Against nincsnevem ad pluribus XI

 Nincs:The context of Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is described as existing before creation, supports the idea of Wisdom being inherent to God rather than created. The translations using "created" reflect interpretative choices, not a definitive rendering of the original Hebrew. Do you even know the renderings of Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus? "Qanah" is used in Genesis 4:1 to mean "acquired" or "gotten." Similarly, in Deuteronomy 32:6, it refers to God "creating" or "fathering" Israel, indicating the flexibility of the term.

Me:actually it shows Wisdom being created at the beginning. And thus an eternal existence is a tortured interpretation.

We note that all the translators in question were trinitatians,including good catholics like yourself,  We are not surprised when trinitarians fudge to support their position,but when trinitarians muster sufficient integrity to admit the truth we praise JEHOVAH.

Actually cana is used at Genesis 4:1 to mean begotten, at any rate to speak of JEHOVAH'S Innate Wisdom as being acquired or begotten is to utter an absurdity.

Also re:Israel there was a time when there was no Israel and then JEHOVAH Begot him, clearly None of this would apply to JEHOVAH'S eternal Wisdom.

Nincs:"Ektise" in the LXX can indeed mean "established" or "ordained." Proverbs 8:22 in the LXX does not solely imply creation but can indicate an eternal, foundational role of Wisdom in God's plans. The verb "ktizo" changes the meaning of the text with a double accusative, and it will not be about creation, but about making someone something, e.g. to make him a king, here to make him "arkhe" or "reshit", which can best be translated as "first principle". In Genesis 1:1, "B'reshit" means "in the beginning." In Proverbs 8:22, "reshit" as apposition indicates a principal role rather than temporal priority. This aligns with Wisdom being foundational and eternal. The semantic range of "qanah" includes "acquired" and "possessed," fitting the description of Wisdom as an eternal aspect of God's nature. Translators' choices reflect interpretive decisions rather than definitive meanings.

Me: so there was a time that JEHOVAH'S eternal Wisdom was not established?

He was created in this role and the context makes it clear that he was created at the beginning . even your catholic translations admit that. The two things are not mutually exclusive nincs. Your assertions are not proofs nincs I don't know when you are going to get it through your thick skull?

Nincs:In context, "reshit" and "archēn" emphasize the primacy and preeminence of Wisdom, not its creation. "Reshit" in Proverbs 8:22 denotes a foundational aspect of Wisdom being the foremost, similar to how "archē" is used in John 1:1 to indicate eternal pre-existence rather than a created bebeginning.

Me: Your translators admit the fact that He was created as the foundation of JEHOVAH'S Work which would not be true of his innate wisdom which was not begotten or acquired or established by dint of effort either as the foundation or finish of his work. More trintarian style mental gymnastics.

Nincs:While some translations interpret "qanah" as "created," the broader context and semantic range of "qanah" support interpretations like "possessed" or "acquired," which align with Wisdom being an eternal attribute of God. The use of "qanah" can imply an eternal aspect of Wisdom rather than a temporal creation.

Me: JEHOVAH'S innate Wisdom was not acquired true effort, clearly what is being referred to hear is the beginning of JEHOVAH'S expressing of his wisdom. Via creation he acquired this manifestation of his wisdom.

Nincs:"Apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 is contextually understood to signify Christ's pre-existence from eternity, consistent with John 1:1's "en archē." It emphasizes the eternal nature of the Logos, not a created origin. The use of "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 is not about a temporal beginning but highlights the Logos's existence before creation. The usage of "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 and other contexts does not necessitate a created beginning. Instead, it points to a state of existence that predates all creation, aligning with the concept of the eternal Logos in John 1:1.1

More argument by assertion "apo arkhe" is ALWAYS used re:a definite beginning which really is the only kind of beginning that can sensibly be spoken of if a thing is from the eternal past it is definitionally without beginning. And the context of 1John ch.1:1 makes  clear that the logos us from the beginning.

I also challenged you to provide scripture where apo arkhe does not refer to a beginning. I'm still waiting.

Proverbs ch.8:24,25NKJV"When there were no depths I was brought forth,

When there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled,

Before the hills, I was brought forth;"

JEHOVAH'S Innate Wisdom was not brought forth (chuwl) this context also helps to explain why even many trinitarian translators begrudgingly admitted that created/begotten was the more likely meaning for cana.

