Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

aqwsed12345
@Blotty
You argue that Aquila’s choice of “possessed” in Proverbs 8:22 was not due to theological intent but rather his literal translation style, as Britannica suggests. However, the translation style alone doesn’t negate the fact that “possessed” is a legitimate rendering of qanah. Aquila’s translation reflects an understanding in Jewish thought that qanah in this context could mean “possessed” or “acquired,” especially when referring to Wisdom as an attribute of God. The translators of the Septuagint understood that qanah did not imply Wisdom was created in the same sense as other creatures, but rather that Wisdom was integrally part of God’s work from the beginning. Aquila’s literal approach reflects fidelity to Hebrew meanings, not a departure from theological implications. Quote from HERE:
This Arian attempt to support the doctrine of the Son’s creation is demolished by the fact that the Hebrew text simply does not say “created,” as the Greek translation does, but “possessed,” qanah. No Hebrew manuscript reads “created” (bara) in Proverbs 8:22. The semantic range of qanah in the OT includes “acquire,” “buy,” and “possess,” but it never means “create” in any of its 85 appearances in 75 OT verses. It is possible that the rather unusual mistranslation of Proverbs 8:22 in current copies of the LXX is a scribal error arising from Sirach 24:9 in the Apocrypha, where wisdom, the personified representation of “the book of the covenant of the most high God, even the law which Moses commanded for an heritage unto the congregations of Jacob” (24:23), said “[God] created me from the beginning before the world, and I shall never fail.” Origen’s Hexapla gives strong evidence for the Hebrew “possessed” instead of “created.” The Greek word ektesato, the correct translation for the Hebrew qanah, “possessed,” is the translation given by the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, and therefore appears in every column of the Hexapla except that for that of the Seventy. Origen also takes the unusual step of commenting on the LXX translation ektise, “created,” that the Hebrew has qanah, supporting the view that he also knew that create was a mistranslation in the LXX of his day. The inspired text of Scripture simply does not say that the Son was “created” in Proverbs 8:22.
You mention that I didn’t answer your question about Matthew 1:22 and the use of “through” (διά). The angel in Matthew 1:22 indeed serves as a messenger, acting as a medium through whom God’s message is conveyed, much like how Jesus is described as the means “through” whom creation occurs. However, Jesus’ role as “through whom” all things were made (Colossians 1:16) and “through whom” God spoke (Hebrews 1:2) differs significantly because Jesus is described as actively involved in creation, not as a passive intermediary. The context in these verses presents Jesus as preexistent and directly engaged in creation, rather than merely passing along God’s actions like a messenger. This is why Hebrews 1:10 and other passages directly attribute creation to Jesus, not in a secondary or passive way, but as an essential agent in creation.
You emphasize that BDAG lists “first created” as a “probable” meaning for arche in Revelation 3:14 and notes Job 40:19 as a comparable usage. However, while BDAG mentions this interpretation as “probable”, it does not present it as definitive, and interpretation depends on context. Revelation’s apocalyptic genre, combined with the consistent New Testament portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), supports understanding arche as “origin” or “source” of creation rather than “first created.” Job 40:19 describes Behemoth as “the first of the works of God,” which linguistically might suggest a temporal priority, but contextually it’s different from Revelation 3:14’s theological and Christological context. Thus, while Job 40:19 may serve as a linguistic parallel, it does not necessarily determine the theological meaning in Revelation.
I don't know if you have heard of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof, well, a prosecutor would not be able to successfully argue in favor of the defendant’s guilt if his main evidence was a simply "probable". You claim that mainstream Christianity is "apostate" when it claims that the Son was "begotten, not made" because He was actually made and not begotten. And the strongest argument in your hand is a lexicon that says nothing more than "probable"?! Well, you came into the battle pretty empty-handed then.
You argue that David’s family context is irrelevant to the title “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27, which describes his preeminence among kings. However, the point here is not David’s family per se, but rather that “firstborn” conveys a title of rank and authority rather than birth order. David was neither the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, yet he is designated “firstborn” to signify his special status as the exalted king. In a similar way, Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as “firstborn over all creation” not to indicate that He was created, but to emphasize His supreme authority over creation.
You mention that Greg Stafford “beat” my “master.” To clarify, I don’t have a “master” in theological debate, nor am I beholden to any particular apologist’s views. My arguments are based on the weight of biblical evidence, historical theology, and scholarly sources. Citing a scholar’s expertise or debating their interpretations is not about “picking on” people; it’s about examining the soundness of arguments. Greg Stafford, while knowledgeable, does not possess an infallible interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 or Revelation 3:14. His views represent one perspective among many in the academic field, and his conclusions are not definitive in the wider context of Christian scholarship.
You claim that Stafford has “debunked” my interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, particularly regarding typology and the double accusative. While Stafford may argue that Proverbs 8:22-25 refers to a literal creation of Wisdom, other reputable scholars and Church Fathers interpret this passage as metaphorical or typological, pointing to Christ’s unique relationship with the Father without implying that He is a created being. The double accusative in the Hebrew structure does not inherently imply temporal creation, and many Church Fathers interpreted this verse as a poetic depiction of Wisdom’s role in creation rather than a statement of ontological origin. Wisdom literature, by nature, uses figurative language to express complex theological ideas, which is why traditional Christian interpretation often views this passage typologically.
