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?

[Marv]

Well, this isn't exactly what the thread was meant to be about. But...

 

Boetheo, Strongs G997 means help. "Succour" means help. "Help" means aid, assist, succour.

 

Per BLB, the word occurs 8 times in the NT, and the KJV translates it six times as... [drum roll] "help."

 

Twice as "succour." Your referened Heb. 2:18 and 2 Cor. 2:6. Note that "help" for boetheo is not something done by "modern English" i.e. contempoarary English, but was done 75% of the time by the KJV translators.

 

Since succour means help and help means succour, I am at a loss to understand what the issue you see with Heb. 2:18 is.

 

Why not use "succour" today? At least two problems I can see.

 

1. It isn't in the active vocabulary of most people today. It largely obsolete. Many don't know it. Almost no one who knows it uses it actively. When it is used, it has an archaic sense to it (which is not part of the original sense of the word.)

 

2. Frankly... I don't think the word is in your active vocabulary either, and you may be attributing to it a meaning beyond what it really has. It means to help. But so does help.

 

So if we wish to avoid either wrong meaning or zero meaning, this word may not be the best to use in the twenty-first century, at least for most speakers.

Bit Brush said:

OK gang. Here's an example of where modern English looses meaning. Strongs word 997. In the KJV it is rendered succour, which means aid or relieve. Our modern English renders it "help." Now replace "help" in Hebrews 2:18 with either and it takes on a new meaning. Not only can Jesus help us with temptation, he can relieve us from it. Aid is even a better word than help. Aid is to support. Jesus can support us thru the time of tempting. 

[James Gibbons]

Nevermind all that. Clearly, we need to agree on what words mean. And barring that, each of us needs to agree that the same word always means the same thing. So, I can’t say covering means covering here, and covering means NOT covering there.

I actually had a discussion with a missionary/translator a while back, who was on about how “keep silent” doesn’t mean “keep silent.” I knew where he was headed, so I headed him off at the pass. I simply asked, “Based on your extensive knowledge of Greek vocabulary and grammar, and the fact that it is tricky, what with its verb tenses and lack of punctuation, do you know of any possible way that ‘keep silent’ would better be translated ‘speak?’” He admitted that he did not. “So,” said I, “You’re merely using your superior linguistic learning to muddy the waters, in order to blow your sketchy doctrine by us ignoramuses.”

Jason said:

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.

[Bit Brush]

I agree, but this example shows how interchanging words that are closer in meaning to the original word aids us in our understanding. It will relieve us of misunderstandings. ;)

If modern word meanings shift us away from a more complete understanding of the Bible then a rewrite of the dictionary is in order to realign it to truthfully and faithfully render the passages of the Bible.

James Gibbons said:

Don’t think Jason is concerned with exactly this (translation) issue (although he probably is interested in translation), as much as he is concerned with the problem of gooeyness regarding words in general, and the authority of the Word. Like, parts of the Bible that don’t support what I believe, I either disregard or take to mean…whatever would support what I believe. Would this be accurate, Jason?

[Jason]

I think you still are missing the point.

I'm asking should we re-write the dictionary because folks are using words that contradict each other in complementary ways. 

To use the example in the OP, the only way that we can actually have non-factual truth is to somehow change the meaning of factual, or the meaning of truth. 

Bit Brush said:

I agree, but this example shows how interchanging words that are closer in meaning to the original word aids us in our understanding. It will relieve us of misunderstandings. ;)

If modern word meanings shift us away from a more complete understanding of the Bible then a rewrite of the dictionary is in order to realign it to truthfully and faithfully render the passages of the Bible.

James Gibbons said:

Don’t think Jason is concerned with exactly this (translation) issue (although he probably is interested in translation), as much as he is concerned with the problem of gooeyness regarding words in general, and the authority of the Word. Like, parts of the Bible that don’t support what I believe, I either disregard or take to mean…whatever would support what I believe. Would this be accurate, Jason?

[E. A. Johnston]

We agree on this, too!

Jason said:

I'm 40, but the only way that I can imagine this is due to the fact that apostasy is real and sometimes gradual.

ScottL said:

Marv -

 

I know. Only those mostly under the age of 45 or 50 could imagine this. :D

[Marv]

And um... when in doubt go with the youngies... write off the over 40s, who--let's face it--just don't get it...

 

Wisdom peaks in the 30s.... uh... right???

E. A. Long said:

We agree on this, too!

Jason said:

I'm 40, but the only way that I can imagine this is due to the fact that apostasy is real and sometimes gradual.

ScottL said:

Marv -

 

I know. Only those mostly under the age of 45 or 50 could imagine this. :D

[E. A. Johnston]

Oops . . . blame on my current coursework: Critical thinking and logic!

Jason said:

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]

Hey, Jason. Remember when 40 was old. Guess what, the day is coming when 50 is young.

Marv said:

And um... when in doubt go with the youngies... write off the over 40s, who--let's face it--just don't get it...

 

Wisdom peaks in the 30s.... uh... right???

E. A. Long said:

We agree on this, too!

Jason said:

I'm 40, but the only way that I can imagine this is due to the fact that apostasy is real and sometimes gradual.

ScottL said:

Marv -

 

I know. Only those mostly under the age of 45 or 50 could imagine this. :D

[E. A. Johnston]

Exactly why I wrote, "-Sigh- I guess they really are more so each day."

It is so outrageous in light of the CLEAR teaching of God's Word. Enns et al have issues with the Word not lining up with science. I predict that in 20 years evangelicals of Enns's stripe will have done away with the Virgin birth and Resurrection. Laugh all you want. All we have to do is wait and see. If you wonder why I am predicting this, it is simple. Those two things are the most unbelievable miracles in the world. (I hasten to say that I stake my life on them.) If a person stumbles over ANE myths and rock strata that conflict with biblical accounts, it can't be long until someone figures out that an organic understanding of the facts requires a realignment of outdated doctrines. Not to worry--we will just say we are evangelical and that will make it alright. 

ScottL said:

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.

[E. A. Johnston]

Didn't I read in the regs somewhere that all foreign languages on T needed interpretation? Lol. 

Marv said:

Reviens à Genève avant que ce ne soit trop tard!

Damian said:

Seht! Sie können Deutschland aus Belgien zu sehen!

:-)

Marv said:

Sorry, just not buying this.

Ducks do quack.

ScottL said:

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.

[Marv]

That day has been here for some time.

James Gibbons said:

Hey, Jason. Remember when 40 was old. Guess what, the day is coming when 50 is young.

Marv said:

And um... when in doubt go with the youngies... write off the over 40s, who--let's face it--just don't get it...

 

Wisdom peaks in the 30s.... uh... right???

E. A. Long said:

We agree on this, too!

Jason said:

I'm 40, but the only way that I can imagine this is due to the fact that apostasy is real and sometimes gradual.

ScottL said:

Marv -

 

I know. Only those mostly under the age of 45 or 50 could imagine this. :D

[James Gibbons]

Marv = evil old guy. Like Char. But old. And a guy.

Marv said:

That day has been here for some time.

James Gibbons said:

Hey, Jason. Remember when 40 was old. Guess what, the day is coming when 50 is young.

Marv said:

And um... when in doubt go with the youngies... write off the over 40s, who--let's face it--just don't get it...

 

Wisdom peaks in the 30s.... uh... right???

E. A. Long said:

We agree on this, too!

Jason said:

I'm 40, but the only way that I can imagine this is due to the fact that apostasy is real and sometimes gradual.

ScottL said:

Marv -

 

I know. Only those mostly under the age of 45 or 50 could imagine this. :D