Biblical
Discussions
Thursday,
16-Mar-2000 08:40:24
Hello Ray, As usual, I’ve
tried to trim some of the fat from our dialogue, discarding that which we seem
to have gotten past for the most part. The trouble is, while it seems our
volume of words may be dwindling in one area, they appear to be growing in
others, so I don’t know if I’m going to make this thing any smaller or what,
but anyway, here goes:
You stated: Ray says…OK,
let’s review the above goals or standards you say you intend to meet. First,
you will demonstrate that the natural understanding of the phrases in each of
the three witnesses in your treatise “weigh heavily against the Trinitarian”.
You say this is so individually and certainly collectively. Interestingly you
characterize the orthodox interpretation as “unprecedented”, and on such
grounds you think it should not prevail without some very compelling, nearly
undeniable evidence presented in support. Well, we know this much; the orthodox
interpretation HAS prevailed throughout the centuries, and it is the evidence
you’ve presented about “arche with the genitive” that seems to have escaped
everyone throughout the history of Christianity, including the WTBTS. Hmm…and
I’ll just go ahead and ignore your final statement about establishing the
point, because I’m sure you don’t want to contradict yourself and go back to
square one?
Wrench replies: Well, I do
continue to research this topic from time to time and I am continuing to find
interesting things among the words of Trinitarians in relation to what we are
discussing. But, more on that a little later.
When I say that the “orthodox” position is unprecedented, there is really
no denying that, because even if it would be determined that their
interpretation of Revelation 3:14 is correct, which is far from the case of
happening, but even if it were determined, the interpretation would STILL be
unprecedented in relation to the word meaning “source” because there is not
another clear case of the word being used that way in the LXX or NT. THAT is
what I MEAN when I say it is “unprecedented”.
Likewise, even if it were
determined to be correct, which as I said before, it hasn’t, but even if it
were determined to be such, it would STILL be unprecedented when compared to
every other “arche with a genitive” in the Bible. That fact in itself is really
uncontested. And it would as well be unprecedented in relation to the way in
which John used the word “arche” EVERY OTHER time. THAT is a fact that is not
debated. So, me saying “unprecedented” in relation to their interpretation in
view of the above observances is certainly not saying too much. It is simply
the facts, whether or not Revelation 3:14 is determined to have to mean
something other than the interpretation that we offer, which is, Christ was the
“beginning” (timewise) of the creation by God.
Wrench continues: Since you have called the WT so far into the
foray of things, I feel I don’t have much choice but to break stride with my
normal stance, and start quoting what they DO say when needed in relation to
the things we are talking about to demonstrate the position that I have
taken.
I don’t want you to think that I am somehow opposed to the
explanation of John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 being different time references, because I
am not. I simply happen to think that them being the same time reference makes
more sense TO ME. I have offered that to you and you have objected by means of
appealing to the WT as being in disagreement with me, who I claim to uphold as
God’s authority on these matters. That disagreement, as I hope to show, is
debatable in itself, but, regardless, don’t be fooled into thinking that I
can’t defend the position that you say the WT is insistent upon, that being
John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 are referring to “different” time references with the
phrase “in the beginning”. I can defend it just as easily as the position that
I personally prefer, in fact, you may find that it doesn’t require much
“tweaking” at all to simply “shift” to the other position, because it is
certainly valid and defendable. I just happen to think that the explanation I
have offered makes better sense to ME. But, more on this later as we
continue. I will also share with you
some interesting comments from Trinitarians in relation to “arche” further on
in this post, as well as some comments from the WT.
Ray said: Well, let me see if I can clarify myself
then. I guess what I meant to say overall, Wrench, is that I never have felt
that Col. 1:15-18 or Rev. 3:14 identifies Christ with creation in any way that
gives an advantage to your view about His ultimate identity. When you say “puts
him among creation”, I already know
that your view is that he’s restricted to the category of creation, and so when
I say I don’t think they “put” him among, I really mean I don’t think they
restrict him to such a category, for the bible teaches that his ultimate
existence transcends the period of his existence as a creature. In other words,
I don’t think these passages require a conclusion that he was the first in the
series…or category…which is the ONLY thing that would give your view an
advantage over mine. Neither do I think these passages deny that he was among
or participated in the nature of a creature. See my point?
The reason I worded it the
way I did is because I wanted you to see-saw it back and forth inside your mind
and bring yourself to the same conclusion. Once this point is understood, only
THEN will you really understand my statement that my position doesn’t require
me to accept or deny the partitive interpretation of the genitive in Col. 1:15.
Why? Because we already believe that He took the nature of a creature as per
John 1:14 (pitched his tent with us). It doesn’t NEED to be proven. It may well
be that the genitive is partitive or even relative (comparitive) or even both…
but what DOES need to be addressed is whether he was the first of Jehovah’s
creations. See my point now? You know what this reminds me of? The tricky math
problem where a bus stops from the terminal first, and picks up five
passengers, goes three blocks…makes a right and drops off 2 but takes on 7,
makes another right, proceeds to the city news stand and stops, lets off 4 but
picks up 13, makes a left goes to the high schoool, drops off 6 and picks up 1…and
on and on. Until finally the question is popped … “how many right turns did the
bus make”? J
Ray continues: Later in this
post you indicate that you kind of had the notion that trinitarianism saw Christ
as a man, but your understanding has been perhaps hazy at best. Thank you for
your honesty, and that’s the best thing I’ve always noticed about you, Wrench.
That makes me want to try even harder to help you to understand the Trinitarian
position. But yes, that is indeed a fundamental part of the doctrine as we see
it. He existed as God (not the Father) before all creation, he was directly
hand’s on responsible for all creation with not even a single exception (this
is his intermediate role between God and all creation…yet in this role he
himself is God by nature and not an original creation). But at a certain point
in time he ENTERED the category (John 1:14), and became “flesh” or truly human
by nature. This is likewise referred to in Phil 2:6-8 where he is portrayed as
having pre-existed in the “form of God”, but at the prescribed time he took
“the form of a slave or servant (doulou). See the contrast, Wrench?
Now we know from Rev 22 that
angels are fellow-servants with men, so in Phil 2:7 Paul not only says that he
took the form of a slave (creature), but specifies that it was the human nature
specifically that he took on when he became a “slave”. And yet it makes sense
that he wasn’t a slave until he “became” one, right? Of course he wasn’t a
slave (creature) until he became one. That’s the unique thing about this
creature, he had an existence before that as a non-creature (God…not the
Father). I think that once this point begins to take root in your mind, many other
passages will make better sense to you. When you see that he wasn’t an angel
(fellow creature with men) before he became a slave/creature, then the passage
that has all God’s angels worshiping him will make better sense (Heb. 1:6)…he
is distinguished from all God’s angels! When you see, for example, that he
pre-existed John 1:14 as a non-creature (God… not the Father, but equally God
by nature nonetheless), it then makes sense that we should honor the Son “just
as” we honor the Father. It makes MUCH better sense.
I think the net result of Col.
1:15-18 will be that the trinitarian position will be able to easily
accommodate both the “firstborn” expression in verse 15, as well as the “before
all things” (visible and invisible) expression in verse 17, for that is exactly what the trinitarian view
holds…He existed before all creation, and yet became recognized as “firstborn”
where numerical order was NOT the emphasis, but status…as with David who
prefigured Christ. David was not Jessie’s firstborn, nor was he the first King
of Israel…yet Jehovah nevertheless elevated him to the STATUS of “firstborn”.
So the trinitarinan view can easily accommodate the context of Col. 1:15-18,
but the WT’s view stumbles clumsily over Paul’s words “he is before all things”
in verse 17, all creation as you’ve admitted. That is why I had you clarify
this separately recently, and you answered that the “all things” in Col.
1:16-17 is indeed all inclusive and not restricted to the physical universe, as
you’ve claimed with the “all things” of John 1:3.
