To Ray: The Son of God Created

Posted by Wrench in the Works wrench@visto.com on December 22, 1999 at 17:43:12:

I sure appreciate the time you have taken with all of this.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Hi Wrench. You begin your response by saying the following:

 

"So far, in all that you have said, I find this to be the first real point in your defense to the information I presented."

 

Ray replies: Then we need to clarify the situation. I'm specifically addressing myself to the CLAIM you made based on that information, namely that it establishes the conclusion that the Son of God was the first creation of God. At the moment, Wrench, I'm not making a judgment on the correctness or incorrectness of that information. That may come at a later time, if I feel that the situation warrants it, but right now I'm merely looking into your CLAIM that you put forward. Does it require the conclusion you claim it does?

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Thankyou for the clarification, Ray. When making my statements of evaluating the evidence that I presented, I think I need to draw your attention to the manner in which I stated my summations, or at least what I was trying to do.

 

My first summary in regard to Revelation 3:14 was this: "What this leaves us with is a preponderance of evidence that funnels down to the conclusion that the Apostle John reckoned Jesus Christ to be a "creation” of God."   I worded it that way on purpose, Ray. I believe there is "a preponderance of evidence" for our interpretation. Notice that "preponderance" does not mean "completely and totally" as you seem to think I intended. Preponderance is defined as "a superiority or excess of number or quantity, majority". That is an accurate statement in relation to the occurences of "arche followed by a genitive phrase". I don't think that you will deny that.

 

Next, I again purposely chose the phrase "funnels down to the conclusion". I honestly do see the evidence "funneling down" or in other words "narrowing down" to that conclusion. I did not say that it absolutely proved the conclusion. Do you see the difference between saying something "proves the conclusion" as opposed to "funnels down to the conclusion"? I tried to choose my words carefully. Maybe I didn't choose carefully enough.

 

When it came to the summation of the evidence I presented in regard to "prototokos" as a "partitive genitive", I again purposely chose language that was not the "absolution" that you seem to think that it was, for as you say, it is the "absolution" of the evidence that you are attacking not necessarily the truthfulness of the evidence. Notice what I said in relation to Colossians 1:15: "the evidence filters down to the conclusion". Those words were again intended to show the "narrowing" of the possibilities of how to understand prototokos in a genitive phrase. I regarded the words "filters down to" the same as I regarded the words "funnels down to". Not as absolution, but as a huge force behind the interpretation. I never used the phrase "proved" or "undeniable". I may feel that way, but I know the problems that can arise from speaking with extremes, similar to the ones we are having now in our discussion.

 

Next at the end of the material I likewise use language that I thought was not language of "absolution". Again "filters down to" and "testifies to" and "attests to". Strong conviction, yes! I may feel that it is "absolute" from the evidence presented here and elsewhere but I purposely tried not to bring that element of absolution into the discussion.  I purposely didn't use the word "proves" or the phrase "establishes absolutely". I thought the phrases I did use would be perceived in the way I have described. I either obviously failed or you read too much into my summations, or maybe a little of both. The entire intention of the information from the beginning was to get the Trinitarian camp to see that there is "much", in fact a preponderance of scriptural, statistical information that puts Christ among creation.

 

If my wording was misleading, I apologize, but I do firmly believe, and I think the evidence from the scriptures truly weighs in on the conclusion (notice "weighs in on" not absolutely proves), that individually the evidence is in our favor in regard to the statistics that I originally shared. Collectively, if it were me, I would find it terribly hard to reconcile my position that Christ was not created. I would truly feel that I was out on the "cracking" limb.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You continued:

Ray said: The first question I introduced was whether or not that conclusion was reached in the scholarly community, for if the info you presented is as compelling as you claim (that it establishes the point), then it seems reasonable that we would find some indication of that in the scholarly community.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said: Well, I certainly feel that the information is compelling, regardless of what is found in the scholarly community, including Thayer, but more on him and the scholars you mention further down.

If one could demonstrate "compelling" information to the contrary then obviously, something has to give. I, of course, so far, have never been presented information that is that "compelling" for the opposite view, although, I'm sure in time, you will try your best to demonstrate it to me via John 1:3 and elsewhere. Before proceding to those points, I think we still have plenty to clean up with what has thus far been presented.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

You stated:
Ray said:  I then proceeded to point out the conclusions reached in the following: Thayer/Grim...BAG...and WORD STUDIES by Zhodiates, as well as Dr. Robertson. I made the point that either these authors were ignorant of the info you presented, or perhaps they were biased against your view, for they all adopt the opposite meaning from what you claim. Only one of the above included a parenthetical statement that the meaning you contend for is "linguistically possible", reminding you, though, that they themselves adopt the other meaning...so thus it can hardly be thought of as a "ringing endorsement", certainly nothing that can be considered as justifying your claims. After asking whether these Scholars were ignorant of or biased against your conclusion, I indicated that either would be difficult to establish. So your first response to that was to that...well let's just get your words before us, OK?

