It depends ...

[doctr_of_grace]

This is I believe the first thread I have started in here. I am just curiously about the the beginning of a sentence "It depends on how you define "you put in the word".

I have noticed in my forum experience that definations of very plain meaning words can grow new definations and meanings. So in this thread I would love to explore it more.

Theodore made a statement in another thread about "irrational reasoning" from a particular type of supposed "defender" of the truth. I thought about that and decided that it all boils down to "it depends".

What are the groups thought here .... Thanks in advance ... Jan

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

This is I believe the first thread I have started in here. I am just curiously about the the beginning of a sentence "It depends on how you define "you put in the word".

I have noticed in my forum experience that definations of very plain meaning words can grow new definations and meanings. So in this thread I would love to explore it more.

Theodore made a statement in another thread about "irrational reasoning" from a particular type of supposed "defender" of the truth. I thought about that and decided that it all boils down to "it depends".

What are the groups thought here .... Thanks in advance ... Jan

Well...

It depends.

[proorismenos]

Jan
Greetings.

This is I believe the first thread I have started in here. I am just curiously about the the beginning of a sentence "It depends on how you define "you put in the word".

I have noticed in my forum experience that definations of very plain meaning words can grow new definations and meanings. So in this thread I would love to explore it more.

Theodore made a statement in another thread about "irrational reasoning" from a particular type of supposed "defender" of the truth. I thought about that and decided that it all boils down to "it depends".

What are the groups thought here .... Thanks in advance ... Jan

The question is a good one but it is skewed a little. The matter isn't so much how we define things, but what are the correct definitions of terms in a particular context. Words by themselves have a semantic range, they mean little if anything by themselves unless they form a unit by themselves such as "Stop!" Even here, the meaning depends on some contextual analysis. So it is with all Bible reading and systematic theological discourse. If we merely go about defining our terms as we wish, we will end up like the characters from Alice in Wonderland where meaning is merely subjective whim.

The discipline of studying any field is always beneficial and so those who devote time to engaging a specific discipline will have somewhat of an advantage over those who do not. However, there is also some skill in applying principles of interpretation. One must not imagine that learning some or any number of rules doth automatically an exegete make! A good book that I would recommend that helps the would be interpreter to avoid many common pit-falls in interpretation is D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies 2d. ed. (Baker/Paternoster, 1996). This is a great place to start. I would be happy to suggest other helpful texts if you wish.

Theodore.

[doctr_of_grace]

Jan
Greetings.


The question is a good one but it is skewed a little. The matter isn't so much how we define things, but what are the correct definitions of terms in a particular context. Words by themselves have a semantic range, they mean little if anything by themselves unless they form a unit by themselves such as "Stop!" Even here, the meaning depends on some contextual analysis. So it is with all Bible reading and systematic theological discourse. If we merely go about defining our terms as we wish, we will end up like the characters from Alice in Wonderland where meaning is merely subjective whim.

The discipline of studying any field is always beneficial and so those who devote time to engaging a specific discipline will have somewhat of an advantage over those who do not. However, there is also some skill in applying principles of interpretation. One must not imagine that learning some or any number of rules doth automatically an exegete make! A good book that I would recommend that helps the would be interpreter to avoid many common pit-falls in interpretation is D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies 2d. ed. (Baker/Paternoster, 1996). This is a great place to start. I would be happy to suggest other helpful texts if you wish.

Theodore.

Thanks Theodore ... I guess my issue is with the way folks tend to change clear plain historical meanings of either biblical passages or particular sentences in scripture to come to some pre assumed conclusion. This is a very dangerous practice IMHO. I am extremely cautious of "new understands" or "new meanings". How can you defend the truth without understanding the clear meaning or better yet the historical meaning of for example "predestination" or "justification" or "gospel" etc. I have found it impossible to have dialogue with some folks because they simply change their defination and agree with you on some superficial level.

Probably babbling now ... thanks again for your reply.

Jan