Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 136 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aqwsed12345

  BoogerMan

  The answer for your question lies in your comment: because of the Incarnation. Look after the dual nature and the hypostatic union of Jesus.

  "For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and made flesh, nor yet that it was changed into the whole man (composed) of soul and body but rather (we say) that the Word, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, having hypostatically united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, became Man and was called the Son of Man, not according to the will alone or by the assumption of a person alone, and that the different natures were brought together in a real union, but that out of both in one Christ and Son, not because the distinction of natures was destroyed by the union, but rather because the divine nature and the human nature formed one Lord and Christ and Son for us, through a marvelous and mystical concurrence in unity. . . . For it was no ordinary man who was first born of the Holy Virgin and upon whom the Word afterwards descended; but being united from the womb itself He is said to have undergone flesh birth, claiming as His own the birth of His own flesh. Thus [the holy Fathers] did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Theokos." (Council of Ephesus)

  "Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us." (Chalcedonian Definition)

  "Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead." (Athanasian Creed)

  Check this:

  http://manonthemoon.byethost24.com/trinity/trinity-jehovahs-witnesses.pdf

  Additionally, in the Old Testament we find a number of references to people who claimed that they saw God. For example, in Isaiah 6:1–5 Isaiah gives testimony of having seen God and he is worded because he knew the Old Testament concept that no man can see God and live, a truth that God had stated to Moses at Exodus 33:20. The answer to the apparent problem is simply that Isaiah saw God in a vision. Humans would surely die if they saw God openly displayed in all His infinite power and glory. It would be as if you or 1 were to stand a few inches away from the sun of our solar system. We would be instantly consumed and turned into a puff of smoke (see Hebrews 12:29).

  But God can appear to man, either by vision or by concealing Himself in human form. A careful examination of Genesis 18 and Judges 13 should make this truth abundantly clear. This also explains why Jesus Himself could insist, in John 6:46, that no man had ever seen God the Father, yet at John 14:9 He could inform Philip, “...He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (NASB)
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed : You should compare how is the verb 'qanah' translated in the Book of Proverbs 1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8.

  In Brown-Driver-Briggs it gives four different senses in which 'qanah' is used:

  (a) of God as originating, creating. Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6; Psalm 139:13; Proverbs 8:22.

  (b) of God as victoriously redeeming his people. Exodus 15:16; Isaiah 11:11; Psalm 74:2; Psalm 78:54.

  (c) of Eve, acquiring (i.e. with the help of). Genesis 4:1.

  (d) of acquiring wisdom, knowledge. Proverbs 1:5, Proverbs 4:5 (twice in verse), Proverbs 4:7 (twice in verse), Proverbs 15:32, Proverbs 16:16 (twice in verse), Proverbs 17:16; Proverbs 18:15, Proverbs 19:8; Proverbs 23:23.

  Note that all the examples you provide is where 'qanah' has the sense of acquiring wisdom or knowledge.
  

  The five instances where Brown-Driver-Briggs give 'qanah' the sense of originating, creating are

  Genesis 14:19, 22 : "Then he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth...At this Aʹbram said to the king of Sodʹom: “I do lift up my hand [in an oath] to Jehovah the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth"

  Deuteronomy 32:6 : "Is it to Jehovah that YOU keep doing this way, O people stupid and not wise? Is he not your Father who has produced you, He who made you and proceeded to give you stability?"

  Psalm 139:13 : "For you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother."

  Proverbs 8:22 "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago."
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Have you already checked its basic meaning in the Book of Proverbs?

  1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8.

  So 'qanah' in the whole book of Proverbs means something, but right in 8:22 it means something else, because the JWs need a "one liner" "proof text" ... and doesn't matter if is ruled out by several other specific and literal scriptural statements about the Son, which declare that the Son "in the beginning" already was, and existed even "before" the aeons. It also doesn't matter that neither the Holy Scriptures nor any early Christian writer says he's a "created angel" or Michael.
  