You argue that verses 23-25 establish Wisdom as “beginning” God’s ways, suggesting a temporal creation. However, the Hebrew phrasing in these verses can be understood as a poetic device illustrating Wisdom’s foundational role in creation, not necessarily a literal creation in time. Even if Proverbs 8:22-25 suggests that Wisdom was “established” or “appointed” from the beginning, early Christian interpretation often views this as an eternal “begotten” relationship, reflecting the Son’s role alongside the Father without implying that the Son came into being. Traditional Christian doctrine holds that Jesus, as divine Wisdom, is eternally begotten, not temporally created, and this interpretation has strong historical and theological support.
@Duran
Some resources for you:
In Revelation 3:14, when Jesus is referred to as the "beginning of the creation by God," the Greek word used here is "archē", which can mean "beginning" but also denotes "origin," "source," or "ruler." Interpreting "archē" as "the source" or "the origin" aligns well with the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as the agent of creation.
For example:
- In John 1:3, we read, "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."
- Colossians 1:16-17 also confirms, "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
If Jesus were merely the "first created being," it would be contradictory to say that "all things" were created through Him, as this would require Jesus to create Himself—an illogical conclusion. The term "archē," in this case, does not imply that Jesus is a created being but rather indicates His role as the origin and ruler of creation. In the context of Revelation, "archē" implies that Jesus is the supreme authority and source of all creation, not a created part of it.
Hence the Greek word archē does not imply “first in order of creation.” Instead, it often refers to “origin,” “source,” or “ruler.” In the context of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament, archē implies that Jesus is the “source” or “origin” of all creation. As John 1:3 clarifies, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” This statement explicitly excludes Jesus from creation, indicating that He is the agent through whom creation itself was brought into existence.
So, in Revelation 3:14, “beginning” should be understood as a title of authority, meaning the source or originator of creation, not a part of creation itself. The Nicene Creed echoes this, stating that Jesus is “begotten, not made,” which reaffirms that His being is fundamentally different from created beings.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." The context here is crucial: Jesus has just discussed His authority and power, stating that no one can snatch His sheep from His hand, a divine claim of protection that parallels God’s power. The Jewish listeners understood this as a claim to divinity because they immediately accused Him of blasphemy for “making Himself God” (John 10:33). If Jesus were merely claiming unity of purpose or action, this reaction would not make sense, as Jewish leaders would not accuse a person of blasphemy for merely aligning themselves with God's will.
Furthermore, the Greek word "one" (hen) used in John 10:30 denotes unity of essence or nature, not just agreement in will. This unity suggests an inseparable, ontological connection between Jesus and the Father, consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of one essence shared by distinct persons.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, “I and the Father are one.” This statement was indeed understood by the Jewish audience as a claim to divinity. In the following verse (John 10:31), they attempt to stone Him for blasphemy, saying, “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” This reaction shows that Jesus’ audience understood His statement as a claim of unity in nature, not merely in purpose.
In John 17:22, Jesus prays that His disciples may be "one just as we are one." However, this prayer for the disciples' unity does not mean that the disciples share the same divine essence as the Father and the Son. Jesus is praying for unity among His followers—a unity of purpose, love, and mission. The disciples can never be "one" with the Father in the same sense that Jesus is "one" with the Father, as they do not share the same divine nature.
The phrase "just as" here serves to illustrate a comparison in terms of relational unity, not ontological identity. Jesus’ unity with the Father is unique and fundamentally different, as Jesus is of one essence with the Father, sharing the fullness of the divine nature (Colossians 2:9). In contrast, the unity among the disciples reflects shared purpose and commitment to God’s mission but does not make them equal with God. While it might appear to draw a parallel between Jesus and the Father’s unity and the disciples’ unity, these two forms of unity are not equivalent in nature. Read this: https://justpaste.it/h4pcq
In this prayer, Jesus desires for His followers to be unified in spirit and purpose, just as He is perfectly united with the Father. The oneness that Jesus has with the Father is unique; it speaks to a shared divine essence, as supported by multiple passages, including John 1:1, Colossians 2:9 (“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”), and Philippians 2:6, which asserts that Jesus existed “in the form of God” before taking on human form.
The unity Jesus desires among His disciples reflects a harmony of purpose and love, but it does not suggest that they share the same divine essence. For humans, being “one” with God means aligning with His will and mission, while for Jesus and the Father, their unity is ontological—it is a unity of being, not merely of purpose.
Blotty

"Quote from HERE:" - who wrote this garbage? you? I believe Britannica over you any day.. Aquila's hyper literal translation style would obligate him to render the Hebrew word literally... not its actaul meaning.
"Origen also takes the unusual step of commenting on the LXX translation ektise, “created,” that the Hebrew has qanah, supporting the view that he also knew that create was a mistranslation in the LXX of his day." - Does it cite specifically where Origen comments on it? I got to page 3 and gave up (I'm not reading any more of that garbage)
Does Origen state it was a mistranslation? he comments on alot of Greek words
"You claim that mainstream Christianity is "apostate" when it claims that the Son was "begotten, not made"" - Where did I claim this - quote plz, Where did I call mainstream Christianity apostate?

"David was neither the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel" - gotcha! Was David temporally first in ANY sense? the answer: yes
"Some resources for you" - oh look you literally just proved my point about you being in many other places causing the same sort of rubbish.... a quick google search on these links shows you to be the same person..
