for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
"they use this language to describe beings that participate in divine attributes, without compromising the oneness of God." - would this not fall under "qualitative", I think you'll find it would
notice Jesus' quote from psalms has a plural noun before the verb
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
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
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
Earnests comment also springs to mind :
""So, in the second century the versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were prepared for Greek-speaking Jews, all of which revised the verb used in the LXX at Proverbs 8:22 which Christians (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria) were applying to Christ. In the third century Origen edited the LXX on the basis of the Hebrew and retained the verb ἔκτισε (meaning "created") at Proverbs 8:22 despite the alternative renderings in the other Greek versions. So there is good reason to accept the LXX translation as having greater authority for Christians than the alternatives you seem to prefer.""
Origen in MANY encyclopedias is credited with being one of the most HONEST scholars in History - I don't think you want to argue with Origen on the Greek Language...
this is why Aquia uses a greek word for "possesed" rather then "Ektisen"
"About 130 ce Aquila, a convert to Judaism from Pontus in Asia Minor, translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek under the supervision of Rabbi Akiba. Executed with slavish literalness, it attempted to reproduce the original to the most minute detail, even to the extent of coining derivations from Greek roots to correspond to Hebrew usage. "
(source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Early-versions#ref597387) - Other sources available on request
Next time include information like this in your posts - dont make go digging for it because it actually hurts your credibility if you knew about this
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
Where's my citation for the dictionary? I now assume you have have provided fraudulent evidence. until you produce the original.
"You claim that the term "archē" in Revelation 3:14 must be interpreted as "first created" because it is listed as a “probable” meaning in BDAG" - quote me verbatum where I say this - WHERE do I say this?
All I say is the "First-cause" meaning is invalid as the BDAG negates the meaning - with its secondary statement about arkhe (and your fraudulent citation also negates the first cause meaning)
" the use of passive verbs does not negate the Son's role as the agent of creation." - Where did I claim it did - again quote me verbatum please
all I said was the focus was on what the father did through the son (Wisdom) - The Father is the source of creation not the son..
"In John 1:1-3, Jesus is described as the Logos (Word), who was with God in the beginning and who was God. " - there are church fathers who assert there was something that happened before the beginning of creation - The Father begetting (or creating) something before the Beginning is not impossible
Heb 1:10 is a quotation so the verb would naturally be active in this case (v 3-4 passives, burden of proof on you) abd there are plenty of examples of the instrument being addressed in a similar way to the actaul source - Lets see, Solomon building the Temple is actaully credited to God (tho God never lifted a finger, come to think of it neither did Solomon) and quite a few others.
"A more accurate translation is that Wisdom was "possessed" by God, not created." - possession and creation are closely linked in Hebrew thought - so your saying the LXXs translation is also wrong and in Gen?
Where the translators no doubt had a really good understanding of Hebrew
(modern scholarship has already debunked this argument... scholars can get it wrong.. please write one of your essays refuting them and publicly submit it for peer review.. (on a site like academia) - But i know you wont, because you are wrong.
you also have to get past the church fathers translation of the word (alot being "ektisen")
an a bunch of different scholars including but not limited to: Burney, Clifford, Stafford (not technically a scholar, but has done some incredible scholarship), etc
"Jesus is consistently portrayed in the New Testament as eternal and the agent of creation, not a part of creation. " - oh so now he is the "agent of creation" not the creator... thank you
The agent of creation is NOT the same as being the creator
Just as being a messenger for a king is NOT the same as being the King himself (tho is thought of as the person he is representing, is not actually that person)
Get past all of their evidence then you MIGHT have a point - but your a nobody on a forum making excessivily long posts desperatly trying to prove a point, these are well recognised and respected scholars who studied for years to know Hebrew and Greek - I believe them over you anyday
and you havent defined what this relationship is
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
"The term archē has a wide semantic range, and while BDAG might not list specific verses under "first cause" or "origin," this doesn't invalidate that meaning" - please cite another instance where a verse is not listed under a meaning for a specific word used. It invalidates the meaning in the bible as BDAG cites other writings for such a meaning but puts Rev 3:14 as a possibility for such a meaning.
And again as Barnes notes the meaning is "commencement" note "authorship" (What you basically claim) tho Barnes disagrees with the "created" meaning for theological reasons - atleast he can admit its the most likely meaning. (according to Johns usage it is, want a non-witness source who uses the same argument? its not invented by Witnesses, trust me)
Even in Rev, a quick look at the usages show, this John would also have used "Arkhon" or Pauls word for originator..
"Even if BDAG suggests first created as probable, it is only one possible interpretation and must be weighed against the theological and linguistic context of the passage. " - I think the authors would have done that... I think its more you not being honest..
" Jesus as the Creator, not a created being (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2)." - where do these verses say he is not a created being? Where does the bible explicitly call Christ "Creator"? Just one passage please - a simple statement would be nice
1:3 uses dia and a passive verb, keeping "ton theon" in focus (a function of the passive verb is to keep the last "subject" in focus) Origen notes a clear distinction.. So do others
1:16 has passive verbs (change them to active and God of V 12 is the creator, not the Firstborn)
Origen says "God commanded the Firstborn...."
