|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,869 Year: 4,126/9,624 Month: 997/974 Week: 324/286 Day: 45/40 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What does Logos mean? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. What a strange thing to say, Ramoss. Apparently your argument is with the King James, not with Strong. Is that what you mean by "religious beliefs?" Strong had nothing to do with the translations, he merely showed what the King James had, he showed all the places the Hebrew scriptures used the term "almah" and then he showed how the King James translated it into English. What is he wrong ABOUT? It's the King James that said "almah" means "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and the Genesis passage about Rebekah and the two places in the Song of Songs, not Strong. I'll certainly take the well-known expertise of the King James translators over your opinion any day. And in fact I've shown in my posts that they knew what they were doing. And you have consistently misread the entry in the Song of Songs. Every time this comes up you misread it. It is talking about the many virgins who accompany the Beloved and the Shulamite, and it is used in contrast to concubines among other things. AND THIS IS OFF TOPIC IN THIS THREAD. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE IT ELSEWHERE? This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 09:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nonsense. You are failing to read things in context, just like most evangalistic Christians. That's very funny, since I'm not interpreting anything myself, I'm merely reporting what various experts have to say.
Gosh, if you want ot know the Jewish scripture, you can't ask a Jewish Rabbi, you have to ask an Evangalistic Christian.. Actually, as I've been taking pains to point out, you can ask the Jewish translators of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the third century BC or the Jewish writers of the New Testament in Greek in the first century AD. It was those Jewish leaders we evangelical Christians take as authoritative on the Jewish scriptures. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 09:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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 haveseen 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh balderdash. I didn't say "parthenos" ALWAYS means "virgin" I was very clear that it has other meanings. Please read more carefully. But I disagree with you anyway about how they would have described Dinah after her being raped. The King James chose the word "virgin" to describe her. If you think it was because the Septuagint used "parthenos" think again. They had the Hebrew manuscripts by that time and were not dependent on the Septuagint. They chose "virgin" to translate the two passages in the Song of Songs where the Septuagint does NOT use "parthenos."
And if anybody follows "religious belief" instead of the simple facts it's certainly today's Jews. It's why they refuse to recognize the plain meanings that their own experts ascribed to words in the 3rd century BC and 1st century AD -- their religious beliefs will not allow it. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 11:22 AM This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 11:24 AM This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 11:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You've done nothing but make bald unsupported assertions for the last few posts, and off topic too. I've proved my case. If you still want to argue it, since I know no matter how wrong you've been shown to be you are going to pretend you are right anyway, please start another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Ramoss,
There has been one warning concerning the "almah" discussion. I don't see this tying back into the topic of "logos". Let it go or start another topic if there isn't an open thread that fits your needs. Stick to the topic please. Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread. Thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6465 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
Some Bible translators have transliterated, rather than translated, the word logos. Given that logos could mean so many different things, and that there seems to be little consensus (beyond accepting the "word" translation) as to the correct translation, would it be all that dishonest to simply leave the word untranslated?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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. If Logos is supposed to refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity, I don't think "reason" as a definition would fit. He didn't bring Reason down. Man already had reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6465 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
quote: Try this: If Logos is supposed to refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity, I don't think "word" as a definition would fit. He didn't bring word down. Man already had word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess I'm just an idiot but I'm aware of the immense erudition and expertise that went into the translation of the KJV, by the best scholars of the day using all the available manuscripts, in many languages including the Greek and Hebrew. I'd be inclined to take their choice of "Word" most seriously for that reason, and to consider this questioning of it trivial and presumptuous. Not that they can't be wrong, as there are apparently some other problems with the KJV, but when it comes to a term as solidly established and thoroughly discussed in Christian theology as the Word it seems to me it should be taken more seriously than this thread is taking it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2006 02:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Try this: If Logos is supposed to refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity, I don't think "word" as a definition would fit. He didn't bring word down. Man already had word. True, I suppose. I'm not sure what "word" means. Language? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6465 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
The word "angel" comes from a Greek word meaning "news" or "message," hence "messenger." Messages usually include words. So, some would argue, calling Jesus "the Word" meant he was a messenger, or angel.
If we assert that the Logos meant something other than simply "the Word," then (it seems) we can move away from the identification of Jesus as "only an angel."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
But, when the GOJ was written, was John thinking about Jesus as the second person of a trinity, or was the retrofitted later?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Word means, if I follow Matthew Henry's commentary, the thinking and speaking of God, begotten of God in the sense that we beget our own thoughts and speech. His commentary also points out that there is a Jewish precedent for the idea:
Matthew Henry Commentary on John 1:
I. Of whom he speaks”The Word”ho logos. This is an idiom peculiar to John’s writings. See 1 Jn. 1:1; 5:7; Rev. 19:13. Yet some think that Christ is meant by the Word in Acts 20:32; Heb. 4:12; Lu. 1:2. The Chaldee paraphrase very frequently calls the Messiah Memra”the Word of Jehovah, and speaks of many things in the Old Testament, said to be done by the Lord, as done by that Word of the Lord. Even the vulgar* Jews were taught that the Word of God was the same with God. The evangelist, in the close of his discourse (v. 18), plainly tells us why he calls Christ the Word”because he is the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has declared him. Word is two-fold: logos endiathetos”word conceived; and logos prophorikos”word uttered. The logos ho eso and ho exo, ratio and oratio”intelligence and utterance. 1. There is the word conceived, that is, thought, which is the first and only immediate product and conception of the soul (all the operations of which are performed by thought), and it is one with the soul. And thus the second person in the Trinity is fitly called the Word; for he is the first-begotten of the Father, that eternal essential Wisdom which the Lord possessed, as the soul does its thought, in the beginning of his way, Prov. 8:22. There is nothing we are more sure of than that we think, yet nothing we are more in the dark about than how we think; who can declare the generation of thought in the soul? Surely then the generations and births of the eternal mind may well be allowed to be great mysteries of godliness, the bottom of which we cannot fathom, while yet we adore the depth. 2. There is the word uttered, and this is speech, the chief and most natural indication of the mind. And thus Christ is the Word, for by him God has in these last days spoken to us (Heb. 1:2), and has directed us to hear him, Mt. 17:5. He has made known God’s mind to us, as a man’s word or speech makes known his thoughts, as far as he pleases, and no further. Christ is called that wonderful speaker (see notes on Dan. 8:13), the speaker of things hidden and strange. He is the Word speaking from God to us, and to God for us. John Baptist was the voice, but Christ the Word: being the Word, he is the Truth, the Amen, the faithful Witness of the mind of God. ABE: *Thought maybe I should head off any possible misreadings of the word "vulgar" as if he were calling the Jews as a people vulgar. Henry wrote in the 18th century when the term simply meant "the ordinary people" as opposed to the educated or aristocratic class. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2006 07:38 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2006 09:03 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024