[Bobboau]

wow, that is actually, out and out heresy, I never knew they had it in em.

[Ford Prefect]

The Bible was being rewritten before it was even written. The way I see it, they're just partaking in Christianity's oldest scholarly pastime.

[jdjtcagle]

Sometimes especially in the past this rule is used to combat Arianism and Jehovah Witnesses stating that this must mean it's a definite theos.

Translating as the Jehovah's Witnesses have doesn't necessarily imply that the second term of Theos is definite, what implies it is the context.
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
logos en pros ton theon --------- word/logic was with god (accusative, definite, in other words specified)


kai theos en ho logos ------- and god (nominative, not definite) is this/the Word.

like saying: the commander is with (specified, or The) King, king (not specified, or a) this commander is.
is someone read this, it would be understood that the commander is a king, but not the king of the writer's country.
mostly because it wouldn't make any sense to understand the text as:
the commander was with The King, The King was the commander.
the two phrases in the sentence contradict.

I believe that John held to his Monotheistic beliefs in One God when he wrote this.  The trinity was developed way later some 300 years later.  Anyway that one's free

im sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
are you saying that John didn't believe in a Trinity when he wrote this?

The verse is hard to understand.  Because it seems to say that God is the subject but also separate from it.  Unless as you pointed out we read it wrong. I have no reason to believe that the subject of the word was a created deity so I won't assume it (Isaiah 43:10-11.) Therefore, we have to remember that it does not say "In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was also God."  We are not talking about two different persons in this verse.  But with something abstract a word/idea/concept.

I don't believe John was a Trinitarian.  The doctrine just doesn't exist in the bible. Instead the Jews were strict Monotheist, there is One God and God is one. Not 3 separate and distinct "persons" with one nature.  That is a borderline belief in three Gods the only reason it's not is the vagueness of the term "persons"

Shema Israel YHWH elohanu YHWH echad, "Hear O Israel, Yaweh is our God. Yaweh is one" (Deut. 6:4)

"God is one" (Galatians 3:20)
"Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-11).
"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8).
"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24).
"There is none beside me. I am the LORD and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:6).
"There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22).
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).
"I will not give my glory unto another" (Isaiah 48:11; see also Isaiah 42:8).

And Jesus is God in the flesh (as a man) "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (I Timothy 3:16; see verse 15 for further confirmation that God is the subject of verse 16). God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. That happened all with Jesus.

The Greek word pros, translated (with) in verse 1, is the same word translated "pertaining to" in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. John 1:1 could include in its meanings, therefore, the following: "The Word pertained to God and the Word was God," or, "The Word belonged to God and was God." This could be how the passage is supposed to read.

I could also argue that the logos is not a person if the word pros (with) meant "in a face to face relationship," but this would only hold true in our passage if it is first demonstrated that the word is another person than theos (God). If, however, the word does not refer to a person in this phrase then it would still mean "with"  or "pertaining to" but not "in a face to face relationship." in the parallel account by the same author in 1 John. In a very similar statement, John says "What was from the beginning . . . concerning the Word of Life . . . which was with (pros) the Father and was manifested to us" (1 John1:1,2). God’s life was with him, but not "in a face to face relationship" with him. God’s life is not a separate person from himself and neither is his word.

In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed. I believe that the word of God (logos) is simply a reference to the expression or plan of God. The translation logos as a person comes from the preconceived notion of the Trinity.

I could go into more specifics on the Oneness theology if you want.

[Ioustinos]

Let's just make the entire Bible a wiki.

[MP-Ryan]

Let's just make the entire Bible a wiki.

Now that's an idea that deserves some serious consideration...

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Would never work.  Just about every section would contain the following:

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

[Ioustinos]

You know, we should all strive to get at least one edit in there.

How about . . . Pontius Obama?

Oh wait, too liberal.

Or maybe Noah had to build an ark to escape a supernova.

[Scooby_Doo]

LOL Colbert just did a segment about it.

[Topgun]

If John wasn't a trinitarian, and I agree with you there, why would he say that the word is God? why would you translate John 1:1 as such?
you're right, the trinity doctrine was invented many years later, most likely after Constantine's conversion, but if the trinity doctrine isn't biblical, why would anyone translate it "The Word was God" when the sentence loses its coherency?
the logical translation is "the Word was with God, and a god was the Word", or, "The Word belonged to God and a god was the Word." simply because that is what makes the most sense.
But yes, it could be translated as "the Word was with God, and The Word was God", but that doesn't make any logical sense, unless you believe in Trinity, which, according to you, isn't biblical.

[Janos]

Let's just make the entire Bible a wiki.

Now that's an idea that deserves some serious consideration...

Filioque

[jdjtcagle]

Like I said above, it doesn't lose coherency if the definition of Logos is a plan and expression of a plan.  When trying to determine what John was trying to say you look at the audience.  John's gospel focused mainly on the diety of Christ throughout his entire book.  He equates Jesus to God many times as do the other writers of the Gospel:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [spoken, revealed] him" (John 1:18)

He came to His own creation and to His own chosen people but they did not recognize Him or receive Him (John 1:10-11)

He is God veiled in flesh (Hebrews 10:20). As Abraham prophesied, probably without understanding the full meaning of his own words, "God will provide himself a lamb" (Genesis 22:8). God indeed provided a body for Himself: "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5)

In the Beginning was the plan, and the plan was with or it could mean pertaining to God. (In his mind) The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).  The Logos pre-existed the son BUT the son had a beginning.  The expression of that plan was also God himself.  The word (expression of the plan) was God and the word became flesh and dwelt among us as the man Jesus. (verse 14)

Trinitarians often equate logos with Son, which logically doesn't make sense.  Like you are trying to point out.  I do not believe that is the case.

