Challenged by Sulla

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

You continue to mis-state what the article concluded. You keep saying that the article concludes that there is no other possible way to read this verse, but this is only a version of what the article claims. The article claims that IF we allow scripture to interpret scripture, which means we follow the admonition to the best of our ability that "interpretation belongs to God", then we are really left with no other choice. That's a significant difference than just saying that there is no other way to read it. it is a CONDITIONAL claim. Your problem is you are trying to disprove that claim by erasing the CONDITION, which is not addressing the salient point that we should allow God to be our interpreter whenever we have the opportunity to do so. The claim is that with "arche" followed by a genitive phrase, we DO have that opportunity to allow God to be the interpreter because we can see via a consistent and sizable database how he has inspired his writers to use that phrase and that word.

Your task is really to show that relying on that database of evidence is not a valid means of interpretation, or that the database does not establish what it is claimed to establish. Now, other than a small tweak to the part about it always being a "partitive genitive", the article's salient points have not been addressed nor altered in any way. Proving that some philosopher used the word in a different way, which really has not been done anyway, does not address the point that God should be our interpreter. We are arguing from scripture, you are not. You are arguing form secular and philosophical sources, and we are not. You are arguing for an anomalous usage, we are not.

Saying you are right because the trinitarian world (by far the majority) is in agreement with you, is not an argument, but is a logical fallacy.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

You just like to argue. Turns out, you don't really disagree with what I said: your paper really does say there is no other possible way to read Rev. 3.

So, what was all that about? Some people just won't take 'yes' for an answer. Two problems, though.

1. Still no explicit denial that HeKS is being blackmailed in any way by you in order to allow you to post here. At this point, I think reasonable people must conclude that you are, in fact, holding some threat against HeKS. I plan to e-mail HeKS and let him know I stand with him and against people like you. I'm outraged.

2. Still not a single non-JW scholar who will stand with you on this issue. So your claim that plenty exist is a lie -- it's not true and you knew it wasn't true when you made it.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

OK. Just gonna wait for that list of scholars you got who agree with you. Hope it's not too long of a list.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Typical day from you, isn't it? Begin with complaining about something I said, wind up dropping all your complaints.

-- your paper really does make the claim I said it makes
-- you really can't find anybody who takes your point of view

If you were, like, a Lutheran writing a parody of the way JWs argue, I'd tell you to stop because it was over the top.

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

Do you really think that it is necessary for me to present a list of Unitarians, JW or otherwise, who agree that Rev. 3:14 teaches that the Son is PART of creation? Isn't that pretty much a no brainer? Stafford, Foster, Furuli, Patrick Navas, Beduhn and in fact any Unitarian who believes in the pre-existent Son of God?

Now seriously, address the argument as stated and not your version of it. We all know now what I actually said and you have consistently avoided it and misrepresented it.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Stafford is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Furuli is a scholar whether you agree or not. To disqualify him or any JW scholar is a logical fallacy and I wont accept the disqualification. Beduhn already told Heks that he believes he assessed John's words correctly.

Now why not try and focus on what the article actually said.

Can you? Will you? Are you even able to?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Shhhhh!

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

I thought I told you to hush.

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

I would appreciate an end to these childish antics, Sulla.

You and Rotherham can be as frustrated with each other as you like, but this "shhh" business and the silliness of suggesting he's blackmailing me in order to let him post is not acceptable behavior.

HeKS

[Sulla]

I wasn't suggesting I was asking. And I'll take this as a denial, then.

It is a head-scratcher, though. Guy has spent all day agreeing with me and then you show up and give me a hard time. Has to be some logical explanation...

Oh well. I'll look over your post, HeKS, and see what it says. Bon journee

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

Well I see we've reached the point where the preposterous spin can only be corrected with more preposterous spin. More cowbell!

The initial preposterous spin is this conceit that the Body of Christ might be identified simply by virtue of the fact that they teach the things scripture explicitly teaches. It's nonsense in clown makeup, of course, but it's born of the entirely understandable desire to put the more easily debunked core teachings of the JWs into the ghetto reserved for speculative intellectual exercises.

The second-level spin, which we are encountering now, is the attempt to remove the clown makeup and pretend the argument never existed.

So we begin with the claim that Q is explicitly taught in scripture. Therefore, any who say not Q are wrong and, therefore, not the Body of Christ.