Wrench:  “ So far, in all that you have said, I find this to be the first real point in your defense to the information I presented. However, upon closer examination of 'Thayer's lexicon' I think a few interesting things come to light. The poster called "In behalf of wrench" was correct in the information he gace you concerning "Thayer's". The words you quote from Thayer's are really the words of the "Trinitarian" Grimm, who I believe was a Lutheran. I think you first need to revise your claim that "it would be difficult to suggest that Thayer was a biased witness in favor of the Orthodox viewpoint that Christ was not an original creature.  “Since these are the words of a Trinitarian in actuality, I believe the probability for 'bias' is still very much in tact”

Ray replies: Then let's consider whether the probability for bias is "still very much in tact". Actually I've had a copy of Grim/Thayer for many years now and I use it all the time. In the Preface to the Lexicon, Dr. Thayer has the following to say beginning on page 11: Of Professor Grimm he says:

"He devoted more than seven years to his task. The successive Parts of his work received, as they appeared, THE OUTSPOKEN COMMENDATION of scholars DIVERGING AS WIDELY IN THIER VIEWS AS HUPFELD AND HENGSTENBERG; and since its completion in 1868 it has been generally acknowledged to be BY FAR the best Lexicon of the New Testament extant.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

In checking at the theological seminary and elsewhere on the net I didn’t find the diversity of Hupfeld and Hengstenberg as relevant to any “unitarian” controversy or position. Their diversity was not over the issue of unitarianism so I don’t really see how that would be relevant to the unitarian issue.

 

Catholic Encyclopedia Biblical Criticism (Higher)

Hupfeld, in 1853, found four instead of three documents in the Pentateuch, viz., the first Elohist, comprising the priestly law, a second Elohist (hitherto unsuspected except by a forgotten investigator, Ilgen), the Jehovist, and the Deuteronomist. He allowed to none of these a Mosaic origin. With Hupfeld's view the idea of one large source, or Grundschrift, supplemented by smaller ones, began to give place to the "Document" hypothesis. Meanwhile these conclusions, so subversive of ancient traditions regarding the Five Books, were stoutly contested by a number of German scholars, prominent among whom stood Ranke, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Keil, among Protestants; and Jahn, Hug, Herbst, and Welte, representing Catholic learning. These, while refusing to allow the testimony of Jewish tradition to be ruled out of court as invalid against internal evidence, were compelled to employ the methods of their adversaries in defending the time-honoured views. The questions were agitated only in countries where Protestantism predominated, and, among these, in England the conservative views were strongly entrenched.

 

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitet02.html

 

To them and to all like them during the middle years of the nineteenth century was sturdily opposed the colossus of orthodoxy--Hengstenberg. In him was combined the haughtiness of a Prussian drill-sergeant, the zeal of a Spanish inquisitor, and the flippant brutality of a French orthodox journalist. Behind him stood the gifted but erratic Frederick William IV--a man admirably fitted for a professorship of aesthetics, but whom an inscrutable fate had made King of Prussia. Both these rulers in the German Israel arrayed all possible opposition against the great scholars labouring in the new paths; but this opposition was vain: the succession of acute and honest scholars contiuued: Vatke, Bleek, Reuss, Graf, Kayser, Hupfeld, Delitzsch, Kuenen, and others wrought on in Germany and Holland, steadily developing the new truth.

Especially to be mentioned among these is Hupfeld, who published in 1853 his treatise on _The Sources of Genesis_. Accepting the _Conjectures_ which Astruc had published just a hundred years before, he established what has ever since been recognised by the leading biblical commentators as the true basis of work upon the Pentateuch--the fact that _three_ true documents are combined in Genesis, each with its own characteristics. He, too, had to pay a price for letting more light upon the world. A determined attempt was made to punish him. Though deeply religious in his nature and aspirations, he was denounced in 1865 to the Prussian Government as guilty of irreverence; but, to the credit of his noble and true colleagues who trod in the more orthodox paths--men like Tholuck and Julius Muller--the theological faculty of the University of Halle protested against this persecuting effort, and it was brought to naught.

The demonstrations of Hupfeld gave new life to biblical scholarship in all lands. More and more clear became the evidence that throughout the Pentateuch, and indeed in other parts of our sacred books, there had been a fusion of various ideas, a confounding of various epochs, and a compilation of various documents. Thus was opened a new field of thought and work: in sifting out this literature; in rearranging it; and in bringing it into proper connection with the history of the Jewish race and of humanity.

