in the beginning was the "word"

[bribrius]

what exactly is the word?

i also remember this (logos) once from a article saying the "word " was actually apparent in some other relgions.

so have become very fascinated in deciphering what the "word" actually is.

Is it something behind the world which puts it together and makes everything work and go together? Like a certain right way of doing things for you to mesh with the creation and the way it should be?

And it also makes be think of the "way". Now when jesus says i am the "way" is that referencing just to the way to heaven, or another way. Like the proper way of fitting in with creation?

 

[SaintAugustine]

Logos can be defined as reason, wisdom...in this case..and divine reason became flesh.
Originating in classical Greek thought its immannet in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections. An eternal and unchanging truth present from the time of creation, available to every individual who seeks it

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

later...verse 14:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

 

[bribrius]

what does that mean "the darkness has not overcome it"?

And thankyou for your response. im really fascinated by this it sticks with me in a huge way. Everyone has something in faith that clicks to them. Or sends up a spark. This clicks with me.

 

[InChrist]

what does that mean "the darkness has not overcome it"?

And thankyou for your response. im really fascinated by this it sticks with me in a huge way. Everyone has something in faith that clicks to them. Or sends up a spark. This clicks with me.

Here's an article you may find interesting reading:

What Holds The Universe Together?
What Holds The Universe Together?

 

[Pegg]

what exactly is the word?

i also remember this (logos) once from a article saying the "word " was actually apparent in some other relgions.

so have become very fascinated in deciphering what the "word" actually is.

The title given to Jesus Christ by John at John 1:1 is “the Word” (logos) and it is signifies the function that Jesus performed in his heavenly role. He served as Gods spokesman to all other intelligent creations.
God illustrated this for us in the life and role of Aaron, Moses brother and the first High Priest of Isreal. At Exodus 4:16 it says “And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.” Aaron served as “a mouth” for Moses. Aaron spoke to the Pharoah and to the Isrealites instructing them all of Moses commands. It is in this way that Jesus became 'a mouth' for God. Jesus served as the one who would convey information and instructions (Gods word) to others.

Jesus showed that what he taught was not from himself but from God, he said at John 7:16-17 “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.”

So the real significance of being called 'the logos' or the 'word' is that Jesus position was as Gods right hand man...the one who spoke the Word of God on Gods behalf.

And it also makes be think of the "way". Now when jesus says i am the "way" is that referencing just to the way to heaven, or another way. Like the proper way of fitting in with creation?

Jesus is the way to approach God. It is only through Jesus that mankind can be reunited with God. So this makes the 'way' to God possible through Jesus.

 

[chinu]

what exactly is the word?

i also remember this (logos) once from a article saying the "word " was actually apparent in some other relgions.

so have become very fascinated in deciphering what the "word" actually is.

Is it something behind the world which puts it together and makes everything work and go together? Like a certain right way of doing things for you to mesh with the creation and the way it should be?

And it also makes be think of the "way". Now when jesus says i am the "way" is that referencing just to the way to heaven, or another way. Like the proper way of fitting in with creation?

Because of DIR forums i cannot reply to this new thread.

 

[miss interpret]

The title given to Jesus Christ by John at John 1:1 is “the Word” (logos) and it is signifies the function that Jesus performed in his heavenly role. He served as Gods spokesman to all other intelligent creations.
God illustrated this for us in the life and role of Aaron, Moses brother and the first High Priest of Isreal. At Exodus 4:16 it says “And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.” Aaron served as “a mouth” for Moses. Aaron spoke to the Pharoah and to the Isrealites instructing them all of Moses commands. It is in this way that Jesus became 'a mouth' for God. Jesus served as the one who would convey information and instructions (Gods word) to others.

Jesus showed that what he taught was not from himself but from God, he said at John 7:16-17 “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.”

So the real significance of being called 'the logos' or the 'word' is that Jesus position was as Gods right hand man...the one who spoke the Word of God on Gods behalf.





Jesus is the way to approach God. It is only through Jesus that mankind can be reunited with God. So this makes the 'way' to God possible through Jesus.

I believe the jehovas witnesses change the verse to the word was a god, they put in a as in one of many and use a small g on God to try and make it different from God the father.

 

[InChrist]

I believe the jehovas witnesses change the verse to the word was a god, they put in a as in one of many and use a small g on God to try and make it different from God the father.

I believe you are correct.

 

[bribrius]

Here's an article you may find interesting reading:

What Holds The Universe Together?

and i do. Thankyou for the help

God bless

 

[bribrius]

The title given to Jesus Christ by John at John 1:1 is “the Word” (logos) and it is signifies the function that Jesus performed in his heavenly role. He served as Gods spokesman to all other intelligent creations.
God illustrated this for us in the life and role of Aaron, Moses brother and the first High Priest of Isreal. At Exodus 4:16 it says “And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.” Aaron served as “a mouth” for Moses. Aaron spoke to the Pharoah and to the Isrealites instructing them all of Moses commands. It is in this way that Jesus became 'a mouth' for God. Jesus served as the one who would convey information and instructions (Gods word) to others.

