Re: Eimi and Time

From: Apokrisis1@aol.com
Date: Tue Jul 15 1997 - 11:04:48 EDT


In a message dated 97-07-14 11:51:31 EDT, you write:

<<
 Yes, but that way you just end up in a circular argument. If 'beginning'
 is simply a reference to a time before physical matter was created then it
 is not the beginning - John would not use ARCHE. You seem to be suggesting
 two phases of creation - a phase of creating spiritual and angelic beings
 and then a stage of creating physical beings. I don't see how you can
 cover the first stage with the word "ARCHE" it just doesn't seem right.>>

I think you miss the point, Pete. "Begnning" is _not_ "simply a reference to
a time before physical matter was created." I believe it it is inclusive of
physical _and_ non-physical matter. The beginning is not a _point_, but a
time frame, which is why God and the Logos are said to be "in" it. Of course,
I also suggested that "beginning," as used in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 is
restricted to the creation of physical things; but then you still have to
account for the creation of spirit beings, which then preceeded the
"beginning," showing that time began _before_ the "beginning." Either way you
look at it, spirit beings preexisted the beginning of John 1:1.

<< Moreover what's all this about angels anyway? John 1 says that the Logos
 created all things - in fact nothing was made that has been made without
 him. Therefore angelic beings must come in at John 1:3 where the verb
 changes to GINESQAI. The Job reading is irrelevant.>>

It is not irrelevant at all, Pete. For the _context_ specifically limits our
point of reference to Genesis 1:1, which speaks of the creation of all
physical_ things. Thus, since Job 38:7 tells us that the angels were there
when these _physical_ things were made, they, too, were in the beginning, and
shouted joyfully when the heavens and earth were made. Additionally, John 1:3
does not say that the Logos created anything, but that all things were
created _through_ him. BIG difference.

<< There is no need to give a temporal distinction to EIMI in John 1:1-2.
  John is referring to a pre-creation, pre-BRSHT period (time-speak again!)
 and therefore uses a-temporal EIMI and then when he turns to look at Gen
 1.1 and the creation of all things he turns to GINESQAI for the temporal
 connection. John 1:1-2 provide details about states of being (EINAI), John
 1:3ff provides the dynamic of things coming-to-be (GINESQAI).>>

Now that's quite a circle, Pete. You assuming that which you have yet to
prove. The very point in dispute is what "beginning" refers to. We both agree
that this is related to Genesis 1:1, so where are you getting "the creation
of all things" (including non-physical things, I assume) from? Genesis 1:1
speaks only of _physical_ things, as does John 1:1.

Greg Stafford
University of Wisconsin



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:22 EDT