- LDS and an anarchist -

God is good and God does save, but this doesn’t change the relevance of this verse to the topic of this thread.

The question was asked, “How many gods are there”? The Biblical answer to the question is that there is one Supreme God who is the God over an unspecified number of other “gods.” And God the Father is even said to be “the God” of Jesus Christ.

Was he thinking in Greek? Or was he thinking in old Hebrew? Or was he thinking in Aramaic? And how did what he was thinking make it onto the written page.

And then how did the scribes who followed him alter or add to the writings?

The main point is that the word “dabhar” represents a pattern of Jewish thought on theological issues. Whether the specific word was used or not, it represents a thought pattern that would have informed the assumptions and thinking of Jewish writers of that period. It also represents a tension between the highly passive and contemplative nature of the Greek religious paradigm vs. the active and action-oriented nature of the Jewish religious paradigm.

Just because a verse ends up written a certain way on paper doesn’t mean you have the full and accurate meaning.

Are you really sure that John 1:1 says what you think it says? Because I don’t think any of us will ever, in this life, know the full story.

Both translate into the closest match to “word.” But they have quite different meanings.

Logos is much more passive and contemplative and evokes images of the traditional Christian “unmoved mover.”

But dabhar is much more active and connotates deed or action. Ancient Hebrews, in fact made no distinction between thought and deed. So you might well rewrite John 1:1 as: “In the beginning was the deed.” And you wouldn’t be far off in ancient Hebrew thought.

These scriptures have multiple layers of meaning and interpretation and both you and I are out of our depth when we blithely try to assert “this is this” or “that is that.”” (Seth R.)

Seth, the only problem with that is that the word used for “Word” in John 1:1 isn’t “dabhar”, it’s “logos.” We know this b/c of the manuscript evidence that we have, from which the Bible is translated. No translation of the Bible uses “dabhar” as the basis for “Word” in that passage; they use “logos”, b/c that’s what the original manuscripts have. Primarily b/c the NT is mostly written in Greek, not Hebrew.

So I see the point you are trying to make, but it doesn’t work, when we know what the original word is. If we had only English, then yes, I think your point would be valid. But we have more than just the NIV or KJV – we have the manuscript evidence from which they were translated.

Now there’s something I fully agree with you on!

“You could be in a lot of trouble, because the Bible wasn’t written in English. So it’s entirely possible that the meaning that you’re getting isn’t even close to what the original meaning was.” (Katyjane)

Yes, except for the fact that we do know the words as they were written in the original language, b/c the Bible is based on manuscript evidence, so when an English word is given, you can research it and see what Greek/Hebrew word was originally used, and derive the meaning from that. The English word “love” for example, means different things in different places, based upon one of the 3 words used for love in the Greek. So I believe it is possible, with diligent study, to ascertain the true meaning of what was intended, b/c we do know the words that were originally written, not in English, but in the original language.

“God transcends boxes, and therefore the way that I see God and the way you see God–although different–could both be right. God is big enough for multiple boxes.

But I don’t believe in absolute truth–not the way you seem to be describing it–and I don’t believe that we can comprehend God.” (Katyjane)

But if one person sees God as not sending anyone to hell, but another sees Him as One who will send people to hell at Judgment, can they both be right? I would say no. This is what I’m talking about, while we can’t fully understand God’s nature, there are aspects of Him that we can definitively say are true.

There’s so much in here that a number of you are really not that far away from each other on (and some that you’re really far away on).

Something I’m personally trying to work on is not trying to win the debate at the cost of communicating effectively.

Both translate into the closest match to “word.” But they have quite different meanings.

Logos is much more passive and contemplative and evokes images of the traditional Christian “unmoved mover.”

But dabhar is much more active and connotates deed or action. Ancient Hebrews, in fact made no distinction between thought and deed. So you might well rewrite John 1:1 as: “In the beginning was the deed.” And you wouldn’t be far off in ancient Hebrew thought.

These scriptures have multiple layers of meaning and interpretation and both you and I are out of our depth when we blithely try to assert “this is this” or “that is that.”

I think you said it very well (#70): God is not in a box, but we are limited. I hope you can see our agreement (see my #64). You just say it better.