I'm one who likes the English language. Well, I should ... I blog in it. And I'm one who complains when words significantly change their meaning because it affects communication. And it has been pointed out that words often change meaning and it's not always a bad thing. Okay, fine. I shouldn't complain about change. Change, alone, in definition or in life, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
So what is it I'm actually concerned about? Is there something sacred about words ... or tradition ... or something? No, of course not. My concern is not about the words themselves, but the concepts they convey. As we change the meanings of words, we change the concepts they convey. I have no problem changing concepts. I'm just wondering how we go about conveying the original concepts if we change the meanings of the words that conveyed them. Perhaps it would be best if I gave some examples and maybe you can begin to see my concerns.
The word "love" in the Bible has a primary functional meaning. It is intended to convey a choice we make to always seek the best for the person we love. It is without condition on the one loved. (Yes, yes, there are other senses, but this one is the one that concerns me most.) When it says that God loves us, then, it is referring to a choice He makes to seek our best, not a warm, fuzzy feeling He has toward us. Today we define "love" a little differently. It is "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person" or "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend." Oh, but you know that's not the end of it. It also leans into the sexual realm, describing "sexual passion or desire" and even the act of sex itself. Now, if we all want to follow along with these changes and we all know what we're talking about, perhaps it's okay. The problem occurs -- and is in full force now -- when we try to find the original concept. None of the common definitions cover the original concept that the Bible means. And while it's all well and good that we have all tracked on the changes to the meaning of the word, what has happened in the process is that we have lost the ability to convey the concept. It is no small thing that we can no longer explain in simple terms what it means to "love God," "love your neighbor," or the simple truth that "God loves you." This is not a small loss; it is catastrophic.
I've already complained about the changes in the word "marriage." We're all aware by now that the "longstanding and traditional definition" of "the union of one man and one woman" has been subverted in California (and elsewhere). And we've all heard, "What difference does it make to you? It doesn't change your relationship with your spouse." Fine. But I'm looking for the word that conveys the original meaning ... and I'm not finding it. It used to mean "the state of matrimony" which referred to "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life." (And how many of you think of the word "matrimony" without thinking of the preceding adjective, "holy"?) "Marriage" used to mean the foundational union of a man and a woman to form a family. That foundational union was for life. It was for procreation. So significant was the term that parents had to be reassured: "You're not losing a daughter; you're gaining a son." That sort of thing. You see, it was understood that "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." It was a selfless act and one with strong responsibilities to the spouse, to the family, and to society. We may decide to change the meaning of the word now. Why not? We've been changing it for decades. What I want to know is where's the original concept? If you're going to change the word, what word do you leave me to convey the original idea? If I want to tell you that I am practicing the original idea with my wife, how do I do that? And while changing the term won't change my relationship with my wife, what affect will it have on future generations who don't have the slightest inkling of the original concept?
These are two, simple, strident examples. It is happening everywhere. Words are changing their meanings. That's fine. But when those words change and leave behind nothing with which to convey what was really intended, that cannot be viewed as a good thing, especially when what was really intended was something better than the new meaning. What will the children do, for instance, when what we meant when we said "freedom" no longer means "freedom"? (It is changing, you know.) We've seen how the evolution of the term "marriage" has led to a destruction of families (in terms of rampant divorce, desertion, etc.). How can we convey to our offspring what "marriage" was actually intended to mean -- what is actually expected of them? Look, as an obvious example, at what has happened to the biblical concept of "love." Christians have largely shifted from the command to love to the feeling of love ... and even think that God's love for us is a warm feeling. No effect? Hardly. How do we recapture fundamental biblical concepts like love, integrity, honesty, compassion, and so on when the words are becoming so badly subverted that they no longer mean what was intended? How do we properly communicate when our language steals away the words that are needed to properly convey essential concepts? You see, it's not change that is my concern. It is how we go about communicating truth and ideas and the biblical concepts that we cherish. If this is the cost of change, it is far too high. Some change we cannot afford.
13 comments:
Stan: The word "love" in the Bible has a primary functional meaning.
Actually, the word “love” does not appear in the original (since we are focusing on “original”) writings that eventually became the consolidated books of the Protestant Bible. Primarily because English did not exist!