Except, when we look into the question, not Q seems to have some arguments going for it. those arguments might not themselves be obviously correct, but they are strong enough that everyone who has ever commented on the matter seems to think not Q is correct. I mean, while we wait for the curiously lackadasical Jason Beduhn to weigh in on the topic, we can note the unanimous viewpoint of all non-JWs on this question and wonder if it could really be true that everybody is sufficiently biased about this to miss this explicit meaning.

More, we wonder if the bias works in a weird sort of reverse fashion, making even Unitarians like Thayer biased against his own view. How weird is that?

That's where the second-level spin comes in. 'Well, see, the statement isn't really that Q is explicit, it's more that IF P, THEN Q. Q is not the explicit teaching of scripture, it is merely the implication of P, you see.'

This is nonsense in a feather boa. But have it your way. The question we must then ask is: so what? The paper claims -- and the larger agenda attempts to show -- that one may identify the Body of Christ by observing that they teach the explicit statements of scripture.

So now, in two longish posts, you have insisted that your reading of Rev. 3 is not an explicit statement of scripture after all, but is merely an implication of an entirely different and controversial assumption; namely: that the bible must be read according to your idiosyncratic approach to reading it.

So, HeKS, since you now are telling me that your reading is not the explicit meaning of this scripture, please explain what possible point there could be to publishing this paper. That is, given the paper tells us we can identify the Body of Christ by observing who teaches the explicit, unambiguous scriptural truth and then argues that your interpretation of Rev. 3 is not an explicit scriptural truth, doesn't it seem pointless to you?

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

It seems thatyour task is to show that scripture should not be used to interpret scripture. As it stands, IF we let scripture do that, THEN Q is explicit, which is what the article presents from the get go. Its not a later "spin" as you would put it, it was the premise from the beginning. You just missed it and can't seem to admit that.

Since we are explicitly told that "all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, and COMPLETELY EQUIPPING" the Christian for such, how can you deny that we should let scripture interpret scripture?

Since we are told that "interpretations" belong to God, how can appealing to non-scripture as our guide be allowing God to interpret things for us, especially if there is a sufficient database to do so, which in this case, there surely is?

You can bellyache all you want about the method of allowing scripture to interpret scripture all you want, but the fact is, there is no other possible method available if one wants God to interpret for them.

If there's another method, spell it out. It would seem if you can't do that, your objections are moot and as pointed out, non sequitor.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

You guys are so full of it.

Don't care about your premise. I care about the claim made by the paper, which says the right church can be identified by the fact that they teach what scripture explicitly teaches.

You don't want to say the scripture explicitly says what you think is says, but you don't want to admit that it is not explicit, either. Thus, the last couple pages of this debate.

It's pretty simple, really. Either you claim that Rev. 3 explicitly reads the way you think it does, or else you do not make that claim.

Do you claim your reading of Rev. 3 is the explicit meaning of the text?

This is a yes or no question. HeKS says no, you do not claim your reading is explicit. HeKS says the paper's claim is that the conclusion is implied (in the logical sense) by the exegetical approach and that this implication is the point of the paper.

If so, then the paper is incompetently written, because the first few pages go on and on establishing a criterion the rest of the paper does nothing to support.

So, is it explicit or is it not explicit? Yes or no?

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

OK, so it is not the explicit meaning of the text.

Question: How is this supposed to help anybody identify the right church, as the paper asserts? Isn't this incompetent to claim that the way to identify the right church is to observe that they teach whatever is explicitly said in scripture and then subsequently to fail to prove your reading is the explicit meaning of the text?

[HeKS]

Sulla, this is seriously getting ridiculous. Stop changing what I say into what you want me to say.

This is extremely simple. The paper says that the body of Christ would not teach in contradiction to the explicit teachings of scripture and that, if we use Biblical precedent as our guide for translation and interpretation, the meaning of Rev 3:14 is explicit. That's it. And I agree. Scriptural precedent only seems to allow for one possible meaning to that verse.

Valid avenues of attack include:

- arguing that the body of Christ CAN teach in contradiction to the explicit teachings of scripture
- arguing that scriptural precedent should not be our guide for scriptural translation or interpretation
- arguing that scriptural precedent does not point to only one possible meaning for that verse

Invalid avenues of attack include (but are not limited to):

- arguing that there are (or might be) some different uses of a word, in a different context, outside scripture.

