To Ray: The Son of God Created Pt1

 

Posted by Wrench in the works on February 10, 19100 at 09:18:09:

 

Hello Ray, I've tried to trim what wasn't necessary so this thing wont be so long, but it is still very long. If I leave out something important, please just reintroduce the point and I will try to address it. $$$$$

I had said: Well Ray, I'm not sure what you want from me. I told you I have may have worded things incorrectly. I even stated that if my wording was misleading, I apologize. I even stated if I did all I can do is say I’m sorry, restate my case, and proceed from there. I hope you have seen that I have “tweaked” my presentation so as not to overstate it. Also this, "You may be right, I may have framed it incorrectly so allow me to put it in a new frame as I stated above."

 

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.)))  I tried to scan a pound of my flesh onto the computer to send it to you but it just wouldn't go.

Ray replied: I had to chuckle a little when I read this, because I surely don't need a pound of your flesh, Wrench :-). But in trying to make some sense out of your response, the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize how it must look from your vantage point. You saw that you had framed your original treatise in such a way as to overstate your case (in the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established".

..etc. But in trying to "restate" the framework you also attempted the get me to "split the blame" with you by suggesting not only that you had never intended to establish the matter, but that I had misinterpreted your words. Thus, when making this suggestion you quote 2 or 3 of your summary statements to that effect. At this point I must either sit still for such an implication or defend myself. So I decided to take the latter course and reminded you of your initial statements "in the mouth of two witnesses or of three, every matter must be established". These words of yours, placed right up front, show clearly that my interpretation of your treatise was perfectly reasonable and logical, being in complete harmony with your own words. So then, you saw that I was not willing to "split the blame", and so from your vantage point you took that as being hardnosed on my part, and as a last resort it was easy for you to fall into the victimology complex... "Woe is me, Ray is such a hardnose, and poor me, why I'm just a regular guy doing the best I can here"... :-)

 

Actually the better way to have handled this would have been to simply acknowledge that you need to reframe the whole thing, and set it forth. No apologies were in order. My response would have been to remind you that I need to make some adjustments accordingly, and we'd have gone from there. But apparently you couldn't leave it at that...and you wanted to suggest that we were both to blame for your having to reframe the treatise. Why not, it was worth a try, and if I don't say anything, you get away with it. But why should I allow you to make such an unfounded implication? Especially when in sending it forth, you cited your summary statements ("I said this on purpose, Ray" ...etc) ...and left out your initial statements which would have interfered with what you were trying to imply. Sorry, friend, but I could not sit still for such an unfair assessment, even if I do appear to be hardnosed. I took your initial statements at face value and responded accordingly...hence I did nothing wrong. But now that you've re-framed it, it does look like you've given yourself a little more breathing room (or wiggle room) whichever way you prefer to view it. For the terms "heavily in favor" at least leave some latitude and ambiguity to exist. But even with the re-framing, I don't think your argumentation so far has been on par. So I don't need a pound of your flesh, and I don't need an apology...just do what you have to do (reframe it), and I'll make my adjustments accordingly. Then we can move on...pure and simple, OK?

Wrench replies: OK. I think I did reframe above, right? Are you saying I need to reframe it again?
 

I had stated:
Wrench said: Aren't you arguing both sides of the fence here, Ray. Do you believe that Col 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 put Christ among creation or not? If not, then I will continue along the lines of trying to demonstrate that. If you do, then I will continue along the lines of showing you why I think he is the "first". Again, I think the collective force would be strongly in favor of his being the "first". If you don't know for sure, that's fine, I will continue to try to convince that first he IS numbered among creation and then demonstrate him being the "first" one. But, if you are just intentionally being a moving target, I don't really know why we are doing this at all, then. Can I ask you, do you really want to get to the bottom of the matter, or is your goal to try and throw in enough variables and possibilities to endlessly evade what was intended by those words? God had something in mind when he had them recorded. And I'm sure it wasn't just a range of possibilities. I really want to know what he meant by them and I hope you do to.

Ray said: "What we have here...is a failure to communicate" (Cool Hand Luke :-)) I guess I shouldn't have taken for granted that you were well aware that the Trinity position holds that at a certain point in history the Logos "became flesh" (John 1:14)...and thus came to be "among creation". Apparently this is something you had not known before, and as a result,  my bringing it out makes you think that I'm trying to argue both sides of the fence. My point, Wrench, is that you seemed to be assuming that any passage that portrays Christ in the role of a creature was ipso facto and automatically detrimental to my view and in favor of yours. This misconception seemed to be at least partially responsible for your tendency to over-assess and overstate the strength of your case. For many passages that portray Christ in the role of a creature do NOT damage the Trinitarian position in any way, and so they do NOT provide an argument of independent value for your side (this was the strawman I was referring to). You see, Wrench, the real difference between our positions lies in whether Christ was the ORIGINAL creature... in whether he was "among creation" BEFORE he took the form of a servant (Phil 2:6-8). That's what you need to address yourself to. But you were trying to get trinitarians to just see that "Christ was among creation"...and you needed much more than that! Given the trinitarian position that at the incarnation, Christ took on the nature of a creature, for you to say that you were merely trying to get us to see that he was "among creation"...is about like saying "I'm going to teach a fish how to swim"...So this is not something I've recently made up...it has always been a vital part of trinitarianism...and so if that is to be regarded as "arguing both sides of the fence"...so be it.

Ray continued: No, as I've shown in my recent responses, I don't believe that Col. 1:15 or Rev. 3:14 "PUTS" Christ among creation...and I never have. In fact I've shown that Col. 1:17 says that Christ is "before" all creation. Now does this mean that I'm saying that Christ never was "among creation"? Not at all...I'm just saying that the passages you've appealed to do not "put" him among creation in such a way as to require the conclusion that he was the first creation...first in the series…etc I have never changed or veered from this, Wrench.

Wrench replies: Let me see if I have this right. Trinitarians view Christ as having been "among creation" due to the fact that he, the Logos, became flesh on earth, right? However, you do not believe that the scriptures that I have offered actually PUT Christ in the position of a "creation" or a "creature", right? That appears to be your position. In fact you say have NEVER thought that Col 1:15 or Rev. 3:14 have put Christ among creation.

The thing that confuses me again is the manner in which you word your following statement, ""the passages you've appealed to do not "put" him among creation IN SUCH A WAY as to require the conclusion that he was the first creation." Do you see why I am confused? It sounds as though what you could be saying is that it "puts" him among creation but not IN THE WAY I think it puts him among creation. So, at this point I'm still not sure whether you think that Col. 1:15 and cntxt. puts Christ "among" creation IN ANY WAY AT ALL. This is what I need clarified, Ray.

 

In one of your very first letters you stated this about Col. 1:15

 

(((Because even if we accept the partitive meaning, that can be accomodated by the fact that even the Orthodox position teaches that the logos "took on our nature" at the incarnation (John 1:14..Phil 2) and thus the application of the term would not require him to be the original creature or the first in the series, and can thus be satisfied by him becoming "one of us" later in history.)))

 

I took from this that you were entertaining the possibility that Christ WAS numbered among creation, but in a different way as you state above, by becoming one of us. Do you see why I thought that? You presented it as a possible interpretation, didn't you?

 

Later you stated this:

 

(((Next comes the expression "firstborn of all creation" in Col. 1:15. I began by pointing out that my position doesn't require me to deny the partitive meaning for the genitive case. That doesn't mean that I think it's demanded. In fact I recognize that some take it as comparitive. So I'm merely going along here to illustrate that even if we do accept the partitive meaning, it still would not satisfy the burden of proof for you. Your burden is to prove that he was the FIRST creature in the series (numerically), as you set forth at the outset of this treatise.)))

 

Did you or did you not call this your "position" not requiring you to deny the partitive meaning? Aren't you still presenting this as a possible interpretation at the point of this response above?

 

The following statement indicates the same attitude:

 

(((You say that regardless of how we understand verse 16 "creation", it has nothing to do with his becoming a man. No we cannot go that far. Why? Because as the context moves into verses19 and 20 we see Paul portraying him as on a mission to reconcile all creation by means of his shed blood on the cross of Calvary. So the relationship is constant from start to finish, Jesus was "hand's on" responsible for all creation in the first place, and for its reconciliation in the last place. That's why he deserves the title "firstborn of all creation". Praise His Holy Name Forevermore!)))

