Luis C. Reyes has written an article which one can view here.

I am interested in what comments the JWs on this board may have in regards to the above.

Additionally, there is an invitation to respond to Mr. Reyes at the top of the article itself. If anyone is interested in taking it up, I'd be interested in hearing about that as well.

God bless

Today @ 02:47 AM post located here
IronMetro:

Luis C. Reyes has written an article which one can view here.

I am interested in what comments the JWs on this board may have in regards to the above.

Additionally, there is an invitation to respond to Mr. Reyes at the top of the article itself. If anyone is interested in taking it up, I'd be interested in hearing about that as well.

God bless

I don't believe it is intrinsically partitive, so why would I want to reply. This has no bearing on the matter.

-Tony

Tsmith stated:

I don't believe it is intrinsically partitive, so why would I want to reply. This has no bearing on the matter.

Is the above your own unique stance on the matter or do you feel that Mr. Reyes is misrepresenting the views of Wes Williams et al?

Thanks.

In the meantime, anyone else want to take this up?

Today @ 04:26 AM post located here
IronMetro:



Is the above your own unique stance on the matter or do you feel that Mr. Reyes is misrepresenting the views of Wes Williams et al?

Thanks.

In the meantime, anyone else want to take this up?

I have not spoken to Wes on this matter, so I do not know what his views are with regards to specific points that would determine the matter. So I cannot comment.

-Tony

You state:

I have not spoken to Wes on this matter, so I do not know what his views are with regards to specific points that would determine the matter. So I cannot comment.

I assume you have read the article linked in my initial post but I'll provide an excerpt here:

Mr. Reyes states-

With the data obtained from his analysis of prototokos and its uses in the LXX, Williams has concluded that prototokos and its genitive pasies kitiseos in Col 1:15 must necessarily be a partitive genitive. Williams also concludes from his analysis that prototokos must necessarily possess an intrinsic partitive semantic property. In fact, in August of 1998, in a post arguing against Dr. Robert Keay,[iii] Williams stated his proposed argument as:

• I have been through all the occurrences of PRWTOTOKOS in the LXX. I present the following usage for proof behind my point: 27 examples of partitive genitive (the firstborn is a part of the group): Gen 4:4; 25:13; Ex 11:5; 13:13,15; 22:28; 34:19,19; 34:20, 20; Num 3:40, 41, 41;3:45, 46, 50; 8:16; 18:15, 15; Deut 12:6, 17; 14:23; 15:19; Neh 10:37, 37; Ezek 44:30. 42 examples of possessive genitive, such as `my son`,implying membership of the group of sons: Gen 49:3; Ex 4:22; 4:23; 6:14;11:5; Num 1:20; 18:17,17,17;26:5; Deut 21:15,16,17; 33:17;Judg 8:20;2 Sam 3:2; 2 Sam 13:21; 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Chr 1:29; 2:3,13; 2:25,25,27,42,50; 3:1,15; 4:4; 5:1,3; 8:1,30,38,39; 9:5,31,36,44; 26:2; Psalm 134:8; Mica 6:7; Jer 38:9 There are no example [sic] of other genitives. Lexical semantics, therefore, sans theology, give one meaning to PRWTOTOKOS, and this meaning is intrinsically partitive. Philologically speaking, all genitives with the word uphold the partitive meaning.[iv]

The above appears rather explicit to me. Or were you speaking of something more specific? If so, in regards to what?

Thanks.

God bless

Today @ 06:14 AM post located here
IronMetro:



I assume you have read the article linked in my initial post but I'll provide an excerpt here:

Mr. Reyes states-

With the data obtained from his analysis of prototokos and its uses in the LXX, Williams has concluded that prototokos and its genitive pasies kitiseos in Col 1:15 must necessarily be a partitive genitive. Williams also concludes from his analysis that prototokos must necessarily possess an intrinsic partitive semantic property. In fact, in August of 1998, in a post arguing against Dr. Robert Keay,[iii] Williams stated his proposed argument as:

