless we can bring in an UNDISPUTED text,  we have no choice but to make our decision based only on the words in this context.  Do you understand my point? Your attempt to bring in outside texts which remain under dispute, is nothing more than an lame atttempt to escape your begging of the question (assuming of the conclusion) by begging the question again.  Or maybe it’s better said like this: Your attempt to bring in outside texts which remain under dispute is nothing more than an attempt to beg the question in order to prove that you’re not begging the question…LOL!  That, my friend, is illogical

 

Ray said: 

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.

 

Wrench replies: “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.”

 

No, I have not forgotten that at all, you have failed to understand that to answer the question as to which view comports better with a natural understanding of the context, it is illogical to bring in outside texts which are still under dispute in order to supply your own premise. Since the Orthodox view doesn’t need to do that, but can reach its conclusion strictly from the information in the text itself, it has a vastly superior claim to comporting with the natural meaning of the context.

 

Ray said:  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!

 

Wrench replies: 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

 

But such a claim would be bogus.  The context opens with both “ton theon” and “ho logos” being placed in equal relationship (as per the prepositional phrase “pros ton theon”) to the expression “in the beginning”.  The verb “een” is the imperfect of eimi, which suggests continuous or customary existence. Funny thing, Witnesses would not dispute such a description of ton theon’s existence. Yet they fail to see that John was inspired to relate BOTH ho logos and ton theon in the exact same way to the beginning. There is as much evidence in this context to point up a coming into existence of the Logos as there is to point up a coming into existence of ton theon….none…zilch!

 

 

Ray said: 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.

 

Wrench replies:  I obviosly do not agree, Ray, for all the reasons above.

 

You’re allowed to. The question is then, who has presented the better case and the stronger evidence?

 

Ray said: 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.

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

 

Again, I’m sorry you seem so upset whenever I try to reason on these things. We just went thru this a littler earlier in this letter. You say I have no way of knowing anything that Greg was thinking. Well, that’s quite an indictment to level against Greg. After all, I do have his book, which he wrote in order to reveal his thinking to me.

 

Ray said: 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.

 

 

Wrench replies:  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."

 

If you think from the above that Robertson is saying that “een” in John 1:1 is not durative or continuous, you have definitely misread this Grammar.  Robertson is not meaning to suggest that “een” in John 1:1 is not durative.  Two textual clues are on hand that clearly reveal this. First is his application of “always”…So, if he were applying this to John 1:1 we would have to conclude that the sense (verbal aspect) of John 1:1 is variable, depending on when one reads it. For example, to say that John 1:1 is not always durative, may mean that it’s durative if one reads it at 3:00am, but if one reads it at 3:00pm it’s aorist.  The second textual clue, like the first, is “sometimes”…So, if it applies to John 1:1, we may deduce that sometimes it’s durative and sometimes it’s aorist,  a reductio ad adsurdum.

 

What is meant is that although the verb is durative/continuous at John 1:1, we must not assume that the verb is always durative everywhere, for there are some exceptions, and sometimes it is more aorist aspect-wise.  (from one use to another).

 

That the imperfect “een” in John 1:1 is durative or continuous is indisputable. Why? Because it is made equally applicable to ton theon, and the only way ton theon’s existence can be described is as continuous. But, since it is likewise applied here to ho logos, the same aspect obtains.

 

The same misreading is true of your second point from page 883.  The “change” occurs from one place to another, not at the same place (at different times).

 

And your third point from Robertson’s Grammar (882) has to do with the ambiguous roots of some verbs, whereas both the imperfect and aorist had the same root thus making the ‘FORM’ ambiguous, thereby making it difficult to distinguish.  This is not applicable to “een” in John 1:1…this FORM (ending) is always imperfect, though Robertson says that elsewhere from John 1:1…in some places, no matter the imperfect FORM of this verb, yet the aspect seems more aorist.

 

Here is Dr. Robertson in his “Word Pictures” on page 3, with regard to the imperfect “een” at John 1:1…

 

“Was (een). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi, to be… which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos.  See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).

 

The key is to see the two verbs in contrast…eimi/continuous  “In the beginning” (for both ton theon and ho logos)…but  “ho logos sarx egeneto”  When, like Abraham, Jesus sprang into human life or was born.  All these…egeneto, genesthai, and gegonen, are forms of the same verb “ginomai”….meaning “to become”.  John uses the aorist infinitive form “genesthai” in 8:58 in reference to Abraham’s springing into existence. Prior to this, Jesus argues that “I am” with the eimi/continuous. Notice that Robertson points to the same distinction between “was (een imperfect of eimi) in the beginning (1:1), and  “egeneto…the Logos became flesh” (14, sudden..aorist)…see the two kinds of existence? One kind of existence is continuous like ton theon’s…the other kind is the “springing INTO” kind, like Abraham’s, as also occurred when Jesus was born a human. The aorist indicative egeneto also appears in John 1:3 as applicable NOT to the logos, but to panta (all things).

 

Wrench says:  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.

 

Very simple, Wrench. Your treatise happens to be on the line. This passage has been offered as an obstacle to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14 (one of your major players), and so to meet the goals and standards you set for yourself in the re-framing of your treatise, you must take the bull by the horns and show that this passage is NOT an obstacle to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14.  Hence our discussion. You claim that your interpretation of John 1:1-3 is NOT unnatural…and so we had to compare our views to answer the question as to which view comports best with a natural understanding of this context. This comparison has shown that the orthodox view, since it’s conclusion can be reached strictly from the information in this context, unlike your view, is the preferred and superior view, thus it remains as an obstacle to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14.

 

 

Ray wrote: 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”.

 

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

 

Ray replies; Well, I didn’t want to get into the technical stuff here, but please note that when I used the expression “equates ‘logos with theos’, that I did not use the article with “theos”. So this should answer your question for now.  My use of the terms “equative and copulative” are grammatical terms to describe the function of a verb in which both the subject noun and the predicate noun are applied to the same referent. In predicate nominative constructions we meet with two types of propositions, subset or convertible. We will probably go into this in greater detail later.

 

 

Ray said:  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.

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

However, your position requires you to bring in disputed passages from outside in order to supply the premise for your whole line of  reasoning in John 1.  And as I’ve said, because the Orthodox conclusion can be reached strictly from the information in this text itself, it has a better claim to comporting with the natural meaning of the context.  The very fact that your view requires you to bring the premise in from outside disputed passages should be enough to raise the eyebrows of suspicion. Why? Simply because this context (John 1) is comprehensive enough to have included such a momentous event as “the creation of the Son”, if such there was. Everything else is in its proper place at the opening of this prologue. And in response to your last point, can you find in John 1 where “egeneto” was first applied to the logos? In verse 3 or 14?  Please answer.

