What does Logos mean?

John 1:1 (KJV):

quote:

---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

---

Wikipedia discussion of logos:

quote:

---

The Greek word ‘ or logos is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as "Word" but can also mean thought, speech, reason, principle, standard, or logic, among other things.

---

The Greek word translated "Word" in John 1:1 is logos. Note that contrary to the old adage that "the Greeks had a word for it" (e.g., three or four totally different words for "love," in the same way the Eskimos have several entirely different words or root words for "snow"), logos, like many Hebrew and Latin words, stood for a variety of concepts that, at least to my mind, had only a nebulous connection to one another.Given that that is the case, is there any justification for translating logos as "Word" rather than one of the other meanings alluded to by Wikipedia?Unless others have some other thoughts, I believe this should go into Bible Study.This message has been edited by DeclinetoState, 04-20-2006 05:15 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Linguistically, I don't know.Perhaps though as long is what is conveyed is something along the line of God communicated, God expressed, God defined to us, or God explained to us. I think this is John's meaning. I say this because the Apostle John makes a very bold and even shocking statement in the same chapter in which He says the Logos was with God and was God -"No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him]." (John 1:18)This is exceedingly surprising for John to write because God was said to have appeared to a number of people in the Old Testament like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Ezekiel, and Esaiah. John effectively informs us that all those instances do not count as man ever seeing God. Then John says that the onlybegotten Son has declared God. I think however we translate Logos, the meaning is God is declared, God is defined, God is explained, and God is communicated ultimately by the Son Jesus Christ.Furthermore this declaring is a matter of God imparting His own life into man's life - "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4)Those "seings of God" by the Old Testament patriarchs John now councils out as true seings of God's real "Person." What he counts as the truest manifestation of God's Person is God's divine ZOE life being dispensed into man in and through the Son of God. This dispensing of God into man is the uniting of divine life with human life in order to bring light into man's darkened being. That is the declaring of God to man as well as the enlightening our inner beings -"No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him]." This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 03:31 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 03:32 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 03:33 AM

Why , from a lingquistic point of view, is anything translated like it is?Because of the preconscived notions of the translator for a large extent.FOr example. The phrase you quoted in John, the 'Only Begotten Son', in greek, is , from a lingquistic point of view, better translated as 'The beloved son', not the 'only begotton son'.That makes a big difference thelogically.. and does not meet the theological preconceptions of the conservative christian.

In every translation there is some amount of interpretation. That is what I have heard from at least one experienced translator.So I will go along with you somewhat on this. How large the extent may be the interpretation of the audience who comes with their own "preconceived notions." Perhaps the skeptic will conclude a prior that up to 90% of the translation is just "preconceived notion" because of his a prior desire to discredit the varacity of the message.In reality the translation may be colored by the translators concepts not nearly that much, but admittedly some.The other matter is are "preconceived notions" necessarily false and untrue ones? No they are not of necessity false simply because they are preconceived. Perhaps the translators has actual EXPERIENCE with meeting Jesus Christ personally in regeneration through the Holy Spirit.The influence on his or her translation may indeed be effected by this experience. That does not mean that the translation HAS to be a bad one or that concepts which are not true will be injected into the translating work. The most important themes in the Bible are repeated multiple times. This makes it difficult for any one or two passages badly translated to effect the central most crucial teachings of the Bible.Besides this some ancient MSS, if I am not mistaken, read only begotten God and omit Son altogether. At least I was told this in a discussion about the NIV from one trained in reading Greek. In the case that you described above I would ask you HOW MANY other passages confirm that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God?
Placing your hopes in a poor translation of that passage will be a very flimsy refuge from the entire Bible's testimony that God sent His Son, His only begotten Son to be the Savior of the world.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:43 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:46 AM

I would like to think that "logos" means Reason.In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God.

And the Reason became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality.How's that communicate?

I guess it doesn't work. Too bad.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-21-2006 01:15 PM

---

"A man with a good car doesn't have to be justified"---Flannery O'Connor

I didn't think it was too bad. Why didn't you think it works well?
I checked my Weymouth translation of the New Testament and in a note he did indeed include Reason or Purpose as legitimte words philosophically equivalantly conveying Logos according to Greek and Jewish (Philo's) philosophy."And the Logos became flesh ..."

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

The point is that the translation is based on the thelogical preconceptions of the translator.SOmetimes, the translation is way off, and down right dishonest, particularly when Christian translators are translating the Jewish scriptures from Hebrew. The KJV verison is particularly bad about
making up translations that have nothing to do with the meaning of the hebrew.IN John, the term Logos , and the way it was used seems to have been borrowed to a large extent from Philo of Alexandria, who in turn had modified it from earlier Greek philosphers

Ramoss,Do you know for a fact that the Word was not with God and was not God?
Do you know for a certainty that the Word did not become flesh?And if Jehovah of hosts sent Jehovah of hosts in the book of Zechariah then why should it surprise you that such an expression is also used in the New Testament? And that attested to by quite a most extraordinary Person as human history has probably yet known?This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 03:38 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 03:42 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 03:42 PM

I think it is important to remember that, generally speaking, at the time when the OT was passed around in an oral fashion, the Hebrews thought more in concrete terms than the Hellenised authors of the NT of later times.The concept of ”logos’ has a long tradition in the philosophical tradition of the Greeks, with Heraclitus referring to it as a sort of law that gives order to the universe as early as the 6th century BCE.In the OT, the ”Word’ was seen as God’s creative and life giving power, as well as God’s word being able to heal (Psalm 107:20 He sent forth his word and healed them; he rescued them from the grave.)I’d say what the author of John did was to personify the ”word’ of God, making it pre-existent with God and essentially God Himself.I would argue that this is a different concept to the Jewish perception of the ”word’ of God, which is essentially God carrying out some deed or presenting a prophecy. The former is supported by:Psalm 147:18 He sends his word and melts them;
he stirs up his breezes, and the waters flow.Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like fire," declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?Obviously the big debating point would centre on Genesis 1, where God says ”words’ that create.In Judaism, the ”word’ is not a person, but polytheistic Christianity claims it is Jesus.Brian.

Saddly i think its also related to the translater but more so having to do with logos having gnostic meanings - as john is very gnostic, the church wanting to have nothing to do with gnostism would try to erase all links to itsome people would argue agenst this but well, they have been taught that gnostism is bad or something, i guess

Hi J, Doesn't the word 'begotten' have implications for Jesus' divinity?Brian.