Polysemic fallacies in word studies...

ARGGGHHHH!!!!! I just finished watching Mike's chapter on Polysemic fallacies in word studies, and I can't tell you how many times I have heard these issues from the pulpit where they reference the root in order to bring a different meaning to the text

If I the licensing permitted it, I would clip that chapter and send it to several people I know Big Smile As well as watching it myself a couple more times to burn that into long term memory.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George Somsel

ARGGGHHHH!!!!! I just finished watching Mike's chapter on Polysemic fallacies in word studies, and I can't tell you how many times I have heard these issues from the pulpit where they reference the root in order to bring a different meaning to the text

If I the licensing permitted it, I would clip that chapter and send it to several people I know As well as watching it myself a couple more times to burn that into long term memory.

Yes, "What the Greek (/Hebrew) REALLY says ..."

"A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep or touch not the Pierian spring."

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144609#Comment_144609

Hey...this sounds like an interesting bit...which video is it in and what location in the vid?

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152503#Comment_152503

Hey...this sounds like an interesting bit...which video is it in and what location in the vid?

Hebrew 03 @ 02:00:00 is the beginning of the discussion. His discussion of fallacies begins at 01:45:19.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152506#Comment_152506

thanks Jack!

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153568#Comment_153568

thanks Jack!

You are most welcome. BTW, with all the WVA license plates I see on I-73/74, is anyone left in the state? [8-|]

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152506#Comment_152506

Jack.....I am not finding that video you refer to. Can you please give me more specific directions in finding and viewing it? THANK YOU....WCM (Apexite)

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153639#Comment_153639

Jack.....I am not finding that video you refer to. Can you please give me more specific directions in finding and viewing it? THANK YOU....WCM (Apexite)

In the "Learn_to_Use_Hebrew" folder, there is another folder titled "Videos". The video I mentioned is located there.

At least, I believe the Videos folder was inside the other folder. I copied the files to my hard drive and then put the DVD in a safe place. At least, it is safe from me right now. In any case, the Videos folder is on the DVD.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153647#Comment_153647

Jack,

I found it...

If you click the "learn to use Hebrew.htm" file, it shows a menu...

Jack is referring to the 3rd one called "word studies" at the 1:45 mark.....

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153804#Comment_153804

Jack,

I found it...

If you click the "learn to use Hebrew.htm" file, it shows a menu...

Jack is referring to the 3rd one called "word studies" at the 1:45 mark.....

I haven't used the .html files. The video folder I mentioned contains .mov files. Since I am using QuickTime Player on a Mac, these worked best for me.

In that folder, the files actually have names rather than numbers. [8-|]

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153828#Comment_153828

Jack.....I believe I have been operating under a wrong premise - that the video you spoke of was available on the Logos website, under support. I'm coming to think that it is NOT available for free on the website, but rather as part of the boxed product that is for sale for $499. Was my initial premise wrong, as I suspect?

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153942#Comment_153942

as part of the boxed product that is for sale for $499.

Yes, the video mentioned is a part of the Learn to use Hebrew with Logos Bible Software product.

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153949#Comment_153949

William Bingham wrote: "Yes, the video mentioned is a part of the Learn to use Hebrew with Logos Bible Software product."

In that case, would anyone be able to summarize for me in a paragraph or two that inspiring section of the video, the section on polysemic fallacies in word studies? When I read that a man of wisdom feels something is of great importance for those who study God's Word, something that should be passed along to countless others (pastors, etc.), it whets my appetite. in spite of not having the aspirations to pursue the study of Hebrew to the depth that the video course covers, I'd love to learn the basics of the insight, so as to grow from it, and share it with other seekers of Truth. Let me say THANKS to anyone with the time and inclination to pass the basics along, whether Robert, or Jack, or William, or even Dr. Heiser.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153976#Comment_153976

William Bingham wrote: "Yes, the video mentioned is a part of the Learn to use Hebrew with Logos Bible Software product."

In that case, would anyone be able to summarize for me in a paragraph or two that inspiring section of the video, the section on polysemic fallacies in word studies? When I read that a man of wisdom feels something is of great importance for those who study God's Word, something that should be passed along to countless others (pastors, etc.), it whets my appetite. in spite of not having the aspirations to pursue the study of Hebrew to the depth that the video course covers, I'd love to learn the basics of the insight, so as to grow from it, and share it with other seekers of Truth. Let me say THANKS to anyone with the time and inclination to pass the basics along, whether Robert, or Jack, or William, or even Dr. Heiser.

