Was John Mistaken?

[darinhouston]

I have no idea what your LOL means

I apologize, I thought it was obvious.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (Jn. 1:1 BGT)

Well, that's not the words you tagged with εν. That's not even in the parts of the passage being discussed. But, whatever. You win that one - clearly there's a preposition to begin the sentence. Fine. Not at all relevant to the points being discussed.

[darinhouston]

Lets try this and see if it makes sense:

In the beginning the logos came to be, and the logos came to be with God, and the logos came to be God.

Why translate it that way? I don't see anyone making that point.

Even though the text doesn't "require" eternality, I believe the Logos always existed - just not as embodied in the Son. The Logos was always "divine" because it was in some sense the "mind and purpose and design of God." As such it was also always very much aligned with and in agreement with God.

Whether that's a proper interpretation of what John meant, that is HIGHLY consistent with the grammar - as would be agreed by virtually any greek scholar or serious theologian. They might not agree that's the "best" or "proper" translation, but none would dispute it was within the reasonable grammatical range of meanings.

[dizerner]

Well, that's not the words you tagged with εν.

I didn't tag any words, you're confusing my post with Homer's.

Was just a little play on the mix-up, relax.

ēn vs. en

[darinhouston]

Well, that's not the words you tagged with εν.

I didn't tag any words, you're confusing my post with Homer's.

Was just a little play on the mix-up, relax.

ēn vs. en

Right you are, though I don't think it was simply ēn vs. en -- ην and εν are two VERY different words. As different as It and Ate in English. But, that's a moot point - (occupational hazard of a fledgling greek student).

On a personal note, I started learning greek because so many arguments seem to be based on some greek construction or grammatical point and I wanted to be able to sniff out the BS from the genuine arguments. One thing I've noticed so far is the more familiar I become with actual greek, the more these REALLY BAD arguments and abuses stand out - from the pulpit, in posts, even in non-grammatical theological/academic papers. Often, it's just pure BS, but usually it's declarations of some grammatical principle that is far from accepted or some which had a trendy usage in the past but which have been subsequently debunked. But, the most often abuse seems to be ignoring full semantic range of the words and failing to appreciate just how "ambiguous" greek grammar is. I always thought that Greek was the perfect language for the apostolic era because so many ideas flourished in greek and the language was perfectly suited for clarity of expressing difficult thoughts - but, the more I learn the more it becomes clear that it is one of the most flexible and ambiguous languages I've ever encountered. Context and presuppositions are almost required to properly interpret most complex passages while others are often translated one way yet have no flexibility in what they "don't" mean.

So, I may be overly sensitive to that sort of thing - this too shall pass - it's a growth area for me. Doors and windows are opening for me - I just need to be more judicious in what comes in and out of them. They say one of the most dangerous things for argumentation is a beginning greek student. I consider myself an intermediate student I guess, but still... Something that I keep in the back of my head for sure.

[dizerner]

So, I may be overly sensitive to that sort of thing - this too shall pass - it's a growth area for me. Doors and windows are opening for me - I just need to be more judicious in what comes in and out of them. They say one of the most dangerous things for argumentation is a beginning greek student. I consider myself an intermediate student I guess, but still... Something that I keep in the back of my head for sure.

Even more scary is someone who really knows their stuff and uses it to push a certain doctrine.

I think the reasons you listed are very legitimate, in fact, I would say similar to my own, and as long as we stay humble about our current level, I don't think it's dangerous.

Something to consider, I'm no expert on English grammar, but I think I pretty much understood your post. It makes me wonder what the exact relation of grammar to intelligibility is.

You're right to constantly point out that grammar is flexible enough for multiple interpretations. I was watching a video on AI having difficulty determining the referent of a pronoun, and read a site of one English sentence with 7 different possible meanings.

It's been a bit eye-opening for me to see that false doctrine is not just a failure to use logic—but forces actually push people's beliefs in certain directions.

[darinhouston]

Even more scary is someone who really knows their stuff and uses it to push a certain doctrine.

Amen

[Homer]

Darin,

You wrote:

Even though the text doesn't "require" eternality, I believe the Logos always existed - just not as embodied in the Son. The Logos was always "divine" because it was in some sense the "mind and purpose and design of God." As such it was also always very much aligned with and in agreement with God.

Whether that's a proper interpretation of what John meant, that is HIGHLY consistent with the grammar - as would be agreed by virtually any greek scholar or serious theologian. They might not agree that's the "best" or "proper" translation, but none would dispute it was within the reasonable grammatical range of meanings.

Do you believe anyone in John's intended audience would have understood what your understanding is? To a Trinitarian or Binitarian John's prologue is easily understood.

[darinhouston]

Darin,

You wrote:

Even though the text doesn't "require" eternality, I believe the Logos always existed - just not as embodied in the Son. The Logos was always "divine" because it was in some sense the "mind and purpose and design of God." As such it was also always very much aligned with and in agreement with God.

Whether that's a proper interpretation of what John meant, that is HIGHLY consistent with the grammar - as would be agreed by virtually any greek scholar or serious theologian. They might not agree that's the "best" or "proper" translation, but none would dispute it was within the reasonable grammatical range of meanings.

Do you believe anyone in John's intended audience would have understood what your understanding is? To a Trinitarian or Binitarian John's prologue is easily understood.

Absolutely, I believe that is much more in line with the understanding of the Logos at the time and the introduction of a book not about the origins and godhood of Jesus, but principally about the fulfillment of God's plan for the Messiah, and the real flesh and blood man, Jesus, who wast that Messiah. It is both an apologetic polemic and an evangelical book to a mixed audience and this was a perfect way to bridge those communities as a prologue. What it is NOT is easily understood by most scholars who attempt to explain it. It is not unusual for them to admit to its difficulties in interpretation and translation but to go ahead lean one way or another in some respect.

[dizerner]

more on the topic:

https://berean-apologetics.community.fo ... post-15697

[Homer]

Darin,

I've long heard it is best to let scripture interpret scripture. Couldn't be better than to let John interpret John could it?


Revelation 19:11-13 NASB

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many crowns; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Jesus is the WORD! Okey, explain it away.