 

You seem to be defending the position that you say you never did. I hope you can understand now the reasons for my confusion as to your position on Col. 1:15. So please tell me, do you or do you not REJECT the partitive meaning in Colossians 1:15? I think from your most recent statement that you DO, but I just want to be sure, OK?
 

You continued:

Ray said: But then you go on to indicate that you are frustrated and that you think I'm perhaps just playing games and trying to do mischief just to thwart you...and so you ask me if I'm trying to be a "moving target"..etc. However, nothing could be further from the truth. And please try to think of the Irony of ironies here...just a moment ago, you admitted that you had wrongly framed your treatise and had to re-frame it...and then, without shifting gears, you look at me and suggest, "would you please sit still"...I about fell out of my chair. Talk about a set of gonads! I'm not the one moving, Wrench, except in trying to keep up with you. With regard to Christ being "among creation"...I've been saying these things for years now...with no change at all. It's a fundamental part of Trinitarianism.

My movement has not been in regard to the interpretaion of those verses that I offered from the beginning. That is what I was referring to by “movement”. In relation to Col. 1:15, I couldn't tell where you were, because even though you say you weren't moving, you were offering another interpretaion as valid that would still uphold Trinitarianism. So, I just wanted you to land, that's all, in regard to Col. 1:15.
 

I had stated:

Wrench had said:  True Ray, but, come on, no 'work' is without error and at least some bias, on both sides of the fence. The WH text is not perfect and the WT has acknowledged that, too. Do you really think that 'bias' doesn't exist in the works of these scholars you mention? You're sounding a little naive to claim that there is no way that they could be biased. "Everyone" is biased to one degree or another and because someone is brutally honest in one place doesn't mean they are not blinded by bias in another. Like you say, the evidence is either there to back it up or it isn't. I am sure you know that evidence can be overplayed just like it can be underplayed.

Ray said: You should try telling that to the Watchtower Society, Wrench, this is a lame response. Can't you see that if what you are now saying is correct, and therefore justifies rejecting anything that comes from someone who holds a different view, that the WT should have followed your lead and said to themselves "wait a minute, everybody makes mistakes, everybody has biases, hence we cannot use this Greek Text because " we cannot dismiss the possibility of bias"…Since Professors Westcott and Hort weren't Jehovah's Witnesses. Is that what they did? If not, why not? You see, friend, instead of adopting your lead, they based the NWT translation on that Greek text, and then concluded (and this should really dog your cats) that they were thus able to provide you guys with "the faithful sayings of Jehovah". Hmmmmmm.......
 

Wrench replies: Surely you don't think that the WH was the sole criteria for the NWT and for being able to provide us with the "faithful sayings of Jehovah", do you? It was the principal text, but it was not the only one. There were many different sources that were used in order to derive at what they considered to the best and most accurate text. Do you think they went with WH 100% of the time. No, they didn't. Why? Because it had at least "some" error in their estimation. It still sounds as thought you are trying to make it black and white. I am not trying to make it an all or nothing scenario. Something doesn't have to be 100% free from error and bias in order to be used. When there is a question, then other sources can be called on to either confirm or deny what others might find and then a decision made on all the evidence from many directions.

 

It is not as cut and dry as "We can't use it because an opinion somewhere might be bias in it." I think everyone knows that when it comes to theological literature in particular, a person's own particular leaning can affect the way they render something or not. It can cause them to have scholastic "tunnel-vision" to one degree or the next. And again, because they have a very balanced and objective view in relation to one word, such as the "theos" example you offer, it does NOT mean that they can not be biased when it comes to the definition of another word, such as "arche" that I offered in relation to Rev. 3:14. All I ever presented in relation to this is that there is the POSSIBILITY of bias. The evidence elsewhere is going to have to be called in to see if bias is a strong possibility or a weak one. But NONE can state that bias is NOT POSSIBLE in the incident that I am referring to. That's an absurd statement to claim that there is NO WAY that bias is possible. That is why we are addressing John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 (eventually), because those are the verses that Robertson offered to arrive at his conclusion that it didn't mean "beginning", to which you agreed with. Those verses were offered to demonstrate why the natural meaning of that phrase should be overturned. More on that below.
 

You continued:

Ray said: Surely you don't consider your own judgement superior to the Watchtower's, do you? You see now why I said that your response was lame? The issue is NOT whether everyone has personal convictions (or biases if you prefer), but whether they have allowed them to corrupt their work. You wrongly assume that the fact that someone has personal convictions different from yours, ipso facto must mean that they cannot but have allowed those personal convictions to corrupt their work...for you it's a slam dunk. However, quite obviously the WT doesn't think it is a slam dunk. So you have to make up your mind whether you believe that your own judgment is superior to the WT's...
 

Wrench replies: A "possibility" is not a slam dunk, Ray. That is what I have offered, and so far, I have only offered that in relation to "arche" and the meaning adopted by Robertson and others, not EVERY personal conviction different from mine. The evidence for bias can only be determined when OTHER factors bearing on the subject are considered. That is why we are proceeding with John 1:3 and Col. 1:16. There would have to be very compelling evidence to overturn the consistent, natural way of reading the phrase in question at Rev. 3:14. If that compelling evidence is not there, coupled with the fact that "arche" is NEVER used elsewhere in scripture as "source", coupled with the fact that John NEVER uses "arche" for "ruler", coupled with the fact that "arche" followed by a genitive phrase ALWAYS includes the "arche" among that which is signified in the genitive, I would think that it would be shown that bias could very well be at play. That is what I am attempting to do at this point in our discussion. To say I haven’t done that yet is so obvious I don’t see the need for the statement. It’s like telling someone who is painting a picture that it doesn’t look that great because he’s hasn’t finished it yet.
 

You continued:

Ray said: I'll show later in this post what the WT says about the dangers of "independent reasoning" on the part of rank and file witnesses. But you know, it comes to me that perhaps you are not even an active Witness. Because come to think of it I've never seen a loyal active witness disagree so non-chalantly with the WT Society like I've seen from you. Could that be the reason...because you are not an active Witness?

Wrench replies: I am a very active Witness, Ray, with many responsibilities. Nor do I find myself in "disagreement" with the WT Society.
 

I stated:

Wrench had said: You are trying hard to present an almost "idealistic" picture of Professor Grimm. Do you really think that he thought his work was nearly perfect? Once Thayer was done he himself said: "No one can have a keener sense than the editor has of the shortcomings of the present volume...may the present work so approve itself to students of the Sacred Volume as to enlist their co-operation with him in ridding it of every blemish."  I mentioned prior that 'references' were added not only to 'supplement' but to "CORRECT" Prof Grimm. And concerning the one example you give, and I'm sure there are others, I don't think that exonerates anyone from not allowing bias to direct their thinking in another area. I know that you have to know this, Ray.
 

Ray said: And YOU must know that none of this stuff you're complaining about deterred the NWT Committee (anointed Witnesses) from adopting the WH text...do the math Wrench! For example, the WT Society knew too... that "everybody makes mistakes"...and "everybody has personal convictions (or biases)"...but they ALSO UNDERSTOOD that such a reality is really beside the point in these kind of situations. All we can do is look for the best evidence available and go from there. So, then, they decided that the WH text met that standard and thus they could conclude on such basis that they were able to give you guys "the faithful sayings of Jehovah"…so at the risk of sounding (or being portrayed by you) as overbearing, I'm tempted to tell you to take up your complaints with the WT Society. More about this later....

Wrench replies: It's not ALL or NOTHING, Ray, that is the point. Was WH a superior work? Evidently so. But no one will dismiss the possibility of bias in a "particular" area. That is all I am saying. Besides, you act as though WH was all they used and you know that isn't the case.When it comes to rendering "arche" as "source", as claimed by Grimm, I think I can demonstrate in the end that that rendering is highly suspect of bias. I have nothing to take up with the WT over the possibility of bias in WH, for they would agree, as I would think anyone would. For if the WT thought WH was perfect, they would have needed nothing else. Imperfection comes through error. Error can come through bias, right? It is "POSSIBLE", right? Does the WT ever deny the possibility of that? No. Are they aware that bias is a factor in theological literature? Yes. So, what would be my beef with them? Would they agree that Grimm may have succumbed to his bias in giving "source" as the meaning for " arche"? Yes. No Ray, my beef is still with you and others that would agree with your view of "arche" at Rev. 3:14, not the WT.
 