& if you think a dictionary is all I have - your dreaming I have plenty more where that came from... thats only 1 thing thats in my favor
- my responce to this post is to be continued when i have more time-
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
You argue that Aquila’s “hyper-literal translation style” would require him to render the Hebrew qanah in Proverbs 8:22 literally, meaning that ektise ("created") in the Septuagint was more accurate. The Hebrew word qanah generally means "acquire," "possess," or "buy" rather than "create." It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. This is evident in Genesis 4:1 (where Eve says she "acquired a man with the help of the Lord") and other instances where it denotes possession or acquisition, not creation. Therefore, even if Aquila adhered to a literal translation style, rendering qanah as "possessed" accurately reflects its primary meaning in Hebrew.
Additionally, Britannica and other sources emphasize Aquila's literal translation approach, but this does not imply that he ignored the actual meanings of Hebrew words. His literalism aimed at capturing the precise semantic range of Hebrew words in Greek. So, using possessed (Greek ektēsato) aligns with qanah’s primary meaning rather than imposing a creation concept foreign to the Hebrew text. Nor does it explain why Philo of Alexandria, Theodotion, and Symmachus likewise ordered it as "ektēsato."
You ask whether there’s a specific reference where Origen calls the LXX translation a "mistranslation" and whether I can provide a quote. Origen’s Hexapla includes multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Origen meticulously placed the translations side by side to allow for comparison. In this way, Origen highlights the differences in translation and shows where the LXX deviated from the Hebrew, even if he does not explicitly label it a “mistranslation” in every case. The fact that Origen included ektēsato (possessed) from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion alongside the LXX’s ektise suggests that he recognized a meaningful discrepancy.
Many scholars agree that Origen's inclusion of alternative translations indicates his awareness that ektise may not fully capture qanah's meaning. Origen’s own theological writings, which affirm the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father, further support that he did not interpret Proverbs 8:22 as a literal creation but understood it in line with eternal generation theology.
You assert that you never literally claimed mainstream Christianity is apostate or denied that the Son was "begotten, not made." While you may not have used the term “apostate,” your arguments appear to align with Arian interpretations, which deny the eternal generation of the Son. This position, while not necessarily calling Christianity “apostate,” does conflict with traditional Christian theology upheld by mainstream Christianity since the Nicene Creed, which distinguishes between "begotten, not made."
If you are indeed challenging the eternal generation of the Son, as upheld in mainstream Christianity, it naturally follows that you are diverging from orthodox Christian theology. Mainstream Christian teachings, based on Scripture and the Church Fathers, affirm that Jesus is eternally begotten, not created in a temporal sense.
You claim that David was “temporally first in some sense,” and therefore “firstborn” has a temporal aspect. However, David was not the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, so his designation as "firstborn" in Psalm 89:27 is about preeminence and authority, not chronological order. “Firstborn” here is an honorific title rather than a literal statement about birth order. This aligns with the biblical use of “firstborn” to signify rank and privilege, as it does in Colossians 1:15 regarding Jesus.
In Psalm 89:27, "firstborn" signifies David’s exalted position among kings, establishing his lineage as the chosen royal line. This typological use of “firstborn” reflects an established biblical pattern where "firstborn" denotes rank and privilege rather than literal sequence.
You mention having more evidence than just a lexicon entry. Lexicons like BDAG provide definitions based on usage but do not claim theological finality. While arche can mean "first created" as one possibility, the context of Revelation 3:14 and the broader New Testament depiction of Jesus support interpreting arche as "origin" or "source." Additionally, while Behemoth is called "the first of the works of God," (Job 40:19) the language and genre of Job differ significantly from Revelation. Revelation is a theological text within an apocalyptic framework, which often uses symbolic language. Thus, the interpretation of arche as "origin" is contextually consistent within the framework of Christ’s eternal role in creation as presented in the New Testament. The apocalyptic and symbolic nature of Revelation favors understanding arche in a way that upholds the theological consistency of Jesus as Creator, not created.
Your position assumes that Proverbs 8:22 explicitly implies temporal creation, but this interpretation is not universally accepted. Proverbs 8:22-25 uses poetic language to personify Wisdom, presenting it as an attribute of God integral to creation rather than a literal created being. Wisdom literature often employs figurative language, so interpreting qanah as indicating a “created” Wisdom misses the literary style. Early Christian thought frequently saw this passage as typologically pointing to Christ, not as a literal description of His origin.
Church Fathers like Athanasius and Augustine interpreted this passage as referring to the eternal nature of the Son, who is "begotten, not made." They viewed the personification of Wisdom as a literary device that prefigures Christ’s role, rather than a statement about His temporal creation. The Church Fathers, including Origen, Athanasius, and others, provide a rich context for understanding Proverbs 8:22 and Revelation 3:14. Their works form the foundation of orthodox theology regarding Christ’s eternal nature. Stafford’s views, while interesting, do not carry the same historical weight or continuity with traditional Christian doctrine. Engaging with mainstream Christian scholarship, which includes a wide array of interpretations rooted in historical theology, strengthens the understanding that Christ is eternally begotten and fully divine, consistent with the scriptural witness.
Blotty

" It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. " - this is in conflict with many many scholars and is unfounded.. notice a common theme between ALL of these words - Something someone did NOT possess before.. never implies "already had"
God did not always have the heavens and earth
Eve did not always have her Child.