Why is this an invalid avenue of attack? Because even if you prove your point, it does nothing to undermine any of the points in the paper. Your argument could be true and the paper would be unaffected.

HeKS

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

Think you left valid avenue out, HeKS.

-- pointing out that the paper doesn't even claim the meaning is explicit, but only claims the meaning is implied by a second set of assumptions

See, the claim has never been that the right church teaches the things that it is able to talk itself into. The claim is that it teaches the things that are explicitly stated in scripture.

Thus, I do not need to argue that scriptural precedent should not be the guide for interpretation. You must prove that it is the always valid. You

By way of example. Suppose I was to claim that, IF we assign each Greek letter a sequential prime number and then translate the passage into Hindi according to some method. THEN it must be true that Jesus is Vishnu, everybody could immediately see that I will have proven nothing at all about the explcit meaning of the passage.

Further, if I claimed that the right church will always teach the explicit meaning of scripture, anybody could see that the entire line of argument is pointless, since I haven't proven my reading of the passage is explicit.

That's what has happened here. IF we assume your exegetical process is correct, THEN we get to your conclusion (so you claim). That's not remotely the same thing as proving the explicit meaning, as you should be able to see.

It is getting ridiculous, but only because you have sold out to defend this paper at whatever the cost.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,


Obviously, such models exist; otherwise your particular method of exegesis would be universal and your conclusions would also be universal.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I know and that's why I am asking not just you but anyone who reads, how else can we let God be our interpreter unless we let scripture interpret scripture, unless we pay heed to scriptural precedent and pattern? You can claim other methods, but can you demonstrate that they meet the criteria of "God" as the interpreter?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


I do not need to evaluate alternative models. It is your burden to show that the reading is explicit. All you claim to show is that it follows from your preferred method of exegesis.

That is, it's only explicit if you already accept your analysis. How's that help?[/quote]

$$$$$$
It helps because the analysis is presented as a challenge to other types of analysis. It's clearly stated that all scripture is inspired and beneficial and completely equips us for SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, for TEACHING!!

That proves the point that scripture should be the interpreter of scripture. Your job is to disprove that. We've done our part to show that it is the correct premise.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

I'm sorry, but is your position that scripture explicitly says that your method of analysis is the correct one?

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Well, then, if you are saying your analytical method is the explicitly-given method by the Bible, and that method yields the explicit reading of Rev. 3, then you are saying that explicit meaning of Rev. 3 is as you say.

Therefore, the only possible way to read Rev. 3 -- literally, the only way possible, like the way the Constitution says there are three branches of government -- is with your understanding.

Right? The explicit meaning of scripture is that your method of analysis is correct, and the necessary meaning of your analysis is that the scripture must be read as you say. Therefore, you are making the unqualified claim that it is literally impossible to translate or interpret the words in Rev. 3 in any way other than as saying the arche is the first creation.

Do I read you correctly on this matter?

[Rotherham]

Not quite but close.

I am using the word "explicit" in the sense of "unmistakable" as I have mentioned before.

You said:
The explicit meaning of scripture is that your method of analysis is correct,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The scriptures unmistakably declare that scripture itself is that which completely equips one for TEACHING and SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT. If there is another way to read that, then tell me what it is. If there is no other way to read that, then yes, it is unmistakable that the scriptures present that as the only proper means of interpretation, using the Bible to do so.

The scriptures also tell us that "interpretations belong to God". Is there another way to understand that? If so, then tell me. If not, then if we apply logic to that statement, it once again leads us to the unmistakable conclusion that scriptural precedent should be our interpreter, because that is the only tangible thing we HAVE that is from God that lends itself to interpretation in connection with TEACHING.

You obvious don't like that working model, but it's time to present an alternative. WHAT IS YOUR WORKING MODEL THAT MAINTAINS GOD AS THE INTERPRETER? Otherwise, without an alternative, there is no challenge to those statements.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


and the necessary meaning of your analysis is that the scripture must be read as you say.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, see above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Therefore, you are making the unqualified claim that it is literally impossible to translate or interpret the words in Rev. 3 in any way other than as saying the arche is the first creation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, IF (which by the way, is a QUALIFICATION) THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO RETAIN GOD AS OUR INTERPRETER.

It's working model time for you!

