What does Logos mean?

Complaints about translations from people who have no experience of it seem to picture some isolated person who has no experience or knowledge of either of the languages he's translating, might as well live on some other planet, and just willy nilly makes some arbitrary choice, completely nonsensical at times -- stupid uneducated choices rather than what they really are, educated choices that might happen not to be the best.Of course translators interpret, no way to avoid it, but they are people who are normally immersed and well versed in both languages, and in the case of Bible translators thoroughly knowledgeable about the Bible in one or both of those languages and thoroughly immersed in church life too where they know the consensus of meaning shared by believers -- so they are not loners acting arbitrarily but have plenty of critics to check them.For a translator with the expertise to take on the Bible not to know the difference between "begotten" and "beloved" or not to be able to make an intelligent rendering of the clearest meaning of the word in question, which is what you imply, is practically impossible.ABE: Where do you get your expertise about translation by the way? Seems you are frequently questioning the Bible translations as if you knew what you are talking about but all I see is a determination to contradict whatever the English Bible has to say, with no real support for your preference.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-21-2006 02:54 PM

Of course. I suppose that is always true. They know what the words mean, from the shared understanding within the church already. They don't make them up off the top of their head. They represent the Christian consensus. That is a slanderous thing to say, just because you accept the Jewish interpretation. This has been fought over the centuries and the Christians simply read it differently than the Jews do, and your opinion is just your opinion, not deserving any special attention, certainly not the right to accuse Christians of deceit.The New Testament followed the Greek translation known as the Septuagint which was done 300 years earlier and was used throughout the Hellenized world. Jews did that translation from their own Hebrew scriptures. Go argue with them, not with the Christians.And again, what's your expertise anyway? You're just one prejudiced reader on one side of the argument. The first Christians were Jews who knew their scriptures, and they wrote the New Testament. You have nothing like their authority for your views. Seems. Indeed. John was written IN Greek BY John. John was a Jew who knew his scriptures. It wasn't a translation into Greek, it was written in Greek.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-22-2006 02:34 PM

And they certainly did know better. That's why the Septuagint reads as it does, and the New Testament as well, because they were Jews who did know their own language as well as the Greek equivalents. It was only after Christ came that the Jews decided those meanings were wrong -- anything to avoid giving Jesus His rightful place as Messiah. Their own scribes had known better before that. Nonsense. Almah for instance is translated virgin three times in the Septuagint, IIRC, at least two, only one of those in a "key passage" from the point of view of the Jews who refuse to accept Jesus as Messiah; and the other two or three times it is translated young woman or the equivalent.{ABE: After looking it up I see that "almah" was translated as "virgin" FOUR times in the King James Bible, and as "parthenos" in the Greek Septuagint two of those times. Some other Greek word was used in the Septuagint for the "virgins" of the Song of Songs, but "parthenos" which specifically means "virgin" was used in Isaiah 7:14 and in Genesis 24:43. There are seven uses of "almah" altogether in the Hebrew scriptures, as I show in Message 33, five of them are translated by some other word than "parthenos" in the Greek Septuagint, and in the King James, two are "maid" and one is "damsels."}This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 09:59 AM

John didn't "translate" anything. He wrote in Greek, the common language of the day, in which his own originally Hebrew scriptures had been written for a couple of centuries.

It is well known that the Jews expected a king and a political deliverer from oppression and that is the idea that prevailed. Even Jesus' disciples had that expectation. The New Testament shows that. Why you would expect me not to know it is the mystery. It's well known.Jesus had to revive the knowledge of the full meaning of the Messiah because most of them had lost it. He taught -- FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT -- that the Messiah had to die. He also taught His identity as God Himself -- FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. It's all there, only a carnal view of the Messiah had taken over and the true meaning was lost to most of the Jews (not all), and had to be revived in the followers of Jesus.The Septuagint shows that the Jews 200 years before Christ knew that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, and that's why they translated Almah as virgin. This was conveniently forgotten when it was claimed for Jesus Christ.Jesus came as Suffering Servant in His first advent, and will come again as Conquering King at the very end, thus fulfilling ALL the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 12:53 AM