Just to cite a few:
"possessor - so Onkelos and Calvin; but koneh, from kanah, to erect, set up, hence found or create, means founder and creator (Gesenius), combines the meanings of κτίζειν and κτᾶσθαι (Keil), contains no indistinct allusion to the doctrine of Genesis 1:1 (Murphy), and is rendered ο{ς ἔκτισε (LXX.) and qui creavit (Vulgate) " - Pulpit
"Possessor.—Literally, creator, or framer. It is a poetical word, as are also those for “delivered” and “enemies.” The form of the blessing, moreover, is poetical, as it is arranged in parallel clauses." - Elliot
"possessor of heaven and earth] R.V. marg. maker. The word is poetical. It expresses the ideas of making, producing, creating, as in Deuteronomy 32:6, Psalm 139:13, Proverbs 8:22. It is more often used for “acquiring” (cf. Genesis 4:1), a sense which would not here be applicable. In Isaiah 1:3, it is found, as here, with the meaning of “owner.”" - Cambridge
"Possessor of heaven and earth — That is, rightful owner and sovereign Lord of all the creatures; because he made them." - Benson

need i Cite the hundreds more I have? - yep it totally never means created definitively in its 85 uses nope not at all... not once except in the other 2 instances cited by pulpit...
"does conflict with traditional Christian theology upheld by mainstream Christianity since the Nicene Creed, which distinguishes between "begotten, not made."" - so since the 4th century.... Which is where many manuscript variations come from - a creed which I don't care about... argument null and void in my eyes
"However, David was not the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, so his designation as "firstborn" in Psalm 89:27 is about pre-eminence and authority, not chronological order" - again he is temporally first in some sense.. now are you going to be honest and cite the correct scripture or am I going too? He was temporally first in some sense - hence being called the firstborn...
being called Firstborn ALWAYS denotes a temporal factor in SOME form. and David is still a king.. NOT an exception to the group he is Firstborn of.
"establishing his lineage as the chosen royal line. This typological use of “firstborn” reflects an established biblical pattern where "firstborn" denotes rank and privilege rather than literal sequence." - is he not the first of this chosen line? since that specific line was chosen by God?
"the language and genre of Job differ significantly from Revelation." - So why does BDAG cite it as a grammatical paralell? BDAG NEVER comments on genre or anything it cites ALL instances where the word means the same thing.
" While you may not have used the term “apostate,” your arguments appear to align with Arian interpretations" - So I NEVER called christianity apostate....
& if you actaully pay attention to what I write you would realise I dont actaully adhere to Arian theology atall because I claim Logos was created from something (Like Eve from Adam) not from nothing (What Arians claim, allegedly - wouldn't be surprised if Atha lied tho)
slimboyfat

What I find most telling is that early Christian writers were perfectly happy to apply the phrase “the Lord created me” from Prov 8.22 in Greek to Jesus. Only in the 4th century did this become a problem in light of the emerging Trinity doctrine, and only then were various strategies developed for avoiding the implication that Jesus was created. These strategies generally took three forms: 1) the verse was only talking about Jesus’s humanity (Athanasius’s favoured explanation, but it is almost never exhibited nowadays), 2) the Hebrew word doesn’t mean “created”, and 3) the passage is only a personification of Wisdom and should not be understood as applying to Jesus. Again, none of these arguments were made before the 4th century. Earlier Christians accepted the phrase “the Lord created me” at face value as it was in harmony with who they understood Jesus to be.
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
You argue that qanah does imply “creation” and cite several sources suggesting that it can mean “creator” or “framer,” such as Pulpit, Elliot, Cambridge, and Benson. However, these sources, while helpful, do not prove that qanah definitively means “create” in Proverbs 8:22.
The primary meaning of qanah across the Old Testament is “acquire,” “buy,” or “possess,” as seen in Genesis 4:1, where Eve says, “I have acquired a man with the help of the Lord.” It is rarely used to mean “create” directly. Although poetic and metaphorical usage can broaden a word’s meaning, the primary and most frequent usage of qanah is not creation. Scholars often interpret qanah in Proverbs 8:22 as “possess” because it aligns with the typical use of the word in other contexts.
Even when qanah appears in texts related to creation, such as in Proverbs 8:22, it often has the meaning of possessing or acquiring rather than creating out of nothing. This aligns with the ancient understanding that God’s wisdom is eternally present with Him and not something He “created” as He created the world. The Jewish tradition, which views Wisdom as a personification of an eternal attribute of God, supports this non-creation interpretation.
Jewish translators, including Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, chose words that emphasize possession or acquisition rather than creation in their translations. This reflects a consistent interpretation that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 means “possessed” rather than “created.” If “created” were the definitive meaning, we would expect all ancient translations to agree on this point, which they do not.
So, while qanah might be interpreted to imply creation in a very loose sense, the overwhelming evidence from ancient translators, as well as its frequent use in Hebrew, supports the interpretation as “possess.”
You dismiss the relevance of the Nicene Creed by saying it is from the fourth century and therefore “irrelevant”. However, the significance of the Creed cannot be ignored in this discussion. The Nicene Creed represents a formalized response to theological disputes within early Christianity, particularly addressing interpretations like Arianism that challenged the eternality of the Son. It reflects a consensus developed over centuries among early Christians and is built on scriptural foundations.
The Creed’s language, such as “begotten, not made,” is derived from interpretations of passages like John 1:1, John 1:14, Hebrews 1:5, and Colossians 1:15-16. Dismissing the Creed entirely overlooks the scriptural and theological efforts of early Christians to articulate Christ’s relationship to the Father in a way that avoids misunderstandings, like viewing Him as a created being.
