Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Is Jesus The Word - What Does John Say?
Reply-To: Bible Bob
Message-ID: <iqc3c1hjticresf1lmqrkol5rung0jt1pi@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 297
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:37:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.184.28.165
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1119991022 65.184.28.165 (Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:37:02 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:37:02 EDT
Organization: RoadRunner - Carolina
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:4082
Is Jesus the Logos? The Greek logos is used several hundred times in
the New Testament. Only two verses might be construed as to "imply"
that Jesus is the logos. Rev 19:13 which speaks of the future where
it says "and his name shall be called the Word of God" and John 1:14,
below, which does not say that Jesus is the Logos. Jesus is usually
separated from the Word in the verses were Jesus and word of God
appear as below
Luke 4:4 KJV
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Revelation 1:2 KJV
Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus
Christ, and of all things that he saw.
John 1:1-14 KJV
Words in braces "{words}" are the KJV italics. Words in brackets
"[words]" are mine.
1 In the beginning was the Word [will of God], and the Word [will of
God] was with God, and the Word [will of God] was God.
2 The same [will of God] was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him [God] ; and without him [God] was not
any thing made that was made.
4 In him [God] was life; and the life [God] was the light of men.
5 And the light [God] shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name {was} John.
7 The same [John] came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light
[God], that all {men} through him [God] might believe.
8 He [John] was not that Light [God], but {was sent} to bear witness
of that Light [God].
9 {That} was the true Light [God], which lighteth every man that
cometh into the world.
10 He [God] was in the world, and the world was made by him [God],
and the world knew him [God] not.
11 He [God] came unto his [God] own , and his [God's] own received
him [God] not.
12 But as many as received him [God], to them gave he [God] power to
become the sons of God, {even} to them that believe on his [God] name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor
of the will of man, but [born of the will] of God.
14 And the Word [will of God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his [the will of God] glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Verse fourteen begins with the coordinating conjunction "And" that
tells us that verse fourteen continues the statement began in verse
thirteeen. To understand what verse fourteeen says, it is necessary
to understand what verse thirteen says. When we find out what verse
fourteen says, we will know what verse one says because the Word of
God interprets itself in the context. Below are verses thirteen and
fourteen stripped of verse numbers and the parenthesis marks supplied
in the KJV that do not appear in the RSV or NASB. Words within
brackets are mine.
Which were born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man,
but [born of the will] of God.
And the Word [will of God] was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we beheld his [the will of God] glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and
truth.
The adverb "not" in verse thirteen is from the Greek ou and means
absolutely not. Had the Greek word me been used, it would have been a
qualified negtation. They were absolutely not born of bloods (blood
is plural in the Greek via the Heterosis where the Plural is put for
the Singular - see below). Thus, bloods agrees with what follows.
The figure Paradiastole (explained in detail below) marks verse
thirteen by emphasizing the will of the flesh and the will of man.
The word flesh is marked by the figure Synecdoche of the Part where
flesh (the part) is put for the human (whole) and as such represents
man, anthropos. The word man is translated from the Greek aner which
is an adult male. Anthropos is a human regardless of gender, age or
race and Aner is an adult male. The verse says that they were born
absolutely not be the will of humans in general and were absolutely
not born by the will of an adult male. The conjunction "but" sets
what follows in contrast with what was said before so that what is
said about God is opposite or opposed to the will of humans and the
will of man. Words are missing following the word "but" before the
words "of God". This is the figure Ellipsis (explained below) where a
word or words are omitted from the text to draw our attention to what
is being said. The will of God is contrasted to the will of the flesh
and the will of man. Therefore, the passage should end "but of the
will of God." They were absolutely not born not of blood or of the
will of the flesh or of the will of man, but were born of the will of
God.
In verse fourteen the conjunction "And" continues the thought "will of
God." Therefore, the Word is the will of God that became flesh. The
will of God dwelt among us, and we beheld the glory of the will of
God, and the will of God was the only begotten of the Father. Jesus
is not named the Logos in any verse in the Bible except in Revelation
19:13 where speaking of a future time it says "his name shall be
called the Word of God."
