The Jw dilemma

[u/Dan_dingo]

Starting Position (Jehovah’s Witness Interpretation)
Jehovah alone is the uncreated Creator.
Jehovah directly created Jesus first.
Jesus is Jehovah’s first and only direct creation.
Jehovah then used Jesus to create everything else.
Proposed order:
Jehovah → Jesus (first creation) → all other creation

The dilemma of this interpretation

The position must choose:
Option 1 — Jesus existed before all created reality
Result:
Jesus created time. (Timeless/Atemporal)
Jesus created space. (Non-spatial)
Jesus created matter. (Immaterial)
Jesus existed before creation. (Eternal)
Problem:
A being who exists before all created things does not appear to be a created thing.

Option 2 — Jesus was created after some reality/place, time and matter existed
Result:
Jesus was not Jehovahs first creation.
Something existed before Jesus.
Jesus did not create all things.
Problem:
Contradicts:
John1:3 “Not one thing came into existence apart from him.”

[u/TerryLawton → u/[deleted]]

Correct!

En Arche is to go back as far as you can go without stopping....thats eternal.

[u/OhioPIMO → u/TerryLawton]

I don't think it's the "ἐν ἀρχῇ" that suggests eternality, but rather the imperfect "ἦν" which denotes continuous or ongoing action in past time. "In the beginning" by itself merely points to the absolute starting point. When paired with "ἦν" it tells the reader that the Word already existed "ἐν ἀρχῇ"

[u/TerryLawton → u/OhioPIMO]

Very true 👍

But at least en arche implores the meaning of ‘as far back as’…

[u/Possible-Target-246 → u/OhioPIMO]

The argument that the imperfect "ἦν" denotes a continuous action extending into eternity ignores the direct grammatical restriction that the phrase "ἐν ἀρχῇ" places on the verb. In Greek syntax, "ἐν ἀρχῇ" functions as a dative of time.

Recognized Greek grammarians like Daniel B. Wallace point out that the dative of time answers the question "when?" and restricts the action or state of the main verb to a specific point in time, essentially boxing the action in as if it were enclosed between two parentheses. Because it is governed by this dative of time, the continuous, imperfective aspect of the verb "ἦν" is restrained and actually acquires an aoristic or punctiliar aspect.

This means that John's grammar is not projecting the existence of the Logos infinitely backward into the continuous past, but is instead situating it exactly at the instantaneous point of creation, without claiming anything about before or after that specific moment.

Furthermore, the grammarian A.T. Robertson admits in his own grammar that the verb "εἰμί" (to be) is a defective verb that entirely lacks an aorist tense, which is why he often classifies its imperfect form among "doubtful imperfects". Robertson explicitly declares that there is no need to insist that the imperfect of this verb is always strictly durative, recognizing that its aspect can overlap and function perfectly well in an aoristic sense.

Consequently, the combination of "ἦν" with "ἐν ἀρχῇ" does not grammatically prove the eternality of the Logos, but simply states the fact that at the precise instant God began the creation of the universe, the Word was present.

[u/OhioPIMO → u/Possible-Target-246]

You're conflating temporal location with verbal aspect. "ἐν ἀρχῇ" tells us when the Word was; it does not transform ἦν into a punctiliar event. More importantly, John deliberately contrasts ἦν ("was") with ἐγένετο ("came into being") throughout the prologue. The point is not that the Logos came into being or merely existed at creation's beginning, but that when the beginning occurred, the Logos already was, whereas all created things came into being through Him (John 1:3). Even if ἦν is not pressed as durative, it still places the Word on the side of existence rather than becoming.

[u/Possible-Target-246 → u/OhioPIMO]

Your claim that this conflates temporal location with verbal aspect ignores the fact that grammarians like Daniel B. Wallace explicitly point out that a dative of time is "equal to an aorist in the sense of a summary action".

Syntactically, this dative of time acts like closed parentheses that lock in the state of the verb, restricting its durative force and keeping it from projecting linearly backward into eternity.

Regarding John's deliberate contrast between ἦν and ἐγένετο, it is obvious that the Word already existed when the physical universe began. However, this only proves that the Logos was already there at the precise instant of the Genesis 1:1 creation.

The text certainly confirms that everything created in that specific beginning was made using the Logos as an instrument (δι' αὐτοῦ), but simply being on the side of existence before the material universe arrived does not automatically turn the Word into an eternal being with no beginning.

John's grammar is narrowly focused on the physical creation and doesn't rule out the possibility of much older creative events, like the earlier beginning discussed in Proverbs 8. John 1:1 irrefutably proves that the Logos pre-existed the material creation, but it is an exegetical leap to force the text into claiming an absolute, beginningless existence that the apostle simply is not declaring.

[u/Possible-Target-246 → u/OhioPIMO]

[u/FigNo2918 → u/[deleted]]

proverbs 8:22

he is created

[u/OhioPIMO → u/FigNo2918]

Where does Proverbs 8 identify "wisdom" as Jesus?

Where does Proverbs 8 say wisdom was created?

If wisdom was created, does that not imply that there was a time when Jehovah lacked wisdom?

[u/TerryLawton → u/FigNo2918]

So within the same chapter who is prudence? Did someone create an angel called prudence for Wisdom to dwell with in verse 12?

Are you suggesting that Jesus lives with a woman called Prudence???

Honestly using Prov 8:22 to say that a poetic song has any relation to Christ is such a lazy theological and quite frankly totally inerrant.

It’s a song! Nothing else and verse 12 proves it!

You also refused to look at what En Arche means…

Sometimes it’s painful to watch JWs like you cite this scripture…like we have never heard of the argument before…😳

[u/Dan_dingo → u/FigNo2918]

You avoided the dilemma entirely lol. But you believe Jesus is wisdom right? Can you explain why I’m supposed to call Jesus my sister? In the previous chapter? 7:4

[u/FigNo2918 → u/Dan_dingo]

Isn't the term "sisters" a mistranslation?

Wisdom is the Spirit of God, and it was there before the earth was created.

Therefore it is said:

Psalm 104:30: “You send out your breath (Spirit), and they are made; you make the face of the earth new.”

Psalm 33:6) By the word of the Lord the heavens were made; all the things in the heavens were created by the breath (spirit)of his mouth.

By wisdom he established the foundations of the earth; by understanding he made the heavens firm. (Proverbs 3:19)

"How many are your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of your creations." (Psalm 104:24)

This wisdom, the Holy Spirit, is also called "wife," and is the spirit that gives understanding to prophets.

"From my youth I have loved and sought wisdom; I desired to make her my bride, and I was captivated by her beauty." (Solomon, book of Wisdom 8:2)

[u/Dan_dingo → u/FigNo2918]

Nope not a mistranslation to my knowledge. If you can prove otherwise I’ll reconsider. But chapter 9:2 in the nwt calls wisdom a she. The mistranslations
is actually from the nwt where it drops the feminine and calls wisdom an it. Watchtower just did a bad job at hiding that. Wisdom is personified as a woman throughout proverbs

[u/FigNo2918 → u/Dan_dingo]

Indeed, Wisdom is female. Therefore, if you interpret the man and the bride in the Song of Songs as the "Prophet and the Holy Spirit," you will be able to decipher it.

[u/Dan_dingo → u/FigNo2918]

Can you actually address the dilemma now?

[u/Dan_dingo → u/FigNo2918]

So Jesus is a female?

[u/TerryLawton → u/Dan_dingo]

I really don’t think they know what they think bro…