|
|
| Author |
Message |
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2740
Location: Charismatic
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| rufus wrote: | | And if I'm not mistaken the Greek of Homer's time was a little different than the Greek of the first century. |
It was different enough from ancient Greek and 17th century Greek for the translators of the KJV to postulate that the New Testament was written in some kind of divine dialect. If memory serves correct, there were around 140 Greek words about which the KJV translators had no clue.
As a matter of fact, the second most important word in the New Testament was left untranslated and remains so today.
| rufus wrote: | | it is easier for a modern Greek … than it is for an English speaking person … |
Well for one thing you don’t have to learn a new funny looking squiggly alphabet. But one cannot even make the claim that the languages were even pronounced the same, especially since the Great Vowel Shift in English.
I find it more astonishing that modern Aramaic has essentially remained unchanged, and we do have ancient Aramaic texts.
| rufus wrote: | | And if their using correct logic they could also spot an error made by a proffessional (sic) who used fallacious reasoning. |
Sure, but while on the one hand you have my insight (“using correct logic”) that overtly makes the connection between John 1 and Plato (hence the “radical” translation of John 1:1), on the other you’ll always wind up with something like the “serpent seed doctrine” (specifically the racist interpretation part stating that Adam wasn’t the first person, but the first white man created superior and separate from all the others, because Adam means “to blush”).
Yehu
PS: (Actually Adam has the connotation of red, because of the red clay from the ground which God supposedly used.)
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6908
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yehu, your juxtaposition of Logos as used by Plato and as used in John 1 isn't valid, as you do not seem to be taking into account the contextual use of the word, but seem to be focusing on simply the word itself.
Plato's contextual use of Logos was indeed different than John 1, and you know, or should know given your demonstrated 'understanding' of linguistics, that as a rich language, Greek is contextually based in meaning.
Plus, I do not fully agree with your assertions regarding the whole 'plato vs. John' logos analysis.
Now though, I am curious about this:
| Quote: | It was different enough from ancient Greek and 17th century Greek for the translators of the KJV to postulate that the New Testament was written in some kind of divine dialect. If memory serves correct, there were around 140 Greek words about which the KJV translators had no clue.
As a matter of fact, the second most important word in the New Testament was left untranslated and remains so today. |
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2740
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Plato's contextual use of Logos was indeed different than John 1, |
Sorry, RevJP, any reader of the time would have recognized the context (more specifically the style) of the text in John 1 to be a cosmology. I never said that John meant to affirm Plato's assertions regarding the Logos, just that a cosmology based upon the same Archetypical word would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Both were cosmologies centered on THE LOGOS.
Of course John's Logos is quite different from Plato's Logos. There was never any assertion (at least by me) that John desired to incorporate Platonist thinking into his gospel, although some Jesuits have advanced that view. To me - Just the opposite. John chapter one spoke in opposition to Plato, presenting a different FORM (the True Form) and as such was a refutation of Plotinus. (YOU got LOGOS? Well WE got LOGOS too.)
This is exactly the argument over Logos to which james was referring.
One cannot speak against LOGOS without using the word LOGOS.
Translation must be intellectually honest. Since BOTH speak about the LOGOS, both either speak about THE FORM, or both speak about THE WORD. They are not severed concepts as is implied by one translated as ‘form’ while the other is translated as ‘word.’
To assert that John’s Word has nothing to do with Plato’s Form is a bit like saying one American Trucks have nothing to do with British Lorries – because the words are different.
Yehu
PS: One of these days I will build the word LOGOS out of legos. 
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 97
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | | rufus wrote: | | And if their using correct logic they could also spot an error made by a proffessional (sic) who used fallacious reasoning. |
Sure, but while on the one hand you have my insight ("using correct logic") that overtly makes the connection between John 1 and Plato (hence the "radical" translation of John 1:1) |
This assertion is misleading. I did not overtly, or covertly, claim any connection between John 1 and Plato. That is your assertion, not mine.
| Quote: |
on the other you'll always wind up with something like the "serpent seed doctrine" (specifically the racist interpretation part stating that Adam wasn't the first person, but the first white man created superior and separate from all the others, because Adam means "to blush").
Yehu
PS: (Actually Adam has the connotation of red, because of the red clay from the ground which God supposedly used.) |
This statement is highly disingenuous. It has nothing to do with the discussion. It is a diversionary tactic, a red herring, and thus clearly demonstrates what a fallacy is. A method I endeavor to avoid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2740
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | Yehushuan wrote: | | rufus wrote: | | And if their using correct logic they could also spot an error made by a proffessional (sic) who used fallacious reasoning. |
Sure, but while on the one hand you have my insight ("using correct logic") that overtly makes the connection between John 1 and Plato (hence the "radical" translation of John 1:1) |
This assertion is misleading. I did not overtly, or covertly, claim any connection between John 1 and Plato. That is your assertion, not mine. |
And just what part of my insight is misleading? Especially when I said it was my insight? 
| rufus wrote: | | This statement is highly disingenuous. It has nothing to do with the discussion. It is a diversionary tactic, a red herring, and thus clearly demonstrates what a fallacy is. A method I endeavor to avoid. |
Mr. rufus, you might just want to go look up that word "disingenuous" before you go hurting yourself by misusing it. And red herring tastes really good when pickled.
