Re: John 1:1

Date: Sat Jun 20 1998 - 13:49:31 EDT wrote:

SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:
is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was a
according to the text itself, theological implications aside?

> Second question, one I couldn't remember with the first post:
> EN ARCHE - does the word arche denote the absolute beginning
> of something, or is there something here that could render it as some
> kind of beginning that happened after the inital creation of
> space/time? i.e. the word was with God in the beginning of
> everything, or the beginning of everything ELSE? Referring directly
> to ideas of the "creation" of Jesus somewhere in that verse.
> Do I make any sense?
> Kevin

Dear Kevin ~

These are two of the biggest dead horse issues that exist on this
list, engendering all manner of controversy and conflict among
competing and strongly held views by good folks who passionately
insist on being right in their understanding. Dig into the archives,
spent some time there, in thought and prayer, and if you can come up
with an approach to the issue that might give peaceful resolution, I,
for one, will eagerly be attentive.

John is utterly enigmatic here ~ The lack of an article with ARQH
*seems* to indicate that it is non-ostensive, but many think that it
*is* ostensive, and lack of an article with QEOS *seems* to indicate
that John differentiates between it and that which is with an article
in the gospel, but many here, who are better students than I am, read
it otherwise. The grammatical does not compel either understanding,
and one's theology ends up being determinative of one's grammatic

The archives really are the best place to watch the continued beating
of this dead horse ~ I just don't have the stomach for it...

George Blaisdell

b-greek home page:
To post a message to the list,
To subscribe,
To unsubscribe,[]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:49 EDT