I stated:

Wrench had said:  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. If that is so, Nonetheless, he did do it that way. Why? Although causing him reserve and embarrassment "occasionally", he must have surely then seen the need elsewhere without reserve and embarrassment to add his comments so, as he states, the student then had "increased assurance (or at least, the BROADER outlook) thus afforded the student respecting DEBATABLE matters,-whether of...or of INTERPRETATION. I think these words could easily hint at Thayer's recognition of bias in Grimm's works. True, he never says anything about bias, but then again, it's not a word that carries with it a kind connotation, and I believe he was trying to be as kind as he could to a man he highly respected. But I don't think that Thayer thought Grimm was perfect in his work, or without any bias whatsoever. Superior work, yes, but absolutely unbiased in every respect? I hardly think so.

 
Ray said: Well, You can THINK whatever you like, but if you want your thoughts to have credibility it's a good idea to make sure they agree with the context from which they are extracted. Your conclusion drawn from Thayer's words about his occasional reserve and embarrassment with regard to the insertion of his remarks into brackets, is in diametric opposition to that context. For those words appear in a context of almost CONSTANT lavishing of high praise for both Professor Grimm and his work. Your claim from the statement fails to see that Thayer says it still results in a benefit for the Student in the area of getting a broader outlook.

Wrench says: Exactly, Ray! If the " reserve" and "embarrassment" was just over the appearance of sitting in judgment of Grimm, as you say, it STILL demonstrates my point. He still went ahead and made remarks that he admitted at times corrected Grimm's, right? That's really all the statement that I need, Ray. It demonstrates that there were theological differences between Thayer and Grimm to one degree or another. So even though he didn't want to appear as sitting in judgment over Grimm, he STILL inserted the corrections and comments that he thought were necessary so the STUDENT COULD SEE BOTH SIDES. There is no way that you or anyone can conclude that Thayer felt that each and every word and phrase and evalutaion made by Grimm was totally free from any bias whatsoever because he DID see the need to correct him from time to time, despite the embarrasment and reserve.

 

Ray said: Thayer isn't contradicting his high praise (all around and smothering )of Grimm's work, instead he's merely setting forth his OWN humility in regard to the APPEARANCE of sitting in judgment over one of his colleagues in the scholarly community. Thayer quite understandably doesn't want to appear arrogant...and THAT constitutes the reserve he feels.

Wrench says: Fine, but it still does not negate the fact that he felt the need to corect Grimm and that they had their theoligical differences. I can give high praise to a number of works, but that does not mean that I think they are totally free from error due to bias or that I agree in every way with everything they say.
 

Ray said: My explanation comports with the surrounding context and makes sense of it. The goal achieved and maintained, according to Thayer, is that the Student gets a broader outlook and an increased assurance...the same kind of assurance the WT was referring to when they say that because of the "excellence" of the WH text, they were able to give you guys "the faithful sayings of Jehovah"...and they concluded this despite the fact that no one is perfect!!!

Wrench says: But the goal Thayer was after was at least "partially" achieved throught the corrections, right? And, unless you have read Thayer's mind, there is no way to determine if he ever thought that Grimm, even in some small way, succumbed to bias or not. But, the "possibility" is there.
 

You stated in part:

Ray said: From Hupfeld to Hengstenberg...or...from a position left of the WT Society all the way to a position square in the middle of the Orthodox camp.

Wrench says:  I fail to see how any of this removes the possibility of bias in certain areas. As I demonstrtaed above, I don't think Thayer himself was denying the possibility of error or bias.

 Ray said: At first I felt a little miffed at this rather short response to the preceding results shown from your own investigative work and my further analysis as compared with the WT's input. Upon further thought, however, I asked myself, "well, what could Wrench have said? Could he deny my points or the conclusions drawn accordingly? Nope, that could not be done." Actually from your vantage point, your response was kind of forced...unless you just want to give up the ghost. So in light of that, I guess I don't feel so bad that this is all you could muster up. I think you should, however, note the similarity of Hupfeld's problem with the inspiration of Scripture with that of the radical unitarian, and compare that with your statement that you did not see how their diversity had anything to do with the unitarian issue. The whole thing shows very clearly the even someone further removed from orthodoxy than the WT Society could still embrace Grim's lexicon, just as Thayer related!

Wrench said: It doesn't change the outcome of the possibility of error and bias. Think about it, if Thayer felt the work was totally unbiased in every respect, why add any remarks whatsoever? If he truly felt embarrassed at correcting him "occasionally", why do it at all? This tells us that there had to be places where he felt compelled to say something or reference something to "correct" Grimm's view. These insertions obviously had INTERPRETATIONAL consequences. Now, maybe Thayer felt that Grimm just honestly wrote down what he thought, but there is simply no way to swear that Thayer did not suspect bias in some area, and to say that Thayer "denied" bias is to employ Thayer's words in a way they were not meant to be employed, for "no-one" is free from all bias.

Ray said: However it had nary a thing to do with Thayer's thinking of bias in Grimm's work. Such bracketed statements, even should they contain a contrary conclusion, may be explained WITHOUT bias or corruption from personal conviction being the cause.

Wrench says: But then again, it could. You were not part of Thayer's thinking process. All I am after at this point is to demonstrate the "possibility" of bias.  Further considerations will determine if that possibility stands or falls.
 

Ray continued: For example it may simply come from newly discovered information...a reality that we all have to deal with...including the WT Society. Remember, now, Wrench, the issue at hand here was whether or not Grimm's personal convictions corrupted his work(biases). This is what you were relying on to explain how it is that there seems to be such little support for your view of Rev 3:14 in the scholarly community (they must have all been biased against me) And we've already seen that trying to bring..."everybody makes mistakes...no one is perfect" into this mix, is besides the point and it did NOT deter the NWT Committee (anointed witnesses of Jehovah) from adopting the WH Greek text as the basis for their translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. So trying to bring that into it is nothing but a diversionary tactic, which is neither here nor there.

Wrench replies: It is not a diversionary tactic, Ray. This whole conversation started over me making the statement that there was the possibility of "bias" in regard to accepting "arche" as "source" at Rev. 3:14. All I have been trying thusfar, is to simply get you to see it as a possibility, I have as yet not demonstrated with any force as to why I think that it involves that. All I want to establish is merely the point that it "could" involve bias, EVIDENCE as to whether it is or not, or is highly suspect of bias, still needs to be considered. To say that everyone makes mistakes DOES have something to with it. To say that everyone has some amount of bias DOES have something to do with it. In effect, all I am saying at this point is, let us see from other considerations if Grimm has succumbed to bias in his decision with "arche", since we know anyone can be 'biased' if we so allow ourselves. We might be the most balanced person in the world on one topic and a biased fool on another. That is why more needs to be considered to determine, if any, the possibility of bias.
 

You stated:

Ray said: If this latest attempt (nobody's perfect…we all make mistakes...everybody has biases) should rule here...it should rule everywhere...then nothing either of us read could be believed...including Greg Stafford...but didn't you say you got the "arche with a genitive" info from him? Very Well then, throw it out, Wrench...because "nobody's perfect…we all make mistakes...every work has biases"...what do you think? You see, the trouble with playing this game is that someone else might come along and start playing too, and he's liable to start applying the same rules or principles at a point where you wish he wouldn't :-)

Wrench replies: Your ALL or NOTHING approach is an exaggeration, Ray. When it comes to anything controversial, we just can't decide based on one source alone, we need to consider all the evidence that weighs in on a topic, then we are less apt to mistakes when we land on a decision.
 

Ray said: Next, after citing my statement that Thayer didn't offer a "syllable of protest" at Rev. 3:14, you reply: "Yet he does mention the embarrassment and the reserve he had at certain places (Ray says:  I just showed your misunderstanding of what he was referring to)

 

Wrench says:  And I just showed you that if your perception of those words are correct, it doesn't change the outcome of the possibilbity of error and bias. Much error comes about "because" of bias.

Ray said: And I just showed again that my perception of those words comports with the surrounding context and THEREFORE cannot be used wrongly to support your claim of a "bias explanation" for why your view of Rev 3:14 finds such little support in the scholarly community.

Wrench replies: But, nonetheless, the "possibility" exists and that possibility is yet to be tested thoroughly.

 Well .that is not what you said, is it? Besides, Thayer "himself" added the references, correct? If the scholar he references says it well, or if the discussion is rather involved, all that would be needed was the reference and the student could go look it up and see the relevance of the material, either or pro or con to Grimm's conclusions.

