User talk:StudentoftheWord
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Notable Quotes:
"A fool tells me his reasons. The wise man persuades me with my own." -Aristotle
Truth
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained. —Mohandas Gandhi
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. —Christopher Hitchens
Reason has built the modern world. It is a precious but also a fragile thing, which can be corroded by apparently harmless irrationality. We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth. —Richard Dawkins
On Words
We are aware that nothing is more unsafe and treacherous than the guidance of etymology. An ounce of usage is worth a pound of it. Etymology is theory, usage is fact. -John Westley Hanson
The Root Fallacy
"Presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components".
Example: Nice comes from the Latin nescius, which means "ignorant"
Words should not be defined by their etymology but instead by their context and use.
Not all words are referential, a sentence cannot be analyzed into the things each word in the sentence 'names.' It follows that the meaning of words in a grammatically coherent array, as in a, is different from the theoretical referent of each word"-Dr. Fesko, Hermeneutics
The Word Study Fallacy
Word studies are popular, easily obtained from available resources, and an easy way to procure sermon content. However, word studies are also subject to radical extrapolations and erroneous applications. It is not always possible to strike exegetical gold by extracting a word from the text for close examination. Word studies alone will not suffice. Indeed, over-occupation with word studies is a sign of laziness and ignorance involved in much of what passes for biblical exposition in our times. While we might decry over-emphasis on philology or etymology, we must recognize that the choice of individual words was significant to the writers of Scripture. It is legitimate for the exegete to ask, "Why did the writer choose this term as opposed to one of its synonyms?" Study of the words alone will not present us with a consistent interpretation or theology. This is one of the misleading aspects of theological dictionaries/wordbooks. Any linguistic aids are virtually useless apart from the author's context. -William D Barrick, Exegetical Fallacies.
[edit] Christian universalism
Howdy, SotW. I appreciate the work that you have done so far on articles concerning Christian universalism. But, as previously indicated, I don't see why the articles for Christian Universalism and universal restoration are separate. I think it would be beneficial to combine them, on the model of the much fuller UR article, and expand from there. What do you think of this idea?
Also, I'd created Category:Christian universalists which has recently grown quite a bit. I'm thinking of creating another category called something like "Christian universalist groups and denominations", as I've found about 4-5 articles that would fit nicely there, some of which are already in the aforementioned category. Do you think this is a sound idea? Can you think of a better name for the category? Jacob1207 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, please see my note on Talk:Christian Universalism. I've reinstated the redirect to Universal Reconciliation. It appears that you intend to create a Christian Universalism article that is distinct from the Universal Reconciliation article. That is fine, but please leave the redirect in place until you do so. Having a separate Christian Universalism article that is merely a duplication of the first few paragraphs of the Universal Reconcilation article is unhelpful. Thanks, Mike R 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