Jesus showed that what he taught was not from himself but from God, he said at John 7:16-17 “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.”

So the real significance of being called 'the logos' or the 'word' is that Jesus position was as Gods right hand man...the one who spoke the Word of God on Gods behalf.





Jesus is the way to approach God. It is only through Jesus that mankind can be reunited with God. So this makes the 'way' to God possible through Jesus.

i was actually wondering about the term logos, the word etc.
and if there is a correlation to jesus. I am not of complete faith that jesus was the son of God. I have doubts.
Probably froming reading jewish writings and some histroy of people during that time. saw a youtube video on it too. Alot of people during his own time during, and that first century still doubted who he was. I saw something on the catholic church, early times, deciding on if they should consider him just a man, or just a divine being and never a man, and apparently decided to go with both.

But you watch and read all these things. And you start to wonder......

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the jehovas witnesses change the verse to the word was a god, they put in a as in one of many and use a small g on God to try and make it different from God the father.

Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but in their defense, the ancient Greek has no definite or indefinite articles, so throughout the Bible, wherever there was a noun, the translators simply decided whether to include an article or not. So... which is correct?

God is spirit? or God is a spirit?
God is light? or God is a light?

The Jehovah's Witnesses' translators simply made a different judgment call than most other translators did.

 

[Pegg]

I believe the jehovas witnesses change the verse to the word was a god, they put in a as in one of many and use a small g on God to try and make it different from God the father.

the context of the verse is clearly not speaking about one person alone

'this one was in the beginning WITH God'

Can you be the person you are with?

 

[miss interpret]

the context of the verse is clearly not speaking about one person alone

'this one was in the beginning WITH God'

Can you be the person you are with?

God is one, three in one and why would anyone change the text to add something that should not be there such as "a god" not just God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

MOD POST

This thread has been moved from the Christianity DIR to Biblical Debates.


tumbleweed41
​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but in their defense, the ancient Greek has no definite or indefinite articles, so throughout the Bible, wherever there was a noun, the translators simply decided whether to include an article or not. So... which is correct?

It is true that Greek does not have an indefinite article and perhaps most grammarians wouldn't say it has a definite article either. However, It absolutely does have an article, and absolutely does use this article mainly to make a noun a definite noun. This is, however, neither the only way the article can be used nor is it the only method Greek has to make a noun definite. Like the development of the definite article in French, German, English, etc., the Greek article was originally a pronoun. However, the grammaticization process which eventually occured in other Indo-European languages developed quite early in Greek, and thus even in Homer (where the article/pronoun distinction isn't always clear, and it is certainly used as an pronoun), one finds the more common, abstract, grammatical use of the article.

Basically, the "demonstrative" sense of the pronoun ("he" as in "this guy in particular" rather than some guy) increasingly became a way to refer to particulars. More technically, the article provided a mechanism for a speaker to construct a conceptual base space in which an instance of something, whether a quality, a member of a category (people, animals, titles, etc.), or really just about anything could be come a specified (abstract or no) entity. Compare, for example, how even in English we can refer to "the good" as in "The good in human nature is not, nor does it spring from, our natural inclinations, but in the capacity of each individual to resist these." The use of the article here turns an adjective into a noun phrase.

 

[miss interpret]

Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but in their defense, the ancient Greek has no definite or indefinite articles, so throughout the Bible, wherever there was a noun, the translators simply decided whether to include an article or not. So... which is correct?

God is spirit? or God is a spirit?
God is light? or God is a light?

The Jehovah's Witnesses' translators simply made a different judgment call than most other translators did.

Yet they did not change other verses in a similar way but only when it suited their doctrine, if it was with some sort of consistancy it would probably be more acceptable.

 

[SaintAugustine]

what does that mean "the darkness has not overcome it"?

And thankyou for your response. im really fascinated by this it sticks with me in a huge way. Everyone has something in faith that clicks to them. Or sends up a spark. This clicks with me.

you know I can't put words to my response...God's love trumps all.

 

[Shermana]

I believe the jehovas witnesses change the verse to the word was a god, they put in a as in one of many and use a small g on God to try and make it different from God the father.

I believe the JWs, and the numerous translations before them that did similarly, are correctly translating what the original intention of the un-articulated Theos was (see Acts 12:22) and thus returning it away from the "Big G" that the Trinitarians changed it to since the days preceding the Arian debates.

Even prominent Trinitarian scholars like Goodspeed, Moffatt, and Wallace have preferred to use "Divine" even if they agreed with the Trinitarian implication. Nonetheless, in the end, the "a god" translation is most fitting.

Now as for the meaning of "Word", it most likely means "Wisdom", and its the same created personified being that is mentioned in Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solmon 7-9 and Philo's "Logos Theology". It is important to note that Anatolian Jews around the time of John were well versed with Philo's teachings who clearly considered the "Word" a Heavenly being apart from the G-d himself while still being His "firstborn" and thus "A god". Justin Martyr also called "The word" "a god", and referred to Jesus as "An angel".