The polysemic fallicy is basically the idea that a word with many meanings, has one basic meaning. The term "polysemic" refers to a word with many meanings. He uses the English example of the word "run." This word can mean to run, as in a race, to run for office, to execute a program, to flow (as a river), or to pass from one state into another (as in run out of money). These aren't the examples he uses, but they'll do. If we'd try to figure out the root meaning of run, we'd [clears throat] run into difficulties, since the word has a range of meanings and usages, and trying to find one would require creativity that would stretch the term out of its meaning. But even if we could come up with a root meaning, if we imposed that root meaning on every use of the word, we'd skew the meaning in that passage. For example, if I run out of money buying Logos resources, it's not because I am spending to quickly. It's because I'm spending too much. Arguing that I must be spending too quickly, would read into my statement what I don't intend to say.

The same applies to the original languages. He points out several examples in the Hebrew Bible. The same is true of the Greek NT.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153983#Comment_153983

Richard,

Smart smart smart and plays guitar too!

Thank you for that very accurate and easy to understand definition....

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153983#Comment_153983

Richard....Thanks for taking the time to pass along a concise and easy-to-understand summary of the polysemic fallacy. Very helpful. Very appreciated.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154082#Comment_154082

One problem...

Hebrew is the language of YHWH...who chose to reveal Himself as "daabhaar" (the Word). He doesn't care about this so-called fallacy--in fact, He laughs at it--and goes right ahead and does as He pleases. He would probably file this practice of His under "hiding things from the wise". Mt. 11:25 & Lk. 10:21

Fallacy schmallacy...

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154100#Comment_154100

He doesn't care about this so-called fallacy--in fact, He laughs at it--and goes right ahead and does as He pleases.

What are you trying to say? If it wouldn't get me into trouble I'd translate your statement to mean that God doesn't know how to use language to communicate with people. So after picking my jaw up off the ground, I'm seriously asking you to restate what you mean; I haven't a clue.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154114#Comment_154114

Prov. 25:2

"Matter" here (or "things", depending on your translation) is our friend "daabhaar", which of course means "word".

Of course, the fallacy freaks would likely just claim that is...you know...irrelevant. They might certainly hope so, because one could even say that this verse puts a well deserved dagger in the heart of the fallacy phooey.

See...some people just ain't and never will be kings. Of course, like everything else...it's a decision.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154137#Comment_154137

Prov. 25:2

"Matter" here is our friend "daabhaar", which of course means "word".

Of course, the fallacy freaks would likely just claim that is...you know...irrelevant. They might certainly hope so, because one could even say that this verse puts a well deserved dagger in the heart of the fallacy phooey.

See...some people just ain't and never will be kings. Of course, like everything else...it's a decision.

Okay, that was two posts I didn't understand.

Who and what are you talking about? Who is saying that something is irrelevant? What does the Hebrew word dabar have to do with this discussion? How does hiding/concealing fit with the discussion about how to avoid a particular way of wrongly translating the meaning of a word?

David Paul

ARGGGHHHH!!!!! I just finished watching Mike's chapter on Polysemic fallacies in word studies, and I can't tell you how many times I have heard these issues from the pulpit where they reference the root in order to bring a different meaning to the text

MJ & Richard,

The topic--per the OP.

I don't have the Bible languages DVD that everyone globbed onto...precisely because I know how Heiser feels about the use of roots. Most often this will be in reference to Hebrew. I am making the point that this so-called fallacy (in many cases) is itself a fallacy. I don't know Heiser's specific argument in the DVD, and some "word studies" can indeed be laughable, but I have read some of Heiser's opinions about things that he considers laughable...and the joke unfortunately is on him. YHWH deliberately uses obfuscation to hide things from those who are not conforming to His will--He blatantly says so.

This isn't something that should surprise people--but I know that it will surprise many people nonetheless.

Prophecy and the Hebrew language are two of many ways that He "hides" things in the great wide open. He said he would conceal things and that most "would see and not perceive". He wasn't talking about "unbelievers"...they don't read to be able "to see". He was talking about those who call Him "Lord".