The word which is translated to “love” in the Tanakh is (transliterated) ”ahab” which meaning “to breathe after, to desire.” The word translated to “love” from the New Testament (as we all know) is (transliterated) ”agape” meaning “benevolence, affectionate reverence, to take pleasure in a thing, prize something above all else.” Due to the application, primarily from the Johannine writings and 1 Cor. 13, Christianity has come to define agape as unconditional actions toward another, but this was not the “original” meaning of agape prior to the writings. It was a deliberate expounding upon the term.
If you are interested in terminology, why stop at the Bible? Why not go back further to the words the Bible used, and look at those word’s original intents? (And since the Bible was utilizing language already in existence, few words originate in the Bible. There are some we simply transliterate over to English, such as “prophet,” or “apostle”)
Stan: The problem occurs -- and is in full force now -- when we try to find the original concept. None of the common definitions cover the original concept that the Bible means. (emphasis in original)
To understand what the authors who wrote the writings meant by their terms, we would need to know both the language and the culture in which it was written. In studying Greek, I am learning how different the language and its uses are. This is not necessarily easily translated over to English. In reading Malina and Pilch I am even more concerned about the use of these words within the culture in which it was written.
If one is so greatly concerned about the precision of the “original” language (defining “original” as written in the Bible) shouldn’t one learn the language in which it was written? Shouldn’t one be familiar with the original culture in which it was written? What did it mean to a Hebrew reading the Torah to “Love God”? Did that meaning change over time? Change from what to what? And even then, the belief of how to follow the Torah varied among Hebrew beliefs.
What did it mean to the Johannine community to read “Love God”? It meant (according to the writing) follow his commandments. What commandments? Was it different for the Johannine community as compared to a Pauline community or the Jerusalem church? It has never been a simple concept—“Love God”—as the various factions within the religious communities debated and discussed what that meant. (And one could argue it was never intended to be a simple concept.) Does “Love your neighbor” include the ability to call the person names? Jesus called the Pharisees names—is this part of “loving one’s neighbor”?
From the very moment the words were written, it has been debated as to their meaning and implication. From the start, Christianity has not been uniform as to the meaning of words, nor the doctrines contained therein.
Stan: How do we recapture fundamental biblical concepts like love, integrity, honesty, compassion, and so on when the words are becoming so badly subverted that they no longer mean what was intended?
Do you know that the First Century honesty was only required with an “in-group”? Those of your own faction? It was considered a great breach of etiquette to lie to one’s own group, (hence Ananias and Sapphira). That it was acceptable to not be forthright and even deceive those not included within one’s in-group? (Explaining Mark 4:11-12)
Is it possible we have improved on “honesty” since then? I am not so sure we can, nor would we want to return to the value of honesty as practiced in First Century Judea, when these were written.
Integrity was maintaining one’s honor, even at the cost of another person losing theirs. It is not the same concept as what we would consider today. And compassion, as Paul attempts to justify it in Rom. 9:15, is dictatorial whim. Again, I would say we have improved the definition since then as well.
I guess if you are going to continue to use this “argument by definition” it would be interesting to at least see what the definitions meant at the time it was written--not the extrapolated English definitions developed over time. What with the concern for “original” and all. *grin*
The death of Ananias and Sapphira was a product of lying to the "in group"??
Look, it is absolutely, fundamentally apparent that you don't understand my point or my concern. I'm not actually talking about words that originated in the Bible. (Really? "Love" is not in the Bible??? Darn!! And I thought Adam spoke English and everyone who sinned after him had to learn a different language.) I'm not primarily concerned about biblical issues in this post. I used biblical examples, but it isn't that. (Thus the use of the term "freedom".)
My concern is concepts. Since, for instance, the concept that I have called "love" is nowhere connected to the word "love" anymore, how am I to communicate that concept? How do I communicate "marriage" when it doesn't mean that anymore? We are losing the concept of "freedom", so how are we to go about communicating that anymore? My concern isn't biblical concepts, but concepts that are being lost because the words are changing out from under them.
(As a side note, you are quite confident of your understanding of the First Century intent of "the writings". Is it remotely possible that your understanding is, well, wrong? Mark 4:11, for instance, is not a lie -- it is about keeping the truth from some. Lying is the intent to deceive -- not the same thing. And, frankly, calling God's decision to show mercy to whom He will a "dictatorial whim" shows a horrible failure to comprehend. But ... again ... this post wasn't about biblical principles; it was about the growing inability to communicate.)
Stan: Look, it is absolutely, fundamentally apparent that you don't understand my point or my concern.