Ray said: Yes, I think it IS what I said, that Thayer doesn't include a syllable of protest. And again, you've overlooked his statement also that when he introduces a different opinion, he usually tries to include contributory statements from both sides of such a disagreement. So, where were such contributory statements from both sides of a disagreement? You didn't cite any...and neither did Thayer...and as I pointed out, bracketed statements without commentary usually suppliments Grimm's references.

Wrench says: Well. "usually" is not always.
 

You stated:

Ray said: 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.

 

I stated:

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

 

Ray said: The Watchtower Society doesn't think that such a possibility is a slam dunk, otherwise they'd have rejected the Westcott Hort Text on such grounds. So who's right, Wrench, you or them?

Wrench says: I never presented it as a slam dunk, Ray. From the beginning I have said one can not dismiss the POSSIBILITY of bias. That is the initial point Im am making. And I believe it has been made.
 

You continued:

Ray said: Further, I showed an example from Grimm's Lexicon where he demonstrates that he has NOT allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work (this is were he acknowledges that theologians were still in disagreement as to whether certain passages call Christ God.)...so have you cited an example of where Grimm DID allow his personal convictions to corrupt his work? If not, who has the better case here, me or you? And you can't live off "the possibility" either, for if that were legitimate, the WT Society wouldn't have been able to adopt the Westcott Hort text...but instead would have been obliged to reject it on just such grounds. Did they do that? If not, were they wrong? Do you consider your own judgment as superior to the WT's? hmmmm........

Wrench says: Again, you are playing the ALL or NOTHING game. I believe I have commented on this above.
 

I stated:

Wrench said; Well. without being able to read the references that he sights, it's anybodies guess as to what they say. They are either pro or con or representative of both sides as he says in the preface: “On the comparatively few points respecting which doctrinal points still differ, references have been added to representative discussions on both sides, or to authors whose views may be regarded as supplementing or correcting those of Professor Grimm.” Regardless. it does not stand untouched by any comment. Those references either reveal him to pro-Trinitarian or Unitarian or maybe somewhere in the middle, undecided. I'm not sure if I addressed your question at the end of the above paragraph because I'm not sure exactly what you were asking.

Ray said: Well, then, Wrench, looks like you need to do some more homework and show from those references that Grimm allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work as a lexicographer, right? And Remember, at the time you made this claim you still had not "reframed" your treatise..and so you still had the burden of proving "bias" as the explanation for such little support for your position (Rev 3:14) in the scholarly community. And it's interesting to see how the category expanded in your mind to "bias and error". So how at that time COULD you claim that these bracketed remarks signify a disagreement. And saying that they MIGHT signify such is not satisfactory from your position of having the burden....you needed to go beyond just the possibility that they MIGHT show a disagreement and prove that they DO show such. Then even if you COULD show a disagreement, the next task for you then would be to prove that Grimm was aware of the reference and left it out on purpose simply because it contradicted his preferred view (thus corrupting his work). If you fail to do this, you are left with no explanation for why your view has such little support in the scholarly community.

Wrench replies: Well, as I stated before, given the way the word "Arche" is used by John, given the way it is used in genitive statements, given the fact that is not used any other time as 'source' in the Bible, if I can demonstrate that the "pendulum" scriptures that you have referred to do not carry the sufficient weight to swing the meaning of "arche" away from it is natural usage, I would think that the possibility of bias would be enhanced indeed.
 

Ray continued: But NOW, though, since you've re-framed your treatise to lighten the burden on you, even the re-framed treatise leaves you in a rather compromising position because of the WT's acceptance of the WH Greek text despite your complaint that "no one is perfect…we all make mistakes"…etc. You can hardly claim that the WT Society is biased against you...so once again you are left in the lurch. This time by the WT Society. You may ask "why and how am I left in the lurch by the WT Society"...the answer is because they acted in complete defiance to your claims (not denying them but not being deterred by them either!) that everyone makes mistakes, and everyone has personal convictions or biases. That they could walk right by your fears and warnings and nevertheless adopt the WH Text and still conclude that they could THUS give you guys the "faithful sayings of Jehovah"...leaves you and your complaints in the lurch...it did NOT deter them like you say it should!

 

Wrench says: I have never claimed that because 'bias' exists in one area, or in a relatively small amount, that the work is without value. There are many great works by many scholars that I respect a great deal, but I am not so blind as to think that SOMETHING they say could not be biased. It is the same with the WH and WT's usage of it. Just because it may have error in it in a relatively small amount, from bias or whatever, it does not mean that on the whole, it should be canned. That is the value of other sources and other opinions on the questionable areas. I have in no way taken some kind of stand against the WT nor should I be deterred for they would agree wholeheartedly with what I am saying. I would think anyone would.
 $$$$$$$$$$$

 

Wrench replies: I had always thought that Thayer was a unitarian, from way back when before the bull was a pup.

 

Ray replied: Then you can't fault me for believing the same thing all those years, since then I at least had a direct straight-forward statement from the publisher that he was a Unitarian. After my partial research last year, I ended up with two types of evidence, positive that he was Unitarian, and neutral evidence. I knew that I didn't have all available evidence, then you and your friend come along and take the position that he was a Unitarian. Since I was pretty much convinced that he was too, and had nothing to actually contradict such a conclusion, it was EASY for me to go with you guys...since I couldn't challenge you anyhow with my evidence. And you have forged for yourself, Wrench, a good reputation for doing your homework. At the time it would have been presumptuous of me to challenge your taking the position that Thayer was a Unitarian. In fact, it would have been down right stupid of me to do so from a debating stand point. Do you see this? And again, I cannot emphasize enough that it was two weeks later that you were to reveal to me you were having second thoughts about Thayer...by then a lot of water had gone under the bridge, budrow :-)

 

There was no thought in my mind of being dishonest...but when you sprang this on me two weeks later, naturally I felt defensive…who wouldn't? You keep characterizing me as "you knew he might not be"...but hold on.  What I actually knew and believed was that he most likely was a Unitarian, because THAT's the only positive evidence I had actually seen. I also knew that I didn't possess all the available evidence on the subject...I also knew that you were well respected for doing your homework...put it all together, Wrench, and there was no dishonesty on my part at all. I was free therefore to flow with the current until informed otherwise...and I did.

Wrench says: Okay, Ray. I understand. I apologize if I accused you wrongly.
 

Wrench said: It was only when I did a search and find on Thayer in all of my saved files from scores of conversations about this and that, that I first "heard" of the possibility that he wasn't. My knowledge of this possibility all came AFTER I started my conversation with you.((and you think I should have of course known all about the state and extent of your knowledge, right?)) I would look here and there and even called the Harvard Library, and nobody seems to know for sure what he was. I'm almost beginning to think he was on the fence. That is why I came to you and asked about what you had that could bear on the subject. Then, I find out from you that you say you had ALREADY BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD and ran into the same thing. It sounded as though this was far prior to our discussion, and Isee below you confirm that. That is why I perceive it as not "honest" when you tried to go so far as to "imagine my frustration", when my own guy was against me. IF you knew he might not be at that point ((but what I REALLY believed at the time was that he probably was a unitarian..and that you with your good reputation had just confirmed that he was...and THIS is the platform I was writing from)), I don't think it honest to use questionable information in such a unquestionable portrayal ((it wasn't questionable anymore, because of you...you had just removed it from that category, remember?)). Just because you felt "we" had the burden in the situation, although I'm not real sure what you mean by that either, I don't see where it excuses using something you knew that might be questionable to try to embarrass me. I'm not saying that you can't use it, but to use it in that manner, I find to be a cheap shot.

 
Ray replied: You know, after reading this, it appears that your main complaint here had to do with my statement about understanding your "frustration", So I went back and read it again, and even though you failed to compare what I did NOT know with what you say I knew (about Thayer) and so felt it was a "cheap shot" for me to say that. Based on what I both knew and didn't know at the time, and you and your friend taking the position that he was a Unitarian, my statement was in context correct...you indeed DID at that time believe he was a Unitarian and was frustrated because it seemed to be undermining your claim. But your LATER assessment that I did not have absolute proof that he was a unitarian, made you conclude later that my statement was a "cheap shot". Yet even though at the time I honestly didn't feel it was, and my real thoughts were in agreement with what I knew your position to be on Thayer (believing him to be a Unitarian and you had just confirmed it in my mind…thus: "what the poster 'in behalf of Wrench' told you about Thayers was correct"), nevertheless...since it is never my intent to either insult or deliver a "cheap shot" out of the blue against anyone with whom I disagree, If you really believe it was, then I beg your pardon, Wrench. The more important thing for me is not so much whether I may be technically correct, but how do I treat my opponent.