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,
______________________

Now, I read you to be saying that it seems unlikely that any method of analysis different from what you have done in the paper could possibly qualify as scripture interpreting scripture. Is this accurate?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Since I don't know how there could be any other way to interpret scripture and retain God as our interpreter, it is more than just "seems unlikely". It seems impossible.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What confuses me is your answer to my question about whether you are making an unqualified claim that it is "literally impossible to translate or interpret the words in Rev. 3 in any way other than as saying the arche is the first creation."

You responded by saying, "Yes, if ..." I don't know how to read that. The "yes" part seems to be saying you are making an unqualified claim, but the rest of the answer goes about qualifying it.

To say, 'It is literally impossible, if,' is precisely what it means to make a qualified claim.

So, let me try to be more precise. I say, in an unqualified way, that it is literally impossible to read the US Constitution as saying there are five branches of government. You and I both say, in an unqualified way, that it is literally impossible to read the Gospels as saying Jesus was not born of Mary.

With that framing: Do you say, in an unqualified way, that it is literally impossible to translate or interpret the words in Rev. 3 in any way other than as saying the arche is the first creation? (if your answer is yes, then you aren't allowed to qualify it)[/color][/quote]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Have you ever heard of a "qualified yes"? I have. Don't you see that your "framing" is a qualification within itself?

As I mentioned, this article was not intended for the infidel or those, such as yourself, who say there is another way to interpret scripture, BUT, the article CHALLENGES the view that there is another way to interpret scripture. If there is no other way to interpret scripture then the conclusions are unmistakable. If there IS another way, then you must PRESENT YOUR WORKING MODEL. Otherwise, the conclusons are unmistakable.

Here's the definiton for "unmistakable"

: not capable of being mistaken or misunderstood : clear

I see that as a suitable overlap with explicit, don't you? A thesarus lists explicit and unmistakable as related words.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

OK, well the question is whether you are making an unqualified claim or not. It isn't clear why this needs to be so hard.

So, given your list of additional factors, can I read you to say that you are not making an unqualified claim that it is impossible to translate or interpret the words in Rev. 3 in any way other than as saying the arche is the first creation in time?

Lots of negatives in that. But let's wade through them anyway.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Rotherham, when I ask if you are making an unconditional claim and you reply, "Yes, if ..." then you are answering both ways. I would hope you could see that.

It's pretty remarkable that you simply refuse to answer with a yes or a no. Are there conditions to your claim or are the not conditions to your claim. Pretty easy.

Look how easy it is to make unconditional claims. Is it your unconditional claim that

-- God created all things
-- Christ died to save mankind
-- Christ is risen
-- Christ will come again

These things are easy to answer with a yes or a no. But this question seem to be a real tough one. Weird, since it is about what your own position happens to be; and you'd think you could answer something like that.

So, I'll keep asking for a yes or no answer and see if we ever get to the point where you can directly answer what your viewpoint is.

Rotherham, do you say, in an unqualified way, that it is literally impossible to translate or interpret the words in Rev. 3 in any way other than as saying the arche is the first created being in time? Yes or no?

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

How bizarre is that?

Really? That Christ is risen is not a claim you make without conditions? That God created all things is not a claim you make without conditions?

So, you'd say God created all things if one believes the Bible? Are you listening to yourself?

Why don't you find yourself able simply to answer yes or no to my question?

Yes, with conditions, is an incoherent answer.

I will keep asking this question until I get a coherent answer. Readers will be amazed to see that a JW apologist is unable even to answer such a simple question about his own position. They will wonder why you find it so difficult.

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

Well, I think you've actually touched on where the disconnect lies between what we're saying and what he's saying.

He seems to be saying that there is exactly one sense or one set of circumstances in which you can claim someone made an explicit statement.

You disagree with that and so do I.

So, for example, say you were speaking to someone and trying to hold them to some comment or agreement they made and you said to them, "You explicitly told me ... x."

It seems Sulla's position is that, in saying the person explicitly told you x, you must mean the person made a statement containing a series of words that each have only one possible meaning, and their organization in the actual statement can, in an absolute sense, literally have only one meaning.

While this would certainly be an unassailable example of an explicit statement, I think it takes a hyper-literal approach that is problematic in the same way it was problematic to argue that you cannot use something abstract as the genitive substantive in a partitive genitive because abstract things don't literally have parts into which they can be separated. In other words, it ignores the way in which people use, absorb, interpret, and understand language.

