Revelation 3:14 - The Beginning of God's Creation

[vuyou123]

The one that shows those that really want to know the truth is: Jesus did not think being "equal with God" was something to be seized. (Philippians 2:6)



[vuyou123]

Jesus is given lordship by God. (Acts 2:36)

Jesus is exalted by God.(Acts 5:31)

Jesus is made high priest by God. (Hebrews 5:10)

Jesus is given authority by God. (Philippians 2:9)

Jesus is given kingship by God. (Luke 1:32,33)

Jesus is given judgment by God. (Acts 10:42)

Jesus is at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34)

Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5)

[vuyou123]

Here are a few scriptures to consider:

Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3)

Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18, Hebrews 3:2)

Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13)

Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32, Revelation 1:1)

Jesus worships God. (John 4:22)

Jesus has one who is God to him. (Revelation 3:12)

Jesus is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Jesus' head is God. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

[maurices5000]

Fantastic video!!!!! Where can i find more information about Rev 3:14 being sourced in Proverbs 8:22? Thanks!

[scripturaltruths]

Sure, it is temporal, but not local. You need to show it means anything local.

[scripturaltruths]

Can you 1) provide an example where it is ever used in this way and 2) provide an example where John uses it this way?

[scripturaltruths]

While I agree that Jesus is described as the location of creation, I fail to see anything within the semantic range of arche referring to this.

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Everytime arche used by John, it is the anarthrous object of a prepositional phrase, except in John 2:11, 8:25, and those found in Revelation. John 2:11 does use arche to mean the first one of many, as in this was the first of Jesus' miracles, BUT it is anartrous and in the accusative case in order to grammatically designate this usage of arche. John 8:25 is articular and in the accusative case. It is being used to say all along or from the beginning.

So, outside of Revelation,

cont.>

[whatsyofaithbrotha]

Awesome info!

[aservantofjehovah]

Genesis10:10KJV"and the beginning(Arche) of his kingdom was Babel,and Erech,and Accad,in the land of shinar."

[aqwsed1234HU]

Abbot Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon (p. 62) defines the word as, "uncreated principle, the active cause of creation, Rev. 3:14." Joseph Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (p. 77) gives as its meaning, "origin, active cause," as does Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words (under, "Beginning"), Liddell and Scott (p. 121), and Bauer, Arndt, & Gingrich (pp. 111-112).

[scripturaltruths]

And A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature states that the meaning "first created" is "linguistically probable." None of the above addresses the substantial evidence put forth in the video.

[aqwsed1234HU]

If we trace the Greek word for beginning, arche (Strong's word #746), we find that in Revelation 1:8 and 21:6 God the Father ("Jehovah") calls Himself the "beginning [arche] and the end." So if Jesus is a created being because of arche, Jehovah must be, too, since the description (arche) is applied to both, in the exact same fashion (they both also call themselves the similar titles, Alpha and Omega and first and last -- see also Is 44:6, Rev 1:17-18, 2:8).

[scripturaltruths]

Jesus is a created being because he is the arche of God's creation, not simply arche as God. Of course God is the beginning, because he is eternal and so he was the first to exist, and as he is eternal he is the last for he will always exist. This is far different from saying that Jesus is the first or beginning of creation.

[floodtube1]

If the Word had a beginning why does John 1:1a say "In the beginning was the Word," (or 'the Word was' as some translate.

Why not 'the Word became, or was created'?

Also John says ", and the Word was with God" to show the Word 'was' as the Father 'was'.

Adding the Word has the same beginning as the Father - none.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

[scripturaltruths]

Because John was not concerned with his creation. To John, as a Jew, God was one person, so to say Jesus was "with God" leaves for no confusion. Had the Jews viewed God as polypersonal the situation would be quite different. The text does not say Jesus had the same beginning as the Father, nor does it say he was "as the Father 'was'."

[scripturaltruths]

Of course archon does not mean ruler, but arche can and at times does mean ruler. Of course you can consult pretty much any major lexicon to see this (so BDAG says "an authority figure who initiates activity or process, ruler, authority") , but there are also clear examples such as Luke 12:11.