 

 

Ray said: 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.

Wrench replies: 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.

 

I think you’ve missed ship’s movement again here. Please note that the KIND of existence experienced by both the logos and ton theon is the kind that is continuous and did not have a beginning. But the KIND of existence referred to in verse 3 is the kind that comes INTO existence and thus had a beginning.  Two different verbs and two different verbal aspects. The very first time “egeneto” is applied to the Logos is in verse 14 and not verse 3. This was not accidental, Wrench.

 

 

Ray said: 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.

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

 

 

 

No friend, there is as much evidence here to find a beginning to ton theon’s existence as there is to find a beginning to ho logos’ existence.  They are related to each other (pros ton theon...face to face), and yet relate the same way to the beginning. The same single verb “een” has a dual and a simultaneous application here. Yet a third time, when is the verb “egeneto” first applied to the Logos in this chapter, in verse 3 or 14?  Please make sure you deal specifically with this, OK Wrench?

 

 

Ray said: 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.

Wrench replies: 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?”

 

Well, hopefully as a result of this round, some of these things will begin to crystalize in your thinking. It’s hard to go into this kind of a discussion without creating an “image” of yourself to the reader. I’m glad that the two of us have come to know each other better, so that at least we have an on-going experience to help us more accurately judge each other’s actions and motives.

 

You say that my “objections” appear to you to be misdirected because you have never tried to establish from John 1:1 alone that the Son came into existence. Well, I think the reason you feel my “objections” are misdirected is simply because you have failed to keep in mind that you wrote a treatise, and so you are responsible for what you wrote, even in the re-framing of it. And my “objections” are directed logically and ultimately toward what you present in your treatise. Hence they are not misdirected but misunderstood.

 

You say you don’t think you’re qualified to argue much of this, but I think you are underestimating yourself, or maybe you are playing the “expectation” scenario. Some might even call it “sandbagging”;-)  Just kidding, LOL!  But seriously, in my mind, based on what I’ve seen, you’re probably better prepared than most JWs , and better than that, you have a really decent attitude, which is something I’ve always noticed and admired about you.

 

To be honest, I’ve not even taken the time to open Rolf’s book, not because I’m not interested, but because I had come to hear about it at a later time than Greg’s, and because I’m just swamped with so many things going on at the same time. I have read some of his posts in “B Greek” and he seems like a very courteous and knowledgeable individual. In fact I ‘ve not even been able to read completely through Greg’s book, but from what I’ve seen so far he has no light to offer us, although it’s interesting to see how he approaches different areas of argumentation.  I will say this much about Greg’s book, he seems more civil in the book than in other forums where I’ve seen him, and this makes it easier to follow his line of reasoning. Sometimes I get the impression that he might not even be a bad guy J  So, yes, I’ll try to find the time to look through Rolf’s book, thanks, Wrench.

 

I really appreciated your point about word meaning and context, and how they compliment each other. It reminded me of something I copied down several years ago and included in a letter I wrote to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is relevant to your comments and humorous as well. Here goes: “The following was clipped out of the Readers Digest, August 1970, page 134:

 

“   We’ve got a two-letter word we use constantly that may have more meanings than any other. The word is ‘up’.  It is easy to understand ‘up’ meaning toward the sky or toward the top of a list. But when we waken, why do we wake up?  At a meeting, why does a topic come up, why do participants speak up,  and why are officers up for election? And why is it up to the secretary to write up a report?

     Often the little word isn’t needed, but we use it anyway. We brighten up a room, light up a cigar, polish up the silver, lock up the house, and fix up the old car. At other times, it has special meanings. People stir up trouble, line up for tickets, work  up an appetite, think up excuses, get tied up in traffic. To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed up is special. It may be confusing, but a drain must be opened up because it is stopped up. We open up a store in the morning and close it up at night. We seem to be mixed up  about up.

     To be up on the proper use of up look up the word in your dictionary. In one desk-size dictionary up takes up a half a page, and listed definitions add up to about 40. If you are up to it, you might try building up a list of the many ways in which up is used. It will take up a lot of your time, but if you don’t give up, you may wind up with a thousand.”

 

 

As mentioned, the above may be a little humorous, but also instructive. And although this sample is about as bad as it gets, all languages have the same problem, and Greek is no exception.  Thus there is no short-cut around the context. It remains rule number one when it comes to interpretation.” I thought you might get a kick out of it, Wrench, so I included it here.

 

 

Ray said: 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”

 

Wrench replies: 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.

I agree that God created everything, but we disagree whether “God” includes the logos. The Genesis passage indicates that it does “let US MAKE…in OUR IMAGE…”, then we read in Heb. 3 that God is the maker of all things. You see, we had a plural maker, friend.

 

 

Ray said:  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?

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

Ray replies:  In saying that the same referents and subject material are paralleled at John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17,  and that the “context dependent” all things are the same in all three places, including both occurrences in 8:6, you have spoken well. Indeed, for ordinary people, this would seem to be the natural meaning suggested by the context. Also, it would seem quite arbitrary to say that the “all things”, occurring in rapid succession as they do, would mean one thing the first time, but something else the second time. So at this point your personal integrity is asserting itself quite admirably, and you naturally conclude that “all things” means the same both times in 8:6. Therefore, as a loyal JW, since you do not believe the Son is included in the “all things” the second time (nor the other two places),  you then logically (from a JW perspective) conclude that the “all things” the first time (being the same) does not refer to all creation and does not include the Son.

 

 Herein lies the difficulty for the conclusion you reached, a snag, if you will, and it is quite instructive. Both the WT Society (‘84’Ref. Bible, 1 Cor.8:6, pp1378) and Greg Stafford (JWD 322) make a direct and specific association of God the Father (Romans 11:36, from their perspective) and the single expression “the one God the Father” in 1 Cor. 8:6 as being parallel with each other. In fact, the Reference Bible even singles out the expression “one God the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6) and crosses it to Romans 11:36 and not the other two places. Then the same Reference Bible takes the second expression about the one Lord, Jesus Christ, and crosses THAT with the other two places (John 1:3 and Col. 1:16… but not Romans). Hence, they see the all things of Romans 11:36 as corresponding to the first occurrence of all things in 1^st Cor. 8:6…as a reference to all creation INCLUSIVE of the Son…since they believe the Father is the source of all things in Romans 11:36.

