by slimboyfat 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
LXX Proverbs 8:22 (Vaticanus) (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209, p.722)
LXX Proverbs 8:22 (Sinaiticus) (https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx)
εκτιϲεν (from ktizo) which Strong's concordance (https://biblehub.com/greek/2936.htm) describes as "2936 ktízō – properly, create, which applies only to God who alone can make what was "not there before" (Latin, ex nihilo, out of nothing, J.Thayer); figuratively to begin ("found"), especially what is habitable or useful."
Earnest - notice a pattern tho:
"to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc. (Pindar and following; 1 Esdr. 4:53)"
Biblehubs dictionary does NOT list a bible verse example for this meaning - making it irrelevant to the conversation since if there was a usage in the bible SURELY it would be cited here..
Just like teh varient in Rev 3:14 cited earlier - if it didnt mean First creation (compare Job 40:19) - Why was it altered and Why do BDAG and Aq'a possibly made up dictionary admit to another meaning for arkhe?
IF we want to bring the philosophical meaning in here, then i would love to bring in the Philosophical meaning for other words in the Bible that do not suit the trinitarian rhetoric - Aq cannot cherry pick where philosophical meanings apply and dont.. either we stick to non-philosophy menaings or we go philosophical meanings, Im sine either way but that is their choice
Blotty, the language in the Bible isn't unique in some way but was also used by the people contemporary with the writers. The numerous Greek papyri found at Oxyrhynchus (in Egypt) help us to understand how certain Greek words were used in the NT. When there is more than one meaning to a word then, of course, you have to understand it in context.
The Bible lexicon which you quote (Thayer's) says that in the Bible ktizo means "to create: of God creating the world, man etc" but it is also means in a figurative sense "to found [or build or make] a city" as at 1 Esdras 4:53 :
"...and that all who came from Babylonia to build [or, make] the city [κτίσαι τὴν πόλιν] should have their freedom"
@Blotty
The primary argument here is not about quoting you verbatim but addressing the logic that seems implied. By pointing to BDAG's listing of "first created" as a probable meaning, you appear to imply it should be the default interpretation for "archē" in Revelation 3:14. However, the BDAG listing does not necessitate this interpretation. Lexicons list potential meanings, but context in Scripture remains paramount for determining the most accurate meaning. In Revelation 3:14, "archē" fits best as "origin" or "source," given the wider biblical context that repeatedly identifies Jesus as Creator, not part of creation.
BDAG does not negate "first cause" as a meaning but simply lists other possible meanings based on various contexts. The role of BDAG is to provide lexicon-based definitions, not to provide theological conclusions. When interpreting "archē" as "origin" or "source" in Revelation 3:14, it aligns well with the broader New Testament context where Jesus is consistently depicted as the agent of creation (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). Thus, "archē" in Revelation 3:14 can be contextually and linguistically interpreted as referring to Jesus’ role as the origin or source of creation, not as a created entity.
Your argument downplays the active role of the Son in creation by emphasizing the Father's role as the "source." This argument suggests that since the Father is the ultimate source, the Son’s role as Creator is diminished. However, New Testament passages like Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 identify Jesus as the direct agent of creation, meaning that He holds an active, integral role in creation. Describing Jesus as merely an "instrument" without acknowledging His full participation in the creative process misunderstands the nature of His role as the divine Logos, who actively creates alongside the Father.
The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, affirmed that the Son was eternally begotten, not “ex nihilo” created in time. The phrase "in the beginning" (John 1:1) does not imply a point in time when the Son began to exist; rather, it affirms His existence co-eternal with the Father. The concept of eternal generation, as understood by the Church Fathers, maintains that the Son shares in the Father’s divine essence and is uncreated.
Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102 to affirm that the Son is the one through whom the heavens and earth were made, directly attributing creation to Him. This citation is used to emphasize the Son’s divine role and creative power. Your comparison to other examples, like Solomon building the Temple, is not analogous because Hebrews explicitly credits Jesus as the Creator of the universe, not merely a facilitator or builder in a secondary sense. The passive or active voice does not change the theological assertion that Jesus is the Creator.
While possession and creation may sometimes be conceptually linked, they are not synonymous. The Hebrew term in Proverbs 8:22 (קָנָה, qanah) is often translated as "possessed" rather than "created" because it can indicate ownership or bringing forth. Even if some translations opt for "created," the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the eternal Logos overrides the notion of Wisdom being a temporal creation. The early Church Fathers saw Proverbs 8 as a foreshadowing of Christ’s eternal generation, not a literal account of His creation.