*shrug* Very likely. Perhaps the answer to a coupla questions could clear up my confusion.
You use the following phrases (emphasis in the original):
“…the original concepts…”
“…the original concepts.”
“…the original concept…”
“…the original meaning…”
“…the original concept?”
“…the original idea?”
“…the original idea…”
“…the original concept?”
First Question: What method do I use to determine the “original concept” of a word? What locale and/or time in history do I use? (And if this is too broad, pick a particular word, such as “love” or “marriage” or “waffle” or whatever you want, and if you would be so kind, tell me where to find the “original concept” of that word.)
Second Question: Why use the method in answer to the First Question? What makes that method the correct one?
More: As a side note, you are quite confident of your understanding of the First Century intent of "the writings". Is it remotely possible that your understanding is, well, wrong?
Not only possible, very likely. It is very complicated to merely read words in a translated Bible, while living in a culture and society vastly different. For that reason, I read a variety of authors from various positions, to see their input on the topic.
Bruce Malina’s Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels regarding Mark 4:11-12:
“Mark’s use of the Isaiah quote (v.11) to suggest that Jesus deliberately obscured his teaching from outsiders has presented interpreters with one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. The interpretation of the parable for the insider groups in the verses that follow compounds the problem. Whatever conclusions are drawn, it is important to recognize that insider/outsider language is a constant feature of honor-shame societies.” Pg. 160-161
“References in the Synoptic narrative to special information that is readily given to those close to Jesus, but is unavailable to outsiders are indicative of a fundamental first-century Mediterranean perspective: the distinction between in-group and out-group.
“In-group members are expected to be loyal to each other and to go to great lengths to help each other. They are shown the greatest consideration and courtesy; such behavior is rarely, if ever, extended to members of out-groups.
“In-group members freely ask questions of one another that would seem too personal to North Americans. These questions reflect the fact that interpersonal relationships, even ‘casual’ ones, tend to involve far greater lowering of social and psychological boundaries in first-century Palestine than in present-day experience.
“In dealing with out-group members, almost ‘anything goes.’ By current standards, the dealings of ancient Mediterranean types with out-group persons appear indifferent, even hostile.” Pg. 373-374
When you say “biblical concepts” I presumed you were talking about the words within the Bible. If so, these words were used very differently at that time than they are now. That is the reason I am not inclined to “recapture” them. If you meant something different when you said, “How do we recapture fundamental biblical concepts like love, integrity, honesty, compassion…” then I apologize for misunderstanding. Although what else you could possibly mean, I have no idea.
It would appear that you do believe you understand my concern and you think that it's pointless. So let me try it from a completely different direction.
Just using the example of "love". In King James's version it was "charity". It was ... something else. Given that there was a large group of people that understood the term to mean something different than "giving to the poor" or "a warm feeling of affection", how would you communicate the sense of "love" that includes such things as a choice we make rather than a feeling we have, something that produces obedience, and the concept of unconditionally seeking the best for the other person. Some people, at least, had a word for that. I don't know what it is anymore. Do you?
Obviously I'm concerned about biblical concepts. This post was simply not limited to biblical concepts.
(By the way, I read the stuff you wrote from Malina's work. I see -- and fully understand -- the concept that "membership has its privileges" ... that there is information that is for the insider that is not for the outsider, that there is a special loyalty for insiders, and all that. I see it. I don't see where it says that biblical authors understood it to be perfectly acceptable, even good, to be dishonest with outsiders. As an example we are told to "let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" Gal. 6:10). There is a special "insider" thing going on there ... without any suggestion that "outsiders" should be mistreated or, using Malina's word, hostility.)
Stan,
I realize talking to a skeptic is not very fun. We are like the persistence pest of a two-year-old constantly asking “Why? Why?”
And it is very probable I will find your concern pointless. But I am first attempting to make sure I understand your point. Eight times, in your original blog, you use the phrase “original concept” or “original meaning.” I presumed (due to other statements) you were using this phrase to explain what the words meant at the time they were utilized when writing the Bible (and more specifically, the New Testament.)
Obviously I was wrong. Now I am trying to determine what it is, exactly, you mean by “original concept” or “original meaning.” You used the phrase eight times. Three of those times emphasized. I presume (again, maybe incorrectly) the “Expensive Change” you are referring to in this entry is from this “original concept.” I think, then, it is important to determine what the “original concept” is, if we are to be concerned about changing from it.