Wrench replies: Thank you
for fully explaining your view of Christ’s connection with creation, I truly
appreciate it. However, I would like to inquire further if you don’t mind. First, I am wondering, other than the possibility
of Col. 1:15-17 implying to you that Christ was considered a ‘creation” (in the
manner you describe), what other scripture do you know of that ACTUALLY CALLS
Christ a “creation”? What I mean is, it appears that this would be the only one
that does so. Although you mention Phil. 2 as calling him a servant and a man,
it doesn’t actually speak of him as “included” in creation. It doesn’t call him
a creature or a creation. Is there a scripture other than Col. 1:15-17
(possibly, as you say), that actually calls Christ a creation via his
incarnation in the flesh?
Also, in relation to these words of yours, “the WT’s view stumbles clumsily over Paul’s words “he is
before all things” in verse 17, ALL CREATION AS YOU”VE ADMITTED.” I think I need to make you aware of what I actually did say when
you posed the Col. 1:15 question. First off, I do not think that the “ALL
THINGS” is ALL CREATION, because I believe that it obviously excludes Christ
himself who I do view AS a creation.
This was my response: ---I think that there is a difference between that
"all things" and "all things" mentioned in John 1:3.
Whereas I feel that the "all things" in John have to do with the
physical creation starting from Genesis 1:1, Paul expands on the things created
through the Son, including not only "the things visible" but also the
"things invisible" so it appears to me that he makes a far more
inclusive statement regarding the things made through the Son, yet, I think he
is careful to point out that Christ is "the firstborn of all
creation", showing that he is not uncreated, but had an origin unlike that
of any other created being. Whereas Christ is included among the "all
creation" by being the firstborn of that class, I do not believe he is
included among the "all things" that came THROUGH him for the obvious
reasons.--- I think you can see from the above words that I did NOT view “all
things” as synonymous with the “all creation” that Christ was the firstborn of.
The “all things” are those which came THROUGH Christ, which would therefore
obviously exclude him who I feel is a PART of the “all creation”. And, as well, I see no clumsy handling of
the matter from the WT. Ray said: Hopefully I will save us a lot of repetitious
mumbo jumbo with regard to my reference to Grimm-Thayer’s Lexicon. I’ll try to
draw some conclusions based on what we seem to agree on. For example, we agree
that corruption from personal conviction (bias) is not an everywhere thing (not
a slam dunk, in other words)… so we should be able to agree that therefore,
wherever one relies on corruption from personal conviction (bias) as an
explanation, at that SAME point he must accept and carry out the burden of
showing specific examples of that right at the point where he claims it. So, at
Rev 3:14, you relied on that as an explanation for why your meaning of the
passage wasn’t adopted by any of my sources, including Grimm/Thayer. So, did
you show any specific examples of this corruption resulting from personal
conviction (bias) with regard to Rev 3:14? Sorry, Wrench, but NO YOU DID NOT!
Instead you tried to live off the possibility…as if that’s all you needed to
do. I contend that if you refuse to show examples of the corruption you claim
right where you claim it occurs, you have failed to verify your explanation as
to why your meaning was not adopted by any of the Lexicons I cited. And you have not tracked down the bracketed statements there
either…so, since they could just as easily suppliment Grimm’s references, we
are still waiting for you to verify your explanation. Hence, all we have so far
is that all my sources agreed among themselves AGAINST your view. Only one
acknowledged your view as “linguistically possible”, but they adopted the other
meaning themselves …hardly a ringing endorsement! And although you failed to
cite a single example of corruption from personal conviction (bias) at the
point where you relied on it, I did cite a strong example where Grimm refused
to call Christ God in John 1:1c and John 20:28, explaining that this was still
a matter of dispute among theologians. So I think I’ve presented the better
case here, Wrench, with regard to Grimm/Thayers. You haven’t yet cited a single
example... where you relied on it (Rev 3:14), but I did… RRR Wrench replied: Well, again, Ray, I think you surmise too much. I
think his remarks about "reserve" and "embarrassment" could
easily be taken that he may have found 'bias' on Prof. Grimm's part. Below, you
try to get me to accept that what Thayer meant by those words is he felt
"reserve" and "embarrassment" over sitting in judgment of
Prof. Grimm's writings. Ray replies: No, only that he might appear to be sitting in
judgment. But you need to show specific examples of corruption (bias) right
where you put forward such a claim as an explanation (Rev 3:14). The “may have
found ‘bias’” cannot be accepted as verification for your claim…you’ve left it
unverified at this point. Since you ‘ve admitted that corruption resulting from
personal conviction (bias) is not a slam dunk or an “everywhere thing”, and you
are still relying on it, so you have to verify the claim! Sorry, Wrench. Wrench said: Let me review
the steps that I see so far in this “bias” discussion, and you tell me if this
is how you see the progress. When it
came to Grimm’s definition for “arche” (source), I stated that you could not
dismiss the possibility of bias as the reason for him choosing that as a
definition. Obviously, that can’t stand alone, I have never intended for that
stand alone. It seemed to me though, that from your words in defense of a
‘non-biased’ position for Grimm, you were trying to claim that there was no
possibility of bias (I realize now that you are not claiming that) on Grimm’s
part because of what you perceive as a sweeping endorsement of Trinitarian and
Unitaraian scholars alike of his work. You supplied an example of where Grimm
exhibits a ‘non-biased’ assessment in relation to the word “theos”. Therefore,
you are challenging me to supply evidence in relation to Rev. 3:14, that
Grimm’s choice was one of a biased leaning. Without that, then I am presenting
a meaningless defense. Does that sound like a fair assessment of what is
happening? If not, you can point out what you feel has been missed. I suppose if I had heard you say the words
that you say later in this post, much of this dialogue could have been avoided,
but then again, maybe not. We seem to shoot right past each other sometimes and
not quite understand what the other one is getting at. Anyway, later you
say, ---Wrench, did you really think
that anyone would deny that everyone who does such a work has personal
convictions, and that fact alone ALREADY establishes the possibility.--- From the start of this “bias” conversation,
Ray, believe or not, that was what I was waiting to here from you. Thank you. Now, as you say, I can
proceed to show you why I think what Grimm did with “arche” at Rev. 3:14 is the
result of his personal conviction rather than substantial evidence. In regard to the references cited at the
point in question by Thayer, I am only a little closer than I was to locating
these things. The Tdf reference refers to Tischendorf’s Editio Octava p. 308 but
I have been searching high and low for this and have not found it. I located
his Greek text but the critical apparatus was not included with it so I am
continuing to look. Thilo I believe refers to Johann Karl Thilo who I know was
responsible for some Apocryphal translation but I still have no clue what the
reference refers to. I am completely clueless about who Teichmuller is and I
have still not figured out what Sylb. stands for. Since, as of yet, I have not located the references referred to
in Thayer’s brackets, although I think I am getting closer, I will have to rely
on what other Trinitarians say about the rendering "arche" as
“source”. First of all, although not
directly related to the source rendering, but I thought it should be mentioned,
you have mentioned one Trinitarian comment on the “linguistic possibility” of
the phrase “beginning of the creation of God” meaning the FIRST of created
things. However, there are many
other Trinitarians who acknowledge this “linguistic possibility” even though
they obviously opt for another meaning.
For instance: A Greek-English Lexicon, page 111-2 agrees in both
possibilities: "Arche ... 1.
beginning ..... c. beginning, origin ... 2. the first cause ... Rv 3:14; but
the meaning beginning = first created is linguistically possible." (Which
is the one I believe you have referred to in the past) Also note the publication The Apocalypse of John by Isbon T.
