Biblical vs Secular Definitions of English Words

[Van]

It looks like people are willing to discuss the topic in the abstract, but not in “the rubber meets the road” specifics.
SNIP
Draw (Merriam-Webster)
SNIP
3a: to bring by inducement or allure : ATTRACT

• honey draws flies

I snipped out the non "rubber meets the road" obfuscation

 

[1689Dave]

Do you expect to be taken seriously?

You claim the word "heresy" is only used in relation to Christian Doctrine.

I give numerous examples where it is used secularly.

Your reply is your sources say those references do not exist??

Let the board decide.

Given that people have used the word "heresy" to secularly - even a senior addressing the State of the Union, is it not foolish to say this has never occurred because a reference says so?

AND you have no grounds to speak of the Ecumenical Creeds because YOU reject them. You did so when you rejected the claim that Christ us "completely God, completely man" and claimed that was "two persons".

Prove your claim or be found a liar.

 

[atpollard]

I snipped out the non "rubber meets the road" obfuscation

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

 

[JonC]

Prove your claim or be found a liar.

The term heresy is not generally used to characterize non-Christian belief. .

The term "heresy" is used to characterize non- Christian belief. (for example, Isaac Asimov spoke of political, socioeconomic and scientific heresies; "heresy" is used in political theory; Islam uses the word "heresy" ).

It depends on your resource.

That is silly. It is a FACT that the word "heresy" is not restricted to Christian Doctrine. It does not depend on one's source because we all have brains and can look up instances where "heresy" is used in scientific, secular, socioeconomic, and political contexts.


"But the prevalent and orthodox scientific faith was still that of the material nature of light; the undulatory hypothesis was a heresy, and Young a heretic. If his great researches had been reviewed by a physicist or a brother worker" The American Journal of Science


“If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the general public, there is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy is emotionally... " Isaac Asimov


" Since the outbreak of the Cold War , there has been a mounting campaign against political heretics" . Robert Wilkerson


"Having thing to extinguish a political heresy that ought... I oppose this heresy" Andrew Johnson on the State of the Union


"While Cattaneo's closest associates voiced reservations about his political ideas, Mazzini and his followers rejected them as the worst kind of political heresy" C. M. Lovett


"The portrait was a political revelation to Cooper. To his surprise, he found not the advocate of infidelity and political heresy clad in the red breeches of radicalism" Robert Spann


"A rhetorical heretic differs from a whistleblower in important ways. ... We briefly overview LCDR Swift's case and then discuss secular heresy and its relationship to..." Catherine Palczewski


"The most well known contemporary claim to scientific heresy is based on the claim that science undergoes revolutions that transform the norms of scientific" Stephen Ross


"Some scientists are considered heretics by..." Vernon Grose


"areas regarded as taboo by orthodox scientific opinion, that the term scientific heresy" John Collins


"standpoint of actual science and thereby less effective either as a control over scientific heresy or as an approach to further doxology as the century progressed" Bozeman


"Well that is the way with the public : it likes a comfortable scientific heresy." John Cook


"Often yesterday's heresy is today's science (and conversely today's pseudoscience is yesterday's science)." S. Lyons


"Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy" Cohen


"caused by the collision of objects in space, another concept that was regarded for decades as scientific heresy" Powell


"Both Commonweal and The Pilot charged him with advocating socioeconomic heresy.” P.C. Kemeny

 

[1689Dave]

Prove your claim slandering me. You can prove anything else but that.

 

[JonC]

Prove your claim slandering me. You can prove anything else but that.

Fully human is a different Christ not supported by scripture.

Christ is "completely God, completely human" The Athanasian Creed.

 

[1689Dave]

Christ is "completely God, completely human" The Athanasian Creed.

But you say he has a human person (Nestorianism) which he does not. Soul and Spirit are not the same. And Athanasius does not include this.

 

[JonC]

But you say he has a human person (Nestorianism) which he does not. Soul and Spirit are not the same. And Athanasius does not include this.

Quote me saying that or be called a liar.

(I said one person, two natures - inseparable yet without mixture, fully man, fully God).

 

[Van]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

More off topic obfuscation.

Draw means = : to bring by inducement or allure : ATTRACT

Calvinists deny the obvious, as they peddle redefinitions by the bushel.

 

[JonC]

Our discussion centers on the Symbol of Chalcedon and you trying to prove it wrong and Nestorianism, which it condemns, correct.

You are straying from the topic.

Start one on the Chalcedonan creed if you want.

I clearly stated "on person, two natures (inseparable yet without mixture) fully God, fully man".

You somehow read "two persons". That calls into mind your literacy, honesty, or motive.

