Tuesday, 18 June 2024
Against ninsnevem ad pluribus XVI
Nincs:If it were not stated in the NT that Christ really died, and it were not in it that the Son was "the firstborn from/among the dead" (with 'ek'), then it would certainly be reasonable to argue that he never died and "the the firstborn OF the dead" (without 'ek') would not prove the opposite. The term "firstborn" (prototokos) in contexts such as "firstborn from the dead" implies both participation and preeminence. Christ was part of the dead and the first to be raised, underscoring His supremacy. But the notion that Christ would be created, or that He would be a creature, or that He would be connected to creation with "ek" is *nowhere* in the NT.
Me:more argument by assertion their is no ex at revelation ch.1:5,it's almost as if JEHOVAH Looked ahead and anticipated trintarian trickery here. Your argument by unfounded assertion proves nothing this time either .there is no need for any ex as plainly demonstrated by all the other uses of prototokos in scripture with or without the "ex" the prototokos is part of the implicit or explicit set . You proved utterly unable to put up re:an example from scripture yet you won't shut up you're just wrong here.
In the Scripture the use of birth language re:JEHOVAH Is a reference to his creative activity
Hebrews ch.5:5So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:
“You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.”"
The resurrection is a recreation of the one who has returned to his pre-creation state hence it us called begetting so Christ was begotten in time.
JEHOVAH of course had no recreation state hence cannot die and hence cannot be raised from the dead.
Both of the Logos begettings were in time and were the result of his God's creative activity.
John ch.1:18LSB"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
The Logos is not merely a created person but a created God.
Note that the angels are called elohim
at psalms 8:5
Nincs:Your example about David also does not refute my position, according to which "firstborn of X" is not an inherently partitive structure, but whether the classification has taken place or whether the given concept conceptually requires membership is what decides it. It is not possible to be a pre-eminent king without being a king, but it is indeed possible to be a pre-eminent, distinguished heir being in a supreme position in relation to the whole creation, without being a creature.
Yes it is always necessary for the heir to be part of the family always your argument by unfounded assertion never works nincs never, we are supported by the TOTALITY of scriptural precedent and you continue to FAIL to demonstrate otherwise all you have to your back is wishful thinking.
Monday, 17 June 2024
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus XV
Nincs:In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle", hint: the English "principle" is a Latin loanword, Latin principium, which is how the Vulgate translates it in Rev. 3:14, as well as John 1:1a tc. The NT's usage in other contexts emphasizes a role of preeminence and authority, aligning with the interpretation of Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation. By the way, according to the modern consensus, the author of Revelation is not the same John as the one who wrote the Gospel or the three Johannine epistles.
me:Arkhe is used with regard to the Logos in the sense of beginning
1John ch.1:1NKJV"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— "
As for your claim that the consensus asserts that a different John wrote Revelation. The argument by assertion fails regardless of numbers. There is no such consensus.
Compare John ch.1:1, Revelation 19:13,1John ch.1:1
The entire Bible is the single work of the one divine author.
He is the beginning of JEHOVAH'S Creation the one he only two verses earlier ,see Revelation ch.3:12, identifies as MY GOD, and not his own creation. Therefore in view of the context he is clearly not the source of the creation.
At proverbs ch.8:22 we see that JEHOVAH'S wisdom expressed His Logos is cana/begotten
See Genesis ch.4:1 for another example of cana as birth language, as the beginning of his work
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;"
Birth language is used of JEHOVAH To denote his creative work even of the inanimate creation. See psalms ch.90:2.
Obviously his being the first creation and his being the greatest creation are not mutually exclusive indeed the one would make the other more likely.
Nincs:The verb "ktizo" indeed allows for a double accusative construction, changing the emphasis from a mere creation to a designation of role, i.e., to make someone something (e.g., make him "arkhe" or "reshit"). This nuanced understanding supports the interpretation of Wisdom’s foundational role rather than a literal creation event. This is a critical distinction often overlooked in simpler translations.
Me:Again the two things are not mutually exclusive what is off the table is anyone creating "dia" JEHOVAH The Bible makes it clear that he is the ultimate source of the creation we know that he uses prior creations as instruments and or raw materials later creations this does not make these prior creations co-creators because ALL of the information and energy in them and through them is from him JEHOVAH Created the foundations of both the physical and superphysical creation.
Nincs:Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, which inherently excludes any secondary deities or entities from this creative role. This monotheistic assertion aligns with the broader scriptural narrative, emphasizing Yahweh's sole sovereignty in creation.
Me:this falsifies a creation dia an uncreated mediator as such would be a supplement but not JEHOVAH'S Standard procedure of creating later creations with prior ones as a instruments and or raw materials as no creature would be a supplement to JEHOVAH'S Power or wisdom.
So any mediator must be a creation.
Hence this mediator is called the prototokos of creation see colossians ch.1:15 the term prototokos always denotes inclusion in the set of which he is prototokos, whether literally or figuratively there literally no exceptions o this uniformity. The fact that all we ever get from the other side is either crickets or red herrings when we ask them to produce an exception is compelling evidence in itself but please feel free to get a concordance and check for yourself.
Nincs:https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Isaiah%2044:24
Look at what the church fathers write, there is no sign that they exclude "only" pagan gods, not alleged demiurges, angels, etc.