Beckwith, page 488. “the beginning of
the creation”: grammatically these words can mean the first of created
existences, cf. Apxn tekvwv, Gen. 49:3, Dt. 21:17....” (More on Beckwith
below) Also notice what Albert Barnes
has to say in his commentary on Rev. 3:14: “If it were demonstrated from other
sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had
made, it can not be denied that this language would appropriately express that
fact.” Now obviously, Beckwith and
Barnes do not agree with that rendering and they go on to explain why, which in
short, are very near the same reasons you have offered because they feel that
John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 present him as the creator and therefore, overrule that
rendering. But we will talk more about that below. Regardless, there are a
number of Trinitarians who acknowledge the fact that those words linguistically
and grammatically and appropriately express the idea that Christ was the FIRST
of creation. As I continue to find
quotes of this nature I will forward them to you via our posts. Now, as regards “source” for “arche”, I
think it is also interesting what Barnes says concerning this. He first offers
3 possible ways to take “arche”, which are the three that we are familiar with,
which is basically 1.source 2.beginning 3.ruler. Notice what he has to say about the rendering “source”: “As to the three
significations suggested above, it may be observed, that the first one-that he
is the ‘author’ of the creation, and in that sense the beginning-though expressing
a scriptural doctrine (Jn. 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16), is NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROPER MEANING OF THE WORD HERE USED-arche.(emphasis mine) The word
PROPERLY refers to the commencment of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes
PROPERLY primacy IN TIME, and primacy IN RANK, but NOT PRIMACY IN THE SENSE OF
CAUSING ANYTHING TO EXIST....The word is NOT, therefore, found in the sense of
authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the SENSE THAT
HE CAUSED IT TO HAVE AN EXISTENCE.” Now, Barnes, obviously opts for the word “ruler” as the correct
way to view “arche”. More on this toward the end of this post. However. I find
his words concerning the “source” or “author” rendering to be remarkably candid
and in complete harmony with what I have stated about “arche” NOT being rendered
properly as “source” or “author”. So now we have some among the Trinitarian
camp in harmony with what I have said concerning Grimm’s handling of arche. Barnes is not alone in this recognition,
obviously, because notice what is stated by the Dictionary of New Testament
Theology, Volume 1, pages 164, 166 --- "Arche ... It means (a) beginning, start ... (a) It
denotes the point at which something new begins in time. ... (c) First cause.
It is a CONTROVERSIAL POINT OF EXEGESIS (emphasis mine) whether this meaning of
arche may be assumed in ... Rev 3.14....” Even Beckwith struggles with the problem. Notice what he says:
After giving his reasons as to why “first created” is not right he goes on to
say. “The words mean rather “the one from whom creation took
its beginning,” i.e. through whom it came into being; NOT THE CREATOR AS THE
PRIMARY SOURCE, for that is God in our book (4:11, 10:5), as elsewhere in the
Scriptures, but the CREATIVE AGENT of God, as in Jno. 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb.
1:2.” It sounds as though Beckwith understands the problem with “source”
and then vies for a totally different meaning as the “agent” of God’s creation.
I think it is interesting that he uses the word “agent”, for we would agree
that Christ was God’s “instrument” (agent) for creation. And, he applies that
same “agency” (instrumentality) to all the “pendulum” scriptures that you have
mentioned for swinging away from the natural and precedented meaning of those
words. I think it is quite apparent
that the problem with “source” as a “highly questionable” if not “incorrect”
rendering of “arche” is well known among the Trinitarian camp. It is because of
these statements presented that I think Grimm succumbed to his ‘personal
conviction’ rather than to the facts surrounding the “proper” meaning of the
word. I would find it hard to believe that someone so highly regarded among the
scholars of his day, did not know about this controversy as Barnes was one of
his contemporaries and Beckwith wasn’t far off. Ray had said: Ok Wrench, It
looks like what is happening inside your mind is that you are trying to keep
yourself in a straight-jacket of labels. For just a few moments, lay aside the
labels and try to picture in your mind the QUESTION we are exploring. What is
the question? What do we want to know? We want to know if this Author’s (Grimm)
personal convictions corrupted his work at Rev 3:14. Now if we just keep that
question in our minds, I think Thayer’s referral to the wide diversity of
beliefs makes logical sense. In passing, as he made the point, he referred to a
couple well-known names of the time, scholars whom were well known to be far
apart from each other in their beliefs. So, what’s my point? It is this: If
someone (Hupfeld) could be further removed from the Orthodox view than even the
WT Society, and could still embrace Grimm’s lexicon, it doesn’t seem to agree
very well with the idea that the Author’s Work tended to be corrupted by his
personal convictions (bias). Thayer is actually bragging on Grimm’s lexicon and
using the wide diversity between Hubfeld and Henstengberg to illustrate the
point. These points suggest that it’s going to be a hard task to show
corruption based on personal conviction (bias) right where you claim it must
have occurred. And the fact that you haven’t verified it with specific examples
falls right in line with that! Now once the main point is recognized, then, if we’re looking to
categorize by labels, we may try to do so…and so what about Hupfeld and the
problems he had with the inspiration of Holy Scripture? The “related” you are
referring to is the fact that both Hupfield and the radical unitarian are
further removed from the orthodox camp than even the WT Society (it doesn’t
make any difference whether it’s on a single view or a range of views), and yet Hupfield could embrace Grimm’s lexicon.
The “relation”, Wrench, is the distance from the camp of Orthodoxy they both
are (Hupfeld & radical Unitarians) as compared to the WT Society. (with
regard to the inspiration of Scripture, Hupfeld was further away from the
Orthodox view than the WT Society). Do you see now? If Hupfeld could embrace
it, being further away from orthodoxy than you and the WT, the burden is even
GREATER on you to show a specific example of this corruption resulting from
personal conviction (bias) right where you rely on such as an explanation (Rev
3:14). Yet you keep trying to live off the possibility…I guess it’s because
it’s the only thing you can do, I don’t know. Is that it? Well, your claim then
remains unverified at this point. What can I say? Wrench replies: I hope the above information will help us
move past this. You stated: Ray says: Bracketed remarks without commentary more than likely suppliments Grimm's
references, but even should they reveal a disagreement it wouldn't prove that
Grimm allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work (bias), for he may
not have had access to the referenced material at the time. Wrench said: True, but it
doesn't erase the possibility either. Ray said: The possibility
doesn’t verify your claim, and that’s
what you need. Otherwise the fact that your view is not well received in the
scholarly community will count as a point against the goals you set for
yourself in the re-framing of your treatise. Wrench replies: See above. Ray said:
Now with regard to Dr. Thayer’s views, I agree that we should drop the
dishonesty stuff because it doesn’t look like either of us had such a motive,
and the situation was indeed complicated. And I do have this new research
material that I’d like to get to you some way, just name it. I still believe
that the positive evidence points to him being a Unitarian, but I was hoping
that looking at Thayer’s entire letter in “The Congregationalist” would bridge
the gap for us, but it was not to be, for it seems that he had an aversion to
acknowledging exactly what his theological views were. But what he says seems
contradictory to what he did. At any rate, though, I’m sure you will enjoy
poring over this extra evidence. The instructive thing about following this
evidence is the importance of remaining IN TUNE with the contemporary
situation…Just let me know where to send it, ok? And in conclusion about
Grimm/Thayer’s, we must admit that the original claim that I used only
trinitarian sources was wrong. Thayer most likely was and Abbot certainly was a
Unitarian, and both made contributions
to this lexicon that at least Thayer considered valuable and meaningful (and
you yourself have admitted as much), and so far you’ve not been able to cite a
single specific example of this corruption based on bias where you claim it
must have occurred. You did attempt to downplay the value of Abbot’s
contribution, but please read what
Thayer says again about it. No doubt had he lived longer he may have done MORE
than he did, but look again at what
Thayer says he did: He did, however, go through the manuscript and add with his
own hand the “variant-verse notation, in accordance with the results of
investigation subsequently given to the learned world in his Excursus on the
subject published in the First Part of the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Editio
Octava Critica Major.” You see, Wrench, the expertise that was later given to
the “learned world” in Tischendorf’s works, was put to use right there in
Grimm’s Lexicon, and given Abbot’s well known zeal, It would be hard to say
that he was blinded by his own prejudices against you. And I don’t think we
should think of Abbot in any sense as a radical Unitarian, for in his “Defense
of the Fourth Gospel”, he does seem to accept the Gospel’s pre-existence of the
Logos, albeit with an arian interpretation. Ray continues: I’m not
trying to present Grimm’s as an ideal Lexicon (Thayer did that), but make it
clear to you that if you’re going to rely on corruption based on bias as the
explanation for why this source didn’t agree with your meaning for Rev 3:14,
you’ve got an uphill battle to climb…corruption based on bias in this Lexicon
is going to be very difficult to establish. ((not the possibility now, for we
both agree that you need more than that))...the kind of corruption you claim
right where you claim it occurred is what I’m saying is going to be difficult
to establish. You know, Wrench, elsewhere you seem to suggest exasperation on
your part with me, and so you say “with you I feel like I have to take a class
on composition”…etc. Funny, friend, for I feel the same way about you. For
instance, look what I’ve gone through with this “bias” argument. How many times
have I said that ‘bias” in this Lexicon is going to be difficult to establish,
only to have you come right back and say “bias is still posssible”…etc.
