What does Logos mean?

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.

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

Well, since it was written by the Jews, you would think the Jews, in their own language, you would think that they would have a better understanding of the words than forengers.Particularly, with such words as "ALmah" and Barach. and K'aros.That is particularly true since the Christian translators will agree with what those words mean, except in some key passages.

Read up on the "Arian heresy". This is something that had been claimed since the 4th century. It was part of the disagreement in the Nicean council in 325 C.E. The Trinity folk won that.. but the "arian heresay ' was based on John's translation of 'Beloved son".In other words, the translation and the agruement is as old as the council of Nicea, and the Creed that came out of it.A source from that is Philip Schaff: ANF06. Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius - Christian Classics Ethereal Library This message has been edited by ramoss, 04-22-2006 03:51 PM

No, not at all. Strong basically was wrong. Period. Strong's weakness is that he built a concordance of what the language meants due to his specific religious beliefs.. not what the word actually meant.He made some glaring errors. For example, He said "Daris" was a title, which is incorrect. Almah is just another of his errors.\And I don't see HOW anybody can call the 'Almah' in the song of solomon a virgin, considering the context of it.This message has been edited by ramoss, 04-24-2006 08:13 AM

Nonsense. You are failing to read things in context, just like most evangalistic Christians.Gosh, if you want ot know the Jewish scripture, you can't ask a Jewish Rabbi, you have to ask an Evangalistic Christian..

Ha. You are quote wrong about many things then.You are taking that fact that Alamh is translated as 'aprthenos'Yet, you are failing to understand that Parthenos did not mean exclusvigly virgin in that time frame. Otherwise, you will not have
seen Dinah (genesis 34) be refered to as 'parthenos' after she was raped.This reenforces the idea that translation is molded by religiosu belief. The term LOGOS fits this mold also.

King james IS a very bad translation.. and strong mistook many words too. It doesn't matter who is wrong.. it is just both are wrong.After all, it is only the 'good christians' that say "Almah" is a virgin. I don't understand how someone being described in the terms of intercourse could be a virgin.I am not really sure of the basic thought that the author of gospel of john was attempting to say. I do know that the words are suffiecnetly vague to mean anything you want them too.

But, when the GOJ was written, was John thinking about Jesus as the second person of a trinity, or was the retrofitted later?