So, I think the position that you and I share, Rotherham, is that you could say to a person "You explicitly told me ... x," and what you mean is that in the context of your discussion with that person, and based on the language that person was using throughout that discussion, there was simply no other reasonable way to interpret their statement. If you went through that discussion 10 times, you would interpret the statement exactly that way every time, even if technically the words could mean something else when transposed into a different context or setting. This is so because all those things upon which sensible, intentional communication from one person to another is built would, in that context, be pointing towards one particular meaning.

These are the types of statements that if you were to call someone on them and they would try to say that they meant something else you would insist that they were being disingenuous and equivocating, either when they said it initially or when trying to apply a different meaning to it now. You would insist this, because there was no reason for you to understand it in any other way than you did, and there could be no reasonable expectation on their part for you to understand it any differently.

Our position is that Rev 3:14 explicitly identifies Christ as the first creation in this second sense. We do not mean that if you were to take the group of words forming the sentence, put them on a piece of paper and hand them to some random translator, that there would be literally and absolutely only one possible way to translate or interpret them (though I'd wager that if "by God" was changed to something like, "by Paul," at least 99% would translate and interpret it just as we say it should be).

What we mean is that when those words appear in the context of John's writings and the NT as a whole, there is only one reasonable way to translate and interpret them. To assign a different translation or meaning is to argue that John (and/or God) intended to convey his message in a way that was communicatively nonsensical, in that it has John utterly ignoring the way in which people naturally understand the language being directed at them from some particular source. It amounts to verbal or literary trickery. If you say a word over and over and over again with a particular meaning, then you train people to understand you a certain way. Every time you use that word, they are going to default to understanding you that way, unless it is used in a context where you obviously CAN'T mean it that way.

In Sulla's challenge, as I recall, he tried to argue that he could write a book and use the word "bank" a thousand times to refer to his local banking establishment, but that wouldn't prevent him from one time saying that he was going to go fish in the shade on the bank. But this is clearly an example of what I said right above would be required to have the audience understand he intended to use the word in a different way. In fact, I think he even said it was obvious that he was using the word with a different definition in mind. And that's precisely the point. The statement itself makes it obvious that he intends to use the word with a different meaning. The semantic change is clearly and unmistakably signaled in the statement itself. This is precisely what good authors do so that their audience can understand them. It's a matter of simple communicative logic.

But consider the mistake that an extremely poor author might make in failing to apply this simple communicative logic. Let's say the author wrote a book in which he used the word "bank" a thousand times. 999 of those times, he used it to mean his local banking establishment, but in its 987th occurrence in the book he said that he went for a walk and decided to sit down and "read a newspaper in the shade of the bank," after which he decided to get some lunch. 100% of readers would assume he meant that he sat down and read a newspaper in the shade of his local banking establishment and that he had used "bank" with the same meaning all 1,000 times, assuming there was a nice bench out front of the bank, or maybe a nice little cafe that happened to be positioned in the shade of the bank during the late morning hours. Readers would assume this because it is the only reasonable way to interpret the statement within the context of the book. Every other time it is used it means his banking establishment, and in this instance there is nothing that shows the author obviously means something else, like the river bank. And heaven help this author if the fact that the newspaper was read on the river bank rather than in front of his banking establishment is in any way important to the story, because nobody is going to have any clue. Trying to convey this event as happening on the river bank in this way, using "bank" in this kind of sentence after its consistent use to refer to a local banking establishment, would be communicatively nonsensical. This type of incompetent writing would make for a very short career.

Likewise, it would be communicatively nonsensical for John to attempt to convey the idea that Jesus is the source of the creation by God rather than the first part of it by using a word that he uses everywhere else to mean a partitive beginning; unless he used it in a sentence where it obviously could not hold its usual meaning. But just the opposite is the case. He used it in a sentence that actually strengthens the likeliness of it holding its usual meaning. As such, nobody could reasonably be expected to take such a different meaning from his words. That Trinitarians do take a different meaning is not a counter-argument, because they do not take a different meaning as a natural function of the language. They just don't. The meaning that they take is specifically intended as a preferred alternative to the obvious reading. It might be technically possible if you just grab those words and randomly put them on a blank page, but it is not a reasonable reading of John's words at all, unless we take John himself to be a most incompetent author who does not communicate with his audience in a reasonable manner, in which case it's not the reading that's made reasonable but the author who is made unreasonable. There is a certain gnostic quality to this kind of reading.

