Where do you see any such thing in the scriptures?
I think you misunderstand the idea of citing sources.
Every time the Jews caught Jesus claiming to be God even in the indirect manner He used they wanted to kill Him; if He’d said it directly they would have been frantic to get Him.
Not sure what you mean by that. I understand Philo said what he said. I also understand a lot of people believed what he said and thus we can know the common belief of that time. But popular opinion does not define truth. If the well is poisoned the water will be unfit for drinking. I was pointing out that Philo was a poisoned well.
Do you agree that Philo was a Jewish philosopher who was enamored with Plato and wanted to harmonize the scriptures with Greek philosophy? I would assume you do, given it’s an established historical fact. So why would you expect him to be a source of pure water, i.e., the truth? In other words, getting back to my original point, does Philo sound like a reliable source for truth?
Citing sources means providing evidence that what you are citing actually exists. In this case, it would mean providing a reference that demonstrates that Philo actually said what you say he said. Evidence from memory does not suffice. (Accept that from someone who is in his mid-geezerhood. 
)
"Philo represents the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system. His ethics were strongly influenced by Pythagoreanism and Stoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a “common human sympathy”.
“The Works of Philo”. Translated by C.D. Yonke. Foreword by David M. Scholer Yonge. 1993. ISBN 9780943575933
In general, I think Philo’s love for Plato is well known. The above is but one of many sources.
1 Like
This debate has been going on for 2,000 years now. I doubt one more post on my part will settle the matter once and for all, so I’ll graciously bow out of the discussion.
Philo who? But yes, that is what citing sources means.
Philo Beddoe, Clint Eastwood’s character in Every Which Way but Loose.
Ah. Not a big Eastwood fan, so no wonder I had to ask. 
"Philo represents the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system. His ethics were strongly influenced by Pythagoreanism and Stoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a “common human sympathy”.
“The Works of Philo”. Translated by C.D. Yonke. Foreword by David M. Scholer Yonge. 1993. ISBN 9780943575933
Oops…I got the wrong Philo. Here’s the one I meant:
"Philo represents the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system. His ethics were strongly influenced by Pythagoreanism and Stoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a “common human sympathy”.
“The Works of Philo”. Translated by C.D. Yonke. Foreword by David M. Scholer Yonge. 1993. ISBN 9780943575933
If Philo is a “poisoned well”, then so is every lexicon in existence since they all rely on how Greek, Hebrew, or other languages were used by actual people who were not all Christians.
Philo spoke of the Logos as a person. Referencing that is no different than referencing Strong’s, and in fact trumps Strong’s because it is a reference to an actual use of a term. And Philo is just an example of numerous Jewish philosophers who used the term Logos to refer to a person.
So your second paragraph is both irrelevant and a dodge to avoid admitting that “logos” was used to mean a person. Heraclitus used it to mean a principle that actually existed; Aristotle used it to mean an attribute of a human being; Zeno used it to mean an entity that pervaded the universe and made it rational; and Philo used it to refer to a divine being – a definite progression from just meaning “word” or “concept” to indicating a person.
I know that’s what Philo and others said about the logos, but that is not how earlier Greeks understood it.
“Of that by which the inward thought is expressed, Lat. oratio, sermo, vox, verbum. a word, not in the grammatical sense of a mere name (ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα), but a word as embodying a conception or idea:”
Abbott-Smith’s Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
“Both these terms derive from the Greek word legō,
(le,gw), meaning to tell, to say, to speak, to count. But the meanings which have
philosophical and religious implications are basically two: as an inward thought
or reason, an intuitive conception, and as an outward expression of thought in
speech.”
"A Greek philosopher of the late 6th century BC, Heraclitus is best known for his doctrine of change being central to the universe.
He also coined the term ‘logos’ (λόγος) in Western philosophy, explaining its meaning as being both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos."
“Though he {Heraclitus) was primarily concerned with explanations of the world around him, Heraclitus also stressed the need for people to live together in social harmony. He complained that most people failed to comprehend the logos (Greek: “reason”), the universal principle through which all things are interrelated and all natural events occur, and thus lived like dreamers with a false view of the world.”
It seems clear to me that Heraclitus, the one who coined the word “logos” did not see it as a person.
The question becomes, what did John think about the logos? I think John 20:31 gives the answer to that. Since he wanted to show that Jesus was the son of God (therefore not God Himself), then the logos in John 1:1 does not refer to Jesus. I believe it refers to what was in God’s mind from the beginning, His plan, namely that God wanted to dwell with man in His garden on the earth. It was that plan that was the fundamental source of the cosmos and that would maintain order within that cosmos. It would have worked had God’s co-regent (Adam Gen 1:26) behaved properly. Of course he didn’t and that’s where Jesus comes into the picture. He is the second Adam who did obey God thereby demonstrating or personifying the plan in God’s mind, the logos. His future kingdom will definitely have the order God originally intended.
I would say, from recent experience, that evidence from memory may be all that I have left sometimes, which may be better than nothing, but is not nearly as reliable as the specific identification of a written source.