Another reason that I don't believe it makes sense for John 1:1 to read word was a god.  Was because there is no evidence that Jesus was a "lesser" deity. The reason they interpret this is because Jesus said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did Jesus mean that He was greater than Himself? On another occasion He said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do; for whatever he does, the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself does" (John 5:19-20; See also 3:32). We have one showing, and one doing. He plainly said of His own ability, "I can of mine own self do nothing" (John 5:30). Even the words Jesus taught were first given Him by the Father (John 12:49-50). We have one giving, and one receiving. All such statements draw a distinction between Father and Son. Because of this I can see why Jehovah witnesses would believe that Jesus was a lesser diety.  But it was specific to his days as a man.

7In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety -Hebrews 5:7.

As a man, Jesus prayed to God, not to his humanity. He did not pray to Himself as humanity, but to the one true God, to the same God who dwelled in His humanity and who also inhabits the universe. Almost as if God took on a separate consciousness when he became a man.

Now the question is will I ever get any work done now that I spent this much time writing this

[Topgun]

Ah, you Logos to mean a God's divine plan, that makes sense, I assumed that you understood logos to be Jesus.

[Galemp]

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

[Scotty]

As such, it must be edited to be unbiased.

joking

[jdjtcagle]

Ah, you Logos to mean a God's divine plan, that makes sense, I assumed that you understood logos to be Jesus.

It was a nice discussion and I don't blame you for assuming, many people don't know what they believe or why and I assumed I think twice in this thread alone. I'm always willing to learn something new so I have a good understanding of the things that I believe. ;-) Thing about God is it takes assumptions to have faith He exist. As far as the criteria of adequacy is concerned it's not as superior of a theory as the belief in a purely natural world. Mainly because you must assume He exist and my reasons are purely philosophical. You seem to know a lot about the subject that's not rare around here but not common either.  Did or do you study this?

[Kosh]

In the Beginning was the plan, and the plan was with or it could mean pertaining to God.

I take it after all this time he/she/it still hasn't figured out central planning doesn't work......

[jdjtcagle]

In the Beginning was the plan, and the plan was with or it could mean pertaining to God.

I take it after all this time he/she/it still hasn't figured out central planning doesn't work......

I'll let you decide?  Even though it sounds like you made up your mind.

[Nuclear1]

Alright, let me try to figure out exactly what they're trying to do here...

Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

True fact:  Jesus drove an F-250 Superduty and owned six shotguns, three handguns, and two AR-15's.  He actually turned water into refreshingly smooth Budweiser and Coors, and every woman he "cast demons out of" HE ****ED 30 TIMES A MINUTE...BUT THE LIBERALS FORGOT TO INCLUDE ALL THAT!  THEY TURNED THE MESSIAH INTO A WATER-WALKING, WINE-DRINKING, HOMELESS, STREET-WALKING FRENCH PUSSY! REWRITE THAT ****!

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

I wonder how that conversation went...
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1: Dude, this is the word of God, isn't it? 

CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #2: Yeah, of course it is.  That's what the almighty Schlaffster taught us to believe.

CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1: Yeah yeah, I know.  God made the whole world didn't he?  It's a pretty complex world out there...

CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #2: I don't get what you're trying to say...

CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1: I'm saying if God is that complex, why is the Bible so simply-written and easy to understand?  We're not idiots!

CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #2: Well, you see, back in the medieval times, not a lot of people were that educated, and Martin Luther's translation into Germ--

ANDREW_SCHLAFFY:  AH HA!  Martin Luther!  SOUNDS LIKE NOTHING BUT A LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO TO ME!  HOW DARE HE DUMB DOWN THE WORD OF GOD TO A 7th GRADE READING LEVEL!  I DEMAND A REWRITE.

CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1/2:  *uneasy glances at each other*

ANDREW_SCHLAFFY: WELL WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, ADMINS?!

CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1:  ...none of us here are above a 7th grade reading level, sir...

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

So, how many people is that sit around in Gamblers Anonymous and say they got their start from "casting lots"?  Probably the same ones who enter AA because of the communion wine.  And of course, regarding the census, Conservapedia must take steps to abolish the obvious census fraud perpetrated by POMEGRANATE, the progenitor to ACORN.

Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

Alright, first three words:  Accept the Logic.

This whole project just fell apart.

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

...right.  Like the Parable of the Good Investment Firm. 
Or Jesus condemning cap and trade.
Or the part where Jesus gave the food to the rich and just let the bread and fish trickle down.

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

Y'know, stories about mercy and forgiveness, and all that stuff. That's gotta go.

Credit Open-Mindedness

This must be a typo.

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

This is easily the wordiest sentence on the whole page.

[Blue Lion]

Angry much?

[Nuclear1]

Oh it was plenty cathartic.