Should We Re-Write The Dictionary?

[Jason]

I'm posting this due to something that I see as a troubling trend in our discussions here.

It seems that Humpty Dumpty has been spreading his folly around and some have become infected.

In various discussions over the past year I've been told that there is truth ,but that not all truth is factual. Check out a dictionary and see whether or not factual and truthful are synonyms.

We've also been told that the Bible contains contradictions, though the claim is that the person is not talking about errors.

It also came up that authoritative and truthful are seen as being the same.

I know, and some of you know where and from whom these statements come. This isn't about personalities. This is about words and their meanings.

I am troubled by the manner with which words are handled. It is true that the meanings of words shifts with time, but if a word means something at this present time and in our present usage, why do we then turn around and say that we believe in a word's meaning and that it also means the opposite of what it means? For example: How can we have truth that is not factual? 

Do words mean anything anymore? 

Should we re-write the dictionary, or should we abandon it altogether?

Am I missing something through all of this?

[Scott]

Eek, personal transformation is not a reason to believe the gospel as true. I'm fine to move out and found the truth of the gospel in reasonable propositions after one is transformed by Christ and the gospel. But I truly believed the gospel, and I might propose that you did, because we were transformed by Christ and the gospel. And this should fit nicely into the effectual calling of reformed theology.

[Bit Brush]

Haven't the Greek and Hebrew lexicons been rewritten over the years? How does that play into translating the Bible? I can't recall the number of times I've heard a pastor blast a translation because the original Greek or Hebrew word really means something different. What faith do we have to place in these and even current English dictionaries? Someone years ago said to find the oldest unabridged dictionary you can so you can keep up with word meaning change...it is already taking place. In addition, how many new words have been introduced, replacing older words...how many older words have no meaning today, yet are contained in our older Bibles. So you have older Bibles where the dictionaries either don't have or have changed the definitions or potentially new Lexicons where the Hebrew and Greek meanings have been altered. Seems so convoluted...just like Satan wants.

Yet I expect to hear that I'm a nutty, uninformed, conspiracy theorist parroting people like Ripplinger and Knox and that our new definitions and translations are far more accurate than ever before so don't worry about it. 

[Jason]

Why am I troubled? 

Let's see: perhaps it's because words may be flexible, but they are not so flexible as to mean the opposite of what they mean.

Perhaps it's because I can say something and get the answer that the problem rests in me and not in the fact that people wish to mold language, or make it so malleable, as to cause words to mean practically anything they wish.

Perhaps I'm troubled because motives of fear are attributed to me instead of a desire and passion to uphold the unchanging truth of God and His Word.

Perhaps I'm troubled because I see a man that I like quite a bit post a response to my thread, and he throws out a challenge to me instead of truly answering the question. That sort of response only serves to heighten my concern.

Should we redefine "is" so that we can let an adulterer off the hook?

ScottL said:

Jason -

 

Why are you troubled? I wish I had the time to research previous threads, but I'm pretty sure someone mentioned here on Theologica how we utilise the word 'person' quite differently when speaking of the Trinity than the 'normative' use (this coming from someone who is pro-Trinity, though I cannot quite remember who it was, and it could have been on P&P). My case is not to argue how we should utilise the word person. I'm simply saying that language has to be flexible. Of course, logical and reasonable conclusions are put together using language. But language is flexible, as history tells us, and even Scripture's use of language, in that varying words are utilised differently in varying contexts.

 

You seem to think these 3 proposals are wrong:

• In various discussions over the past year I've been told that there is truth, but that not all truth is factual. Check out a dictionary and see whether or not factual and truthful are synonyms.
• We've also been told that the Bible contains contradictions, though the claim is that the person is not talking about errors.
• It also came up that authoritative and truthful are seen as being the same.

 

Feel free to reasonably challenge these?

 

But I also think that what is being put forth seems to come from a bit of a fear that we might head somewhere wrong. If we allow truth to be non-factual, then we will head towards A. If we ever admit Scripture has tension-contradicting details without them being clarified, then we will end up heading towards B. Etc, etc. This seems a bit too fear-driven, as well as a bit too much in to empirically nailing down all the data. Of course, some will utilise to head in bad paths. But I suppose I can reasonably consider that God is still good and that maybe the person's roots weren't too deep.

