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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What is the old saying, a good deed never goes undone? Here is another example of you asking me for help, and let’s notice how you reacted when I tried to help you. You ask about Abbot, namely “What exactly was the variant-verse notation that he contributed, and what would that have to do with anything doctrinally?” Thayer doesn’t elaborate beyond mentioning that these were the result of an investigation later given to “the learned world” and published in Tischendorf’s “Critica Major”. I know that Abbot was a very highly respected scholar in the area of textual criticism of the NT manuscripts, even though he was known to be unorthodox in his personal beliefs. Hence, then, I would aver that he probably went through Thayer/Grimm’s manuscript with the latest discoveries of textual variants or disagreements based on the interpretation of the same,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 you’ve now come full circle, and you have decided to skedaddle back to Seattle, with a renewed appreciation for the WT’s official position. So now you are no longer claiming that the “all things” of John 1:3 is restricted to “only the physical creation”, and this of course means that you are no longer denying that the “all things” of Col. 1:16-17 is the same as the “all things” of John 1:3. Since receiving Greg’s book, I’ve continued to look through WT literature and have discovered that the order of creation presented in both the Aid and Insight Volumes has actually been the WT’s view at least as far back as 1927 when J.F. Rutherford published “Creation”. The same order is presented in the 1941 publication “Children”, so you were definitely correct in recognizing this as their official view. I am curious about one thing, though. When I asked you to check and clear up whether the WT was intending in the Knowledge book to repudiate their previous order, you immediately balked and suggested that they didn’t mean to do that. I’m still curious to find out, Wrench, for Stafford presents the view gathered from the Knowledge book as the “Witnesses’ present understanding” (JWD 316), for notice what he says: “Whatever the case, the Witnesses’ present understanding of the ‘beginning’ of John 1:1 can be gathered from the following: ‘John 1:1 says that “the Word” (Jesus in his prehuman existence) was with God “in the beginning”. So the Word was with Jehovah when “the heavens and the earth” were created. God was addressing the Word when He said: “Let us make man in our image,” (Genesis 1:1, 26)” The reason the Witnesses at one time thought John 1:1 was referring to the origin of the Word was because of the use of arxn (arche, ‘beginning’) in Revelation 3:14 and the LXX of Proverbs 8:22. However, the entire context of Genesis 1:1 shows that the creation of the physical universe is in view, not the creation of the heavens where God resides, nor his heavenly creatures, and thus it does not refer to a so-called ‘absolute beginning of time.’ The heavenly hosts had apparently already been created some time prior to Genesis 1:1 (and, hence, John 1:1 as well),…” Note Stafford’s words above “can be gathered from the following”…what does he mean by that? When he says “…the Witnesses’ present understanding”, is he speaking for all Witnesses? Well, he’s not speaking for you any longer for you’ve returned to the previous understanding. But if per chance he is indeed speaking for all Witnesses, then you are at the present time in error. I would think that you’d want to clear this up yourself. I know I would if I were in your shoes. I hope you can see why I’m emphasizing this.  

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And verse 2 mere