The Council of Nicaea did not invent the interpretation of Christ as eternally begotten but rather clarified and formalized it. Even prior to the fourth century, theologians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus expressed ideas that aligned with the Nicene understanding of the Son’s eternality. Ignoring this historical context leaves a gap in understanding how the early church approached these complex issues.
You argue that “firstborn” always implies a temporal element, suggesting that David was “temporally first in some sense” and therefore should be understood literally. In Psalm 89:27, David is called “firstborn” not because he was literally the firstborn son or the first king, but because he holds a position of preeminence among kings. In ancient Near Eastern culture, “firstborn” often signified rank, authority, or special privilege rather than literal birth order. This is why Israel, as a nation, is called God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite not being the first nation.
The term “firstborn” (Hebrew: bekor) is used in multiple contexts throughout the Bible to denote status. For example, Ephraim is called the “firstborn” over Manasseh in Jeremiah 31:9, though Manasseh was born first. Similarly, David’s “firstborn” status in Psalm 89 reflects his exalted status in God’s plan, not a temporal sequence.
Paul uses the term “firstborn” to describe Christ’s preeminence over creation, not His inclusion in creation. If “firstborn” simply meant chronological order, then it would contradict Paul’s portrayal of Christ as the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16). Instead, “firstborn” here highlights Christ’s authority and supreme position over creation.
Thus, David’s title of “firstborn” serves as a typological foreshadowing of Christ’s preeminence and does not necessarily imply temporal priority.
You reference BDAG’s citation of Job 40:19 as a grammatical parallel for arche in Revelation 3:14 and assert that genre should not influence interpretation. While BDAG lists “first created” as a “probable” meaning for arche in Revelation 3:14, it does not present this as definitive. Lexicons list possible meanings, and the final interpretation depends on contextual factors, including the genre, theological context, and broader biblical witness. Revelation is an apocalyptic text rich with symbolic language, which makes it challenging to impose a literal interpretation without considering context.
In Job 40:19, Behemoth is described as the “first of the ways of God,” which linguistically could imply a temporal beginning. However, Revelation 3:14’s theological and Christological emphasis presents arche in a different light. Christ is described as the Creator and sustainer of all things in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, which supports an interpretation of arche as “origin” or “source” rather than “first created.”
Apocalyptic literature, such as Revelation, frequently employs symbolic language. For example, terms like “Lion of Judah” or “Lamb of God” are not literal but convey theological truths. Interpreting arche in Revelation 3:14 without considering genre risks imposing a rigid meaning that may not align with the text’s symbolic nature.
You clarify that you do not adhere to Arian theology because you believe the Logos was created “from something,” not from nothing. However, this still implies a temporal beginning, which conflicts with traditional Christian doctrine. The orthodox Christian teaching, based on scriptural interpretation and the consensus of the early church, is that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father, meaning there was never a time when He did not exist. This does not mean He was created from something pre-existing, as that would still imply a beginning. Rather, it affirms that the Son has always existed in relation to the Father.
The Son’s generation is a unique aspect of His divine relationship with the Father, which goes beyond human concepts of “created from something.” Traditional Christian teaching on the Trinity emphasizes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal, each fully God, without any temporal sequence or material cause.
Suggesting that the Logos was created “from something” still implies that the Son had a temporal point of origin. This view, though not identical to Arianism, contradicts the doctrine of the Son’s eternal nature. Even if you avoid the term “apostate,” this interpretation diverges from orthodox Christian belief and aligns with non-Trinitarian theologies.
@slimboyfat
The argument that early Christian writers "were perfectly happy" to apply Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord ektisen me") to Jesus and only in the fourth century began to reinterpret it due to the developing doctrine of the Trinity overlooks several important historical and theological nuances. It is not accurate to say that pre-Nicene Christians universally accepted Proverbs 8:22 as proof that Jesus was created. In fact, the application of Proverbs 8 to Jesus as Wisdom was often typological or symbolic rather than a literal endorsement of His creation.
Origen, one of the most prominent pre-Nicene theologians, addressed Proverbs 8:22 in his writings. Although he occasionally used the language of “creation,” he explicitly taught that the Son was eternally begotten, not temporally created. He distinguished between the eternal generation of the Son and the temporal creation of the universe. Origen’s position was not that Jesus was created ex nihilo but that He eternally derived from the Father, much as light derives from a source without a beginning.
Dionysius, bishop of Rome in the mid-3rd century, was among the earliest Christian leaders to defend the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Dionysius strongly opposed any notion that the Son was created in time, countering misunderstandings that implied any form of subordinationism or created status for the Son. In his letter to Dionysius of Alexandria, he rebuked interpretations that suggested the Son was a creature, advocating instead for an understanding that upheld the unity and co-eternity of the Father and Son. Dionysius of Rome’s writings predate the fourth century and already contain a defense of the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father, independent of any “Trinity doctrine” formalized at Nicaea.
