Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What does Logos mean?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 74 (305953)
04-22-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ramoss
04-21-2006 3:06 PM


Re: translators
The point is that the translation is based on the thelogical preconceptions of the translator.
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.
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.
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.
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
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ramoss, posted 04-21-2006 3:06 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ramoss, posted 04-22-2006 3:41 PM Faith has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 17 of 74 (305962)
04-22-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
04-20-2006 5:10 AM


Somewhere I read an interesting definition of Logos that was given in the context of Yeshua (Jesus) being the Logos of God. The definition was either written by a 2nd or 3rd century Christian, or it was given as part of the intro to one of their writings.
When a person thinks, there's generally a voice that he can hear in his head. That voice is your Logos.
The early Christians believed that somehow, in a manner beyond our comprehension, God was able to birth or create his Logos into a being that was an extension of himself. That being eventually came to earth to be born, in Y'shua.
There were a lot of verses that the early church considered obvious references to this happening, that we haven't used since the Trinity battles of the 4th century. Ps 45:1 is a good example, where the LXX has "My heart has emitted a good Logos." (The LXX is Greek, of course, so it has Logos, not whatever the Hebrew word is that David would have written.) They considered that a reference to the birth or issuing forth in eternity past of the Son. Pr 8:22 is another where it says "The Lord created me the beginning of his works."
Pr 8:22 is a JW vs. Evangelical battleground. I am not trying to provoke a discussion on the Trinity. I am only telling you about this to address the issue of what Logos means in the context of the Scriptures, which is what you asked about. It seems important to me to know how others used that word, in reference to Christ, in the century or two after the verses you asked about, and this is how they used it.
Tertullian, who could read Greek, but wrote in Latin, translated Logos with the the Latin word for Reason (Ratio?) most often. That was AD 200.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-20-2006 5:10 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 18 of 74 (305963)
04-22-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ramoss
04-21-2006 8:49 AM


Re: God defined and declared
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'.
I've heard this before. I don't believe it is accurate. Do you have any sort of a good source for saying this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 04-21-2006 8:49 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ramoss, posted 04-22-2006 3:49 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 68 by dancer, posted 05-02-2006 6:03 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 19 of 74 (305966)
04-22-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ReverendDG
04-22-2006 1:20 AM


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 it
Au contraire, my friend. Irenaeus says that John was specifically written to counter gnosticism. It uses a lot of gnostic words, but not because it's gnostic, but because it purposely refutes gnosticism.
The gnostics divided up light, wisdom, word, christ, etc. into several beings called aeons. John ties all those words together into Yeshua, saying he is the Word, the Light, the Life, the Way, etc.
Since those who were noted as John's disciples (Ignatius, Polycarp) also seem to be the ones who are most remembered as opposing gnosticism, I'd say this theory of Irenaeus is on good ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ReverendDG, posted 04-22-2006 1:20 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 04-23-2006 3:44 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 28 by purpledawn, posted 04-23-2006 8:09 AM truthlover has replied
 Message 31 by ReverendDG, posted 04-23-2006 10:44 AM truthlover has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 20 of 74 (305970)
04-22-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
04-22-2006 2:33 PM


Re: translators
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 04-22-2006 2:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-22-2006 5:02 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 21 of 74 (305973)
04-22-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by truthlover
04-22-2006 3:14 PM


Re: God defined and declared
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by truthlover, posted 04-22-2006 3:14 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-22-2006 5:06 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 39 by truthlover, posted 04-23-2006 11:18 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 74 (305981)
04-22-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ramoss
04-22-2006 3:41 PM


Re: translators
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 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.
That is particularly true since the Christian translators will agree with what those words mean, except in some key passages.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ramoss, posted 04-22-2006 3:41 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ReverendDG, posted 04-23-2006 12:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 74 (305982)
04-22-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ramoss
04-22-2006 3:49 PM


Re: God defined and declared
John's translation of 'Beloved son".
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ramoss, posted 04-22-2006 3:49 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 24 of 74 (306047)
04-23-2006 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
04-22-2006 5:02 PM


Re: translators
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.
with the way greek is limited they did the best they could, though the words have shades to the words that greek doesn't express
t 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.
yes because a guy who was born of a virgin and was the son of god is the messiah, faith do you even know what the jewish messiah was expected to be at all? saying this unsupported nonsense shows you have no clue, if you did you wouldn't claim they changed it.
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.
do you have any evidence people did such a thing faith? or are you just making unsupported claims now
if you have a clue what the messiah was for the jews you wouldn't keep saying this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-22-2006 5:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-23-2006 12:49 AM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 04-23-2006 12:58 AM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 04-23-2006 2:49 PM ReverendDG has replied
 Message 69 by dancer, posted 05-02-2006 6:08 PM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 74 (306052)
04-23-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by ReverendDG
04-23-2006 12:28 AM


The Messiah
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ReverendDG, posted 04-23-2006 12:28 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ReverendDG, posted 04-23-2006 10:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 74 (306053)
04-23-2006 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by ReverendDG
04-23-2006 12:28 AM


Re: translators
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.
with the way greek is limited they did the best they could, though the words have shades to the words that greek doesn't express
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ReverendDG, posted 04-23-2006 12:28 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ReverendDG, posted 04-23-2006 10:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 74 (306067)
04-23-2006 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by truthlover
04-22-2006 3:20 PM


Back On Topic
DeclineToState writes:
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?
truthlover writes:
The gnostics divided up light, wisdom, word, christ, etc. into several beings called aeons. John ties all those words together into Yeshua, saying he is the Word, the Light, the Life, the Way, etc.
Since those who were noted as John's disciples (Ignatius, Polycarp) also seem to be the ones who are most remembered as opposing gnosticism, I'd say this theory of Irenaeus is on good ground.

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by truthlover, posted 04-22-2006 3:20 PM truthlover has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 28 of 74 (306081)
04-23-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by truthlover
04-22-2006 3:20 PM


Aeons
quote:
Irenaeus says that John was specifically written to counter gnosticism. It uses a lot of gnostic words, but not because it's gnostic, but because it purposely refutes gnosticism.
The gnostics divided up light, wisdom, word, christ, etc. into several beings called aeons. John ties all those words together into Yeshua, saying he is the Word, the Light, the Life, the Way, etc.
Interesting. So John was saying that there was only one being, Jesus, not all those other beings, Aeons? So the term logos isn't really referring to words.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by truthlover, posted 04-22-2006 3:20 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 04-23-2006 11:23 PM purpledawn has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 29 of 74 (306087)
04-23-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
04-23-2006 12:49 AM


Re: The Messiah
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
because you say thier is some alteration in peoples belief, without any evidence
esus 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
Faith, this is all christian belief not jewish belief, do you really think it holds more impact pointing out they used the OT to justify thier beliefs? all of the passages used to show evidince of messiahhood are wrong according to jewish belief
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.
any evidence of this claim?
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.
not according to the OT if you are a jew

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-23-2006 12:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 30 of 74 (306090)
04-23-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
04-23-2006 12:58 AM


Re: translators
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.
No we are arguing with you, and you need to chill out, and no its not all taught for 2000 years. dogma is not history

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 04-23-2006 12:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024