It takes extreme chutzpah.
In this case, it means "wrong and potentially deceptive."
Your argument that your interpolation is valid because it does not require belief in the Trinity is so laughably fallacious that frankly, it transcends the "Chutzpah"
@thecolorsblend refers to, and approaches the level of high Postmodernism.
I suggest you rent a loft in a Philip Johnson skyscraper, decorated with abstract art and 1990s furniture, and with a copy of
Simulacra et Simulation on prominent display. Ballard, Derrida, et al, just can't compete with such an unabashed recursive conflation of artifice and actuality.
Indeed so, thus I am going to reject your entire mistranslation, since no one who actually knows Koine Greek, throughout the entire history of the Christian faith, has translated or interpreted that verse in that manner, even non-Trinitarians. The fact the JWs with their distorted, manipulated translation did not go down this road shows how
outre your claim is, frankly.
I note here you quote an encyclopedia known to be a front for the Unification Church. I myself regard Moonie propaganda as rather inherently unreliable.
I will leave new sources. However, your claim that "nobody in all the history of Christianity" has translated or interpreted John 1:1 like this is incorrect. All you have to do is type (with the quotation marks) "in the beginning was the reason" into Google, and you will see that there are plenty of people that believe Logos means Reason. But for your sake, I will leave better resources this time.
"
logos,( Greek: “word,” “
reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in
Greek philosophy and theology, the
divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it
form and meaning."
http://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
Here is an interesting source:
"
New Catholic Encyclopedia | 2003 | CROSSAN, D. M.; PETER, C. J. | 700+ words
COPYRIGHT 2003 The Gale Group Inc.
The word Logos (λόγος) has various meanings in Greek: reckoning, account, explanation,
reason, narrative, saying, term, word, etc. But it is the use of this word in the expression, λόγος θεο[symbol omitted], "Word of God," as employed in the Johannine writings of the New Testament, that makes it a term of prime theological significance."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407706819/logos.html
William Tydale, in 1532 a.d. believed the Logos was an "it"...
"In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
The same was in the beginnynge with God.
All thinges were made by
it and with out
it was made nothinge that was made."
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/tyndalebible/john/1.html
Here is a translation from Samuel Buckley, recorded by John LeClerc in The Harmony of an Evangelist in 1701:
"Before the Creation of the World,
Reason did exist, for
Reason was then in God; indeed was God himself, it not being possible for God to be without it.
Reason, I say, did exist in God before the Creation of the World, every portion of which was created with the greatest
Reason; nor can any thing be produc'd that has been made without
it."
Here is an article from gotquestions, just in case anyone here accepts it as a reliable source:
"Logos is the Greek term translated as “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” In Greek philosophy, it also referred to a universal, divine
reason or the mind of God."
http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
Pope Benedict XVI said in 2005:
"In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the "Logos,"
from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational."
You do realize that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, don't you? You are assuming that every Greek scholar that has ever lived wrote down their translation and was able to obtain a publisher. Ad Hominem is also a logical fallacy, which I assumed you were using in your "Post Modernism" statement. I can see that Eusebius has influenced you. Here is a quick reference to several logical fallacies:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Also, I did not say that my interpolation was valid "because it doesn't require a belief in the trinity". I said that an interpolation would be essential if one were to attempt to show how John is describing a triune god-man.
Nobody has made any attempt at explaining to me why my translation is wrong. If it is wrong, then I will correct it. I am not allowed on any forum besides Controversial Theology, so perhaps one of you could do me a solid and find someone who is fluent in the obsolete Koine Greek language. In the Book of Hebrews, there are at least 168 terms not found in any other New Covenant writings, and 10 terms that are not found in any Koine or Classical Greek manuscript ever found:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm (another Catholic source)
But perhaps someone can explain where my Greek is incorrectly translated. Maybe they can even explain how John is describing a triune, incarnate god-man that is called God the Son. I would like if this could be done without contradicting John 17:3:
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,
Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
And this is life eternal, that they might know
thee the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Thank you and God bless.
