THat is all well and good, but there will hardly ever be a consensus here for definitions. So why bother w/ that route?
Because from the lack of consensus has come some disagreements that if consensus over terms was available just might show agreement.
It is a mater of attempt (though admittedly failing) to bring agreement and consensus.
But I have not been arguing for definition of words and semantic ranges. I am arguing for a definition of "humankind" (see the title of this thread). That is an area that Bible never set out to define.
So skip the title. Address the elements. Add or subtract from the list and give reason why.
But don't argue against the thread merely because you don't like the word "humankind" in the title.
It might have been a bad word choice, but I wanted the discussion to center upon humans, not plants, not the rest of the animal kingdom.
Again, I'm not saying that we can't try to give words like soul and spirit definitions (even though those definitions can change depending on the author and context and even be used interchangeably).
Then do so and quite arguing over the title.
What I am saying is that categorically, this thread is about defining a concept w/ the Bible. THe problem is that the Bible never had the intention of defining humankind. Therefore the simplest definition is likely the best. THus I prefer my definition of someone of the race of Adam, but I'm sure there are better/simpler ones out there.
I would definitely not agree that the Bible did not define the concept of what a human was. If it did not, then there would have been no reason for God to create man and separate him so distinctly from the rest of the animal kingdom. I suppose the word "humankind" could not replace your words "someone of Adam's race.
This is because you are a western thinking person. You cannot allow a plurality of meaning even though the text itself as an entity can have a life of its own in the eyes of the interpreter. However, as it relates to word meanings like soul and spirit, giving 1 definition for the word is linguistically false and does not allow for the wide range of meanings that the words denote and connote.
Did I ever state that the respondents couldn't suggest more? That the forum folks were limited in defining the elements? Just the opposite.
The whole concept was to gather what the definition and supporting Scriptures would be for each term.
Just like any dictionary, the term might have sub categorical meanings. I would expect that the forum folks would recognize and work to that end.
BUT, to get started there has to be a beginning meaning. Were the word first occurs and what did it mean at that point.
Very western thinking, YES. Easterners did not seek definitions, no. And it is not that easterners would not merge all areas of thinking and being b/c they hardly separated concepts. For instance, the sacred/secular divide did not exist in their minds. Government and religion are one and the same (especially for Israel). So Scripture as the final authority would simply merge with all of life not all areas. See the distinction?
The very fact that you require a definition w/ reasoned proof is the quintessential hallmark of western thinking. This is post-enlightenment modernistic language at its best. Is that wrong? No, not in and of itself. We are all part of that mindset in some way. But if we force that mindset on the Bible and the authors of the Bible, then we are going to ask questions and seek definitions that would have never occurred in the minds of the ones whom we are studying.
My first impulse is to respond to this part of your post by stating, "I don't care." It makes very little difference to me. I know about the concept and thinking of no separation between sacred and secular. I have even posted about it on another thread. It isn't just an "eastern" thinking, but true Scripture believers hold the same principle. All things are sacred there is no secular.
In pointing out how that even Christ was asked to clarify and give meaning to what he said so that there was no confusion, I am attempting to give clarity and meaning to terms that the forum folks might gain understanding and consensus.
Join in you like, question the list and change it at will. But in the end, I was hoping that it would be the genesis of a list that the forum folks could use to make the Scriptures more profitable.
