John 1:1

[Danno2281]

I have found that many don’t understand that wisdom in Hebrew is not the mere possession of knowledge, but the practical demonstration of knowledge in some sort of skilled craft.

In Scripture the Hebrew hokma (wisdom) was used of the practical application of knowledge in some work or activity. Here is a good example:

NJB Exodus 35:30 Moses then said to the Israelites, 'Look, Yahweh has singled out Bezalel son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 31 and has filled him with the spirit of God in **wisdom, knowledge and skill in every kind of craft: 32 in designing and carrying out work in gold and silver and bronze**, 33 in cutting stones to be set, in wood carving and in executing every kind of work.

We might not think of wisdom in English as what it takes to perform crafts, but in Hebrew this was so.

With his first creation Yahweh demonstrated his Wisdom in this way for the first time:

NJB Proverbs 8:22 '**Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning**, before the oldest of his works. 23 From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being. 24 The deep was not, when I was born, nor were the springs with their abounding waters. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; 26 before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world. 27 When he fixed the heavens firm, I was there, when he drew a circle on the surface of the deep, 28 when he thickened the clouds above, when the sources of the deep began to swell, 29 when he assigned the sea its boundaries -- and the waters will not encroach on the shore -- when he traced the foundations of the earth, 30** I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence**,

Interestingly, Wisdom Personified as the Son of God here is also depicted as the master craftsman. He is himself displaying Wisdom as depicted in the Hebrew language.

Once one understands what Wisdom means in Hebrew it is easy to understand how God could be without Wisdom in the sense of making something.

That is not to say he was not capable prior to this, but he demonstrated it for the first time when he created his Son.

You carefully avoid what was demonstrated - that in your position there was a time (again subjecting the Eternal Who Is from everkasting to everlasting to time) when the Father was without Wisdom, without that practical knowledge, and this why it is so important that we realize that our temporal constructs fail in dealing with the eternal. You are insistent in forcing your temporal considerations upon God’s timelessness. In other words, you have denied that God is Pure Act and made Him capable of change. You use the term God, but, like the Mormons, rob the term of true divinity

 

[Dan_Parker]

You carefully avoid what was demonstrated - that in your position there was a time (again subjecting the Eternal Who Is from everkasting to everlasting to time) when the Father was without Wisdom, without that practical knowledge, and this why it is so important that we realize that our temporal constructs fail in dealing with the eternal. You are insistent in forcing your temporal considerations upon God’s timelessness. In other words, you have denied that God is Pure Act and made Him capable of change. You use the term God, but, like the Mormons, rob the term of true divinity

In Hebrew practical wisdom means making something. What would that be? When did God first create? If we accept big bang cosmology the universe is about 15 billion years old. If the angels were created around the same time then God would have demonstrated wisdom in the Hebrew sense at that time for the first time.

I don’t understand why you consider this robbing God of divinity. The creation of the spirit realm and the physical realm is the first time God would have created.

What else is there? What did God create before these things? If you cannot answer that, then you have no real basis for disputing my analysis.

 

[twb1621]

We are not attacking the Watchtower here, this is not the subject of discussion in this thread.

My devoted brother, Recognize that each person is enabled with his or her own gift in the defense of the word of God. We are not attacking an innocent publication that attempts to spread the true gospel. What we are doing and have an obligation to God our Savior to do is defend the deceitful promotion of the distorted word of God. When a person enters a gathering with the expressed purpose to promote the beliefs printed in a publication that claims itself to be the true word of God and the replacement for the Holy Bible by means of distorting the inspired word of God recognized as such for more than 3000 years and refuses to converse with those who are direct and offer scriptural support showing the distorted violations and perverted teachings of such a group, there is no just cause to be politically correct. There is only the truthful defense of the word of God that ALL may see the truth who see from the wings trying to learn from these discussions. The intentionally distorted interpretations of the JW have been proven many times here and the heresies of Russell and his counterparts have been scripturally shown as directly against the word of God. This has taken place throughout this forum and each topic is related to the other. If one provides the proof of this, one is ignored and the manipulation of others continues. This is in defense of the word of God and Jesus who they deny to be God, not an offense to anyone in a forum of their own belief system. I pray you understand the intentions of all of us who are sincere here. I appreciate your devotion and patience.

 

[twb1621]

At best what you have is to force the temporal language to be metaphorical in some sense in order to make the text read in a way that is consistent with your theology. That is why some Fathers decided to make this a description of the incarnation, but that has its own set of problems.