Finally, I had to narrow it to, “corruption based on bias right at the point
where you claim it occurred”...then suddenly a light turns on inside ur head,
and you say “OH, well, I’ll get to that, I was just meaning to establish the
possibility first”..ok. Oivey! ? Wrench replies: I guess I just needed to here you
acknowledge in words the possibility. I didn’t feel I was getting that, but
maybe I was and wasn’t catching it, whatever, I think we can put that behind
us, I hope. One thing though, in
relation to Abbot. What exactly was the variant-verse notations that he
contributed, and what would that have to do with anything doctrinally? I fail
to see how providing variant verse notations is some kind of stamp of approval
on everything that was said by Grimm. I mean, what kind of Unitarians are we
dealing with here? Do you really expect me to believe that Abbot would have had
nothing to say about Grimm’s handling of “arche” at Rev. 3:14. Do you think he
would have just went belly up for that rendering with all the “controversy”
surrounding that? Abbot never had the chance before his death to read the final
proofs, right? He didn’t contribute a single commentary or remark, right? Just
variant verse –notations? What exactly is that and what bearing would that have
on Abbot agreeing or disagreeing with Grimm’s handling of “arche” at Rev. 3:14
and other things for that matter. It seems completely irrelevant to doctrine.
And if Thayer was a Unitarian, he sure is starting to sound a little wimpy when
it comes to standing up for what he believed. *************************************
Ray said: Yes indeed, we do believe that when he “became flesh”
this is when he first took that nature of a creature. Of course this means he
differs from other creatures in that while other creatures had no previous
existence, this one pre-existed as the Logos, truly God by nature. Now we
believe that in that pre-existent state he was not a creature, but actually
pre-existed “all things…visible and invisible’…meaning that he pre-existed all
creation. This of course must mean that he was true God, for only true God
exists before all creation. We think of his creature nature as an additional
nature he took on. The bible doesn’t elaborate on all the details as to how he
did it, but in our opinion it does teach that he did. Wrench replies: I understand
that you say he TOOK ON the nature of a creature, but that doesn’t give me the
differentiation I was needing. Does that mean he then WAS a creature? For
instance, when angels would appear, they would take on the nature of a man,
right? But, did that mean that they WERE a man, or were they still an angel
wearing the nature of man? Do you see the difference I’m after? Where, in your
opinion, does the Bible actually SAY that Christ was a creature. Not just the
word “slave” or “man”, but a creature or “part” of creation? Ray continued: As the one mediator between God and men, he
still exists as a creature…albeit it a glorified one due to His resurrection.
But now maybe you can see the force in the argument that the reason he had to
become one of us and actually live on earth for 30 some years was so that he
could sympathize first hand with being truly human, and by the same token, to
be a proper mediator, he also needed to identify with the other side of the
spectrum by actually being God. This he already was from all eternity, and once
he came to earth and died on the Cross, he is now qualified as the proper
mediator between both sides… that only he can truly identify firsthand with!!!
This is the uniqueness of the blessed savior. Wrench replies: I understand your view here, but I don’t see
why he actually had to be GOD HIMSELF to identify with the other side of
mediation. He was so much like his Father, I think he truly appreciated that
element of the mediation. He was the Wisdom of God in personal existence, so I
think he would know and appreciate all the nuances of what was transpiring. ******************************
I had said: Would you please tell me what I am currently
saying that makes you think I am accusing you of misinterpreting my words? I'm
not trying to do that, Ray, so, if I am, please point it out and I will work
out the proper wording. Goodness, with you I think I should have taken a
composition class before starting a discussion. Ray said: Currently nothing,
but my response that you’re reading now wasn’t meant to apply to what you are
CURRENTLY saying…but to what you already said. Of course I see your
frustration, Wrench, and I think part of the problem can be found in our tendency
to repeat ourselves so often in these posts…so that once a clarification or
correction occurs, it takes a while for the ancillary posts to get the message…ha!
Please understand, though, that I’m very sincere and serious-minded, and it is
not my nature to do “mischief” just to confute the other guy. On the other
hand, I think BOTH of us are conditioned by previous experiences, & in time
we will come to understand and know each other better. For example, I will know
when you weren’t meaning to imply something, and you’ll know when I wasn’t
meaning to do the same…and this hopefully will head off a lot of over-reaction.
For now it seems that we just have to tough it out… Wrench replies: Well, I’m
willing if you are. I do enjoy our conversations, despite the intermitent
frustrations. You’re clever and you have a wit about you and even when it’s
tough going, it can still be fun. So, I’m in for the long haul, and maybe some
day we can learn to trust each other more than we do now. *********************** Ray had said earlier: OK,
Wrench, please try to see that what you say above is neither here nor there. We
have a bottom line here. No one in the scholarly community seems to have ever
been aware of the arguments you've put forth...and yet you are so convinced
inside your own mind that these points are overwhelmingly in your favor. So,
how is this reality to be explained? Apparently here you don't think claiming
that they are all biased against you throughout all the centuries is a
reasonable argument, and I would agree that it's a stretch to say the least. So
here you seem to be suggesting that somehow this overwhelming evidence was
"missed" by everyone throughout all the centuries, not only by the
mass of pious Christians, but also by the best minds the Church had, everybody
missed it. Now stop to think, this is not just some little verse that perhaps a
nuance was missed, oh no, this is a whole big BUNCH of verses. I'm trying my
best to understand how you can inside your own mind brush this off. Maybe you
really do believe that its just because they are all biased against you, and
such a thought has placated you, but you don't want to appear to be one of
those guys who's always looking for black helicopters. Wrench replied: Ray, I would think things like this are
easily missed. This is not just the meaning of a single word or it really
doesn’t have to do with some “rule” of grammar. It has to do with something
that is not so obvious, that being the way a particular syntax or word order is
used in relation to one particular word. I’ve posted this same treatise many,
many places to be viewed and commented on by Trintarians galore, and not one
has ever seen the presentation of these facts. And besides, I didn’t come up
with this myself, but it was first mentioned, as far as I know, by both Rolf
Furuli and Greg Stafford, both who have studied and possess degrees in the
ancient languages of the Bible. To say that they could not discover a new
aspect in relation to the way “arche” is used with a genitive, is beyond me.
