From: lakr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 18:56:21 EST
> At 12:06 PM 2/10/98 -0800, lakr wrote:
> >Jonathan, this is precisely the point I am trying to get a handle on.
> >What time period ARXH refers to is not as important as what it means to be
> >'EN ARXH'. Were Ruth and Naomi in your example above in Bethlehem
> >prior to the harvest, or did they arrive just in time ? Would the
> >verse make any sense at all, if they happened to live in Bethlehem
> >and were already there ? I understand that Greek prepositions have
> >a very, very wide range of usages, but if one is _in_ a time period
> >can it be said that one _preceded_ the time period ?
> I do not believe that EN states anything about the state before or after,
> though I suspect that there may be a pragmatic implicature. In the Ruth
> passage, it is explicitly stated that they came at this time, and were not
> there beforehand, so the context would cancel such a pragmatic implicature.
> In Genesis 1:1 or John 1:1, there is no hint of a transition leading up to
> the time that Jesus was there at the beginning, and since all things were
> created by means of the LOGOS, I have to assume that the LOGOS existed when
> the first thing was created.
> Are you saying that the LOGOS came into being *before* the first thing was
> created? If so, John 1:1 does not tell us about this.
Jonathan, If 'the beginning' at John 1:1 has the same reference
as the one at Genesis 1:1, and I think this is likely, then
there was a host of other spirit creatures who were created before
the physical heavens and earth of Ge 1:1.
The 'things' or 'PANTA DI' AUTOU' which are referenced in the prologue
would _not_ include these angels, in fact the book of Job shows them
'shouting with applause' at this creation.
I agree with you that John 1:1 does not tell us about what came into
being *before* this time. For this we must look elsewhere.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT