In the beginning was the Word.

[Stranger]

Okay, I have no problem with this first sentence of John 1:1. There is no doubt in my mind about when the beginning was, because there really was no beginning for the Word.

I wanted to stay strictly on this first sentence only and get some comments about it just to see who does and does not understand it. I know that there are quite a few that think that this is a beginning at some point in time when God created the Word, but that's not what it says now does it?

Please stay only on the first sentence with your comments until we can agree on moving forward to the next sentence.


Let's get to it!


Stranger, (2Cor 10:12)

[goghtherefore]

Howdy Stranger

Re: "In the beginning was the Word,.."

Was the Word the beginning?

My current view is the Supreme One as having no beginning and not being a Father. My current view is the Supreme One became a father upon expressing His will to create things humans comprehend (the universe, multiple dimensions etc.). The Supreme One's expressed will, is the Word...in my (most current) opinion.

Romans 11:32...

"For God has consigned everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on everyone, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and untraceable His ways! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?”…

goghtherefore

[Stranger]

Re: "In the beginning was the Word,.."

Was the Word the beginning?

Hi Gogh, and thank you for your post in this thread so far, I hope to see many more.

God gave the Word to, "Let there be light and it was so". The only other scripture I know of to reference an "In the beginning" phrase is (Gen 1:1).

Without the Word there is no beginning. The living Word of God may have started then and is very much alive yesterday, today and tomorrow. (Heb 13:8) I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jn 1:1 trumps Gen 1:1 over mankind's chronological portrait.

My current view is the Supreme One as having no beginning and not being a Father. My current view is the Supreme One became a father upon expressing His will to create things humans comprehend (the universe, multiple dimensions etc.). The Supreme One's expressed will, is the Word...in my (most current) opinion.

That's pretty much ditto to what I just said above. Everything else before "the beginning" is just hear say as far as I can tell and have been told. One can only delve into unrequired speculation as to what happened before the Word at the beginning. (Christ unknown)*



Stranger, *(Jn 16:4)

[Stranger]

AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING... (Jn 1:1)


THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD. (Jn 1:2)


The Word was God. (choice one)
............................................(take your pick!)
The Word was a god. (choice two)


Stranger, (Jn 1:12)

[apollos0fAlexandria]

There is no doubt in my mind about when the beginning was, because there really was no beginning for the Word.

Hi Stranger

I agree with you 100%. The language of John speaks of the existence of the Word, not of a coming into existence.

Now to be fair, the language here may not completely preclude an origin in time for the Word, depending on what is meant by "in the beginning". It could for example be the beginning of another time period that follows some time period during which the Word came into existence. For example, I've been open to considering whether John's prologue (clearly a parallel with Genesis 1) is only talking of the "new creation". Either way, absolute origins are not what is being spoken of here in John 1.

The Hebrew term for "in the beginning" (Gen 1 again) apparently has the sense of "way back when" rather than a point in time as our 21st century Western minds might read it. (Tim Mackie of the Bible Project expounds on this well in one of his sermons on Genesis.) So we should probably take that into consideration when parsing John 1 as well.

All that said, I am still firmly convinced that there was never a time that the Son did not exist, based on harmonization with the scriptures as a whole.

The author of Hebrews says that Jesus (like Melchizadek) "has neither beginning of days, nor end of life" (Heb 7:3). Therefore I will believe that.

Best, Apollos

[Proselytiser of Jah]

All that said, I am still firmly convinced that there was never a time that the Son did not exist, based on harmonization with the scriptures as a whole.

The author of Hebrews says that Jesus (like Melchizadek) "has neither beginning of days, nor end of life" (Heb 7:3). Therefore I will believe that.

Best, Apollos

My issue is this

If we take this scripture to mean that, then we also say Jesus has no Father, and then we deny God the Father.


"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."


So, if we assert this scripture to mean what you would say it means, then Jesus is fatherless. That was neither true on Earth, nor in Heaven.


