2

We've all heard of the Gospel of John and "In the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God." Many commentators and scholars have etymologically traced the term back to the notion of Word or revelation, whether in the sense of creation itself or scripture. Others have suggested this actually means the "gathering" or the divine act manifesting God's personality. A fascinating account of personality is given by one of the greatest thinkers of our age, Henri Bergson. For Bergson, personality as "inaction" boils down to the storing of energy that needs to be let out or released and acted upon. Its mark or articulation lies in the hesitation and gesture which precedes any action.

Given the several hermeneutical claims it is puzzling as to what the phrase is meant to capture and express: was it God's word, or act, or even hesitation in the beginning?

closed as not constructive by Rex Kerr, Michael Dorfman, Joseph Weissman Aug 15 '12 at 12:43

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Voting to close, as both Biblical Hermeneutics and Christianity are better fits for this question than Philosophy. It is neither philosophy nor does philosophical training help one answer this question (except inasmuch as philosophical training may help one answer arbitrary questions). Did you actually mean to post it here? – Rex Kerr Aug 15 '12 at 6:33
  • Should your justification really be extending the question by 200%? Voting to edit. – iphigenie Aug 15 '12 at 10:09
  • Yeah, this seems problematic to me. Note there's plenty of great questions about philosophy of religion on this site; I might try comparing their tone and scope to your question and see if there are elements you might be able to improve. It seems to me the greater part of the content here is only vaguely related to the problem you're posing (and might really be more appropriately formulated on meta.) Please consider cleaning this up a bit, focusing on one concern, and giving us a little more on the context and motivations of your problem and what sort of explanation you might be expecting – Joseph Weissman Aug 15 '12 at 12:43
  • @MyronMosesJackson: I've edited your question to prune it back to its original form, as your remarks were not on the same topic as the question. If you're concerned about censorship or that the Philosophy.SE forum is being too narrow, that might be an appropriate topic to raise on the "Philosophy Meta" forum. Alternatively, if you have specific concerns about how the specialization in philosophy might affect discourse, it is conceivable that you could ask that as a separate Philosophy question, (though I would suggest considering the general phenomenon, detached from this specific question). – Niel de Beaudrap Aug 15 '12 at 15:15
  • Definitely much more focused without those remarks; please note that great questions ask about some specific problem -- keep in mind you can always ask more! At any rate it would be great if you could revise your post to include a little more of the context and motivations of the concern here and maybe share a little bit more about the sort of answer you might be looking for. – Joseph Weissman Aug 15 '12 at 23:32