by Rotherham » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:51 am
Hello Sulla,
No problem, HeKS.
Of course, we haven't discussed the third main point I raise in the challenge, so we aren't at the point where there can be a conclusion yet, Rotherham.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well then, onward we go.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
As for going back through the last couple exchanges between me and Rotherham: there's not much point. He is basically repeating his argument without paying any attention to the real damage that has been done to his overall point. It is, sadly, typical.
The basic thrust of which is this: since we have the universal observance of a partitive genitive in all Biblical phrases where we find the term "arche[/] of _____," then we are not at liberty to read the similar phrase in Rev. 3 in any way except a partitive genitive.
As it happens, though, we really [i]are at liberty to read the phrase in a way that is not partitive genitive, since at least two (and maybe more) of the examples Rotherham presents have valid readings where the genitive is not partitive. So, there can't be any valid claim that we must read Rev. 3 as a partitive statement. Pretty simple, really.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Since the word of God says that interpretations belong to God and that we should test things taught to see if they originate with God, exactly how is the best way to do that? Is it not by allowing scripture to interpret scripture? If we have a sufficient database of a particular construction that gives us a consistent understand of a phrase or word, then IF we God to be the ultimate interpreter then when it comes to arche followed by a genitive phrase, the scriptures always present it one way, and nothing has been presented to destroy that statement. In fact, it is only possible to insert another meaning if we actually IGNORE that scriptural database and we allow our own human thinking to take over and supply the meaning we want the word to have and that is exactly what Sulla has done.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Frankly, it isn't clear what the point of most of today's exchanges really was, since nobody is challenging this devastating observation. Rotherham has made an extended argument about "divorcing" the partitive genitive that doesn't really matter to his argument. Perhaps he misunderstands his argument.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You clearly did not read what I said. I did not say that it did not matter to my argument if one divorces the partitive genitive from the picture. In fact, just the opposite. You either can't read what is written on a page or you are being dishonest. What I said is it makes no difference to me if one wants to overlap genitive categories, such as production and partitive. What I said is that YOU, SULLA, can not reasonably divorce the genitive partitive aspect from those verses in question from Gen. and Deut. and that this is confirmed by Greek scholars and translators, unless of course Sulla wants to deny that the NAB translators are not really scholars or that the LXX translators were not scholars or that the BDB lexicon is not a scholarly work or that Henry Alford is not a Greek scholar. Sulla's response to this was basically "blah, blah", hardly a refutation of any kind to the information presented. To date, Sulla can not find one scholar who states that the two examples in question are not partitive but production only. I have Trinitarians on my side, Sulla has no one except Sulla. Now THAT'S typical
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The only question that matters is whether there exist valid readings of some examples Rotherham provided that are not partitive. As you have said, HeKS, such examples exist. Case closed.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sorry, case not closed. According the scholars that I have provided there is no reasonable doubt that those verses present arche in a partitive genitive phrase. You are alone in that position.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I am sensitive, of course, to the idea that you consider these readings to be probably wrong for reasons that you think are compelling. That's great, but your honesty has gotten the better of Rotherham, and he has gone a litle more crazy trying to rehabilitate his argument.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I see, so crazy is providing a list of scholars who agree by the way they treat those verses that arche is partitive. I would rather think that "crazy" is the practice of ignoring all that and taking a contrary position to your own Trinitarian scholars without any examples or evidence or support on your side. For one to think that this phrase just HAPPENS to appear with the word firstborn in the same context every time and that it is not being presented as a phrase equivalent to firstborn is simply unheard of according to what these scholars have decided. There can be no reasonable doubt that the phrase is partitive.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What remains of his point is the observation that, most of the time, such phrases are easily seen to be partitive. But not all his examples are necessarily partitive. For that matter, the word "beginning" is not necessarily partitive, either, as the example, "She is the beginning of beauty" and similar constructs makes clear (think: "beginning of wisdom," or "Cricket is the beginning of baseball," or "abstract thinking is the beginning of mathematics.").
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Your examples do not work as has been presented more than once. In the phrase the beginning of beauty, the "she" is beautiful is she not, and therefore in the class of "beauty"? The fear of Jehovah is an ACT of wisdom, the beginning ACT, and is therefore in the class of things wise. In the Cricket example you are using beginning in the sense of "source" which has no support and is extra-biblical anyway. Rather than invent extra-biblical examples why don't you deal with the actual problem and present a Biblical one? The reason is because you can't find one where the Trinitarian scholars agree with you.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So, having seen that there is no biblical rule requiring a partitive reading, and observing that "beginning" is not necessarily a word that implies membership in any sort of group, we wonder what all the fuss is about.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Again, your examples did not prove any such thing. The fear of Jehovah is in the class of things WISE. Your other examples are both extra-biblical and do not prove what you want them to prove.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We know that the word arche has a lexical field that allows for several related meanings, we know that arche is not somehow required to be a partitive word in itself, and we know that phrases similar to the one under consideration -- while typically partitive -- are not always necessarily partitive.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
From a Biblical standpoint, you have not presented even one valid example where you have any scholarly support for your contention. I actually have Trinitarian scholars agreeing with ME that those examples are partitive by the way that they treat and speak of those examples.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Indeed, if there is any lesson at all in all this, it is probably that my earlier complaint (2a, if you will), namely: that we need to consider a range of other factors beyond merely this little word study if we are to figure out the meaning of this phrase, is seen to be right on the money. There just isn't that much to learn from the points the paper does raise, certainly nothing like the ridiculously strong claims the paper says it has proved: that there is an explicit reading we can find simply by checking out the word usage in the bible and that there is "no other way" to interpret the passage than that St. John considered Jesus to be a creature.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
There is no denying, if one allows God to be the interpreter as much as possible, and if one pays attention to what the scholars have noted about those verses that only YOU think are not partitive, then as the article stated truly, IF we allow Biblical precedent and pattern to be the deciding factor in our interpretations, which is what anyone SHOULD do if there is a sufficinet database of examples, then there is only one way to read what John said at Rev. 3:14. As I mentioned, source can not be the meaning at Rev. 3:14 since the creation is already given a source by the phrase "BY God". Therefore you are left with either ruler or beginning as a meaning, and in a genitive phrase we already know that they are always partitive beyond any reasonable doubt.
So Sulla, since "source' is already removed by the phrase "by God", which is it? Ruler or Beginning? Does it matter when we consider the genitive phrase? No, it does not since, Biblically, those genitive phrases with arche are consistently partitive, and according to the Trinitarian scholars who translate Bibles, your contrary examples are not examples to begin with.
Regards,
Rotherham