But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling, but a very great impiety, to say that the Lord was in any wise made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not; but He always was, if, as He Himself declares, He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power — for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as you yourselves know — assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence; and thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. But why should I discourse at greater length to you about these matters, since you are men filled with the Spirit, and especially understanding what absurd results follow from the opinion which asserts that the Son was made? The leaders of this view seem to me to have given very little heed to these things, and for that reason to have strayed absolutely, by explaining the passage otherwise than as the divine and prophetic Scripture demands. "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways." For, as you know, there is more than one signification of the word "created;" and in this place "created" is the same as "set over" the works made by Himself — made, I say, by the Son Himself. But this created is not to be understood in the same manner as made. For to make and to create are different from one another. "Is not He Himself your Father, that has possessed you and created you?" says Moses in the great song of Deuteronomy. And thus might any one reasonably convict these men. Oh reckless and rash men! Was then "the first-born of every creature" something made?— "He who was begotten from the womb before the morning star?" — He who in the person of Wisdom says, "Before all the hills He begot me?" (Proverbs 8:25) Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord.
This indicates that there were early theological efforts to articulate the Son’s eternal, divine nature well before the fourth century, suggesting that interpretations of Proverbs 8 were not universally accepted as literal descriptions of Christ’s creation.
The Greek verb ktizo used in the Septuagint translation of Proverbs 8:22 has a broad semantic range, which can support meanings beyond “create” in the sense of bringing something into existence for the first time. In Greek literature, ktizo can mean “to appoint” or “to found” (as in establishing a city or institution). This usage aligns with the understanding of Wisdom being “established” or “appointed” as the means through which God ordered creation, rather than a literal creation of Wisdom as a separate entity. Early interpreters, including Jewish translators of the Old Testament, often understood Wisdom as an attribute or an aspect of God rather than a separate being created in time.
Wisdom in Proverbs is widely understood as a personification—a poetic figure representing an aspect of God’s nature. Ktizo in this context can be understood as referring to God’s ordering or structuring of creation through divine Wisdom, rather than implying a literal act of creation. This metaphorical or poetic usage fits the genre of Proverbs, where personification is common. Later Christian interpreters, particularly Athanasius, argued that the verse should not be read literally as indicating Christ’s creation but typologically, as pointing to His role in creation.
The translators of the Septuagint used ktizo to convey various meanings, not just the creation of something entirely new. They could have used poieo (to make) if they intended a straightforward “creation” meaning, but instead, ktizo often serves in Greek literature to denote establishment or ordering, especially in philosophical contexts. This choice highlights that the translators may have intended ktizo to imply God’s appointment of Wisdom in creation rather than a literal temporal beginning.
It is a common misconception that the fourth-century debates around the Trinity “invented” new interpretations of Proverbs 8:22. Rather, these debates formalized responses to various heretical teachings that had arisen, particularly Arianism, which denied the Son’s co-eternity with the Father. Athanasius’s response to the Arians was not an invention of a new doctrine but a defense of what he saw as the consistent teaching of the Church. Athanasius argued that if Proverbs 8:22 was applied to Jesus, it should be understood in terms of His incarnation or His role in creation, not as a statement of ontological origin. He emphasized that the Son was begotten, not made, a formulation that preserved the Son’s divine nature while clarifying that He was distinct from created beings.
The strategies you mention—interpreting Proverbs 8:22 as referring to Jesus’ humanity, reading qanah as “possess,” or viewing the passage as a personification—were not created in the fourth century but were clarifications in response to Arian arguments. These interpretations already had roots in earlier Christian thought and were part of the theological vocabulary that early Christians used to understand Jesus’ relationship with the Father.
While some early Christians did apply Proverbs 8:22 to Jesus as divine Wisdom, they often understood this application in a typological sense rather than as a literal statement about His being created. Early Christian thought generally viewed Jesus as the eternal Logos (Word) of God, pre-existing all creation and integral to God’s nature. This understanding is seen in John 1:1-3, which portrays the Word as both with God and as God, and involved in creation itself.
Early Christians frequently used typology to interpret Old Testament passages. This method allowed them to see Christ in the Scriptures without implying that every description or characteristic applied in a literal sense. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is seen as typologically foreshadowing Christ’s role, but this does not mean that Wisdom’s “creation” or “beginning” in a metaphorical sense equates to Jesus being a created being.
If Proverbs 8:22 were taken as a literal description of Jesus’ creation, it would conflict with other New Testament passages that present Jesus as eternal and uncreated (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, Hebrews 1:5). The consistent scriptural portrayal of Jesus as preexistent and divine supports a non-literal, typological reading of Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom is a poetic way of expressing an eternal aspect of God’s nature.
Blotty

" If “created” were the definitive meaning, we would expect all ancient translations to agree on this point, which they do not." - this is so untrue its not even funny (unlike some of your other comments, which are sometimes hilariously wrong) There are numerous other variations of scripture where if it were as cut and dry as you are trying to make out they would all match as well.. I can cite at least 10 off the top of my head, that if one word was the definitive meaning we would expect all variations to agree..
"David is called “firstborn” not because he was literally the firstborn son or the first king, but because he holds a position of preeminence among kings. " - yes he WAS temporally first in some sense (I am not specifying it so maybe you will be honest for a change and share it) and he still IS NOT an exception to the kings he is firstborn over.
David was THE FIRST to be "BEGOTTEN" by God (in the sense he was the first in his line to be chosen as a descendant of the messiah...) - There is one other interpretation as well which also requires temporal priority.
"However, the significance of the Creed cannot be ignored in this discussion." - I can ignore whatever the hell I want thank you - and I choose to ignore it - it is unbiblical and full of untruths.. so you can stop citing it to me - thank you. I will ignore whatever I want in this discussion - including you.
"Ephraim is called the “firstborn” over Manasseh in Jeremiah 31:9, though Manasseh was born first. " - there are 2 possible explanations to this... both have a temporal meaning, and it still doesn't negate the one called firstborn "coming into existence" OR being part of the respective group. This example is useless to your agenda.
