General Logos questions.
- Thread starter benadam1974
- Start date
For some unfortunate reason, the Greek transliterated symbol ‘logos’ was translated into English as the symbol word ‘word.’
The Greek symbol ὁ λόγος does not have to be translated into English as ‘word.’ It actually means many forms of communication in the Greek language; and always used this way in the NT. It never means a person.
It can mean thought(s), speech, teachings, sayings, command(s), or will, voiced or spoken as an expression of thought(s) for a plan or purpose placed into words forming a message transmitted and intended to be heard by a being, a person or persons.
The Greek transliterated word ‘logos’ is a masculine gender noun or name in the Greek language. Once however ‘logos’ is translated into English it becomes instantly a neuter pronoun, an ‘it.’ This is because the English language does not have male or female gender attached to it adjectives and nouns. Again, Trinitarians and others, make the case that since ‘logos’ is a male gender in Greek, it means a male person or pronoun in English. This is at least intellectual dishonesty. The French for the table is ‘la tableau.’ It is a female gendered noun and yet the table is not really a ‘female’ table, it is a neuter, an ‘it,’ as in an inanimate object.
----------------------------------------------
There is no 'logos' in John 1:5b. The 'it' there is the reference for the 'the light.' The darkness (world) cannot know or understand or overcome this 'spiritual true light' coming in/as the man called Yahshua/Jesus.
I John 1:1-4 is one example that reinforces the fact that 'logos' is an 'it' neuter pronoun and never a 'he' or 'she.'
We have seen the 'Word,' (logos) the expression and thoughts, the voice of/for God the Father through his Son. He has spoken and acted for his Father.
In Christ, being Christ, Always
Yep, I see where you're coming from. I've gone back and forth over the years on John's prologue (some say it's John 1-5 and some say it's John 1-18) but whatever the case. I now believe, which I had done similarly, that the word in John's gospel is the verbal expression that is brought out predominantly in the whole of John's gospel. It either refers to Jesus speaking or something about Jesus. What I picked up recently, however, is that that verbal expression obviously needs somebody to utter that expression and that person is usually Jesus in John's gospel. I see Jesus as the embodiment and epitome of that word throughout his ministry, death and resurrection. That God the Father is speaking through his son. I love how "Rivers o" Feden" and Bill Schlegel break it down in this discussion
I like your stuff Carlos but I think you're wrong concerning John 1-10. Firstly, we should be looking at John's gospel and see if we can figure out what he meant by "in the beginning" En arche" We see it regularly throughout the book of John and the other gospels also. See John 6:64, 8:25, 15:27, 16:4, The epistles:
1 John 1, 1 John 2:7, 13, 14, 24 1 John 3:11 2 John 1:5,6, and the other gospels...
Mark 1:1
Luke 1:2
Acts 11:15
Philippians 4:15
Most of these (if not all) refer back to the beginning of Jesus ministry. Another thing, the Greek word En arche can refer to "at the beginning" "from the beginning" or indeed "in the beginning". These are also brought out in the Greek Septuagint some 30 times. Many times not necessarily referring to the Genesis creation such as the beginning of the reign of kings...Ezekiel 42:10 ( beginning of a wall) Ruth 1:22 ( beginning of a harvest)
It's interesting that Logos is not found in the Genesis creation (Greek Septuagint) and wisdom is not mentioned in John's prologue.
I believe John 1:3 is referring to the new beginning. The Greek word Egeneto should never never be translated as "was made" or "created" in this verse. I agree it has quite a few meanings in English but "was made" and "created" is not one of them. I believe the following translations are more accurate.... "Happened" "was" "were" "Came to" "Came to pass"
"all things happened through Him, and without Him not even one thing happened that has happened." (Literal standard version)
"all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened" (Young's literal translation)
"All things were by him; and without him out him was not one thing that was" (Smiths Literal translation)
"All things received being through him, and without him not one [thing] received being which has received being" (Darby Translation)
In the book of John, what are "all things" that happened and came about in the life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus? Life "came to be" through Jesus and his resurrection. The new beginning.
Just as Bill brings out in his podcast, John 1:10 is referring to the world of men, the Roman world, even the Jewish world society to be more precise. I like how the Berean literal bible translates it...