Point being: making broad, sweeping statements can be dangerous, especially if your broad brush ends up whitewashing important markers leading to the Truth.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154162#Comment_154162

Point being: making broad, sweeping statements can be dangerous, especially if your broad brush ends up whitewashing important markers leading to the Truth.

Thanks for the explanation - I would never have gotten there from your original post.. I neither have the videos nor am I familiar with Heiser's position I have both seen shared roots used appropriately and abused. I'll not take a stand one way or the other here.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153983#Comment_153983

The polysemic fallicy is basically the idea that a word with many meanings, has one basic meaning. The term "polysemic" refers to a word with many meanings. He uses the English example of the word "run." This word can mean to run, as in a race, to run for office, to execute a program, to flow (as a river), or to pass from one state into another (as in run out of money). These aren't the examples he uses, but they'll do. If we'd try to figure out the root meaning of run, we'd [clears throat] run into difficulties, since the word has a range of meanings and usages, and trying to find one would require creativity that would stretch the term out of its meaning. But even if we could come up with a root meaning, if we imposed that root meaning on every use of the word, we'd skew the meaning in that passage. For example, if I run out of money buying Logos resources, it's not because I am spending to quickly. It's because I'm spending too much. Arguing that I must be spending too quickly, would read into my statement what I don't intend to say.

Hi Richard

Many thanks for this.

I think you are saying that we can't force a "root" meaning onto every occurrence of a word. Does it "work the other way"?

Is it valid to look at all of the way in which a word is used in the Scriptures and assume that some sense of those meanings can be applied to each one?

For example, doing a lemma search against the word used for "formed" in Genesis 2:7 shows that it occurs in:

2 Kings 19:25 and has the idea of careful planning
Psalm 94:9 - the idea of making something very precisely and carefully
etc

Is it appropriate linguistically to bring these concepts (careful planning, and making something precisely) to extend our understanding of what was actually happening when "the LORD God formed the man"?

Graham

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154277#Comment_154277

Is it appropriate linguistically to bring these concepts (careful planning, and making something precisely) to extend our understanding of what was actually happening when "the LORD God formed the man"?

To which I would answer, "I don't know." However, if you were to ask me a similar question about the Rg Veda (aka Rig Veda) I would be able to answer. One needs to know both the approximate date of the text (Genesis) and the historical development of the meaning of the word "formed". Sin: A History by Gary A. Anderson is an interesting study that applies some of these issues. What I don't know is what state historical linguistics in Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/153983#Comment_153983

The polysemic fallicy is basically the idea that a word with many meanings, has one basic meaning. The term "polysemic" refers to a word with many meanings. He uses the English example of the word "run." This word can mean to run, as in a race, to run for office, to execute a program, to flow (as a river), or to pass from one state into another (as in run out of money). These aren't the examples he uses, but they'll do. If we'd try to figure out the root meaning of run, we'd [clears throat] run into difficulties, since the word has a range of meanings and usages, and trying to find one would require creativity that would stretch the term out of its meaning. But even if we could come up with a root meaning, if we imposed that root meaning on every use of the word, we'd skew the meaning in that passage. For example, if I run out of money buying Logos resources, it's not because I am spending to quickly. It's because I'm spending too much. Arguing that I must be spending too quickly, would read into my statement what I don't intend to say.

The same applies to the original languages. He points out several examples in the Hebrew Bible. The same is true of the Greek NT.

Thank you Richard. You have a gift of simple but very clear explanations. I noticed that many times and this post is again very good example of that. [Y]

One question, not only to you: how useful then is finding out the etymological origin of the term or word? For instance, in our Czech (Slavonic) language it helps very much to see the logic behind the development of the term, that help you to see the possible connections through the root of the word. To be able to "feel the flavor" of the word, not only to know the lexical glosses of the word. Is it possible in Hebrew (semitic language) without spending whole life in the language (as your mother tongue) or by very extensive study?

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154291#Comment_154291

Mr. Criddle these meanings you attest are absent in the original.

No careful planning and no precision work.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154316#Comment_154316

Mr. Criddle these meanings you attest are absent in the original.

No careful planning and no precision work.