While some Church Fathers used "ektisen" (created) in discussions of Proverbs 8:22, this does not imply they viewed Christ as created in time. Fathers like Origen, Athanasius, and Basil understood "created" in Proverbs 8 in a metaphorical or typological sense, relating it to Christ’s eternal generation from the Father. For example, Athanasius argued extensively against Arian interpretations that treated the Son as a created being. The Fathers used Proverbs 8 to describe the relationship between the Father and Son without compromising Christ’s eternal, uncreated nature.
The term "agent of creation" does not diminish Jesus' status as Creator. In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully and actively involved in the act of creation, with the Son described as the one through whom all things were made (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The title "agent of creation" emphasizes the Son’s active role in bringing creation into existence without implying that He is subordinate or secondary in essence to the Father. Describing Him as "the agent" affirms His integral involvement in creation while maintaining the relational distinction within the Trinity.
Dismissing an argument based on the perceived status of the person presenting it is an ad hominem fallacy. Sound arguments should be evaluated on their merits, not on the background or qualifications of the individual presenting them. Theological understanding comes from careful study of Scripture, history, and the writings of respected scholars, not personal attacks.
Aquila’s, Symmachus’s, and Theodotion’s translations indeed used terms for "possessed" rather than "created" to reflect the original Hebrew understanding better. Origen’s allaged “choice” to retain "ektisen" does not contradict the orthodox position because he, like other Fathers, interpreted "created" metaphorically rather than literally. The preference of Aquila and others for “possessed” highlights their understanding that qanah did not imply temporal creation, and Origen’s choice reflects a theological interpretation within the Church’s broader doctrinal framework.
While ktizo can have varied meanings, such as “to found” or “to make habitable,” the specific biblical context and theological usage help determine the intended meaning. In the New Testament, ktizo consistently refers to God’s unique act of creation. Context dictates that ktizo in Proverbs 8:22 (if read as “created”) is used figuratively, pointing to Wisdom’s foundational role in God’s creative work rather than literal creation. The pattern of ktizo usage in Scripture does not conflict with interpreting Proverbs 8 in a typological sense.
While biblical language overlaps with contemporary usage, Scripture uses terms within a theological context that often transcends standard or secular meanings. Lexicons like Thayer’s do provide historical uses, but interpreting Scripture involves understanding how these words were adapted to convey theological truths. The Bible’s usage of ktizo as "create" is primarily used in a divine context, unlike secular Greek texts, where it might mean "found" or "establish."
While ktizo can mean "to create" or "to found," the interpretation of each usage relies on context. Proverbs 8’s context is poetic and personified, indicating that Wisdom’s “creation” is metaphorical, symbolizing God’s eternal wisdom rather than a literal act of creation. Scholars widely interpret ktizo in Proverbs 8 as a poetic way of describing Wisdom’s role in creation rather than implying that Wisdom (or Christ) is a temporal creation.
"The primary argument here is not about quoting you verbatim" - because you can't - You are a fraud
While it is not about quoting me verbatim - you are claiming I said something I never did, so please quote me verbatim where I claim what you accused me of - We can go no further into this discussion until you do so.
or admit I didn't say what you accused me of.
and the dictionary citation plz
"The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, affirmed that the Son was eternally begotten, not “ex nihilo” created in time. " - Where do i claim Jesus was created “ex nihilo”? as I said to others I claim he was created (or begotten, same thing) I never said what from... I am more inclined to believe he was created from something.. and not “ex nihilo” - fun fact.
"The preference of Aquila and others for “possessed” highlights their understanding that qanah did not imply temporal creation" - Or it was simply they were hyper-literal translators as Britannica states.. that's probably the best interpretation.. & probably the most credible one (basically any answer other than yours is credible, even other trinitarians on this site)
It really begs the question why the LXX renders QNH as "Ektisen" 3 times when it would make sense in the context - yet the other times retains the "possessed" meaning. Going by Aquila's translation style he probably would have rendered Gen 14:19 literally - yet the Lxx didn't.
" Your comparison to other examples, like Solomon building the Temple, is not analogous because Hebrews explicitly credits Jesus as the Creator of the universe, not merely a facilitator or builder in a secondary sense." - But Solomon is credited with building the temple.. Solomon is literally said to have built the temple.. Its just self evident he didn't. hence the comparison
Is the Angels work in Matt 1:22 inferior to Gods?
