01 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerSince when do you put any stock in this?
Such an interpretation is to ignore the blindingly obvious.
It is blindingly obvious, literally, based on starlight originating millions of lightyears away, that the universe is older than as described in the Old Testament.
This does not preclude faith that God just made it appear that way. But if we're going to invoke reasoning to determine what is obvious and what is not, then you shouldn't pick and choose when you invoke it.
01 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo the lawyer couldn't believe it, and Bill asked: "Am I a good golfer"? Without any other information, I would have interpreted those two sentences differently. That's not because of the grammar, though, but because it seemed to make more sense. A lawyer is probably quite used to someone suing their brother, while it would certainly be shocking for the brother. And one would expect that Bill knows himself whether he is a good golfer or not.
In each of them, the antecedent is the first noun in the sentence.
01 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysThat's why they are ambiguous, and not fully resolvable as LH claims.
So the lawyer couldn't believe it, and Bill asked: "Am I a good golfer"? Without any other information, I would have interpreted those two sentences differently.
It's possible to have an existing brotherly feud and an insecure golfer.
01 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes, I agree that the sentences are ambiguous and that LH's "rule" is not true. I just would have chosen examples where the interpretation which goes against the "rule" were more or equally likely.
That's why they are ambiguous, and not fully resolvable as LH claims.
It's possible to have an existing brotherly feud and an insecure golfer.
Back to the original question, though - I just read on a bit, and it seems quite clear from the following verses that "him" indeed refers to Jesus here.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt might under the standard notions of father and son. In that case, it is true that a son cannot be his own father.
No, it doesn't.
It might under the standard notions of father and son. In that case, it is true that a son cannot be his own father.
But if you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that one entity can be both father and son. Here, you cannot draw logical conclusions that rely on the former interpretations of father and son, such as ...[text shortened]... and the Son." That claim is false if you accept the Trinity.
You can't have it both ways.
Why not? Haven't you read Heinlein's All You Zombies? 😉
But if you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that one entity can be both father and son. Here, you cannot draw logical conclusions that rely on the former interpretations of father and son, such as "The Son of God's existence requires two entites: the Father and the Son." That claim is false if you accept the Trinity.
I think your main problem is that you insist that terms be used either univocally (i.e. having one meaning alone) or equivocally (i.e. having completely different, unrelated meanings). I think you fail to see that terms can be used analogically (i.e. with different, but related or similar, meaning). So, for instance, I think you would not see any relation between the use of the word 'father' in the following pair of statements:
"Tom is Jack's father"
and
"The child is father to the man" (1)
Of course, even in common conversation, we understand that the term 'father' can be used in slightly different senses - biological (natural father) vs. legal (as in adoption) for instance.
My point - simply because God as father to Christ is not identical to the situation of human fatherhood does not mean that they are completely unrelated. Nor does it mean that all concepts used in one context are completely inapplicable when applied to the other - like the term 'father' they will be used analogically (2).
In the case of the Trinity, the traditional understanding is that the Father and the Son are separate persons (i.e. independent minds and wills - although those minds and wills are perfectly aligned) united in one being. This is, of course, a Mystery - something the human mind cannot fully fathom (3).
Nevertheless, this does not affect the fact that Jesus knew that his audience would interpret "God" to be the OT God; and so did the author of John.
---
(1) From the poem by the same name by Gerald M. Hopkins:
http://www.bartleby.com/122/68.html
(2) Aquinas elaborated quite a bit on the analogical use of terms, particularly those related to goodness, when applied to God. A reasonable overview can be seen at:
http://faculty.ssu.edu/~jdhatley/MedAquinasNotes.htm
Note: I have no clue why the author insists on calling God "G-d".
(3) This reminds me of a recent episode of All Grown Up (the spin-off of Rugrats) I saw on Nickelodeon recently. In order to impress a girl at school, Chuck adopts an Eastern European identity - 'Chonzo' - who, naturally, looks and behaves nothing like Chuck.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou really need to remember that I am not bf101. 😀
Since when do you put any stock in this?
It is blindingly obvious, literally, based on starlight originating millions of lightyears away, that the universe is older than as described in the Old Testament.
This does not preclude faith that God just made it appear that way. But if we're going to invoke reasoning to determine what is obvious and what is not, then you shouldn't pick and choose when you invoke it.
That the Genesis account of creation was not taken literally even at the time of Jesus has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum†.
---
† vistesd was the first to point this out, IIRC. You might also want to check out St. Augustine's commentary on Genesis (written in the 4th cent. AD):
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/religiousstudies/alaffey/Augustine-Genesis.htm
04 Oct 05
10 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou fail to understand that if terms are not used univocally in a universe of discourse, then any proposition that contains them is not well formed and thus has no truth value. Therefore, you cannot assert that things are the case when using a term in the way that you call "analogically" - which is an instance of, not a complement to, "equivocally" - and thus you are in effect just saying things and not asserting things.