And along those lines, I am looking for the method you use to make the determination as to what a word’s “original concept” is. So I will ask my questions again:
First Question: What method do I use to determine the “original concept” of a word? What locale and/or time in history do I use? (And if this is too broad, pick a particular word, such as “love” or “marriage” or “waffle” or whatever you want, and if you would be so kind, tell me where to find the “original concept” of that word.)
Second Question: Why use the method in answer to the First Question? What makes that method the correct one?
Stan: Just using the example of "love". In King James's version it was "charity". It was ... something else.
Why do I care how early 17th Century England translated the 16th Century Greek Bible Textus Receptus? Is that the method we use to determine “original meaning”? The texts gathered by Erasmus? See, this is why I am asking these two questions. No reason to travel down rabbit trails of who translated what, if we don’t even have a method in place. If your method is to use the time and place of 17th Century England to make our determination of what “original concept” means—then this is a relevant question indeed.
If, however, you are to use the time and place of first century Roman Empire, we can read the Greek manuscripts prior to the 17th Century, and discuss the meaning of the word agape. How Jerome translated it into the Vulgate or Tyndale translated it, or the committees on the NASB, or so on becomes far less relevant. We would need to go back to the source.
(And by-the-way. The KJV translates agape to both “love” and “charity.”)
As to the telling the truth to outsiders issue, here is an article by John Frame regarding deception throughout the Bible. (Note especially 2 Thess. 2:10-12 which finds it acceptable for God to delude his enemies. Outsiders.)
I am very interested in the answer to my questions though:
First Question: What method do I use to determine the “original concept” of a word? What locale and/or time in history do I use? (And if this is too broad, pick a particular word, such as “love” or “marriage” or “waffle” or whatever you want, and if you would be so kind, tell me where to find the “original concept” of that word.)
Second Question: Why use the method in answer to the First Question? What makes that method the correct one?
Let's say that "original intent" is a poor choice of words. It is, for instance, obvious that the writers of the New Testament changed existing concepts to present their ideas because existing words didn't quite cover it. Charis meant simply "favor", but they modified its meaning to "unmerited favor" to express what we Christians call "grace". Not even the Greeks had a notion of agape that the authors of the New Testament had in mind, so they modified the meaning further to their needs. So "original intent" is likely not a good choice of words. How about "longstanding and traditional"? Or "the way we have understood it for so long"?
No, you're right. It doesn't matter. Who cares if I can properly express to my children what it means to be "married" if I can't find a common language? (Hey, Stan, your kids are all grown up. Why should you care?) What does it matter if we change the concept of "love" to "sex" and then apply it to the notion that "God is love"? (It's actually been done before.) If we're really careful about this, we can use any word to mean anything and then we can prove in court that "Your Honor, my client intended to murder that woman" and it was a good thing because "honor", "client", "intent", "murder", and "woman" are all ambiguous terms that really have no common understood "original intent".
The "expensive change" to which I referred was the inability to communicate concepts. It has begun.
O.K., a slight change in terminology, but still the same inherent problem.
First Question: What method do I use to determine the “longstanding and traditional meaning” of a word? What locale and/or time in history do I use? (And if this is too broad, pick a particular word, such as “love” or “marriage” or “waffle” or whatever you want, and if you would be so kind, tell me where to find the “longstanding and traditional meaning” of that word.)
Second Question: Why use the method in answer to the First Question? What makes that method the correct one?
Stan, the problem is in the method—not what you call it, whether it is “original intent” or “longstanding tradition.” How does one go about taking a word and say, “THIS is what the word MUST mean by: a) longstanding tradition or b) original intent or c) the way we have understood it for a long time”?
You make the point by your example of agape and charis. (Which is not translated uniformly as “grace.”) The Greeks had a “longstanding and traditional meaning” of these two words. Christianity, and the writing of the New Testament, extrapolated on to those words, wrote extensively upon those words, and over the course of history, the meaning has changed.
So which meaning “wins”? Which is the “correct” answer to “THIS is the longstanding and traditional meaning”? We have “love” with:
a) A longstanding and traditional meaning as understood by the Greeks;
b) A modification by Christians to a new longstanding and traditional meaning;
c) A modification by usage since the early 10th Century to a new longstanding and traditional meaning;
d) A modification to a current usage with (according to Random House Dictionary) up to 28 different possible meanings.
