The Logos vs The Word

[Pytharchimedes]

What should be the more accurate translation in the New Testement? Specifically John 1:1

The Word of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word

The Logos of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Is Word or Logos a better description of the nature of the Christ?

Not interested in debating just wanting to see what other people feel/think.

[37818]

That Greek word is translated in the follow verses: Mat_5:37; Mat_28:15; Mar_4:15; Luk_4:32; Luk_4:36; Luk_5:15; Luk_7:17; Luk_8:11; Joh_1:1; Joh_1:14; Joh_4:37; Joh_6:60; Joh_7:36; Joh_8:37; Joh_10:35; Joh_12:38; Joh_12:48; Joh_14:24; Joh_15:25; Joh_17:17; Joh_18:9; Joh_18:32; Joh_21:23; Act_6:5; Act_6:7; Act_11:22; Act_12:24; Act_13:15; Act_13:26; Act_13:49; Act_17:13; Act_19:20; Rom_9:6; Rom_9:9; 1Co_1:18; 1Co_2:4; 1Co_12:8; 1Co_14:36; 1Co_15:54; 2Co_1:18; 2Co_10:10; Eph_4:29; Eph_6:19; Col_3:16; Col_4:6; 1Th_1:8; 2Th_3:1; 1Ti_1:15; 1Ti_3:1; 1Ti_4:9; 2Ti_2:9; 2Ti_2:11; 2Ti_2:17; Tit_2:5; Tit_3:8; Heb_2:2; Heb_4:2; Heb_4:12; Heb_4:13; Heb_5:11; Heb_7:28; 1Jn_1:10; 1Jn_2:7; 1Jn_2:14; [1Jn_5:7;] Rev_19:13;

It is used both of language and the Person.

[firstfloor]

Logos as Christ is a late Christian reinterpretation.
The following is copied from here:
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religio...n225/Logos.htm

The Word (Logos) in Jewish and Hellenistic philsophical literature.

I. Two meanings
A. Stoic philosophy: Logos (Greek) = The principle of reason immanent in the universe
1. The world is material; there is no transcendent deity or (as with the Platonists) universal forms
2. There is a principle of reason that informs the universe and is part of it; that is logos
3. Understanding that principle allows one to live in harmony with the rational world, which is the virtuous life

B. Judaism: Dabar (Speech) = The method whereby God created the world
1. The Word of God is the Torah: it is God's way of communicating with humans
2. Jewish wisdom literature: wisdom is personified as a divine agent
a. "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts long ago" (Proverbs 8:22)
b. in Hebrew, wisdom (Hochma) is female, so is personified as a female figure

c. Logos (Greek) is male


II. Philo (d. 50 C.E.)
A. An educated diaspora Jew from Alexandria

B. Exponent of a philosophy known as "middle Platonism"
1. Combines Plato's philosophy of Forms with a transcendant deity
2. Often identifies this divine principle with the Stoic Logos

C. Philo's philosophy of God
1. There is a transcendant deity (God) who is also the God of Jewish revelation
a. "What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic Greek?"

2. God is completely unknowable as He is, beyond all human comprehension
3. God chooses to relate to us in some dim way we can grasp
4. God can be known through his actions: kingliness and creativity

5. Both aspects can be recognized in two ways
a. Throughout the universe, which God created (logos spermatozoi)
b. Through the Torah, in which God speaks (ho legon) to humans

6. The Logos is "the image of God . . . with no intervening distance."
a. metaphor: God seated in his chariot, giving directions (speaking) to the charioteer (Logos) who then drives the horses (kingliness and creativity)
b. The charioteer wields "the reins of the universe"

7. Communion with God is possible through meditation on the Torah
a. Word of God is the soul's food
b. In the divine Word one "sees God from afar"

8. Goal of the quest: to recognize that God cannot be known
"When, therefore, the God-loving soul probes the essence of God, he enters on a quest that is beyond form and sight. And out of this quest there accrues to him a vast gift . . .to see precisely this, that God is incapable of being seen."
Yet the seekers rejoice nonetheless because the quest itself brings "a foretaste of gladness"

[NormATive]

What should be the more accurate translation in the New Testement? Specifically John 1:1

I guess that depends on what brand of Christianity you bought into, since it is impossible to know if we have the original script or not.

NORM

[One Bad Pig]

What should be the more accurate translation in the New Testement? Specifically John 1:1

The Word of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word

The Logos of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Is Word or Logos a better description of the nature of the Christ?

Not interested in debating just wanting to see what other people feel/think.

"Logos" is a transliteration, not a translation. "Word" does not cover the entire semantic range of "logos," but that's unavoidable in translation. As all three major branches of Christianity generally translate "logos" as "word" (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) here, I consider it to be acceptable.

[Gnostic Bishop]

What should be the more accurate translation in the New Testement? Specifically John 1:1

The Word of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word

The Logos of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Is Word or Logos a better description of the nature of the Christ?

Not interested in debating just wanting to see what other people feel/think.

That notion was invented to explain the ridiculous Trinity concept that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat for his own self-aggrandizement.

Bishop Spong makes that clear in this clip.

That belief has led to modern Christians on the right to read their bible literally and IMO, stupidly.

Regards
DL

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That notion was invented to explain the ridiculous Trinity concept that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat for his own self-aggrandizement.

Constantine was not the originator of the concept of the Trinity. That ascribes far too much theological sophistication to Constantine. The simple fact that he was emperor at the time when the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine was being formalized does not make him responsible for it.

[Bill the Cat]

that notion was invented to explain the ridiculous trinity concept that constantine forced down christianity's throat for his own self-aggrandizement.

Bishop spong makes that clear in this clip.

That belief has led to modern christians on the right to read their bible literally and imo, stupidly.

regards
dl

spong????!!!!!!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2553[/ATTACH]

[Bill the Cat]

Constantine was not the originator of the concept of the Trinity. That ascribes far too much theological sophistication to Constantine. The simple fact that he was emperor at the time when the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine was being formalized does not make him responsible for it.

Can we adopt you?

[seer]

Can we adopt you?

Is he house broken?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Is he house broken?

I've broken some houses; does that count?

Back on topic, though, my only problem with translating λόγος as "word" is that it doesn't really capture the lexical range of the Greek. The word λόγος has connotations which are not addressed by the English "word." The English "word" doesn't carry the same connotations of "logic" or "reason" which are expressed by λόγος, and the English "word" is applicable to numerous different communicative symbols, while λόγος tends to specifically connote the spoken word (as opposed to, say, γραφος which indicates the written word).

[seer]

I've broken some houses; does that count?

As long as you no longer pee on the carpet.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

As long as you no longer pee on the carpet.

Nah, I stopped doing that YEARS ago.

Now, I only pee on tile floors.

[seer]

Nah, I stopped doing that YEARS ago.

Now, I only pee on tile floors.

Hehe, at least that is a positive step.

[seer]

Here is an interesting take:

It is to be hoped that these remarks on the relation between God and truth will be seen as pertinent to the discussion of logic. In any case, the subject of logic can be more clearly introduced by one more Scriptural reference. The well-known prologue to John’s Gospel may be paraphrased, “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.... In logic was life and the life was the light of men...”

...Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.

That Logic is the light of men is a proposition that could well introduce the section after next on the relation of logic to man. But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God’s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God’s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God’s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.

As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God. If this unusual translation of John’s Prologue still disturbs someone, he might yet allow that God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the Biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God’s willing.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....uliPXuVq.dpuf