If John wanted to convey the message they would like, it is only reasonable to expect that he would have either used the word in such a way that it was obvious that he intended a different meaning than 1) his usual meaning and 2) the default or unmarked meaning. Preferably (from a communicative perspective), he would have used a word that more directly carried his intended meaning in common usage and was unlikely to be misunderstood in the context of his writings. He did neither. As a result, there is precisely one reasonable interpretation of his words.

On a related but different point, Sulla made an interesting comment about Thayer's applying a meaning of source to arche in this verse, asking if it was Unitarian bias that motivated this reading. I would actually say this is entirely possible. As has been discussed at length, Thayer's cites as examples of its meaning of "source" cases where arche is used to indicate a partitive source. As a Unitarian, this is kind of perfect. It identifies Christ as the first creation that carried out the rest of creation; the first instance, which is the efficient (rather than formal) cause of all the other instances. As a Unitarian, I'd be very happy with this meaning too, because I think it accurately conveys the truth about Christ. However, I would not accept it as being a truly reasonable reading of John's words, no matter how much I like it. It's certainly less problematic than the meaning Trinitarians prefer, because it adds another layer ON TOP of the meaning he associates with the word everywhere else rather than DIVORCING the word from its meaning everywhere else, but it isn't really a reasonable reading. There is no basis in the context of John's use of language (or the language of the NT) to think that's what he intended to say there. There is really only one reasonable meaning there if we're going to read John the way we would read any other author according to the basic communicative logic that is employed in both speech and writing.

Take care,
HeKS

[Rotherham]

Hello Heks,

Thankyou again for the full explanation. One small note. Although Thayer was likely a Unitarian, the work known as Thayer's lexicon is actually the work of Grimm, a Lutheran and Trinitarian scholar. Thayer's words are only the ones contained within brackets.

YB,
Rotherham

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

As I suspected, you were misreading your source. Arche can have various case-number suffixes attached to the root based on its role in the sentence (Nominative, Accusative, Dative, Genetive, sometimes Vocative) and whether it is singular or plural, as can all Greek nouns. That's how Greek identifies the role of a noun in the sentence, where in English we use word order.

So, again, arche is used 58 times in the NT and 23 of those times are by John.

I'll get to the rest when I get a chance.

HeKS

[Sulla]

Well, it seems to me we would want to consider only those cases that are the same -- an author might well have different habits for usage of a word depending on whether it is the subject, direct object, or whatever.

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

Oh, sorry, HeKS. I keep forgeting you're the one who bought the Rosetta Stone --Koine Greek software, so probably I should just shut up and defer to your deep understanding of this sort of translation question. You have, after all, out-thunk all those poseurs who think they know you are wrong about this reading.

Forgot my place there for a minute. Won't happen again.

By the way, has Jason Debuhn responded to your question about this verse yet? I see it's been several weeks and he normally gets back quickly.

[hgp]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

I seem to have come down with a stomach flu (but not the dreaded H1N1), so I might be MIA for a day or two.

I see y'all when I'm back.

HeKS

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

It appears your argument is basically reduced to saying that John and Paul contradict each other. Paul viewed Christ as a creation, John didn't? Right?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Wow.

No, that is not my argument.

Part of my argument is that even those who will argue that the idea that Jesus is God stands merely as a late innovation support their argument by dividing the NT into low- and high Christology sections. The synoptics and Paul's undisputed letters being examples of low Christology and Hebrews, John, and Revelation being examples of this later innovation.

When people talk about the divinity of Christ being a late innovation, they are talking about "late" meaning Revelation and John. Nobody reads Revelation to be saying Jesus is merely a creation -- even people who are biased toward the idea that it was not the view of the earliest Christian community.

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

Please prove to me that when they say that Jesus being God is a late innovation that they are talking about Revelation and John.

What is more, there is nothing in John or Revelation that teaches Jesus is God Almighty. None of the verses employed by Trinitarians are unmistakable in their wording that Jesus is God and those arguments have been settled long ago. Find one that is unmistakable in what it tells us about the Son's Almighty nature. Can you do that?

However, for Rev. 3:14, with Biblical precedent and pattern, even if we just use John's writings alone as the guide, there is no mistake as to how it should be understood.

