Angels in creation

[Willum]

"Angels don't act like that!" Frank Castle
"I don't know, what do any of us really know about angels?" Steve Rogers

In John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If we translate word to mean "will," it implies that God employed angels working with his will in the beginning, or during creation.

Debate: Did God use angels directing them with his word in creation, acting "as one" with him?

Also, if not, why are angels needed with an all-powerful god?
and what then could John mean?

[amortalman]

"Angels don't act like that!" Frank Castle
"I don't know, what do any of us really know about angels?" Steve Rogers

In John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If we translate word to mean "will," it implies that God employed angels working with his will in the beginning, or during creation.

Debate: Did God use angels directing them with his word in creation, acting "as one" with him?

Also, if not, why are angels needed with an all-powerful god?
and what then could John mean?

I'm just wondering why you would even consider translating "Word" in John 1:1 to mean "will"? According to Strong's Lexicon G3056, the greek word is logos, meaning "Word." https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 056&t=NASB

In my understanding, the book of John goes on to clarify that the "Word" means Jesus Christ because it reads "the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Why complicate things by redefining Logos?

If the God of the Bible is who the scriptures say he is then he is omnipotent and does not need help from angels to create anything since the angels themselves are created beings.

[Willum]

[Replying to amortalman]

I am just curious why you would think I was redefining "logos," when clearly I am only translating it in a way that makes it logically consistent.
Please do not accuse un-necessarily. Definitions are for the language itself, translation is between languages.

[Willum]

[Replying to amortalman]

If the God of the Bible is who the scriptures say he is then he is omnipotent and does not need help from angels to create anything since the angels themselves are created beings.

Well, yes, that IS part of the OP question: What does he need angels for, if he is omnipotent?

We can create: angels can create? angels can assist in creation?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to amortalman]

I am just curious why you would think I was redefining "logos," when clearly I am only translating it in a way that makes it logically consistent.
Please do not accuse un-necessarily. Definitions are for the language itself, translation is between languages.

No that's not called "translating", that is at best interpreting (and at worst, "making stuff up") ... Translating has to relate to the actual meaning of words in a given text rather than what one is feeling on any given day.

[ttruscott]

In John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If we translate word to mean "will," it implies that God employed angels working with his will in the beginning, or during creation.

Your are not offering a translation of the Greek word logos, word but an interpretation of what the word 'logos' might mean since logos does not mean angel but word.

and what then could John mean?

John is saying that the creative force recognized as some power by the Greeks was in fact a Divine Person with the GODLy unity and part of the GODly Unity.

Expositor's Greek Testament
"John 1:1-5. The Logos described. The first five verses describe the pre-existence, the nature, the creative power of the Logos, who in the succeeding verses is spoken of as entering the world, becoming man, and revealing the Father; and this description is given in order that we may at once grasp a continuous history which runs out of an unmeasured past, and the identity of the person who is the subject of that history."

None of John 1 supports the Word being an angel.

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I can understand how one might be upset that using pagan tradition to translate your holy Bible might be offensive, however, I don't make stuff up.

If you knew anything about Greek, or enough not to insult others who do, you'd know it is very flexible and contextual language. A for-runner to Latin, and well-construed, though not actually constructed.

So, one of the TRANSLATIONS of logos is "to cause," placed in context of the sentence you arrive at the same conclusion I did in the beginning of the OP. Now it has been explained in YET another way.

Ready to start debating, or is there another word in Greek you need to have explained to you?

Truescott: Read the OP please. I said angels were implied, not that "word," meant angels. Thanks!

[bluethread]

There are two consistent ways to look at the term "logos". It could be a reference to the Greek concept of the undefined first cause and/or prime basis of all reason and law. It could also be a Greek stand in for Torah, a similar Hebrew concept referring to the entirety of the teachings of Adonai. It could also be a combination of the two. These are reasonably accepted views because they are consistent with the language and usage at the time of the writing. Now, if you believe the term "logos" refers to something else, you will need to make a similar connection.

[ttruscott]

Truescott: Read the OP please. I said angels were implied, not that "word," meant angels. Thanks!

Well Wilplum, it may imply that to you but not to me.

[bluethread]

Truescott: Read the OP please. I said angels were implied, not that "word," meant angels. Thanks!

Well Wilplum, it may imply that to you but not to me.

No, implication must be shown using the context. What William is doing is inferring, i.e. proposing a related concept. This latter shifts the focus from the context of the writing, to the context of the argument. Thus, it is dependent on the strength of the argument, not the nature of the quote. That is common sophist slight of hand.