[tudungsenduk]

"Throughout the entire New Testament the singular arche is never used for "ruler.""

Dont you get what I am saying? arche can NEVER be use as ruler. When John writes arche it can only mean beginning(of time) OR rule(of authority). You are saying when John writes arche, he can ONLY mean beginning(of time). This is where you fail. I dont know how else to explain.

Be bless

[scripturaltruths]

Why can arche never mean ruler? The only reason is because we see John never uses arche to mean ruler, but the word itself can mean as much. However, in his works he always uses archon. It is not a failure on my part but a patter of use.

[floodtube1]

Was the Father not able to create without the aid of a creation?

I am not being funny or flippant here.

It just doesn't seem very 'god-like' to need to create a being first so He then can create through him.

Surely God can create on His own? How can He be God if He needs the aid of a creation?

p.s.

Good to see some Greek studied..

[scripturaltruths]

Of course he was, or how else would he have a creation to use as his intermediate agent? Nobody is suggesting that God needed to do things a certain way, only that he chose to.

[tudungsenduk]

Let see how I can explain this clearly.

Archon is singular, masculine and nominative. It can only mean ruler, prince, chief etc as in a person. Archon can never mean beginning.

Archay is singular, feminine. It means of authority, principality, sovereignity, rule etc and also in time as in beginning, first cause, start etc.

For John to use ruler, prince(as a person) for archay is grammtically wrong. But for John to use principality or beginning is right. Only context will tell you.

[scripturaltruths]

You've clearly not studied Greek with any level of depth because the above is simply not true. You might want to check your sources...

[tudungsenduk]

Is that all you can say?

Do you agree that arche is feminine and archon is masculine? Can archon be use as the beginning?

Please answer this first.

[scripturaltruths]

Of course that is correct and no, archon does not mean beginning, but John could use arche for ruler, he simply never does as he always uses archon, as do the rest of the New Testament authors when addressing a singular subject.

[tudungsenduk]

"but John could use arche for ruler"

That is the whole idea. Arche can be use for beginning or authority. Not the author itself but the effect of being the author. You are comparing an apple with an orange.

Rev 3:14 : ...the authority of the foundation of God.

[scripturaltruths]

Have you really not watched the video? While in isolation it is possible, not in the context of John as an author, who elsewhere never uses arche in such a way. He always uses archon for ruler, even in reference to Jesus (Rev. 1:5). Throughout the entire New Testament the singular arche is never used for "ruler."

Your translation makes no sense, for Jesus is not abstract authority and "the foundation of God" is nonsensical.

[aqwsed1234HU]

Jesus, here as elsewhere, is revealed as Creator in Scripture, not as a creature. Otherwise, the verses about creation become nonsensical.

[scripturaltruths]

This was addressed in the video. Did you watch it?

[tudungsenduk]

Try to do some study on this.

a) The difference between rosh and rashyit.

b) The difference between archon and archay.

c) The nominative case and the dative case.

d) The difference between begin and beginning.

e) The difference between prince and principality.

Maybe we can understand better when we communicate.

Thanks

[scripturaltruths]

Maybe you can instead address 1) the evidence I've presented in the video and 2) provide evidence as to why your translation is superior rather than simply asserting it.

[aqwsed1234HU]

ἀρχή,n {ar-khay'}: 1) beginning, origin 2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader 3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause 4) the extremity of a thing 4a) of the corners of a sail 5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy 5a) of angels and demons

New Jesualem Bible ... the Principle of God's creation

Vulgata ... Principium creaturæ Dei

[aqwsed1234HU]

ἀρχή,n {ar-khay'}: 1) beginning, origin 2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader 3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause 4) the extremity of a thing 4a) of the corners of a sail 5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy 5a) of angels and demons

[aqwsed1234HU]

You are thinking English, not Greek...

The verse says Jesus is the beginning of something, not he has a beginning in time.

Let's see a better translation of that verse:

"Write to the angel of the church in Laodicea and say, "Here is the message of the Amen, the trustworthy, the true witness, the Principle of God's creation:"

[scripturaltruths]

I specifically addressed the Greek, and as I noted, throughout all of John's writings, whenever he uses the word arche, it is always used temporally.

