From: Mike & Ellen Adams (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 13 1997 - 12:50:26 EDT
> From: BanjoBoyd@aol.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Translation for O LOGOS (John 1)?
> Date: Sunday, October 12, 1997 7:15 PM
> Why IDEA? I'll do the best I can. Hope you'll excuse the theology. The
> theology is not to justify LOGOS as IDEA but to show that it does fit
> the usage of LOGOS in John 1.
> When I was a child "Word" ment an arrangement of letters. Now I think of
> "words" as symbols of "ideas." As I think I understand "LOGOS" it is
> that chatter. It is the expression of something which is well thought
> something rational, something logical, an IDEA.
> Applied this way... (here is the context) In the beginning was the IDEA
> saving Christ), and the IDEA was with God, (It was a thought of God), and
> IDEA was God (Not just a thought now, but also a personality identified
> the thought), all things were made by him... (the person identified with
> though took part in the creation, and all the creation was made with him,
> this IDEA, in mind)... And the IDEA became flesh (Not just a thought now,
> the IDEA was being implemented) .
> William the Barbarian
> Royal Palm Beach, Fl
I am entering the fray a bit late. Oh, well, I'm leaving town today, so why
not just throw this thought out, and then then run.
Much like the ancient chicken (not liver) and egg argument, there seems to
be an argument among linguists about concept and expression. Almost as if
the two are inseparable. What is language without thought, and how can
thought proceed apart from the structure of natural language? So for those
theorists who argue themselves around this circle endlessly we have a an
origin defined: "Logos", which encompasses both.
I find this concept quite reassuring.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:32 EDT