 

Astruc and Hupfeld having thus found a key to the true character of the "Mosaic" Scriptures, a second key was found which opened the way to the secret of order in all this chaos. For many generations one thing had especially puzzled commentators and given rise to masses of futile "reconciliation": this was the patent fact that such men as Samuel, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and indeed the whole Jewish people down to the Exile, showed in all their utterances and actions that they were utterly ignorant of that vast system of ceremonial law which, according to the accounts attributed to Moses and other parts of our sacred books, was in full force during their time and during nearly a thousand years before the Exile. It was held "always, everywhere, and by all," that in the Old Testament the chronological order of revelation was: first, the law; secondly, the Psalms; thirdly, the prophets. This belief continued unchallenged during more than two thousand years, and until after the middle of the nineteenth century.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Quote from Thayer’s preface continues: "...Meantime a new edition of Professor Grimm's work was called for. To the typographical accuracy of this edition liberal contributions were made from this side of the water. It appeared in its completed form in 1879. "Admirable", "unequalled", "invaluable", are some of the epithets it elicited from eminent judges in England...Both Professor Grimm and his publisher courteously gave me permission to make such changes in his work as might in my judgment the better to adapt it to the needs of English-speaking students.

 

But the EMPHATIC COMENDATION it called out from ALL QUARTERS, in a strain similar to the specimens just given, determined me TO DISMISS THE THOUGHT OF ISSUING A NEW BOOK prepared on my predecessor's as a basis, and--alike in justice to him and for the satisfaction of students--to reproduce his second edition in its integrity (with only the silent correction of obvious oversights), and to INTRODUCE MY ADDITIONS in such a form as should render them distinguisible at once from Professor Grimm's work. (see [ ] in the list of 'explanations and Abbreviations" given below.) ....

 

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench responds: I think it is significant the statement that was left out at your dot-dot-dot. Thayer stated. “This decision has occasionally imposed on me some reserve and entailed some embarrassments.” Not exactly an “endorsement” without ANY reserve.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Thayer continues: ...But notwithstanding all minor drawbacks the procedure will, I am sure, commend itself in the end, not only on the score of justice to the independent claims and responsibility of both authors, but also on account of the INCREASED ASSURANCE (or, at least, the broader outlook) thus afforded the student respecting DEBATABLE MATTERS,--whether of philology, of criticism, or of interpretation. "

And Thayer continues on page 13: "Professor Grimm, in his Preface, WITH REASON calls attention to the labor he has expended upon the explanation of doctrinal terms, WHILE YET GUARDING HIMSELF AGAINST ENCROACHING UPON THE PROVINCE OF THE DOGMATIC THEOLOGIAN. In this particular the editor has endeavored to enter INTO HIS LABORS...."

Ray:…OK, Wrench, note that the above comes straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Dr. Thayer himself. Let's list in summary a few of the things he himself points out:
1. Professor Grimm devoted more than seven years to his task.
2. His work was received with high commendation from scholars WIDELY DIVERGING in their views.
3. It was generallly acknowledged BY FAR as the best NT Lexicon extant....
4. The new edition completed in 1879 was described as "admirable, unequalled, and invaluable"
5. He said these emphatic commendations from ALL QUARTERS determined him to dismiss his previous thoughts of producing a new Lexicon...imagine that Wrench!
6. He says He inserts his own remarks in brackets to distinguish his from Grimm's so that the student can have INCREASED ASSURANCE respecting debatable matters.
7. He not only acknowledges with approval Professor Grimm's labor NOT to encroach, but endeavors to ENTER INTO HIS LABORS.
OK, now Wrench...let's note the drift of all this: Right from the horse's mouth we learn that Dr. Thayer himself disagrees with you that the reason Grimm doesn't adopt the meaning you claim in Rev 3:14 is because he was biased against your views. If you will simply browse the lexicon you will see that Dr. Thayer is not a bit bashful at putting his own remarks into brackets when he thinks something may be debatable so as to help the reader get the whole story. Yet at Revelation 3:14 he offers not a syllable. hmm....And could any Lexicon receive much better of a "ringing endorsement" than he gave this one? And these commendations he acknowledges were from widely divergent views...even. He was so impressed that he dismissed his thought of publishing a new book. Wow!

