Challenged by Sulla

[HeKS]

I do have comment ... just not much time. I'll respond as soon as I get a chance.

HeKS

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

[quote="Sulla"][color=#800000]Rotherham, I don't expect you to ever change your mind about anything. Fortunately, that's not the task I have.

What we have are two cases where HeKS agrees that a genitive of producer are possible ways to read your examples, and a third where he may -- or may not -- ultimately agree. So, how many examples did yu provide? Twenty, twenty-one? Well, it turns out that two or three of these examples seem to be at odds with whatever rule you think you've found: maybe they are partitive, maybe not.

Maybes are not rules.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You're simply not listening, just as you have done before. Eventually, heks got you to listen well enough to where you have downgraded your critism of the article considerably. if you continue to listen and if you would actually address the questions and problems that I present for you, the critism would likely be reduced even more to the point of insignifcance.

I presented information for you about the four times the phrase "beginning of my strength" occurs in the Hebrew. I have shown you how both the ancient and modern translators have rendered it and how each time it occurs it is paralleled with the word "firstborn" which is naturally partitive. i have shown you how even highly respected trinitarian greek scholars have viewed both the Gen. and Deut. verses as PARTITIVE. You have no answers for that except to complain and claim that heks and you have supposedly reached some kind of agreement. Well, I'm sure Heks will speak for himself, but I think you will find that Heks has been telling you that that phrase can't be removed from the partitive category because of the word "arche". You can claim genitive of production all you want, but to try and say that it is removed from the partitive category via that claim you are denying context and what translators, commentators and greek scholars have stated otherwise.

Do you really want us all to believe that there is no connection between the word "firstborn" and "beginning of strength" in those verses? I would REALLY love you to answer that. Can you? Will you? The very context demands that the word be partitive so your proffered examples on Gen. and Deut. have no weight behind them. Not contextually, not commentary-wise, not lexically, not translational, not anything, except your insistence. Agenda is the only thing that explains such stubborness.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And therefore, you can't really claim that you have proved anything at all. Sure, most of the time these phrases will refer to a plain partitive relationship between the nouns. But there are some exceptions, around 10-%-15% of these examples are not really partitive, or at least are not clearly partitive. So, whatever the validity would have been if you had found 100% compliance with this rule, it doesn't exist now that you only have 85% compliance.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, the Trinitarian lexicons, the Trinitarian commentators, the Trinitarian scholars and translators all agree that those words represent a partitive relationship. You have no evidence of any kind to support your claim that they are not. Any one can claim anything that they want, but with no evidence, not even from your own doctrinal camp, should show you and anybody else that you argument is null and void.
R$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


As for Hebrews, a simple google search will trun up lots of commentary that read the verse to say that we must hold the confidence we had at the beginning of our Christian lives. However, you should consult this little google book to see that the early commentators thought about the passage very much as I have suggested: the source of our confidence is faith.

A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews By Philip Edgcumbe Hughes

google books presents this observation on page 152. In any case, the reading this author most prefers is not "the first part of our confidence," but "the confidence we had at the first part of our Christian lives." Obviously, this is not partitive, though it is easy to find this reading with a little surfing in various places here and there...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Good grief, Sulla, pay attention to the Greek, not some paraphrase in English. There is no denying that the word "confidence" is IN a Genitive phrase. Every translation that pays any attention to the gentitive construct renders it in such a way that the confidence is they had at FIRST is part of the confidence they need to HOLD ON TO to the end. I tried to get you to see this before but you ignored it as you do most of what I have been telling you. WHAT did Paul say thay had to hold onto in that verse? WHAT? Once you identify THAT, you will be, or at least should be, compelled to agree that the what they had at FIRST was CONFIDENCE, and they needed to HOLD that confidence all the way to the end. It is clear then that the the confidence AT FIRST is part of the overall confidence that are to HOLD ON TO. The verse doeswnl;t even mention FAITH, and just because FAITH is the siource of our confidence, that has no bearing on how the sentence is actually constructed.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So, your argument has been reduced to observing that most of the time, whenever we find a phrase "beginning of ______ ," we have a partitive genitive, therefore:" ...