Look up the Strong's Concordance number for "almah" and you will find all five of the entries in the Old Testament. You will see that it is translated "virgin" in English at least twice, and the other times as "young woman." This is easy to check and I've posted the information before. If necessary I'll go track it down for you. As if translators didn't have this kind of problem all the time and know how to deal with it.And this is getting way off topic.AND THIS SUPPOSED "UNSUPPORTED NONSENSE" IS WHAT IS TAUGHT IN THE TRUE CHURCHES AND HAS BEEN FOR 2000 YEARS. THIS IS NOT MY OWN PERSONAL NOTION. GOOD GRIEF. YOU ARE ARGUING WITH ALL OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY. ALL OF YOU ARE.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 01:07 AM

Turns out there were more than I remembered. This is from Strong's Concordance at blueletterbible.org. which is only for the King James Bible. Strong's assigns a number to each Hebrew word. In this case "almah" is #05959, and from the following you can see that that Hebrew word occurs in the Bible a total of seven times, and that four of those times it is translated "virgin" in English, two times as "maid" and once as "damsels" which certainly ought to demonstrate that the translators knew the shades of meaning of the word: This link is to the Concordance page on Isaiah 7:14 which shows that the Greek Septuagint used the Greek word "parthenos" to translate "almah" over 200 years before Christ. "Parthenos" also has other meanings than "virgin" but it a very specific Greek word for "virgin" as well.(Sometimes links to the Hebrew and Greek pages don't work, so go to the verse itself at Blue Letter Bible and click on "C" to the left of the verse to get the page.)I also checked the Greek Septuagint for the other places "almah" appears in the Bible (again, go to the verse and click on "C" to get the Greek and Hebrew). I can't reproduce the Greek words but I do recognize the word "parthenos" in the Greek, so I can tell if it's used in the passage or not:It IS used in Genesis 24:43 which is translated in the KJV as "virgin"It is NOT used in Exodus 2:8 which is translated in the KJV as "maid"
or in Psalm 68:25 which is translated in the KJV as "damsels" or in Proverbs 30:19 which the KJV translates "maid," or in Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8 which are translated "virgins."SO, the Jewish translators of their Hebrew scriptures into Greek 200+ years before Christ chose the Greek word "parthenos" to translate "almah" only twice, in Genesis 24:43 for Dinah who was raped {ABE: Rebekah before she married Isaac} and Isaiah 7:14 for the virgin who will bear a son and call His name Immanuel; and then the English translators of the KJV also used "virgins" in the Song of Songs.Oh let me spell out the whole picture here for the seven places "almah" occurs in the Hebrew Bible, for the Greek and English (KJV):Genesis 24:43 "almah" = "parthenos" = "virgin"Exodus 2:8 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "maid"Psalm 68:25 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "damsels"Prov. 30:19 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "maid"Songs 1:3 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "virgins"Songs 6:8 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "virgins"Isaiah 7:14 "almah" = "parthenos" = "virgin"And again, let me help you understand this. The translators are being very careful to find THE word in the "target" language that BEST translates the original Hebrew word, and they are very well versed in both languages. First the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint 200+ years before Christ certainly knew both the Hebrew and the Greek; and the KJV translators were the best scholars in England in all the languages, and they had manuscripts to work from in many languages. Can you claim similar expertise?This ought to do it for "almah" and for the expertise of the translators.END OF OFF TOPIC SEQUENCE.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 03:40 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 09:47 AM

My stuff is supported well.I was answering somebody's reference to Almah, if it wasn't you then somebody else, and then you followed up on it. ABE: I looked it up. It was Ramoss, and you answered my answers to him.I never said the Jews "ALTERED" anything, they simply refuse to acknowledge the valid meanings given to their OWN scriptures by their OWN Jewish translators BEFORE CHRIST, and how they treat "almah" is one good example of this. Many readings were fine before Christ that since then they object to because they validate Christ. Again these readings were given to many things in the Hebrew scriptures before Christ by the JEWISH translators of the Septuagint. And AGAIN, The New Testament writers were JEWS, so let's stop this idea that the Jews always read their scriptures the way they insist on reading them now.THAT is the evidence you are asking for, that JEWISH translators once accepted the readings that current Jewish readers reject.You think this has nothing to do with their attitude to Christ? Pretty naive if so.ABE to clarify the sentence about translators of the Septuagint.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 05:08 PM