Brown driver brigs re:chuwl"..twist, writhe:

a. in pain, especially childbirth Isaiah 26:17; Isaiah 45:10 ׳מַהתֿח ("" מהתֿוליד; metaphor, of sea Isaiah 23:4 ("" ילד); Israel Isaiah 26:18 ("" חרה), Isaiah 54:1 ("" ילד); Zion Isaiah 66:7,8 ("" id.), Micah 4:10 ("" גֹּ֫חִי, simile כיולדה; compare see 9), Jeremiah 4:31...

So no the context is on my side not yours.

Nincs"Archē" in Revelation 3:14 can also mean "origin", "first principle" or "source," indicating that Christ is the foundational principle through which all creation came into being. This aligns with Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him.

Me:The creation is dia him so he is not the source also the two things are not mutually exclusive the fact that he is the foundation of the building not only does not exclude the possibility that he is part of the building it makes it likely that he is part of the building

In as much Proverbs ch.8:24,25 shows him to be the first of JEHOVAH'S creation to be brought forth the overall context of the scriptures clarifies the matter

Nincs:Your interpretation of "reshit," "qanah," and "apo archē" as implying created beginnings is not consistent with the broader semantic and contextual analysis of these terms in Scripture. Actually Proverbs 8:22, 1 John 1:1, and Revelation 3:14 emphasize the eternal pre-existence and primacy of Wisdom and the Logos, aligning with traditional Nicene doctrine.

Me: as the scriptures at proverbs ch.8:24,25 clearly show it is you who are odds with the context.

Proverbs ch.8:24,25NKJV"When there were no depths I was brought forth,

When there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled,

Before the hills, I was brought forth;"

As I have often noted birth language of this kind when applied to JEHOVAH refers to his creative activity.

Psalms ch.90:2NKJV"Before the mountains were brought forth(Yalad),..

Acts ch.17:28NKJV"for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"

At Genesis ch.4:1 cana is used as birth language.

All this tells us who Wisdom at proverbs 8:22 truly is

The apostle Paul identifies Jesus as the Wisdom of JEHOVAH.

1corinthians ch.1:24

JEHOVAH is without beginning, if a thing has always existed then it is definitionally without beginning so to speak of a beginning with reference to JEHOVAH'S Existence is to speak nonsense.

Yet more on the journey toward a third way.

 

The mind that makes man "sapien" vs. Darwin.

 Evolutionists Are Stymied by the Human Mind

Evolution News

Over 150 years ago, the battle over the human mind sidelined Alfred Russel Wallace from the elite science group that gathered around his co-theorist Charles Darwin. Wallace was unwilling to concede that the human mind is merely an organ that has evolved like any other.

As University of Durham historian Neil Thomas explains, for Wallace, “on more mature reflection, no simple ape-to-human progression was any longer tenable and he could no longer assent to the ontological equivalence of humans and nonhuman animals proposed by Darwin.” Thus Wallace was largely forgotten and Darwin became the cultural icon of evolution.

Yet Wallace’s skepticism was well justified. We have no evidence to support the assertion that the human mind evolved over time by natural processes. No one knows how our ancestors began to think like humans.

But Never Mind the Lack of Evidence

Popular science media love natural histories of the mind. Advocates have proposed mental illness, chimpanzees throwing excrement, cooking, sexual selection, baby slings, and a host of other phenomena as the accidental spark that made the momentous difference in bridging the gap.1 None emerges as plausible because in every speculated evolutionary history of the mind we are asked to accept that a material thing can create an immaterial thing accidentally all by itself.

It’s been worse, of course. Another approach was more serious and less savory: Vindicating Darwin by designating certain humans as not quite human enough. Ota Benga, the African pygmy placed in an early 20th-century zoo comes to mind.

Later paleontologists chose a less harmful approach: Trying to locate the not-quite-humans among long-deceased groups like the Neanderthals and Flores man. But neither group has proven as dim as the search for the missing link requires. The Neanderthal art “bombshell” has seen to that.2

The trouble is, nobody seems to qualify as the “less-evolved” not-quite-human…

The little-noticed trend is that the historical evidence of humans thinking like humans keeps getting pushed back by many thousands of years as more artifacts from the very ancient past turn up. “Earlier than thought” has become a science media cliché in this area. Last month, we learned that the controlled use of fire was pushed back to 250,000 years ago. This month we heard about stone tools from 700,000 years ago, “likely used for butchering animals and processing wood or other plant matter.” Then there is the evidence for travel by watercraft. The watercraft themselves did not survive but tools from about 130,000 years ago, found on remote islands like Crete, did. “I was flabbergasted,” Boston University archaeologist and stone-tool expert Curtis Runnels told media. “The idea of finding tools from this very early time period on Crete was about as believable as finding an iPod in King Tut’s tomb.” As we find more and more artifacts giving evidence of complex thought, the origin of the mind recedes into a more distant, perhaps irrecoverable past.