If you intend to make a blanket statement that someone is in error, it would be most helpful if you also stated the reasons for your claim. I am not saying that you are incorrect, but that simply declaring someone to be in error without supporting evidence is not very helpful. The OP was simply seeking information. If his reasoning is wrong, tell him what is wrong with it.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154316#Comment_154316

Mr. Criddle these meanings you attest are absent in the original.

No careful planning and no precision work.

David

What I meant was that in the verses I quoted the word has been translated (ESV) in such a way as to indicate (at least to me) planning and precision respectively.

What am I missing?

Graham

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154162#Comment_154162

Prophecy and the Hebrew language are two of many ways that He "hides" things in the great wide open

But there is a difference between something that has been hidden and something that has been lost. What a better understanding of the original languages gives is a clearer view of what was in clear sight to the original readers. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that some texts will lose something in translation that needs to be recovered through deeper study.

The Logos DVD's endeavour to impart the required skills to those of us with limited original language skills so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves. I appreciate the fact that a word study now involves more than simply looking up what someone else said.

Even when looking for a 'hidden' truth you must have an accurate understanding of the text.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154349#Comment_154349

Even when looking for a 'hidden' truth you must have an accurate understanding of the text.

Amen. Alternatively, you could just make up your own truth and call it "hidden".

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154355#Comment_154355

I'm sorry, this thread is confusing the heck outta me! [:$]

Ron Barry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154356#Comment_154356

What I got out of the section covered in the lesson on word studies - the context is going to determine the "precise" definition and meaning of the word in question. Not only context within the sentence, but extending to paragraph and chapter. My bottom line: I believe that there is one, and only one, meaning to every biblical text; and our mission, so to speak, is to discover exactly what the author had in His mind when the pen hit the parchment. That is the destination I seek, where prayerful study following the lead of the Holy Spirit will take me: the Truth.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154363#Comment_154363

What I got out of the section covered in the lesson on word studies - the context is going to determine the "precise" definition and meaning of the word in question. Not only context within the sentence, but extending to paragraph and chapter. My bottom line: I believe that there is one, and only one, meaning to every biblical text; and our mission, so to speak, is to discover exactly what the author had in His mind when the pen hit the parchment. That is the destination I seek, where prayerful study following the lead of the Holy Spirit will take me: the Truth.

I couldn't agree more.... [Y]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154363#Comment_154363

What I got out of the section covered in the lesson on word studies - the context is going to determine the "precise" definition and meaning of the word in question. Not only context within the sentence, but extending to paragraph and chapter. My bottom line: I believe that there is one, and only one, meaning to every biblical text; and our mission, so to speak, is to discover exactly what the author had in His mind when the pen hit the parchment. That is the destination I seek, where prayerful study following the lead of the Holy Spirit will take me: the Truth.

Absolutely! "Hidden meanings" are most often the products of fertile imaginations. If you seek to interpret Scripture apart from sound hermeneutical principles, there is no limit to the possibilities. The passage can then say anything you want it to say.

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154390#Comment_154390

To each of you who have posted since I requested a summary of what Dr. Heiser taught on “polysemic fallacies”, let me say that I am new to this forum. In fact, I’m new to the whole concept of a web-based forum, this being my first experience with one. So if I appear naive, it’s because I am.

I now own Logos 4 for Mac, and I am participating in this online discussion in order to grow in my walk in love, in light, and in circumspection, through my exposure to other Christian men and women who love God as I am endeavoring to. I’m thrilled to have wide and instant contact with so many fellowlaborers in Christ who are dedicated to serving the Bread of Life to hungry hearts. (To think that just a few short decades ago, pre-computer, it would have been considered MIRACULOUSLY wide and instant contact!) I’m confident I am as almost every Logos owner is: wanting to grow in our knowledge and understanding of the Truth, but never want to fall prey to the pursuit of knowledge devoid of love, as prevalent in Corinth.

So, I’d like to ask an honest question (related to this discussion on “polysemic fallacy”), without it becoming debate over personal opinion, that then degrades further into the debasing of others. My question is: With a desire to use Logos as a study aid in augmenting my reading and believing of the simplicity that is in Christ (after all, Eve didn’t need a Lexicon to respond with godly obedience), are there lexical tools in Logos 4 that you have personally found to be of exceptional value in providing illustrative insight into the contemporary meaning and usage of original language words?