Wrench says: I can see now the elements of the misunderstanding, Ray. Maybe I was a little trigger happy. I apologize again.
 

I stated:

Wrench said: Actually Ray, I would love to see it, really. I too have been trying to aquire a copy of the John Thayer Lettrers from the archives of Harvard but man, is that going to be expensive to get them to copy all of that! When you get your info, let me know, maybe we can connect some way.

Ray said: No problem, Wrench, I have received a copy of the article from the Boston Library, but I'm still not satisfied that this constitutes absolute proof that he was a unitarian...It appears that Thayer had some sort of an aversion to admitting publicly exactly what his views were. But I will gladly share all of it with you. He could not honestly sign the Orthodox statement of faith, and so resigned his position at Andover...yet within a short space of time he takes over for the well known Unitarian Dr. Ezra Abbot. hmmm.... You will see what I'm talking about when you get it. Just let me know where to send it. Also, if you are ever successful in getting the Archives from Harvard on him, I'd appreciate it if you would share that with me too. I collect this stuff and keep it in 3 ring notebooks.

Wrench replies: I will let you know if and when I get those papers. It appears as I mentioned before that Thayer could have been on the fence. It doesn't sound as though the papers you have reveal too much more than what I already have.

I stated:

Wrench said: And on the other hand, to try to get anyone to imagine that a work of that nature is totally free from bias is a bit of a fantasy.

 

Ray said:  And I've also shown, Wrench, that your point is beside the point here...as even the WT Society has demonstrated by adopting the WH Greek text as the basis for their Christian Greek Scriptures, and this they did DESPITE the fact that no one is perfect...and no one is "bias free"...etc. What was the question? Did such biases corrupt the work? WT says that this is not a slam dunk like you've been assuming. Now either they are wrong, or you are...one or the other. Which is it? And the discovery that Abbot also had a hand in this lexicon lays to rest your previous argument that all of my sources were trinitarians..no matter what we conclude about Thayer....We know now that they both made valuable and meaningful contributions to this lexicon.

Wrench replies: Well, I hope by now you know how I feel about the ALL or NOTHING scenario. And, in regard to Abbott, you will note that he "died" before making a complete contribution to the work. He didn't even get the chance to read the final proofs. It appears his contributuon merely amounted to variant verse notations. I don't think that qualifies as valuable and meaningful in regard to theological issues.
 

I stated:

Wrench said: I would think in any piece of literature that deals with controversy, which any piece of theology must by it's very nature, that the affect of a certain amount of bias is a "given".

Ray said: Then you need to instruct the NWT Committee about this, right? They left you in the lurch, with regard to the Westcott/Hort text, didn't they?

Wrench says: No, they haven't. I think I have explained this enough.
 

Wrench continues: I've never met anyone who has tried to say that something is "bias" free. I would think the natural burden would fall on the person who is claiming something is free from bias, because it would probably stand alone among all the literature ever written on controversial subjects.

Ray said: I've dealt with this several times already...and shown that your complaints here are beside the point...we all know that no one is perfect, but the right thing to do is obtain the best evidence possible at the time...That's what the WT did with the Westcott Hort Greek Text, and that's what I did with Thayer/Grimm. I could not find an instance where he allows his personal convictions (biases) to corrupt his work...and you've not shown any either. I did, however, find a pretty strong reference to show that he did NOT allow his personal convictions to corrupt his lexical decisions...when he wouldn't even declare that John 1:1c and John 20:28 made reference to Christ as God, but instead points out that this matter is still in dispute among theologians. Wrench, I'm tempted to ask you at this point, what do you want from Grimm, a pound of his flesh? :-)

Wrench replies: Absolutely not. I think Grimm, for the most part, did an excellent job. I am just not blind enough to think that everything he did is absolutely bias free. The possibility is there, and in the aftermath, I hope to be able to demonstrate that assigning "source" as a meaning to "arche" at Rev. 3:14 is highly suspect of bias.
 

Ray had said: Let's reassess...first, you've not shown a single instance that demonstrates that Grimm allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work as a lexicographer...yet I did show at least one instance where he wouldn't even declare that Christ was being referred to as God in 1:1c and John 20:28, saying instead that this is still in dispute among theologians. And how many times do I have to show you that the WT Society did NOT reject the Westcott Hort Text based on your fears that "no one is perfect...all works are biased"...etc. They just didn't buy what you are trying to sell. They knew that such thinking is besides the point....we STILL must try to find the best evidence available at the time...hence they did that with the WH Greek text and I did it with Grimm/Thayer's Lexicon. Yet, according to the Society, from the WH text they were thus able to provide you guys with "the faithful sayings of Jehovah"...so its up to you to do the math here Wrench!

Wrench says: Well, once again, it's all or nothing, Ray. I think you know my position on this in relation to Westcott and Hort. The WH was not the sole piece of scholastic evidence the WT used to establish their text. You speak as though it was. And once more, showing me places where an author has shown a good middle of the road attitude does not PROVE in anyway that he can't be biased elsewhere. I hate to keep repeating myself but I have to as long you are beating this drum.
 

I stated:

Wrench said: Well, as I mentioned earlier, I need to know where you are landing on the issue so I know how to proceed. Do you believe he IS numbered among creation at Colossians and Revelation, or are you just undecided? Whether or not John and Colossians that you mention actually weigh heavier for the Orthodox view I think remains to be seen. If the subject wasn't Christ at Revelation 3:14 I don't think there would have been a batting of the eye as to what that phrase "beginning of the creation" meant.

Ray said: This has already been clarified earlier in this post. You should disabuse yourself, however, of the false notion that I've been a moving target on this, because it just isn't so. I have been very consistent right down the line. I haven't made up anything nor appealed to anything that is not a fundamental part of the Trinity view on the subject. Be reminded, friend, that it was YOU who had just made a big "move" when you decided that you needed to reframe your treatise so as to lighten your burden. I've been standing right here all the while, solid as a rock. Your previous endeavor to "get the trinitarian camp to see that a...preponderance of the evidence...puts Christ among creation, OVERLOOKED that Trinitarianism ALREADY believes that Christ was "among creation" as per John 1:14 and Phil 2. My point in response, therefore, was to get YOU to see that just because a certain passage of Scripture may portray Christ as being among creation would not necessarily be against our view and favor yours. You seemed to be taking this for granted, Wrench. And I felt that this may at least partially explain your tendency to overestimate the strength of your case. Perhaps SOME of the passages that portray Christ as "among creation" may NOT disagree with the Trinitarian view…and therefore not constitute a piece of evidence of independent value favorable to your view, but not seeing this,  apparently, you were busy stacking them all up on your side, exclaiming every so often, "Gee, look how overwhelming our evidence is against the Trinity". Now do you see my point? To show that Christ was "among creation" isn't good enough. You have to show that he was THE FIRST creation of God...that's the ONLY thing that will justify and establish your case. Now, if you think you can do this with passages like Col. 1:15-18 and Rev. 3:14,  give it a whirl. I'm convinced you can't prove that from them. On the contrary, at least Col. 1:17 says that Christ is before all creation (in context...both heaven and earth)....and Rev 3:14 can be easily harmonized with the natural reading of John 1:3. Now do you see my point? You moved, Wrench, not me :-)

Wrench says: I have explained earlier and even quoted you as to why it seems you were entertaining both sides. If you noticed, Ray, I wasn't accusing you in some foregone conclusion that you WERE being a moving target, it was an INQUIRY as to whether that was what you were doing. An inquiry is not an accusation. Believe me, I've been in many conversations where they have admitted just wanting to run me around, so excuse if I am a bit trigger-happy. I just wanted to know.

 

I am aware that Trinitarians have spoke of Christ as being "among" creation, but I haven't thought of it as a "statement" that he actually "is" a creation. Do Trinitarians regard Christ as A CREATURE, as created because he became flesh? I would like to know, Ray, I'm not being sarcastic. Or, do they simply view him as being "among" in the sense of "in the midst" of creation when he was a man? Do they think of him as a "creature" or as "possessing the nature of a creature" while in the flesh? I think knowing this differentiation would help.