This is not an argument that even addresses the elements of the article. It matters not that the Trinitarian world believes that John and Revelation teach the Almighty nature of the Son. They can't find anything to prove it and they really have nothing to overturn the unmistakable nature of Rev. 3:14.

It is meaningless to argue that we are wrong because the Trinitarian world says we are. Did you think we did not know that? What does that have to do with addressing what the article says?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Given the stated criteria, there is no other way to understand Rev. 3:14. That is what I am and have been saying and stand by.

And yes, the Trinitarian world does not accept this because of either incompetence, bias or ignorance of the facts as they stand OR they do not agree with the interpetational process. One can see that the article challenged the interpretational process as well. The scriptures themselves recommend themselves as the interpretational guideline. If there is no other working model for interpretation then the article's conclusion stands unmistakable.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

If you can't prove that these individuals you mention are referring to John and Revelation as the "later" when Jesus became God to them, then your observation about that remains subjective and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. maybe you should actually read the book "When Jesus Became God".

With the stated criteria, which is to allow scripture to interpret scripture whenever possible, then there is no other way to read Rev. 3:14. Plain and simple. Since you can not disprove the interpretational method, which is recommended by scripture itself, then basically, you're done.

You like to disagree and blow alot of smoke and raise irrelevant and red herring issues in the process, but you're simply false advertising because you can't deliver your product and it should be glaringly apparent to anyone reading along.

That's why this discussion was really over a long time ago. What we are experiencing now is nothing more than you grabbing at straws which have led you nowhere.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Red herrings like the observation that your claim to have discovered the explicit, unambiguous, obvious meaning of the passage is held by nobody else in the universe who is not a JW?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Clearly a logical fallacy. You can't discard evidence because you don't like who presented it. This claim does nothing to address the evidence.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


That this claim requires the reader make the assumption that the considered opinion of everyone else who has ever looked at the passage is incompetent, ignorant, or biased. That this claim requires the reader to prefer your analysis -- you, who have not the slightest qualification to analyze Greek -- over the analysis of thousands of people who actually have qualifications?

Red herrings?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
There are surely those among Jehovah's Witnesses who are qualified to analyze Greek and agree that is exactly what Rev. 3:14 is teaching, and it is another logical fallacy to conclude that unless one has a degree they are incapable of making an accurate analysis of Greek. Numerous books and aids are published to help the novice to analyze many important things in regard to the original languages of the Bible. Once again this merely sidesteps the issues raised and appeals to a majority belief, a logical fallacy on top of a logical fallacy.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Is it a red herring to observe that your analysis pointedly ignores all the methods considered valid -- consideration of genre, audience, overall meaning, references back to other writings, repeated use of particular titles, general theme, etc.? These are red herrings to you?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You have been asked numerous times to demonstrate how any of those things should affect that reading and you have failed to do so or even attempt to do so, so yes, if your boastings have no weight, they are just sweeping generalizations, more false advertising, that have no bearing on the discussion and THEREFORE, another red herring.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The profoundly high Christology that is part of Revelation and John makes no appearance in your paper -- is pointing this out also a red herring?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, because claims are one thing, demonstrating that claim is another. There is no HIGH Christology in the sense of Christ being God in ANY of the Bible. The fact that you or any other Trinitarian can not present even one unmistakable piece of evidence for such, evidence from scripture, should tell you that such a claim is simply advertising, propaganda, without any truth to it. The Trinity, for you, is virtually a totally toothless old man dieing a slow death when it comes to scripture. Either prove your HIGH Christoology claims using Revelation and John or accept the fact that empty claims are just red herrings.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


That you perform your little analysis the same way JWs perform their theology -- by jumping about searching for prooftexts rather than actually reading, say, the Book of Revelation; this also is a red herring?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Another huge logical fallacy and a misrepresentation of facts.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That you find some way to write an entire paper without one time engaging the academic literature discussing the book of Revelation, the other works of John, or the overall theme; this is a red herring?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And none of that has any bearing on what is stated in the article. I've pleaded with you to demonstrate how and I get nothing but more foot stomping, red faced, bombastic claims and NO PRODUCT! Either start producing the goods or I'm calling the Better Business Bureau on you!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That you can't be bothered to engage the literature of people who think high Christology was a development of later NT writings -- red herring, I suppose?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I'm entirely ready to see the evidencd of this supposed declaration in John and revelation that jesus is God, so stop making claims you can't produce, or else produce it. Otherwise, yes, its another red herring and totally ineffectual.

