Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: John 1:1

Expand Messages
  • finckean
    If there were just two of them - Adam and the word - and Eve was a wife and mother - the word must have been Dinner! . But all she had was an apple, and she
    Message 1 of 39 , Nov 3, 2007
      If there were just two of them - Adam and the word - and Eve was a
      wife and mother - the word must have been "Dinner!". But all she had
      was an apple, and she didn't yet have kids. How'd she do it? She
      must have been very sexy.
      Andrew Fincke
      --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "David Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:
      >
      > Chris & Sean,
      >
      > This subject, too, should probably be pursued on a NT criticism
      board.
      >
      > I will suggest, Sean, that you see how this idea of yours might
      interconnect with Gnostic interpretations. Perhaps, QEOS could be
      taken to correspond to a masculine aeon and LOGOS to a feminine aeon,
      etc. Good luck, though, trying to find a board that would deal with
      this matter intelligently. You might be forced to consult the
      secondary literature on Gnostic theology in general.
      >
      > Respectfully,
      >
      > Dave Hindley
      > Newton Falls, Ohio USA
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: sentto-1293705-2598-1194068382-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
      [mailto:sentto-1293705-2598-1194068382-dhindley=compuserve.com@...]
      On Behalf Of Chris Weimer
      > Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:40 AM
      > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [lxx] Re: John 1:1
      >
      >
      > (sorry about the weird first post)
      >
      > Not if you accept the second θεος (theos) as an adjective (i.e.,
      > the word was divine), like some Greek nouns are able to do (cf.
      > αθεος atheos - without god, an adjective).
      >
      > If you accept the argument that the second θεος (theos) is a
      > noun (i.e., the word was God), then I guess grammatically it makes
      > sense. One noun for another.
      >
      > You might also run into trouble with προς (pros), though there
      > was always some contention about how John was using it.
      >
      > And that's merely the linguistic side. I would argue vehemently
      against
      > the idea that John is making the λογος (logos) Eve and
      > θεος (God) Adam, although I do not doubt some commentator
      > somewhere has tried to make the connexion.
      >
      > All the best,
      >
      > Chris Weimer
      > U. Memphis
      >
      > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sean" <rhoadess@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear Lxx group
      > > Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language
      well,
      > > I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
      > > "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense
      of
      > > its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
      > > Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God
      in
      > > that he too comes out from God.
      > >
      > > Sean 1:1 In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the
      Woman
      > > was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
      > >
      > > Genesis 5:1-2 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam.
      In the
      > > day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2
      Male
      > > and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their
      name
      > > Adam, in the day when they were created.
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • Bill Ross
      The first two words of the LXX and of John 1:1 are identical, and to my thinking, form a striking allusion - not only by the word choice but the word order -
      Message 39 of 39 , Nov 30, 2007
        The first two words of the LXX and of John 1:1 are identical, and to my
        thinking, form a striking allusion - not only by the word choice but the
        word order - first in the entire scroll. There seems to be no question that
        the "beginning" referred to in John 1 is not "in eternity past" as is often
        suggested but rather Genesis 1.

        Further, the suggestion that Philo's musings about LOGOS serve as the
        backdrop for this passage are unnecessary. Clearly the LOGOS in view is none
        but the "let there be" of Genesis 1.

        The LXX background completely illuminates the text, rescuing it from the
        gross misinterpretations it is usually subjected to.

        Bill Ross
        http://bibleshockers.com
        Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
        Bible.



        --------------------------------------------------
        From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@...>
        Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:41 AM
        To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: Why NT topics on LXX?

        >
        > On Nov 29, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Chris Weimer wrote:
        >
        >> The New Testament makes use of the Septuagint. As long as the
        >> questions are directly relevant to the LXX, I personally see no harm.
        >> Within reason, no?
        >>
        > I've no problem with that; where the text of the LXX can illuminate
        > questions raised in a NT text, that's fine -- but the lengthy thread on
        > John 1:1 seemed to me to have a very tenuous or tangential
        > relationship to the LXX at best and to be sustained not by light
        > thrown by the LXX on questions about the LOGOS, but by the
        > never-ending fascination with the text of John 1:1 itself.
        >>
        >> Chris Weimer
        >>
        >> --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@...> wrote:
        >> >
        >> > Why is so much of the discussion on this LXX list focused on matters
        >> > that relate to the GNT and not to the LXX? Isn't there any oversight
        >> > of this forum?
        >> >
        >> > Carl W. Conrad
        >> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)
        >>
        >
        > Carl W. Conrad
        > Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.