Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[CONSPICILLUM]

No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.

Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.

He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.

This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...

Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.

Humbly, I could be wrong. I just can't ask my brother right now. He's beyond reach, but I did email him about it. I'll let you know what he thinks, as well. Thanks.

As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!

It should not be a surprise that I have little difficulty dismissing Calvin.

Although Calvin and Hobbes will forever be numero uno

Calvin and Hobbes over The Far Side?

On the Reformation/Calvin topic, how do you view the fact that Arminius was originally a Calvinist until the Remonstrance, and basically Calvinism IS the Reformation even though soteriology has dualized itself into a false dichotomy and lots of futility with endless argument over election, predestination, atonement, etc.

Philosophically, it’s not inaccurate to characterize Arminians as Calvinists, even with divergent doctrines. What say you on this mess?

[RandyPNW]

He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.

I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:

I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.

While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.

Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.

[RabbiKnife]

Calvin and Hobbes over the Far Side everyday.

But I must say, Pearls Before Swine is a close close second.  Just call me Pig at heart with Rat’s mind.

Arminius  was not a Calvinist although he and Calvin agreed on much more than that on which they disagreed.  Arminius  was a reformer just as Calvin was a reformer.  Both objected to much of the RCCs dogma and practice.  Arminius simply didn’t like the dogmatic harshness of the way Calvin approached things as he agreed with much of the same Protestant/reformed theology coming from the Moravian’s,  Zwingli, TIchendoff, etc, all the way back to John Hus.  Calvin did not do himself any favors with his iron fisted approach to governance in Geneva.

Although Calvin was extraordinarily harsh in both word and practice, he was trying to be logically consistent even if the result was somewhat jarring to human understandings.  Arminius simply explained things differently from a philosophical approach

Calvins followers were more Calvinist than Johnny boy was, and Arminius’ followers were far more critical and harsh anti-Calvin than Arminius ever dreamed of being.

[RandyPNW]

Since I'm a Calvinist, in the way RK seems to describe it, but not a reader of Calvin and Hobbes, I thought I would cite Calvin to show that others who are much more prestigious than I am believed that sin is a contagion of sorts. What is so wrong with that? Should I find more sources? But in my experience on forums, no authority is beyond criticism. For what it's worth, I do believe in Free Will.

[RabbiKnife]

Then you certainly are NOT a  Calvinist…

[CONSPICILLUM]

He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.

I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:

I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.

While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.

Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.

Gasp. Two novices perused Thayer’s (seriously?) for 34 seconds and somehow didn’t become instant linguists, so they double down on Greek prefixes adjoined to Greek words being two different fallacies. LOL.

I’m not here to convice you of facts against your will and manufactured personal doctrines. Proceed as you were, sir.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Calvin and Hobbes over the Far Side everyday.

But I must say, Pearls Before Swine is a close close second.  Just call me Pig at heart with Rat’s mind.

Arminius  was not a Calvinist although he and Calvin agreed on much more than that on which they disagreed.  Arminius  was a reformer just as Calvin was a reformer.  Both objected to much of the RCCs dogma and practice.  Arminius simply didn’t like the dogmatic harshness of the way Calvin approached things as he agreed with much of the same Protestant/reformed theology coming from the Moravian’s,  Zwingli, TIchendoff, etc, all the way back to John Hus.  Calvin did not do himself any favors with his iron fisted approach to governance in Geneva.

Although Calvin was extraordinarily harsh in both word and practice, he was trying to be logically consistent even if the result was somewhat jarring to human understandings.  Arminius simply explained things differently from a philosophical approach

Calvins followers were more Calvinist than Johnny boy was, and Arminius’ followers were far more critical and harsh anti-Calvin than Arminius ever dreamed of being.

A fair enough assessment. I just wondered how you perceived it all.

[RandyPNW]

He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.

I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:

I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.

While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.

Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.

Gasp. Two novices perused Thayer’s (seriously?) for 34 seconds and somehow didn’t become instant linguists, so they double down on Greek prefixes adjoined to Greek words being two different fallacies. LOL.

I’m not here to convice you of facts against your will and manufactured personal doctrines. Proceed as you were, sir.

I'm not going to throw names and hurl insults at you. You can do that as you please. I don't manufacture personal doctrines. I interpret doctrines as I see them set forth in the Bible. How I explain them is a matter of using language that expresses how I understand them to help others understand them also.

I also try to understand theology as it has developed around the Bible in history, things like the Trinity, the Communion, and Predestination. I've long had a burden to understand these things. You seem offended by that, but that's your concern--not mine.

Saying that you're relying on fallacies is, I believe, accurate. I trust my brother on that  because he's been studying Greek and Hebrew for some time now. If you think it's not applicable to you, fine. He's helped me to know these things. It might save you grief later on.

[RandyPNW]

Then you certainly are NOT a  Calvinist…

Yea, I understand. However, I had to say that I was [blank]. Calvin fit better than Luther and Arminius.