Me:The demiurge is uncreated so bears closer resemblance to christendom's version of the Logos so basically you are arguing with yourself the scriptures show that it is standard procedure for JEHOVAH create "dia" prior creations
Genesis ch.6:7NNKJV"7So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” "
Of course none of the human or subhuman creatures then existing were created directly by JEHOVAH Yet he could be justly credited with their existence as all the information an energy that made them what they were came out of him.
Nincs:Tertullian argues against Hermogenes' view that matter is eternal and co-existent with God. He emphasizes that God alone is the Creator who "stretched out the heavens alone" (Isaiah 44:24), countering any notion that matter or any other entity shares this creative power. Tertullian addresses the unity of God and the distinction between the Father and the Son. He affirms that while God says He stretched out the heavens alone, this does not exclude the Son but rather includes Him in the divine act of creation, emphasizing the Son's unity with the Father.
Me:Red herring alert the God and Father of Jesus is plainly declared to be the One God of Israel by Jesus himself see John ch.8:54 again this is re:the relationship of the God and Father of Jesus with the nation of Israel see also Luke 1:32 where the God and Father of Jesus us called the MOST HIGH God . Thus excluding ALL others including the unincarnated spirit from the category of MOST HIGH God.
Thus when the God of Israel, the most high God declares that it was his power and wisdom ALONE that are to be credited for the existence of the creation all save the God and of Jesus are excluded.
Nincs:Athanasius explains that when Scripture says God created alone, it implicitly includes the Son. He stresses that the Son, being the Word of God, was present and active in creation, thus maintaining the unity and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. He argues against Arianism by highlighting that God declaring "I alone" in creation includes the Son as the Word through whom all things were made. This assertion upholds the Son’s divinity and eternal nature, countering the Arian view of the Son as a created being.
Me: actually the scriptures explicitly name the GOD and Father of Jesus as the MOST HIGH GOD : Luke ch.1:32NKJV"He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the LORD God will give Him the throne of His father David."
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of MOST HIGH GOD
John Ch.10:30NKJV"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than ALL(Not most); and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. "
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of the MOST HIGH GOD
John ch.17:3NKJV"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of only true God.
1Corinthians ch.8:6NKJV"yet for us there is ONE GOD, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live"
Clearly excluding Son and Spirit from the category of God who is the source of all the power and wisdom in the creation, while excluding the MOST HIGH GOD JEHOVAH from the category of Lord "dia" whom JEHOVAH'S Power is channeled so a double whammy against trinitarian absurdity.
Matthew ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of THE living God.”"
Clearly excluding the Son and the spirit from the category of self sustaining God.
John ch.6:57NKJV"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. "
Note the spirit is nor even mentioned and clearly the Son is not self sustaining like the MOST HIGH GOD JEHOVAH is, self-existence along with supremacy are attributes of the MOST HIGH GOD Any without these attributes are clearly not the JEHOVAH of the Bible.
Matthew ch.24:36NKJV"“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [f]heaven, but My Father ONLY. "
Clearly excluding the Son and Spirit from the category of omniscient God.
Ephesians ch.4:6NKJV"one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in [c]you all."
Clearly excluding the Son and Spirit from the category of the supreme God
This why the unqualified "ho theos" is used exclusively of the God and Father of Jesus also while the expression (The)God the Father is common in the N.T the expression God the son or God the spirit are TOTALLY absent. The monarchy of the God and Father Jesus the Lord JEHOVAH is plainly declared O.T and N.T alike.
Nincs:Ambrose discusses the concept of God working alone in creation. He states that this "alone" includes the Son, who is described in Proverbs 8:30 as being with the Father during creation. This interpretation aligns with the understanding of the Trinity, where the Son is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father.
Me:I thought the wisdom here in proverbs ch.822-30 was merely an abstract quality and not a living person. If we go back we verse24,25 we see that this one was brought forth by JEHOVAH in line with Jesus declaration at John ch.6:57 . So clearly is not JEHOVAH Who is no ones Son but everyone's Father. Being creation he cannot be regarded as a supplement to JEHOVAH'S Power and wisdom any more than the parents who played a very active role in our creation by JEHOVAH.
A coarse response to the finetuning argument?
On Fine-Tuning, Responding to an Atheist YouTuber
James Fodor is a neuroscience grad student at the University of Melbourne in Australia who identifies himself as an atheist. In a recently published YouTube video, Fodor confidently presents what he thinks are a number of problems with the fine-tuning argument. After taking the time to carefully go through his 40-minute video, I believe that he has overestimated the significance of his arguments in presenting a case against theism.
Fodor begins by outlining the fine-tuning argument and then expresses his objection to a “fixation on constants” (such as the strengths of the fundamental forces, the masses of elementary particles, etc.). He declares that the constants have no meaning outside of a set of physical laws (I believe he means equations), and that we have “no idea of what the universe would be like if the laws were different.” In support of his contention that different universes could or would have different physical laws (not just physical constants), he pulls a quote from a paper by Luke Barnes, titled “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life.” Ironically, the main focus of Barnes’ paper is supporting the theistic fine-tuning argument, using physics and cosmology, as he refutes a dubious critique of fine-tuning by the late atheistic physicist Victor Stenger.