"This is why Israel, as a nation, is called God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite not being the first nation." - but Israel was still temporally first in the sense, it was the first nation "adopted" by God... and separated from the other nations in this regard. This example is also useless to your agenda
a better one for you would be "the firstborn of death" - but that is even a stretch because it is still part of its respective group.
"However, these sources, while helpful, do not prove that qanah definitively means “create” in Proverbs 8:22." - Why does one of them literally cite proverbs 8:22 for such a meaning?

you also said "It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. " - this is a bold faced lie as it does definitively mean "create" in at least 2 instances - Deuteronomy 32:6 & Psalm 139:13 - proven further by the LXX
Deut 32:6 can ONLY mean "create" because of what its in apposition to it
Gen 4:1 "create" is a possible rendering as "possesion" and "creation" are very closely linked in Hebrew thought.
Blotty

" it would conflict with other New Testament passages that present Jesus as eternal and uncreated (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, Hebrews 1:5)." - ever consider you might be wrong on these passages?
no - your to theologically motivated to see reason, okay then
ill keep reasoning with actual logical humans and leave you theologically motivated lot out at sea..
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
This response doesn’t engage with the main point about consistency in translation. When a term in Hebrew, such as qanah, has a range of meanings, we should expect ancient translators to reflect those nuances depending on context. In Proverbs 8:22, translators did not universally render qanah as “create”; Philo, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, for example, chose “possessed” to reflect qanah’s meaning in this context as “acquired” or “possessed.” This variance suggests that translators recognized the term’s flexibility and sought to convey what they saw as the appropriate meaning in a context where Wisdom is understood as an eternal aspect of God, rather than a created being.
While you are free to disregard the Nicene Creed, dismissing it without engaging with the historical and theological reasons it was formulated undermines the discussion. The Creed’s purpose was to clarify theological understandings that were consistent with Scripture and traditional beliefs, especially in response to Arianism. The arguments for the eternal generation of the Son and the differentiation between “begotten” and “created” were not "invented" by the Creed; they were based on careful exegesis and long-standing tradition. By dismissing it outright, you miss the depth and reasoning of early Christian thought that clarified doctrines in response to challenges like Arianism, which held that the Son was a created being.
David’s designation as “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 is a title of rank, not a literal chronological placement. The idea of being “begotten” by God refers to a chosen status rather than a sequence in time. David was not the first person chosen or “begotten” by God, nor was he the first king. Instead, “firstborn” is used here to denote his special role and preeminence among the kings, which is consistent with how “firstborn” is often used in Scripture. The concept of “firstborn” across biblical usage often emphasizes status and preeminence rather than birth order, as seen in references to Israel, Ephraim, and others.
Ephraim’s designation as “firstborn” does not involve a literal birth order. Ephraim was “firstborn” as a title of preeminence given by God, despite being born after Manasseh. This designation shows that “firstborn” often emphasizes honor, rank, or divine choice rather than literal order of birth. Your argument that “firstborn” must involve some form of temporal priority is not consistently supported by biblical usage, where “firstborn” is used in contexts that clearly denote rank or importance (e.g., Israel as “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite being a later nation compared to others).
While qanah can convey the idea of originating or bringing forth in some contexts, it is very rarely used in the direct sense of “create” as in “making from nothing.” Deuteronomy 32:6 and Psalm 139:13 both imply God’s ownership and care rather than a literal “creation” in the modern sense. Translators in the Septuagint chose ektise ("create") for certain instances, such as Proverbs 8:22, but it does not mean that the Hebrew qanah should be exclusively understood as “create.” Hebrew thought often links possession, acquisition, and origination, but this does not equate to a straightforward act of creating ex nihilo.
In fact, the Hebrew qanah is often used to indicate acquiring, possessing, or obtaining rather than literal creation. For example, in Genesis 4:1, Eve says, “I have gotten (qanah) a man with the help of the Lord,” emphasizing her role in acquiring or obtaining a child, not in “creating” him from nothing. This reinforces that qanah does not universally mean “create” but often relates to acquisition or origin in a non-creationist sense.
The interpretation of passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2-3, 1:5 as affirming Christ’s eternal generation and divine role in creation is not a matter of “theological motivation” but of careful exegesis. These passages consistently present Jesus as the agent through whom all things were created, explicitly stating that “without him, nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3). This would be an odd statement if Jesus Himself were a created being. The theological implications are drawn from the text itself and are consistent across multiple New Testament writings, reinforcing the traditional Christian understanding of Christ’s divine and eternal nature.
While some early Christian writers referenced Proverbs 8 in relation to Jesus as divine Wisdom, they often did so typologically, not literally. For example Dionysius of Rome and other early church leaders defended the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, countering interpretations that implied the Son was created in time. Athanasius argued that Proverbs 8:22 should not be understood as describing the Son’s creation but rather His role in the incarnation or His involvement in creation. Athanasius emphasized the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, directly countering Arian interpretations.
While qanah can indeed mean "acquire," its semantic range includes "possess" without implying prior non-existence. Proverbs 8:22’s context does not clearly mandate an interpretation of Wisdom as "created" or "begotten" in a temporal sense. In fact, Proverbs frequently uses qanah to imply possession or relationship without implying creation from nothing. For example, Genesis 4:1 uses qanah when Eve says, "I have gotten (qanah) a man with the help of the Lord," referring to her child Cain as something she “acquired,” not “created” ex nihilo.