We simply transfer the definition of the Word to verse one and we see
that John 1:1 speaks about the will of God. This can be done in the
same way those who define the Word in verse fourteen transfer Jesus to
verse one. The Word of God interprets itself in the context.
John 1:14 speaks of a time when Jesus was an adult male (we beheld
means they saw his glory). The context shows that the date of this
event had to do with the baptism of John. Therefore the will of God
became flesh when Jesus was baptized. This precludes Jesus from
existing in time past except in the foreknowledge of God (the will of
God).
Definitions of Figures from E W Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in
the Bible
******************************************************
Ellipsis
The figure is so called, because some gap is left in the sentence,
which means that a word or words are left out or omitted . The English
name of the figure would therefore be Omission .
The figure is a peculiar form given to a passage when a word or words
are omitted; words which are necessary for the grammar, but are not
necessary for the sense.
The laws of geometry declare that there must be at least three
straight lines to enclose a space. So the laws of syntax declare that
there must be at least three words to make complete sense, or the
simplest complete sentence. These three words are variously named by
grammarians. In the sentence "Thy word is truth," "Thy word" is the
subject spoken of, "truth" is what is said of it (the predicate), and
the verb "is" (the copula) connects it.
But any of these three may be dispensed with; and this law of syntax
may be legitimately broken by Ellipsis.
The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from
accident, but from design, in order that we may not stop to think of,
or lay stress on, the word omitted, but may dwell on the other words
which are thus emphasised by the omission. For instance, in Matt.
14:19 , we read that the Lord Jesus "gave the loaves to His disciples,
and the disciples to the multitude."
There is no sense in the latter sentence, which is incomplete, "the
disciples to the multitude," because there is no verb. The verb "gave"
is omitted by the figure of Ellipsis for some purpose. If we read the
last sentence as it stands, it reads as though Jesus gave the
disciples to the multitude!
This at once serves to arrest our attention; it causes us to note the
figure employed; we observe the emphasis; we learn the intended
lesson. What is it? Why, this; we are asked to dwell on the fact that
the disciples gave the bread, but only instrumentally, not really. The
Lord Jesus Himself was the alone Giver of that bread. Our thoughts are
thus, at once, centred on Him and not on the disciples.
These Ellipses are variously dealt with in the English Versions (both
Authorized and Revised). In many cases they are correctly supplied by
italics . In some cases the sentences are very erroneously completed.
Sometimes an Ellipsis in the Text is not seen, and therefore is not
taken into account in the Translation. Sometimes an Ellipsis is
imagined and supplied where none really exists in the original.
Heterosis; or, Exchange of Accidence
Exchange of one Voice, Mood, Tense, Person, Number, Degree, or Gender,
for another
It is the name given to that form of Enallage which consists of an
exchange, not of actual parts of speech, but of the accidence of a
part of speech.
It includes an exchange of one Form of the Verb for another ( e.g. ,
intransitive for transitive); one Mood or Tense for another; one
Person for another; one Degree of comparison for another; one Number
or Gender for another.
When the exchange is of one Case for another, it has a separate name-
Antipt?sis (see above), and when the exchange is of one Part of Speech
for another, it is called Antimereia (see above).
The exchange of one idea for another associated idea
and ?????? , a receiving from . A figure by which one word receives
something from another which is internally associated with it by the
connection of two ideas: as when a part of a thing is put by a kind of
Metonymy for the whole of it, or the whole for a part. The difference
exchange is made between two associated ideas .
Paradiastole; or, Neithers and Nors
The Repetition of the Disjunctives Neither and Nor, or, Either and Or
beside or along , and ????? ( stolee ), a sending (from ?????? (
stello ), to send ). Hence a sending beside or along . It is a form of
Anaphora , by which one word is repeated at the beginning of
successive sentences. It differs from Polysyndeton , in that instead
of a conjunction , the repeated word is a disjunctive , because it
denotes a sending along, i.e. , it separates and distinguishes. The
words NEITHER and NOR , or EITHER and OR , are the words which are
repeated in the figure of Paradiastole , causing the various items to
be put together disjunctively instead of conjunctively.
Hence the Latins called it DISJUNCTIO , Disjunction .
Its use is to call our attention to, and to emphasize, that which is
thus written for our learning.