Did Our Remote Ancestors Have Language, Philosophy, or Religion?

When searching for historical evidence of the human mind, it’s natural to ask whether our remote ancestors had language. But, apart from writing, languages wash away in the river of time and the earliest writing dates from about 5,500 years ago. We can infer that if our ancestors understood visual art, they could also talk about it. But we don’t really know.

Did they have philosophy or religion? Again, we have only artifacts to go by. One interesting line of evidence is the way prehistoric peoples treated their dead. Did they, for example, remember the history of the dead or imagine a future for them? At one cave site, archaeologists have found human bones and teeth among tools, ivory ornaments, and animal remains: The 32,000-year-old fossils bear cut marks suggesting that the deceased were ritually defleshed post-mortem. That sounds gruesome but perhaps it enabled the group to travel with the bones of the ancestors. Some Neanderthal peoples also coated the bones with red pigment. A nascent religion might well look like this but that’s all we know.

Here’s the challenge for those postulating an evolutionary history for the mind: If man is biologically an animal but cognitively so demonstrably unlike an animal, the obvious implication is that some aspect of the human mind is not biological. That thought, along with Wallace, is still banished from the academy. But a change may be building slowly. It is getting harder all the time to construct a history of the human race that goes “back to hours when mind was mud,” as Victorian poet George Meredith put it.

So let’s turn the question around: Why should we expect the human mind to have a history? Must immaterial things have evolutionary histories? Maybe some of them do but it is surely not a requirement.

Why Didn’t Our Ancestors Invent More Things?

But then, it’s also fair to ask, if our ancestors had authentically human minds, why didn’t technology progress faster? Why did it take hundreds of thousands of years to go from the mastery of fire to blacksmithing, and then thousands of years to go from that to the internal combustion engine? Good question! Why did it take hundreds of years to go from Blaise Pascal’s computer to your laptop?

Those delays are not a fact about the human mind so much as a fact about technology. Technologies build on each other. A number of them must be in the right place at the right time before any great leaps can happen. Otherwise, creativity flourishes as an exercise of the imagination only.

Neanderthals, for example, manufactured some things, like stone tools and birch tar, long ago. But most progress in manufacturing awaited the development — much, much later — of mining and metallurgy. And this is not only a prehistoric problem. Early 19th-century physicians were often brilliant and principled but there were many things they could not do in the absence of anesthesia, sterilization, antibiotics, and modern imaging equipment, many decades off.

The other thing about early humans is that they were comparatively few and widely scattered. Population control zealots will not want to hear this but the steady growth and increasing density of the human population has meant more people working together on problems and more rapidly developing and communicating solutions. It has been messy but overall, it has spurred an increasing speed of innovation without the need for any corresponding increase in human intelligence.

With respect to the origin of the human mind, traditional religious explanations shed more light than a science-based approach driven by materialist assumptions. That is, the traditional explanations begin by recognizing that humans are not just animals and offering an account for that fact. It is increasingly apparent that that older approach fits the pattern of the evidence.

Notes

Denyse O’Leary, “Is Evolutionary Psychology a Legitimate Way to Understand Our Humanity?,” in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, William A. Dembski, Casey Luskin, Joseph M. Holden, eds., pp. 372–79.

Leder, D., Hermann, R., Hüls, M. et al. A 51,000-year-old engraved bone reveals Neanderthals’ capacity for symbolic behaviour. Nat Ecol Evol 5, 1273–1282 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01487-z ; Justin Jackson, “Study finds Neanderthals manufactured synthetic material with underground distillation,” Phys.org, May 30, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/4bsx657r ; “Hobbits on Flores, Indonesia,” Smithsonian Institution: http://tinyurl.com/7w34zez.

Against nincsnevem ad pluribus X

 Nincs:Even though you are waiting for such a precedent, you are after all waiting for a conceptual impossibility, because the Son is not only the first-born (prototokos) of the Father, but also his only-begotten

Me:That has nothing to do with whether he is part of the creation or not the two issues are distinct.