Well, therefore, what, exactly? Most literate people can observe for themselves that phrases like, She is the beginning of beauty," are cases where the word "beginning" is clearly not partitive, certainly not within the English tradition as influenced by classical readings. So there is noting necessarily partitive about the word "beginning," or it's similar meanings. And while it really is possible to speak about abstract things as if they had parts, determining whether this is actually the case is decided based on the particular meaning of each use -- a thing you have manfully refused to to do.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
GREEK Sulla, GREEK. We are not talking about the English word "beginning", we are talking about the the GREEK word ARCHE. Just because you can come up with a phrase in ENGLISH where beginning means source, it has NO bearing on the GREEK word ARCHE, which can not be shown to ever mean source. Your example is not only totally circular its not even related to the problem at hand.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

But, like I said, I expect you to argue with me if I said the sky was blue -- because I said it. We have only so much time in this life, though, so unless HeKS has some comment on this point, I think we could move to the third main criticism.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I already did move on to point three. Scroll up and you'll see it, although you probably saw it and ignored it a usual. You have not offered one valid scriptural example where ARCHE followed by a genitive is not partitive. Even IF you wanted to see it as INCLUDING some other kind of genitive, the partitive relationship is always there, often demanded by the context itself, such as what we find in both Gen. and Deut.

Now, your response was basically that you and Heks have agreed on something, well, I don't think Heks or anyone else is going to settle for that as being an accurate portrayal of what has transpired.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

You know, your argument was that "all" of the examples where we find arche in a genitive phrase are definitely partitive, and that, therefore, this fact must control how we read Rev. 3. I wonder why you think that finding valid exceptions to this claim doesn't invalidate the argument.

And I see that you've decided to explain the term "naturally partitive" by saying it is naturally partitive. Look, if you want to make some sort of linguistic argument, would it be too much to ask for some sort of support from a textbook, or something? I don't much want to get in to linguistics -- but a term like "naturally partitive" must surely be covered in some Linguistics 101 textbook somewhere, right? Unless you are just making it up.

I also see that you have declined to list the translators, commentators, and Greek scholars have said these examples are partitive genitives. I think it is worth pointing this out -- you don't really have a list at all, even though you claim to.

Finally, I see you are saying that the Hebrew word for "beginning" does not support the definition "source" within its lexical field. This is interesting and removes another of your arguments. "Source" absolutely is within the field of the meaning for arche, thus, by saying that the Hebrew word does not contain the same set of meanings that the Greek word does, you are admitting that the Hebrew instances of the word "beginning" do not belong in the analysis.

Thus, all your examples from the OT are not appropriately considered in this analysis. Therefore, most (I think, I have to go back and count) of your examples are removed. We, therefore, do not have a sufficient data base to make any conclusions whatever about the partitive nature of the word's usage.

Nice work!