Barnes addresses the issue of whether the fine-tuning argument would be undermined by allowing different universes to have different equations for the laws of nature, but he reaches an entirely contradictory conclusion to Fodor’s.
The intuition here is that, if ours were the only universe, and if the causes that established the physics of our universe were indifferent to whether it would evolve life, then the chances of hitting upon a life-permitting universe are very small.
BARNES, P. 3
Barnes argues that allowing alternate universes to possess laws of physics contrary to our own does nothing to alleviate the curious condition that laws and constants of nature in our universe are fine-tuned to allow life. One of the fundamental truths of physics is that any attempt to describe our universe from a purely theoretical perspective is insufficient. We have to “open the window,” so to speak, and take a look at our world in order to actually know what it’s like. This means that the universe could have been different than it is. The way it is, compared to the ways it could have been, shows knife-edged fine tuning for life.
A Tautological Argument
Such fine-tuning for life cannot be dismissed with a tautological argument saying, “Of course our universe has parameters that allow intelligent life. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.” I suppose a limited amount of brilliance shines through those who contend against fine-tuning with this argument, but the fine-tuning argument far out-shines this dull retort. As I state in my book, Canceled Science,
Yes, the values of the laws and constants of nature must be in a range that allows us to exist if we’re going to be around to notice our good fortune, but the surprising thing is how narrow this range of possible values turns out to be….Our being here to discover fine tuning doesn’t require that those parameters be balanced on a knife edge. Since they are, we have an additional reason to suspect, as the distinguished astronomer Fred Hoyle has famously said, that a “super-intellect has monkeyed with physics.”
CANCELED SCIENCE, P. 64
Consider Velocity
Are the equations expressing the laws of nature determined by nature or are they in fact more fundamental relations between physical concepts, such as space, time, mass, force, energy, and fields? For example, let’s look at the basic physics relation expressed as “distance equals velocity multiplied by time,” which follows from a definition of velocity as displacement per time. Is it even meaningful to postulate a hypothetical universe in which this definition doesn’t hold?
Or, take the example of Newton’s universal law of gravity, where the force between two masses, m1 and m2, separated by a distance r, is given by F=Gm1m2/r2. This relation could be found by making careful measurements, but its form could also be derived based on the geometry of three-dimensional space and symmetry considerations. However, what cannot be mathematically derived from any fundamental theory of physics is the value of the gravitational constant, G; it must be measured. The same argument for the form of the equation can be made for the fundamental force between charged particles, with the same need to observe our universe to obtain the value of the embedded constant.
Changing the exponent of the particle separation parameter, r, in the denominator of either equation implies a universe with a different number of spatial dimensions (say, two or four dimensions, instead of three). Contrary to Fodor’s statements, we know what this would imply — no life. With fewer than three dimensions, complex biochemistry cannot exist. With more than three dimensions, stable orbits, either for planets or for electrons orbiting nuclei, would not be possible
Imagining Universes
To further answer Fodor’s suggestion that fine-tuning is defeated because we can imagine universes with different laws of physics, a quote from Barnes is informative. Here he rebuts Stenger’s attempt to nullify the fine-tuning argument with a similar argument.
In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.
A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will not have stable atoms — electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus — and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible.
If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.
If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures.
If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.
BARNES, P. 18
After giving a few other examples of how variations of the laws of physics would render life impossible, Barnes acknowledges that extrapolating from our present knowledge of physics to other realms with widely varying laws would stretch our understanding beyond the point of certainty.
We should be cautious, however. Whatever the problems of defining the possible range of a given parameter, we are in a significantly more nebulous realm when we try to consider the set of all possible physical laws.
BARNES, P. 19
In my opinion, our lack of God-like knowledge of the physics of all possible universes is an entirely irrelevant objection to the verity of the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics for this universe to support life. Barnes agrees:
The point is this: however many ways there are of producing a life-permitting universe, there are vastly many more ways of making a life-prohibiting one…. Amidst the possible universes, life-permitting ones are exceedingly rare. This is fine-tuning par excellence.
BARNES PP. 38-39
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus XIV
Nincs: The term "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος, prototokos) in Colossians 1:15 refers to rank and preeminence, not temporal order. The Watchtower's own publication, "Aid to Bible Understanding," states:
Me:Red herring alert the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set ALWAYS ,the first member ,the foremost member ,both the first and the foremost member because obviously these two categories are not mutually exclusive so that establishing that the prototokos belongs to the one category does not exclude his simultaneously being of the other category.
Mr. Nevems inability to provide a single falsification of this uniformity as we will all see pretty much seals the deal.
Nincs"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah."
"Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2"
So they admit that "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 is understood precisely in the Old Testament sense, which indicates a position of supremacy, not simply being the first created. Biblical precedent for this usage includes Psalm 89:27, where David, though not the firstborn son of Jesse, is called "firstborn" because of his preeminence and chosen status by God. This reinforces that "firstborn" indicates a status of preeminence rather than chronological birth order. Just as David was not the firstborn but was given the title due to his preeminence, Jesus is referred to as "firstborn of all creation" to indicate his supreme status over creation, not that he was the first created being.