You seem (and I could be wrong) to be saying in this post, “Why can’t we recapture the meaning back to b)?” and I am asking how we know to pick b) as compared to a) or c) or even d)? ALL of these are “longstanding and traditional” meaning. The Greek is older than the biblical. What makes the biblical the winner? (And there are even older longstanding traditions regarding the concept of “love” prior to the Greek.)
Further, at one time in the First/Second Century, the biblical meanings of “love” and “grace” were brand spanking new. Using this same method, we should have rejected those meanings at the time, because they do not conform to the “longstanding and traditional” meaning. Yes, I understand from your perspective these new meanings were “better”—but again: by what method do we determine what is “better”?
Many people, (myself included) would say the variety available with words is “better.” I certainly think marriage is “better” including homosexuals. Is the method we use: what I, DagoodS, think is “better”? Is the method what you think is better?
It is for this reason I ask (and ask and ask) for a method. So we can see clearly what it is we are using to make these determinations. Perhaps it is as simple as “what I think.” O.K. Then say it. But can you take the next step and realize simply because you think this, others may think differently? Or can we come up with a more objective determination method, other than “whatever any person thinks is ‘better’ to them”?
Stan: No, you're right. It doesn't matter. Who cares if I can properly express to my children what it means to be "married" if I can't find a common language?
Really? The ONLY way you express to your children the definition of marriage is by handing them the Random House Dictionary?
You seem to be concerned about words which dare have a variety of meanings, and take the hyperbolic dichotomous position if there is more than one (1) meaning, then we can have NO meaning. Why?
Humans are quite adapt at figuring out the difference in the meaning of “love” in the following sentences:
“I love chocolate.”
“I want to make love to you.”
“I love my spouse.”
“15 – love!”
We have even figured out that putting a picture of a heart between “I” and a shadow of a Labrador and smacking it on a bumper sticker has meaning.
Do you really think communication has completely broken (due to the 28 different definitions of “love”) that we no longer can possibly communicate the difference between these definitions?
Same questions, slightly different terms:
First Question: What method do I use to determine the “longstanding and traditional meaning” of a word? What locale and/or time in history do I use? (And if this is too broad, pick a particular word, such as “love” or “marriage” or “waffle” or whatever you want, and if you would be so kind, tell me where to find the “longstanding and traditional meaning” of that word.)
Second Question: Why use the method in answer to the First Question? What makes that method the correct one?
No, I surrendered. You're right. Who cares what the words mean? English, for instance, is actually a fairly young language. What makes anything in English "longstanding" let alone "traditional". It is pure, unadulterated laziness to ask that a particular word have a particular meaning in a particular concept and require that people understand that. English doesn't work that way.
Look at the history of the language just in my lifetime. "Wicked" used to mean "evil" but became "cool" in my youth. "Bad" may mean "bad" or "good". "Sick" today may mean "ill" or "demented" or the like, or it could mean "really cool". And, of course, "cool" may mean "a lower temperature" or "nice".
No, I cry "Uncle!" (an archaic phrase intended to convey that the person crying "Uncle" is giving up his position or argument). If I want to convey an idea to my children, I will have to simply do so with a whole lot more words complete with definitions of those words and definitions of those definitions. Besides, why should I think that I have better ideas are better than someone else? Why should I try to impose biblical morality on my society or my version of concepts on those around me? You're right. There is no way to define either "original concept" or "longstanding and traditional meaning" that would be of any value to anyone but me.
I am tempted to repent and delete the post entirely, but I suppose I'll just let it stand as a monument to my foolish laziness.
I would imagine that the author of the blog being a Christian, writing to other Christians, would have the standard and method of definition come from the Bible. What the Greeks meant is irrelevant because we believe that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God, and any changes to definitions to words were given to them by God, and God being the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God, would know that these were the best definitions to the words He wanted to use. The problem Stan is running into is the words he knows no longer convey the meaning he used to use them for. For example, if we believe God is Love, by our definition today of the word 'love', the question 'of how can a loving God allow bad things happen', is a perfectly valid question. But if we use the meaning of the word that God gave us, being unconditional and only desiring the best for someone, then the question is nonsense because the 'bad' things that happen are only for our good. Whether or not you, Dagoods, agree with Stan's method of defining is what is really driving your confusion. If you don't believe that Stan's method is better, then don't use it. Stan isn't saying this is the only way anyone can do it and all are inferior, only that as a Christian, this should be the best way because we believe in a God who only wants the best for those He loves.