He was in the world, and the world came into being (egeneto) through Him, and the world did not know Him
https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podc...er-1-is-Not-about-the-Genesis-Creation-el6vnf
https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podc...Planet-Earth--Commentary-on-John-19-13-em4a9a
https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podc...th--A-Commentary-on-John-19-13--PART-2-emcvon
1 John 1, 1 John 2:7, 13, 14, 24 1 John 3:11 2 John 1:5,6, and the other gospels...
Mark 1:1
Luke 1:2
Acts 11:15
Philippians 4:15
Most of these (if not all) refer back to the beginning of Jesus ministry. Another thing, the Greek word En arche can refer to "at the beginning" "from the beginning" or indeed "in the beginning". These are also brought out in the Greek Septuagint some 30 times. Many times not necessarily referring to the Genesis creation such as the beginning of the reign of kings...Ezekiel 42:10 ( beginning of a wall) Ruth 1:22 ( beginning of a harvest)
It's interesting that Logos is not found in the Genesis creation (Greek Septuagint) and wisdom is not mentioned in John's prologue.
I believe John 1:3 is referring to the new beginning. The Greek word Egeneto should never never be translated as "was made" or "created" in this verse. I agree it has quite a few meanings in English but "was made" and "created" is not one of them. I believe the following translations are more accurate.... "Happened" "was" "were" "Came to" "Came to pass"
"all things happened through Him, and without Him not even one thing happened that has happened." (Literal standard version)
"all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened" (Young's literal translation)
"All things were by him; and without him out him was not one thing that was" (Smiths Literal translation)
"All things received being through him, and without him not one [thing] received being which has received being" (Darby Translation)
In the book of John, what are "all things" that happened and came about in the life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus? Life "came to be" through Jesus and his resurrection. The new beginning.
Just as Bill brings out in his podcast, John 1:10 is referring to the world of men, the Roman world, even the Jewish world society to be more precise. I like how the Berean literal bible translates it...
He was in the world, and the world came into being (egeneto) through Him, and the world did not know Him
https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podc...er-1-is-Not-about-the-Genesis-Creation-el6vnf
https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podc...Planet-Earth--Commentary-on-John-19-13-em4a9a
https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podc...th--A-Commentary-on-John-19-13--PART-2-emcvon
I deal with all of these points in my video suffice it to say EN ARCHE is only used by John in the prologue. And you’re confusing grammatical gender with biological sex. All translations before 1611 KJV rightly understood the logos as an “it” not “he.”
Lastly, John never uses PROS to denote one person “with“ another.
Ok, just watched a little bit more of your video. As I've said before in an earlier post, the grammar does accommodate "it" as "him" and "this one" or "The same one" as "he". It depends on the context. Now, I used to believe in how you see John 1:1b and I don't now because the grammar in wisdom literature (Proverbs 8 for instance and Job like you stated in your video) is different to what we have in John's gospel. Pretty much, Pros ton Theon does not describe something that is within God such as wisdom or prudence. You cannot appeal to passages that don't use the same grammar. The passages you show in the video do not correspond at all with Greek grammar. There is no personification in the use of Pros ton theon throughout the bible. Pros ton theon always relates to when someone is relating something to God. As of now, I see John 1:1b as the word (Jesus in a metaphorical sense) just as Moses was "with God" in a relational sense while on earth. Incidentally, John's gospel does mention Moses in John 1:18. One other viability is that John 1:1b is referring to Jesus in ascension/resurrection mode with God, pointing to John 1:18b. "the one being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known". I believe this has credence because if you look at verses that have Pros ton Theon and Pros ton Patera (both used interchangeably) such as John 13:1, 3; 14:6 (Jesus is the way to the father-Pros ton Patera) 12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 20:17 and the epistles language is very similar...1 John 1:2 (the one that has eternal life with the father) 1 John 2:1 (an advocate to the father (again, pros ton theon (in the presence of the father, Jesus Christ )
So as you can see there are quite a few references here linking Pros ton theon or Pros ton Patera concerning Jesus going to the father or being with the father and ways of going to the father via the person Jesus (Aka - the word)
Another thing I noticed that you pointed out in your video is that you bring out words such as "beginning" (as we've already discussed) "darkness" "life" and "light" and you attempt to connect these words onto Genesis from John 1. Although the author of John may boldly echo and allude to the Genesis creation in some way, he is not directly pointing the word back to material creation. Firstly, there are quite a few references to these words already made by the author of John in his own book. We should focus on those meanings first. Also, the epistles. Thirdly, there are quite a few references regarding "light" darkness" "Life' "beginning" in the Old Testament that doesn't have anything to do with the creation account of Genesis.
Ok, one more thing while I'm at it, let's check out the word "all things" that are used just in the book of John that never mean the creation of all material/physical things. I'm bringing this up because of what you mentioned in your video.
Firstly, "things" is not in the Greek. It is added by the translator and it depends on the context. Ok, here we go....
John 1:7, 9, 16. John 3:35, 4:25, 29, 45, 5:20, 10:4, 41 John 13:3, 14:26, 15:15, 21, 17:7 John 19:28. This by the way is not an exhaustive list in the book of John. I think there are at least another 30 times where "all things" does not mean "all the created universe or world". As I said, it depends on the context. John 1:3 and John 1:10 is no exception. The following are just some more examples of other "all things" in the New Testament....