Me:note please that in both these first example the prototokos is the foremost member of the group of which he is prototokos,so far Mr.Nevem is of to a flying start reinforcing the Bible's uniformity regarding the MANDATORY inclusion of the prototokos in the set of which he is prototokos. Don't be distracted whether he is the first member or the foremost member is besides the point.
Nincs:Thus in Colossians 1:15, Paul uses "firstborn" in a context that emphasizes Christ's authority and supremacy over all creation, which aligns with the biblical concept of birthright denoting rannincsk and preeminence. The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prototokos) in this context reflects Christ’s sovereignty and role as the heir and ruler of all things, not a temporal creation
Not all uses of "firstborn" in the NT imply temporal priority. For instance, in Hebrews 1:6, the term "firstborn" refers to Christ being brought into the world with a status that requires worship from the angels, indicating a position of honor and authority. Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of the dead," which signifies his preeminence in resurrection, not that he was the first to be resurrected chronologically.
The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 aligns with the Old Testament usage to denote rank, preeminence, and authority rather than chronological birth order. This interpretation is consistent with both biblical context and the Watchtower’s own publications. The New Testament usage of "firstborn" emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and divine role, refuting the claim that it always indicates temporal priority.
Me:actually Hebrews days that the Logos was MADE Greater than the angels in a certain respect but only after being MADE Lower than the angels in every respect.
Hebrews ch.1:4KJV"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
Hebrews ch.2:9KJV"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
JEHOVAH Did not inherit his rank from anyone so clearly we are not talking about an equal which only makes sense as the Bible clearly refers to the God and Father of Jesus as the MOST HIGH God therefore as having no equals on either side.
See Luke ch.1:32
When did he become firstborn here.
Hebrews ch.5:5KJV"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, TO DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee."
At acts ch.13:33 Paul applies this to the resurrection. Is anyone going to deny that he is the firstborn member of that set both in the sense of being the first and foremost .
So the red herrings have once more failed to rescue Mr.nevem
Against nincsnevem ad pluribus XIII
Nincs:The term "prototokos" (firstborn) in Greek does not inherently mean "first created." It often signifies rank, preeminence, or priority in status rather than origin. Paul's use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes Jesus' supremacy and authority over all creation, indicating His preeminent status rather than suggesting He is part of the created order. The surrounding verses in Colossians 1:16-17 clarify that Jesus is the agent of creation: "For by Him all things were created... all things have been created through Him and for Him." This shows Jesus' active role as Creator, not as a part of creation. The term "prototokos" aligns with this context by highlighting Jesus' supreme authority over all creation, reinforcing His divine nature and role as Creator.
The term prototokos inherently indicates membership in the implicit or explicit set of which one is prototokos,this is even a rule ,rules have exceptions there NO(as in none whatsoever)exceptions to this uniformity in scripture, There for Jesus being the prototokos of creation MUST make him part of the creation, the fact that the creation occurs "dia" him proves that he is not the source of the creation as pointed out ad nauseum "dia" indicates instrumentality from dia we get the word diameter. Thus he us not the source of the power and wisdom in the creation it is merely being channeled through Him. Our parents play an active role in creating us but they are not considered co- creators.
Thayers re:prototokos at colossians ch.1:15
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), who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things (R. V. the firstborn of all creation) (see κτίσις, 2 b.),
Note the admission that this is in fact a patitive genitive a natural reading minus trinitarian mental gymnastics puts him among the creation his being the foremost creation would still mean that he is a creation.
Nincs:Hebrews 1:6 refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" and clearly positions Him above all angels, emphasizing His superiority rather than His inclusion in the category of angels. The term "monogenes" means "only-begotten" or "unique," highlighting Jesus' unique relationship with the Father. This does not imply creation but signifies a unique and eternal relationship. In the New Testament, "monogenes" is used to emphasize the uniqueness and special status of Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:14, 3:16).
Actually the verse says he was MADE higher than the angels but only after his being MADE lower than the angels. Both statements are unacceptable re:JEHOVAH Who is immutable the MOST HIGH God and thus cannot be MADE higher or lower than his unchangeable supreme status and nature as the supreme divinity. Birth language re:JEHOVAH Always refers to JEHOVAH'S Creative activity and the book of Hebrews does speak of a begetting in time.
Hebrews ch.5:5NKJV"So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:
“You are My Son,
TODAY have begotten You.”"
Christ resurrection is called a begetting the resurrection is a creative act,beget when used of JEHOVAH Means create in time because all creating must happen in time only things and states do not exists need to be created.
Nincs:The argument that Jehovah creates through preceding creations fails to address the specific role of Jesus as described in the New Testament. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being," affirming Jesus as the Creator, not a created being. Colossians 1:16-17 reiterates this by stating that "by Him all things were created" and "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," emphasizing His pre-existence and sustaining power over creation.
Me: The fact that the creation is "dia" him clearly indicates that he is NOT the creator there is not a SINGLE passage of scripture that speaks of creation as occurring "dia" JEHOVAH, if then he is not the creator then he must be part of the creation, colossians ch.1:15 clearly indicates that this is indeed the case and again we don't have to quibble as to whether this means he is the first creation or the foremost creation the two things are not mutually exclusive.
The JW argument incorrectly conflates "prototokos" with creation. While "prototokos" can denote priority, it does not necessarily imply that the one referred to is part of the created order. In biblical usage, it often signifies preeminence and authority. The use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 highlights Jesus' supreme position over creation, in line with the overall biblical portrayal of His divine nature and role as Creator.