Do you agree that if we take the text as it is written, temporal language and all, that it support my view? You must, for you argue against the normative sense for these words.

Dan, you keep running from this but all I have been requesting is you provide your credentials so they may be compared to those of the scholars in their appropriate fields who have interpreted the scriptures for well over 2000 years. If you have equal or better credentials and can justify the recent changes in scripture you support yourself with against the historically validated interpretations of scripture, then you have credibility to question the translations and interpretations. This would include masters’ degrees in accent languages, ancient history, ancient civilizations, writing forms archeological dating and proofing and just a few others. Groups of men specialized in their own fields who in many occasions gathered to perform this task, and men regardless of their faith or if they have a faith.

 

[Tomster]

The Jews have/had a sacred tradition as well. But if one holds that tradition over Sacred Scripture what one has will be taken away from them. That is what happened to the Jews, as Jesus said: You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Mt 15:6)

Dan,

The revelation made to the Apostles, by Christ and by the Holy Spirit whom he sent to teach them “ALL TRUTH,” was final, definitive. To that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever wiil be, added. The duty of the Apostles and their successors was clear: to guard jealously the precious thing committed to their care and to transmit it whole and entire to posterity. “Therefore, brethren,” says St. Paul, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14) “Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me in faith and in the love which is in Jesus Christ . . . The things which thou hast HEARD of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2) Hence this important consequence: when the Church teaches that a truth -e.g., the doctrine of original sin - is revealed by God, she does not mean that God has just now revealed it to her; but, in virtue of her officeas the infallible custodian and interpreter of God’s word, she declares that this truth is contained, and always has been contained, in the deposit of revelation committed to her care. In other words, when the Church teaches a revealed truth she draws upon the “sources” of revelation.

What are these sources? It would be true, in a sense, to say that there is but one source of revelation - namely, divine Tradition - understanding thereby the body of revealed truth handed down from the Apostles; and it is in this sense that St. Paul uses the word when he urges Timothy to to “hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or our epistle.” Nevertheless, since a great and important part of that tradition was committed to writing and is contained in the inspired books of Holy Scripture, it is the custom of the Church to distinguish two sources of revelation, Tradition and Scripture, the former name being reserved for that body of revealed truth which was not commited to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but has been handed down through the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tomster]

My devoted brother, Recognize that each person is enabled with his or her own gift in the defense of the word of God. We are not attacking an innocent publication that attempts to spread the true gospel. What we are doing and have an obligation to God our Savior to do is defend the deceitful promotion of the distorted word of God. When a person enters a gathering with the expressed purpose to promote the beliefs printed in a publication that claims itself to be the true word of God and the replacement for the Holy Bible by means of distorting the inspired word of God recognized as such for more than 3000 years and refuses to converse with those who are direct and offer scriptural support showing the distorted violations and perverted teachings of such a group, there is no just cause to be politically correct. There is only the truthful defense of the word of God that ALL may see the truth who see from the wings trying to learn from these discussions. The intentionally distorted interpretations of the JW have been proven many times here and the heresies of Russell and his counterparts have been scripturally shown as directly against the word of God. This has taken place throughout this forum and each topic is related to the other. If one provides the proof of this, one is ignored and the manipulation of others continues. This is in defense of the word of God and Jesus who they deny to be God, not an offense to anyone in a forum of their own belief system. I pray you understand the intentions of all of us who are sincere here. I appreciate your devotion and patience.

twb1621,

Getting back to the original topic, John 1:1, it appears that our esteemed adversary, Dan, has not taken a closer look at Matthew 26: 57-75, Mark 14:53:72; Luke 22:54:71 and John 28: 12-27 for quite some time.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

The revelation made to the Apostles, by Christ and by the Holy Spirit whom he sent to teach them “ALL TRUTH,” was final, definitive. To that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever wiil be, added. The duty of the Apostles and their successors was clear: to guard jealously the precious thing committed to their care and to transmit it whole and entire to posterity. “Therefore, brethren,” says St. Paul, “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14) “Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me in faith and in the love which is in Jesus Christ . . . The things which thou hast HEARD of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2) Hence this important consequence: when the Church teaches that a truth -e.g., the doctrine of original sin - is revealed by God, she does not mean that God has just now revealed it to her; but, in virtue of her officeas the infallible custodian and interpreter of God’s word, she declares that this truth is contained, and always has been contained, in the deposit of revelation committed to her care. In other words, when the Church teaches a revealed truth she draws upon the “sources” of revelation.