• I have been through all the occurrences of PRWTOTOKOS in the LXX. I present the following usage for proof behind my point: 27 examples of partitive genitive (the firstborn is a part of the group): Gen 4:4; 25:13; Ex 11:5; 13:13,15; 22:28; 34:19,19; 34:20, 20; Num 3:40, 41, 41;3:45, 46, 50; 8:16; 18:15, 15; Deut 12:6, 17; 14:23; 15:19; Neh 10:37, 37; Ezek 44:30. 42 examples of possessive genitive, such as `my son`,implying membership of the group of sons: Gen 49:3; Ex 4:22; 4:23; 6:14;11:5; Num 1:20; 18:17,17,17;26:5; Deut 21:15,16,17; 33:17;Judg 8:20;2 Sam 3:2; 2 Sam 13:21; 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Chr 1:29; 2:3,13; 2:25,25,27,42,50; 3:1,15; 4:4; 5:1,3; 8:1,30,38,39; 9:5,31,36,44; 26:2; Psalm 134:8; Mica 6:7; Jer 38:9 There are no example [sic] of other genitives. Lexical semantics, therefore, sans theology, give one meaning to PRWTOTOKOS, and this meaning is intrinsically partitive. Philologically speaking, all genitives with the word uphold the partitive meaning.[iv]

The above appears rather explicit to me. Or were you speaking of something more specific? If so, in regards to what?

Thanks.

God bless

Yes, I saw that, but I would still want to ask Wes a question or two first just so I'm totally clear.

-Tony

06-29-2003 @ 06:47 PM post located here
IronMetro:

Luis C. Reyes has written an article which one can view here.

I am interested in what comments the JWs on this board may have in regards to the above.

Additionally, there is an invitation to respond to Mr. Reyes at the top of the article itself. If anyone is interested in taking it up, I'd be interested in hearing about that as well.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
Daniel Wallace in GGBB, page 104 indicates that the phrase would either be partitive genitive or genitive of subordination at Col 1:15. He favors subordination.

Interestingly he admits that most nouns that would be of subordination with this syntax would be verbal nouns. PRWTOTOKOS is not a verbal noun. This means that even though he classifies it a genitive of subordination he disagrees with Reyes that certain words lend themselves to one or the other category.

Kind Regards,
Cal

TSmith states:

Yes, I saw that, but I would still want to ask Wes a question or two first just so I'm totally clear.

Were you planning on inquiring or have you already? Perhaps you could make an invitation for him to take part in this thread. Being that it concerns him in part, I'd be very interested in his comments.

Thanks.

Today @ 09:23 AM post located here
IronMetro:



Were you planning on inquiring or have you already? Perhaps you could make an invitation for him to take part in this thread. Being that it concerns him in part, I'd be very interested in his comments.

Thanks.

No I wasn't, as I really doubt he'd be interested in coming here.

-Tony

TS stated:

No I wasn't, as I really doubt he'd be interested in coming here.

Whether or not he would be interested in participating on this board is not necessary to what I am asking.

Previously in this thread, I was asking whether or not his position was being accurately portrayed by Mr. Reyes.

You replied:

I have not spoken to Wes on this matter, so I do not know what his views are with regards to specific points that would determine the matter. So I cannot comment.

Later you stated:

Yes, I saw that, but I would still want to ask Wes a question or two first just so I'm totally clear.

In my last post I was asking if you had inquired of him as I was given a small impression that you were going to do so.

From there I was planning to return to one of my earlier questions on whether or not your position is unique or if Luis Reyes is simply misrepresenting the arguments of Wes Williams et al.

Thanks.

Today @ 04:09 PM post located here
IronMetro:



Whether or not he would be interested in participating on this board is not necessary to what I am asking.

Previously in this thread, I was asking whether or not his position was being accurately portrayed by Mr. Reyes.

You replied:



Later you stated:



In my last post I was asking if you had inquired of him as I was given a small impression that you were going to do so.

From there I was planning to return to one of my earlier questions on whether or not your position is unique or if Luis Reyes is simply misrepresenting the arguments of Wes Williams et al.

Thanks.

Dear IronMetro,
The article by Reyes only addresses one aspect of the argument and ignores what I think is the most potent argument.

In every instance in Scripture where PRWTOTOKOS functions as the head noun of a genitive construction as found in Colossians 1:15, the firstborn always is a member of a class.

If Colossians 1:15 is the only exception in the entire LXX and GNT then it is those who wish to exclude the PRWTOTOKOS from the class of created beings who bear the burden of proof. This is of course the lexical and grammatical scope of the exegesis.

I have recently provided exegesis which proves that Paul argued for both the sense of temporal priority and pre-eminence for the word in Colossians 1:15-20. See that post for details.

Kind Regards,
Cal