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

[quote="Sulla"][color=#800000]You know, your argument was that "all" of the examples where we find arche in a genitive phrase are definitely partitive, and that, therefore, this fact must control how we read Rev. 3. I wonder why you think that finding valid exceptions to this claim doesn't invalidate the argument.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It would if you had actually found valid exceptions to the rule but you have evidently missed the fact that you have not presented one valid exception in the Greek or in the Hebrew. Your Gen. and Deut. examples are not valid exceptions as has been clearly demonstrated by the lack of any scholar or commentator chiming in with your notion that arche is not part of the following genitive, or that it is production ONLY that is spoken of here. I am sure by this time you would have presented an actual example instead of the mistaken examples you thought supported your view.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And I see that you've decided to explain the term "naturally partitive" by saying it is naturally partitive. Look, if you want to make some sort of linguistic argument, would it be too much to ask for some sort of support from a textbook, or something? I don't much want to get in to linguistics -- but a term like "naturally partitive" must surely be covered in some Linguistics 101 textbook somewhere, right? Unless you are just making it up.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you remove the meaning of source, which neither arche nor reshyth possess as a meaning, then the word FIRST or the word BEGINNING naturally means that whatever it is that is the FIRST or the BEGINNING is part of a group or class. We've been through this. There are no exceptions. If you think there are, then find one. And please do not resort to another source meaning as an example because those are invalid examples and are a comparison of apples and oranges.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I also see that you have declined to list the translators, commentators, and Greek scholars have said these examples are partitive genitives. I think it is worth pointing this out -- you don't really have a list at all, even though you claim to.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Go look at the Hebrew lexicon on Blueletterbible.org under the Hebrew word "own". It gives both the Genesis and Deut. verses as examples where it parallels "first-fruit" or "firstborn". I have already told you what Alford says, who is highly regarded as a Greek scholar. Most do not comment on the phrase, but those who do associate it with the parallel word in the same context, that being FIRSTBORN. You can do this research for yourself Sulla. Tell you what, just find one scholar SOMEWHERE, who agrees with your position that this is JUST a genitive of production and has no relationship to the firstborn notion mentioned in the same sentence. Can you do that for me?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Finally, I see you are saying that the Hebrew word for "beginning" does not support the definition "source" within its lexical field. This is interesting and removes another of your arguments. "Source" absolutely is within the field of the meaning for arche, thus, by saying that the Hebrew word does not contain the same set of meanings that the Greek word does, you are admitting that the Hebrew instances of the word "beginning" do not belong in the analysis.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Source is absolutely NOT within the lexical field of arche when it comes to Biblical usage. You must have forgotten that this is a major point of this discussion. FIND an EXAMPLE where arche MUST mean source and source only and you could make a case, but you can't. The Trinitarian scholar Albert Barnes even admited in his Commentary at Rev 3:14 that arche NEVER means source and it should not be used by translators as a meaning for the word.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Thus, all your examples from the OT are not appropriately considered in this analysis. Therefore, most (I think, I have to go back and count) of your examples are removed. We, therefore, do not have a sufficient data base to make any conclusions whatever about the partitive nature of the word's usage.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You really don't get it, do you. Or you are simply purposely ignoring evidence, maybe both. Neither arche nor reshyth support the meaning of source anywhere in the Bible. If it did, you should be able to find at least ONE example where it could only mean source, but there are none. As far as secular literautre goes, I have never even seen ONE example where it HAD to mean source. It simpy is an invention of convenience by Trinitarians to try and avoid the consequence of what the word means. They have no support for their claim. None at all.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

I still have some stuff to say.

HeKS

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

Unfortunately it may be a few days before I can get to this. I'm trying to get something done for someone and then I'm gonna have to go back through the last bit of this thread to pull together all the stuff I need to comment on.

Sorry for the delay guys.

Take care,
HeKS

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.").

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. 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.

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.

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I don't have time to be nearly as thorough as I would like, but I feel the need to interject here. It seems to me you have two significant misunderstandings: 1) the reasoning behind the way Rotherham divided his initial argumentation, and 2) What he expects by way of rebuttal.

First in regards to the use of examples throughout the Bible and then in John specifically, the logic seems quite clear to me. They are being used to establish different things.

In using examples from throughout the Bible, Rotherham intended to demonstrate the partitive relationship that accompanied the use of arche in genitive statements, regardless of whether arche meant "beginning" or "ruler".

In looking specifically at John's writings, Rotherham intended to demonstrate what John consistently used this word to mean. The point was that John always used arche to mean "beginning", not "ruler". But perhaps just as importantly is the fact that we are not left to wonder what word John would use to mean ruler, because he used archon to mean "ruler" just as consistently as he used arche to mean "beginning", which is a point I don't seem to recall you interacting with in your analysis. So this is not just a matter of saying he could have used arche to mean something different this one time, as your illustration suggests. Rather, if we are to say that he used arche to mean "ruler" just this one time, we must explain why he abandoned the word he used everywhere else to mean "ruler" and instead used a word he everywhere else used to mean "beginning" instead. To answer "because" is not a reasonable argument.

Now, as for what Rotherham expects by way of attempted rebuttal, your apparent misunderstanding has caused you to greatly misrepresent him on this point. If you want to challenge the partitive relationship the Greek word arche has when used in a genitive statement in the Bible, then you can address any of the Biblical examples. However, if you want to challenge the meaning of the word as used by John in this particular instance, arguing for "ruler" rather than "beginning", you should limit yourself to John's writings, because he gives us enough data to draw on in order to make an informed conclusion.

Take care,
HeKS

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Before I respond I was wondering if you would please answer the questions that I asked of you.

They were as follows:

Please explain to me how you are using the word beginning in the phrase "she is beginning of beauty". What does that phrase mean to you?