 

Regardless of that though, Ray, I appears that you DO NOT think that Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 make Christ a "creature" or a "CREATED BEING", in ANY WAY AT ALL, right? That is obviously your position in relation to Proverbs 8:22. If I recall, you don't even accept that as a reference to Christ, but I would have to go back and look. All in due time I suppose, we will get to that, too.

 

Now, if it is true that you do not accept Col. and Rev as making Christ a creation then that is still the focus of what I am trying to establish. I am stating this because it helps me regroup and gather my thoughts for the task ahead. Am I correct in this or have I missed it entirely?
$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray had said: 2 or 3 times you question my honesty when claiming that my point was "over-inflated", but that is not true. At the time I made those remarks all I had of a positive nature was unitarian evidence, and you and your friend had already taken the position that he was a unitarian and applied the label to him (not me!). It wasn't for two weeks or so before you were to finally reveal to me that you were having second thoughts about that, and that you didn't have even as much evidence as me. Why did you wait so long to reveal this to me? How could you say that what your friend (in behalf of Wrench) said was "correct" about Thayer, when you didn't know yet? Did you think that Thayer was "just a translator too?

Wrench says: As I explained, my knowledge of the question of his doctrinal leaning came about AFTER I started my conversation with you. I wasn't waiting on anything because I didn't know yet! The fact is you knew that there was the possibility of his being a Trinitarian and you used it anyway to try to embarrass me. That's the gripe I have with your presentation of the information.

 

Ray said: Then how could you have told me that what your friend said about Thayer was correct? And you need to bear in mind that once you said that, I wasn't waiting on anything either! It appears that your "gripe" was based on me believing you when you acknowledged him to be a Unitarian. But that's not fair because I didn't have anything to DISAGREE with your acknowledgment.

Wrench says: The way I remember it is, my friend told you that Thayer was a Unitarian and I agreed before I ever had an inkling that he might not be. But really, I've apologized for any misunderstanding in this area and I want that to stand. I understand where you were coming from, I simply interpreted it in a way you did not intend things to be. OK?
 

I stated:
Wrench said: I am simply trying to have a scholarly, scriptural discussion concerning the information that I posted entitled the "Threefold Witness". What do I have to do to be able to do that? I really wish you would quit beating me up over how I presented it initially. I DO think, that COLLECTIVELY it is a powerful witness against the Trinitarian position. I really wish that we could just talk about the implications of those scriptures and the implications of what the lexical and scholarly evidence presents without all the bickering about how I started off. I get so weary bantering around about all that. Can't we just move on?

Ray replied: I know what you're trying to do, Wrench, but you've got to get the notion out of your head that I'm going to sit still and let you imply that I misinterpreted your original treatise and the way you framed it. That is not true, and your original words bear me out on that.  

Wrench says:  Ray, for goodness sakes, I'm not trying to say that. I have told you that all I can do is apologize, restate it, and move on. I thought I did that. I'm not trying to pin some blame on you. For you, I should have worded it differently, okay? I'm trying to do that now, okay?
 

You continued:

Ray said: You tried to haul in a few summary statements to support your implication, saying to me "I chose these words on purpose, Ray"...but forgot to acknowledge and explain your initial words...words that you ALSO included on purpose. So friend, you can take it to be hardnosed if you want...you can take it that I'm "beatin up on you" if you want, but as long as you continue to suggest that I misinterpreted your words, I'm going to defend myself. If you feel that you need to change the frame work...no problem, just do it and don't try to blame me for it. I know you feel weary, Wrench, but notice that you did not address my points here.

Wrench says: 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.
 $$$$$$$$$$$

 

Wrench had said: I would think that you would realize as well as anyone that "new" aspects of a certain occurence in linguistics come up all the time. My goodness, without that happening, the Journal of Biblical Literature would get pretty boring. If it hasn't been considered, I certainly think that it is high time that it does get considered and addressed by the Trintarian camp.

Ray said: 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 they are all biased against you throughout all these 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 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?
 

You continued:

Ray said: 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.

Wrench replies:  I think you have to realize that the WT for the most part writes things for the rank and file. They seldom write anything that goes to great depth in the original languages because most simply would be lost. How do I know that they haven't considered this? I know one thing, it has been submitted to them for consideration. I'm certainly not the inventor of this aspect. As far as I know, Greg Stafford and Rolf Furuli are the first to mention it in their publications. I'm simply repeating their arguments in my own words.

Ray said: I think we both have to realize what the WT says about itself in their publications. They claim that the Lord's "Parousia" occurred or began in 1914...and that he came and inspected all the religious organizations on earth and chose only The WT Society as his only channel on earth (Revelation, Its Grand Climax at hand)…this appointment apparently came in 1919, After Rutherford and the others were released from prison. And although this seem a little confusing, they also teach the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" has always been on earth in tact and remaining faithful to God, while christendom apostasized. This Faithful and Discreet Slave is actually identified as the "anointed", the spokesmen for which are located at Bethel in Brooklyn (GB). I've seen a number of charts in WT publications depicting God's theocratic arrangement...as it flows downward through Christ, to the Governing Body (spokesmen for the Slave and the rest of the anointed) and on down through the Co's and Elders and MS's...etc.

 

As a collective group, the Slave claims that whenever God wants to reveal something to his people, He always works thru and speaks thru the Slave. They used to claim that they did not interpret the bible, which may come as a shock to you. They said that the "Supreme Court in Heaven" which included Christ of course, was the actual interpreter...and the angels somehow delivered the info to the Slave at the temple in Brooklyn. And the Slave would then dispense food at the proper time to the domestics. If you need some photo material on this, Wrench, let me know…I think I've still got it somewhere around here. 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 the WT Society had been aware of this evidence and what you claim about it's 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 and that "it's been submitted to the WT". HUNH? Submitted to them? That could only mean that God must have bypassed the Slave to reveal these nuggets to Greg and the other guy. Yet from what I've heard Greg's not a member of the anointed...he's not even a bethelite. The WT has not sanctioned his book(s) so that we may regard them as official WT publications. This seems to be a very dangerous precedent you're suggesting Wrench. That God would bypass the Slave and reveal these things to Greg. I don't think the WT will tolerate such a thing, because they say it is the result of independent thinking. Greg's liable to get the arrogant notion that he knows more than them…that his judgment is superior to theirs. hmmm...One thing is for sure, you can hardly suggest that the reason the WT hasn't put forward this evidence of yours before is because they were biased against you…for that dog just won't hunt.

Wrench replies: 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 drwan 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 s 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 expalin why that was the case. But, to say I am in some kind of trouble when I speak of something that is in complete agreement with their view, something that they have not commented on either way, is to have a wrong viewpoint, IMHO, of what they are trying to protect us against when it comes to independent thinking.
 

Ray replied:  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.

Wrench says: But those examples still portray the "natural" way in which those phrases would be understood. Like I said, if the subject wasn't Christ, no one would have batted an eye.

Ray said: What do you mean "if the subject wasn't about Christ"? It ISN'T in most of your examples!

Wrench replies: I am talking in particular about Rev. 3:14. If the subject wasn't Christ, no one would have batted an eye as to what the expression meant.
 

And I think that the other scriptures that touch closest to the relationship between Christ and creation are the other two scriptures that I offered in the threefold witness. I still firmly believe, that in the aftermath of all this, the Trinitarian will find himself out on the limb interpretationally in each and every case, but time will tell.

Ray said: Well, it sure hasn't been the case so far, has it?

Wrench says: Frankly, we've only just begun. (Do you here the Carpenters singing?)
 

I stated:

Wrench said: It seems to me that when it comes to "bias" you look at it as "black" or "white". They are either bias free or they are totally bias. Robertson does excellent work in many, many areas, but that doesn't mean he is perfect or correct in "every" thing he says. And it doesn't mean he is never bias. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that.
 