 

 So you see, Wrench, your basic honesty led you to see these as having the same meaning both times, as well as the connection with the other places. But being true to the JW premise requires you to drop the ball at this point, and see the “all things” the first time as referring to all creation inclusive of the Son, but not the second time…since you believe it DOESN’T include the Son. Thus the same arbitrariness that you naturally tried to avoid in your answer, will now have to be embraced in order to hang on by the eyelids to the JW conclusion.

 

 

Ray said: 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.”

Ray replies: 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?

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

 

That is exactly how we look at it, Wrench, as supportive evidence. You see, we are constantly besieged by the Trinity’s detractors…they loudly claim that the Trinity is of the Devil…of pagan origin…doesn’t “fit” the Scripture…confusing…and on and on goes the diatribe. So that if one didn’t know any better,  he might think us Trinitarians would not even have a remote chance of defending our view in the Bible, yet when we really go to the bible, we find that we can’t even get out of the first chapter of Genesis without being confronted with a plural “Maker”…identified as God.  And suddenly, now, it’s the detractors who have to start looking around scripture for examples to escape what the Bible plainly says. With all this moaning and groaning from the detractors, one would have thought the exact opposite. So when we point to something like the above, and we notice how easily the Trinity agrees with these prepositions, we are actually showing that all that moaning and groaning from the detractors is nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric and stage antics. And with your last statement, “out of” is designated to the Father, I would say that the Scripture teaches that all creation is out of and through  Jehovah. And just who IS Jehovah? Does Jehovah include the Son?

 

Well, we have just seen above where even you acknowledge that the “all things” in 1^st Cor. 8:6  means the same both times, and that they parallel John 1:3 and Col. 1:16.  So, since in John 1:3 and in Col. 1:16 we have a parallel…we see Jesus as the intermediate agency in both of these places,  and both times in 1^st Cor. 8:6 (by your own admission!), and according to the WT concerning the first occurrence of all things in 1^st Cor 8:6, this goes likewise to Romans 11:36…so in this case we have your agreement. Though I have a hunch that you may want to “revise” your assessment, LOL!   Just remember that your natural impression agrees with us that the “all things” means the same both times in 1^st Cor. 8:6,  and thus you yourself have provided the link between the other two (Jn. 1:3, Col. 1:16) and Romans 11:36… thru the WT’s cross-reference in 1 Cor. 8:6 ( under “y” in the center column).  Observe that the WT split the cross references in 1^st 8:6, applying the first “all things” to Rom. 11:36, and the second “all things” to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 (under “b” in the center column)…quite an arbitrary procedure, wouldn’t you agree?

 

Being the honest and sincere person that you are, Wrench, this could be the one tip you need to help you see where the truth really is, and who’s manipulating the Scriptures to suit themselves.

 

So look above and see for yourself who’s manipulating things in the Scriptures to suit themselves…consider how you naturally recognized how arbitrary it is for the two occurrences of ‘all things’, occurring in rapid succession in 8:6 as they do, to be assumed to have two different meanings…to be cross-referenced in two different directions… hmmm.  The clues are all around you, friend, and so the question is, what should you do?  You see, understood naturally, this really does comport well with our view. And when we see examples like this, we see just how empty is the rhetoric of the whining detractors.

 

 

Ray said:  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.

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

Yes, what is proven is that the detractors’ rhetoric is more show than go. The plurality of the Godhead acquits itself quite well with the language of Scripture. And where did you get the idea that I was suggesting “lone-rangerism”?  Believers today have the Holy Spirit to help them, as Jesus said we would, if we will but accept and not grieve Him. Also the Bible teaches that there is only one Mediator between God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ. And by the way, I don’t necessarily disagree with the BAGD’s point, but with the restricted identity of Jehovah (Kyrios) as only the Father in Romans 11:34-36…no proof was tendered by them or you.  Hence, the BAGD’s point is neither here nor there, for why should such a restricted identity be assumed…especially by Jehovah’s Witnesses after their taking the singular “Slave” (Mt. 24:45) as referring to a plurality of persons in reality.

 

Ray said:  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”.

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

And I would think that your personal integrity would cause you to rethink the situation, as to whether all is well with your view.  For example please consider how even you were naturally led to see the obvious arbitrariness in saying that the two occurrences of “all things” in 8:6, occurring in rapid succession as they do, must mean something different each time. Now that you’ve seen how the WT splits the cross-reference in 1^st Cor. 8:6, applying the first occurrence of “all things” to Romans 11:36, and applying the second occurrence of the same expression to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16. Also I’m glad to know that you don’t see a problem with what I presented (as far the Greek goes) in John 1:1-3, though I wonder then about your questions from Robertson’s Grammar.  But once again you miss the point here. You have inadvertently taken your eye off the ball when you say that you are not using John 1:1-3 to demonstrate that the Son was created. How so? Because you are overlooking that you wrote a treatise, and in that treatise you failed to deal with these passages as pointed to by the opposition.  So if you want to sustain the conclusion you reach in the treatise, and thus meet the goals and standards you set for yourself,  you must take the bull by the horns with these passages and show why the natural understanding of them does not present an obstacle to your view of 3:14.

 

To ASSERT that you don’t see these passages as an obstacle is one thing, to demonstrate that they aren’t is another thing still. It’s the latter that is your responsibility. Remember what you said in the re-framing of your treatise: “I will demonstrate…”.  O.K., friend, please remember that what you do with these passages will have a direct bearing on our decision as to whether you have met the goals and standards you set for yourself. Your treatise was put forth without having adequately considered the points presented by the opposition. And that’s the shortcoming that you are faced with in our correspondence.

 

Ray said: 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?

 

Wrench replies: 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?

 

Both terms are used to refer to the same thing here, Wrench. The attempt to separate them on such basis is an adroit maneuver, but it fails to carry conviction. We learn from Heb. 1:10 that the heavens and the earth were the works of the Son’s hands,  the Father here directly addressing the Son as “kyrie” (vocative)…When I said that the only thing the Father created was the Son, I meant directly (according to JWs), which I’m pretty sure you know.

 

 Besides Christ’s intermediate role in creation, He also plays an intermediate role in God’s program of salvation.  Yet even though Jehovah claims to be the only Savior,  Jesus is our Savior (Titus interchangeably calls both Father and Son…Savior, several times).  Now of course the WT explains that Jehovah saves through Jesus (just like creation). Does this mean that Jesus is not our Savior? No, but judging from the way you approach His intermediate role in creation, one might think so. Do we owe our Salvation only to the Father…because Jesus was the intermediate agent? No, We find Jesus being pictured in his intermediate role as the “Lamb”, and yet even though he has stepped into this intermediate role, we still owe our salvation to him too (Rev. 7:10). By the same token, we owe our creation to the Son as well.