What are these sources? It would be true, in a sense, to say that there is but one source of revelation - namely, divine Tradition - understanding thereby the body of revealed truth handed down from the Apostles; and it is in this sense that St. Paul uses the word when he urges Timothy to to “hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or our epistle.” Nevertheless, since a great and important part of that tradition was committed to writing and is contained in the inspired books of Holy Scripture, it is the custom of the Church to distinguish two sources of revelation, Tradition and Scripture, the former name being reserved for that body of revealed truth which was not commited to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but has been handed down through the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich says of the word rendered “tradition” that it is “Of Paul’s teaching 2 Th 3:6.” I can think of the following as applicable to tradition:

1. Sacred truths in Paul’s letters to the congregation.
2. Sacred truths verbally transmitted.
3. Routine administrative matters in Paul’s letters to the congregation.
4. Routine administrative matters verbally transmitted.

You evidently promote the idea that there was a separate body of doctrinal teaching that was always verbal and never written. However Paul did not write about every subject to each congregation. So when he visited one congregation he could verbally relate a subject that he wrote to another congregation.

What proof do you have that the tradition is to be interpreted as you assert?

 

[twb1621]

Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich says of the word rendered “tradition” that it is “Of Paul’s teaching 2 Th 3:6.” I can think of the following as

Scripture doesn’t say what scripture should contain but we believe the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit lead the men of the early Catholic Church to establish and introduce it correctly. We can not deny they were of the Catholic Church due history and more so due to the fact it was at the direction of pope Damasus. Again, it doesn’t say what scripture should contain but If in fact scripture was to be limited to a specific written decree, it certainly would have declared it so because it would have been intended that way and taught that way to the apostles. it does say it doesn’t contain all there is and I have presented several verses that prove these unwritten traditions exist. To still question there existence is no longer questioning the Catholic Faith but rather questioning Scripture itself.

“It is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churches. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).”
Source; catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

If you truly accept scripture is “God breathed”, you must have faith and accept all scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:3,11, 2 Timothy 2:2, 1 Corinthians 11:2. The word “tradition” comes from the Latin meaning “handing over”. Sacred Scripture is “the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” We further believe that Holy Tradition “transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scripturesalone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

Scripture** provides the inspired word of God from the apostles in written form.**
Tradition** provides the teachings from the apostles supported by and in unison with the written word just as you would attend one class in school to learn a subject correctly presented by a teacher.**

---

Church Teaching is the teacher, = Magisterium.

Deposit of faith = the combined program of the text book and the lesson plan.

Continued next post

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post.

2 Thessalonians CH2; 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thessaloians CH3; 5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. 6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

*1 Corinthians CH11; 1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. *2 1 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

1 Corinthians 10:* 16 **The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?(Note: Specifically referring to the apostles liturgical celebration of the Eucharist – A tradition) 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. *(Note: Refers to the one body of Christ, His Church)

*1 Corinthians 11:*23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (Note: Tradition established by Jesus Himself)

2 Peter CH1; 16 “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming 9 of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father 10* when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We 11 ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable (“we” = the apostles and the succession of His Church). You will do well to be attentive to it (teachings of His Church), as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.** 20 12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation…”*

2 Peter CH3; 15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction (no distinction between intensions), just as they do the other scriptures. 17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

John CH16; 12 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 5 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming*. *

Ephesians CH4; 2With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body (the Church) and one Spirit (Holy Spirit); as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism***.”***

There are direct messages here that are not parables and leave no room for error.
need more? No problem… Peace

 

[Danno2281]

In Hebrew practical wisdom means making something. What would that be? When did God first create? If we accept big bang cosmology the universe is about 15 billion years old. If the angels were created around the same time then God would have demonstrated wisdom in the Hebrew sense at that time for the first time.

I don’t understand why you consider this robbing God of divinity. The creation of the spirit realm and the physical realm is the first time God would have created.

What else is there? What did God create before these things? If you cannot answer that, then you have no real basis for disputing my analysis.

4

 

[SimonArizona]

SimonArizona:
No one but God can ever eternally possess something, or ever eternally create something.

Dan:

Agreed, but Proverbs 8 does not describe God as eternally possessing something or eternally creating something.