 

Listen, I am very much for being reasonable and producing 'evidence' (factual even) for our faith, Christ, the gospel, Scripture, etc. But somehow I sense that God has given us a lot more of an organic, living and breathing gospel, Scripture and body of Christ than to factually and empirically nail things down to 'prove' all the bits. We believe the gospel because it transformed our lives, not because we were able to answer all the questions. Not even a Josh McDowell or Ravi Zacharias came to Christ because they could intellectually nail it all down.

 

So let's keep the dictionary, and allow for definitions to change over time, or allow for words to take on varying meanings within a different and varying context. It really is ok. Christ, the gospel and Scripture will not be defeated with such.

[Damian]

Scott,

You've shifted gears and changed the parameters.  You were not talking in regards to the Ordo-Salutis when you first mentioned personal transformation.  Be that as it may... Justification  is a judicial act of God in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.  Justification takes place outside the sinner in the tribunal of God and is not based on the inner life of the sinner.  The Father declares the sinner righteous based on Christ’s work – this is objective.  Personal transformation is not in view in anyway shape or form.

ScottL said:

Eek, personal transformation is not a reason to believe the gospel as true. I'm fine to move out and found the truth of the gospel in reasonable propositions after one is transformed by Christ and the gospel. But I truly believed the gospel, and I might propose that you did, because we were transformed by Christ and the gospel. And this should fit nicely into the effectual calling of reformed theology.

[E. A. Johnston]

I am also troubled and in agreement with Jason. Here's why:

It's one thing to assert a particular theory. (You name it.)

It is quite another to assert a certain theory, but insist it is really something else.

I do believe that is called equivocation.

So, if I say I believe in an inerrant Word (oops, there I go!), but define an inerrant Word as errant, than I am not being straight forward. No matter how I sugar-coat it, I do not believe what I say I do. Peter Enns is the best example of this I can think of. And it is sad that people will swallow his crap hook, line, and sinker. I am especially concerned for young Christians. They may read him and believe that his view is what evangelical beliefs regarding the Word really look like. -Sigh- I guess they really are more so each day.

[Jason]

Equivocation is a logical fallacy. EA, you cannot name logical fallacies anymore. Don't you know that?

The decree has been handed down.

Not only are we re-writing the dictionary, but we're dumping logical discourse because it's no longer considered irenic.

Bitter= sweet, and sweet=bitter.

E. A. Long said:

I am also troubled and in agreement with Jason. Here's why:

It's one thing to assert a particular theory. (You name it.)

It is quite another to assert a certain theory, but insist it is really something else.

I do believe that is called equivocation.

So, if I say I believe in an inerrant Word (oops, there I go!), but define an inerrant Word as errant, than I am not being straight forward. No matter how I sugar-coat it, I do not believe what I say I do. Peter Enns is the best example of this I can think of. And it is sad that people will swallow his crap hook, line, and sinker. I am especially concerned for young Christians. They may read him and believe that his view is what evangelical beliefs regarding the Word really look like. -Sigh- I guess they really are more so each day.

[James Gibbons]

Well. English is a living language, created on-the-fly by we who use it. So, an English dictionary is not prescriptive of usage, but descriptive.

From a meta perspective, “truth” is not the same thing as “fact.” If they were the same thing, they would be the same word. This is the tricky thing about synonyms.

A fully-diminished seventh chord (one of the weakest chord constructions there is…so weak, in fact, that many music theorists do not even  consider it a chord, but a cluster or some other harmonic tool) sometimes serves a “dominant” function (the function within a key of a major-minor seventh, or Dominant Seventh—probably the strongest chord construction in western harmony). In that sense, they are harmonic “synonyms.” But no knowledgeable person would ever say that they are the same thing.

Facts and Truth share the key attribute of being true. Truth is defined and/or illustrated by facts. And in a broad sense truth cannot contradict facts. And facts that purport to contradict truth are not facts at all, but assertions. I think this paradigm is where your problem arises. Folks suggesting that something is “truth,” when it contradicts what we know to be “facts.” Or, on the other hand, people submitting as evidence purported facts that are not facts at all.

But truth and facts are not the same thing. Just saying.

[Jason]

Wow!

Where did I say that they were absolutely identical?

I am saying that truth is factual. That which is true is factual and that which is factual is true. Truth may be conveyed by fictional means, but the fiction will always convey the truth by presenting to us the facts of a matter. A parable is an example of that. Truth, in a parable, is not propositional; but it still conforms to the facts of the matter of which it speaks. 

