re: -dlux: a 'must' read -
dlux. A matter of slight contention, mate, over that little word, "word" that is! I don't know how the misunderstanding continued over the ages but the word "logos" (en arhin in o logos -sorry for my greeklish but I don't know how else to do this) means "reason", close relative of logic and cause, purpose. One is therefore closer to the original if one translated it thus: In the beginning was reason and reason was with God... or In the beginning was logic and logic was... or In the beginning was the purpose and the purpose was..
The reason which may be given is that the Greek used for the Bible was the so called Koini, (or common, vulgate, slang) and so in that "loose" context the logos meant "word." I find that highly implausible. There is a man who's about to write his view (inspired by God, what's more) about the origins of existence. Can we not credit him with a little more than a superficial knowledge of the language he was using and a little more discernment about the word he is going to equip his god with? Surely his view would be that god had a "purpose" in creating the Universe and that this purpose was with him! It is also quite valid to equip God with Reason (capital R) supposedly because god is purely reason -nothing else, just Reason. You can use Reason to explain things but not to "help you" with things, to aid your hand in achieving anything. In other words, just like the Ancient Greeks, they used their gods to explain the existence and behaviour of things. They knew full well that praying for a virgin will not necessarily get you one, or praying for forgiveness, or for the forgiveness of others or for stopping a war etc. God is not there to do anything for you or me or sadam or Teddy Ruz.
To say that the "word" was with god is to say that the trees were with god, the breath, the sight, the hearing was with god. It is meaningless.
But, of course, I'm a devout atheist so you wouldn't want to listen to me.