Rays said: I don't have a problem with that...but if you're going to pick and choose where you claim one is biased and where not, it's your burden then to establish your claim. You can't just sit back on your haunches like a big indian, and put the burden on the other guy. If you're going to rely on "bias" at any given point, then at that same point guess who has the burden? But look what you've been trying to do, Wrench. You keep overlooking this and saying "we cannot dismiss bias from them"...now wait a dogone minute here. If it IS a sometimes thing, like you are now admitting, then anytime YOU are going to rely on it (bias) as an explanation, then you have to satisfy the burden by showing specific examples that are relevant to your claim! This is where you've taken a logical leap in the dark.  You can't have it both ways, Wrench! Now you're beginning to see just how the WT could embrace the W/H text and say that they had given you guys the faithful saying of Jehovah. Bias resulting in corruption is NOT a slam dunk, like you earlier tried to argue. :-)

 

Wrench says: I honestly don't know where you get the idea that it was a slam dunk in my mind. I have said from the beginning, that bias is a POSSIBILITY and it is not all or nothing. Yes, I need to demonstrate why I think "source" for "arche" is highly suspect of bias, and that is what I intend to do, but it seems forever being able to get to that point as we continue to banter as to whether it is even possible! I haven't take the leap, Ray, because I haven't even gotten to all the evidence as to why I think it is suspect of bias. First things first, and it has been hard enough to get past just trying to establish whether it is a POSSIBILITY or not. It is a work in progress, Ray, it’s nowhere near done yet.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

I had stated: (about your “idiom” discussion)

Wrench said: Let me start by saying that when I mentioned the midget on the giants head, I failed to mention that when it comes to Greek, I am probably the mole on the midgets head. I have never had formal training in the language so I have had to read and reread and reread your above words to get the sense, I think, of what you are saying. I think I know what you are saying, so it appears the task at hand is to show that those two scriptures you keep mentioning that you feel swings the pendulum the other way are not as conclusive as they seem. I may run these words by someone who knows much more than I do since most of what I know of Greek has been gleaned from them and reading Robertson's Grammar and others. I don't know enough to confirm or deny what you say. So far, I see your point, I just don't know, if it is as solid as you say. So, I will warn you, in the future, I will be ignorant of quite a few things when it comes to the Greek, so bear with me, please. You know how dangerous moles can be if you abuse them. I would hate to give that midget, that is attached to my behind, cancer or something.

Ray said: Ok Wrench, please consider the points I made, and I'm not the least bit concerned that you might submit them to someone else…if I'm wrong, I want to know where…I'm not proud. But I do know what an idiom is,  and the various ways the term can be used.

Wrench says: I wasn't offering that as a threat or something, Ray, really. I have no reason to doubt what you are saying at this point, but, sometime down the road I would like to be sure.
 

I stated:

Wrench said: As far as your concerns about the WT, I think I addressed that above. Besides, I don't think that they would deny that "new" aspects of certain things can't come to their attention through the rank and file JW, but I don't want to get into that, not with what we already have on the table. Besides, we would probably have to take that discussion to the WT Review board, and if you haven't been there lately, well, let's just say it's kind of a disaster. I'd rather talk about that at some other time and preferably off line. When you talk about the WT online it is an invitation to get blasted from every direction.

Ray replies: I was going to just quote the WT Society about some of these things, but you mention you'd rather do it offline...and you might have a good point there...that's fine with me. I've got an email address so we should be able to get to each other.
 
Wrench stated: (about Robertson’s discussion of Rev. 3:14 quoted more fully)
Oh. Well, I guess that didn't help much. Kind of anti-climactic, heh?

Ray said: Figured you'd say that, ha...
 

I stated:

Wrench said:  True. But I think that Jehovah can channel things to the slave in many different ways, including people like myself or Greg or any one else who may notice a particualr aspect of something that has apparently never hit the table. I don't think the Society would deny that that could never happen. Maybe not generally, but certainly not impossible. They derive things all the time from studying things in the scholarly world of Greek and Hebrew, I don't know why someone else couldn't stumble upon a gem or two, especially among their own people.

Ray said: We can talk about the WT's being the channel offline if you want, but I cannot let this go unanswered. The problem with your response is the in reality you guys actually BYPASSED the slave by accepting and disseminating it first and not letting the Slave do that. You see, If what you suggest is so, why is the F&D Slave needed in the first place? And what do you really mean by "stumbled upon". Either you accept God's theocratic arrangement or you don't. This is what causes me to wonder if you are really a loyal and active Witness right now. hmmm...The Watchtower cannot have the rank and file guys off on their own like this. Notice what they said in the WT of 1-15-83, page 27

FIGHT AGAINST INDEPENDENT THINKING:

 

"As we study the Bible we learn that Jehovah has always guided his servants in an organized way ((stumbled upon???)) And just as in the first century there was only one true Christian organization, so today Jehovah is using only one organization. (Ephesians 4:4-5; Matthew 24:45-47) Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: 'this shows that we have to make up or own mind on what to believe.' This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous?

Such thinking is an evidence of pride. And the Bible says: 'Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before a stumble.' (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: 'Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God's organization?' No, we cannot!--Compare Acts 15:2;, 28, 29; 16:;4-5."

 

Well, Wrench, you  not only say you CAN, but that you DID! And Greg seems like the perfect example of the danger the WT refers to above. He's out there on his own, researching and "stumbling upon" things...writes a book that rank & file witnesses gobble up...and thus bypasses the Slave in getting this to the rank and file. And then in a letter to Robert Hommel he show's how his "independent thinking" has gotten him to the point where he could believe that his own judgment is superior to the WT's. He said that The WT Society had relied too heavily on Harner's article. Imagine that! Does it look to you, Wrench, as if Greg has got to the point where he thinks he knows more than them? And then he publishes a book(s)apparently independently of the organization, and feeds the rank & file. Thus bypassing the Slave and going directly to them. Would you say that this is showing respect for God's theocratic arrangement? I wonder what Kazz would think about this, or Dean, or any of the others I know to be loyal and active Witnesses? Why has Greg chosen to go right past the Slave and distribute his stumbled upon findings, and why have you and other witnesses chosen to receive this food from Greg without looking first to the Slave? Does this not indicate a lack of confidence on your part in the Slave's provisions, that you would seek guidance elsewhere? Something is out of whack here, my friend.

Wrench replies: Well, once again, I think the warnings against independent thinking were not in relation to the kind of situation that is happening with the information that Greg or Rolf or any of the other Witnesses have done in presenting scholastic information for consideration and evidence that already lines up with what the WT teaches. Titus 3:9-11 says to reject a man that promotes a sect. The information that I am presenting to you is hardly the promotion of a sect against their authority to protect the congregation against division. Hebrews 13:17 tells us to be obedient to those taking the lead among us because they will render an account for our souls. I don't see that any of these things that you mention are a 'disobedience' to the slave. They have not commented on this as you say, so at this point, there is nothing wrong with using scholastic information from Greg's book or even from Trinitarian sources that might help establish the truth of what they already teach. If they determine his work is in error, then I wont use it, but I have a feeling they wont. $$$$$$$$$$$
 

I stated:

Wrench said: 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.

 

Well, anyway, regardless of that. Let's take another look at what the WT DOES say about John 1:1 and it's connection with Genesis 1:1.  Knowledge page 39 4 Jesus Christ-The Key to the Knowledge of God  John 1:1 says that “the Word” (Jesus in his prehuman existence) was with God “in the beginning.” So the Word was with Jehovah when “the heavens and the earth” were created.

 

Ray replied: Sure the Son was with the Father when "the heavens and the earth" were created, problem for you is that the context in John 1-4 doesn't use these specific terms...so there's nothing in THIS context to authorize such a restriction. You can't sneak'm in Wrench :-)
 

Wrench said: God was addressing the Word when He said: “Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:1, 26)

Ray replied: First, we don't know who the actual speaker was here, it may have been Father and it may also have been the Logos (spokesman), BOTH are identified as God in connection with the Creator/creation context…right? But it is heartening to see you acknowledge that we had a plural maker (US MAKE) and so if you'd only see that this plural maker is identified in the next verse as "God"...and remember that Heb. 3 says that the maker of all things is God, you'd be well on your way to understanding why we Trinitarians believe as we do.

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 had said: What? The NWT? I thought you said that you don't do this? haha.

Wrench replies: Well, when you are the one bringing the WT into the picture, I have no choice but to reference their works, since it is their viewpoint you are discussing. What else am I supposed to do? Besides "rarely if ever" does not translate to "never".
 

You continued:

Ray had said: Two points you seem to have overlooked here. First, John 1:2 mentions nothing about the physical creation, much less suggests any kind of restriction to it. And even the WT says that Gen. 1 is not time specific, meaning that although the creation referred to INCLUDES the physical universe, it is NOT restricted to it with regard to the beginning (Page 392 of "Aid to Bible Understanding").