Hebrews ch.11:17NIV"By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,"

As you know Abraham did have another Son

And both Sons were begotten temporally.

The Bible even speaks of Christ as being begotten temporally regarding his resurrection.

Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“ ‘You are my son;

today I have become your father.’ b"

He can be spoken of as monogenes here as well as he is the only one to have been raised directly by his God and Father he is the only Son Fathered directly by him every other Son of God would have at least one other to regard as parent by JEHOVAH's kindly favor.

So the fact that he was uniquely created does not mean that he is uncreated.

  The Bible clearly shows that JEHOVAH creates through preceding creations.

Genesis ch.6:7NIV"So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” "

 Of course none of the creatures on the earth at that time were directly created by JEHOVAH,they existed due to natural processes set in motion by JEHOVAH ,but because ALL (not most) of the information and energy that makes there emergence and preservation possible came out of JEHOVAH he justly takes credit for there existence.

Obviously the first link in this causal chain would possess a unique glory, and would be the unique Son of JEHOVAH.

 (monogenes), why should the Bible declare similar titles about others to mean that? I'd rather throw the ball back to you, so show me precedents when the term "firstborn" is used in the Bible in such a way, where membership is not a conceptual necessity (for example being born into the category), but the "firstborn of X" formula itself performs the classification. Because all your examples show that it's not the "firstborn of X" formula what implies category membership.

All of my examples? I gave no examples. I challenged you to provide an example where prototokos is used in a way that necessarily or even possibly excludes him either from the explicit or implicit set, your "response" is to try to answer a question with a question.

And this is a simple question either such examples exist or they don't maybe they are rare ,that's fine but if they are nonexistent as your nonresponse strongly suggest then that is a problem for your position.

Nincs:Malachi 2:10 and Ephesians 4:6: These passages affirm that God is the Creator and Father of all, but they do not exclude the Trinitarian understanding of God. The New Testament reveals the distinct persons within the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), each fully and equally God.

Me:To a committed trinitarian nothing falsifies their position the ideology has a lot in common with Darwinism that way and how could a position that its own advocates admit is incomprehensible possibly be falsified trinitarians hold the ultimate high ground in there own minds.

 What N.T shows is that the God and Father of Israel is the one God and Father of Jesus.

John 8:54 and Acts 3:13: Jesus acknowledges the Father as His God, aligning with His incarnate role. However, John 1:1, 1:14, and Colossians 1:15-17 affirm Christ’s divine nature and active role in creation, which aligns with the concept of the Trinity.

What about the unincarnated spirit the Father alone is the God Israel that is why we constantly read of THE God and HIS Son not their son your incarnation fudge is past its shelf life

Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” his God and Father is the MOST HIGH i.e WITHOUT equals thus making the JEHOVAH spoken of at psalm ch.83:18 if your God has two others who are equal to him he is not the JEHOVAH of scripture.

Nincs:The argument that "πρωτότοκος" implies group membership overlooks the contextual usage of the term to denote preeminence and authority. Scriptural examples show that "πρωτότοκος" can signify supremacy without implying that the subject is part of the group. In Colossians 1:15, the context clearly indicates Christ’s authority over creation, affirming His divine nature and role as Creator.

Me: The contrary claim that prototokos necessarily or even possibly excludes membership in the implicit or explicit set goes counter to the TOTALITY of scriptural precedent.

From thayer's:tropically Christ is called πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (partitive genitive (see below), as in τά πρωτότοκα τῶν προβάτων, Genesis 4:4; τῶν βοῶν, Deuteronomy 12:17; τῶν υἱῶν σου, Exodus 22:29), "

Genesis ch.4:4NKJV"Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering,"

Deuteronomy ch.12:17NKJV"You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstborn of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or of the [f]heave offering of your hand. "

Exodus ch.22:29NKJV"“You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me."

Against nincsneven ad pluribus IX

 The Hebrew word "qanah" can mean "possessed," "acquired," or "created," depending on the context. In Proverbs 8:22, the context of Wisdom being with God from the beginning suggests "possessed" or "acquired" in a non-temporal sense. The LXX translates this as "ektise," which can mean "created" but also "established" or "ordained." The broader semantic range of "qanah" supports the interpretation of Wisdom being an inherent, eternal attribute of God.