For instance, taking a closer look at Acts 20:27-28 via the exegetical guide, I noticed that the Greek word translated “have...shunned” is “hupostello”, and it is used 4 times in the NT. In examining those four occurrences, I guess you can’t say “hupostello” is “polysemic”, but insight is rendered from each of the 4 uses (boldness in personal service, fear and faith, etc.). And in the middle voice, it’s something that one does to himself. But in looking at the entry in the Complete Word Study Dictionary (WSNTDICT), it says, among other things, “referring to a sail, to contract, furl”. That nautical meaning could in no wise be inferred from the 4 records, but certainly lends insight to what the 1^st century believers would have understood that word to mean. Then when I got to the next verse, 28, I saw that the words “take heed” are translated from “prosecho”, and again, the WSNTDICT shows it carrying a nautical meaning, which those folks in the area of the Mediterranean sea would understand.

So my conclusion, with due caution, is that the WSNTDICT “can be” an extremely valuable resource in Logos 4, in helping me understand a given original language word, and thus allow me to teach others more effectively the Truth of God’s Word, rather than lean more on modern day illustrations/analogies that might or might not hit the bullseye of Truth.

If any of you (who have FAR more experience than I have in using these tools) have any suggestions as to which Logos 4 tools are, in your experience, predominantly accurate in consistently providing insight into both Hebrew and Greek words, similar to my example, I’d be deeply appreciative for your input.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154277#Comment_154277

Is it valid to look at all of the way in which a word is used in the Scriptures and assume that some sense of those meanings can be applied to each one?

For example, doing a lemma search against the word used for "formed" in Genesis 2:7 shows that it occurs in:

2 Kings 19:25 and has the idea of careful planning

Psalm 94:9 - the idea of making something very precisely and carefully

etc

Is it appropriate linguistically to bring these concepts (careful planning, and making something precisely) to extend our understanding of what was actually happening when "the LORD God formed the man"?

First, I'm not Dr. Heiser, so I can't speak for him. I just summarized the polysemic fallacy that he described in his video.

Your question is really a different one. You're not saying that the root meaning of formed is "planning" so that in Gen 2:7 God planned what he would do in His creation with man (supporting a creation/evolution hybrid theology, e.g.).

But neither is it true (IMHO) that either the English words "formed" or "planned" cover the entire meaning of the word in either Gen 2:7 or 2Kings 19:25. There is never a one to one correlation of words in any language, with the possible exception of highly technical words -- and even then only when the context is highly technical. I prefer to see word meanings overlapping rather than discreet. Since there is no direct correspondence of words between languages (except in highly technical contexts), a translation can only ever get at the best sense of what the word means in a context. Some nuance, obvious to the original hearers, is often lost. So comparison of translations can help us see a range of meaning for a word and suggest a nuance we might otherwise have missed, even when we don't challenge the basic translation!

A good example of this is the Greek word pistis. It can mean faith, faithful or faithfulness depending on context. In English "faith" and "faithful" are discreet concepts. "Faith" describes our trust/confidence in someone or in the truth of something; "Faithful" and "faithfulness" describes our fidelity to a person, a group, or even to a body of truth we have faith in. But these are discreet concepts in English; that is when we use them we see them as distinct ideas. This is why we need different words to translate 'pistis' depending on context. But the Greek word "pistis" does not distinguish these concepts, even though at times one side of the faith/faithful meaning will be emphasized. I contend that we should never see pistis as faith apart from faithful/faithfulness, and I think that there is good linguistic, semantic and theological reasons for saying that.

In fact, this is one of the benefits of Logos4 and the "Bible Word Study" report and the "Search this resource" report. They help us see these overlapping as well as those discreet meanings, so we can better judge the nuance of the term in the passage we're studying.

I don't think the polysemic fallacy would rule out what you're suggesting about "yatsar," or say that what I'm doing with understanding "pistis," is illegitimate. The polysemic fallacy tells us not to apply different and discreet meanings where the context doesn't support it. Specifically, Heiser talks about not inventing a root meaning that explains the range of meaning of a word and applying that root meaning everywhere that word occurs. I would be wrong, for example, to insist that in 2Cor 5:7 we should 'really' translate it "We live by faithfulness, not by sight." No, the context (see the word 'confident' there) clearly implies the believing/trusting side of the word 'pistis.' (Yet, I might also point out the overlapping idea of faithfulness that shows up in how we live, discussed in part in 2Cor 5:9-10.)