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed : So 'qanah' in the whole book of Proverbs means something, but right in 8:22 it means something else,

  That is exactly what lexicographers Brown-Driver-Briggs uphold. The point is that none of the other scriptures in Proverbs refer to 'qanah' in relation to God. When it is used in relation to God it has the sense of originating or creating, as Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6; and Psalm 139:13 substantiate.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Still doesn't matter, since it's still not "creating" in the sense as Arians interpreted it. Ktizo has a various, as well the english word "create". When the pope "creates" a cardinal, doesn't mean he brings him to existence ex nihilo, but appoints him to a position.

  Secondly: the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 is not the Logos of John per se, but a literature allergory, which can be applied (but not equated) to Him, so even if the verb 'bara' stood there, also wouldn't prove the Arian sense of Son's originating.

  The NT declares multiple times that Son is "born" / "begotten" of the Father, is it so difficult to accept?
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345 : When the pope "creates" a cardinal, doesn't mean he brings him to existence ex nihilo, but appoints him to a position.

  Why not compare Proverbs 8:22 with Genesis 14:19, 22 which also uses 'qanah' in relation to God.

  Genesis 14:19, 22 : "Then he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth...At this Aʹbram said to the king of Sodʹom: “I do lift up my hand [in an oath] to Jehovah the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth"

  Do you think this means an appointment to a position or bringing into existence from nothing?

  Whether or not Proverbs 8 refers to Christ is a matter of interpretation, but it is difficult to imagine Paul did not have it in mind when he referred to Christ as the "wisdom of God".
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Good to see Earnest weighing in on the topic. It’s been a long time since we had Bible focussed discussion on the forum.

  aqwsed1235, I agree, Leolaia, and the sources cited, make good points about the root meaning of qana as “get” or “acquire”, and the related idea about “birth” being relevant to Prov. 8.22. We can agree that “get” or “acquire” does seem to be the most common and everyday sense of the word. At the same time, there does seem to be an unmistakable pattern of using the verb qana in poetic contexts to refer to God’s action of acquiring through creation, in Gen. 14.19, 22; Deut. 32.6 and Ps. 139.13. As Earnest points, the emphasis on creation seems to be particularly strong in Ps 139.13. That’s presumably why the vast majority of translators, including the most competent and respected, choose to bring out the aspect of creation in the translation of Prov 8.22, especially considering the emphasis on creative acts in the passage as a whole. Plus the fact, as Earnest pointed out, it’s not only the LXX, but the ancient Syriac version also opted for a verb meaning “created” in this verse. It’s also interesting that the NWT goes with “produced” rather than “created”, because this seems an especially good fit for Psalms 139, and Eve’s famous statement in Genesis that she “produced” a man with the aid of Jehovah. One translation manages to combine ideas quite skilfully, John Goldingay’s translations of the OT at Prov. 8:

  22 Yahweh acquired me at the beginning of his way, before his actions of old.
  Long ago I was formed, at the beginning, at earth’s origins.
  23 When there were no deeps I was birthed, when there were no springs with heavy water.
  Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was birthed.

  Even so, it’s still to be noted that the majority of expert Hebrew translators opt for “create” or “made”, rather than any of the alternatives in this verse.

  I am a bit at a loss why you say Jerome could not have been influenced by the Arian controversy in choosing to remove reference to creation in Prov 8.22, as the Ellicott commentary that you link suggested. The Arian controversy raged throughout the 4th century. In fact the Arian faction won a major victory in 360 CE when a Council of bishops at Constantinople agreed to adopt an Arian style creed. Jerome completed his translation of the Vulgate within 20 years of that major event, in the 380s, so how can you insist it played no part in his decision to alter Prov 8.22 so it no longer supported an Arian view of Christ? Jerome himself is quoted by Maurice Wiles as saying about the 360 CE Council of Constantinople: “the whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian”. (Page 32 of Wiles’ book cited above) So that’s how Jerome felt about Arianism. It was a live issue to him. Frankly, over 16 centuries later, one suspects it still plays a part in the thinking of some evangelical translators who want to avoid giving any ground to Arian, or now, more particularly JW views, by retaining the word “created” in the verse.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Earnest

  Because Book of Proverbs belongs to the Ketuvim, the Wisdom literature, and it must be interpreted according to its poetic genre characteristics. So, if you want to understand what "qanah" means here, compare how "qanah" is used elsewhere in that book, not in the Genesis, written centurie before.

