"Word [ λόγος]" ... "it" or "he"

@Pages said:

@Wolfgang said:
"Word [λόγος]" by itself already refers to something declared, something spoken, a speech, a message ... in all occurrences!! Whether parts of the content of λόγος is given or not is not relevant, the meaning of λόγος remains "word, message, saying".

It is most certainly relevant to this discussion, or are you taking the position of one who believes there is, semantically or otherwise, only one meaning for each and every Greek word?

I am well aware that words can take on and do have different meanings in different contexts ... as it is the context which determines the meaning of a word within that context.

There is no change in context in John 1:1 which would necessitate a change in meaning of the word λόγος to all of a sudden and supposedly only in these verses no longer mean "message, saying, word" and be a reference to a male person, a "he".

For instance is πᾶς (all) in every case to mean “all“ without exception? Or do you take the context of what is written to determine if πᾶς is without exception, or with distinction (cf. Mk. 1:5).

The word "all" can not only have these two meanings, but also carry the meaning of "the larger part of" ...

λόγος in Jn. 1:1, 14 is used here in an entirely different sense than the other occurrences within John (λόγος as subject) as I have previously demonstrated in my post contrary to your research of λόγος.

There is no different sense in these occurrences ... 1Pe 1:20 and Gal 4:4, as well as Scripture as a whole, indicate rather plainly that the beginning of "the Son of God" was in the form of "word" and NOT in the form of a living angel, a God-spirit-person, a spirit, etc ... God's plan in God's mind and foresight and foreknowledge was in the beginning, and in the course of time this "Word" was made known and when the time was fulfilled, this "Word" became the reality of which this Word spoke in that the man Jesus was born.

@Pages said:
I’ll restate my position again in regard to the issue of gender within the realm of translation from the Greek text of the NT – and that is, when one has these type of questions one ought to defer to the original language source text to inform their target translation text.

This has been the underlying basis the whole time ... perhaps should have stated it separately instead of by implication in the various posts which address of grammatical gender
The Greek word λόγος is of masculine grammatical gender and thus in Greek will have pronouns associated with it in masculine gender. This is the case in any occurrence of the word λόγος in any context. The word λόγος always refers to someTHING (word, message, saying, etc), but not to someONE (a person, male or female).

When translating into another language, a correct translation will adjust any pronouns to the grammatical gender of the noun that is translated from λόγος -- in German "das Wort" (neuter grammatical gender), in French "la parole" (feminine grammatical gender). As for English with no clearly visible grammatical gender, a correct translation will then use the pronoun in regards to the natural gender of to what the noun refers, and the English term "word" (message, saying, etc) would therefore have to be "it", in order to falsely give the impression that "word" would not refer to a thing but instead by a name of a person or similar, in case of "he" a male person, in case of "she" a female person.

So much for original language gender and translation matters associated with it.

On the issue of gender, what gender is the Holy Spirit in German?

The word for "spirit" is "Geist" with masculine grammatical gender ... but that does NOT provide any indication for whether the word "Geist" refers to a person (with no natural gender anyways) or something (an "it" -- for example, that spirit power with which God empowered His prophets and by which spirit power they received revelation and declared God's message)

Two questions come to mind that I’m curious about with regard to λόγος and οὗτος in our discussion:

First, would you please provide for me the location in John’s Gospel where λόγος is translated in any written translation as “God’s plan”, or “plan“.

Firstly, this is not a question, is it? Secondly, "plan" consists of thoughts which are always formulated as words, etc ... the term "Word" in John 1 in the overall context of John and Scripture as a whole is clearly (at least to me) a reference to that "word" in God's plan of redemption and salvation about that Messiah Whom He (God) would provide and sent and who would be a human being (cp v.14 "made flesh", not "made {something else}" )

Secondly, in John’s gospel would you kindly direct me to where λόγος is the subject in a clause and also the antecedent of οὗτος as the subject in an immediately following clause apart from Jn. 1:1-2.

The word οὗτος actually is better translated "this" or "the same" (rather than "he") which again is a clear reference back to the "word (message)". Also, please note, what I mentioned above regarding grammatical gender of λόγος and associated pronouns of course applies here as well ... in Greek οὗτος corresponds to the grammatical masculine gender of the noun λόγος, and - as you may correctly suspect - the German and French translations have "the same" in their respective neuter / feminine grammatical gender as well.
The word οὗτος as a subject for a sentence does NOT mean that it is a male person ("he").

@Pages said:

@Wolfgang said:
The word οὗτος as a subject for a sentence does NOT mean that it is a male person ("he").

Lastly, and in closing, John in his gospel writes οὗτος (in the masc. singular nominative case) as the subject of a clause a total of twenty-two times, where twenty-one times οὗτος is making reference to a (male) person – the twenty-second instance is of course Jn. 1:2.

