Word Study Fallacies

Frequently when I present the result of a word study, where I differ from the mainstream translation choice, someone gently suggests I am not qualified to question all these accredited experts, and may be engaging in "Word Study Fallacies" thus arriving at a wrong conclusion.

These asides are of course, simply argumentation using the"against the person" fallacy.

However, when we engage in the Study of God's word, it is important that we have the necessary training to avoid the same errors we seem to find occasionally in the published translations.

Here are Five of the commonly taught Word Study Fallacies:

1) Etymological Fallacy (Root Fallacy)

Here the initial or original word or phrase meaning is assumed to be the intended meaning in the text. However, word or phrase meanings change over time, so it is the meaning (or one of the meanings) in use at the time of the writing of the text which should be sought.​

2) Reverse Etymological Fallacy (Semantic Anachronism)

Here a more modern meaning is assumed to be the intended meaning, rather than the historical meaning (or one of the historical meanings) as used at the time of the writing of the text that should be applied to our understanding of the message.​

3) Assumed Meaning Fallacy

Here multiple possible meanings are thought to be intended, or that a writer only uses the word for one intended meaning. However, word study assumed that God intended His inspired words to convey one intended message, not two or more depending on interpretation. And the writer's intended meaning in the text under study is determined by the context of that usage, which may differ from another usage by the same writer.​

4) New or Unknown Meaing Fallacy

Here a word or phrase meaning is redefined, rather than chosen from the historical range of meanings in use at the time of the writing of the text.​

5) Out of Context Fallacy

Here a meaning is claimed that disregards the context or applies an inaccurate understanding of the context, such as an agenda driven assumption concerning context.​

 

The point of post 2 appears to be to disrupt any actual discussion concerning study of God's word.

 

Here is a post from another thread on the actual subject:

One of the things I find enlightening concerning the NET bible is how it treats some of the genitive phrases concerning faith and Jesus. "Faith of Jesus" could mean Christ's faithfulness, or our faith toward or upon Jesus. Two completely different things.

Romans 3:26 (NET)
This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness.

Romans 3:26 (NASB
for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus.

Obviously I do not know if either view is required by the Greek grammar, but I believe the NET's view best fits the context, we were not made alive because of our faith, but because of Christ's sacrifice.

I have come to the same conclusion for all these additional verses, where the NET deviates from the NASB, but I believe the NET has it right:
1) Romans 3:22
2) Galatians 2:16
3) Galatians 2:20
4) Galatians 3:22
5) Ephesians 3:12
6) Philippians 3:9

One point needs to be restated, Word studies include the study of individual words and phrases used multiple times to discern our best understanding of the contextual meaning.

 

Yes, when we focus in on a particular verse to study, we ask questions such as:

1) Who is speaking and to whom, is the speaker speaking?

2) Does this text contain guidance for living?

3) What are the range of possible meanings for each of the key words or phrases in the text. In comparison bibles are the key words translated using the same word or phrase, synonyms, or words and phrases with very different meanings?

4) Does the translation stick with the source language grammar, i.e. verbs remain verbs, nouns remain nouns, such that no grammatical transformations are used to alter the message?

5) How are the key words translated in their other appearances in scripture. Is the translation choice consistent with other usages, or is this an outlier, in view of the context?

6) Is the translation consistent with the text, or does the translation suggest a diminished or expanded scope or extent of application? For example, I ask, "What is the least this scripture is saying?"

 

Here is an alternate translation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 that is apparently consistent with the Greek grammar of the text:

Yet I am willing you be aware that the head of every person is the Christ, even so the head of a wife is the husband, as God is the head of Christ. ​

The Greek word translated person is often translated as "man or husband" but can also be translated as "human" or "person" when the group in view contains both male and female, as in this case.

While each born anew person's head is Christ, the wife models that relationship with God by acting under the authority of her loving husband, as we operate under the authority of our loving God. This helps to imbue our families with an understanding of doing for others based on love. For example, if you love God, you will keep His commandments.

The question becomes why deviate from the traditional translation - "men?" About a dozen English translations go with "people" because Christ is in fact the head of every born anew women. And the word has in its historical range of meanings, people. No need to introduce the ambiguity of having to infer "men" in this case refers to people of both genders.

So a Word Study Fallacy would be to assume that the traditional or majority translation choice always reflects God's intended meaning. Our English translations are great but still could be improved!