 

 

$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: Yet he does mention the embarrassment and the reserve he had at certain places. As well, we aren’t sure if Thayer was even a unitarian at this point as you have acknowledged. You mentioned that he did not offer a syllable in relation to Revelation 3:14. That really isn’t the case, is it? Go back and look and you will see a number of sholars cited within Thayer’s distinguishing [ ]’s. Teichmuller is mentioned. (still trying to track down that reference). He references as well[p. 30 ed. Sylb.], [p. 308 ed. Tdf., p. 736 ed. Thilo]. It’s hard enough to decipher all the abbreviations let alone find these 19th century references. I’m still investigating those. But, in reference to those cites, I think it is interesting that Thayer later says “On the comparatively few points respecting which doctrinal points still differ, references have been added to representative discussions on both sides, or to authors whose views may be regarded as supplementing or correcting those of Professor Grimm.” In either case, whether supplementing or correcting, I find your claim of not a “syllable” to be in error. In fact, I find the fact of the citations to really present problems for your presentation either way. They may be the answer to the mystery of Thayer’s theological leaning. If they are all “pro” Trinitarian, I would find it impossible to believe that Thayer was a unitarian. If it is mix of both then you can hardly claim he let it pass without a syllable and if it is purely a unitarian view that is cited, well, then, we have a good idea that he probably was unitarian, in any case,he surely did not just let the matter rest as you have presented.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray replied: So in light of this I have to reject your invitation to revise my statement...I think pure intellectual honesty is going to require you to revise yours. Bias at Rev 3:14 in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish...actually in light of the above from Thayer himself, I think we have to admit the exact opposite, don't you?

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said: Well, if Thayer was a Trinitarian, I hardly have to revise my statement and the ball is back in your court of revision. If he is a unitarian then the citations he offered certainly didn’t just leave the matter alone. The fact that you claim to have known all along that you really didn’t know nor could you “aver” that Thayer was a unitarian with certainty, leaves me a little puzzled as to why you present this as so one-sided, trying to say that honesty dictates I revise my position. If you are not sure about this stance, how can you require that of me? The fact that he does offer quite a few syllables certainly changes the complexion of your claims.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ray said:  Then we must notice that the other sources mentioned (BAG...Robertson..Zhodiates...etc) reached no different conclusion at this point. So if you cannot establish bias with Grimm/Thayer, and the others reached no different conclusion at this point, where does that leave your claims about these sources?

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said: Robertson and Zhodiates are obviously Trinitarian so we can’t dismiss bias from them and as I have pointed out, Thayer did not simply leave it alone. It will be most interesting to find those citations and have a look at what they are promoting.
$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ray replies: Next you find it interesting that Grimm's meaning (and the other sources as well) is not supported by any other biblical witness. OK, I will accomodate you here, Wrench, and assume for the sake of the argument that you're right about that. Nevertheless those scholarly sources did not feel the least bit inclined to adopt the meaning you contend for, and we've seen how difficult it will be to establish bias as the reason. If these Scholars, including Dr. Thayer with what he says above, did not feel compelled to adopt your conclusion, we might think long and hard before adopting such a conclusion ourselves. My goodness, Wrench, if the evidence were really as compelling as you claim, don't you think Dr. Thayer, himself agreeable to your views, would have at least included some remarks in brackets to aid the student in getting the whole story?

$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replied: Well, once again, it is obvious that Thayer did say or at least “cite” something so your point here is really inflated beyond what it should be. Especially when you admit that you weren’t sure that Thayer was a unitarian. I don’t find your tactic there to be a very honest approach to the problem. The point really remains that arche, followed by a genitive phrase, is always a part of the group,class or thing signified in the genitive, not including our topic scripture of Revelation 3:14. That point in itself does put you out on a ‘syntactical’ limb to hold on to that explanation for you would have to view it as the ‘single’ incident in scripture where it happens.
$$$$$$$$$$

Ray continued: Surely he would have...yet he didn't. And as I've already said, Thayer shows that he's not a bit bashful about putting his remarks into brackets when he feels something is debatable...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench:  I think this is covered.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ray said: Next you ask me that if I were to present an array of Scriptures to prove something, and you quoted only JW apologists or Unitarian apologists who disagreed with my conclusion, would I think that things were on the up and up? If ALL such sources you cited disagreed with my conclusion, I imagine that I might be a little suspicious. But on the other hand, if one of the sources you appealed to were agreeable to my ultimate views on the subject, and if I knew he translated that source and that he wasn't bashful about making sure the reader got the whole story (concerning evidence favorable to my views) by inserting his remarks into brackets, I'd probably be wrestling with my conscience...on the one hand wanting desperately to claim bias with credibility and on the other knowing that my own guy was right there, elsewhere quick to comment, and doesn't lift a finger where I wished he would....Honestly, Wrench, I would wonder where I went wrong.