Me:JWs take note of the uniform precedent of scripture of including the prototokos in the implicit or explicit set of which he is prototokos there is not a single scriptural precedent for doing otherwise if there was you and your confederates would have produced it by now.
Nincs:John 8:54 and Acts 3:13 highlight Jesus' relationship with the Father during His earthly ministry. These passages do not contradict His divine nature but emphasize His incarnate role and submission to the Father as part of the salvific plan. You completely unfoundedly confuse the Old Testament use of the word "the Father" with the way "the Father" is used in the context of the NT, when it speaks of him in opposition to the Son.
Me: actually both John ch.8:54 and Acts ch 3:13 speak of the realitionship of the God and Father of Jesus(JEHOVAH) To the nation of Israel he is the one an only God of Israel so this has nothing to do with your incarnation and further more Acts ch.3:13 is speaking of the state of affairs after Jesus' glorification.
And what about the spirit who was not incarnated, so the incarnation is a red herring .
Against Nincsnevem ad pluribus XII
Nincs:The assertion that "there is no such thing" (?!) as a non-temporal emergence is nothing more than proof by assertion, and a misunderstanding of metaphysical concepts. In Christian theology, specifically Nicene Christology, the Son's begetting by the Father is understood as an eternal generation, not a temporal event. This means it is a logical, not temporal, subalternation and relationship, affirming the co-eternity of the Son with the Father. "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." (Council of Florence) Orthodox Christology affirms the eternal, non-temporal begetting of the Son.
Me:if the Son has always existed then logically he never emerged whether his continued existence is dependent on another is a separate issue although such depedendence would render him inferior to the one God of scripture who is totally self sustaining and is in no ones debt.
Roman's ch.11:34,35,NKJV"“For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”"
It is a rhetorical question JEHOVAH is in no ones debt especially for his continued existence.
Nincs:Origen explains this as an eternal act within the Godhead:
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood."
"Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. "
Any Creed that can be accepted without logic can certainly be rejected on account of logic indeed the ones rejecting for logic sake have a better cause for rejecting,than those who accept despite a plain conflict with logic.
Emergence requires time and place preservation is not emergence, although the idea of a God that is not self-sustaining conflicts with the plain declaration of scripture re:the character of the one and only JEHOVAH the only true God.
Nincs:This affirms that the Logos (Word) existed eternally with the Father, beyond the confines of time.1 John 1:1 uses "apo archē" (from the beginning) to indicate the Logos’ existence before creation, aligning with John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word." This indicates a pre-temporal existence, not a temporal beginning. The claim that "apo archē" refers to a temporal beginning is refuted by the context of John 1:1-3, which clearly states that the Logos was with God and was God, emphasizing the eternal nature of the Word.
Me:Apo arkhe ALWAYS Means from the beginning never from eternity which would definitionally mean without beginning.
The fact that he is apo arkhe excludes his being from eternity, notice that JEHOVAH is NEVER spoken of as being "apo arkhe" because it would be absurd.
Nincs:The phrase "archē tēs ktiseōs" in Revelation 3:14 is often mistranslated in the NWT as "the beginning of the creation BY God." The correct translation, "the 'archē' of the creation OF God," indicates Christ as the source or origin of creation, not the first created being. The NWT's use of "by" instead of "of" is misleading. The Greek text does not support "hupo" (by), but rather "archē" denotes the origin or source, aligning with John 1:3 where all things were made through Him. It is also no coincidence that no one referred to Rev. 3:14 in the 4th century Arian debates, why? Because a native Greek speaker would never think of such nonsense, since all educated Greeks knew that the archē is the first principle from which creation flows, not the first piece of created things. Read this: https://justpaste.it/bv4ep
Me: I never quoted from the NWT why is it that you people are ALWAYS the First to bring up the NWT, the creation OF JEHOVAH Would logically have JEHOVAH as its source
Thus the context indicates the Jesus is starting point of JEHOVAH's Creation JEHOVAH himself being the source of that creation including Jesus which would match
Proverbs ch.8:24,25 which shows his expressed wisdom being brought forth/begotten all the information and energy in the creation being from JEHOVAH This is a fitting analogy
Your claim that a prophet cannot be equal to God and can be replaced overlooks the unique nature of Christ. Jesus is not just a prophet but the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14), fully divine and human.
Christ is actually superhuman having permanently sacrificed his human perfection for our sakes he has now been rewarded with superhuman perfection by his God and Father and still he acknowledges his God and Father as His superior
Revelation ch.3:12NKJV"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from MY GOD. And I will write on him My new name."
Nincs:Hebrews 1:3 states, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being," affirming the full deity of Christ. Unlike prophets, Jesus shares the same nature as the Father, making Him indispensable and uniquely qualified as the Redeemer.
Me: more trinitarian cope a representation us never equal to the thing it represents,that is why if someone destroys your photograph they will not be charged with murder the photo is but a representation of you, it is not the reality of you, the reality is always of superior worth, note too that he is a representation of THE God (JEHOVAH) see Hebrews ch.1:1 not merely the Father,though that would be O.K because only the father is the unqualified "ho theos" in the N.T
Sunday, 16 June 2024
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.