Wrench replies:  As I said above, I can't find what you are in reference to on page 392 that says Genesis is not restricted to the physical creation. I looked up Gen. 1:1 on my WT CD and it consistently applies Genesis 1:1 to the physical creation. So, whereas John 1:2 does not use the phrase "creation of heaven and earth", the WT does cross reference it off the phrase "in the beginning" with Gen 1:1 which they have consistently applied to the physical creation, so I don't think I'm on thin ice yet, Ray, as much as it appears you would like to see me fall through. The interpretation I offer is not restricted by the WT and in fact could be looked at as an alternative way to view those words, especially in relation to what the knowledge book stated, and it is the most recent comment on the topic that I am aware of.

 

When I look at the writings of John, I don't think of it as coincidence that in two of his books (John, 1 John) he starts out with the phrases very similar to the first chapter of Genesis. "En arche" and "arche" all parallel with the Septuagint of Gen. 1:1 "en arche". Also the references to light and darkness seem to parallel Genesis in it's references to light and darkness. It appears to me, he was purposely paralleling some of these phrases in his writings. I don't think it to be a stretch for him to be paralleing the phrase "in the beginning" exactly with the phrase from Genesis. In fact, it seems to fit like a glove.

I have noticed in many commentaries that they refer to John 1:1-4 as a prologue hymn.

 

 Wrench continues: I notice that most of them say that no doubt the "cue" for this hymn is Gen. 1:1. I think by that admission they are hanging themselves when it comes to insisting that this beginning refers to the eternal past because in some of those commentaries they will admit that Gen 1:1 refers to the physical creation. Many translations actually cross-reference Gen. 1:1 to John 1:1. I think many commentators view the parallel as intentional. In so doing, do they realize the problem that they create for themselves when they try to insist that John's phrase is in reference to the "eternal" past, even when they feel he took the phrase from Genesis. There conclusion is "theoligically" driven, certainly not out of necessity but out of convenience. However, there is NOTHING that denies, including the WT, the real possibility that John used the phrase just as Genesis did. And when you compare the parallel thoughts of the light and darkness that follow, it seems obvious that he was borrowing from Genesis.
 

Now, can we talk about this from a scholarly approach, without the WT?
 
Ray replies: We already have, Wrench. It just so happens that at least with regard to the specific location of the beginning in John 1:1, the bulk of reliable scholarship, the WT Society, and myself, agree together against you. And this doesn't suggest that you've come any where near meeting your stated goal for your treatise, even after all the re-framing you did! Think about it, OK?

Wrench said: I have Ray. I don't think the WT forbids understanding it as I have outlined. I think many Trinitarians recognize a purposeful parallel between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-4 and the beginning of 1 John. It surely seems a little more than coincidental to me that John would start out two of his books with those parallel thoughts at the beginning that Genesis has. With that in mind, I don't think it a stretch at all to say John could have used those words in the same manner Genesis did, in reference to the physical creation. Nothing denies that, in fact, it seems to fit very well.
 

Ray said: You see, you seem to be oblivious to my point, Wrench. Let's not lose sight of what is the main issue at this particular juncture. The main issue is your appeal to Rev. 3:14, and what you claim it must mean. So, in direct response to that part of your treatise, I'm merely reminding you that not only do you have the bulk of the best and most reliable scholarship to overcome with regard to John 1:3 (just to keep your head above water and keep John 1:3 from outright refuting your claims about the meaning of Rev 3:14), but now even the WT Society agrees with us against you with regard to the specific location of "the beginning" mentioned in John 1:1. Therefore when we consider whether you've accomplished and met the criteria you set forth (even with the re-framing you did), how are you going to be able with a straight face to claim that you've shown this when even the WT agrees with us as to where the "beginning" in John 1:1 points? That is my real reason for emphasizing this…because I haven't lost sight of your stated goal, and whether or not you've met it. And Wrench, for you to suggest that I haven't dealt with this in a scholarly manner is simply wrong. I've stated exactly what the scholars have said...that this passage contains an exclusive clarifier (latter half of verse 3) that NONE of the passages you've appealed to have. That reality sets John 1:3 off as unique from your examples. The ball is now in your court to show WHY that clarifier is included in John 1:3 and not in your examples. You see, friend, you might be able to placate yourself and others as to why the bulk of scholarship disagrees with your claims (prejudiced against your views), but you can't do that with regard to the WT Society...and therein lies the weakness in your position.

Wrench says: First of all, I think I have demonstrated clearly that there is no actual "disagreement" with the WT in taking this view. I believe what they have said most recently could allow for that view. The Knowledge book was written in 1995 and I have researched the publications since then and there is nothing that would deny that possibility, in fact, I’ve seen things worded rather interestingly in realtion to John 1:1. Nothing definit, but certainly the possibility oa an alternative way to underdtand “in the beginning” of John 1:1 is there. I have also demonstrated that many of your doctrinal comrades view a parallel of thought between Genesis and two books of John. With that in mind, the interpretation I offer stands as valid. I don't have to prove it, Ray. What I have to do is to show that John 1:3 does not carry the "necessary" force with it to overturn the natural meaning of Revelation 3:14, and I believe that I have done that. The "all things" could easily be understood as "all things" that came into existence, without exception, from the point in time known as "in the beginning" which could easily refer to just the physical creation as it does in Genesis 1:1. That is why I don't view John 1:3 as a "pendulum" scripture.
 

You continued:

Ray went on: Secondly, The WT also does not distinguish in time the first creation referred to in John 1:3 from the beginning mentioned in John 1:1...note from the following quotation that after the WT quotes John 1:3 they place in parenthesis John 1:1-4)....showing that the first creation of John 1:3 would include and refer to the beginning of Jehovah's creative works in John 1:1, and not just the physical creation. This comes from page 391 of "Aid to Bible Understanding"...

Wrench replies: I believe I have demonstrated why I feel well within my rights to speak about the phrase “in the beginning” the way I do when it comes to the WT position. I have already shown that it is my opinion (and the opinion of many other brothers I have just recently asked about this) the WT does not currently restrict viewing it this way and your comrades see the connection between the two as well and I think the parallels of John's writings pretty much convince me that he did borrow those phrases from Genesis. What do YOU make of those parallels, Ray? I would like to know.
 

You continued:

Ray went on: So, Wrench, I even have the WT with me in rejecting your attempt to remove the beginning of John 1:1 from the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works and restrict it to the physical creation. And also with me in saying that the first creation of John 1:3 likewise goes back to the beginning of John 1:1...and is not restricted to the physical universe. Hence, whether you came up with this yourself, or got it from Greg's book, it needs to be resolved with the WTBTS.

Wrench says: I don't see the problem. The WT has not rejected the understanding I offered, in fact, it appears they could be offering it as an alternative, everything having been considered.
 

I stated:

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

Ray replied: No, friend, you have not resolved this at all. As I just said, I set forth the position of the best and most reliable scholarship that John 1:3 is unique with the special clarifier in the latter half of verse 3, something that not a single one of your passages contain, then the WT agrees with us that the context in John 1:1-4 locates the beginning mentioned there as referring to the very "beginning of Jehovah's creative works". So unless you either get the WT on your page, or get yourself on the WT's page, you've not resolved this. You simply tried to ignore it by CLAIMING that you resolved it. Won't work, Wrench. :-))

Wrench replies; I think I have addressed this.
 

I stated:

Wrench said: Your insistence is not what I need to see, Ray. There is no scholarly reason why Genesis 1:1, which is obviously the beginning of the "physical" creation can not be synonymous with the "beginning" in John 1:1.

 

Ray replied: Once again you've taken a logical leap in the dark by saying "Your insistence is not what I need to see"...hold it…It isn't JUST my insistence, but mine...the best and most reliable scholarship's…

Wrench says: Are you trying to say that there is no reliable scholarship that connects Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1? Are you trying to say that there is no reliable scholarship that views Gen. 1:1 to be in relation particularly to the “physical” creation?
 

…and now the WT Society's as well with regard to the location of the beginning mentioned in John 1:1. Your the one fighting an uphill battle here, friend, remember whose treatise you're trying to maintain, OK?

Wrench says:  And, concerning all that has been considered, I think it a logical leap in the dark to suggest that there cannot be a connection between John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1. Your insistence and the insistence of others is driven by your theology rather than the necessity of the facts. And what is more, I don’t see any solid case of me being at odds with the WT. If you think I am, write them a letter and let me know what their response is.

END OF PART ONE…..

 

 

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

 

 

To Ray: The Son of God Created Pt2

 

Posted by Wrench in the works on February 10, 19100 at 09:21:45:

 

In Reply to: To Ray: The