$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think you have overextended your argument, knowing as you did, that Thayer might not be a unitarian. Your reluctance to mention that of course is understandable since it seems your entire point weaves this in and out of your words all along. It seems to me your point regarding that is lost.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continued: Maybe I was a bit grandiose with my claims. Especially if you were willing to not even contest the evidence I had amassed (for the sake of the argument). I'd have to say "wow, he's giving me every possible courtesy, not contesting my evidence, and I STILL can't prove the conclusion I think that evidence proves. I mean if all these scholars, including my own guy, agree together and adopt the opposite meaning from what I claim, things ain't looking so good for the home team here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench says: Do you really think you were being honest in all of this when you weren’t even sure Thayer was a unitarian and still aren’t? I also found that Albert Barnes, a Trinitarian, in his comments on Rev. 3:14 completely disagrees with the rendering of “source” for “arche” in the scriptures. But, all in all, the information that I presented really isn’t about just what the scholars say, but rather, what the scriptures reveal through usages of certain words and phrases.
$$$$$$$$$$$$
 

Ray continues: And imagine me, Wrench, trying to convince myself and others that all your sources were biased against me, and my own guy steps up and lavishes all kinds of praise on one the sources you cited...telling me that it was acclaimed as the best source extand from scholars with widely divergent views....I'd probably think to myself, "sheesh...with friends like that , who needs enemies? Better a thousand times if he'd switch to the other side! Yes, I can imagine your frustration, but I can't help it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: I have to say, Ray, that if you weren’t sure yourself that my “own guy” agreed with the opposition your point is entirely overinflated. That’s like me showing you that Albert Barnes was against the interpretation of ‘source’, claiming that he was a Trinitarian, knowing all along he might not be. What kind of point is that to make? Would you consider that “honest” scholarship, even going to the point of trying to imagine my frustration at such a thing when I”m not even sure it is accurate?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continues: As a matter of fact, Wrench, I can remember back when I bought Thayer's Lexicon. At the time I had just started my studies with AMG and needed a good lexicon. So it was down to either the BAG or Thayers. I had been warned against Thayers because they said "he's biased because he's a unitarian. so you don't want your head filled with false doctrine" but the more I thought about it the more I realized that if I wanted to ensure that I be exposed to both sides of the story, Thayer's would actually be my best bet! So I bought it fully aware of that point. That's why I don't think your suggestion against me is fair. I didn't try to "stack the deck" against you....

$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said: I think you did try to stack the deck for you have admitted that you KNEW Thayer may not be a Unitarian and came up with the strange excuse about being able to consider whatever possibility the evidence might suggest. Do you think that’s an honest approach? Would you want someone to use something agaisnt your position as a FACT when they weren’t even sure themselves that it was? When did you come to appreciate that Thayer might not be a Unitarian? Before or after you bought the book to “ensure” yourself?

$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ray continues: I can't help it if most of the scholarly community agrees with the views I've accepted. Put yourself in my shoes. What would you do?

$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench says: I might ask myself, since most of the scholarly community IS Trinitarian, might there be some bias involved?
$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continued: And over the years I've never been sorry I made that decision in buying Thayers. And, Wrench, I also accumulated loads of JW literature as well...never turned it down (why should I be afraid?). And at one time I came very close to being baptized as a witness...it was a complicated time for me because I was also being warned against the JWs and trying to complete my Greek studies too. That's another story. I just want you to understand that when we go to the scholarly community, we don't have much choice but to accept what's there. Even the WT has to face that...But you know, it's kind of funny, really, how people see the same thing differently, for example I tend to view Thayers as my "safe-guard" against not getting a one-sided view, you regard it as my "trump card"J.  As they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said:  Well, I’m not sure what you view as the “trash” in that scenario but I think you were trying to use Thayer’s Unitarianism as a trump card when you knew all along he might be a Trinitarian. How can you regard that as such a “safe-guard” when he might be one of your own guys?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

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

$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: Well again, I wasn’t even trying to create a “no possible alternative standing”. Those are your words. You say that some of the passages are listed under the various meanings, tell me, however, when they listed some of those passages under the various meanings, did they address the point about “arche” followed by a genitive phrase. We both know that there are many reasons why one might choose to quote a passage. Did any of the references you checked with actually deal with the problem as I presented it? Do you know of any scholar, to date, from the Trinitarian camp who has addressed the problem as I have presented it and in turn, commented on it’s implications? Just because a passage is cited doesn’t mean he was considering the aspect of that verse I referred to.
$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray said:  Continuing with my response to your first reply, I had left off by suggesting a possible reason why the Greek Scholars did not reach the same conclusion as you with regard to Rev 3:14. Thus Robertson mentions a few passages which convinced him otherwise. In response to this, you complain that Robertson's examples "were not in response to the arguments I gave for arche followed by a genitive phrase for that aspect is not even mentioned in his discussion." However, Dr. Robertson is actually offering minimal commentary on the whole Apocalypse, and so when he arrives at Rev 3:14, he comments on the whole idiom, pointing out that your CONCLUSION is not the right one, and that the other one is.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: First, what is your definition of an “idiom”? The dictionary defines an “idiom” as “an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either grammatically or in having a meaning that can not be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements.” Don’t you think that is quite an assumption to make that this phrase in question is an “idiom”? What is “idiomatic” about the expression right before that “ the faithful and true witness”. Do you think we needed to be familiar with the language of John to know what “that” means? It’s plain language to me. Is there something about its individual parts that can’t be understood in a normal fashion? I don’t see where? There is nothing idiomatic about the phrase “the faithful and true witness” so why do we have to understand “the beginning of the creation of God” as idiomatic? I think that is an assumption to avoid the problem. It is his or your opinion as a Trinitarian. Are you claiming the whole phrase is ‘idiomatic’ or just the word ‘beginning’ or what? If the whole phrase is an idiom, why do the scholars turn around and try to assign an “alternative” meaning to “arche”?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray replied: I am very sure that if he were intending a polemic on the specific subject his explication would have been much more extensive. Yet obviously the verses he mentions in passing are those which he feels settles the issue with regard to the conclusion you reached.