Plus, the fear of Jehovah is a part of overall wisdom, is it not? Is it not the beginning of wisdom? If this is not a partitive genitive to you, then what is it?

And this: Even if we took a strict genitive of production in that phrase the word "beginning" still demands an answer to the question, "Beginning of what?" It would mean that Rueben was the FIRST thing produced by Jacob's strength. And the question then is the FIRST thing of WHAT?

Please provide some answers for those as it is important for the development of this conversation and my subsequent response.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Look, the definition is in the dictionary, ok? The word is used that way all the time in lots of different sources. It is not obscure, by any means. So this idea that we have to have examples outside Rev. 3 before we are allowed to use it at Rev. 3 is not valid.

There are a boatload of reasons why it is the right choice there and in Hebrews, for example. These reasons are based on context, audience, theme, etc. How on earth is anyone supposed to prove a particular meaning of a word without looking at these things? But you keep insisting that I provide some database of other examples while you reject the method for establishing the validity of those examples.

Finally, the idea that secular sources and extra-biblical sources might "misuse" this word is not a serious argument. OK? It's just not. If you'd prefer not to engage the discussion, I get it. But the word does have that meaning of "source" and pretending that such a meaning is somehow illegitimate is not going to be viewed as a reasonable argument.

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

[color=#800000]Look, the definition is in the dictionary, ok? The word is used that way all the time in lots of different sources. It is not obscure, by any means. So this idea that we have to have examples outside Rev. 3 before we are allowed to use it at Rev. 3 is not valid.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But your idea of its use is misguided. In the secular sources that are referenced, it is used in the sense of something being the "first principle", which means the elementary stage of something, that which all things are made FROM, that's certainly not a use of the word that Trinitarians can appeal to. It is only used in the sense of source in regard to the "first principle", which is a naturally partitive expression. Thales, Anaximander and any of those who discuss their philosophies use arche as "first principle", which means the first thing that existed that every thing else is made FROM. That isn't an acceptable meaning for Trinitarians and still carries the idea of partitiveness anyway. All things are made FROM that "first principle", the first substance. Surely Trinitarians do not think that all creation is made from the substance of the Son. So arche in this sense is spoken of as the first substance, and can only be regarded as a source in the sense that all things are made from that substance.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There are a boatload of reasons why it is the right choice there and in Hebrews, for example. These reasons are based on context, audience, theme, etc. How on earth is anyone supposed to prove a particular meaning of a word without looking at these things? But you keep insisting that I provide some database of other examples while you reject the method for establishing the validity of those examples.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Context? I've already demonstrated how context denies the meaning of source, because the creation is spoken of as "BY God ". The faithful and true witness was not identified as the source contextually, but God surely was. And besides, the scriptures do not allow for the Son to be the active source since he is consistently portrayed as the agent, the instrument, not the cause.

Audience? It was Christain, how does that add to the boatload of evidence for your position?

Theme? Future events? How does that add to the boatload of evidence?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



Finally, the idea that secular sources and extra-biblical sources might "misuse" this word is not a serious argument. OK? It's just not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sure it is. Must we imagine that everything written by secular sources is automatically linguistically and semantically correct? Of course not, but no matter, there is no need to appeal to that since the "first principle" meaning doesn't help the Trinitarian in the least and that is the only thing that comes close to the word ever meaning source, secular, Biblical or otherwise.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


If you'd prefer not to engage the discussion, I get it. But the word does have that meaning of "source" and pretending that such a meaning is somehow illegitimate is not going to be viewed as a reasonable argument.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But only within the proper range of meaning as I have mentioned. Whereas "first principle" can be regarded as a source of something, it means that the something that follows the "first principle" is made up of the substance of the "first principle". That is exactly how the philosophers used it. That just wont work for the Trinitarian interpretation so the situation is even worse for you now than it was at the beginning for we have seen that even the secualr references do not allow for the meaning you need, and of course, as mentioned, context rules it out anyway.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Uh, not so fast, Hopalong. We have this one guy who says arche necessarily imples a "continuity and ongoing connection," that's still a ways away from anything like solid evidence (since I have reasonable doubts about Beduhn's judgment on this sort of thing -- his is a minority -- dare I say exotic -- opinion on some other issues in this area), and it is miles from any sort of claim that Rev. 3 says Jesus is a creation. Let's see if he wants to go there before you run your mouth.