But it also proves my claim correct. You do reject the orthodox view of the Trinity by claiming that the Athanasian creed (an Ecumenical creed) is claiming Christ consists of two persons.

Do start a thread on whatever creed you want. The difference is that while you accept one creed others affirm the orthodox position (which is more than one creed).

There are Calvinists on this board (Calvinism adheres to the Athanasian creed as it is the base for the Belgic Confession in regards to the Trinity and instrumental at the Synod of Dort). They are normally quick to denounce Apollinarianism (your view).

But engage on another thread. Do not hijack this one.

 

[1689Dave]

You are straying from the topic.

Start one on the Chalcedonan creed if you want.

I clearly stated "on person, two natures (inseparable yet without mixture) fully God, fully man".

You somehow read "two persons". That calls into mind your literacy, honesty, or motive.

But it also proves my claim correct. You do reject the orthodox view of the Trinity by claiming that the Athanasian creed (an Ecumenical creed) is claiming Christ consists of two persons.

Do start a thread on whatever creed you want. The difference is that while you accept one creed others affirm the orthodox position (which is more than one creed).

There are Calvinists on this board (Calvinism adheres to the Athanasian creed as it is the base for the Belgic Confession in regards to the Trinity and instrumental at the Synod of Dort). They are normally quick to denounce Apollinarianism (your view).

But engage on another thread. Do not hijack this one.

Our discussion began with that topic. Based on my reply to the OP showing a weakness that you tried to justify. That's it. But you have problems because you don't understand anthropology according to older Baptist Theology or Paul.

 

[JonC]

For those interested, I have moved the attempted discussion of the Trinity to a new thread.

Here is the link.

Is Christ "completely God, completely flesh"?

 

[atpollard]

More off topic obfuscation.

No, it was completely on topic.
Merriam-Webster offers 15 definitions for the word “draw”, but YOU emphatically claim by fiat that there is really only one ... your definition.

You and Humpty Dumpty are cut from the same cloth.

 

[Van]

No, it was completely on topic.
Merriam-Webster offers 15 definitions for the word “draw”, but YOU emphatically claim by fiat that there is really only one ... your definition.

You and Humpty Dumpty are cut from the same cloth.

I affirmed the meaning as used in scripture at John 6:44 and John 12:32, I did not claim the word has no other meanings. So, once again, rather than address reality, you misrepresent my view for the purpose of obfuscation.

Folks, behold the defense of Calvinism.

 

[Derf B]

With the topic of “heresy” another issue resurfaced (one of my “pet” issues, perhaps). And that is the insistence that there are “secular” and “biblical” meanings of English words with the application that Christians should use the “biblical” rather than the “secular” definitions.

I believe this mentality is problematic for a few reasons.


It contributes to eisegesis:

It reads theology into Scripture and misunderstands the process of interpretation/ translation. We should not take English words and assign to them new meanings to fit the target language. Instead we choose the best English word to represent the thought that the target language is communicating. Studying means that we look past the English word and to the text of Scripture to understand how the passage would have been understood to the original audience and in context to the overall message being communicated.

For Example: Propitiation is the act of appeasing a god, spirit, or person. But I have been told that the “biblical meaning” of propitiation is “punishment to appease the wrath of God”.

I use this example because reading into Scripture and “double-speak” is, I believe, obvious regardless of validity of the doctrine at hand.


It is subjective:

Using a “secular” vs “biblical” definition is a form of “double-speak”. Many Christians and probably all outside of the church will use the real meaning of English words. But using a “special” or “biblical” definition contributes to people talking past one another.

The “biblical” definition is subjective towards one’s own theology. The “secular” or “dictionary” definition is objective and typically offers various legitimate meanings and usages of the real word. In other words, words have meaning. When we use “biblical meanings” we are saying that we do not like the meaning of the word and are changing it to suit what we would like the meaning to be.

For Example: The word “heresy” refers to a doctrine that is in opposition to accepted or “orthodox” doctrine of a group. It has been argued, however, that the “biblical meaning” is different. Here it is assumed that this “biblical” meaning should replace the meaning when the intended usage is the “dictionary” or “secular” meaning.


It gives precedence to definition over context:

By redefining a word to incorporate the usage of a word we risk ignoring application and usage as a literary tool or devise. In other words, it shortcuts the legitimate process of study and exegesis.

For Example: World means world. It can be used in different ways. However it is sometimes presented that the word itself means a certain population of the world.

I believe this reflects a weakness in churches today and shows the need for Christians to learn how to study the Bible. There is a tendency, I think, for people to gravitate to sort of CliffsNotes.