 

You see, Wrench, the same logic that you use in denying the Trinity forces you to the conclusion that you have two Saviors…distinct from each other. You call them Jehovah and Jesus. But you cannot identify them as the one Savior (as Jehovah carefully makes clear in several Isaiah passages), for that would be admitting that the one Jehovah is a plurality of Persons inclusive of the Son. So you are shut up to admitting that you have two different distinct Saviors when Jehovah says he’s the only one.

 

Isaiah 43:10….. “I ---even I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior”….Yet Jesus is our savior, right?  Do we owe our salvation to anyone but Jehovah? (Rev 7:10…look this up)

 

Isaiah 44:24….  “This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?” 

 

How could Jehovah describe himself as being “by myself” if, as JWs admit, the Son was actually participating with him? He might, by a stretch, allow others of the heavenly creatures to be standing by…and still depict himself a being alone since they weren’t participating in his works…but that answer cuts no figure with the Son’s presence…for even JWs admit that he was not only present,  but an active participant. How can we stretch the meaning of Jehovah’s words that far…to believe that he could describe himself as “by myself” and alone…when the Son was not only on the scene but actually participating in the work! Wouldn’t that be a lie, Wrench? If not, why not? Yet Jehovah never lies.

 

Isaiah 45:21-22. “ …[Who] has reported it from that very time? Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me?  22.  ‘Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else”

 

No one else? No one else, friend.  Then if Jesus is our Savior, wouldn’t he be no one else but Jehovah?  And you’ve assumed that only the Father is Jehovah?

 

In John 5:22-23,  Jesus reveals that all judgment has been committed to the Son “so that” (hina with a subj…purpose clause) all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He then says that the failure to do so means that you aren’t honoring the Father either. Do you know what the word for “honor” means? It actually means to place a value in something or someone. Hence, we should honor/value the Son JUST AS we honor/value the Father. So let me ask you, can you look me in the eye and say that you are willing to value the Son “just as” you value the Father?  The WT has often appealed to Dr. E. Goodspeed (famous Bible Translator) for support, but do you know how he translated John 5:23?  He translated it “just as much as”. What do you think it means? If we owe our salvation to him as the intermediate agency (Rev. 7:10), don’t you think we owe our CREATION to him as well?

 

Now, I would say that if as the intermediate agency of Salvation, we owe our Salvation also to him (Rev. 7:10), He participated in the actual work at the beginning (Heb.1:10 cf Is. 44:24)…even though Jehovah declares in no uncertain terms that he was alone, and even rhetorically challenges the reader with the question, “who was with me, expecting a negative reply.  How is this to be accounted for? The only way I can make any sense out of it is to understand that the Jehovah being “by myself” INCLUDES the Son who was with the Father as an actual participant in the works. Otherwise I don’t see how we can escape recognizing Jehovah to be a liar in Is. 44:24. Since Jehovah never lies, God is a plurality of Persons including the Son.

 

The intermediate agency is our Savior when only Jehovah is our Savior, and likewise the intermediate agency is our Creator when only Jehovah is our Creator. You see, ultimately the same intermediate agency is both Jehovah God and our Savior. And we owe our salvation to the intermediate agency too (Rev. 7:10), but we owe our creation to the same intermediate agency (Gen. 1:26-27…Heb. 3:4) as well. I sure hope you will take time to deal with these points, OK? I know you’ve heard these before and have stored in your  memory certain logical rejoinders…But , how is it that we owe our salvation to the intermediate agency (Rev. 7:10) when Jehovah is the only Savior? You do believe that Jehovah is the only Savior, don’t you? Could Jehovah be the only God in the same way He’s the only Savior…inclusive of the Son?  It’s a thought, isn’t it? It’s not only a thought, my friend, I have found it to be the reality of the Bible.

 

  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”.

 

Wrench, you’ve completely lost me on this. Please elaborate further on what you say here. Also, please reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with what you say here. “Who was with me?” Please explain how Jehovah was “alone”… “by myself”…if the Son was not only on the scene, but was an actual PARTICIPANT… as you say “Him and his Son made ‘all things’.  Is this what you call “special pleading”? I don’t really know, for I had always thought of special pleading as an argument with an appeal to pity…When the Father directly addresses the Son and says these things at the beginning were the works of the Son’s hands, is He telling the truth (Heb. 1:10).  In your view, WERE they the works of the Son’s hands? If so, then please explain how this comports with Isaiah 44:24 since Jehovah never lies.

 

Ray said: 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.

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

I’m not surprised that you don’t agree. So? What I’m trying to do in our correspondence is to help you see some things I know you haven’t seen before. I’ve already shown how you  “assume the conclusion” which is your very premise in John 1:1-3. Why is it assumed? Because it’s not stated in the text, and you’ve attempted to bring in disputed passages with the assumption that your view of them is correct. The whole procedure is illogical, friend. It’s like begging the question to “prove” that you didn’t beg the question. I can’t help it if you are just plain stubborn and unwilling to acknowledge that of our two views, only the Orthodox view at John 1:1-3 can be reached strictly from the information in the text itself, and therefore has a better claim to the natural meaning. Such an attitude on your part can only come from a mind that is closed…or knows it has to be at this point. That’s exactly what a cultist always does when confronted with a point he can’t answer…. He stiffens up and draws a line in the sand. And yet I think there is real hope in your case. You do seem to be conscientious (especially if you think you have some counter-play)…and so my hope is that you will at least be willing to really look at what has to be done…just to keep the natural reading of the Bible from destroying outright the teaching you’ve accepted from the WTBTS.

 

 

Ray said: 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?

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

And as I’ve pointed out earlier in this letter, your failure to keep in the foreground your opposition’s reason for rejecting your view in 3:14,  and your plain denial of its force here, is a mark against the goals and standards you set for yourself in the re-framing of your treatise. You had thought it over and said: “I will demonstrate”, yet your attitude in this response shows that you hadn’t even been aware of this short-coming when you first posted your treatise. And now, how many times do I have to remind you that the Scholars haven’t called the examples of “arche with a genitive” into question? Instead they have rejected your meaning in 3:14 because of the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere. There is something they know that you have not acknowledged here. Context elsewhere in the N.T. trumps word usage elsewhere, no matter HOW MANY examples you can cite that do not contain the same referents and subject material. Right here, friend, is where you have really participated in your own deception. Here’s where you arrive at the airport to wait for your train to land. What you took as “unprecedented” has turned out to be nothing but a Trojan horse.

 

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

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

Have you shown that?  I’m willing to leave my arguments as they stand, and let the punter decide.

 

Ray said: 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.

Wrench replies:  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.