  It is quite clear what Arians do, they take one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture.

  And again, do you realize that even WTS publications admit that the Wisdom of Proverbs is not literally the Son (the Logos), but a feminine allegory that only can be applied figuratively to the Son as a tipology? So even is the adequate word for creating (bara) stood there, still would not prove the Arianism?
  

  Does the New Testament say that the Son was begotten or born of the Father? Yes or no? Say the same of the creatures or not? Do you think it is a coincidence that the Holy Scriptures describe the origin of the Son from the Father, consistently with a different word it uses for the creatures?

  • gennao, tikto <-> ktizo, poio

  Just read John 1:1a with understanding, "in the beginning was the Word,"... now say it loudly: "in the beginning ... was", and then repeat WAS, WAS, WAS, until the message gets through your mind. And after that: according Hebrews 1:2 even the "ages" (aion) were made through the Son? So without aions there is no time, no temporality, no before and after, so He is eternal.

  So how can you say that the following definition for the generation of the Son from the Father in the Nicene Creed is not Scriptural? It's terminology and content is completely scriptural!

  • "begotten of the Father before all ages (æons)", "begotten, not made"
  • "γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" [gennethenta pro panton ton aionon], "γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα" [gennithenta ou poiithenta]
• 

  aqwsed12345

  slimboyfat

  I love these expression from you: "the most competent and respected", "the majority of expert". Oh WOW!

  This obviously shows your attitude. Obviously, the same "the most competent and respected" and "the majority of expert" scholars would also "scientifically" establish how imperfect the Holy Scriptures are and are actually just a collection of ancient superstitions. This is chronolatry, this arrogant worship of "modern science", that invents completely new things that no one has thought of before. Everyone used to be an idiot centuries before. Everyone is smart now. Some guy living in the 21th century obviously knows what ancient Christians actually professed, than the ancient writers, the church fathers themself, just as the newest iPhone is better than the old one.

  If it is described in a Harvard publication that Jesus did not exist, then of course it is so. If an ancient author writes something, it is worthless "because it's [the current year]" (by Trudeau). I don't want to disparage researchers in general, but you don't have to fall for them, of course you have to know their methodology, but especially that everyone obviously wants to discover something "revolutionary".

  Athanasius used simply used the LXX, and could defend the Nicene doctrine, just pointing out that the Arians when they read and say ktizo, they actually mean poio. Ktizo can be interpreted in the Orthodox way, and does not imply poio.

  Jerome did not make a biased Bible translation at all, even the WTS publications recognize this and present him as a high-impact honest Bible translator, and never accused him of Trinitarian bias (only for translating the Tetragrammaton as "Dominus"). I note that many people in his time criticized Jerome precisely because he was translating directly from the Hebrew scriptures, why he was not from the traditionally accepted Septuagint, and why he was taking lessons from the Jews, learning Hebrew, and accused him of being a Judaizer. He started to translate the Vulgate after the Council of Constantinople, when Arianism wasn't an issue at all for him. He translated "qanani" as "possedit" most probably because this is how the the Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine back then understood it, following Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.

  The Peshitta (Syriac) isn't translated from Hebrew, but most likely from the Greek Septuagint.
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345 : It is quite clear what Arians do, they take one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture.

  You completely ignore that the meaning given to the word 'qanah' in Proverbs 8:22 is not a meaning given by Arians, but by lexicographers Brown-Driver-Briggs. You also ignore my question whether the use of 'qanah' in Genesis 14:19,22 means a bringing into existence from nothing.

  Your argument seems to be that because John describes Jesus as only-begotten, the meaning given by Brown-Driver-Briggs to 'qanah' in Proverbs 8:22 must be wrong. I think you are confusing lexicography with theology.