So in essence, the "word" is the personified, first-created being that is the embodiment of Wisdom itself, of whom was the Co-creator and which all things were made "through", not "by" but "through".

 

[miss interpret]

I believe the JWs, and the numerous translations before them that did similarly, are correctly translating what the original intention of the un-articulated Theos was (see Acts 12:22) and thus returning it away from the "Big G" that the Trinitarians changed it to since the days preceding the Arian debates.

Even prominent Trinitarian scholars like Goodspeed, Moffatt, and Wallace have preferred to use "Divine" even if they agreed with the Trinitarian implication. Nonetheless, in the end, the "a god" translation is most fitting.

Now as for the meaning of "Word", it most likely means "Wisdom", and its the same created personified being that is mentioned in Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solmon 7-9 and Philo's "Logos Theology". It is important to note that Anatolian Jews around the time of John were well versed with Philo's teachings who clearly considered the "Word" a Heavenly being apart from the G-d himself while still being His "firstborn" and thus "A god". Justin Martyr also called "The word" "a god", and referred to Jesus as "An angel".

So in essence, the "word" is the personified, first-created being that is the embodiment of Wisdom itself, of whom was the Co-creator and which all things were made "through", not "by" but "through".

If it is most fitting how come only the Jehovas witnesses actually translate it as such, while I understand the majority are not always correct it seems a tiny minority would be unlikely to be right above all the rest.besides how many gods are we talking about if the word is a god, God the father is a god and the spirit is a god are we dealing with the new world translation saying there are three gods.

 

[Shermana]

If it is most fitting how come only the Jehovas witnesses actually translate it as such, while I understand the majority are not always correct it seems a tiny minority would be unlikely to be right above all the rest.besides how many gods are we talking about if the word is a god, God the father is a god and the spirit is a god are we dealing with the new world translation saying there are three gods.

I made it quite clear in another thread that it was translated this way numerous times by non-JWs, centuries before the NWT and that it's a common fallacy, if not outright deliberate deception that it's taught by churches and scholars that the NWT was the first and only to do this. On the contrary, it seems that numerous Objective (i.e. non-Trinitarian) scholars translate it just as they do, it's generally the Trinitarians alone (and they represent the majority) who insist on it being such as the "traditional" version.

70-John-1-1-Truths

(11) Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, "And the logos was a god"--Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, 1879 THE FINAL THEOLOGY, Vol 1 "Introduction to the New Testament, Historic, Theologic and Critical, p. 353.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Leicester+Ambrose+Sawyer&source=-&sig=_result&resnum1

http://bibles.wikidot.com/sawyer & http://books.google.com/books?id=leicester+sawyer+new+testamentP
Plus http://www.virtualology.com/apleicesterambrosesawyer/

(12) A.N. Jannaris Ph D, “[A]nd was a god"
A.N. Jannaris Lecturer of Post-Classical and Modern Greek - at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
“Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft”, (German periodical) 1901
“An Historical Greek Grammar chiefly of the Attic Dialect, as written and spoken from classical antiquity down to present time, founded upon the ancient texts, inscriptions papyri and present popular Greek”
London, Macmillan 1897 [(re)printed in Germany Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildensheim -1968, v-xi].” ISBN 3487018365 .
“St John's Gospel and the Logos"ZNW 2 Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, pp13-25, German periodical, (1901)

http://www.lsn.se/2509/Announcements/Jannaris A.N. Biography.pdf---- http://www.jstor.org/pss/695678

http://www.arch-ant.bham.ac.uk/research/individuals/harlow/bute.htm & http://www.ntresources.com/rd_dbib.htm

(13) George William Horner, “[A]nd (a) God was the word"--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_versions_of_the_Bible
George Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic with Critical Apparatus Literal English Translation Appendix and Register of Fragments: The Epistles of S. Paul (Vol IV) (Hardcover) , 7 vols., (1911-1924; repr. Osnabrück: 1969).
http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/0607coptic.html----http://openlibrary.org/b/OL7165148M

If you want to talk about 3 gods, "God the Father, God the son, God the Spirit" is 3 gods, no matter what kind of "3 persons" argument you want to use. I have yet to get a straight answer from ANY Trinitarian (and I've talked to many) about what a "person" means exactly.

Now as for the meaning of the word "god", as I said in the other thread (and others) , Angels are in fact called "gods", see the Septuagint translation of Psalm 8:5, and see Psalm 136:2 where the Most high god is called "god of the gods". And note Jesus's response in John 10:34 when he quotes Psalm 86:2, powerful beings are thus called "gods", and that includes Angels, in which "Elohim" is often translated by Translations that are seeking to avoid this snag to their doctrine as "Heavenly beings", but no matter what, angels are called "gods". Most who don't understand this have not read Psalm 136. It's important to remember that the Ancient Israelites (And the Scripture itself) were Henotheists, and that what is referred to as "Monotheism" is more of a revision of their beliefs.

And it's not an issue if a "tiny minority" holds a position, if you want to believe that the majority opinion somehow means correctness, you might as well become Catholic on every other doctrinal issue, to say the least.