 

 However, as I’ve already shown, what you CALL unprecedented is nothing but a Trojan horse because you happen to be in the wrong arena..i.e. the word usage elsewhere arena.  Whereas the Scholars have rejected your view of 3:14 based on the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere…hence,  according to them this trumps over your appeal to word usage elsewhere. And we saw what happened when you tried to face the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere in John 1.  What were you required to do to keep the passage from flatly denying your view? You had to begin with an assumed premise (the creation of the Logos)…and then in an effort to justify THAT assumption what did you do? You had to bring in DISPUTED passages from elsewhere with your view assumed correct! And after having done this, you want us to believe that you have reasoned logically. If you want to know what “arche” means in 3:14, Wrench, remember that the train you’ve been looking for is not going to be landing at the airport any time soon. Your best bet is to head for the train station ;-)) 

 

When you “assert” that: “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, THAT’S subjective right there. Why? Because it is simply your opinion that the meaning is either remote, unprecedented, or unlikely. We looked into that and what did we find? That what you took to be unprecedented turned out to be a Trojan horse because stafford’s examples did not contain the same referents and subject material. I think you have been tricked by the mere sound and appearance of words, Wrench.

 

Ray said:  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?

Wrench replies: 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”.

 

Come on, friend. Surely you’re not going to sit there and tell us that you’re not bringing in disputed passages with your conclusion assumed correct, to supply your premise in John 1:1-3 (the creation of the Logos)?  If you refuse to see how illogical this is, you must be sitting there with a finger in each ear and your eyes squinted shut. What can I say, except repeat what I had said in my last letter…because it still stands:

 

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?

 

Wrench replies:  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.

 

And such an accusation would be bogus because I haven’t “ignored” anything. I actually went INTO those verses and took them one clause at a time. You even admitted that you didn’t see a problem with anything I offered (about the Greek) in these verses, so you can hardly accuse me of ignoring anything here…with a straight face.  I think you were just bankrupted at this point. You were shown to be guilty of the very thing you had accused your opponents of. And that’s why I said, this “took the cake”.

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

 

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

 

 

Then all we can do is commit this to the reader’s common sense and sense of fairness.

 

 

Ray said:  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.

 

Wrench replies: 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.

 

Of course you’re not, you may as well try to unload the ocean with a thimble. This initial statement from you once again shows that you’ve simply lost sight of the “ball” in our discussion. Remember your treatise, Wrench?  Remember what you said you were going to do? Ok, I haven’t lost sight of that,  and that is why I reminded you that your opponents have cited passages like John 1:1-3, Col. 1;15-17,  the natural meaning of which present an obstacle to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14,  as set forth in your treatise. So THAT’S the issue, friend. Your treatise is on the line. It was found to be defective because you had not dealt with your opponents points and reasons for rejecting your interpretation of Rev. 3:14, the first “witness” you offered in your treatise. This is what it’s all about. Look at this from you above:

 

“. 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 didn’t say you were. I said that in order to explain your view, and show that it comports with the natural meaning, you must assume your conclusion as the very premise of your line of reasoning…the creation of the Logos. It’s not in there. You have to PUT it in there first. The premise is not supplied by the text. And the attempt to haul in these other passages further compounds the problem. Why? Well, first, Rev. 3:14 is the passage under original dispute, so how can it contribute anything?  Prov. 8:22 comes from the Old Testament, yet God’s revelation was not complete in the Old Testament, but the New. And Col. 1:15 actually occurs in a context that explicitly states of Christ that he is before all things. So, 3:14,  being under original dispute,  can’t supply anything,  Prov. 8:22 comes from the OT when God’s revelation was not complete. And Col. 1:15 is in a context that contains contrary information that turns against your own conclusion. But nevertheless, since you cannot even explain your view without bringing in outside disputed texts with your conclusion assumed to be correct (stacking the deck), you cannot dispute that the natural meaning of the context in John 1:1-3 comports better with the orthodox view…and thus it remains a steadfast and firm obstacle to the first “Witness” in your treatise.

 

 Now what follows is something I wish you hadn’t done, because it kind of makes things harder to keep clear. I’m talking specifically about just running my paragraphs together without a break (as one long one), and yours too by the way. I will just reproduce mine as you presented it but in small font size…in case a reference is needed for our points and counterpoints.

 

 

Ray said:  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?
 

 

 Wrench replies:  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.

 

But you did NOT start at the end. Please look again at my final point in the above (at least where you had ended it).  What point am I making?  I first made the point, and then I asked you a question twice…Note:

 

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 think I can understand why you might not feel comfortable dealing with this question. Because any attempt to answer it, for the JW, will force you to admit that you must prove, not just that he was “among creation” (like you think), but that he was the FIRST creature in the category. What is more, you need this proof already in hand when you arrive at Col. 1:16 to justify the math you do with the “all things” there and in verse 17. So the pregnant question is, have you proven that Christ was the first creature when you arrive at verse 16? You may THINK you’ve proven it from verse 15, but that’s what I’ve been trying to show you…you have NOT proven it…just claimed it. And there is a huge difference, my friend, between proving it and claiming it. So please do what you SAID you were going to do and start at the end above…with my question, and answer it first!

 

Wrench continues: 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.

 

But this is beside the point, Wrench. The question is can anyone be called “firstborn” without referring to the actual first in a series as the primary emphasis? And the examples from Scripture prove that the answer is yes. Ephraim was CALLED  “ firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9), David was CALLED “firstborn” (Psalms 89:27), and in Job 18:13 the deadliest of diseases was CALLED “firstborn”.  And the WT’s admission that Jehovah was not “bound” by men’s expectations means that He didn’t get bogged down with numerical order as the basis for His decisions. Men get themselves into a straight jacket of interpretation, but you can’t hold Jehovah to such a human standard…no matter how hard you try. No matter how badly you want this argument (need is better ;-))), yet the fact remains that Jehovah is not bound by men’s expectations. This acknowledgment on the WT’s part not only dismantles Stafford’s argument,  but it also amounts to an unintended repudiation of themselves on this point as well!

 

Hence, there is no way you can prove your point based on the application of the term “firstborn”. You can claim it all day long, but that’s not the same as proof, and that is what you need to have already proven when you come to verse 1:16 of Colossians. Once again the same premise you needed in John 1:1-3 (the creation of the Logos), is likewise missing here in Col. 1:15-17. And the same thing becomes necessary for you. What? You must once again assume your conclusion at the outset, and use that to reason upon. Or again bring in disputed texts from outside with your own conclusion assumed correct (stack the deck), which begs the question, in order to “supply” your premise. Therefore your reasoning in this context is invalidated by the missing premise.

 

 

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.

