Just
Thanks for joining in.
I greatly appreciate your input - which is, ultimately exactly my point (as both Cap and Simon well understand despite making excruciating efforts to avoid the obvious conclusion).
However, before interacting, I would like to set a hermeneutic ground-rule. I have found that instead of simply being honest, I often experience input that provides remarkable flexibility to the meaning of terms such that "blue" can be "green" with no problem (despite accusing others of doing the same...
). The ground-rule is that words retain their standard meanings unless the specific context clearly indicates otherwise (or presumably if a word might have more than one clearly identified application, e.g. the terms theos/elohim have a variety of applications that we are all familiar with.
The word that I am focused on is the word "man". You are a "man", I am a "man". All human beings are "men". We can use the following as a functional definition - a man is an entity that can completely function independent of another entity actuating him. You do not need another entity to actuate you - you, as a man, created at conception, can fully function by yourself independent of any other entity.
Frankly, I don't want to get into philosophical nit-picking about these things as Paul specifically warned us against this sort of thing creeping into the church in Colossians. I am talking about simple, straightforward, standard use - no word games.
Does this work?
Aner
Thanks for joining in.
I greatly appreciate your input - which is, ultimately exactly my point (as both Cap and Simon well understand despite making excruciating efforts to avoid the obvious conclusion).
However, before interacting, I would like to set a hermeneutic ground-rule. I have found that instead of simply being honest, I often experience input that provides remarkable flexibility to the meaning of terms such that "blue" can be "green" with no problem (despite accusing others of doing the same...
). The ground-rule is that words retain their standard meanings unless the specific context clearly indicates otherwise (or presumably if a word might have more than one clearly identified application, e.g. the terms theos/elohim have a variety of applications that we are all familiar with. The word that I am focused on is the word "man". You are a "man", I am a "man". All human beings are "men". We can use the following as a functional definition - a man is an entity that can completely function independent of another entity actuating him. You do not need another entity to actuate you - you, as a man, created at conception, can fully function by yourself independent of any other entity.
Frankly, I don't want to get into philosophical nit-picking about these things as Paul specifically warned us against this sort of thing creeping into the church in Colossians. I am talking about simple, straightforward, standard use - no word games.
Does this work?
Aner
Upvote
0