Yehushuan
(Hey! you get the double rolley eye prize )
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | ...the first chapter of John is written in a style that would be instantly recognized by one educated in the first century as a philosophical cosmology...
...In the beginning was the FORM, and the FORM was with God, and the FORM was God. |
This quote is an example of the stupidity as well as the vileness of scholars.
Attempting to bring man's philosophy into the scriptures a instead of teaching all men to adhere to the Holy Ghost as the only qualified and ordained teacher given to the church.
Note: all God ordained teachers are taught of the Holy Ghost and are not independent scholars relying upon their personal philosophies.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 747
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
joman,
You said:
This quote is an example of the stupidity as well as the vileness of scholars.
Attempting to bring man's philosophy into the scriptures a instead of teaching all men to adhere to the Holy Ghost as the only qualified and ordained teacher given to the church.
Friend, You are lucky that Yehu isn't around right now to respond to your idiotic comments. he has more scriptural knowledge in his toe than you have in your whole being. Since he isn't around right now I will respond in his stead.
I for one agree with his assessment of this text and I am quite sure that you have no idea what he is really trying to say.
His study of Ancient Greek Culture and the etymological structure of Greek words has been quite informative on this forum.
So at the risk of asking you a question beyond your comprehension what was it about his quote that you disagree with. Please answer or I will follow you all over this forum and squash you like a bug.
I am sure I will get reprimanded for that but it will be worth it.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5151
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know the rules don't you JB? 
Link to Board Rules
Nobby
PS: joman, you could probably read them again too!
They have been updated & I doubt if you've read them since.
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JB wrote: | | Friend, You are lucky that Yehu isn't around right now to respond to your idiotic comments. he has more scriptural knowledge in his toe than you have in your whole being. |
I've read his opinions. Nothing new.
Remember, if any man thinks he knows something let him think again.
| Quote: | | I for one agree with his assessment of this text and I am quite sure that you have no idea what he is really trying to say. |
How boastful of you! Please read the above remembrence of scripture lest pride establish your fall and you be utterly shamed.
| Quote: | | His study of Ancient Greek Culture and the etymological structure of Greek words has been quite informative on this forum. |
Not of the truth it hasn't.
Yahoo, is merely trying to be the authority instead of the Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't want to be in his shoes if he doesn't repent.
| Quote: | | So at the risk of asking you a question beyond your comprehension what was it about his quote that you disagree with. |
Enough with the boasting!
| Quote: | | Please answer or I will follow you all over this forum and squash you like a bug. |
I don't care what you do. Have at it.
| Quote: | | I am sure I will get reprimanded for that but it will be worth it. |
O the courage you must have!
Jesus is not comparable to the Greek philosophy of the 'Logos'.
This "Logos" banter is nothing new JB.
It adds nothing to the AV Bible whatsoever.
Now, that being said, I ask your and/or your master Yahoo, to provide any analysis of John 1 that the Greek notion of "Logos" can possibly adds to the understanding of who Jesus of Nazareth is.
Joman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nobby
| Quote: | PS: joman, you could probably read them again too!
They have been updated & I doubt if you've read them since. |
Thank you. I will do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5151
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our Forum at top right hand side of the page are un-useable. The Admin hasn't reloaded them yet. But the ones at the at the top of Noah's Lounge were brought up to date!
Thanks guys.
Nobby
PS: Try to get along. OK?
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
witness
Not So Newbie
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: CIILL!! |
|
|
This is a forum guys,not a yelling match.
In chapter 1 , verse 1 of the book of genises,it will tell you EXACTLY the meaning of "LOGOS"
"In" being the source conjunctive,And"The Beginning" being the root, or NAME of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GospelCompilation
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 402
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, witness, the answer to who or what the logos meant to John is found in Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning."
That's why John refers to the logos as being the Light - the same light that was created on the first day. That light wasn't the sun - because the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. That light, created on the first day, was something else entirely. And it probably had something to do with God's plan for the redemption of man.
John said that light was the logos, and the logos was that light.
I suggest we study the word logos to see what it means in Greek, because we might discover why John tied the word logos to the light which was spoken into existence on the first day of creation week. John used the word logos for a reason... and that reason had everything to do with Genesis 1:1.
Not with Plato. Not with secular philosophy. But with Scripture. Everything the disciples taught and believed came from the Old Testament, and that's where we will always find the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 747
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GospelCompilations,
You said:
I suggest we study the word logos to see what it means in Greek, because we might discover why John tied the word logos to the light which was spoken into existence on the first day of creation week. John used the word logos for a reason... and that reason had everything to do with Genesis 1:1.
Not with Plato. Not with secular philosophy. But with Scripture. Everything the disciples taught and believed came from the Old Testament, and that's where we will always find the answer.
But the origin of the word is important to the context and the intent of its use. How can you deny the etymological advances of the word with out losing the true meaning of it in a scriptural setting?
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 747
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GospelCompilation,
You said:
That's why John refers to the logos as being the Light
John had so much more in mind than light. The logos was and still divine reason for all that exists. Not just in a revelatory sense but also in a creative sense.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