 

[Danno2281]

4

Dan, I have no idea where you derive your concept of wisdom, but it certainly does not conform to the Hebrew mind. Solomon was granted wisdom that he might judge rightly, not that he might produce any prioduct or fashion any thing. Your reference to Bezalel reads very diffetrently with the addition of a comma after wisdom, does it not? We are called to be “wise as serpents”(Mt.10:16b), and there is certainly no product being fashioned in Christ’s command.
Wisdom is presented as a property, a mental faculty, a posession if you will, and to say that God created His own mental faculty is to demean His deity, for He would have been without it prior to its creation. You have made the “creation” of the Word contemporaneous with the creation of the world. Jesus had His glory before the world existed.(Jn.17:5)

 

[Tomster]

continued from previous post.

*2 Thessalonians CH2; 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 *Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

*2 Thessaloians CH3; 5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. 6 *We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

*1 Corinthians CH11; 1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. *2 1 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

1 Corinthians 10:* 16 **The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?(Note: Specifically referring to the apostles liturgical celebration of the Eucharist – A tradition) 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. *(Note: Refers to the one body of Christ, His Church)

*1 Corinthians 11:*23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (Note: Tradition established by Jesus Himself)

2 Peter CH1; 16 “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming 9 of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father 10* when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We 11 ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable (“we” = the apostles and the succession of His Church). You will do well to be attentive to it (teachings of His Church), as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.** 20 12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation…”*

2 Peter CH3; 15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction (no distinction between intensions), just as they do the other scriptures. 17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

John CH16; 12 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 5 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming*. *

Ephesians CH4; 2With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body (the Church) and one Spirit (Holy Spirit); as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism***.”***

There are direct messages here that are not parables and leave no room for error.
need more? No problem… Peace

And a big thank you very much!

 

[Dan_Parker]

twb1621,

Getting back to the original topic, John 1:1, it appears that our esteemed adversary, Dan, has not taken a closer look at Matthew 26: 57-75, Mark 14:53:72; Luke 22:54:71 and John 28: 12-27 for quite some time.

I am listening. However merely citing verses with no explanation is not helpful.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan:
SimonArizona, for some reason the way you quoted made it very difficult for me to respond to you point by point, so I will summarize.

SimonArizona
Yes it does, “Yhwh possessed me…I was applied eternally” (NIV) and that has been the Catholic understanding for 2000 years.

Dan:
No the word never means to merely have something in one’s possession. It means to have something that one got by creating, begetting, purchasing, etc. Here are all the examples in the Hebrew text. Please show me one which means that someone is in the possession of something they always had. Its just not there.

Gen. 4:1; 14:19, 22; 25:10; 33:19; 39:1; 41:5, 22; 47:19f, 22f; 49:30; 50:13; Exod. 15:16; 21:2; 25:31ff, 35f; 30:23; 37:17ff, 21f; Lev. 22:11; 25:14f, 28, 30, 44f, 50; 27:24; Deut. 28:68; 32:6; Jos. 16:8; 17:9; 19:28; 24:32; Ruth 4:4f, 8ff; 2 Sam. 12:3; 24:21, 24; 1 Ki. 14:15; 16:24; 2 Ki. 12:13; 18:21; 22:6; 1 Chr. 21:24; 2 Chr. 34:11; Neh. 5:8, 16; Job 31:22; 40:21; Ps. 68:31; 74:2; 78:54; 139:13; Prov. 1:5; 4:5, 7; 8:22; 15:32; 16:16; 17:16; 18:15; 19:8; 20:14; 23:23; Eccl. 2:7; Cant. 4:14; Isa. 1:3; 11:11; 19:6; 24:2; 35:7; 36:6; 42:3; 43:24; 46:6; Jer. 6:20; 13:1f, 4; 19:1; 32:7ff, 15, 25, 43f; Ezek. 7:12; 27:19; 29:6; 40:3, 5ff; 41:8; 42:16ff; Amos 8:6; Zech. 11:5; 13:5

SimonArizona
It says he qanah something. If it read bara, thats a different story. qanah allows for begetting or possessing (thank you Holy Spirit). When did Yhwh come into possession of Wisdom? O’lam everlastingly, eternally. Did the Jews who originally recceived this inspired text interpret this to mean that at one time God did not possess Wisdom?

Dan:
Remember the example of the eternal mountains being born? You make a distinction between creation and begetting that is not warranted. I grant you that BARA most of the time means Creation Ex Nilhilo. In fact in the examples that are not, for example the creation of Adam and Eve (Eve came from Adam’s rib) one can understand BARA because God created from nothing what was used to make and form man.