 

This is no problem, all I was trying to show is that the term “firstborn” had gained a stereotyped meaning by NT times and immediately thereafter that did not require them to think in terms of numerical order.That it was extra-biblical shouldn’t be considered such a big deal for you, for the WT Society does this repeatedly in their publications (look in their Brochure on the Trinity). But even so, I did not use this to establish my point anyhow, that was already done from the Scripture first. This just supports my point that the meaning was available to the people of that language and time period. And again, the BAGD lists this usage in Col. 1:15 under the figurative classification. This simply means that you can’t prove your case here based on the application of this title to Christ. Worse,  is that the BAGD points out that the “tokos” meaning of the suffix may have lost its force by this time in some usages, which as they illustrate would then translate 1:15 as Christ being “firstborn of every creature”, a meaning which undermines your claim, for  the distributive “head of every creature”, in the sense of “ruler over” (gen. of sub.), would gain a lead in the ascendancy.

 

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.

 

Ray: This does not affect my argument one iota. As already pointed out, the BAGD lists this usage in Col. 1:15 under the figurative classification. There’s no guesswork involved here, friend, you’re only kidding yourself.  The examples I cited cannot be recognized as “guesswork”, nor did I invent or make them up. If you saw “no indication” of the term “firstborn” dropping the numerical designation, you couldn’t have actually LOOKED at those examples, unless you’re being dishonest.  Was the firstborn disease the first disease or the most deadly?  WT agrees it was the most deadly. Was Ephraim really numerically first? Nope, yet “firstborn” is applied to him, and it cannot have a numerical sense or emphasis. As even the WT Society has acknowledged, Jehovah simply was not bound by the expectations of men…that meant that he did not hesitate to apply “firstborn” without a particular emphasis on numerical order. This is simply a losing argument for you, Wrench. All we needed was a single example of firstborn being applied without numerical significance, and I showed several. And from these we have even seen the mind of God. It is truly amazing how you can become so engrossed in trying to defend a previous position (from men…WT), that even the mind of God does not affect you.

 

 

Wrench: 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.

 

Ray: …You’ve simply confused cause with effect here. Think Wrench, Col. 1:15 doesn’t say anything about “firstborn Son of God” …it says “firstborn of all creation”. Now, once we have that straightened out, now what about the appointment? If reference were being made to being the first creature son, it would be a RIGHT…and he would not NEED to be appointed. Can’t you see this?  Ephraim NEEDED to be appointed because he was not the first in the category…David NEEDED to be placed as “firstborn” because he was not the first in the category. So likewise, when the category is creation, Jesus is appointed  (the Messiah) heir of all things. Why? Because like the others he was not the first in the category. And guess what?  Believers have been appointed heirs with him, but this is all spiritual and figurative language. You are simply confusing the expression in 1:15…you keep trying to get away with assuming it says “firstborn Son of God” in this passage when it does not. You have gotten these ideas crossed inside your mind. As I said earlier, you seem to be tricked by the mere sound and appearance of words. 

 

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.

 

Wow, can you not see that your argument is besides the point here? Trying to explain WHY Ephraim was called “firstborn” isn’t going to help your case one bit. It doesn’t make any difference WHY he was called “firstborn”…the only thing we need to render your view impossible to prove is that he WAS called “firstborn”, and that by Jehovah himself. Here you are again, standing at the airport waiting on your train to land…LOL!  I mean no intent to ridicule, Wrench, it just seems so humorous to me that you’re at the airport looking for a train to come in for a landing. And you don’t see anything strange about that?

 

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.

 

 

And in each case we saw that it didn’t make any difference WHO was really first. The one CALLED firstborn was not the first in the category…and that’s the coup de grace, friend. That means the same thing may be true elsewhere, and so in trying to prove from Col. 1:15 that Christ was the first creature…you are biting on granite. What did the WT acknowledge? Jehovah is not bound by men’s expectations. End of argument, for you. 

 

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?

 

And as we have seen, the word cannot be proven to always apply to the first in the category, and yet that’s what you need to do. Who’s treatise is on the line here, Wrench? Your thinking is upside down and backwards, “prototokos” doesn’t have to ALWAYS apply to the first in a category, as the WT admitted Jehovah showed. 

 

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.

 

Ray says: You say that when you come to Col. 1:15 you are not assuming anything. However, since you cannot prove that “firstborn” can’t be applied to one who was not the first in a category, you leave Colossians 1:15 bankrupt. And that’s your problem. You come to verse 16 empty-handed as far as having proven your premise (Christ was the first creature), and so you have no legitimate basis upon which to do the math you do with the “all things” in verses 16 and 17.  When you do that math, you’re assuming your premise, and that begs the question. 

 

Wrench continues:  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,

 

How many times do I have to remind you that the Trinity view can accommodate a partitive genitive.  We see the Logos as entering the category later in history (John 1:14) and thus being among creation. But your requirement was to prove that Christ was the first creature in the category. Why? Because how could you account for him being before all things (verse 17) and yet a creature, unless he was the first one? How could he, even in your own bible (NWT) be “before all other things”, and still a creature, unless he was the first in the category? That is why you must prove that from verse 15…which you have not been able to do. Hence you are without your premise when you come to verse 16, unless you assume it…or bring in disputed texts from outside with your view assumed correct…which likewise begs the question, and thus just as in John 1, the orthodox view because it doesn’t have to assume its conclusion at the outset, has a much better claim to comporting with the natural meaning of this context. That’s why Professor Robertson referred to this passage as detrimental to your view of Rev. 3:14, Wrench.

 

Wrench continues:   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”.

 

Ray says: Not at all, I think you’re being  “thick” when you turn your eyes away from Jehovah’s examples of calling someone “firstborn” who was not the first in a category. I think YOU’RE being “thick” when you can’t even see the WT’s acknowledgment that Jehovah showed that he was not bound by men’s expectations.  Since I believe you are honest, I can find no better description of such an attitude than… “thick”.

 

Wrench continues: 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.

 

Ray says: Whoa horsey. Look at your first statement “You are the one who had to try”. Let’s make sure we have our bearings right. Did I write a treatise, or did you?  Is Col. 1:15 the second installment (Witness) of the three you refer to? If so, then I simply want to remind you of your OWN words in the re-framing of your treatise, “I will demonstrate” You took your eye off the ball again, Wrench. Now against your claim that “firstborn” must mean that Christ was the first in the category, I noticed and brought up some examples of Jehovah calling someone “firstborn” who was not the first in the series or category. Now, since by your OWN admission, it was your responsibility to demonstrate, how can you use phraseology such as “you are the one who had to try”, when you have already admitted that it’s your responsibility to demonstrate here?