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

Ray said: So then, in view of the burden you took on at the beginning of your treatise, you must now disprove any possible alternative conclusion.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said: No, Ray, that is not what I intended as I hope I have explained. Let me put it this way, I am trying to demonstrate that with regard to Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Prov. 8:22 that collectively they serve as a powerful witness to the creation of Christ, a threefold witness. Now, granted, individually, one might simply appeal to something being an anomaly. But, if in each case, in order to avoid a particular conclusion, a person has to appeal to something being an anomaly, then this should tell them that there is something tragically wrong with their understanding of the matter and they need to revise their viewpoint. That is what I intend to show in regard to these three scriptures. It is the ‘collective’ force that I am appealing to more than the individual source. The individual force is very strong in itself but that is why the ‘witness’ of two or three is needed to establish a point.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continued: So I would say that you must disprove the conclusion he and others of us who accept the Orthodox view understand from those passages he mentions. And I would add, many others that HE did not mention on that occasion.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: No, what I need to address is any information they present (such as the appeal to John 1:3) and whether or not it warrants conclusively to overide the naturalness of the meaning of the words I presented. That is the “only” thing that should really sway one in the other direction. If there is ABSOLUTION somewhere else that Christ was NOT CREATED, then we could appeal to the anomaly or even the idiom. On the other hand, if other views of those PROOF TEXTS can be demonstrated without having to appeal to the anomaly, then the preponderance of evidence should cause the Trinitarian to rethink his position because he would be against the natural, normal occurence of something without a SOLID anchor to hold him where he is at doctrinally.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

Ray said: Now with regard to John 1:3, I myself offered a few comments in agreement with Dr. Robertson's understanding of it. Your response to my points wasn't specific but general. It went like this: "I think you will find in the aftermath of a thorough discussion, John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 will not nail anything down for your position."   But hold on, Wrench, in our discussion I don't NEED to "nail anything down", I just need for you to not disprove that possiblity. You see, friend, you're the one who has to do the "nailing down" in order to sustain your claims at the beginning of your treatise. If you leave a single alternative on the table, you fail. It is indeed a tall order you've taken on here.
$$$$$$$$$$$$

Wrench replies: My point is (sorry if I didn’t present it understandably enough) that IF John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 are CONCLUSIVE for your position, then you are correct, they should overide any naturalness of the words and phrases I refer to, BUT, if they are not conclusive, I don’t see how appealing to an anomaly in each case (which I intend to demonstrate is the case for the trinitarian) would be any way to establish and to hold on to a doctrine. If we open that door, anyone could believe anything they wish without consequence of twisting the scriptures. I would think that it is the “collective” witness from the scriptures that would establish the criteria for any teaching, not the anomaly.
$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray said: Now with regard to Greg Stafford, although I would not buy his book I would consider whatever you would offer to prove your case and thus satisfy the burden you took on. If you feel that his argumentation does that, give it a whirl.

$$$$$$$$$
Wrench says: Toward the end of this post I will address John 1:3 first, since you appeal to this a number of times as a deciding scripture for your understanding of Rev. 3:14. Once we have addressed the implications of that verse we can consider Col. 1:16 and see where that takes us as well. I will be using information from Greg’s book and elsewhere to address those scriptures.
$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray said: Your statement that my appeal to Trinitarian scholarship who agrees with me is "completely without value since none of them addressed specifically "arche followed by a genitive phrase" is already responded to in the above two paragraphs.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said: As to which I have also responded and clarified my intent. I didn’t feel that I overstated my case, but if I did all I can do is say I’m sorry, restate my case, and proceed from there. I hope you have seen that I have “tweaked” my presentation so as not to overstate it.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