I do believe God predestined X number of children to live in His eternal Kingdom. How others got onto the earth is a matter of free human beings running wild, producing children that choose to reject God's wish for them to be in His Kingdom.

So yes, I don't really know what I am. I just know who the elect are when I see them.

[Athanasius]

I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:

I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.

While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.

Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.

Thayer's huh? Well, this is a confusing stance either way. No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". Thus, there is no 'root fallacy' either.

The argument isn't that 'harmatia' itself ought to be defined as privation, but that what it describes of the individual entails a privation. For instance, that the individual 'misses the mark' is the result of privation vis-a-vis (that individual's) separation from God's presence. The same could be said of any of the other ~7 definitions of ἁμαρτία.

It seems all you and your brother have done is look at the definitions of ἁμαρτία, and have argued from there that apparently nothing of privation is mentioned, so therefore some kind of fallacy is happening. But this misses the point noted above.

But how it was used in the 1st century, as "missing the mark," is not how the brother is implying it was used, as a "privation." The origin of the word, which seems to have emerged from a banishment from the Garden, explains the origins of the word, but not its meaning.

But that is the privation.

There is a long distance from "banishment from the Garden" to "missing the mark," and even from missing the mark to "rebelling against God's word." One explains the origin in which Sin took place. But Sin itself is historically the act in which Adam and Eve transgressed the word of God.

Therefore, Sin means to "rebel against God's word," and has nothing to do with the environment in which the word was originated. That is, it does not mean to "lose place in the Garden." It is not a "privation" in that sense, and never did mean that, in my opinion.

But I'm not going to prolong the discussion, because at this point I think we know where we stand. To me, the brother is, in fact, seeming to use a "Root Fallacy."

Whether it's an attempt to use an archaic meaning of the word as "losing the Garden," or trying to compose a new meaning of the word as "missing the mark," the idea is neither. It is "rebelling against God's word," and certainly not just "missing the mark."

This is as I see it a "Root Fallacy," or even a "Totality Fallacy," transferring somebody else's meaning of "Sin" into the standard NT meaning of the word.

This is all over the place. I think it's clear that you misunderstand what's being argued.

As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!

I respect, and almost enjoy the way your ingenious mind weasels its way out of anything I throw at you. But I sincerely and humbly disagree with it.

Sin has the characteristics of a contagion. If you want to define "contagion" as a strictly physical phenomenon, then you would have a point. But I'm referring to a "spiritual contagion."

And Sin has every mark of a contagion, even though it is spiritual. It is passed on, it affects others, and it has a nasty impact. It spreads and kills. Thus, it is a contagion *in my opinion!*

https://www.christianity.com/theology/sin/cured-from-the-contagion-of-sin.html

As scary as infectious diseases are, there’s a more deadly virus that you and I already have – the sin virus. As the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “all of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin.”

Calvin notwithstanding, do you describe passed down genetic traits as a 'contagion'?

[CONSPICILLUM]

Agenealogetos - from a- and genealogeo. Without a genealogy. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Agnoeo - from a- and noeo. Not to know or recognize. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Adiakritos - from a- and diakrisis. Without partiality. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Adikos - from a- and dike. Without justice, unrighteous. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Azumos - from a- and zume. Without leaven. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Athanasia - from a- and thanatos. Without death, immortality. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Athemitos - from a- and themitos. Without law, unlawful. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Atheos - from a- and theos. Without God, godless. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Akatharsia - from a- and kathaino. Without cleanness, unclean. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Akakos - from a- and kakos. Without guile, harmless. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Akatagnostos - from a- and katagnostos. Without blame, uncondemned. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Akatastatos - from a- and kathistemi. Without stability, unsettled. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)

Akeraios - from a- and kerao. Without mixture. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)


Just a random sequential sampling of basic lexical entries in the A section. A- as a prefix is merely a privation or negation of whatever word it’s attached to. It’s a standard form of constructing stand-alone words for a meaning inverse to the word without the prefix.

This isn’t a fallacy of any kind. And anyone who would read a decent lexicon would see this in a matter of seconds. This isn’t rocket surgery. Clues can be bought at various stores. I suggest purchasing some.

[journeyman]

Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation.

Sin is simply transgression of the law, which is what certain people accused our Lord of. They thought wrong.

[RandyPNW]

I lack time for the moment. C. was the one arguing the "lexical approach," and you seemed to be defending him. Maybe you weren't? Here is what my brother just wrote me. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. It may help others, however. It has helped me.

Here’s some thoughts related to the post that are just off-the-cuff and may need some qualification or even revision:
1.  Whenever is hear someone say what a word means, I think we have just set ourselves up for correction, because the answer must always be, “It depends.” It depends on how it is being used grammatically. It depends on how it is being used syntactically. It depends on how the context limits or selects from the word’s semantic range.