Origen credits the Father as autotheos and as the creator.. not Logos
"The passive or active voice does not change the theological assertion that Jesus is the Creator." - do you even know how the voices in Greek work? I am sure you would argue based on the voice that the NWT renders John 17:3 wrong... get over yourself.
How can Christ be the source of creation? When the father is said to be the source of it?
Why is the passive voice used in combination with dia for an angel (Matt 1:22)? Where again the distinction between upo and dia is made.
" "archē" in Revelation 3:14 can be contextually and linguistically interpreted as referring to Jesus’ role as the origin or source of creation" - see Barnes commentary... he would disagree..
it DOES NOT denote authorship..
"Scholars widely interpret ktizo in Proverbs 8 as a poetic way of describing Wisdom’s role in creation rather than implying that Wisdom (or Christ) is a temporal creation." - citation please
Clifford, Fox, Burney etc all don't interpret it this way.
When did Time start then? was it "before all creation"?
So what does Proverbs need to say to say that Christ is created? poieo? you have already admitted these are synonymous...
@Blotty
The interpretation of archē as "first created" must be weighed against the broader context of Scripture and the consistent portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament as the uncreated Creator. Revelation 3:14 needs to be understood within the framework of passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2, which clearly present Jesus as the agent through whom all things were created. Context, therefore, supports interpreting archē as "origin" or "source" rather than "first created."
Lexicons provide probable meanings based on context, and they often include a range of interpretations without asserting one as definitive. Additionally, BDAG lists archē as "first created" only as one option and does not rule out meanings like "origin" or "source," which are consistent with other New Testament passages describing Jesus' role in creation. It’s also worth noting that other respected lexicons and theological resources interpret archē in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "beginning" in the sense of Jesus being the source or initiator of creation, not a created entity.
While Job 40:19 does refer to Behemoth as the "first of God’s works," this is not directly comparable to the use of archē in Revelation 3:14. Behemoth is clearly a created creature, whereas Jesus is consistently depicted as the Creator, not a part of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Using a term in a similar way in a different context does not establish equivalence, especially when the contexts are significantly different. Applying the same meaning to archē in Revelation ignores the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as preexistent and involved in creation.
Jesus is identified as the divine Logos in John 1:1-3, the agent of all creation, not a created being. Additionally, the term "angel" in apocalyptic literature can be symbolic or descriptive of function (a messenger), not necessarily implying that Jesus is a created being. Early Christian thought and the majority of Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Irenaeus, firmly rejected the idea that Christ was a created being, affirming instead that He was begotten of the Father, not made.
You ask for a verbatim quote of your statement, specifically that you said Jesus was created “ex nihilo.” I did not mean to imply that you literally claimed "ex nihilo" directly, but rather that your argument seemed to equate Jesus as a created being, which traditionally implies being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in theological discussions. I acknowledge that you’re arguing Jesus was created from "something" rather than out of nothing. In fact, there is no such thing as a non-"ex nihilo" creation, it’s either a creation and then "ex nihilo", or not "ex nihilo" and then begotten, not made. The central issue here is that Christianity has historically upheld that Jesus is begotten, not created, and shares in the Father’s essence, unlike anything else in creation.
The translation of qanah as “possessed” rather than “created” is an interpretative choice supported by early Jewish and Christian scholarship, which saw Wisdom as an attribute of God rather than a creature. The Septuagint translators were not uniformly consistent, as you pointed out. However, Aquila and other early translators chose “possessed” to convey that Wisdom belonged to God, not as something that came into being later. This interpretation aligns with traditional Christian doctrine, which understands Wisdom as eternal with God, not a temporal creation.
You argue that Solomon is credited with building the Temple even though he didn’t physically do so. However, in passages that describe Jesus as the agent of creation (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), there is no hint that the Father is the primary builder while Jesus is secondary. Rather, these passages consistently portray Jesus as having direct involvement in creation, emphasizing His divinity. The New Testament does not qualify Jesus' role in creation as being "like Solomon’s role," which would undermine the direct statements about His creative work.
While Origen distinguished between the Father and the Son in their roles, he still affirmed that the Son was involved in creation. Origen described the Father as autotheos (God in Himself), but this was not to deny the Son’s divinity. Instead, he used this distinction to emphasize that while the Son’s divinity is derived from the Father, it is not inferior. He did not describe Jesus as a created being in the same way you suggest, but rather saw Him as eternally begotten.
