|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What does Logos mean? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
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 nowif you have a clue what the messiah was for the jews you wouldn't keep saying this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024