It creates a “smorgasbord” mentality:

We now have so many word studies and language tools that people get lost in root words when they should be asking how the word is used in the context of the passage and the overall context of the book or epistle in general. Instead I have seen a “smorgasbord” type of “interpretation” (the word can mean this, I want the word to mean this, so the word means this).

For Example: “For” or “in one’s behalf” has been changed to “instead of” because it was argued that “instead of” could be in the range of meanings for the word. This is despite the usage of the word elsewhere not meaning “instead of”. The only reason for using “instead of” was held theology. We need to be very careful not to employ this type of error.

I’d like to offer this word for discussion:
“Death”.

In secular parlance, it means a complete cessation of function.


In Christiansen, it means a complete cessation of function when used of an animal, but when used of a human, it means “separation”.

Is this different definition a good thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

I affirmed the meaning as used in scripture at John 6:44 and John 12:32, I did not claim the word has no other meanings. So, once again, rather than address reality, you misrepresent my view for the purpose of obfuscation.

Folks, behold the defense of Calvinism.

Nothing to do with Sotierology (Calvinist or any other), no matter how hard you try to claim that it is.

You have simply offered a living illustration of the OP:

And that is the insistence that there are “secular” and “biblical” meanings of English words with the application that Christians should use the “biblical” rather than the “secular” definitions.

When a word has more than one possible secular meaning that could apply to its use, YOU selected as the only possible BIBLICAL meaning the one that fit your predetermined theology.

Does that definition of “draw” also apply when Peter draws his sword to cut off an ear? You HAVE made it the only correct meaning of draw, after all.

 

[atpollard]

In Christiansen, it means a complete cessation of function when used of an animal, but when used of a human, it means “separation”.

Could you point to an example that you have in mind?
I am pretty sure when it says that Lazarus had died ... it means just what we think it means. Same with Ananias and Sophira when they died. Jesus when he died and Stephen when he died.

Here are the uses of the word just in the book of Acts:
[Act 2:23-24 NASB] 23 this [Man,] delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put [Him] to death. 24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
[Act 3:15 NASB] 15 but put to death the Prince of life, [the one] whom God raised from the dead, [a fact] to which we are witnesses.
[Act 5:30 NASB] 30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
[Act 8:1 NASB] 1 Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.
[Act 9:24, 29 NASB] 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; ... 29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic [Jews;] but they were attempting to put him to death.
[Act 10:39 NASB] 39 "We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
[Act 12:2 NASB] 2 And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword.
[Act 13:28 NASB] 28 "And though they found no ground for [putting Him to] death, they asked Pilate that He be executed.
[Act 22:4 NASB] 4 "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons,
[Act 23:29 NASB] 29 and I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment.
[Act 25:11, 25 NASB] 11 "If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is [true] of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar." ... 25 "But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and since he himself appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him.
[Act 26:10, 21, 31 NASB] 10 "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. ... 21 "For this reason [some] Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death. ... 31 and when they had gone aside, they [began] talking to one another, saying, "This man is not doing anything worthy of death or imprisonment."
[Act 28:18 NASB] 18 "And when they had examined me, they were willing to release me because there was no ground for putting me to death.

 

[Van]

Nothing to do with Sotierology (Calvinist or any other), no matter how hard you try to claim that it is.

You have simply offered a living illustration of the OP:


When a word has more than one possible secular meaning that could apply to its use, YOU selected as the only possible BIBLICAL meaning the one that fit your predetermined theology.

Does that definition of “draw” also apply when Peter draws his sword to cut off an ear? You HAVE made it the only correct meaning of draw, after all.

Once again (see a pattern) the Calvinist posts falsehood. This is all they have folks, redefine words, deny the biblical meaning, and then spew forth misrepresentations as a smokescreen.

I addressed the meaning at John 6:44 and John 12:23, so I get a question for another verse. On and on folks, on and on....

The word translated "draw" in those two verses is used metaphorically to mean attract, not compel. That is the topic not being addressed by the Calvinist, or any Calvinist.

 

[JonC]

I’d like to offer this word for discussion:
“Death”.

In secular parlance, it means a complete cessation of function.


In Christiansen, it means a complete cessation of function when used of an animal, but when used of a human, it means “separation”.

Is this different definition a good thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good word to study.

 

[atpollard]

The word translated "draw" in those two verses is used metaphorically to mean attract, not compel.

According to YOU.

That is the topic not being addressed by the Calvinist, or any Calvinist.

Not in a topic called:

Biblical vs Secular Definitions of English Words

Try talking about the topic (which is not ‘Calvinism’).