In article <111.24.18.05.479229000@srcbs.org>, Sarah Kanary says...
>
>
>
>"Bob Felts" wrote in message
>news:104.33.19.05.166054000@srcbs.org...
>
>>> > When I responded earlier, I mentioned that I didn't see how this verse
>>> > supported this conclusion. But I was looking at it in the NIV and have
>>> > now read it in several other versions as well as the Greek. It
>>> > absolutely does not mean "the first created thing". It does mean "that
>>> > which started God's creation."
>>>
>>> Please give another Scriptural example where 'the beginning of' something
>>> was not also part of that something. From the LXX or NT.
>>
>> John 1:1-3. The Logos, through which everything was created, is not
>> itself a part of that creation.
>
>"The beginning of" does not appear at John 1:1-3, and thus does not
>illustrate the Bible's usage of said phrase. Wherever in scripture, both
>the NT and the LXX, 'arche' is followed by a genitive phrase "of the ...",
>that which is called the "arche" is always a member of the group referred to
>in the genitive phrase.

But this is an irrelevant distraction. For as you point out, John 1:1-3 does not
have the genitive. So all your examples are of very doubtful relevance.

>These few examples clearly demonstrate the manner in which the phrase
>"beginning of the creation" at Revelation 3:14 should be understood.

No, it does not.

> As in
>all the other Biblical examples the "arche" is a PART "of the __".

This is suggestive only. It is NOT conclusive. And here, the suggestion is
overriden by the fact that, as Augustine pointed out "the beginning of the road
is nto the road itself", likewise, the beginning of Creation is not Creation
itself. So no, it does NOT imply that He is created.

> This
>clearly demonstrates Christ as a PART, the FIRST part of the creation of
>God, according to consistent Scriptural usage of the term.

No, it is suggestive only. But as I just pointed out, the suggestion is
overridden by other considerations.

>
>> The beginning of a book is not a part of the book -- it is the story
>> that is first in the mind of the author.
>
>And the 'story' had a beginning. 'The beginning of' a story is part of the
>story. 'The beginning of' a book is part of the book.

In those examples, yes. But not always. Again, ""the beginning of the road is
nto the road itself".

>Please show a *passage of Scripture* where the phrase 'the beginning of' is
>used that illustrates your point.

You are asking for more than you have the right to ask for. Biblical Greek is
still the same language as other Greek.


[snip]
>> That's because they didn't use punctuation.
>
>Now, that I DID know! :-)