The mind that makes man "sapien" vs. Darwin.
Evolutionists Are Stymied by the Human Mind
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.
Saturday, 15 June 2024
On secular mythmaking.
Darwin’s Science and Storytelling
Resisting the scientific tendency to advance inflated knowledge-claims, the late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould (best known for proposing the theory of punctuated equilibrium in opposition to Darwinian gradualism) described scientific theories more modestly as “adaptive stories” told in the hope of being able to explain a variety of terrestrial phenomena. In this way a loose mass of data could be satisfyingly shaped into a coherent and intelligible narrative. In some cases, it could even be legitimate to classify such theories as just-so stories or myths, such being “the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the disparate and fragmented state of knowledge.”1 Such considerations, which underscore the role played by narrative in problem-solving, may provide some assistance in assessing the life, work and influence of Charles Darwin.
Darwin Mythologized
We have at our disposal a large storehouse of unimpeachably verifiable knowledge about Darwin, yet into that already capacious storehouse have inevitably crept some elements of hero worship and what is popularly termed “mythologization.” Darwin’s South Seas odyssey provides one example of that tendency. His five-year voyage aboard the Beagle in the 1830s was undoubtedly an eye-opening rite of passage for him but perhaps not quite so foundational to his intellectual development as is sometimes proposed. However formative that half decade was as a personal landmark, it did not provide a definitive foundation for the later development of his views on evolution.
For understandable reasons to do with the aesthetics of constructing a compelling narrative, on the other hand, the Darwin legend has it that his South American experiences were responsible for the formulation of a whole host of evolutionary discoveries. According to the conventional, partly mythicized story the intrepid explorer returned from having garnered the secrets of nature in the exotic realms of the South Seas to share these secrets with his fellow men and women. Such a reading provides an undeniably good imaginative fit with the heroic pattern of a “mythic universal” figure like Prometheus who in Greek mythology brought down fire to earth from the abode of the Greek gods to share its boons with mortals. Resonating with people at a subconscious level, it is the kind of stirring story audiences like to hear, and reporters and other storytellers often have eager recourse to such archetypal narrative patterns. Little though many might know of Greek mythology, such ingrained narrative schemata nevertheless seem to be all but hard-wired into audience expectations of what a “proper” heroic tale should consist of.2
Narrative Tropes
Misia Landau once made the cautionary point that even discussion of the life and works of prominent scientists can suffer from some surprising interferences from folklore and myth.3 She recommended that scientists should be especially aware of age-old and familiar narrative structures since they could be used at some barely apprehended level to embellish and potentially skew the presentation of objective data. Rather like the way we are tempted to embellish stories in everyday life to amuse our interlocutors, she argued, the choice of narrative mode used to explain evidence can predispose the reporter towards readily intelligible patterns of understanding, to the detriment of the unique particularities of the person or phenomenon about whom evidence is being presented.
Hence in the case of the Darwin biography, the Great Journey of Discovery makes for a good story, but once denuded of some of its fictional and mythic accretions, legend and reality do not invariably mesh together. In their study and edition of Darwin’s account of his sea journeying and researches, Janet Browne and Michael Neve point out that Darwin’s ideas did not come to him from his experiences in the field in the South American rainforests.4 In fact, the true story of the formation of Darwinian evolutionary theories had little to do with romantic discoveries in exotic locations. Real life, as Humphrey Bogart once observed, makes for lousy plots, and in Darwin’s case his true-life experience of discovery had little enough to do with the finely honed romance narrative that gradually developed around him.
Remarkably, Darwin’s evolutionary ideas did not derive from any meticulously fact-checked empirical observations in the South Seas or indeed from any other region of the world. Rather did they grow in a series of ad hoc, random installments, the result of his ability to weave together ideas culled from others, not all of them naturalists. As is clear from his explicit hommage to Thomas Malthus as well as from his inadequately acknowledged debt to his grandfather, Erasmus, his “discoveries” were in truth a collage of different hints picked up from his reading or from personal contacts.
The Sage of Down House
Mighty Prophet! Seer blest!
On whom those truths do rest,
Which we are toiling all our lives to find
It was not just the South American voyage which lent itself to mythologization, for even Darwin’s life after his return from South America has found itself fitted into a questionable fictional niche. The poet William Wordsworth wrote the celebrated famous lines cited above in reference to his conviction that the early stage of our childhood grants us uniquely penetrating insights into the nature of reality which “fade into the light of day” as we mature. A comparably rose-tinted perception of Darwin as seer or guru evolved in the public mind after the first decade of criticism of his Origin of Specieshad subsided.6 For thereafter, to transpose the matter into the kind of journalistic terms rightly deprecated by Landau, the Darwinian narrative seemed to establish itself as nothing less than the story of how one man and his grandson found the solution to the world’s most impenetrable existential mysteries — and all within less than a century. In a loosely associative but emotionally compelling sense, Erasmus Darwin was to fulfil the narrative role of a John the Baptist figure. Erasmus after all had been the first7 to advance the hypothesis, albeit unproven, of how humankind had evolved naturally and sans cosmic middleman from the state of unicellular beginnings to that of supremely complex and self-aware beings.