You may think it remote, but you can’t deny the fact that the claims are valid
when it comes to the Biblical examples. Do you really think we’ve come to the
end of the road when it comes to discovering things like this? If so, maybe I
should cancel my subscription to JBL because that is about the only reason I
get it, is to keep abreast of what the current scholarly discoveries and
opinions are. Ray went on: But you know, at first when I thought about
it, I hadn't considered whether the WT Society had ever set this evidence
forth...and when I thought it over, I realized that I'm pretty familiar with WT
literature clear back even before the turn of the last century, and I don't
recall anything that even remotely resembles such an argument. So although you
might be able to convince yourself that "everyone is biased against
me", and live with that explanation, it's just impossible to offer the
same explanation for the WT's not setting it forth. Even you don't believe that
they are biased against you, do you? More in a moment about this. Wrench replies: Maybe they have never seen it before, but
one thing is certain, they’ve seen it now because I know that they have copies
of both Greg and Rolf’s books, and they’ve had them for quite some time. Now,
what have they done with that information? Let see, did they DF Greg and Rolf
for running ahead? No. Did they discipline them and remove them from their
responsibilities in the congregation? No. Did they come out and tell us not to
read their books, since they have to know that 1000’s are? No. Have they even
given us a “generic” warning about such books? No. Not to date. So, what does
that tell me as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? It tells me that your view of their
“realm of control” is a bit exagerrated and that their warnings of “independent
thinking” were not in regard to things of this nature. The WT has many times
offered more than one explanation for a few verses or passages, but it is never
in contradiction with the fundamental teaching that touches on those verses.
For instance, in relation to John 20:28 (and I’m not throwing this in to the
discussion, it is just an example), you will notice the Aid Book gives a number
of possibilities in explanation of that verse, but none of them violate what they have determined to be true
elsewhere in the scriptures. I could name numerous other examples where such is
the case, the point being that it is not as crucial as you are making it sound
to merely puppet in robot fashion only what the WT has said in relation to the
application of a particular verse, or the explanation of a particular verse and
the way it fits into the scheme of things. I think those examples show the
tolerance of that. The important thing is obviously to remain within valid
exegesis and to not violate the “fundamental” teaching that is at stake.
Otherwise, I think both Greg and Rolf would have been disciplined to send a
clear and certain signal to the rank and file JW. Even when it came to them
cautioning brothers who put up pages on the net in defense of the WT and NWT,
it WAS NOT forbidden, it was stated that THERE WAS NO NEED for such a thing,
and that those on the net should be extremely cautious who they choose to
dialogue with and to have no dealings with those who were known to be what we
would view as apostate. I recall years
ago another brother who compiled a book entitled “The Trinity Examined in the
Light of History and the Bible”, or something like that. I obtained a copy of
it and he too sent a copy to the Society. This brother is still strong in the
truth today and even had a hand in helping Greg with his book. Greg even
mentions his name in acknowledgment. Now the Society has had years to catch up
with this “lawbreaker”, but, did they? In fact, it wasn’t long, although
admittedly a few years, before the Society began to use, or at least repeat
some of the very arguments he presented in his book. The WT is certainly cautious
before using information like this especially if it is relatively unchartered.
They may wait to examine the evidence theirself or see how it pans out in the
scholastic world before commiting to it’s usage. They are God’s appointed
authority against heresy, Ray, and that is the way they are viewed. They give
the food at the proper time to the household of God but they do not dictate to
the nth degree how to view the understanding of each and every verse in the
Bible as long as that understanding stays within the proper framework of
context, grammar and true doctrine. The “independent thinking” they warn of has
to do with taking a stand “against” that authority in the area of doctrine and
moral values. Let’s be realistic, we all have to have independent thinking to
one degree or another or we wouldn’t be able to make any decisions about
anything in relation to the all the things we have to handle in life. The
“independent thinking” comments should be kept in THEIR proper context as well.
Wrench said again: Well,
even you have mentioned above that there is from time to time, newly discovered
information. What is being presented here in relation to "arche" with
a genitve phrase could be that, right? If not, why not? Ray says: Well, I suppose
that a tornado tearing through a junk yard could produce a 747, but the odds
seem to be against it. It’s not that scholars haven’t noticed the partitive
interpretation of the genitive case, because they obviously have. It’s the
conclusion you’ve reached that they’ve not reached… that seems to be a problem
for you. For example, we cannot say
that they have been unaware of the passages you appealed to, for they cite them
many times for various reasons. Wrench replies: Exactly, but
have they cited them for the reasons that I have presented? Scriptures are
cited all the time for many different things, but that is a far cry from saying
that therefore every aspect of grammar and syntax is understood in relation to
other examples of like occurrences. Being AWARE of a passage has NOTHING to do
with knowing all that might bear in ON that passage. Ray went on: So I’m inclined to think that the real
answer is simply an interpreter’s priorities as he assesses the evidence. In
other words they see other evidence which seems more compelling to them. And we
have to remember that even the WTBTS hasn’t presented these same evidences in
the same way, but we can hardly think that “bias against your view” has been
their motivation. Do the scholars DISAGREE with your interpretation of the grammar
in these other places? I’m not sure if you’ve made that clear. But it seems the
specific elements necessary (Christ and all creation at the beginning) are not
the contextual referents in most of these examples, are they? Yet when we come
to Rev 3:14, it happens that we have other teaching in the New Testament about
these specific referents, other teaching which shows that this one (Jesus) was
not the first of God’s creations (John 1:3, Col.1:15-17), and such being the
case, a different conclusion seems called for. We will be addressing these
other places shortly…so I’ll wait till then. Wrench said: Likewise, I will wait to comment on those
verses, but, let me assure you, that now, since you make the complaints that
you do about my “maverick” ways, I will take the “high” road and present what
the WT has obviously offered on the area of John 1:3, and not the “possible”
understandings that they have not elaborated on so maybe we can dispense with
so much verbiage about the WT and what it requires of me in relation to
exegesis. Beside, you are already familiar with the “other” explanations I have
offered, so, you can choose which one you want to address, maybe both, because
either interpretation can be shown to be valid as I hope to demonstrate. Ray says: As I understand
it, the GB is the spokesman for the
Slave, and the Slave is made up of the whole class of anointed. And you say
that they “for the most part write things for the rank and file.” Well, what
about Greg Stafford, isn’t he part of the rank & file? It looks to me like
you either don’t understand the authority of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, or you are simply doing the Tennessee bird
walk to pass off the problems created by both God’s bypassing of the Slave, and
then Greg’s bypassing of the Slave as well when he did the independent research
and published his book. This wasn’t bad enough, apparently, but then you guys
likewise bypass the Slave and eat at the table set by Greg. Wrench replies: What Greg
presents is not outside or in opposition to the teachings of the WT. He too,
presents both explanations of John 1:3 in his book, and doesn’t land on either
one conclusively. He also presents the reasons why he feels the WT has “hinted”
at the possibility of the understanding that I have previously presented. You
see, Ray, I try to use not only my brains, but all the brains I can borrow,
too. When I say that the WT writes primarily for the rank and file, I mean they
don’t generally write things from a highly technical Greek point of view. I
wasn’t trying to remove Greg or myself or anyone from the status of rank and
file, I was merely stating that as one reason why they have never presented the
information as such because of the highly technical Greek aspects of what is
presented. They probably don’t feel the need to as their presentation of such
things as is, is certainly solid and valid as I hope to show. Ray says: You say this
evidence has been submitted to the WT, but did you wait for direction from
God’s Organization before you accepted is as from the Lord and true? Hmm…. Then
you say that if the WT comes out and says “whoa Nellie”, you would gladly give
it up. That seems inconsistent to me. You say they are authoritative and
trustworthy enough to warrant obedience later on, but not enough to wait on
direction from in the first place. I can tell you now, friend, this is not
going to fly. Wrench replies: I don’t
regard what I am doing as “disobedient”. I think I am well within the framework
of what is allowed. I am not in opposition to anything that they have written.