Also consider that it's speaking of Melchizedek, and "comparing" Jesus to him. Therefore, to have no beginning, nor a father, one would have to conclude Melchizedek who spoke to Abraham was immortal and eternal. But only God is, so is Melchizedek God the Father?


Considering Proverbs 8 tells us Jesus was created, and Colossians tells us he was the firstborn of every creature, and that Melchizedek was surely just a mere man, or at best, an angel (but there is no evidence of this), then the scripture may mean something else and is not telling us Jesus is eternal without beginning, lest we begin to create several contradictions in one go here.


It is my understanding the "beginning" of John 1, is the beginning of creation, of which Jesus pre-dates. A beginning implies a "start", the eternal, such as God, has no beginning.


Now as for what "without beginning of days" actually means, I can't comment, I'd have to look into it further, but based on the surrounding evidences, I do not think it speaks of Jesus' eternalhood.

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Looking up different translations further, some seem to echo my thoughts



Amplified Bible
Without [any record of] father or mother, nor ancestral line, without [any record of] beginning of days (birth) nor ending of life (death), but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest without interruption and without successor

Good News Translation
There is no record of Melchizedek's father or mother or of any of his ancestors; no record of his birth or of his death. He is like the Son of God; he remains a priest forever.

International Standard Version
He has no father, mother, or genealogy, no birth date recorded for him, nor a date of death. Like the Son of God, he continues to be a priest forever.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
No one knows anything about Melchizedek's father, mother, or ancestors. No one knows when he was born or when he died. Like the Son of God, Melchizedek continues to be a priest forever.



It seems here the context the writer refers to, is not eternality, but of lineage and records, which is the theme of the passage, priesthood and line.


As Melchizedek is not God, not Jesus, but is said to have no beginning, this rendition I think makes far more sense.

[apollos0fAlexandria]

Hi PoJ

I take the scripture to mean "without genetic father". It literally reads "without father, without mother, without geneology". Genes/genetics imply a fleshly human origin, and I do not think they would apply to being begotten by the Father.

On the other hand, the translations which say "no record of" are explicitly adding words to the text. I am exceedingly wary of that these days, and would need strong evidence to be convinced that such an addition is required.

I do not see that Proverbs 8 talks of a created being (God always possessed "wisdom" did He not?), and many translations read "Firstborn over all creation" in Colossians which is more in keeping with Paul's theology.

Reading these texts as if the Son is a created being raises far more disharmony in the overall Bible narrative than it solves IMHO. But I accept that your mileage may vary.

Best,
Apollos

[Stranger]

On the other hand, the translations which say "no record of" are explicitly adding words to the text. I am exceedingly wary of that these days, and would need strong evidence to be convinced that such an addition is required.

Hi Apollos,

I call them the new wave translations and nowadays we have a smorgasbord of them which just creates more confusion for the untrained or unlearned eye.

Here's a couple questions to ponder.

1) Did Jesus create Blood?

2) Did Jesus create man and woman?

To me according to the Bible, he did. (Heb 9:11-12) (Gen 1:26)

I reread your article:

there was never a time that the Son did not exist

I must say that you are seeing things that I see, you are hearing things that I hear and when we look to Christ and open our eyes and our ears, the Holy Spirit will bless us to see and hear the Lord Jesus Christ working in our lives. ( Heb 8:11)



Stranger, (Jn 6:68-69) compare (Jn 6:68-69 KJV) compare (Matt 16:16)

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Hi PoJ

I take the scripture to mean "without genetic father". It literally reads "without father, without mother, without geneology". Genes/genetics imply a fleshly human origin, and I do not think they would apply to being begotten by the Father.

On the other hand, the translations which say "no record of" are explicitly adding words to the text. I am exceedingly wary of that these days, and would need strong evidence to be convinced that such an addition is required.

I do not see that Proverbs 8 talks of a created being (God always possessed "wisdom" did He not?), and many translations read "Firstborn over all creation" in Colossians which is more in keeping with Paul's theology.