Ray said: Wrench, in light of the claims you make at the beginning of your treatise, it's your burden to disprove what THEY say, not their's to disprove what you say. In other words, to sustain your claims that Christ was an original creature (the first creation of God), you have to face and refute THEIR evidence...the evidence they offer in adopting the opposite conclusion from what you claim your evidence demands.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: I believe the real issue is this. I intend to demonstrate that the natural understanding of the phrases in that threefold witness I have presented weigh heavily against the Trinitarian. Individually and ‘certainly’ collectively. I can’t think of any reason why the unprecedented interpretation would prevail without some VERY COMPELLING, nearly UNDENIABLE evidence being presented in the converse. You have offered scriptures that you feel compels one to take the converse of what I believe is true in these verses. If it can be demonstrated that those verse are not SOLID in their interpretation, without having to appeal to unprecedented considerations, then I think the reasons for overiding the ‘precedented and natural’ understanding is invalid. Of course, all of this will depend on whether I can denmonstrate that the Trinitarian takes the unprecedented view in all three cases of this “threefold witness”. That is why I refer to the “collectivity” of this as putting an individual on the end of ‘cracking’ limb.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ray continued: And again, please recall that at least one of the sources was overseen by Dr.Thayer, and he shows that he's not a bit bashful about putting remarks into brackets when he thinks the situation is debatable. He highly praised that lexicon, pointing to the high commendations it received from scholarship of widely divergent views. And none of the others reached a different conclusion, did they? Did they? Then if you cannot prove bias in Grimm/Thayer, and they reached no different conclusion....you're stuck in the mud.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: Again. Not a very honest appraisal of the situation in regard to Thayer as I have addressed above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

.

Ray said:  If ALL such sources you cited disagreed with my conclusion, I imagine that I might be a little suspicious.
Without even an ounce of protest from Dr. Thayer, who was in undeniable oversight, these sources reached the opposite meaning for the idiomatic unit "he arche tes ktiseos tou theou" of Rev 3:14.

$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies:  Still don’t see the necessity of that phrase being an “idiom”.
$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray said:  Robertson casually mentioned a few verses in passing suggesting why he reached that opposite meaning. You must refute them to sustain your case. I think the real problem, Wrench, is the way you framed the whole thing.

$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: You may be right, I may have framed it incorrectly so allow me to put it in a new frame as I stated above. I will address any scripture that you think establishes that Christ can not be created. But, in order for us not to have to write “books” to one another, I prefer to take them individually. In fact, I think I will address Rev. 3:14 alone in this post and John1:3. We can address Col. 1:16 and the implications of the other “two” witnesses later and some other scriptures you may feel determine Christ to not be created later as well. I think what we have so far should give us plenty to talk about as is.
$$$$$$$$$$$

Ray had said:  I'm no Greek scholar, but I have a hunch that you will eventually discover that the problem will be found in the methodology. What are the pitfalls and dangers involved in defining idioms.

$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench says: I believe calling it an “idiom” is supposition, not conclusive fact. The only way I could even begin to accept that it was an idiom is if it could be very compellingly demonstrated that Christ was not created. Calling it an idiom is a bit ‘cart before the horse’.
$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continued: Sometimes certain word or case relationships are used in the construction of an idiom that may or may not determine it's ultimate meaning. That's the problem when trying to understand these scholars as they place their opinions in print. If we could somehow place side by each, their pool of evidence and experience with history and word meanings, with ours, the comparison would be paltry...about like trying to compare an ocean with a creek.

$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replied: True, we’re all midgets standing on the shoulders of giants when it comes to our understanding of the original languages, but unfortunately, mixed with the wealth of understanding that has been accumulated comes great diversity of opinion and interpretation so even though it might be an ocean, the waters are anything but crystal clear. In some places it is about as clear as mud.
$$$$$$$$$$$

Ray said: Next you launch into a small discussion about being out on a limb, and unless I misunderstand your intent, it looks like you are laboring under the assumption that the right way to determine the meaning of an idiomatic unit is to break down its individual parts...word by word, case by case...etc.

$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: Once again, I believe you are assuming the “idiomatic” nature of the phrase.
$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continued: So then, it seems to you that the weight on the limb is getting heavier and heavier, and you can hear it starting to crack. However, please compare John 1:3 with Rev 3:14. In John 1:3 we have a statement being made, but in Rev 3:14 we have an idiomatic title being applied.