The passive voice in Greek does not imply inferiority in function or nature. For example, when Jesus' role in creation is described with passive verbs, it highlights the Father’s role as the source, but this does not make Jesus less than fully divine. In Matthew 1:22, the angel functions as a messenger, whereas Jesus is described in Hebrews as the One through whom the universe was made (Hebrews 1:2). These passages serve different theological purposes, and therefore they are not directly comparable.
While some commentaries, like Barnes’, may favor the interpretation of arche as “first created,” this is not a universally accepted interpretation. Many scholars interpret arche in Revelation 3:14 as “origin” or “source” of creation, considering the broader New Testament context. This understanding aligns with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17, which describe all things as created through Jesus, reinforcing that He is not a created being but rather the agent and origin of creation. The choice of “first created” as a translation must be considered alongside these verses, which support the interpretation of Jesus as Creator, not a creature.
While certain scholars like Clifford or Fox may argue for ktizo to mean "create" in Proverbs 8:22, other scholars and Church Fathers interpret it as metaphorical, understanding Wisdom as personifying God’s eternal attributes. Proverbs 8 uses poetic language, which often employs personification, to illustrate God’s wisdom as present from the beginning. The New Testament writers later applied this understanding of Wisdom to Jesus, but in a way that goes beyond metaphor, ascribing to Him eternal qualities and a unique role in creation, consistent with the idea of the Logos as God (John 1:1).
Debating Greg Stafford or any other apologist is not the point here. This conversation is about examining the textual and theological evidence for the claims you’ve presented. Engaging in ad hominem attacks or suggesting that one needs to “debate a master” to validate an argument misses the point of a fair and reasonable discussion based on Scripture and tradition.
If you feel certain points were omitted, please clarify them specifically. I aim to provide a balanced response based on both historical interpretations and modern scholarship. The argument hinges on interpreting key terms like archē, ktizo, and qanah within their respective contexts. There is no intent to hide information but to present a coherent interpretation aligned with the broader Christian theological tradition.
Personal attacks detract from a productive discussion. The focus should be on scriptural interpretation and evidence, rather than labeling each other as "hypocrites" or "frauds." The goal here is to engage respectfully with the arguments and understand differing perspectives without resorting to insults.
In summary:
Engaging with these points through respectful dialogue will facilitate a deeper understanding of these complex theological issues.
Jesus is begotten, not created, and shares in the Father’s essence, unlike anything else in creation.
Jesus is clearly said to be created. He is the first of Jehovah God's creation. That is why he is said to be the firstborn. And the essence that he shares with Jehovah is that they are both spirit beings as are all angels/God's sons are spirit beings.
@Duran
Jesus is clearly said to be created.
Where did you read anywhere that the Father "created" or "made" the Son? I only read that the Son was born or begotten of the Father. The term "begotten," when applied to Jesus, does not mean "created," or “made”. In theological and scriptural context, "begotten" indicates an eternal, unique relationship between the Father and the Son, rather than a moment of creation. The Nicene Creed clarifies this by stating that Jesus is "begotten, not made," underscoring that He is of the same essence (Greek homoousios) as the Father.
The Gospel of John, particularly John 1:1-3, asserts that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This directly indicates that Jesus (the Word) is not a created being, as all creation came into existence through Him. If Jesus were created, it would mean He would have to create Himself, which is illogical and not supported by the text.
"Firstborn" (prototokos) does not imply "first created." Instead, it is a term of preeminence and authority. In the cultural and biblical context, "firstborn" often signifies a position of honor and inheritance rather than literal birth order. Psalm 89:27, for example, uses "firstborn" to refer to King David, saying, "I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." Clearly, David was not literally the firstborn in his family, yet he is called "firstborn" as a title of authority and preeminence.
Similarly, in Colossians 1:15-17, where Jesus is referred to as the "Firstborn of all creation," the passage immediately clarifies that "all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Thus, Jesus is "firstborn" in the sense of being supreme over all creation, not as a part of creation itself. This emphasizes His sovereignty, not His origin.
Your assertion that Jesus merely shares the nature of being a "spirit being" like angels or other sons of God overlooks a critical difference. While it’s true that both the Father and Son are spiritual, the Bible teaches that Jesus uniquely shares the divine essence with the Father, a nature not ascribed to angels or created beings. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one," which the Jews understood as a claim to divinity, prompting them to accuse Him of blasphemy (John 10:33).