They have not stated that we are only allowed to puppet what they have said in
every regard, and nor do they expect that. I am extremely cautious when I
present anything or at least I try to be. As long as we remain within the
framework of the “truth” that they have determined, there can be more than one
way to look at certain scriptures that properly support those “truths” and I
think the facts bespeak that stance as I mentioned earlier. Ray said: Hey Wrench, although of course the promotion
of a sect is a no-no, and likewise a danger, Titus 3:9-11 doesn’t seem to be
the only danger mentioned in the WT’s article above….try to address yourself to
what they actually SAY in the article, OK? For example, if you really had
confidence in the Slave as a safe guide, why would you look elsewhere? HOW can
they be God’s ONLY channel on earth? The WT is very familiar with the dangers
of “independent thinking”…and again, look at what it did for Greg, as he
suddenly declared his own judgement superior to the WT’s by saying that they
relied “too heavily” on Harner’s article (in his response to Robert Hommel).
Has Greg got to thinking that he knows more than the Organization? Why didn’t
you answer this? As I said, the WT knows well the dangers of independent
thinking….for…… Wrench answers: I haven’t commented on this because I haven’t
read Greg’s response yet and don’t plan to for some time, I just don’t have the
time to spare. I would have to familiarize myself with the whole line of
thought before I comment. Besides, I would have to see if the WT would have a
problem with that statement or not. Maybe by this time, they are in agreement
with what Greg stated, I don’t know. But, as it is, I certainly didn’t use that
info for anything, what I did use were scriptural examples that establish a
point. I used scripture throughout my entire treatise. I appreciated the points
about this that were touched on by Greg and Rolf and I formulated it into a
presentation but you will notice I did not quote them for anything, I
consistently quoted scripture to establish the arguments. So, it is not like I
am in anyway violating scripture or valid exegesis or taking a stand against
the WT’s position on this information. That is why I feel I am well within the
bounds of what they allow. There treatment of Greg and Rolf and others who have
written books of this nature bespeak that to be the case. You know, you could ask Greg about this
yourself and let me know what he says. He is only an email away. Ray went on:..A similar
situation to this occurred at Bethel about 20 years ago, I think, and it came
to a head in the spring of 80. Bethelites were being DFd all over the place,
brothers were ratting on each other so as to not be part of the “conspiracy”. Many bethelites considered this to be a
“witchhunt”. And the WT says it all came about because of “independent
thinking” on the part of some at headquarters. Many of the Bethelite brethren
were having private meeetings and bible studies without supervision from the WT
material, and this even resulted in a GB member being DFd (Ray Franz). In the
end, Ray was actually Dfd for having a meal with someone else who had been DFd
(Peter Gregerson) who was his employer! You may say and think that you aren’t
leading a “sect”, but who knows what will happen down the road a tad? What if
Greg decides to DA, and go off and start his own organization of “truth’?
You’ve already gone out ahead of the Slave anyway, and accepted his “stumbled
upon” as findings as truth, haven’t you? Let me ask you to deal with a few
questions about what I think the WT Organization cannot afford to let pass. 1.
Have
you not heard of the Society ‘s teaching about getting out ahead of the
Organization or the Slave? Wrench answers: Yes, I have.
The warnings about running ahead are always in the context of taking an
“opposing” view to what they have determined to be the true teachings of the
scriptures. 2. Do you think that Greg was
showing respect for Jehovah’s theocratic arrangement when he went out on his
own for research, and by-passed the Slave and published his book? Wrench says: I think he was
well within the bounds of what he would be allowed to do from their standpoint,
as their treatment of both him and Rolf would establish. Rolf is very active
within the organization and used quite frequently. Greg has many
responsibilities in his home congregation. Greg and Rolf are not presenting the
information they have in the format of being God’s appointed authority on the
matter and neither am I. 3. If, as you’ve shown here, it
is possible to ascertain the “truth”, and disseminate it without going thru the
Slave, what real need is there for the slave? If anything will get the WT’s
attention, this one will! Wrench replies: Greg did not
establish the “truth” that Christ is a created being. The WT, by means of the
Bible DID. What Greg has done is to show auxiliary evidence that supports and
confirms what they have already found to be true. There is nothing wrong with
that. Is it NEEDED? No. But the fact that it is not needed, does not mean that
it is forbidden, otherwise Greg and Rolf would not be where they are and they
would not be used in the manner they are used. 4. In light of your statement
above that the WT writes mainly to the rank & file (who is Greg?) and they
seldom write anything “that goes to great depth”, would you please explain the
WT’s meaning in the WT magazine of 7-1-73,
page 402: “How very much true Christians appreciate associating with the only
organization on earth that understands the ‘deep things of God’”! Wrench responds: I explained
what I meant by this phrase earlier. 5. Please explain how the WT
Organization is God’s “only channel on earth”, if it is true that God channels
the truth THROUGH the scholarly community, and also if it is OK to bypass the
Slave in ascertaining the truth and disseminating it around the Slave? Are you
sure you believe that the WT Society is God’s only channel? Wrench says: The WT is the only ORGANIZATION that God is
using today to spearhead the true message of God’s Kingdom. They are the
dispensers of truth and nothing we have done denies that if we stay within the
framework of what is allowed. I believe we are within that framework. The WT
does not claim inspiration and they study what is available about the original
languages like anyone else. However. It is believed that God’s Spirit directs
them in a prodding fashion to discern the truth. He doesn’t give them instant
understanding in every area but ‘prods’ them in the proper direction to arrive
at that correct understanding. That is no different then you feel about the way
any individual gets the “truth”. It is how you would think YOU got what you
think is the “truth”. Unless of course, you think you understood it all from
the very beginning in your sojourn as a Christian. The WT takes in the knowledge and then God WORKS with that
knowledge, but the knowledge that they take in is not just WT invention, it is knowledge
that has been accumulated by them AND what has been presented from the scholars
and theologians before them. They “constantly” quote scholars to support the
points they have found to be true. God continues to nudge them in the right
direction through their own personal study and research into what ever is
available from their own writings and the writings of others. Ray said: You mention calling the Watchtower Society,
Wrench, and although I’ve never meant to hurt anyone on a personal level, if
you would be willing to come out in the open and use your real name, we might
indeed be able to bring the Society to bear on some of these things which have
been going on. Including Greg Stafford’s book. At least he has revealed his name,
right? I’d really like to see how the WT would react to some of this stuff
because of the way they’ve reacted at an earlier time, when similar activity
was going on at Bethel Headquarters in Brooklyn. I’ll leave that up to you. Wrench replies: The WT already knows of Greg’s book so what
is the point of telling them about it? I decided before I ever got on the net
that I preferred to stay anonymous for various reasons, least of which is
worrying about the WT. They know Greg and Rolf are both on the net and what
have they done? They know others are on the net, too, and they know their names
and how to get ahold of them, and what have they done except caution everyone
to be extremely careful and to tell them that they don’t NEED these brothers to
do such a thing, but it has NOT been forbidden. That tells me something about
their stance that is different then the way you are presenting it. If they
really wanted us to not do this AT ALL, it wouldn’t have been hard to just say
it when they addressed it before. **************************** Ray had said: Anyway, let me say something here. As I
related in my last post, if anyone had an incentive to disseminate this info
you're referring to, it would be the WT Society, for they teach in a leadership
capacity the same thing you claim. But I would submit, that if they had been
aware of this evidence and its supposed strength, they would have reveled in
it, and written 365 tracts a year to defend it as a glorious and indispensable
truth. And yet you tell me that you got it from Greg and this other guy… Wrench replies: And who is to say they wont yet disseminate
the information once they feel inclined to do so? They’ve done it before so it
appears from the example I mentioned earlier. They will no doubt be doubly sure
before they do though. Wrench had said: We do recognize the governing body as that
which dispenses the truth to us, as you say. But nothing in the manner in which
they come to an understanding about something denies that it can't come from
the scholarly world, even if it were not a JW.
The Society through research into certain words have drawn their
conclusions because of the work of scholars on the subject. The
"truth" that they dispensed came through scholastic evident and diligent
research into an area. What did they research? The scholastic evidence that is
available from the scholastic world. Now, as they research this evidence, does
God's spirit help them and prod them in the direction of a better
understanding? I would say so. So whereas it is under the direction of God's
spirit, it is not without the considerations from the scholarly world, be that from Greg or Rolf or somebody else.