$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench  replies: I will address John 1:3 below and again, I see no necessity to assign “idiom” to the phrase in question. A title does not have to be “idiomatic”. It can be as straight forward as any statement that might be made.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continued: We don't want to know what "arche" means or even "arche with the genitive", we want to know what the whole unit means since its APPLIED to Christ. And according to the scholars (Robertson...and the rest I cited) passages which make a STATEMENT about Christ weigh heavier than an idiom being applied.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: We certainly DO need to be concerned about the meaning of arche and the way it is used syntactically. Those are a very big part of the linguistic tools a person uses to determine the meaning in Greek. You certainly can’t just ignore those things for they are an integral part of proper interpretaion. True, if the ‘passages’ you refer to make a heavier satatement than what I have presented then the point is certainly anything but settled, but that needs yet to be determined if those passages really boil down to a “heavyweight”. And again, you throw in the word “idiom” as if that is a forgone way to look at those words. I think that to be entirely premature.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray continued: Hence, then, they are more inclined to reconcile Rev 3:14 with John 1:3 than the other way around. That's why the BAG put the terms "linguistically possible" in between quotation marks. There's more involved in determining the meaning of an idiom than just breaking down each individual word or case. The more logical and likely place for THAT is in statements...like John 1:3 for instance. For example, what do we mean when we say "I have a frog in my throat"? I don't know French (ha) but I've heard that in France they say the same thing by "I have a giraffe in my throat" :-) True or not, the point is worth considering.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: You are trying to build a case on an assumed ‘idiom’ designation. On the other hand, I find many titles to be very straight forward without any ‘figures of speech’ thrown in. John 1:3 will be considered below.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray said:  So as it stands right now, Wrench, you have failed to prove bias with the sources I cited (claiming it and proving are two different things)...

$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: I think you have a bad habit of overstating my own case. I never set out to prove bias. I spoke of the strong possibility of such and I think that is still a valid consideration in this aftermath.
$$$$$$$$$$

Ray said: The Grimm/Thayer Lexicon was according to Thayer's own words highley commended by scholars from widely divergent views. He says he sat in oversight, and DEMONSTRATES that he's not a bit bashful to include his remarks in brackets when he feels the situation is debatable.

$$$$$$$$$
Wrench said: Yes, but as mentioned his decision not to alter anything sometimes left him with reservations and embarrassment. He cited different scholars to either bolster or correct Grimm’s viewpoints. In reference to ‘source’ for Rev. 3:14 he had many citations. The contents of those citations are yet to be seen, but it certainly does not match your evalution of the evidence in saying there was not so much as a syllable. Plus the fact, when you were making these statements you weren’t and evidently still aren’t sure if Thayer himself was actually a Unitarian. That leaves many holes in your presentation as to how worried I ought to be in relation to the scholarly evidence.
$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ray said: The others reached no different conclusion with regard to 3:14. You have not yet refuted the specific passages cited by the Scholars when setting forth the meaning they give. Therefore, at this point, you have not satisfied the burden of proof you accepted at the outset of your treatise. Let's move on now to the next "witness" you refer to in your quest.

$$$$$$$$$$$
Wrench replies: Rather, why don’t we move onto John 1:3 since this seems to be an anchor in your position and in the position of the Trinitarians you cite. I will save the consideration of Col. 1:16 and the other “two” witnesses for a later date for the fact that this is already quite lengthy, unless you have an objection to this.

 

Wrench continues: CONCERNING JOHN 1:3

Since you do not elaborate on the point of this scripture I’m going to have to assume I know what you are getting at. I a imagine it has to do with the phrase “all things” and “apart from nothing has come into existence.” Generally, the question at this time is “How could Christ be a creation if he was responsible for everything that was created?”

The question is reasonable enough and deserves a reasonable answer. I first think it is important to realize that these words are set within the frame of happening after the words “in the beginning” of verse 1. The “beginning” in John 1:1 certainly reminds of the words at Genesis 1:1. I think it easily stated that the beginning here in John 1:1 could be the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. The “beginning” in Genesis really limits itself to the creation of the physical universe. The “all things” mentioned in John 1:3 could be limited therefore to the “physical universe or even the physical things of this earthly realm. Notice the following example which could demonstrate this point:

 

Psalm 8:5 (LXX) Speaking of man it states that “thou hast put ALL THINGS under his feet”. Clearly, in this case, man is given authortiy over the “works of God’s hands’, namely, the physical creations of this earthly realm. So the all-inclusive statement does not necessarily mean, as some have suggested, that the Logos cannot be a created being, for the context, being directly related to the “beginning” of Genesis 1:1, is discussing the creation of all PHYSICAL things. As for the meaning of “apart from him not even one thing came into existence” again must be understood in the context, John’s reference to the “beginning” of Genesis 1:1 shows that “all things” in this context have to do with the PHYSICAL universe, as mentioned above.

 

Thankyou for your time, Ray. I will be awaiting your responses.

Agape,
Wrench
******************