Nevertheless, Erasmus could play only the part of minor figure or, in dramaturgical parlance, deuteragonist, in this intellectual drama since his ideas had at the end of the day issued only from a speculative hunch. The voyage of discovery must continue with the grandson at the helm as he cast about for some material mechanism (initially he did not know what mechanism) which could underpin the grandpaternal thought experiment with logical support. The answer he alighted on was of course natural selection, which would have doubtless struck many as the final narrative dénouement of a long story with its origins in the previous century. With a sense of relief, many must have thought, the final curtain could now be lowered on to the stage. Closure had been attained.
The Story Evolves
The story that Charles had continued through to its conclusion in 1859 had been vicariously experienced and in that sense co-rehearsed by a number of prior and present generations of Charles’s peers. Ever since Erasmus’s views became widely known about in the 1790s, many would have been moved to play the slowly developing story to themselves in their own minds, not least because what readers rightly understood to be a further instalment of the story was published by Scottish publisher Robert Chambers in 1844 under the title Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.8 Chambers’s volume was to become a consciousness-raising exercise sans pareil as he laced together what Erasmus Darwin had written with more modern cosmological studies in his attempt to explain the world to Victorians in wholly material terms. As the late Tom Wolfe noted, the volume became such a hit/succès de scandale that it “lit up the sky,” transfixing a generation which included Tennyson, Gladstone, Disraeli, Abraham Lincoln, and John Stuart Mill. Queen Victoria and Albert even took it in turns to read out portions of the text to each other.9
As Stephen Prickett observed, “no intellectual revolution happens all at once.” The traditional belief in the uniqueness of humanity was already being treated with some skepticism by the middle of the 18th century. Darwin did no more than administer the coup de grâce.10 Hence many readers at the time would have been, in modern parlance, “invested in the outcome” that Charles provided for them in 1859. It had in fact been ardently anticipated by the Victorian public for whom the deep secrets of human existence had represented a seemingly ineradicable “mystery of mysteries.” Just as in the early 16th century the reformer Martin Luther had justly claimed that his deep preoccupation with the Bible was also the concern of all Germans (“My business is everybody’s business”), so the question of the origins of human and animal life was an unremitting matter of curiosity and concern to Victorians.
Darwin’s bringing closure to that unsolved mystery was truly a consummation devoutly to be desired, and doubtless would have been experienced by some as a form of catharsis in terms of its perceived liberation from theocratic authority. J. W. Burrow succinctly explained this Darwinian revolution in Victorian views as the bringing to an end of countless centuries of more or less animistic attitudes to nature. He continues,
Darwin had asked in his 1842 sketch, comparing the state of biology with physics, “What would the Astronomer say to the doctrine that the planets moved [not] according to the laws of gravitation, but from the Creator having willed each separate planet to move in its particular orbit.”
After 1859 biologists no longer needed to say things of that kind and nor did anyone else.11
Enlightenment Dreaming
Many then will have looked upon the publication of the Origin of Species as the culmination of a daring intellectual adventure whose motto could very credibly have been the Enlightenment rallying cry of sapere aude — “dare to know” (as opposed to merely believe). The erstwhile mystery of evolution could now be safely attributed to intelligible processes of cosmic automatism — although the story ends on a somewhat bathetic note since the precise modalities of this claimed process, being quite literally lost in the mists of time, were not then and never could be amenable to fact-checking.
Notwithstanding that inconvenient truth, however, the works of both Darwins essentially provided an alternative explanatory narrative which challenged what many were beginning to think of as the “outworn creed” of Genesis. Nobody perceived the deeper implications of the Darwinian credo better than one academic who was privy to an advance publication of the views of Darwin and Wallace in 1858 at a meeting of the Linnaean Society in London (where both men’s views were given equal time).12 Reportedly, most learned attendees that day remained strangely underwhelmed by the intellectually incendiary tidings they were hearing, so that it was left to Professor Samuel Haughton of the University of Dublin to connect the dots. Haughton’s view of what was referred to at the time as the development hypothesis was anything but positive and entirely resisted the intellectual hoopla of those willing Darwin on and accepting his views uncritically. He concluded his review in the following terms:
There is no folly that human fancy can devise, when truth has ceased to be of primary importance, and right reason and sound logic have been discarded, that has not been produced, and preached as a new revelation.13
Science and Fiction
It is noteworthy that Haughton used the terms “preached” and “revelation.” For these terms were particularly prescient in that he could foresee that both Darwin and Wallace were implicitly announcing an ersatz, quasi-Comtean gospel of creation built on a purely secular foundation. As Haughton in his reference to discarding “right reason” also realized, a work ostensibly inspired by the Enlightenment watchword of reason had committed the greatest logical solecism it is possible to commit, which is the proposition that everything can come from nothing. For Haughton this was not revelation but arrant credulity at best and, at worst, hocus pocus. He did not call out the views of Wallace and Darwin for their opposition to religion but to reason. He was invoking the same terms as Wallace and Darwin but turning the terms against them by arraigning them for a lack of common-or-garden logic. His attack was mounted on purely rational grounds, and could just as credibly come from the pen of any rationalist philosopher, then as now.