Reading these texts as if the Son is a created being raises far more disharmony in the overall Bible narrative than it solves IMHO. But I accept that your mileage may vary.

Best,
Apollos

The thing is... Proverbs says"created" word for word, it's a lie and mistranslation that it says "possessed" or eternally possessed. I've read the manuscripts and the lexicons. None of them actually say possessed, but the word for possessed are in fact different words altogether in both Hebrew and Greek.

being “brought forth” (chuwl), “born” (gennaó) “acquired” (qanah) and “created” (ktizo) are used interchangeably in the same passage, in both the Hebrew Masoretic and especially so in the Greek Septuagint.

Gennétos: begotten, born
Gennaó: I beget (of the male), (of the female) I bring forth, give birth to
Monogenés: only, only-begotten; unique”
Ktizó: to build, create
Qanah: to get, acquire – Strong’s Concordance

3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, “one-and-only” and 1085 /génos, “offspring, stock”) – properly, one-and-only; “one of a kind” – literally, “one (monos) of a class, genos” (the only of its kind)”. – HELPS Word-studies

Qanah: get, acquire (all poetry) : a. of God as originating, creating; Proverbs 8:22. – Brown-Driver-Briggs

The word “possessed” is “ktéma/huparchó (κτῆμα)” and Hebrew, which is “yarash (יָרַשׁ)”, neither of which are used in Proverbs 8.





As for Hebrews, one can say it means without "genetic father", true, but again you have to apply it to Melchizedk. Was he of a virgin birth too?

The reason the words are "added" in regard to the "record of" his birth or beginning, is because of the context of the Greek grammar and structure of the verse, and its context in relation to Melchizedk. It's about genealogy ,not natures or origins of eternity. Which is why so many other translations render it in such a way. If Jesus is eternal by this, then so is Melchizedk, but he was just a man.

The plain Greek doesn't always come off as clear as English, in many respects. Sometimes that's why transliteration is needed, but I am not a fan of added words either. But in this case, it makes much more sense.


Whilst many Bibles like to add a comma between “without genealogy” and “without beginning”, other Bibles do not do this, and taking away that comma, it becomes a singular string. Meaning "he is without genealogy neither beginning or end", and thus is enturey feasible to translate this as; "he is without a gean ology of beginning and end".

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/7-3.htm

Hence, the translations I demonstrated examples of, are very much justified in their renditions.




As for Colossians, it could say over... but that is not in harmony with the grammatic structure or the way the phrase is used overall in the NT.


The original word; πάσης (pas), simply means “every”, there is no term which states “over” in the oldest manuscripts, as such it literally reads “Firstborn every creation”. This is why many translations word it “Firstborn of all”, or “Firstborn of every kind”.

“πάσης, Pas
Usage: all, the whole, every kind of. 3956 pás – each, every; each “part(s) of a totality” (L & N, 1, 59.24). 3956 /pás (“each, every”) means “all” in the sense of “each (every) part that applies…” – Strong’s Concordance & HELPS Word-studies.

If we take this even further, and examine the phrase “firstborn” in this verse, Jesus is also called the “first born”, or “the eldest” of creation, as opposed to “only born” (or only-begotten), which implies that whilst Jesus is the “eldest” or “first” of the creation, he is not the “only” one to be born from God. Rather the term “prototokos” is something which means the “first of many of its kind”.


If therefore Jesus is the “prototokos” he is the first of many akin beings to come after him in like manner, which further supports the rendition “first of every creature” as opposed to “over creation”.

4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, “first, pre-eminent” and 5088 /tíktō, “bring forth”) – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).

4416 /prōtótokos (“firstly”) specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is “preeminent” (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).

[4416 (prōtótokos) refers to “the first among others (who follow) – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).].” – HELPS Word-studies

If you want even more of an in depth look on first born over vs of, I also recommend this video series from a brother I know