In particular, I don't think anybody deserves to read you tell a lie about how Trinitarian scholars have "denied" a non-partitive reading of the verse.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

No, we haven't seen denials that the word means primary source from anybody but HeKS' source. We have your assertion that Thayer agrees, based on the philosophical thinking of 600 years before John.

Look, the idea that "source / origin" was not properly in the lexical field was always one of your more gratuitous statements. Now that everybody agrees that it is in the lexical field, and everybody agrees that the point you paper makes is flat-out wrong (we can't say that it is required to be a partitive genitive) the question is whether the nuance of that meaning forces a reading of "first created thing."

Actually, that's not even the question. I don't think anybody is going to argue that this meaning remotely tells us that Jesus is the first created thing. What you seem to be hanging your hat on now is the idea that there is some "ongoing connection" with creation and the associated idea that there remains some "partitive sense" in the word -- neither of which is a position that I suspect is not really a problem for me.

You have the annoying habit of forgetting how severly wounded this conversation has been to the paper you wrote. We know now:

-- that the paper mis-represented the Genesis quote
-- the paper's claims are sharply reduced with respect to the degree of certainty
-- the original claim of finding a "biblical pattern" was overblown
-- the entire partitve genitive argument is non-operational
-- "origin / source" are clearly within the lexical field of the word in question

These are things we agree on. I would also add the observation that we are now engaged in precisey the kind of discussion that I insisted was necessary -- a question about the context, audience, etc., that would help us understand the meaning of the author. You may remember how you claimed that we didn't need to do any of that. Well, here we are. And we are doing all that because the claims in the paper are not compelling -- we really can't just go look at the grammatical patterns and be done with the whole question.

As for what I choose to comment on -- Rotherham, your habit of flooding the zone is pretty well established. As is your habit of claiming that, since A implies B, you have proven C.

Finally, the idea that I have represented the word to mean "primary source" as if that somehow implies a separation from the pattern we see over and again --from the Father, thorough the Son -- is not right, either.


Oh, and one more thing. Don't offer up any more quotes without a proper citation. you know very well I don't trust you to to present these thing accurately. And anyway, if Beckwith is such a great source, how is it that he disagrees with you?

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,


No, we haven't seen denials that the word means primary source from anybody but HeKS' source. We have your assertion that Thayer agrees, based on the philosophical thinking of 600 years before John.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well then you surely have blinders on.

1. Beckwith, whom I did give the reference to despite your insistence that I didn't, readily denies that the word means "primary source". Beckwith was a Trinitarian.

2. Barnes is a Trinitarian, and in his commentary on Revelation 3;14, he goes into a good amopunt of detail in denying that the word means source. Barnes was also a Trinitarian.

3. Thayer's (which is actually the wrok of Grimm, a Lutheran Trintarian), who is the only one to give us an idea of where the meaning "source" derives from, references places where it means "first principle", and despite what you say not causing a problem for you, it surely does. You would in no way be able to say that the Son is the first principle, which is the elemenatary stage, of creation.

4. The Apostle Paul says that it is the Father ALONE who is the primary source of "all things", for he is the ONLY God, OUT OF whom all things are. Go read the verse for yourself. (1 Cor. 8:6)To say that the Son is the primary source devolves to modalism, plain and simple, and Beckwith, a Trinitarian agrees.

5. Revelation 3:14 itself denies that the Son is the primary source, since it says that the creation is "of God".

6. And of course, Jason Beduhn

7. There is no Biblical example present where arche means "source" period.

8. It can not be denied that if one relies upon Biblical precedeet and pattern, there is but one way to see Revelation 3:14. That has not been disproved by any means.

Maybe you should respond to these by number instead of your sweeping objections which really ignore the pertinent points.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Look, the idea that "source / origin" was not properly in the lexical field was always one of your more gratuitous statements. Now that everybody agrees that it is in the lexical field, and everybody agrees that the point you paper makes is flat-out wrong (we can't say that it is required to be a partitive genitive) the question is whether the nuance of that meaning forces a reading of "first created thing."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think every one knows that was in the context of a non-partitive source, not in the context of a "FIRST principle", which is partitive. "First principle" still carries the idea of the first thing in a series, the first thing which all other things are made of, the first "material". Source, in the sense you are arguing it, remains outside the lexical field of "arche". And regardless, that meaning is nowhere represented in the scriptures. Source, in the Greek, best answers to the word "rhiza", "archegos" or "aitios", all of which were available to John if he wanted to claim that the Son was the primary source of creation, which again, would lead to modalism anyway. I am sure you do not think John was a modalist.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Actually, that's not even the question. I don't think anybody is going to argue that this meaning remotely tells us that Jesus is the first created thing. What you seem to be hanging your hat on now is the idea that there is some "ongoing connection" with creation and the associated idea that there remains some "partitive sense" in the word -- neither of which is a position that I suspect is not really a problem for me.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It clearly is. Do you in some way believe that we are all made from the substance of the Son? The new BADG lexicon says that in relation to Rev. 3:14, the meaning that the Son is a created being is the "probable" meaning. In fact, many, except the Trinitarian world, are going to argue that this tells us that the Son is a created being, likely including Dr. Beduhn.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You have the annoying habit of forgetting how severly wounded this conversation has been to the paper you wrote. We know now:

-- that the paper mis-represented the Genesis quote

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In the end, the actual quote destroyed your position. It was clearly intended to be a partitive gentitive as I mentioned.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

-- the paper's claims are sharply reduced with respect to the degree of certainty

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No they aren't. Although a slightly different statement, the word arche is to be understood as partitive in every syntax where it is followed by a genitive noun.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

-- the original claim of finding a "biblical pattern" was overblown

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Whether it definitely involves the "partitive genitive" alone is hardly a consequence, the Biblical pattern remains the same.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


-- the entire partitve genitive argument is non-operational

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Whether partitive genitive or not, the end result is the same for the word arhce in a genitive phrase. No exceptions.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

-- "origin / source" are clearly within the lexical field of the word in question

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Not in the sense you want it to be. Only as a "FIRST" principle, which is a naturally partitive definition by the use of the word FIRST.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

These are things we agree on.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Uh, no we don't. See above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I would also add the observation that we are now engaged in precisey the kind of discussion that I insisted was necessary -- a question about the context, audience, etc., that would help us understand the meaning of the author. You may remember how you claimed that we didn't need to do any of that. Well, here we are. And we are doing all that because the claims in the paper are not compelling -- we really can't just go look at the grammatical patterns and be done with the whole question.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes. you're wonderful. The problem is that audience and context is destroying your position even further as mentoned above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


As for what I choose to comment on -- Rotherham, your habit of flooding the zone is pretty well established. As is your habit of claiming that, since A implies B, you have proven C.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That is good example of a non-rebuttal and avoiding the consequence of the information presented .
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Finally, the idea that I have represented the word to mean "primary source" as if that somehow implies a separation from the pattern we see over and again --from the Father, thorough the Son -- is not right, either.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sure it is, the Father alone is the primary source, as Paul clearly teaches us. If you include the Son as the PRIMARY source, and not the AGENCY, as Trinitarinas agree he is the AGENT of creation, you become a modalist. They seem to recognize this problem. I find it odd that you do not.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Oh, and one more thing. Don't offer up any more quotes without a proper citation. you know very well I don't trust you to to present these thing accurately. And anyway, if Beckwith is such a great source, how is it that he disagrees with you?[/quote]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He's a Trinatarian, he must find some way to save the doctrine despite his honesty. If he is a Trinitarian, how come he disagress with you?

Regards,
Rotherham

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

Oh, and quick question: didn't Beduhn think the NAB was really good, too? I think I recall that he figured it was nearly as unbiased as the NWT. The NAB translates this verse as "source." I don't know that anybody expects him to comment on that, but there is clear that a translation he thinks highly of has made precisely the translation choice I advocate.

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

MY, how you like to twist. I never said he was intellectually dishonest. He no doubt sincerely believed in the Trinity and had to find SOME way to maintain the doctrine, but his honesty about the SOURCE meaning is right on. As I have said before, why would a Trinitarian agree and confirm a Unitarian explanation unless they honestly saw the strength of the point? They wouldn't. It surely isn't bias at work when they do.

Once again I see you take the SAFE route, comment on one single little point that you felt was SAFE, and ignored the rest that undermines your entire effort.

Regards,
Rotherham

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

Have you heard from Beduhn yet?

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

I'll have more to say on your understanding of Anaximander's use of arche and also Aristotles, as I am sure Heks will too, but I have to ask; What does any of that have to do with the way the word is used via inspiration from God? As mentioned in the article, "interpretation belongs to God". How can we be letting God interpret things for us if we are not following the clear lead he has given us in his inspired words? John, and God by the way, had words to choose from if he wanted to name the Son as the author or source of creation (aitios, archegos, rhiza), but he used a different word that isn't used as author or source anywhere else by him or any other Bible writer. Paul explicitly denies the Son to be the "OUT OF" when it comes to creation so making the Son the "out of" in Rev. 3:14 takes you to modalism (Trinitarians agree) and I know you do not and can not want that. Paul and John MUST agree if we have any belief that the inspired words of God are consistent.

As I mentioned in the article, I have never seen an example in secular or religious (extra-biblical) writings where arche was used as source (non-partitive sense), but the point of the article was not hangjng upon that outside occurence to begin with, it was hanging upon Biblical usage for we must allow God to be the interpreter if there is enough of a database for a choice to be demonstrated, and there certainly is in this case, and it is demonstrated in an unmistakable fashion, so, we could quibble about Anaximander and Arsitotle, which I am sure there will be quibbling, but in the end, what bearing does it have on the article and the "Biblical usage" point as it was presented?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

Thankyou again, for not answering anything. Your inability to address the "Biblical" points is the deciding factor for me and likely many others.

In my estimation, its really time to bring this to a close. You have no answers to the "Biblical" points made except to say the scriptures do not harmonize. For me, that is admission enough that the article is accurate in what it concludes. We still have no solid example of a non-partitive meaning and you simply ignore any argument against the examples that you have presented, so what's to discuss? I am quite satisfied as to who has presented the best evidence and am quite willing to let the readers decide.

I vote for closure to the discussion. It was really over some time ago.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

Point three has already been addressed and is still hanging in your court.

I've already addressed the your two points below.

Aristotle used the word in a "first principle" sense. His definition proves it. Curse words are the first principle to an argument. We need to know the word that is rendered as "immanent" because Aristotle's definition denies your application and your definition of that word, there is no doubt about that.

Clement does not use the word the way you think either. You did not answer the question I asked. If he uses it as non-partitive source, then how can he say that God produced the non-partitive source? It is a contradiction of terms. His following sentences demonstrate that he is using it as "first principle" anyway.

Plus, these examples do not relate to the article as it is written. The article deals with Biblical use and the Biblical database which you pass off as not harmonious. Now you say you believe it is harmonious. You should make up your mind. If the scriptures are harmonious, then you must abide by what Paul said when he explicitly described the Father only as the one whom all things are "out of". John would not contradict Paul, plain and simple. Plus, you have never addressed the fact that Rev. 3:14 already indentifies the Creator as God, who is presented separately in that passage from the Son.

Unless you can address what the scriptures say and the scriptural examples, the "supposed" examples of yours are meaningless because any one who has read the article realizes that its point is based upon the scriptural database and you are not addressing it. You did try, but you failed. You are trying to find some remote, extrabiblical and clearly rare, or non-existent meaning of a word and sandwich it in where you need to in order to retain your teaching, but that is not allowing God to be the interpreter. Do you believe the scripture that says that "interpretations belong to God?" Do you?

The fact is, and this is why the discussion is really over, you are not addressing those salient points and that is readily apparent to anyone following along. If you can not address those salient points, then really, what is there to discuss?

Regards,
Rotherham

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

I'm sorry to be so dense, HeKS, but is it your position that this reference supports the idea that Rev. 3. is obviously telling us that Jesus is the first created being?

Is it your position that this reference is excluding the idea that Rev. 3 could be saying that Jesus, as the one by whom and for whom all things are, is the source of all things?

How about you tell me what sort of evidence might hypothetically get you to admit that the NJB or the NAB has a reasonable translation of this verse? 'Cause I honestly don't know what you think counts as evidence any more.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

Honestly, I'm content to let this stand. I'll summarize and move to point 3.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]