Burney’s reliance on cognate languages (e.g., Aramaic, Arabic) to argue for “acquisition” is insightful but not definitive. Hebrew, while related, has its own nuances, and interpretation must prioritize context over potential meanings in other languages. Hebrew usage allows qanah to mean “possess” or “own” without the implication of a prior time when the object did not exist. This flexibility is significant, particularly in a passage about divine Wisdom, where a strictly temporal creation sense may not apply.
If qanah were meant to imply creation ex nihilo, it would conflict with the broader biblical portrayal of Wisdom, traditionally seen in Jewish and Christian interpretations as an attribute of God’s eternal nature. The early church Fathers who debated Arian interpretations of Proverbs 8 emphasized that qanah here does not indicate a created origin of the Son but points to His eternal relationship with the Father as divine Wisdom.
In Colossians, prototokos (πρωτότοκος, "firstborn") is a term denoting rank and preeminence, not temporal sequence or creation. Paul emphasizes that “all things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16), indicating that Christ is the agent of creation, not part of it. Calling Christ the "firstborn" of all creation thus speaks to His sovereignty and status over creation rather than suggesting He is a created being.
When Revelation refers to Christ as the "arche of God's creation," this can be understood as denoting Christ as the "source" or "origin" of creation rather than the "first created." The early Church Fathers frequently interpreted arche as indicative of Christ’s authority and primacy in creation, which is consistent with John 1:3, where all things are said to come into being “through” the Word. Arian interpretations that take arche to mean “first created” are at odds with this understanding and the theological implications of John's prologue.
The Midrashic association of reshith with divine Wisdom aligns with viewing Wisdom as eternally present with God, an agent in creation rather than a part of creation. This interpretive tradition supports a non-temporal reading of “beginning,” where Wisdom/Christ exists with God eternally rather than having a created origin.
Athanasius argued that “created” terms applied to the Son should not be understood in a literal sense that would imply temporal origin. He recognized that Proverbs 8:22’s language was figurative, affirming that Christ, as divine Wisdom, was eternally begotten, not created. This distinction was vital in refuting Arian claims that Christ was a created being.
Basil of Caesarea acknowledged alternative Greek renderings (like ektesato rather than ektisen) to avoid implying that Christ was a created being. He argued that the Son was "begotten, not made," thus rejecting any interpretation of qanah that would suggest temporal origination.
Early interpreters often viewed Proverbs 8’s Wisdom as a prefiguration of Christ, not as a literal account of Christ's creation. By seeing this as prophetic of the Incarnation or metaphorically ascribing divine attributes, they did not see qanah as a straightforward act of creation. They emphasized that Wisdom, like the Logos, is an eternal attribute of God, present from the beginning.
Blotty

Ever heard the saying "sayng alot while saying very little" - that's what I see coming from you... alot of garbage theological talk - not actual dialogue.
"This response doesn’t engage with the main point about consistency in translation. When a term in Hebrew, such as qanah, has a range of meanings, we should expect ancient translators to reflect those nuances depending on context. " - actually it does, if you read you will see what I mean - just one of many examples for you: How did Aquila translate Gen 1:1?
Why is it different from the LXX? I can use the same argument..
" David was not the first person chosen or “begotten” by God, nor was he the first king." - in what world wasn't he the first King "begotten" by God (or: Chosen)? Who was chosen before David then?
and this still doesn't answer about David The KING still being PRE_EMINENT AMONG KINGS. (proving that Firstborn is always partitive)
if you cant figure out what I mean by "chosen" - please go back to school and learn context and antecedents,
"Ephraim’s designation as “firstborn” does not involve a literal birth order." - Where did I claim it did?I said there was a temporal explanation I NEVER said "birth"
"Hebrew thought often links possession, acquisition, and origination, but this does not equate to a straightforward act of creating ex nihilo." - either you are blind, illiterate or are just plain stupid (my vote is for the third one) FOR THE FINAL TIME I DO NOT BELEIVE CHRIST WAS CREATED "ex nihilo"
secondly deut 32:6 lxx
ταῦτα κυρίῳ ἀνταποδίδοτε οὕτω λαὸς μωρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ σοφός
οὐκ αὐτὸς οὗτός σου πατὴρ ἐκτήσατό σε καὶ ἐποίησέν σε καὶ ἔκτισέν σε
"Burney’s reliance on cognate languages (e.g., Aramaic, Arabic)" - says the person who literally hasn't read Burneys article... else they would know that their are Hebrew texts that use QNH in texts that can ONLY MEAN "CREATED"
" For example, Genesis 4:1 uses qanah when Eve says, "I have gotten (qanah) a man with the help of the Lord," referring to her child Cain as something she “acquired,” not “created” ex nihilo." - think you should go study human anatomy... Babies are technically "created"
"is not a matter of “theological motivation” but of careful exegesis. " - that's with others - with you it is literally theological motivation and desperation to prove a doctrine.... otherwise you wouldn't go spamming other websites that have ASKED you to not do such things... your no catholic, or atleast DO NOT hold to Christian values - your a troll
and "careful"? you? HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHa thats rich - if you were "careful" you wouldn't act the way you do.
you will have to do ALOT of convincing to get me to change my mind - your comments [specifically unfounded claims, incase thats wasnt clear] are a running joke.

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

Share this