1:2 has verbs where the antesedent is not "the son" but "God"
"While it is true that some early Christian writings reference Proverbs 8 to describe Jesus' role in creation, the New Testament presents Jesus not just as Wisdom personified but as the Logos (Word)" - you gonna mention the other important bit? or am I going to cite about 3 different sources from credible people that say something that trounces you? your choice.
" The dictionary I quoted is not in English, so you won't find it anyway." - I don't care, I want the citation please - if this dictionary exists, you would be more than willing to cite it. (starting to think it doesn't- which would make you a fabricator of evidence aswell)
you also clearly didn't read your own source because it says: " but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely." - look at the words "the meaning" tho the word doesn't occur, the meaning of the word "ἀπαρχή" should "more likely" be applied.
" Thus, any link between Proverbs 8 and Revelation 3:14 does not automatically mean that Jesus is a created being." - it would actually because by the time of Paul Christ was pretty much synonymous with the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 as can be seen in other Jewish litrature like sirach where every academic study I have looked at parallels Proverbs 8:22 with 24:9 and other verses.
and a paralel in Matt and Luke (I believe) pretty much make it an identification
and Paul literally makes it an identification.
(unbias sources from what I can tell - would you like them? more than happy to cite them)
"The interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by some scholars as referring to a created being (Wisdom)" - cite an unbias source that doesn't interpret it, the way Witnesses do
btw the temporal marker for 8:22 is actaully in verse 23 :) as Origen comments about John 1:1b and John 1:2 - 1b gives NOTHING temporally about when The word was with God, 1:2 gives us the "location"
"You conclude by asserting that interpreting Jesus as the "first" or "beginning" of God's creation aligns with His title as the "only-begotten Son" of God." - try reading, that was someone else.
So Logos was the only one to have a relationship with the Father? What about the spirit? why is it not monogenes? what is the difference
and what is this "relationship"?
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
" A qualitative reading of theos would mean that the Word has the very nature of God, or shares in the divine essence. In essence, the Logos is divine, fully possessing God's attributes." - not quite true.. but sure go on believing that - plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise
and how is it when I cite Dan wallace and Harner its "quote mining" yet you do the same thing and apparently its ok... make up your mind its one standard for everyone not one for you and one for anyone who supports JW - get off your high horse.
(cite one quote I used out of its context and "quote mined" - go on, try me - you do the exact same thing with church fathers - Ninc)
"Translating John 1:1c as "a god" would introduce polytheism, even if only two separate divine beings are mentioned (the Father and the Word). Polytheism is not just the belief in many gods but includes any belief in multiple distinct gods"
- it would not "a god" is like saying "divine" or is of a certain category just like "a human" or "human"
Philo, Origen and Justin ALL talk about "second gods" Origen even talks about "gods" by participation
Arently none of these effect monotheism or worshipping only YHWH - because there was space where other "gods" who were NOT WORSHIPPED existed as evidenced from other early Christian writings.
Why did the LXX translate Elohim as aggelos? try a google search of the translators... or look at actaul acedmic material - shouldnt be too hard for you to work it out
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
"Protestants who accept the New Testament canon must reconcile the fact that it was the Catholic Church, which they claim fell into error, that discerned and protected the canon of Scripture they now use. " - this is a misrepresentation of protestants... a simple search on google will tell anyone otherwise
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
"The BDAG lexicon, for instance, offers multiple meanings for ἀρχή, including "beginning," "origin," and "first cause." " - then answer the question why BDAG lists NO Bible verse for the "First-cause" meaning? and says the meaning of "First-created" is "probable"
you cant admit this - because if you did your theological position would fall apart.. BDAG is authoritative - it is not infallable however, but in this case like Clifford and Fox state Prov 8:22 likely had some influence whether you like it or not.
"2. In an abstract sense: principium = principle; the ultimate cause and (theoretical) explanation of the existence of the world; in this sense, only Revelation 3:14 (ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως) is relevant, but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely. - " - name of dictionary?
" but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely." - this is telling not even the author of the dictionary believes this meaning exists in the verse..
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/aparche
Game Over!
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
This refutes nothing I have said... and it still doesn't answer why no dictionary lists Rev 3:14 under the "First cause" meaning (or any scripture for that matter)
Barnes literally says both times "The commencement"... so you are being blatently dishonest
"ek" is only ever used of the Father (the source of creation, according to most trinitarians) in regards to creation to denote origin..
(ek is commonly used for Christ's resurrection aswell - its one of Pauls self imposed rules to denote where Christ came from)
and it only "doesn't fit" because you don't want it too, not because it cant fit or there is any biblical precedent for it not to fit..
"Dionysius points out the difference between creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω), arguing that the Son’s divine and ineffable generation cannot be reduced to the concept of making or creating in a human sense. He highlights that the Son is described in many passages as being "begotten" but never as having "come into being," thereby rejecting the notion that the Son is a created entity."
- creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω) are literally synonyms - if we look at the lxx we see usages of "begotten" which all tie to a basic meaning of "something someone did not posess before"
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
“arguing, polemicizing against a point of view does not come from emotion ("hate") but from intellectual conviction.” - then review the principles of the book you claim to study because you come off as a person who hates or ignores anyone who states other than your opinion.. yes all of your rambling is opinion, not fact.
look at yourself next time before throwing bible verses at me please ( on swearing) …
“Proverbs 9:10” - means the commencement of Wisdom not the first cause, the fear of YHWH is not the source of Wisdom it is the start point of Wisdom.
Barnes notes on psalm 110:10
“Is the beginning of wisdom - The foundation, the origin, the commencement of being truly wise. It is so. There is no true wisdom which does not recognize the being, the perfections, and the claims of God. The highest wisdom - the most lofty endowment of man - is that he "may" know and honor God. This, in capability, makes him wise above the brute creation; this, in exercise, makes one man more wise than another; this, when it springs up in the soul, makes a man more wise than he was before - or, is the "beginning" of true wisdom in the soul. Compare Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10; Deuteronomy 4:6; Job 28:28; Ecclesiastes 12:13.”
Barnes on Rev 3:14
““that he is the author of the creation, and in that sense the beginning - though expressing a scriptural doctrine John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16, is not in accordance with the proper meaning of the word used here - ἀρχὴ archē. The word properly refers to the "commencement" of a thing, not its "authorship," and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist.”
This is a trinitarian by the way.
On a trinity leaning website.
Can admit the “witness position” is the actual meaning.
I can cite significant commentary for the others aswell ( except Sirach and Wisdom) - why doesn’t BDAG cite these verses under the meaning you apply them too? No dictionary does… yet they cite Philos writing under that exact meaning.
Both Col 1:16 and John 1:3 uses a passive verb not an active (. Heb 1:10 is a quotation and so would be active)
Note: Matt verse “by the lord” “through the angel” - where the verb is also passive , infect any verse that uses “dia” to express agency.
Recent scholarship considers this significant so did Origen and in other ways Justin and Tetullian..
“Anyway, you should read this through:” - if it’s written by you I’m not interested as I have seen this pasted else where online just altered slightly- hence I don’t see you as a credible source of info… more of a theologically motivated troll, about as good as the quote mining accusation you throw at other respectable people on this forum.
I don’t count myself in the “respectable people ” group by the way.
“or instance, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher,” - exactly a philosopher, were any of the bible writers philosophers? No, so you cannot go lumping philos usage in with the bible writers - different usages for words.. not relevant - to a restricted context.
“The dictionary citation you provided acknowledges that "arkhe" can indeed mean "first cause" or "origin," supporting the interpretation that Christ is the source of creation.[ omitted for space sake] “
- you omitted this bit, not entirely sure how you missed it - and I thought quite mining was bad? What was what you did then? I can do that aswell
“Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the Ἀρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160–77). “
Note: In an earlier edition this lexicon said “possible” not “probable”
Will also throw in Gen 49:3 both the Hebrew and LXX
You should read that study, actual linguistical scholarship in there by a non JW who even repeats what I told you ages ago regarding John’s usage of arkhe ( not invented by the witnesses)
Self imposed rule and a strict pattern he follows else he would of used arkhe in Rev 1:5 aswell. Well he makes the observation if memory serves.
And observe Barnes’ statement in Rev 3:14, I can cite more of you like. ( in their entirety, you can’t accuse me of quote mining then. )
“BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon) lists "beginning, origin, first cause, ruler, authority" among its meanings, explicitly recognizing the term's application to Christ in Revelation 3:14 as the "origin" of God's creation.”
- read immediate above, yet it strangely omits the other verses you try to use for the same meaning .
“Thayer's Greek Lexicon also supports this interpretation, noting that "arkhe" can mean "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause." “
- but cites no scripture for this claim and All Verses you claim are absent for the definition
Unless you are looking at a different one to me.. that’s possible but I think unlikely since you didn’t cite the relevant portion in its entirety like you would if it did.
“This aligns with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, where Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were created. To interpret "arkhē" as indicating Christ as the first created entity contradicts the broader theological testimony of the New Testament regarding His divine nature and role in creation.”
- you can be created and still be divine… and again read above… that last point is your opinion as modern scholarship agrees with me on Job 38:7
So there’s no way around that angels had a passive role in creation.
Tettulian also agrees with me.
“such a reading introduces a theological inconsistency with the rest of the New Testament, where Christ's begottenness, preexistence and role as the agent of the creation are emphasized.”
- yet prov 8 and other works such as Sirach and Baruch which modern scholarship considers parallels would entirely disagree..
note: proverbs 8:12 where Wisdom uses a first person pronoun, only once which is here.
Scholars note wisdom and Wisdom are two totally seperate things
“Such a view would place Christ within the created order, fundamentally altering the Christian understanding of the the eternally begotten nature of the Son.”
- before Nicaea ( 4th cen) “begotten”and “created” were considered synonyms as can be seen in the lxx
See: Psalms 90:2: for a start
you can have a point of coming into existence and still be eternal into the future..