2. Words typically have a semantic range, i.e., multiple meanings. This is true for biblical languages as it is true for English. While this may seem obvious upon checking any dictionary or lexicon, it is easily forgotten for a number of reasons when arguing what a word means. One reason is that one meaning may be more familiar or more customarily found than other meanings for a given word to the degree that it seems the rule and other definitions merely an exception to the supposed rule.

Another reason is that in first-year language learning, such as with Spanish, you may be given just one (English) gloss to memorize. Most likely, it will be a gloss you are most likely to use in translating selected sentences or even words listed in a vocabulary quiz. However, advanced classes will eventually require the reader to learn different denotations and even connotations depending, of course, on how the words are being used in a sentence or, better, in a paragraph or chapter.

A third reason should also be added. For many years, the linguistic principles described above were not taught in seminaries or Bible colleges. Biblical languages were treated as sacred languages, where the words in the Bible in the original language were treated as if they had only one meaning, like Tolkien’s “ring that rules them all.” That meaning was often derived from a supposed etymology (a word’s etymology does not have the same inspired authority that the selected word in and of itself has in Scripture, since the etymology is the fruit of a fallible historian’s inquiry), and that became the sacred, inspired meaning of the word. This led to the etymological fallacy.

The “sacred” meaning was also applied to cognate words, leading to the root fallacy.

The “illegitimate totality transfer” that James Barr cited was where an entire theology was imported into the meaning of a word wherever it occurred. Similarly, DA Carson cited a similar fallacy where the entire semantic domain of a word was to be understood wherever a word was found in Scripture.

I’ve found examples of all of these fallacies being taught as a hermeneutical principle or a fundamental exegetical practice, and linguistic theory is dismissed as a merely human, even “liberal” enterprise that has no place in biblical studies. Many of the older commentaries feature these fallacies. A frequent target of Barr was Kittel’s Theological Dictionary.

[RandyPNW]

Just a random sequential sampling of basic lexical entries in the A section. A- as a prefix is merely a privation or negation of whatever word it’s attached to. It’s a standard form of constructing stand-alone words for a meaning inverse to the word without the prefix.

This isn’t a fallacy of any kind. And anyone who would read a decent lexicon would see this in a matter of seconds. This isn’t rocket surgery. Clues can be bought at various stores. I suggest purchasing some.

Nobody would argue the purpose of the prefix "a." That isn't the point. The point has to do with defining what "sin" means. Whatever "a" qualifies, it doesn't make "sin" a "privation." "Sin" remains defined as "rebellion against God's word," or "disobedience."

[RandyPNW]

Thayer's huh? Well, this is a confusing stance either way. No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". Thus, there is no 'root fallacy' either.

On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.

The argument isn't that 'hamatia' itself ought to be defined as privation, but that what it describes of the individual entails a privation.

On the contrary, that is precisely what it seems was being claimed, that the structure of the word "hamatia" demands we accept its definition to mean "a privation." Are you now changing your mind, or did I misunderstand? Or are considering whether your "friend" C. has the same mind set on this? I'd like to think you are seeking the truth, and not just "taking sides?"

I mean, C. is so much less "friendly" than you are. If you agree with him, fine. But please don't adopt his attitude towards me! Thank you.

For instance, that the individual 'misses the mark' is the result of privation vis-a-vis (that individual's) separation from God's presence. The same could be said of any of the other ~7 definitions of ἁμαρτία.

That just proves my point. You are defining "missing the mark" as a word that must mean a "privation." That's not how it works, though. It could be true, but it isn't necessarily true. The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.

But how it was used in the 1st century, as "missing the mark," is not how the brother is implying it was used, as a "privation." The origin of the word, which seems to have emerged from a banishment from the Garden, explains the origins of the word, but not its meaning.

But that is the privation.

No, the "privation" is how the word was constructed, a-meros--"not a part." It has little to do with what the word was originally intended to mean, nor what it meant for people in history. You are just looking at what may have been in the mind of those who invented the word. But what they intended the word to mean is borne out in how it is used throughout Scripture--not as a privation from a place, but rather, as disobedience to God's word.

This is all over the place. I think it's clear that you misunderstand what's being argued.

Or, it could be you who are failing to understand what's being argued? I don't claim to be a great communicator.

I respect, and almost enjoy the way your ingenious mind weasels its way out of anything I throw at you. But I sincerely and humbly disagree with it.

Sin has the characteristics of a contagion. If you want to define "contagion" as a strictly physical phenomenon, then you would have a point. But I'm referring to a "spiritual contagion."

And Sin has every mark of a contagion, even though it is spiritual. It is passed on, it affects others, and it has a nasty impact. It spreads and kills. Thus, it is a contagion *in my opinion!*

https://www.christianity.com/theology/sin/cured-from-the-contagion-of-sin.html

As scary as infectious diseases are, there’s a more deadly virus that you and I already have – the sin virus. As the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “all of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin.”

Calvin notwithstanding, do you describe passed down genetic traits as a 'contagion'?

That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well?