You have failed to provide any evidence substantiating that the provided translation is "better," while also failing to interact with the evidence I've presented.

[tudungsenduk]

"Jesus is the beginning of something, not he has a beginning in time"

Not really.

"In pricipality was the word".

Arkhay is a strenghten form of arkhom, hence John would only be using arkhay to kings of kings and not to a normal ruler.

[scripturaltruths]

Simply untrue. John never uses anything but archon for everyone, including Jesus at Revelation 1:5. Once again, John never uses arche with any meaning other than "beginning," including Genesis 1:1. You've not provided any evidence to support your translation.

[tudungsenduk]

Evidence? How do you know that John used arche for beginning. That is just your translation and interpretation.

John 2:11

"This power of miracles Jesus did in Cana...".

[scripturaltruths]

For one, your translation makes no sense, for two, the language is parallel Genesis 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22. Third and finally, the language is parallel 1 John 1:1, but here we read "from," which again makes no sense with your translation.

[tudungsenduk]

You are assuming that John always use arche for beginning. I am not.

For one, Gen 1:1 In pricipality the gods populates the heavens and the earth.

For two. Your John 1:2 will have repetition problems with John 1:1.

For three. I dont know what you meant by "but here we read from"

[scripturaltruths]

You're forgetting that with Genesis 1:1 we have Hebrew and a Greek translation, which the apostles used... and your translation still doesn't make sense. With these you have no case because by comparing the two your translation is seen impossible. I said nothing about John 1:2, but with 1 John 1:1 he was "from the beginning."

[tudungsenduk]

"Genesis 1:1"

Rashit and arche. Both can mean principality or power. Does not help your argument.

"1 John 1:1"

That which was 'from' the principle. 'from' is not a problem. Still does not help your argument.

"In principality was the word"

Why doesnt it make sense here? The word was anointed into office as the messiah. Thus the word is in principality with God.

You are making assumptions that it always means beginning. That is where you fail.

[scripturaltruths]

Consulting HALOT, principality and power are not definitions of reshith, neither does BDB provide such. You may be confused because it does mean the principle one, as in that which is primary.

The expression doesn't make sense because it simply doesn't for J 1:1, but especially for 1J 1:1. Saying it is not a problem does not give a real meaning. There is no meaning behind "in principality was the word," You provide a creative meaning, but not from the text even with that translation.

[tudungsenduk]

What are you talking about? bereshit means in principality. Do you understand what in principality means?

[scripturaltruths]

It does not mean that according to the Hebrew lexicons I own... And when John used the term he always used archon, not arche.

[stut9882iwxk]

Execellent video. Agape

[littleamigos]

this is great David!

[p1ut0nium]

Well done! Educational, clear, and a credit to the one true God!

[lchiddle]

You SERIOUSLY need to learn trinitarian doctrine theology!

Very good reasoning from your point of view thought, at least you find it convincing.

[scripturaltruths]

If you don't find the information convincing you're welcome to point out why.

[lchiddle]

What do you understand by trinity?

[scripturaltruths]

In brief, that within the one God there are three person, co-equal, co-eternal but that are not each other. So while the Father and the Son are both the one God, the Father is not the Son.

[lchiddle]

That's quite vague. Can you expand on this please? Maybe you could explain the nature of these three person that make up that one God.

[scripturaltruths]

They share but a single nature, namely, "God." Yet within that nature they participate in the attributes of God, so as I said, co-equal, co-eternal, omnipresent, etc, etc. Each person is distinct but still God.

I'm really not sure what you're looking for here, but I understand the Trinity as it is taken in "orthodoxy," so if you have a different view than that (or sabellianism), you'll have to explain it to me.

[lchiddle]

Understandibly you only know what creeds say. Creeds where designed as a basis of belief. They do not teach anything.

Personally I don't agree with creeds; they are man made and not the word of God.

The trinity is One God, namely the Father or YHWH, and out from YHWH's mouth emanates his word and his breath.

Isaiah 55:11

[scripturaltruths]

The creeds serve as the basis for defining so-called orthodoxy, but as you've been so broad in your request for information that what they provide is the answer. To suggest that because what I provide is from the creeds that it is all I know is without basis.