For the fact of the matter was that in the midst of all his enthralling storytelling, Darwin had made the wholly counterintuitive claim that things could be created without a creator (which explains his famous fantasy about a miraculous chemical reaction in a small warm pond producing inchoate life-forms theoretically capable of future development). For in that way he was setting himself up in opposition not so much to religion as to the two-millennia-old and never before disputed wisdom of ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing), replacing it with its obverse, namely, all things (can) come from nothing. This was a rather conspicuous flaw in his overall argument, and it is not surprising that the truth-value of that paradoxical assertion has remained a focus of debate up to the present day. Routinely defended with great vigor, it can nevertheless seem to disinterested onlookers with no particular stake in enforcing an atheistic worldview more like a materialist fantasy than a sober piece of biological science. In fact, the very stridency of many who now class themselves as evolutionary psychologists (aka sociobiologists) has been a matter of some remark. Dorothy Nelkins for instance noted,
So ardent are their efforts, it is almost as if they aspire to assure the Darwinian fitness of the theory — to assure its survival in the world of cosmic ideas.14
Such forcefulness would be understandable (albeit somewhat boorish) if Darwinian theory were anything like the “slam dunk” the evolutionary psychologists perceive it to be, but that is not the case. Those who had originally greeted the Origin in a mood of joyous epiphany had neglected to notice (or else had elected not to notice) the theory’s lack of logical foundation. Darwin himself fell afoul of a similar lack of what Haughton termed right reason when Sir Charles Lyell had to point out to him on grounds of elementary logic that there could be no such thing as “natural selection,” only natural preservation. Darwin had to climb down on his use of terminology but never seems to have fully comprehended that preservation is by simple definition not a dynamic force with the kind of necessary forward momentum (much less inbuilt telos) which could create new species.
The famous microbes-to-man narrative, then, seems to rest on grounds as shaky as the fantasy of life’s supposed emergence from a small warm pond (or geothermal vent or whatever). Furthermore, since the much bruited “natural selection” looks to be a quite literally impossible phenomenon in the form envisaged by Darwin, what price evolution itself? For natural selection has since 1859 been seen as the single proof that evolution occurred at all. Can it be the case that both natural selection and evolution are simply stories we have been rather too complacently telling each other for almost two centuries? Can the miraculous-seeming design of Planet Earth really be the result of undirected natural formations? Is it even possible for design to be somehow mimicked sans designer? How does that claimed “mimicry”work precisely? Darwinian theory appears to pose more intractable questions than it provides easy answers.
Even Darwin’s proverbial bulldog, Thomas Huxley, in company with the first supposedly atheist Member of Parliament, Charles Bradlaugh, loudly disavowed the label atheist which in today’s world is bandied about with such uncritical bravura. Both men observed that it would be absurd to deny the existence of an entity of which they confessed to having no conception (Huxley would go on to give wide currency to the term agnostic). Darwin too, unlike his grandfather, who was a proselytizer for the atheist cause, even latterly called himself a Theist (Darwin’s capital T). As J. W. Burrow remarked in his Introduction to his edition of the first incarnation of the Origin,
By the time that Darwin came to write Origin he had come to the conclusion, which he retained to the end of his life, that questions of ultimate cause and purposes were an insoluble mystery.15
That seems a soberer and more considered conclusion than that offered by many of his intellectual legatees who have chosen to stride out well beyond the cautious perimeter that Darwin himself marked out. In so doing, to give Darwin the last word, they have surely strayed ultra vires: beyond the powers of humans to go or know.
Notes
Stephen Prickett, Narrative, Religion and Science. Fundamentalism Versus Irony (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), p. 18.
See Maud Bodkin, Archetypal Patterns in Poetry [1927] (New York: Vintage, 1958).
Misia Landau, Narratives of Human Evolution (Yale: Yale UP, 1993).
“The received image of Darwin voyaging alone through vast turbulent seas of thought as he paced the deck of the Beagle is a fantasy.” See Voyage of the Beagle: Charles Darwin’s Journal of Researches, edited by Janet Browne and Michael Neve (London; Penguin, 1989), p. 2.
William Wordsworth, “Ode on Intimations of Immortality,” in Selections from William Wordsworth, edited by Sir Ifor Evans (London: Methuen, 1983), p.107 (lines 114-16).
See my account of initial scientific opposition in Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2021), pp. 61-7.
Although he will probably have known of classical predecessors such as the atomist philosophers, Epicurus and Lucretius, so-called because they taught that the world had come about by accident as the result of various different configurations of atoms. It should also be noted that some French natural scientists (philosophes) were advancing similar views at about the same time as Erasmus.
Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (London: Churchill, 1844).
I am indebted for this information to Tom Wolfe’s The Kingdom of Speech (London: Penguin, 2016), p. 8.
Stephen Prickett, Narrative, Religion and Science, p. 131.
J. W. Burrow, Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968), Introduction, p. 48.
“On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection,” by Darwin and Wallace, communicated by Sir Charles Lyell, Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society, no numeration, August 1858 (papers read out on July 1, 1858).
See http://darwinonline.org.uk/converted/pdf/1860_Review_Origin_Biogenesis_Haughton_A1128.pdf (pp. 1-9, citation 7).
Dorothy Nelkins, “Less selfish than sacred? Genes and the religious impulse in evolutionary psychology,” in Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Hilary and Steven Rose (London: Vintage, 2001), pp. 13-27, citation 14.
J. W. Burrow, Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species, Introduction, p. 24.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)