Matthew 11:27, Acts 20:35, Rev 21:5, Romans 15:4, Philippians 4:13, 1 Timothy 4:8 , 1 Corinthians 13:7. Again, this is not by any means an exhaustive list.
So as you can see there are quite a few references here linking Pros ton theon or Pros ton Patera concerning Jesus going to the father or being with the father and ways of going to the father via the person Jesus (Aka - the word)
Another thing I noticed that you pointed out in your video is that you bring out words such as "beginning" (as we've already discussed) "darkness" "life" and "light" and you attempt to connect these words onto Genesis from John 1. Although the author of John may boldly echo and allude to the Genesis creation in some way, he is not directly pointing the word back to material creation. Firstly, there are quite a few references to these words already made by the author of John in his own book. We should focus on those meanings first. Also, the epistles. Thirdly, there are quite a few references regarding "light" darkness" "Life' "beginning" in the Old Testament that doesn't have anything to do with the creation account of Genesis.
Ok, one more thing while I'm at it, let's check out the word "all things" that are used just in the book of John that never mean the creation of all material/physical things. I'm bringing this up because of what you mentioned in your video.
Firstly, "things" is not in the Greek. It is added by the translator and it depends on the context. Ok, here we go....
John 1:7, 9, 16. John 3:35, 4:25, 29, 45, 5:20, 10:4, 41 John 13:3, 14:26, 15:15, 21, 17:7 John 19:28. This by the way is not an exhaustive list in the book of John. I think there are at least another 30 times where "all things" does not mean "all the created universe or world". As I said, it depends on the context. John 1:3 and John 1:10 is no exception. The following are just some more examples of other "all things" in the New Testament....
Matthew 11:27, Acts 20:35, Rev 21:5, Romans 15:4, Philippians 4:13, 1 Timothy 4:8 , 1 Corinthians 13:7. Again, this is not by any means an exhaustive list.
Don't mean to be a hard, rigid, stick in the mud Carlos. After all, I could be wrong and I mean no disrespect. I do love your work and I think this and maybe only one or two other minor things we may disagree on. Say G'day to your father in law for me and his wife. You know what they say, behind every great man is a surprised woman lol
Oh, by the way, Carlos, It's Christmas here in Australia so to you and everyone else I hope you have a great day as I hope you have a great day every day. Not just this most pagan holiday. (my opinion of course) but it is sacred because it's another day of our lives right? God bless and keep the bastards honest (Australian saying)
Oh, by the way, Carlos, It's Christmas here in Australia so to you and everyone else I hope you have a great day as I hope you have a great day every day. Not just this most pagan holiday. (my opinion of course) but it is sacred because it's another day of our lives right? God bless and keep the bastards honest (Australian saying)
@McSquidly, I'm a little confused in some of your lengthy posts on this thread. For example, I do not see a consistent frame of mind regarding what you have said regarding John 1:1-2 and now connected with verse 18.
You said " I see John 1:1b as the word (Jesus in a metaphorical sense) just as Moses was "with God" in a relational sense while on earth. Incidentally, John's gospel does mention Moses in John 1:18. One other viability is that John 1:1b is referring to Jesus in ascension/resurrection mode with God, pointing to John 1:18b."
You are now attaching Moses as a type of Christ in verse 1 because Moses is used in John 1:18! There is a real obvious purpose why Moses is described in verse 18 and it's not what you are describing at all here. I do not see your reasoning at all here. Are you imagining and toying with the idea that logos means Christ, something that is not defined in scripture this way, at all?
What is the the meaning of logos to you? Does it ever mean a person, let alone Christ? If this is not clearly defined and understand I do not know how you can built upon it now in this imaginative way.
From Strong's Concordance
logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Original Word: λόγος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: logos
Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os)
Definition: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Usage: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.
And further, in John 1:1b the use of 'with God' is a very poor translation. the 'with' should be 'towards' or 'moving or pointing towards', something very close, with the implication it means an activity coming from or originating from or attached to God himself; and not just with or alongside God.
pros: advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Original Word: πρός
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: pros
Phonetic Spelling: (pros)
Definition: advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Usage: to, towards, with.
Thanks.
And have a Blessed Day down under in OZ
I was raised down under myself - in New Zealand.
You said " I see John 1:1b as the word (Jesus in a metaphorical sense) just as Moses was "with God" in a relational sense while on earth. Incidentally, John's gospel does mention Moses in John 1:18. One other viability is that John 1:1b is referring to Jesus in ascension/resurrection mode with God, pointing to John 1:18b."