[lchiddle]

If you say so. If you truly knew what the trinity was, you wouldn't have put half the stuff you did into your video.

[scripturaltruths]

You're welcome to demonstrate that claim. Everything that I said is fully in line with the "orthodox" teaching, or contra it depending upon the specific statement.

[lchiddle]

As I said, they are the words of men. I've just given you the biblical version, and your reasoning fails to live up to it.

Oh, and by the way you really need to brush up on your Hebrew the created you talked about in Proverbs 8:22; "qanah". That's talking of a very specific type of create that is by extension, not from scratch. Anyway, this word is better translated acquired or possessed.

[scripturaltruths]

You continue to claim that, but I'm waiting for you to demonstrate it.

As for Prov. 8:22, I quoted the LXX, which uses EKTISEN (KTISIS), and means "created." As for the notion that qanah means created but not from scratch, I wonder then how you address Genesis 14 when God qanah heaven and earth? With that, I don't take qanah to mean created at all, for I believe the evidence to be lacking in this regard, but that is besides the point as the LXX is clear and in context creation is in view.

[lchiddle]

Demonstrate what?

So you quote Greek for something that was written in Hebrew. Do you do this often?

Genesis 14:19 is also translated possessor (KJV). In proverbs 8:26 the word "`asah" is used instead: before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.

In the KJV the word "qanah" is used 82 times in the OT; 46 times translated to Buy/Bought, 15 to Get/Gotten, 5 to Purchased, 3 to Buyer, 3 to Possessor, 2 to Possessed, 1 to Owner, 1 to Recover, 1 to Redeemed [continued]

[lchiddle]

...1 to Provoke to jealousy, 1 to Attain, 3 are not included.

Although the word Create can be placed within the context of Genesis 14:19, other words can be and are used. I would even go as far to say the rendering of Creature is not an accurate translation.

The word qanah is also used in Proverbs 16:16: How much better to get* wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.

- Don't think the word create would fit fit to well in this statement.

[scripturaltruths]

Demonstrate that I don't understand the doctrine.

I quoted the LXX because the apostles often quoted and/or alluded to the LXX. Revelation 3:14 is one such allusion. I'm not sure your point in citing the various ways the KJV translates, because it does not negate this point. Further, the immediate context contains birth imagry (24-25), both in Hebrew and the LXX, which is used for creation (cf. Psa.90:2). I agree that Gen 14 is not "created," but neither is it create not from scratch.

[lchiddle]

I admire your honesty.

I cited the various ways the KJV translates it, to show the primary nature of "qanah". This together with Proverbs 8:26 and 16:16, I feel build a very strong case against the use of "create" in Proverbs 8:22; just as you have done in your video with "arche" in Revelation 3:14.

I agree that the Son (the Word of God) is the firstborn, beginning, source, and origin of creation, for it was his birth carried by the Spirit that gave way to creation. Psalms 33:6

[scripturaltruths]

The primary flaw in your argument is that the basic sense behind qanah is acquire/possess, and when the latter what is held is always something acquired (per Burney, a source cited in the vid). How did God acquire this Wisdom? We are told in 24/25 that this one was born, which is imagery for creation (Psa.90:2). As God's means of acquiring is to create (so heaven and earth, Gen 14), the means behind him possessing/having acquired this Wisdom is having created it.

[scripturaltruths]

Hence the LXX says "created" and the NT authors borrowed from this.

As I pointed out in the vid, to say that he is the origin or source is not compatible with Rev. 3:14.

[lchiddle]

Oops! Lol! Put the wrong verse in...

That's a good one too, though.

Psalm 33:6

[Yuratchka]

Hello Dave. It's been a long time since we last talked. I imagine you probably have no idea who I am and if I tell you you might not recall. I'm Uriyah, aka Y-A-N, the one from Paltalk who use to open rooms with Neil (Eesh Gibbor) and Petra (Angelic Earthling) many, many years ago. I'm glad to see that you joined youtube.

[jahfen0563]

Very good video, I look foward to more.