I'll say it again. The fact that Jews once accepted the meanings Christians now accept to describe Christ is plenty of evidence that they are now rejecting those reasons {abe: readings/meanings} BECAUSE they validate Christ. That is how I have been arguing this all along so you can stop the false complaint that I have not offered support.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 08:25 PM

What a strange thing to say, Ramoss. Apparently your argument is with the King James, not with Strong. Is that what you mean by "religious beliefs?"Strong had nothing to do with the translations, he merely showed what the King James had, he showed all the places the Hebrew scriptures used the term "almah" and then he showed how the King James translated it into English. What is he wrong ABOUT? It's the King James that said "almah" means "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and the Genesis passage about Rebekah and the two places in the Song of Songs, not Strong.I'll certainly take the well-known expertise of the King James translators over your opinion any day. And in fact I've shown in my posts that they knew what they were doing.And you have consistently misread the entry in the Song of Songs. Every time this comes up you misread it. It is talking about the many virgins who accompany the Beloved and the Shulamite, and it is used in contrast to concubines among other things.AND THIS IS OFF TOPIC IN THIS THREAD. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE IT ELSEWHERE?This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 09:02 AM

That's very funny, since I'm not interpreting anything myself, I'm merely reporting what various experts have to say. Actually, as I've been taking pains to point out, you can ask the Jewish translators of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the third century BC or the Jewish writers of the New Testament in Greek in the first century AD. It was those Jewish leaders we evangelical Christians take as authoritative on the Jewish scriptures.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 09:27 AM

Oh balderdash. I didn't say "parthenos" ALWAYS means "virgin" I was very clear that it has other meanings. Please read more carefully. But I disagree with you anyway about how they would have described Dinah after her being raped. The King James chose the word "virgin" to describe her. If you think it was because the Septuagint used "parthenos" think again. They had the Hebrew manuscripts by that time and were not dependent on the Septuagint. They chose "virgin" to translate the two passages in the Song of Songs where the Septuagint does NOT use "parthenos."And if anybody follows "religious belief" instead of the simple facts it's certainly today's Jews. It's why they refuse to recognize the plain meanings that their own experts ascribed to words in the 3rd century BC and 1st century AD -- their religious beliefs will not allow it.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 11:22 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 11:24 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 11:26 AM

You've done nothing but make bald unsupported assertions for the last few posts, and off topic too. I've proved my case. If you still want to argue it, since I know no matter how wrong you've been shown to be you are going to pretend you are right anyway, please start another thread.

I guess I'm just an idiot but I'm aware of the immense erudition and expertise that went into the translation of the KJV, by the best scholars of the day using all the available manuscripts, in many languages including the Greek and Hebrew. I'd be inclined to take their choice of "Word" most seriously for that reason, and to consider this questioning of it trivial and presumptuous. Not that they can't be wrong, as there are apparently some other problems with the KJV, but when it comes to a term as solidly established and thoroughly discussed in Christian theology as the Word it seems to me it should be taken more seriously than this thread is taking it.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2006 02:35 PM

The Word means, if I follow Matthew Henry's commentary, the thinking and speaking of God, begotten of God in the sense that we beget our own thoughts and speech. His commentary also points out that there is a Jewish precedent for the idea: Matthew Henry Commentary on John 1: ABE: *Thought maybe I should head off any possible misreadings of the word "vulgar" as if he were calling the Jews as a people vulgar. Henry wrote in the 18th century when the term simply meant "the ordinary people" as opposed to the educated or aristocratic class.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2006 07:38 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2006 09:03 PM