Logos vs 'the word'
Is translating logos as "the word" the worst crime in bible translations ever? Seems to be dumbing dumb the populence and the message too.
It should read
>In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
>He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
>In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome it.
It gives a much deeper thought and meaning to the text then
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome it.[37]
Logos vs 'the word'
>It gives a much deeper thought and meaning to the text
how
it's a fucking foreign word that means word
how does not translating it gives it a deeper meaning?
So you basically refuse translating it and pretend it has a different meaning? Cool.
It doesn't mean "word".
>Despite the conventional translation as "word", it is not used for a word in the grammatical sense; instead, the term lexis (λέξις) was used.
>Greek word meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", "discourse",
>but it became a technical term in philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BC) who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.
^thats the important part. It doesn't mean word in this context, it had been used for more for over 500 years before it was written in the gospel.
>Logos is the logic behind an argument. Logos tries to persuade an audience using logical arguments and supportive evidence.
>Logos is a persuasive technique often used in writing and rhetoric.
>Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric.
>The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.
>Under Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c. 20 BC – 50 AD) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.
> The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),
>and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos
Now apologe for being so wrong and get back to the question.
Also what other translation problems do you know about in the Bible?
It is simpletons like you who think Adam and Eve and the 7 days and the tree of knowledge in the garden is all literal, even though it's well know the early christians never thought of it that way, and realised it was allegory and mystery meant to expand your mind closer to god and never be fully understood.
>Now apologe for being so wrong
lmao fuck you, it still means word in the context of that text.
are you autistic? Not being able to understand anything not literal is a sign of legit autism (as opposed to meme autism)
It is literal. Fuck off, heretic.
t. pastor jim
Wrong.
Allegoricism is gnostic (grEEK) nonsense.
If it was literal, in the original they would have used lexis, they chose logos because it means so much more.
Irrelevant, you do understand literalism can be complex, correct? Fucking proxy-gnostics.
John was written in Greek.
I'm not a gnostic for the record.
Yes.
That's why they used a complex word, like "logos" instead of a simple one.
Translating 100ad Greek "logos" as "word" is wrong.
>Allegoricism is gnostic (grEEK) nonsense.
What's with that odd capitalization?
Why is that relevant? Yes, you are a proxy-gnostic.
Are you ESL? Don't you know what 'eek!' means?
No. There is no English word that fully expresses the idea is supposed to convey. "Word" is an absolutely fine choice. The the thing about biblical translation is that it isn't the end. The entire point is that you read the text, then go consult the commentaries and homiletic traditions to unpack what we mean when we use "word" in this context.
New to the thread, but let's face it, the overwhelming majority of biblical readers will never, ever do that. It's not the only instance of this either. How many people are even aware that the word used for "Naked" in Genesis 2:25 and "Subtle" (or some synonym) is the same one in Hebrew, and that there's supposed to be a very direct and obvious linkage between the two mental states which of course, are just adjacent, no paragraphing in the original composition?
Putting something in there that can be confusing and expecting a reader to go the extra effort to actually look up commentary is far more likely to lead to just inventing a stupid explanation than it is to look up a better one.
In many ways biblical terminology has done the opposite and acquired strictly religious meanings like church (ecclesia), synagogue, and baptize. I'd be for translating words in a way that is as vernacularly understandable as possible.
You fucking dumbass. This isn't a problem with biblical translation, it's a problem with TRANSLATION.
The point is, choices have to be made, and the vast majority of biblical readers aren't even supposed to be reading the Bible all by their lonesome. They're supposed to be going to church and learning more about its teachings in the context of a community.
If I want to know the writings of Jorge Luis Borges, I can read it in translation, sure. If I want to understand it better, I need to either learn to read it in the original languages, or consult commentaries and criticism, or take a class and learn from experienced readers of Borges' works.
it's an ok translation but I think the issue is more that most Christians don't have proper knowledge of the Greek used. The same issue comes up with philosophy, I don't mean being able to read the entirety of it in Greek, or even whole sentence; just that people should be taught at least what the ideas and their backgrounds are. "Word" is relatively simple and a bit confusing, "logos" is a pretty complex concept with a very long history
most actual bible studies are complete memes and I don't know why churches shy away from actually trying to educate their congregations
If you're teaching the bible, I don't think "dumbing down the populace" is a big concern
If you live in a Western country and don't know the Bible, you're uneducated. Perfectly secular people know the Bible, because it's central to our culture, our literature, and our idioms.
The Holy Spirit guided Jerome in his translation of the scriptures into Latin. If God didn't want it to be "verbum" or "Word", then it wouldn't have been.
Stop being autistic.
Wrong, you don't need to read the Bible at all.
I am a supremely educated gentleman, and my understanding of the bible comes from generally living near Christians and discussing issues with them.
Christianity is not central to the modern western world, it's an optional appendage that will be cut off in the due course of time. Classical, pre-Christian texts are the fount of all knowledge and culture.
What's supremely funny is that you will be reborn as a pagan one day. Your religion is false and your knowledge worthless. Bow before my great intellect. Platonism is the one true theology.
Because revealing too much about the historical and cultural context makes it more and more evidemt that it's a human construct and a product of its environment.
Oh look, an ignorant LARPing retard who assumes I'm a Christian because I said the Bible is central to Western culture, art, and literature.
I've never heard anything like this before, please tell me more.
"Ignorant"? You clearly missed the part where I told you that I am a supremely educated gentleman. Try reading the whole post before you respond, dunce.
Gee, sorry. The glory of your vast knowledge temporarily blinded me.
I prefer the following rendering of the leading verses of the Gospel of John.
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him nothing was made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not."
The Logos was a philosophical concept of Heraclitus. As Heraclitus put it
"Everything happens in accordance with the Logos, but men don't understand it, even after I explain it to them."
In modern parlance, the Logos is the laws of nature and things happen in accordance with them, because they are the laws. This should not be taken as determinism in Heraclitus' philosophy, because he also emphasized the importance of the Will. As in quantum mechanics, we cannot know what will happen, only the probabilities of the possibilities. Everything happens in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics but nothing is predetermined.
The word "same" was used by Heracliltus to indicate the objective world, the same for all of us. It is usually said of Heraclitus that he believed everything was changing, with nothing permanent. He described the world this way.
"This world, the same for all, by none of gods or men was made, but is now, was, and always will be a living fire, kindling and dying in measures."
The references to God I interpret as an attempt by Greek spiritualists to convey the idea of the Logos to the Jews, signing them up for their own philosophy.
The light that is referred to is what we now call "consciousness". Thus the intro to John distinguishes the objective world, from its laws and consciousness from both. Unfortunately the message gets muddled when Jesus is confused with God and the Light. My guess is that this part of John was written by a poor student of Greek philosophy but a very good writer.
Understandable.
Moving on, do you disavow Christianity? Or are you just going "nee nee I didn't explicitly say I'm Christian, so you committed the sin of making an assumption"?
Not a Christian, and also not gonna LARP with you. Fuck off.
so much for the tolerant left
No, because it is an allusion to how Logos is used in the Septuagint, not in Heraclitus. The Gospel of John is a Messianic mystical narrative, not a pantheistic philiosophical treatise.
and "The Word" encompasses that meaning, as most Christians understand it.