Furthermore, Colossians 2:9 states, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." The phrase "fullness of the Deity" (Greek theotēs) indicates that Jesus possesses the complete divine nature, not merely a share of divine qualities. Angels and other spiritual beings do not hold this fullness; it is unique to Jesus.
The prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1) asserts that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This underscores Jesus’ eternal coexistence with the Father, establishing Him as uncreated. Additionally, in John 8:58, Jesus states, "Before Abraham was, I am," invoking the divine name "I AM" (Hebrew ehye, Greek ego eimi) that God used to reveal Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14. This assertion of timeless existence and identification with God’s name is a declaration of Jesus' eternal, uncreated nature.
In conclusion, the scriptural evidence consistently affirms that Jesus is not a created being but is the eternally begotten Son who shares the same divine essence as the Father. He is "firstborn" in the sense of preeminence and authority, not as the first of God's creation. Jesus’ unique position, divine essence, and relationship with the Father affirm His full deity, setting Him apart from all created beings, including angels.
"However, Aquila and other early translators chose “possessed” to convey that Wisdom belonged to God, not as something that came into being later." - so your going to ignore brittanica? Who said Aquila's translation was "slavishly literal" Aquila did not CHOOSE "posessed" for the reason you are claiming - rather it was his TRANSLATION STYLE.
" it highlights the Father’s role as the source, but this does not make Jesus less than fully divine. In Matthew 1:22, the angel functions as a messenger, whereas Jesus is described in Hebrews as the One through whom the universe was made (Hebrews 1:2). These passages serve different theological purposes, and therefore they are not directly comparable." - I literally dont give a sh** about your theological agenda get that through your head for starters...
second you didn't answer my question
third - WHERE did I talk about Jesus' divinity and making him "less than fully divine"?
"While some commentaries, like Barnes’, may favor the interpretation of arche as “first created,” this is not a universally accepted interpretation." - While it is not universally accepted, notice BDAG cites Job 40:19 as a grammatical parallel so yes this is comparable... on LINGUISTICAL grounds you would have to prove they are comparable.
Hence BDAG lists it as PROBABLE.
" Psalm 89:27, for example, uses "firstborn" to refer to King David, saying, "I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." Clearly, David was not literally the firstborn in his family, yet he is called "firstborn" as a title of authority and preeminence." - But his family has nothing to do with this, Where are they mentioned in the context? - He is "FIrstborn" of the kings of the earth, the second sentence elaborates on the meaning and he is still a king not an exception
"Engaging in ad hominem attacks or suggesting that one needs to “debate a master” to validate an argument misses the point of a fair and reasonable discussion based on Scripture and tradition." - I said YOUR Master was beaten by Greg Stafford - never said “debate a master” and Im only using your own words against you... suddenly I'm the bad guy?
"Debating Greg Stafford or any other apologist is not the point here" - you seem fine "picking on" people on this forum - But when it comes to actual Greek experts who have disproven your claims, you now say its not the point?
Stafford has already debunked your claims on Prov 8:22 regarding the double accusative and typology..
When Wisdom was made "The begining" of Gods ways is said in 23 -25 - negating the need for a temporal marker in 22
"Personal attacks detract from a productive discussion. The focus should be on scriptural interpretation and evidence, rather than labeling each other as "hypocrites" or "frauds.""-
1) I have asked multiple times for a dictionary citaion... provide it - if you were not lying about it, you should easily be able to provide a pdf version of it or a title for it
2) Do I need to quote you, less than a year ago to Me, Wonderment, Slimboy and other Jehovahs Witnesses on this website? Or you on e-homo religiosus' "collection of quotes" post? calling the WT our "Master" or "Boss" or commenting under usernames such as "HAHAHAHA" and "LOLOLOL" - I know that was you, I know about many places you have been, and people you have annoyed with your theological agenda.
How about I do that? this is rich coming from you...
Where did you read anywhere that the Father "created" or "made" the Son? I only read that the Son was born or begotten of the Father.
[14 “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:]
In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one," which the Jews understood as a claim to divinity,
[22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.]
According to the above 'they' (Jesus' disciples) are ONE 'just as' Jehovah and Jesus are ONE.
In what way are the disciples ONE that is JUST AS Jehovah and Jesus being ONE?