Which proves nothing in regards to Jn 1:2 ... as the pronoun οὗτος is NOWHERE by itself defining anything or anyone, it is always the context and antecedent noun to which it refers.
Thus, if I write an article and speak of a lady (in German feminine grammatical gender, "she") talking a walk in the garden while the sun (in German feminine grammatical gender, "she") is shning, and in 99 passages I use "she" as a subject in a sentence referring back the "the lady" and in 1 passage I use "she" as a subject in a sentence referring back to "the sun", do you want to tell me from this supposed textual evidence that "the sun" is actually "the lady" ???
That John is using οὗτος in 21 passages in direct reference to "a male person" and in 1 passage to "word", does NOT at all make "Word" to be "a male person", no more than my 99 passages about "the lady" would make "the sun" in the 1 passage "the lady".

@Pages said:

@Wolfgang said:
Thus, if I write an article and speak of a lady (in German feminine grammatical gender, "she") talking a walk in the garden while the sun (in German feminine grammatical gender, "she") is shining, and in 99 passages I use "she" as a subject in a sentence referring back the "the lady" and in 1 passage I use "she" as a subject in a sentence referring back to "the sun", do you want to tell me from this supposed textual evidence that "the sun" is actually "the lady" ???
That John is using οὗτος in 21 passages in direct reference to "a male person" and in 1 passage to "word", does NOT at all make "Word" to be "a male person", no more than my 99 passages about "the lady" would make "the sun" in the 1 passage "the lady".

You make an excellent and valid point in this example regarding context; however, were I to re-write your one passage example to something along the lines of ...the Sun, as she is known by a close intimate group of friends and associates – removes “Sun” from the realm of solar objects to that of being a sense of title or nickname does it not. I’ve used the same grammatical form for both terms as you in your writing, and yet we have contextually two different and separate meanings implied by the construct of our 1 out of 99 passages.

You are making my point ... getting back to the record in the gospel of John, Joh 1:1ff is 1 passage which should not be interpreted as οὗτος referring to a male person as in 21 other passages. "Word" is NOT a "person", but a thing ... and as 1Pe 1:20 further indicates, it was indeed "word" (and not a living person) that existed even before the foundation of the world in God's foreknowledge in God's mind.

@reformed said:

@Wolfgang said:

Because the whole passage is talking about Christ. The Word is the title for Christ in this passage.

Well .... isn't indeed not only this passage but rather the whole gospel of John is talking about Christ? What about all the other passages in which "the word" is mentioned?

Red Herring. The context of the immediate passage is what you look at first.

But that is exactly what I am doing ... I am reading "word" and understand "word". YOU are the one who is NOT looking at the immediate context, since you are reading "word" and interpret "Christ".

In Jh 1:1ff we are told that the beginning of Christ was in the form of "word" (in the beginning was the word"), and in Jh 1:14 we are told that the form changed from "word" to "flesh" ("the word became flesh").

No, we are not told in John 1:1 that Christ's form was a word. You are reading that into the passage. Word is clearly a title.

I am reading "word" and I am reading "beginning" and I understand the passage in light of the remote context of 1Pe 1:20 (speaking about the same topic) that "word" is meant as "word" and it refers to what was in God's foreknowledge, what God had in mind from even before the foundation of the world.
You are reading "Christ" into the verse and re-interpret "word" to be a title of Christ,

Do you not agree that there was first God's plan of a coming human Messiah (cp Gen 3:15 prophecy of "seed of the woman") and later when the time had come for this prophecy to be fulfilled, this human Messiah was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4) ??

I never disagreed with that.

IF you believe that Christ already lived as a living person of some kind prior to being foreknown in God's foreknowledge and prior to God's plan of a human Messiah being promised, then you are disagreeing with what Scripture teaches about God's plan being first and the realization of the plan coming second.

And God the son fulfilled that by becoming flesh and being born of a woman.

Again, you are reading into the passage, there is NOTHING whatever about a God-Person (a "God the Son") "becoming flesh" in the passage.

You seem to have Christ (how would you address him with the title "Word" ? "Word Christ"?? ) already living and carrying out his ministry even before God's plan was even in existence ?

Nope, not sure how you come to that conclusion.

This seems to be what you are indicating or implying by your interpretation of an already existing "Christ" for whom "Word" is a title ... meaning that Jhn 1:1ff is actually saying "in the beginning was Christ ... etc etc"

Remember, through Christ all things were made, therefore he obviously was in existence before his human birth.

God (the Father of Christ Jesus, the Almighty, etc) was the CREATOR ... Jesus was not an alive acting person at the time. This should be very clear from the statements of Jesus himself, for example where he made reference back to when God made and created man as male and female, etc (notice: Christ did not speak of himself creating man as male and female !!)
In Jhn 1, the text speaks of God (the Father of Jesus, the ALmighty, the Creator, etc) who made all things by means of His Word .... and God did so in accordance with and with a view toward what His plan for the coming of the human Messiah required.