 

This is quite typical of you in our past correspondence as well, Wrench. You always seem to be approaching this from a backwards perspective…that “it’s the other guy’s responsibility to prove me wrong”.  Nope, sorry friend, it is your treatise that’s on the line. You wrote it.

 

Wrench continues:  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.

 

Ray replies: I have dealt with this several times, but to no avail as far as your understanding goes. Here’s your leap in the dark, logically, Wrench.  When I say the Trinity view can accommodate the partitive genitive, you assume I’m meaning back at the beginning of creation. But I don’t. I’ve explained so many times that as long as we can show that sometime DURING the existence of this individual he was a part of the category, THAT is all this is needed to account for any connection assumed necessary as deserving of the title.  He doesn’t need to have been the F I R S T one in the category. And yet, that’s what you have to prove. Why? Because Paul says “he is before all things”, and there is NO way you can account for that, and still believe he was a creature, unless you take it to mean he was the first one. Therefore, it makes no difference what you ‘WANT’ to do with the “all things”, you have to account for Paul’s expression “he is before all things”, without admitting that He’s God Almighty.

 

You cannot therefore subtract him from the category of all things, (and deny He’s God Almighty) unless you can justify your beginning premise (he was the first creature…same as in John 1). That would be the only way to regard the remaining “things” as “all other things”…follow the context Wrench.

 

But I can regard the genitive in verse 15 as partitive,  because I don’t have to assume he was a part of the category back at the beginning (like you keep assuming),  but only that at some point during his existence he came to be among creation (took on the nature), and he did (John 1:14)….but Paul’s context TAKES US BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF ALL THINGS, in order for the remaining things to be “all other things”. There is what I think is your logical leap in the dark. You keep trying to hold me to Paul’s “before all things” context as “part of the category” back then….when I don’t have to assume that at all. We’ve already seen the evidence that he didn’t need to be the first creature to be called “firstborn”. 

 

 

Ray said:  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”…J

 

Wrench replies: 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

 

Well, I guess I could be confused, but in your previous letters you only explained the other view, you hadn’t yet adopted it. You were trying to explain them both but had chosen Stafford’s current view as your preferred one.  So just because you had “explained” this other view would not be justification for me to deal with it. I felt obligated to deal with the one you said was your preferred view. The change came in the same letter as your complaint, I think anyway.  I’m tired right now, …so I guess I could have it wrong. I don’t think it’ll start a war one way or the other…

 

With regard to the organizational questions, pertaining to Greg Stafford, Rolf Furuli, and the others, as I said the last thing I want to do is offend you, Wrench, but I do have honest and searching questions, much based on my own familiarity with WT history since the early 80s. You said you’ve been a Witness now for about 25 years, so I would think you’d likewise be aware of the things I’ve mentioned that occurred at Bethel in the Spring of 1980.  Since I know these things, and then I see what’s happened with Greg and Al Kidd, and a few of the others,  I’m honestly expecting a train wreck before long…unless these guys “heed” the WT’s subtle warnings…and stay cool.

 

Also, I have communicated with Jay Hess, Wrench, and he says that he did indeed write a book defending the JWs…Here is part of what he said…

 

“…While a JW I wrote a small book defending the JWs "Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT False Prophets" and privately published it myself. I had also been writing a series of newsletters defending them. The WT Society was not pleased but did not actively oppose it. However, after it was distributed and got some attention, and made JWs think about the issues of the many failed predictions, the leadership got nervous. The "Writing dept" liked the book but the "Service Dept" , the ones that control the policies, was furious. At first I was invited to write articles for the Watchtower magazine but later the Service dept put a stop to that. I was later put on trial for "causing divisions", specifically for telling JWs that Jesus should be worshiped. Since I confessed but did not repent, I was expelled. I appealed their decision to see if they would retract their condemnation. They would not. The expulsion destroyed my family relationships. They said I was wicked for worshiping Jesus. . .. If a Christian could pick something to be found guilty of, this would be my choice….”

 

Wow, all I can say is “me too!” What do you think about this, Wrench? Can you see now why I was so curious about the others publishing books on their own…not letting the Society publish them?  You may be right that as of now they’ve not done anything, but they do have a history of conducting a “witch-hunt” over similar activities in the early 80s.  So, for example, when Stafford refers to the “Witnesses current understanding” about “the beginning” in John 1:1 (JWD 316), is he really speaking for all Witnesses? Don’t you think it would be the right thing to do to find out? Can these guys, like Greg, in books they themselves have published, speak for all JWs concerning a “changed” view on something? Aren’t these thought provoking questions?

 

Ok, now for my review of what I ‘ve covered in this letter.  First we dealt with your original explanation that all my sources were Trinitarians and biased against you, and with special mention of the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon,  you have tried to downplay any influence both Thayer and Abbot may have had on the Lexicon…this is understandable in light of the “explanation” you offered as to why these Lexicons had rejected your view of how Rev. 3:14 should be understood.  But we have seen that Abbot was definitely a Unitarian, and Thayer was most likely one. We discovered with the WT’s agreement that Thayer was certainly not a Trinitarian, as they made clear in their Brochure against the Trinity, page 28. You were once again found to be opposing God’s authority on such matters in your effort to resist agreeing with the WT that Thayer was not a Trinitarian. So since we do have the WT’s agreement that he was NOT a Trinitarian, your attempt to downplay Abbot’s involvement is for naught. The Lexicon was clearly under the supervision of someone whom the WT has agreed was not a Trinitarian and wrote against it. So your original charge has been undermined by your own Organization, Wrench, and you have yet to verify your explanation that bias is the reason for the poor support your view has received in these Reference works.

 

We traced our stances on whether the Trinitarian scholars and the WT Society were aware of and had used the specific grammatical information “arche with a genitive” that you had gotten from Greg,  and found that my initial thoughts proved correct that the scholars had indeed been aware of Stafford’s arguments but had rejected them. At first you resisted this, throwing the “specifics of grammar” out as a requirement, and in light of that, I also put the WT to the same test, and they hadn’t actually and independently referred to these specifics to prove their case either.  After some time, very recently, when it was becoming increasingly clear that the scholars through the centuries had been aware of Stafford’s examples…but were not impressed by them,  and had rejected them as being decisive in 3:14,  you decided to “ease up” a bit on the requirement about the “specifics” of grammar (arche with the genitive…consistency…),  then you actually pointed to the Trinitarian scholars to show how the WT “concurred” with them…to let the WT off the hook too.  Welcome aboard, Wrench…ha.