So yes, I think what you are doing is legitimate. As a preacher, or Bible teacher, I'd be very upfront about my credentials and my reasons for the conclusions that I have, if I teach that we should see God's planning in His forming us, or the necessary connection between faith and faithfulness in 2Cor 5:7. Or I might just slide into the discussion the idea of God's planning in creating us by pointing to Eph 1:4-5 or Rom 8:29-30, supporting the overlapping ideas here, without making a case for how to translate the word "yatsar." I could do the same with 2Cor 5:7, simply pointing to vv 9&10 without making a case for the translation issues (as I see them) related to "pistis." I have done both, but prefer to do the latter, since the 'let me tell you what it really means' approach can undermine the confidence the average church member can have in their Bibles.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154428#Comment_154428

Richard....

I wish you'd quit posting here...

My perception of my own I.Q. goes down 10 points every time you do!

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154291#Comment_154291

Thank you Richard. You have a gift of simple but very clear explanations. I noticed that many times and this post is again very good example of that.

Thank you for your affirmation and encouragement. I appreciate it!

One question, not only to you: how useful then is finding out the etymological origin of the term or word? For instance, in our Czech (Slavonic) language it helps very much to see the logic behind the development of the term, that help you to see the possible connections through the root of the word. To be able to "feel the flavor" of the word, not only to know the lexical glosses of the word. Is it possible in Hebrew (semitic language) without spending whole life in the language (as your mother tongue) or by very extensive study?

I don't know if Heiser talks about etymological fallacies or not, I don't remember him addressing that specifically. Maybe he does in a later session.

I can give you my opinion, but I don't have very many letters (credentials) after my name. So take it for what it is: one preacher opining to another.

Etymology can be helpful, or distracting, depending on the word and how it actually developed in the language. The TDNT falls into the etymological trap many, many times, and I almost always skip that section of it's discussions of words because they are so full of supposition, if not error. It's not what a word originally meant, but what it means at the time of writing that is significant. And while the origin of a word can help understand a word, sometimes it's nowhere near the meaning of the current use.

Take the English word "gay." There was a time when this word simply meant happy, merry, in high spirits. There are still Christmas songs that sing "don we now our gay apparel," e.g. But the word no longer means that. It now means homosexual. And there's no getting it back (at least at this point). So the origin of the word doesn't really help us anymore. And even if we could trace how a word that meant happy, now refers to people who engage in a certain life-style, we wouldn't really be any closer to understanding what the word means now than we were when we found out that it means homosexual.

Usage determines meaning, not etymology. Etymology can be helpful, but it isn't always reliable.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not a linguist by training.

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154439#Comment_154439

I am glad to see that my posts are still the center of controversy on this forum [:D] Although this one was kind of a slow starter.

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154409#Comment_154409

Hi Apexite

But in looking at the entry in the Complete Word Study Dictionary (WSNTDICT), it says, among other things, “referring to a sail, to contract, furl”. That nautical meaning could in no wise be inferred from the 4 records, but certainly lends insight to what the 1^st century believers would have understood that word to mean. Then when I got to the next verse, 28, I saw that the words “take heed” are translated from “prosecho”, and again, the WSNTDICT shows it carrying a nautical meaning, which those folks in the area of the Mediterranean sea would understand.

So my conclusion, with due caution, is that the WSNTDICT “can be” an extremely valuable resource in Logos 4, in helping me understand a given original language word, and thus allow me to teach others more effectively the Truth of God’s Word, rather than lean more on modern day illustrations/analogies that might or might not hit the bullseye of Truth.

First off I should mention that I am still working through the Hebrew Videos and have not started on the Greek yet...