That is inescapable.

The moment that truth becomes unrelated to facts it ceases to be truth.

James Gibbons said:

Well. English is a living language, created on-the-fly by we who use it. So, an English dictionary is not prescriptive of usage, but descriptive.

From a meta perspective, “truth” is not the same thing as “fact.” If they were the same thing, they would be the same word. This is the tricky thing about synonyms.

A fully-diminished seventh chord (one of the weakest chord constructions there is…so weak, in fact, that many music theorists do not even  consider it a chord, but a cluster or some other harmonic tool) sometimes serves a “dominant” function (the function within a key of a major-minor seventh, or Dominant Seventh—probably the strongest chord construction in western harmony). In that sense, they are harmonic “synonyms.” But no knowledgeable person would ever say that they are the same thing.

Facts and Truth share the key attribute of being true. Truth is defined and/or illustrated by facts. And in a broad sense truth cannot contradict facts. And facts that purport to contradict truth are not facts at all, but assertions. I think this paradigm is where your problem arises. Folks suggesting that something is “truth,” when it contradicts what we know to be “facts.” Or, on the other hand, people submitting as evidence purported facts that are not facts at all.

But truth and facts are not the same thing. Just saying.

[James Gibbons]

Sorry brother. You know, of course, that I am in substantial agreement with you on your primary point. But, as a writer, an English user, and a Appalachian American, your elevation of the dictionary to authoritative status (however sarcastic you were being), and this…

“Check out a dictionary and see whether or not factual and truthful are synonyms…”

a red herring (forgive my use of a non-irenic logical fallacy) gave me pause. Seems to beg the question that truth=truthful. Puts an unnecessary hole in your argument, for the sake of satire.

That said, people who want to proof text random positions, or triangulate novel doctrines using parallel Bibles, concordances, and lexicons are seeing butterflies and teaching flies made of butter. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And frequently wrong mixed with arrogant. Foul-tasting stuff.

Jason said:

Wow!

Where did I say that they were absolutely identical?

I am saying that truth is factual. That which is true is factual and that which is factual is true. Truth may be conveyed by fictional means, but the fiction will always convey the truth by presenting to us the facts of a matter. A parable is an example of that. Truth, in a parable, is not propositional; but it still conforms to the facts of the matter of which it speaks. 

That is inescapable.

The moment that truth becomes unrelated to facts it ceases to be truth.

James Gibbons said:

Well. English is a living language, created on-the-fly by we who use it. So, an English dictionary is not prescriptive of usage, but descriptive.

From a meta perspective, “truth” is not the same thing as “fact.” If they were the same thing, they would be the same word. This is the tricky thing about synonyms.

A fully-diminished seventh chord (one of the weakest chord constructions there is…so weak, in fact, that many music theorists do not even  consider it a chord, but a cluster or some other harmonic tool) sometimes serves a “dominant” function (the function within a key of a major-minor seventh, or Dominant Seventh—probably the strongest chord construction in western harmony). In that sense, they are harmonic “synonyms.” But no knowledgeable person would ever say that they are the same thing.

Facts and Truth share the key attribute of being true. Truth is defined and/or illustrated by facts. And in a broad sense truth cannot contradict facts. And facts that purport to contradict truth are not facts at all, but assertions. I think this paradigm is where your problem arises. Folks suggesting that something is “truth,” when it contradicts what we know to be “facts.” Or, on the other hand, people submitting as evidence purported facts that are not facts at all.

But truth and facts are not the same thing. Just saying.

[Jason]

It's not a matter of the dictionary being authoritative, but it is a matter of the fact that words have meaning; so, too, does the law of non-contradiction.

I dunno why it's a red herring that you think you see. Neither do I see it begging the question. It is a statement of the obvious that truth is truthful. 

If truth is not truthful, words mean nothing and we are in an irrational world in which I can say what I wish and never say anything that makes sense to anyone but myself.

That is the thing that concerns me.

James Gibbons said:

Sorry brother. You know, of course, that I am in substantial agreement with you on your primary point. But, as a writer, an English user, and a Appalachian American, your elevation of the dictionary to authoritative status (however sarcastic you were being), and this…

“Check out a dictionary and see whether or not factual and truthful are synonyms…”

a red herring (forgive my use of a non-irenic logical fallacy) gave me pause. Seems to beg the question that truth=truthful. Puts an unnecessary hole in your argument, for the sake of satire.

