What does Logos mean?

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

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

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 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 ..."

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

Robinrohan, That is true. But I think John's purpose is to show that what Christ is is what is needed by man because whatever man has has been damaged. Notice the phrase "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." (1:5) Here the darkness has a definite negative sense to it. Something is even opposing the light from shining.Even John the Baptist, a sure servant of God, is said not to be that light, but only to testify to it (1:8) The light enlightens every man who comes into the world. So if Reason is a possibility, John is saying whatever "reason" we come into the world with is darkness and even death.Receiving this Reason is a matter of it being born or begotten into a person (1:13). This lays the groundwork for John to convey the discussion about being born again in chapter 3. And Nicodemus was surely a reasonable and even upright man. Whatever he had could not compare to the Logos which he must receive into him by a second birth.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 09:18 AM

Yes, dreadfully so.Man does have something like a break system. If he does apply the breaks he can regulate somewhat how much he slides down the path of his descent into corruption. If he does not apply his breaks he will descend lower and lower into corruption.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 04:32 PM

How do you think about Peter refering to Paul's letters apparently as Scripture which some people were twisting along with "the rest of the Scriptures?""... our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, Also in all [his] letters, speaking in them concerning these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as also the rest of the Scriptures ..." (See 2 Peter 3,15,16)Do you think that the phrase "the rest of the Scriptures" indicates that the Apostle Peter considered at least some of Paul's letters Scripture?

Welcome. I look forward to your contributions on the subject.I believe that it was under God's soverieghty that He chose such a rich language to convey the crucial gospel message of the New Testament.