David,
I will let Stan speak for himself as to his method. I asked repeatedly, and he chose to not respond in the manner you indicated. Besides, as of his last comment, he indicated he realized English doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t equate to One Word = One Definition. Even if that was his method going into this blog entry; it would seem it is no longer. (Albeit there was an extremely thin chance Stan’s last comment was sarcastic. I think highly of Stan, so I doubt it.)
You did state two items of some interest.
1) It is curious the very problem Stan was decrying in this blog entry (the modification of a definition used for a long time) is the very same means that you claim your God-concept employed in communicating to humans. I am uncertain as to how one can align the complaint (on one hand) that society introduces new meanings to words and then extol a God (on the other hand) for introducing new meanings to words.
2) I was a bit surprised you wrote “What the Greeks meant is irrelevant…” How do you believe translators translate the Greek into English? Don’t they look at what other Greek writings indicate certain words mean in order to understand what the authors of the New Testament were attempting to convey?
Do you think Biblical scholars are wasting their time learning Greek, and what the Greeks meant when they wrote, in order to understand the concepts being conveyed by the writers of the New Testament? Who wrote in Greek to a Greek reading/speaking audience in a time when Greek was the predominant language for that locale.
In fact, the very word you used--“inspiration”--actually comes from a combination of two Greek words, ”theos” (meaning “god”) and “pneustos” (meaning “wind” or “breath”) creating the unique compound word ”theopneustos.” If we didn’t study what the Greeks meant by these two words, and presume the same meaning is being applied here, you wouldn’t have the concept of “God-breathed” in 2 Tim. 3:16!
We understand the Christian writers extrapolated upon the Greek, just as it occurs in the development of any language. We understand Paul was attempting to convey the depth of his use of agape in 1 Cor. 13 by providing analogy, and further words to bolster the concept. (You do realize, I suppose, that agape--even in the New Testament—does not always mean “unconditional and only desiring the best for someone.” (See Matt. 6:24, 23:6))
dagoods,
Did you think that I was suggesting in any way at any point that "One Word = One Definition"?? That would indeed be a stupid position. (I don't use "stupid" lightly.)
My concern remains. How do I, as an example, express to others the concept of "love" that is defined in 1 Cor. 13, that entails unconditionally desiring the best for someone, that is a choice, not a feeling? You have argued that I can't use the word. Fine. The concern hasn't changed. The post was intended to convey my concern that we are losing the ability to communicate some important ideas. In fact, the appearance that you failed to understand that concern seems to be an indictment that I was unable to express my concerns -- the very concern I have.
I would hope that David didn't mean a general "What the Greeks meant is irrelevant" -- an overarching rule of interpretation. I would hope that David intended to convey that in some cases the biblical authors modified the language to convey a different idea than the original Greek conveyed. I believe that David meant that "What the Greeks meant was, in some cases, modified. Trusting as we do that the Bible is inspired by God, we need to examine the context of the whole New Testament to accurately understand the intended meaning of the Greek." But, of course, I have the advantage of knowing David personally. ;)
Stan,
I ask questions. No answers are provided. It leaves me piecing together your position from what other items you write. I truly do not mean to misrepresent your position, but when I can’t get clarification, it shouldn’t be a huge surprise I end up on the wrong field. Is it?
Stan: My concern remains. How do I, as an example, express to others the concept of "love" that is defined in 1 Cor. 13, that entails unconditionally desiring the best for someone, that is a choice, not a feeling?
Is this really that difficult? How about, “When I talk about loving my wife, I mean it as unconditionally desiring the best for her. A choice; not a feeling. Love as defined in 1 Cor. 13.” Voila—you have done an admirable job.
I am most certainly NOT arguing you cannot use a word. What I AM saying is this is a horrible argument: “The dictionary [or “longstanding tradition” or “original intent”] says a word means this; therefore we cannot vary from that meaning when using the word.”
Argument by Dictionary, I call it. (Primarily because no consistent method can be made to determine what absolute definition of a word must exist.)
Stan: Did you think that I was suggesting in any way at any point that "One Word = One Definition"?? That would indeed be a stupid position. (I don't use "stupid" lightly.) (emphasis in original)
So how many definitions can a word have? What is the problem with adding one? Who decides whether an added definition, or a modified definition is “better”? We remain with the same problematic methodology.
Apparently I'm not the only one that sees a problem with the decline in the meaning of certain words.
Post a Comment