That said, people who want to proof text random positions, or triangulate novel doctrines using parallel Bibles, concordances, and lexicons are seeing butterflies and teaching flies made of butter. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And frequently wrong mixed with arrogant. Foul-tasting stuff.

Jason said:

Wow!

Where did I say that they were absolutely identical?

I am saying that truth is factual. That which is true is factual and that which is factual is true. Truth may be conveyed by fictional means, but the fiction will always convey the truth by presenting to us the facts of a matter. A parable is an example of that. Truth, in a parable, is not propositional; but it still conforms to the facts of the matter of which it speaks. 

That is inescapable.

The moment that truth becomes unrelated to facts it ceases to be truth.

James Gibbons said:

Well. English is a living language, created on-the-fly by we who use it. So, an English dictionary is not prescriptive of usage, but descriptive.

From a meta perspective, “truth” is not the same thing as “fact.” If they were the same thing, they would be the same word. This is the tricky thing about synonyms.

A fully-diminished seventh chord (one of the weakest chord constructions there is…so weak, in fact, that many music theorists do not even  consider it a chord, but a cluster or some other harmonic tool) sometimes serves a “dominant” function (the function within a key of a major-minor seventh, or Dominant Seventh—probably the strongest chord construction in western harmony). In that sense, they are harmonic “synonyms.” But no knowledgeable person would ever say that they are the same thing.

Facts and Truth share the key attribute of being true. Truth is defined and/or illustrated by facts. And in a broad sense truth cannot contradict facts. And facts that purport to contradict truth are not facts at all, but assertions. I think this paradigm is where your problem arises. Folks suggesting that something is “truth,” when it contradicts what we know to be “facts.” Or, on the other hand, people submitting as evidence purported facts that are not facts at all.

But truth and facts are not the same thing. Just saying.

[Scott]

Jason -

 

I'm not trying to hit you below the belt, but I am calling what I can see (or read). I know you and I approach things quite differently. I know your desire to uphold the unchanging truth of God and his word. If I lived in Louisiana, I would walk closely with you. You've shown your deep passion and care for God, his word and his people. But I must also admit that I feel your OP comes out of a particular perspective to not allow for the organic nature of God's truth, but desire a more static, concrete formulation. I sense that you see any formation, development and change in doctrine or language could easily point to something inherently wrong. I know there are people and movements who go way too far. But this is not what we are dealing with, since it seems you posted the OP in connection with comments either I, Phil or others have made. I think the epistemological foundation that you seem to purport, though seemingly very firmly concrete, might actually lead to more problems when the unshakable kingdom shakes us. But I am aware this is my own personal perspective.

 

Bless you mightily.

[Scott]

EA -

  So, if I say I believe in an inerrant Word (oops, there I go!), but define an inerrant Word as errant, than I am not being straight forward. No matter how I sugar-coat it, I do not believe what I say I do. Peter Enns is the best example of this I can think of. And it is sad that people will swallow his crap hook, line, and sinker. I am especially concerned for young Christians. They may read him and believe that his view is what evangelical beliefs regarding the Word really look like. -Sigh- I guess they really are more so each day.

 

You crack me up, I think. It will be funny to read this comment in a couple of decades or so. Pete Enns will seem a normative conservative evangelical. But perhaps this is a sign of our doom. Of course, one's view of Pete Enns in, say 20 or 30 years does not determine his rightness. But I always chuckle to myself when I think of the conservative evangelical of 2012 and how they would NOT fit in with the conservative evangelical American culture of the 1950's and 60's.

 

What you have going on with a Pete Enns, Kenton Sparks, and varying others is that they desire very much to uphold the integrity, authority and high view of Scripture, but also trying to find room of how to engage with some of the hot-point issues (at least of today). They very much want to solidly hold on to the historic and orthodox tenets of our faith, as maybe summed up in the creeds, but still engage in issues that arise today. They want to very much recognise the reality of fallen-sinful human nature, while also engaging with the Adam issue in light of biological evidence towards evolution. If it's true, then how do we deal with issue A and B. It's interesting that many a people actually find these people helpful in engaging honestly with the issues, wanting to maintain their strong Christian faith but not turn their eyes completely away from scientific engagement. Again, doesn't make them right in every point, maybe not in most points. But they are actually helping many, like myself, work through many of the questions presented around the issues.

 

Alas, they won't win them all.