This is one interpretation, with a lot of steps of logic, including some likely assumptions about time that do not seem to me to be consistent with how God views time. My understanding of what it means that God created the entire physical universe, including the dimensions of space and time as we experience them in this universe, leads inevitably to the conclusion that God exists outside of space and time as we experience them in this universe. As such, God does observe the entire universe’s extent in space and time, from outside of that creation. So God does know (present tense is the only tense that makes sense concerning observations from outside of time) exactly what did happen, by “seeing” what did happen, from the beginning of time to the end of time. Note that this knowing what happened does not mean that God controlled every action. Almost always, by our personal observation and by the reports of billions of other humans, God permits the universe to function by predictably following the laws of physics that He created.
This understanding of what it means that God created the universe does lead to a sharpened focus on the question of why God created this universe, and put us into it. If God really wanted to dwell with man in His garden on this earth, rather than let us live here for a while before we live with Him forever in Heaven, why would He let Satan into this world, knowing that Satan would be successful in deceiving Adam?
It seems to me that God had a different plan, a different reason, for creating humans in this world, than to have this world “actually” be heaven for us humans, whether that was the plan from the start, or was the result of the sin.
As far as I understand the scriptures, God said nothing to Israel even remotely similar to all of that. He spoke in terms that His audience, (Ancient Near East) would have understood. That which He told them is what is recorded in the scriptures. All this stuff of about space-time, dimensions,etc., is nowhere to be found in the scriptures.
This whole idea of looking for science in the scriptures raises an important question. Which science comports with the scriptures? First century science? Fifth century science? Nineteenth century science? Maybe it won’t be until the 25th century that science will discover the truths the scriptures supposedly say about the physical world? The Bible is not a science book. Never was meant to be one. The ANE people had entirely different priorities and questions about cosmology than we have in the modern West. They had no interest in how atoms work, space-time, or dimensions. They just wanted to know how please God and that’s what He told them.
To be sure, I don’t claim to have a corner on truth, but I do know that God spoke to an ancient people in a vocabulary and concepts they would have understood. I also understand that God is the author of all true science and that the cosmos He created follow predictalbe laws. He just didn’t talk about it in the scriptures.
Yes, we now know about space-time now, but to try and force the scriptures to conform to our modern scientific cosmology does nothing but muddy the waters of what God actually said.
1 Like
I think most scholars say that Genesis was not talking about the creation of a physical universe at all. Instead they understand it to be talking about a function-able cosmos, a cosmos that functioned in such a way as to benefit mankind. In general, the Ancient Near East had a functional cosmology and cared little about its physical composition.
Hi Rich,
I think you missed the point competely. My discussion of modern science has nothing to do with what God actually said to ancient peoples. It only has to do with what that which was written thousands of years ago can mean to me today. And I find it rather interesting that the way in which God spoke to people who had no idea of sub-atomic particles, or the vast extent of the cosmos, or the fact that time is a fourth dimension of the created universe, that in spite of the great difference in scientific understanding at different times in the history of the world since the original writing, combining the knowledge embedded in the bible with modern scientific knowledge (the best we can say about God’s universe at this time) can give me a better understanding of my amazing God than just looking at what He said to those people so long ago.
What God said thousands of years ago has a lot more value to me when I understand what God is trying to tell me today. That is often not exactly the same as what He intended to say to those ancient people.
Bottom line: I am not looking for science in the scriptures, I am looking for God in both scriptures and in the universe He created. And I have found God where I have looked for Him.
2 Likes
Not impossible! 
I think I do better understand where you are and it’s not that far off (if at all) from where I stand.
I think the main point of Genesis is that God alone created the cosmos and that He is above it so to speak. He is not actually the sun or moon as all other ANE cosmologies aver about their gods. In chapters 1 and 2 it seems clear that God meant to dwell with and work with people in Eden. Most other gods hated humans and abused them. All in all, while similar to other ANE cosmologies, it nonetheless sets itself apart from all of them in a rather grand manner. Of course in chapter 3 that plan fell apart. But not to worry, God would make it right again and that is the rest of the story culminating in the new earth of Revelation. I guess it will be even better than Eden, but not sure of that.
I agree that the more we know about science the more we gain an appreciation for our God. But that raises and interesting point; why is it that despite our ever increasing scientific knowledge as compared to the ANE’s basically no science, we all keep making the same mistakes over and over again? Wouldn’t you think our appreciation of and obedience to God would be way more than theirs, given we can see in much greater detail the work of God in nature?
I teach biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible at a university level and have written extensively about translation and translation issues arising the Hebrew Bible.
Biblical Hebrew is an extinct language and was largely gone by the time Jesus was born. It was also a very small language having about 8000 words thus many of its words have a wide semantic range. Therefore, the the translation of words and phrases in biblical Hebrew are very, very context dependent. The meaning of tov is often translated as compatible, functional, wonderful, good (morally), good (tasting), and so forth. Similarly, the meaning of ra is usually translated as evil, wicked, or bad. However, in an economic context (exchanging goods and services) it can mean “not profitable”. In Genesis II, I think most Hebrew-Old Testament scholars would argue that the context of the Adam and Eve story suggests that ra means “bad”, not evil. By way of explanation, Wenham, Westermann, and others argue that the phrase “tov vara” (good and evil/bad) does not occur in a moral context and so the translation of ra as evil is not supported.
In other words, there is no one word that translates either of these two words. It’s all very, very context dependent.
Blessings,
2 Likes