You may think that me or anyone else to use this information is cart before the
horse or in some way "against" the authority of the WT, but I don't see how it hardly could be when
it is in complete agreement with the evidence that supports their viewpoint
concerning Rev. 3:14. They are not
going to worry about whether or not I'm using something that is in complete
agreement with their findings, even if it is a new aspect of what they have
covered. It certainly isn't the promoting of a sect as spoken of in Titus
3:9-11. It is merely the evidence from a scholastic source that completely
supports their position. Now, if they
come out and say, whoa nellie, this information is all screwed up, then I would
be more than willing to cast it aside because I know they would explain why
that was the case Ray says: Already dealt with above. Wrench replies: Likewise, I
hope. Wrench stated: Let me get this straight. My explanation wont
wash because you don't think it agrees with the WT. That's an interesting
approach, Ray, but I don't find it very convincing or scholarly. If you have
read my writings for very long, you will notice I rarely if ever call the WT as
a witness for what I believe. It's not because I am ashamed of them, not at
all, I just know that generally, people have no respect for their writings, and
besides, as they too espouse, the truth lies in the Word of God, not in the
words of men. It just surprises me, that no matter how hard I try to share
scriptural and scholarly evidence, I end up having to quote a WT because people
wont leave them out of it. Ray replied: Wrench,
would you please reconcile for me your two statements placed in juxtaposition
above? On the one hand, you portray
yourself as someone who chooses not to hold up the Watchtower Society as an
object of comparison, and you actually seem to be complaining about having to
quote them because people won’t leave them out of it…however, just before that
you suggested that there’s nothing wrong with holding up the WT Society as an
object of comparison when using scholastic information from Greg’s book or even
from Trinitarian sources “that might help establish the truth of what they
teach”. I guess I’d like for the real Wrench to stand up. You bring in the WT
Society yourself as an object of comparison (when no one’s lookin), but when I
do the same, to show where you disagree with them, suddenly you change hats on
me, and complain that you don’t find the procedure “very convincing or
scholarly”. Well, my friend, I’d say it’s just as broad as it is long, wouldn’t
you? Wrench replies: Well. I didn’t think you would view the WT
as “scholarly”. When I spoke about from a scholarly view, I was in reference to
those YOU would agree with as scholarly, and also the evidence straight from
the pages of the Bible. I am beginning to realize that this WT angle is
obviously your only defense when it come to me dismantling your “pendulum”
verses because you have certainly not attempted to defeat my reasoning from any
other source except the WT angle and somehow, I think you would if you actually had the evidence to do so. So, I am realizing that you are kind of forced to
take this position with me in order for your proffed ‘pendulum’ scriptures not
to fall by the wayside and you would be left with no convincung evidence to
cause the natural reading of Rev 3:14 and Col. 1:15 to be overturned. Ray said: Of course I’m going to point out wherever I
can where you disagree with the Watchtower Society. After all, you regard them
as God’s Organiization, and what loyal witness would want to be found in public
disagreement with God’s Organization? On the other hand, you might wonder why
you cannot defend them without ending up in disagreement with them in the very
act of trying to defend them! Wrench replies: Just WHERE
is the DISAGREEMENT? That hasn’t been clearly established at all. Ray said : OK, we are starting to go into the
discussion about the “natural” meaning of the words in John 1:1-4 as compared
to the claims you make in your re-framed treatise. But let’s get your own words
of re-framing before us first…here’s what you say you are going to do…. Wrench says: Restating the
issue I said this: : (((I believe the real issue is this. I intend to
demonstrate that the natural understanding of the phrases in that threefold
witness I have presented weigh heavily against the Trinitarian. Individually
and ‘certainly’ collectively. I can’t think of any reason why the unprecedented
interpretation would prevail without some VERY COMPELLING, nearly UNDENIABLE
evidence being presented in the converse...It is the ‘collective’ force that I
am appealing to more than the individual source. The individual force is very
strong in itself but that is why the ‘witness’ of two or three is needed to
establish a point.))) Ray says: Very well, then...here
we go: RRRR Wrench says: I can see that the words in the Knowledge
book are not conclusive in restricting John 1:1 to Gen. 1:1. On the other hand,
I could see how it could be taken to be opening up the possibility of that
interpretation, because there is a direct connection made between John 1:1 and
Genesis 1:1 and the Aid book that you quote always restricts Genesis 1:1 to the
material creation. You say below that a reference on page 392 says that Geneisi
is not restricted to the material creation. I can't find that statement. What I
do find in relation to Gen. 1:1 on page 390 and 391, that each time it is
referenced it is applied solely to the physical creation. So the connection in
the Knowledge book ceratinly leaves room for that understanding. And the fact
that John 1:2 cross references Gen 1:1 on the phrase "in the
beginning" allows for that understanding as well, since they have
consistently applied Gen. 1:1 to just the physical creation. Ray says: I’m sorry,
Wrench, but I don’t have the “Divine Knowledge” publication. But let me get
this straight. Are you saying that the WT Society teaches differently about
this in the Divine Knowledge publication than they did in the “Aid” book?
Here’s what you could do for me, which would of course be very much
appreciated. Please photocopy for me the following sections (if such there are)
from the Divine Knowledge publication: “Creation”… “Genesis”… “God”… “Jehovah”
… “Jesus”…. And in the meantime I’m going to proceed as if the WT doesn’t teach
differently in these two publications. Wrench replies: The Knowledge book is not sectioned off as
you anticipated. It is a paragraph by paragraph publication that we use in our
studies with individuals who are interested . I have shown you the section
before that makes the comment in question but I will show you again. I don’t
have any way to photocopy so I’ll have to just quote it for you. Here is the
whole paragraph in question. Knowledge
(1995)-page 39-paragraph 13. Chapter “Jesus Christ-The Key to the Knowledge of
God” “Jesus was called God’s “only-begotten Son” because Jehovah created him
directly. (John 3:16) As “the firstborn of all creation,” Jesus was then used
by God to create all other things. (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14) John 1:1
says that “the Word” (Jesus in is pre-human existence) was with God “in the
beginning”. So the Word was with Jehovah when “the heavens and the earth” were
created. God was addressing the Word when He said: “Let us make man in our
image.” (Genesis 1:1, 26) Likewise, the Word must have been God’s beloved
“master worker,” described at Proverbs 8:22-31 as wisdom personified, laboring
at Jehovah’s side in the making of all things. After Jehovah brought him into
existence, the Word spent ages with God in heaven before becoming a man on
earth.” Here is the significant piece that I see in this “latest”
explanation. It first says that John 1:1 states that Jesus was “in the
beginning” with God. It then cites Genesis 1:1 right after that as if those two
references of “in the beginning” are the same. It is for that reason I feel
well within my rights to say that it is possible for John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1
to be the same time reference, and yes, that would be an updated understanding
in regard to the Aid book which was written prior to this. I have not found
anything written since then that would deny that understanding either. Ray said: You acknowledge above that “the words in the
Knowledge book are not conclusive in restricting John 1:1 to Gen. 1:1. Well,
since you admit this, I don’t know how you can claim, with any personal
integrity, that you have met the goals you set for yourself in the re-framing
of your treatise. In fact the WT Society argues conclusively AGAINST such a
restriction, unless they contradict themselves outright in the two
publications. Wrench replies: One could
simply be an updated explanation of the other. That DOES happen. Or, it could be viewed as an alternate way of
approaching that phrase “in the beginning”, as they have offered alternate ways
of understanding certain passages in the past without demanding compliance to
one view or the other, as long as both views do not contradict the basic
“truth” at stake or as long as the explanantion does not violate the context
and proper grammar and word meaning. Ray continued: For example, and I found this VERY
interesting, Jehovah’s Witnesses see certain distinctive time points throughout
Jehovah’s creative process. First is what they call “the beginning of Jehovah’s
creative works”…which to them is the creation of the logos. Next is the logos’
creation of all the angels and other invisible things, then comes the creation
of the physical universe (as depicted in Gen. 1). They see a time period of
indeterminate length between the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works and the
creation of the physical universe. Let’s first allow them to establish the
creation of the spirit creatures such as angels BETWEEN the beginning of
Jehovah’s creative works…and the creation of the physical universe. Page 391 of “Aid to Bible Understanding”, first
column: “After creating his
only-begotten Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into
existence. This preceded the founding of
the earth, as Jehovah revealed when questioning Job and asking him:
‘where did you happen to be when I founded the earth…when the morning stars
joyfully cried out together…and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?’ (Job 38:4-7). IT WAS AFTER THE
CREATION OF THESE HEAVENLY SPIRIT CREATURES THAT THE MATERIAL HEAVENS AND EARTH
AND ALL ELEMENTS WERE MADE OR BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE, and since Jehovah Was the
one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is ascribed to
Him.—Neh. 9:6; Ps. 136:1, 5-9. The Scriptures, in stating, ‘In the beginning
God created the heavens And the earth’ (Gen 1:1) leave matters indefinite as to
time. Their re- Ference to “the beginning” is therefore unassailable,
regardless of the Age scientists may seek to attach to the earthly globe and to
the various Planets and other heavenly bodies. The actual time of creation of
the Material heavens and earth may have been billions of years ago.” Note Wrench, that the creation of the spirit angels is posited
BETWEEN the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works (John 1:1) and the creation of
the physical universe (Gen 1). A clear and undeniable separation between John
1:1 and Gen 1: timewise and eventwise. Ok, does the Society depart from this in
the Knowledge book? I doubt it very much.