You are now attaching Moses as a type of Christ in verse 1 because Moses is used in John 1:18! There is a real obvious purpose why Moses is described in verse 18 and it's not what you are describing at all here. I do not see your reasoning at all here. Are you imagining and toying with the idea that logos means Christ, something that is not defined in scripture this way, at all?
What is the the meaning of logos to you? Does it ever mean a person, let alone Christ? If this is not clearly defined and understand I do not know how you can built upon it now in this imaginative way.
From Strong's Concordance
logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Original Word: λόγος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: logos
Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os)
Definition: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Usage: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.
And further, in John 1:1b the use of 'with God' is a very poor translation. the 'with' should be 'towards' or 'moving or pointing towards', something very close, with the implication it means an activity coming from or originating from or attached to God himself; and not just with or alongside God.
pros: advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Original Word: πρός
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: pros
Phonetic Spelling: (pros)
Definition: advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Usage: to, towards, with.
Thanks.
And have a Blessed Day down under in OZ
I was raised down under myself - in New Zealand.
The Greek preposition PROS in this context is better understood as "pertaining to" God not "towards" since PROS with the accusative “does not imply any movement or action on the part of the Logos" (Brown, NIDNT, p 1204).
Again, it's very important to note that John never uses PROS to mean one person "with" another.
For more see: http://thehumanjesus.org/2016/01/07/godword/
I understand what you said about the unique use of PROS in John 1:1 being translated as 'with.' That is intriguing and real cause for suspecting that nearly all, or all translators were biased deliberately, and used a word uncharacteristic of John.
You have something here...
I will take your definition of PROS into consideration as 'pertaining to' and it does more directly imply that it originates from God better than 'towards' or the action from God as I said. And it also points to an intrinsic characteristic of God - his self-expression and voice...
Thanks
BINGO!
The "self-expression" definition of logos, Heb. DAVAR, goes back to the OT where it's always another way of speaking about YHVH, God Himself.
Hence, the Targums paraphrase DAVAR as YHVH Himself.
Some noted trinis, like the late Dr. James Dunn, admitted as much when he observed that "what a Wisdom/Word Christology claims is that Jesus is the person/individual whom God’s Word became. Even to speak of the incarnation of the Son of God can be misleading, unless the Son Christology of John is seen as it was probably intended, as an expression of the same Wisdom/Word Christology; otherwise, there is the danger of a too literal translation of Father-Son language once again into a form of polytheism—that very abandoning of the oneness of God of which Jews and Muslims accuse Christians. The incarnation doctrine which comes to expression in the New Testament is properly understood only if it is understood as the incarnation of God’s self-revelation, in the sense as that incarnation of God himself. The issue which caused the breach with Jewish thought and with Judaism is the charge against the Johannine Jesus that ‘you being a man, make yourself God’ (John 10.33).”
Dunn, Christology in the Making, 1980.
Hey Carlos, I was referring to John 1:1b (and the word was with God) in the sense of being with God in heaven (resurrection/ascension) can possibly line up with John 1:18b (the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. I'm just saying that it's worth considering, along with all the other scriptures I brought out regarding Pros ton theon and pro ton Patera and again if you see the context there, you will see that there is a common denominator. Jesus. The word. Now, as of now, as I explained (hopefully) I lean towards John 1:1b as the word (Jesus) that was with God during his life, ministry and resurrection. Now, I agree with the lexical definitions that you pointed out concerning the "word" especially showing up as a "verbal expression" in the book of John but there's one thing you have to consider; in order for there to be a verbal expression, there quite simply has to be a person/s to express that verbal expression. Otherwise, there would never exist a verbal expression in the first place. That person mainly in the book of John is Jesus. This is why I believe he is the word (and that the father expressed his words in the man Jesus, also Deuteronomy 18:18, Acts 3:22) and was "with" God at the time of his life and ministry/resurrection and of course, now. Just as Moses was with God. I never said that I am equating Moses with a type of Christ (although there is an argument to be had) I was only expounding upon John 1:1b and the "with" issue.
Now, I'm not sure if you've listened to this. If you haven't I hope you do. Bill Schlegel and Rivers give a commentary on John 1:1b and a little bit beyond. This is where I currently stand if you still don't know where I'm coming from
Again, John never uses PROS with the accusative to talk about one person “with“ another. And the logos is an “it” not a “he” or “him.” We must be careful not to confuse grammatical gender with biological sex, I.e., a human male.
I'm not sure if you're listening. I already spoke about "it" "he" or "him" in one of my previous posts and I thought I showed you in all those verses in John 1 that I cited that Pro ton theon and Pros ton Patera (used interchangeably) and demonstrated Jesus (and others) as "to" or "towards" the father?
Last edited:
Which is wrong and I showed you why.
I’m sorry but I don’t know what or how else to say it.
So I’ll say good night for now.