Believe me, if you or any one else can present just ONE undeniable proof of the Trinity from the standpoint of scripture, THEN we have reason to re-examine Rev. 3:14. If you can't, which we all know you can't, or you would, then as I've said before, you're basically done. Toast, as it were.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Wow. I've been exposed. Well played, Rotherham.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Given the inherent lack of evidence and the false advertising within the Trinitarian camp, it had to happen. Just a matter of time.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hello Sulla,

Were you able to find the entire article? I did not get a chance to read the whole thing because I couldn't find it. I saw pieces here and there, but I didn't try to pretend I had seen the whole thing, which is why I simply said that Burney's position seemed to mirror ours in relation to the his view that John, like Paul, was extracting the full meaning of Hebrew reshith, to which we would agree.

If you have a link to the entire article, I'd be more than happy to read it through and adjust my statements accordingly. I have never had any interest in trying to extract false support from a view that doesn't support my position and that hasn't changed.

After that has been settled, we can move on to the rest of what I've said.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

It cost me $28 bucks to download from Oxford Journals. I'll send you the file.

However, if BDAG does make use of Burney's paper to explain their shift in linguistic meaning to the much-noted "probable," this would help explain what they meant by it.

Do we have a comment on whether Rotherham wrote this paper? Or was this thing first cranked out by our mystery Bolivian (who owns the site I linked to) prior to Rotherham copying it? Or is the Bolivian publishing something Rotherham wrote first?

I'm asking if this is even Rotherham's paper we are discussing, 'cause large sections of it are found word-for-word on this other site. And it seems to be the source you used to copy Burney's quote (or else there is a common source both you and the owner of that site used).

Rotherham, did yo write this paper?

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Although the article has evolved somewhat in response to making it more accurate, yes, I did initially write the article. The information contained though is not new, but was information that I gathered from both Stafford and Furuli's books and from other internet Witness posters. I know that a former Witness known as Heinz took portions of the article and posted it on his site and I have noticed that a number of sites here and there appear to quote portions of the original article. I would guess this is the case with this Bolivian that you mention. Before today, I did not know that site or that Bolivian existed.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Thank you for the clarification.

[HeKS]

In my case, I stumbled across that site while I was looking for the full article and ended up re-cutting & pasting from there because the Greek font I copied out of a PDF file originally didn't come through properly.

HeKS

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I'm going to try to clarify this one last time, very simply.

Our position is that there is only one precedented translation and meaning of arche in Rev 3:14 when one considers John's usage in every case in his writings and when one considers the usage of all NT writers, numbering approximately 60 instances. That one and only precedented translation and meaning leaves us with an explicit statement identifying Christ as the first creation. We would not say it identifies him as merely a creation. That is the way that you choose to frame it, but to us, that is hardly the tone in which John identifies him as this first creation.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

I don't know what you are objecting to in my post, HeKS. Rotherham has agreed that the only reason anyone could disagree with your reading is I.I.B. (ignorance, incompetence, bias). If the only reason one might disagree with some point of view is an IIB reason, then those who disagree are not doing so legitimately.

Is your quibble with this summary of your position?

Second, there are only two kinds of thing in this universe: creatures and non-creatures. On the one side are creatures like you and me and angels and even principal agents of God, as well as archangels and Enoch and Elijah.

On the other side is the uncreated one -- The Uncreated One.

Creatures, no matter how elevated, are all merely creatures.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

This remains tantmount to false advertising and logical fallacies. My view can't be taken seriously because of good reasons and the good reasons are that all the scholars that Sulla thinks are worth anything do not see it that way.

If the readers do not see the inherent flaws in that kind of an argument, well, let's put it this way, I am SURE the readers see the apparent flaws in such an argument.

And the real strange thing is that if this is so obviously an invalid argument that I make, then why can't a counter argument be made to debunk it point by point? Appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy and proves nothing about what the argument actually says.

First of all, the statistics can't be refuted. The only thing that can be debated is the interpretational method, and we are still waiting for some evidence agianst it that will actually float. So far, nothing.

The only thing for Sulla to do is obviously appeal to a red herring so that he does not have to address the actual argument, which is what he is doing, but I am sure that is as obvious to everyone reading as it is to me.

[HeKS]