However just because BARA always carries the connotation of making something from nothing, does not mean that other words are not also used to mean the same thing. The fact that mountains were born is a good example of this. We know they were created, but Scripture says they were born. It is really the same thing.

SimonArizona
Circles. The word means possess. IT does not distinguish the length of possession, the next verse does that. What is the one word that means “eternally possess.” there is none because it doesn’t exist.

Dan:
If quanah means possess, they why didn’t anyone inform the translators of the Catholic NJB and NAB? It obviously does not mean possess, or that would be the only word ever used to render quanah. It CAN mean to possess something that someone has acquired in some fashion. Show me an example of quanah which does not fit this profile. I searched the Hebrew and output them above for your convenience.

SimonArizona
What is the disagreement here? When did the begetting happen? Olam.

Dan:
The disagreement is what olam means in this context. You have already agreed that there is temporal language used in this passage. That means that you cannot insist on the philosophical sense for eternity here. Olam here means a long, long time ago. The fact that it is FROM olam and not merely olam also militates against your viewpoint.

SimonArizona:
It is not impossible for God to eternally fashion something. Is it?
That is not creations only implication. Especially when “everlasting, and eternal” are swimming around the subject and describing it.

Dan:
It is not “everlasting” or “eternal” that is in the Hebrew text and it is not “swimming around the subject”. It is olam, and those words are only one sense among several in Hebrew. You insist on the sense that you need for your theology but the syntax and context including the temporal language strongly argue against your position.

In fact the word “swimming around” is a very apt description of the way you are trying to construct your argument! Words do not swim around each other like a magic trick of smoke and mirrors or a shell game at a carnival. Words modify each other in specific ways according to Hebrew syntax. In this case the temporal modifiers prohibit the philosophical view of olam. Olam cannot swim away from these modifiers as the syntax has been set in stone for quite a few centuries.

You have been a very kind and polite during our discussion and I appreciate it very much. Please don’t misconstrue my criticism of your exegesis here as something against you personally.

 

[Dan_Parker]

And a big thank you very much!

You make a good cheerleader. :ballspin:

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, I have no idea where you derive your concept of wisdom, but it certainly does not conform to the Hebrew mind. Solomon was granted wisdom that he might judge rightly, not that he might produce any prioduct or fashion any thing. Your reference to Bezalel reads very diffetrently with the addition of a comma after wisdom, does it not? We are called to be “wise as serpents”(Mt.10:16b), and there is certainly no product being fashioned in Christ’s command.
Wisdom is presented as a property, a mental faculty, a posession if you will, and to say that God created His own mental faculty is to demean His deity, for He would have been without it prior to its creation. You have made the “creation” of the Word contemporaneous with the creation of the world. Jesus had His glory before the world existed.(Jn.17:5)

I derive my concept of wisdom from the way the word is used in Scripture. I don’t argue that wisdom is only used in one way, but the context of Proverbs 8 fits the following very well. This is from the Halot Hebrew lexicon and the word rendered as “skill” in these passages is hokma, or Wisdom.

** hokma **—1. skill in technical matters Ex 28:3 31:3,6 35:26,31 361f 1K 7:14;

NAB Exodus 28:3 Therefore, to the various expert workmen whom I have endowed with skill, you shall give instructions to make such vestments for Aaron as will set him apart for his sacred service as my priest

NAB Exodus 31:3 and I have filled him with a divine spirit of **skill **and understanding and knowledge in every craft:

NAB Exodus 31:6 As his assistant I have appointed Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. I have also endowed all the experts with the necessary **skill **to make all the things I have ordered you to make:

NAB Exodus 35:26 All the women who possessed the skill, spun goat hair.

NAB Exodus 35:31 and has filled him with a divine spirit of **skill **and understanding and knowledge in every craft:

Now in our passage, note how much of the context of Wisdom here deals with **skillfully **making something:

NAB Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways (works), the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago; 23 From of old I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth. 24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains or springs of water; 25 Before the mountains were settled into place, before the hills, I was brought forth; 26 While as yet the earth and the fields were not made, nor the first clods of the world. 27 "When he established the heavens I was there, when he marked out the vault over the face of the deep; 28 When he made firm the skies above, when he fixed fast the foundations of the earth; 29 When he set for the sea its limit, so that the waters should not transgress his command; 30 Then was I beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day by day, Playing before him all the while,

Wisdom is being called Yahweh’s craftsman. There is no other gloss with respect to the Hebrew hokma that fits Wisdom better than one who displays a skill in making something.