I think your main problem is that you insist that terms be used either univocally (i.e. having one meaning alone) or equivocally (i.e. having completely different, unrelated meanings). I think you fail to see that terms can be used analogically (i.e. with different, but related or similar, meaning).
For example, the mathematical notation "+" means something related or similar to "*"; they are not unrelated or completely different. So under your claim, I could introduce what you call an analogical term "OPERATOR", which can mean both "+" and "*" as I see fit. Then I could assert both
4 OPERATOR 5 = 20
and
NOT (4 OPERATOR 5 = 20)
and have two true propositions but a contradiction. This is a reductio of your claim that it is logical to use terms "analogically" in one universe of discourse. Your claim is false, and it is unreasonable to use terms "analogically" if you wish to actually assert things. You must use terms univocally if that is your wish.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou fail to understand that if terms are not used univocally in a universe of discourse, then any proposition that contains them is not well formed and thus has no truth value.
You fail to understand that if terms are not used univocally in a universe of discourse, then any proposition that contains them is not well formed and thus has no truth value. Therefore, you cannot assert that things are the case when using a term in the way that you call "analogically" - which is an instance of, not a complement to, "equivocall ...[text shortened]... ly" if you wish to actually assert things. You must use terms univocally if that is your wish.
This is demonstrably false. Even when terms are used analogically, it is perfectly possible to have true propositions.
In the example you gave, I could assert:
a OPERATOR b = b OPERATOR a
or
a OPERATOR (b OPERATOR c) = (a OPERATOR b) OPERATOR c
for any three real numbers a, b, c.
Both of the claims above are true. What's more, any person with a rudimentary understanding of math will see that they are true, regardless of whether the proposition is "well-formed" or not.
"Analogical" use of terms is not an instance of "equivocal" use of terms simply because the latter implies no major point of commonality (except the spelling) between the terms. e.g. (a favourite of my professor's) the use of "crane" as a bird is equivocal with its use as a heavy machine. Analogical terms, on the other hand, do have points of commonality which can be used for true statements (which need not be propositions in some 'formal system' you want to fit all language into - but are true statements and recognisably so to any reasonable person).
The reason you obtain a reductio in your example is precisely because you are not using terms analogically, but equivocally.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'd like to say that the Greek clears everything up, but while it is helpful, it is not necessary in this case. Yes, "the son" (ton huion) is in the accusative case, and yes the next pronoun, "him" (auton) is also an accusative. But all of this talk is hardly necessary. An elementary reading of John 3:13-18 (the context) makes the sense of 3:16 plain. The Son is the subject. It's all about him. I hate to make points that sound like, "It's just obvious." But in this case, basic reading skills should do the trick (no need for the koine).
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in [b]him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Reflecting upon this verse this morning while reading through a book on heaven and hell, I noticed something about it that I had never noticed before. The pronoun "him" has an ambiguous ...[text shortened]... le in the former, people who believe in Jesus but not God would have everlasting life.
Dr. S[/b]
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoes the "it" in the above sentence refer to the book or the verse? Does it make a difference? Would the un-quoted context help at all?
Reflecting upon this verse this morning while reading through a book on heaven and hell, I noticed something about it that I had never noticed before.
Dr. S
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammer1 John 2:23
Standard rules of English - the pronoun refers to the immediately preceding relevant noun; here, therefore, it would refer to the Son.
[b]in the former, people who believe in Jesus but not God would have everlasting life.
Huh? How does this follow from the verse?
Moreover, believing in the Son automatically means believing in the Father - it makes no sense to say "I believe Jesus is the Son of God" and not believe in God.[/b]
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
John 10:30
I and My Father are one.
From the horses mouth, Jesus himself anyways, the bottom line is, you believe in the son, and implicitly believe in the father, if you deny the father, you have denied the son, for you cannot accept a son whose father you deny, if you deny the son you deny the father.
Your denial of one, takes you straight to the pits of hell.
Anyways it should be evident in the prayer of a christian, you pray the Father in the name of Jesus. Any prayer to Jesus in the name of Jesus are not done, any prayers to the Father not in the name of Jesus are not done.
John 15:16
You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.
John 16:23
“And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaAccording to LH, the antecedant would be "hell." I missed this obvious counterexample to his rule.
Does the "it" in the above sentence refer to the book or the verse? Does it make a difference? Would the un-quoted context help at all?
I think you're getting the hang of this fourm.
05 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually, the antecedent would be "verse". "on heaven and hell" is a qualifier for "book" which, in turn, is part of an adverbial clause "while reading ..." that qualifies "Reflecting". The only noun in the main clause is "verse".
According to LH, the antecedant would be "hell." I missed this obvious counterexample to his rule.
I think you're getting the hang of this fourm.