One of the issues that the Hebrew Videos address is the danger of turning to Lexicons and other materials to get information instead we are encouraged to examine, think and draw our own conclusions first. Dr Heisler encourages us to look at the word in context and see whether it makes sense. A good example of a word in English with a nautical flavour is port which I can think of multiple meanings for based on context,

The ship headed for the port
After dinner they enjoyed a glass of port
They lowered the life boat on the port side
The Logos Mac code is based on a port of the Windows code (not sure if this is true or not)

So yes the WSNTDICT could be a useful aid but remember to test what it says for yourself to make sure it makes sense. In my example above the nautical link of the word port has no bearing on our understanding in examples 2 and 4.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154428#Comment_154428

So yes, I think what you are doing is legitimate. As a preacher, or Bible teacher, I'd be very upfront about my credentials and my reasons for the conclusions that I have, if I teach that we should see God's planning in His forming us, or the necessary connection between faith and faithfulness in 2Cor 5:7. Or I might just slide into the discussion the idea of God's planning in creating us by pointing to Eph 1:4-5 or Rom 8:29-30, supporting the overlapping ideas here, without making a case for how to translate the word "yatsar." I could do the same with 2Cor 5:7, simply pointing to vv 9&10 without making a case for the translation issues (as I see them) related to "pistis." I have done both, but prefer to do the latter, since the 'let me tell you what it really means' approach can undermine the confidence the average church member can have in their Bibles.

Richard

Many thanks - I found your whole post very helpful.

Graham

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154439#Comment_154439

Usage determines meaning, not etymology. Etymology can be helpful, but it isn't always reliable.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not a linguist by training.

Thank you Richard very much. You are really hitting the mark by what you say. In some cases however it seems to me that knowing the origin of the word, knowing the root of the word (in Hebrew) might help you to feel the connection between the words, like what I mentioned in some other post, the Hebrew root hsd and its derivates "chesed" and "chasid". It just make me think how old Israelites felt the word, how much they "felt" the connection between those two things, mercy and being holy etc. Isn't trying to find that connections and some common development of words helping us to better "feel" the language nuances?

Like in Greek, you have μάρτυς with its meaning of witness and (like in Rev 17:6) its meaning martyr. Is it wrong to try to see the connection and what it says to us about the cost of being the witness for Christ? I just came from one Middle East country and there still those 2 meanings of the word are so close connected and many witnesses become martyrs also.

Is that what Dr. Heiser would call polysemic fallacy? (Actually I am in that video on the 1:10 min. so I will come to the subject soon [:)] )

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154462#Comment_154462

Like in Greek, you have μάρτυς with its meaning of witness and (like in Rev 17:6) its meaning martyr. Is it wrong to try to see the connection and what it says to us about the cost of being the witness for Christ?

Bohuslav, the fallacy is when you force the word to have it's root connotations across all permutations of the word. The instance that you have chosen shows how it works correctly. But Richard used the word "gay" as and example, which has come to mean that male homosexual life style. How would the meaning of the original word "Gay = Happy" help you to understand it current connotations. The fallacy would be to say that since the root of the word meant happy, and it refers to homosexuals, then being a homosexual makes you happy.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154468#Comment_154468

Like in Greek, you have μάρτυς with its meaning of witness and (like in Rev 17:6) its meaning martyr. Is it wrong to try to see the connection and what it says to us about the cost of being the witness for Christ?

Bohuslav, the fallacy is when you force the word to have it's root connotations across all permutations of the word. The instance that you have chosen shows how it works correctly. But Richard used the word "gay" as and example, which has come to mean that male homosexual life style. How would the meaning of the original word "Gay = Happy" help you to understand it current connotations. The fallacy would be to say that since the root of the word meant happy, and it refers to homosexuals, then being a homosexual makes you happy.

Very good example. Thanks.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154439#Comment_154439

But that's just my opinion. I'm not a linguist by training.

As someone with a fair amount of linguistics under my belt, let me say you've done a very good job of addressing the issues.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154491#Comment_154491

Like in Greek, you have μάρτυς with its meaning of witness and (like in Rev 17:6) its meaning martyr. Is it wrong to try to see the connection and what it says to us about the cost of being the witness for Christ?

Bohuslav, the fallacy is when you force the word to have it's root connotations across all permutations of the word. The instance that you have chosen shows how it works correctly. But Richard used the word "gay" as and example, which has come to mean that male homosexual life style. How would the meaning of the original word "Gay = Happy" help you to understand it current connotations. The fallacy would be to say that since the root of the word meant happy, and it refers to homosexuals, then being a homosexual makes you happy.