The Hebrew apposition "reshit" in Proverbs 8:22 can denote a title or role, not a temporal priority, so it means "AS the beginning", not "AT/IN the beginning, which would be B'reshit. This is seen in its use in other scriptures like Genesis 1:1 ("B'reshit" meaning "In the beginning") and its LXX counterpart "archēn," signifying a foundational or principal aspect, not a created one.

Me: The verse said he was "cana" in/as the beginning,neither would be true of JEHOVAH'S innate Wisdom which would coexist with the God they qualify,JEHOVAH'S Existence is NEVER spoken of as being from the beginning but from "olam" time indefinite.

so this is an expression an emergence of a work that made this Wisdom manifest to others a creation,

Even catholic translators admit that create is a better fit given the context:

Proverbs Ch.8:22NCB"“The LORD created me as the firstborn of his ways,

    before the oldest of his works."

Proverbs ch.8:22NAB"“The LORD begot me, the beginning of his works,

    the forerunner of his deeds of long ago;"

The use of birth language here is interesting

Eve is recorded as naming her second child Cain after "cana"

Genesis ch.4:1NAB" The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced(Cana) a male child with the help of the LORD.”

As I've mentioned before birth language when used of JEHOVAH Always refers to his creative/preserving work.

    Proverbs ch.8:22NRSVA"The LORD created(Cana) me at the beginning[b] of his work,[c]

    the first of his acts of long ago."

Proverbs ch.8:22NRSVCE"The LORD created me at the beginning[b] of his work,[c]

    the first of his acts of long ago."

Proverbs ch.8:22JB"‘YAHWEH created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works."

      Proverbs ch.8:22NJB" 'YAHWEH created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works."

     Proverbs ch.8:22RSVCE"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work,[c]

    the first of his acts of old."

Proverbs ch.8:22RSV"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work,[c]

    the first of his acts of old."

Proverbs ch.8:22Douay/Rheims American edition"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work,[c]

    the first of his acts of old."

It really does seem that Mr.nevem's take is a minority view among catholic translators, not a disqualifier in itself but the majority view has a coherence that Mr.nevem's lacks to speak of a beginning re:the wisdom that qualifies JEHOVAH who is without beginning is to utter an absurdity.

  What about ancient translations:

Proverbs ch.8:22PHB"LORD JEHOVAH created me at the beginning of his creation and from before all his works."

Proverbs ch.8:22LXX"The LORD made me the beginning of his ways for his works."

  

The Hebrew "reshit" and the LXX "archēn" emphasize a role of primacy or preeminence rather than a temporal starting point. In Genesis 1:1, "B'reshit" means "In the beginning," but in Proverbs 8:22, "reshit" in the context of Wisdom being with God indicates a status of being the first and foremost, not implying creation. Thus the use of "archēn" in LXX and "reshit" in Hebrew highlights roles of primacy and preeminence, not temporal origins.

"Apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 does not imply a created beginning but indicates the Logos's existence from the beginning of time as understood in a temporal context. "Apo archē" indicates that Christ existed from all eternity, similar to "en archē" in John 1:1. It emphasizes Christ's pre-existence before the creation of the world, stressing that the Logos was with the Father before time began, not merely at the beginning of His public ministry or creation. The term emphasizes the eternal pre-existence of the Logos, not a point of creation. This aligns with John 1:1, where the Logos is identified as God and with God from the beginning. The term "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 emphasizes Christ's eternal pre-existence, not a created beginning. Commentaries consistently interpret it as signifying existence before time, aligning with "en archē" in John 1:1.

 Me: The foundation of the building is a necessary and integral part of the building, so whether or not the foundation is created or eternal would depend on the context. "Cana" suggest a derivative of JEHOVAH'S Wisdom also JEHOVAH Would not be the foundation of his own work or anyone else's work. 

All beginnings are created beginnings or they would not be beginnings.

  1John ch.1:1NKJV"That which was from the beginning(apo arkhe),.."

Please feel free to check for yourself there is not one precedent for understanding "apo arkhe" as from eternity why for instance is JEHOVAH Never spoken of as being "apo arkhe"

Our Lord makes it plain as to which beginning is meant ,

     Revelation ch.3:14KJV"“And to the [i]angel of the church [j]of the Laodiceans write,

‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning(arkhe) of the creation of God: "

Colossians ch.1:15 makes the same point he is both the first and foremost of JEHOVAH'S Creatures. He is a true son derived from his Father and God like his brothers.