Polysyndeton; or, Many-ands
The repetition of the word "and" at the beginning of successive
clauses
and ???????? ( syndeton ), bound together; hence, in grammar, it means
a conjunction (from ??? ( syn ) and ???? ( dein ), to bind ). The
word, therefore, means much bound together or many conjunctions .
It is called also POLYSYNTHETON , from ?????? ( titheemi ), to put or
place . Hence many puttings: i.e. , of the same word-in this case of
the word "and."
The English name for the Figure will, therefore, be MANY-ANDS .
Polysyndeton is merely one special form of Anaphora ( q.v. ): i.e. ,
it is a repetition of the same word at the beginning of successive
sentences: but this is always one special word "and."
To understand the full significance and use of Polysyndeton , the
student must consider along with it the opposite Figure A-syndeton
(the same word syndeton with "a" prefixed, meaning no , instead of
).
The two Figures form a pair, and should be studied together.
The Laws of Grammar decide for us how the conjunction "and" should be
used. If we are enumerating a number of things, we (by usage) place
the conjunction immediately before the last. This is the cold law,
which leaves what we say without any special emphasis. But this law
may be legitimately broken in two different ways for the sake of
emphasis. In order to attract the attention of the hearer or reader,
we may either use NO ANDS , or we may use MANY ANDS . Man may use
these figures, however, without sufficient reason, and unwisely: but
the Holy Spirit ever uses words in all perfection, and it behoves us
carefully to note whatever He thus calls our attention to.
When He uses "No-ands," He does not ask us to stop and consider the
various particulars which are enumerated, but to hasten on to some
grand climax. In this case that climax which we read at the end, is
the all-important matter on which the greatest emphasis is to be
placed.
When He uses "many-ands," there is never any climax at the end.
Instead of hurrying us on, breathlessly, to reach the important
conclusion; we are asked to stop at each point, to Weigh each matter
that is presented to us, and to consider each particular that is thus
added and emphasized.
One illustration of each will make this quite clear. We have an
example of both in one chapter ( Luke 14 ), and, strange to say, in
connection with precisely the same four words.
In verse 13 , we have Asyndeton (no-ands): and in verse 21 ,
Polysyndeton (many-ands).
In the former case ( Asyndeton ), we are not asked to consider the
various classes of persons mentioned, but we are hastened on to the
important and weighty conclusion:-
Verse 13 , 14 . "When thou makest a feast, call the poor,
-the maimed,
-the lame,
-the blind:
and thou shalt be blessed. "
In other words, we are taught that, though we are not obliged to make
a feast at all, yet, even if we do, we can call whom we please: but,
if we call such persons as are here described, there is a great
blessing attached: hence, we are hurried over the enumeration of these
classes to be told of this blessing. And, even then, it really does
not matter much whether they are actually blind or lame, etc. The
point is they must not be able to return it.
On the other hand, the Master's servant is commanded to "bring in"
such persons to the Lord's feast, as a matter of simple obedience: and
when he has done this, he has done no more than his duty, and is at
the best, but an "unprofitable servant." Hence, by the use of this
figure of Polysyndeton in verse 21 , we are not hurried on to any
climax at the end, but we are detained at each step, and are thus
asked to consider carefully what is taught Us by the mention of each
of these various classes:-
"Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city,
and bring in hither the poor ( i.e. , those whom no one would think of
inviting, but who would welcome the invitation ( 15:1 . Matt. 20:31
):-"the poor" who could not afford to buy "a piece of ground" (verse
18 ), or "five yoke of oxen" (verse 19 ).
and the maimed ( i.e. , those who would be most unlikely to be able to
say, "I have married a wife" (verse 20 ),
and the halt ( ?????? , as in verse 13 , where it is translated
"lame": i.e. , those who could not "go" to use the oxen, or to "prove
them," at the plough, verse 19 ),
and the blind ( i.e. , those who could not say, "I must needs go and
see" the piece of land which I have bought, verse 18 ).
Here, by this figure, instead of being hurried forward to a weighty
conclusion we are led gently backward by each "and" to think of these
four classes, and to contrast them with those whom the Lord had just
described in the preceding parable as making excuses.
These two illustrations will prepare us for the consideration of the
two figures separately, and enable us to understand them.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
|
|