Very good example. Thanks.

Yes, I agree.

Etymology can be helpful, but it isn't always helpful, and sometimes is misleading. The trouble is, most of us aren't experts enough in the original languages to know which is which. But that's what the critical commentaries, and theological lexicons are for (even though experts can sometimes get it wrong too).

In the end, we know we rely on the Holy Spirit to help us sort out how to preach these texts, and even as we use the tools we have, we need to rely on Him to make the message He inspired in the writers clear to us. In other words, a great deal of humility and prayer is required, along side a vigorous use of all the tools God gives us, to come to the best understanding of the text we can manage. I do this knowing I might get it wrong, and have to revise my conclusions based on further study and more prayer.

There are few things that make me feel as dependent on God's guidance as studying His word in order to teach or preach it to others.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154511#Comment_154511

But that's just my opinion. I'm not a linguist by training.

As someone with a fair amount of linguistics under my belt, let me say you've done a very good job of addressing the issues.

Thanks, M.J., and others for your kind and supportive remarks.

Let me just say one more thing: I have learned to appreciate these issues because of how Logos, and especially Logos4 has opened up these kinds of questions for me to investigate directly. And it's precisely in how we see the linguistic issues that determines how much we can get out of Logos, and if we will use the program to understand the Scripture better, or find in Logos more tools to misinterpret it with greater precision.

In other words, this is a very on topic discussion and relates directly to using this software.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154513#Comment_154513

Etymology can be helpful, but it isn't always helpful, and sometimes is misleading. The trouble is, most of us aren't experts enough in the original languages to know which is which. But that's what the critical commentaries, and theological lexicons are for (even though experts can sometimes get it wrong too).

In the end, we know we rely on the Holy Spirit to help us sort out how to preach these texts, and even as we use the tools we have, we need to rely on Him to make the message He inspired in the writers clear to us. In other words, a great deal of humility and prayer is required, along side a vigorous use of all the tools God gives us, to come to the best understanding of the text we can manage. I do this knowing I might get it wrong, and have to revise my conclusions based on further study and more prayer.

There are few things that make me feel as dependent on God's guidance as studying His word in order to teach or preach it to others.

Richard, I agree with you 100%. For me even very technical exegetical study always is at the same time a very spiritual thing of seeking the Lord as the one who gave us His Word and He is more than willing to illuminate it to us also. It is fascinating to be able to dig deep into His Word.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154428#Comment_154428

I don't think the polysemic fallacy would rule out what you're suggesting about "yatsar," or say that what I'm doing with understanding "pistis," is illegitimate. The polysemic fallacy tells us not to apply different and discreet meanings where the context doesn't support it. Specifically, Heiser talks about not inventing a root meaning that explains the range of meaning of a word and applying that root meaning everywhere that word occurs. I would be wrong, for example, to insist that in 2Cor 5:7 we should 'really' translate it "We live by faithfulness, not by sight." No, the context (see the word 'confident' there) clearly implies the believing/trusting side of the word 'pistis.' (Yet, I might also point out the overlapping idea of faithfulness that shows up in how we live, discussed in part in 2Cor 5:9-10.)

Richard, thank you very much for such an informative post.

Ted

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154436#Comment_154436

My perception of my own I.Q. goes down 10 points every time you do!

Wow! After more than 2,000 posts, your perception must make you think you will not be eligible for Mensa. [:D]

You have given a good amount of helpful advice yourself. We can't all be a Richard, a Martha, or a Rosie, but we can contribute occasionally.

Apexite

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/154513#Comment_154513

Richard DeRuiter wrote: ....most of us aren't experts enough in the original languages.....But that's what the critical commentaries, and theological lexicons are for (even though experts can sometimes get it wrong too).

In my post at 8:42 a.m. this morning (might need to read the whole post to understand my request), I invited input on those specific Logos 4 resources you personally find to be consistently helpful along the lines Richard mentions (with NO invitation to give any negative reviews, comments or implications). I did get a response from Graham (Thank you!), but if any others following this thread have experience with specific Logos 4 resources you can heartily recommend based on the criteria I mentioned, I would be sincerely appreciative for your input. (Again, my post at 8:42 is likely to be necessary to understand exactly what I am looking for.) THANKS!