 

We saw that in John 1:1-3,  your attempt to suggest that Professor Robertson wrote against my point about the “imperfect…continuous” meaning for “een” in John 1:1 was not true, and he was actually locating the exceptions elsewhere from John 1;1. Then we saw that to claim you were not assuming your conclusion at the outset (creation of the Logos), which is also your premise,  you tried to bring in outside disputed texts with your own conclusion assumed correct, and we saw that this is totally illogical. Why? Because it amounts to a begging of the question (disputed texts) in order to deny that you begged the question. The bottom line is that since only the Orthodox view can be reached STRICTLY from the info the text itself, it has a much better claim to comporting with the natural meaning of this context. Hence the passage remains as valid obstacle to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14.  The natural meaning of this context would not begin with the assumption that the Logos had a beginning, and would understand verse 3 exactly as it’s worded…and take the all things as not allowing for a single exception….hence,  the Logos was distinguished from the first thing that ever came into existence.

 

Then we saw that in Colossians 1:15-17 you were still coming into verse 16 without having proven or established your premise (Christ was the first creature)…and so you were again begging the question to ASSUME that premise…in order to do your math in verses 16 and 17.  We saw that you could not prove from verse 15 that “firstborn” must and can only be applied to the first in the category. Although I only needed a single example of such an application, I showed several, at least two of which clearly revealed the mind of Jehovah on the subject. What mind? The Watchtower acknowledged that Jehovah showed that he is not bound by men’s expectations as he decides and applies the title “firstborn” to someone who was not the first in the category. Hence, you could not prove your claim at verse 15…claims mean nothing….only proof, and you had none. So you must come to verse 16 empty handed.

 

Well, better finally bring this to a close, Wrench, but I’ll divide it up into three or four parts for your site because I don’t think you can handle it in one shot. Dave Sherrill’s site can publish it in one shot…so that’s probably the way he will do it. I didn’t start off thinking that this would end up being so long…but I just can’t see a way to keep these things to a minimum without leaving myself open to the charge of avoiding evidence.

 

Please don’t feel like you are under any pressure from me to hurry with your responses. I would rather that you take your time and deal with all the points. I hope you know me well enough by now to realize that if I fail to address something it is a mistake on my part. Please just bring it to my attention and I will take it back up in my next letter. I tried to not repeat but it’s an almost impossible situation…as I’m a real amateur with these word processors. Well my friend, I’ll close for now, so long and God Bless…

 

                                                                                                               Ray Goldsmith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And now, to save your original claim that all my sources were Trinitarians (with “bias” lurking in the background), you once again come against the very Organization whom you say you believe is “God’s Authority” on such matters. 

 

01-06-00

a set recently for I think $69.00, a bargain in my opinion. Obviously I'm not a mind reader and I don't have direct access to the scholars, so I can only speculate or give you my opinion as to why they have not dealt with what you feel so strongly about. But it's important to include the WTBTS among them when asking the question, because I've been reading WT material for some time now and I've never seen them address the specific material you mention either. And this would seem to pose a greater problem for you than anything else, since JWs believe that the Organization is God's only channel on earth today. As I mentioned earlier in this post, if anyone had an incentive to make a big deal out of this material, surely it would be them since they consider themselves as God's only channel and they claim the same as you about Christ. So at least try throwing that one "down the funnel" too, while your at it. Perhaps they have a different set of priorities that lead them top of my head...to see a stronger case for other passages that deal contextually and specifically with the relevant subject material (in this case the relation between the Son and creation at the beginning)...and THIS carries more truck with them than a whole truck load of grammatical examples...the majority of which do not deal with the exact subject material. I don't know for sure, but those are my thoughts off the

 

 

 

01-06-00

Wrench says: "You say that some of the passages are listed under the various meanings, tell me, however, when they listed some of those passages under the various meanings, did they address the point about 'arche' followed by a genitive phrase. We both know that there are many reasons why one might choose to quote a passage. Did any of the references you checked with actually deal with the problem as I presented it? Do you know of any scholar, to date, from the Trinitarian camp who has addressed the problem as I have presented it and in turn, commented on it's implications? Just because a passage is cited doesn't mean he was considering the aspect of that verse I referred to."...I reply: That's just the point, Wrench, I asked you the same questions...if this evidence is as compelling and obvious as you claim it is, how can YOU explain that no one seems to deal with it? And I have another question too. How about the WT Society? Stop to consider, if anyone had an incentive to deal with such "compelling evidence", it would be them since they claim the same as you, yet have they ever dealt specifically with what you claim in order to persuade and convince??? Where have they pointed to all the examples of "arche" with the genitive...making the same claims as you? Or are you saying that you know more than them...that God by-passed them to reveal these things to you? I think we have to look for a better answer friend. Context is always rule number one when it comes to bible interpretation. Hence then, when we want to understand the meaning of Rev 3:14, other passages directly related to the contextual matter (the relation between the Son and creation at the beginning) will carry much more weight than examples of grammar, especially when most of the examples have little or nothing to do with the contextual matter.

 

 

11-30…
Next you say that I claimed that the scholars weren't ignorant of the passages you referred to, and you ask how I would know for a fact. Well first of all I didn't put quite that way. What I said was that I doubted if you’d claim they were ignorant of them. But it appears that you'd like to entertain that notion. Of course I don't know for sure, but the burden isn't on me here, Wrench. You're the one who accepted that at the beginning of your treatise. I think you'll have a difficult time proving that too. Why? Because at least some of the passages you cited were listed under the various meanings, and still they must not have been compelling enough to move them to agree with your conclusion. I wonder if you realize how hard it is to satisfy the burden of proof? It's not supposed to be easy. It's really tough because it means you can leave no possible alternative standing.

 

 

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

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

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

 

01-06-00 

After I replied to your complaint that Robertson didn't address your specific points, by saying: "I am very sure that if he were intending a polemic on the specific subject his explication would have been much more extensive. yet obviously the verses he mentions in passing are those which he feels settles the issue with regard to the conclusion you reached.".....

You replied, "Since I do not possess this particular book (although I am looking to purchase it) and it was being used the entire time I was at the library, I do not have the advantage of seeing exactly what was said. Are you able to post the pertinent information of this discussion without any dot-dot-dots? From your words above he obviously didn't elaborate on the point I have presented. If he didn't, how can you say HE FEELS it settles the issue. How do know he even considered the issue? Do you think that the scholars have considered every issue that has ever been raised in regard to syntax and grammar? I'm sure you don't. Where then, Ray, has a Trinitarian addressed the ISSUE that I have raised and consequently 'debunked' it or at least shown reason why not to worry about it? Considering a verse does not mean that an individual has considered the particulars of what I presented. I need to see that information you reference."