When you make the argument that this means God was without Wisdom, what you are really doing is equivocating unintentionally. That means that you take a word with more than one sense and substitute one in your objection which is not the real sense of the word.

There is no doubt but that Hebrew hokma in the sense of a skilled craftsman is in view in this passage.

What is it that you think was created before this so that God or his Son could be considered wise in the sense of making something? Don’t Catholics teach that the creation being described in Proverbs 8 is the beginning of Creation?

 

[jlhargus]

The Jews have/had a sacred tradition as well. But if one holds that tradition over Sacred Scripture what one has will be taken away from them. That is what happened to the Jews, as Jesus said: You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Mt 15:6

JL: [Mk7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” ] NIV.

Sacred Oral Tradition is not over Sacred Written Tradition, Scripture. They are equal and can never contradict one another. The problem was not Jewish Sacred Oral Tradition, but making a discipline or tradition of men a doctrine of God. The Pharisees added their traditions of men and made them a doctrine of God. The law says do not boil a kid (young goat) in its mother’s milk. The Pharisees added their rule or tradition of men making it a doctrine of God, saying you cannot even eat cheese and meat together (example would be a cheeseburger) you could eat meat and you could eat cheese but not together. The NT condemns being a drunkard, yet some faith groups add a rule or tradition of men making it a doctrine of God, saying you cannot even drink alcohol. Sola Scriptura is another tradition of men made a doctrine of God

If the Holy Spirit thru the Church can infallibly discern the canon and faithfully preserve the written Apostolic Tradition of Scripture, without distortion. Then that same Holy Spirit can certainly thru the same Church preserve that Apostolic Oral Tradition, without distortion. It is that same Holy Spirit who is the origin and acts thru both the Church and Scripture.

Who outside Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see the Watch Tower translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men? So we see even the written word doesn’t guarantee, there is no distortion, not to mention misinterpretation.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

 

[jlhargus]

I derive my concept of wisdom from the way the word is used in Scripture. I don’t argue that wisdom is only used in one way, but the context of Proverbs 8 fits the following very well. This is from the Halot Hebrew lexicon and the word rendered as “skill” in these passages is hokma, or Wisdom.

Now in our passage, note how much of the context of Wisdom here deals with **skillfully **making something:

NAB Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways (works), the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago; 23 From of old I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth. 24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains or springs of water; 25 Before the mountains were settled into place, before the hills, I was brought forth; 26 While as yet the earth and the fields were not made, nor the first clods of the world. 27 "When he established the heavens I was there, when he marked out the vault over the face of the deep; 28 When he made firm the skies above, when he fixed fast the foundations of the earth; 29 When he set for the sea its limit, so that the waters should not transgress his command; 30 Then was I beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day by day, Playing before him all the while,

Wisdom is being called Yahweh’s craftsman. There is no other gloss with respect to the Hebrew hokma that fits Wisdom better than one who displays a skill in making something.

When you make the argument that this means God was without Wisdom, what you are really doing is equivocating unintentionally. That means that you take a word with more than one sense and substitute one in your objection which is not the real sense of the word.

There is no doubt but that Hebrew hokma in the sense of a skilled craftsman is in view in this passage.

What is it that you think was created before this so that God or his Son could be considered wise in the sense of making something? Don’t Catholics teach that the creation being described in Proverbs 8 is the beginning of Creation?

JL: [Pv 22:1 1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise **her voice?
2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, **she **takes her stand;

3 beside the gates leading into the city,
at the entrances, she cries aloud:

11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.

Proverbs is nothing more than wisdom personified, it is a literary form. In all the translations on line I checked wisdom is personified with the promoun she or her. If WISDOM had a beginning then God would have had to have a beginning, otherwise God would is dependent on something created to have sound judgement.

 

[Dan_Parker]

4

I would also add to our discussion of Proverbs 8:22 that is surprises me that some Catholics attempt to teach that this does not refer to the Son of God when all the Fathers agreed it does refer to the Son. The fact that wisdom in Hebrew is feminine does not prove that this is not the Son any more than the fact that Qoheleth is feminine in Hebrew could be used to prove Solomon was not a man.

NJB Ecclesiastes 1:1 Composition of Qoheleth son of David, king in Jerusalem.

I realize you don’t make these arguments, but some are and I wanted to bring this up. Of course, if ‘4’ means those arguments, then I have responded to them