Wrench says: I don’t. Ray said: Note also for the record, their reference to
Gen. 1:1’s not being time specific. I gave you the wrong page number for this…sorry…Anyway,
Gen. 1:1 isn’t time specific as to the time of it occurrence, so Scientists cannot undermine creationism,
but at the same time the WT says there was indeed a time period between the
beginning of Jehovah’s creative works and the creation of the physical
universe, and that the spiritual angels were created during this intervening
time period. Do you see this? No way to equate or connect the creation of the
physical universe in Gen. 1: with the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works in
John 1:1…according to the Watchtower Society.
Wrench responds: Then, yes,
but have they offered an alternate way to look at things? I think they have.
But, nonetheless, I can easily defend the position presented in the Aid Book as
well, and it really doesn’t change much of anything. More on that below. Ray said: So then, once we see these time/events as
separate units with time between them, there is no logical way to equate them.
You mentioned that the WT’s reference bible cross-references Gen. 1:1 with John
1:2…and I found that extremely interesting. Let’s have a brief discussion about
that, shall we? Notice in the same reference bible the cross-references in the
column of John 1:1…do you see Genesis 1:1, Wrench? Nope, it’s not there. In
fact, with reference to the beginning in John 1:1a, the NWT cross-references
three other passages, namely Pr 8:22, Col. 1:15, & Rev. 3:14. Now let me
ask you a question. Why didn’t the WT cross-reference Gen. 1:1 along with these
other three if these two beginnings are the same? This answer is exceedingly
obvious, isn’t it? They knew they could not connect them because they
themselves have erected a barrier between these two beginnings. What was that?
The intervening time period during which the spirit angels are created…THAT’S
the barrier! Wrench replies: I am sure at the time the NWT was prepared,
that was the stronger position that they took, for it is the one that they elaborated
on at different times. It is possible they simply mentioned Gen.1:1 at John 1:2
to show a “similarity” between the expressions. At this point, there is no way
to know for sure, but with the Knowledge Book it appears to me the link is much
stronger because of the way it connects the phrase “in the beginning” with both
John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1. The WT doesn’t necessarily use ‘cross-references” in the
NWT as connective teaching points. Many times it is used to show similar
wordings without trying to identify one solidly with the other, so I am sure we
can’t rely too much on the mere “cross-reference” connection. I think you are simply hoping that I can’t
defend the other position in relation to the “all things” of John 1:3, but I
don’t think that is going to be a problem. In fact, it is nearly the same
explanation as you will see. Ray stated: So, not being able to cross-reference the
beginning in Gen. 1:1 with the beginning in Jn. 1:1, the WT tries a neat little
trick in John 1:2…and there they cross reference “the beginning” in verse 2
with Gen. 1:1. hmm …..This is a no brainer, Wrench. They obviously can’t be
equating them or they’d have included Gen. 1:1 along with Prov. 8:22, Rev. 3:14
as cross-referenced with Jn. 1:1a…etc… Wrench replies: Not necessarily as I stated above. As well,
the separation and the difference between the “cross-references” of John 1:1
and 1:2 could have been intentional to establish both possibilities separately
without confusing the two. Ray stated: But they anticipate a problem coming up in
the next couple verses, and so they want to try to “set up” a possible
explanation. Here’s their reasoning: Well we know that the logos was also with
God at the beginning of the creation of the material universe too, so let’s
cross reference the beginning in John 1:2 with Gen. 1:1…so that when we get to
verse 3, and need to restrict the “all things”…at least we can claim it goes to
the beginning in verse 2 which according to our cross reference is the same
beginning as Gen. 1:1 (physical universe)…that way we don’t have to take “all
things” in the all inclusive sense. BIG PROBLEM for this Wrench. It is too easy
to refute to allow you any comfort. Wrench replies: Well, at least you admit that they could
have been offering an alternate way of looking at it. That is what I have been
saying and that is why I feel I have the leaway to present it that way. And now
for the BIG PROBLEM. Ray stated: Look again at John 1:2…and what is the first
Greek word in this verse?? It is a pronoun, a demonstrative pronoun “this
one”(masc, nom, sing), and when a sentence or clause begins with a pronoun it
usually or more naturally looks to the preceding context for it’s referent.
Take the simple expression “Jack lost his hat”…the pronoun “his” refers to
“Jack” in the preceding context, right? Jack is then the contextual antecedent
of “his”. Ok, in John 1:2 “houtos een” means “this one was”. What is the
contextual antecedent of “this one”? It goes to the Logos in the preceding
verse, this one who was with God in the beginning there. So the contextual
antecedent for “this one” in verse 2…goes to logos in the PRECEDING ‘beginning’
(Jn. 1:1a) as its referent. Thus the NWT’s attempt to cross reference Gen. 1:1
with John 1:2 is quite arbitrary and simply ignores the contextual antecedent
for “this one”. Wrench says: But don’t you see that the alternate way of
looking at this would also CHANGE THE PRECEDING TIME REFERENCE AS WELL. What is
possibly being suggested in verse two is that the “beginning” is in reference
to Gen. 1:1 and that necessarily runs backward to include the “beginning’ in
John 1:1. The opposite way is also the same result. IF John 1:1 refers to “the
very beginning of God’s creative works” then it necessarily means that for John
1:2. But both ways of looking at it present no problem. I have already presented my “preferred” understanding of this as
you are well aware so let me present the other one so that you will see that
there is still no problem in reference to the “all things” of verse 3. If the “beginning” means the very start of
God’s creative activity we first have to realize that this “beginning” had a
START and an ENDING in relation to the event that constituted it. You see, by the time the first THING, that
makes up the “all things” of verse 3, came THROUGH the Word, the event known as
the “beginning”(the creation of the Son) had concluded. “In the beginning” was
a segment of time in which the Logos was created. That time segment concluded
before the “all things” commenced coming THROUGH the Word who was already
there, being created during the segment of time known as “in the
beginning”. Therefore, the “all
things”, without exception, that came through the Word are “all things” AFTER
the time segment known as “in the beginning” had concluded with the completion
of the creating of the Son and his existence with his Father for who knows how
long before the commencement of “all things” were created THROUGH him by God. I
think yo