DrJamesAch
New Member
This is the perfect illustration of the so-called "root fallacy"
You will never learn, not because you are fundamentally incapable, but because you incapacity is a result of a stolid unwillingness to learn from those who actually know.
The Archangel
If it is a perfect illustration of a root fallacy, the burden of proof is on you to show that to be true, particularly when identifying the roots of certain words is often acceptable etymology. Even Carson admitted this much:
“The meaning of a word may reflect its etymology; and it must be admitted that this is more common in synthetic languages like Greek or German, with their relatively high percentages of transparent words (words that have some kind of natural relation to their meaning) than in a language like English, where words are opaque (i.e., without any natural relation to their meaning). Even so, my point is that we cannot responsibly assume that etymology is related to meaning. We can only test the point by discovering the meaning of a word inductively.” ( Exegetical Fallacies, 231-235, K.indle. The K.indle editions sometimes have more or less words on a page marking than the actual printed text).
Carson further stated:
"“Normally we observe that any individual word has a certain limited semantic range, and the context may therefore modify or shape the meaning of a word only within certain boundaries. The total semantic range is not permanently fixed, of course; with time and novel usage, it may shift considerably. Even so, I am not suggesting that words are infinitely plastic. I am simply saying that the meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology, or that a root, once discovered, always projects a certain semantic load onto any word that incorporates that root. Linguistically, meaning is not an intrinsic possession of a word; rather, “it is a set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign.” In one sense, of course, it is legitimate to say “this word means such and such,” where we are either providing the lexical range inductively observed or specifying the meaning of a word in a particular context; but we must not freight such talk with too much etymological baggage.”
That being said, I think all too often critics resort to fallacy accusations when the explication of a term conflicts with their theological terminology instead of the potential inductive conclusions that they have been helpful in deciphering etymological usage of a term.
Considering how much debate there has been among Calvinists and Non Calvinists regarding the word "faith" (As Calvinists view faith as a work and a gift, neither of which is supported by Scripture), it can sometimes be helpful to identify the roots of a word when semantics over that word has become a central issue regarding its etymology and usage.
Last edited by a moderator: