Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Root Fallacy
D.A. Carson in "Exegetical Fallacies" p. 28 Wrote:One of the most enduring errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send)? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the "literal" meaning of monogenes is "only begotten." Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason that agapao is used?
All of this is linguistic nonsense.

One of the deciding factors of my Zorbanaic conversion is the realization that this fallacy is very very widely used. It takes in the thought that the root meaning of a word somehow changes its' otherwise regular meaning.

I will continue with this later, gotta get back to work.

Messages In This Thread
Root Fallacy - by Rob - 09-10-2004, 06:24 AM
Greek primacy fallacies - by gbausc - 09-10-2004, 01:28 PM
[No subject] - by Rob - 09-17-2004, 06:04 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-17-2004, 06:16 PM
Re: Root Fallacy - by gbausc - 09-17-2004, 07:35 PM
[No subject] - by judge - 09-19-2004, 05:26 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)