Replies

Words can have more than one definition depending on context.

Wholeheartedly agree.

So you need to understand the context in which the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution are imbedded.

Agreed. However, in an academic debate, if one party exclusively controls the “terms” of the debate, that party will always win. If the opposition is making convincing points, the controller of the “terms” merely asserts a switch in context negating the opportunity for a fair exchange. It is such an effective tactic that politicians and lawyers try to use it frequently in political debates and court room situations.

You might be able to come up with " a semantically pure" definition for each meaning, but not for both at the same time. I doubt however that anything is sematically pure, if I understand you.

I must disagree with you here to a degree. Many sciences such chemistry, medicine and biology have resorted to the use of a “dead” language (Latin) and others, such as physics, have “invented” words such as “quark” and “neutrino” to achieve semantic purity and avoid confusion. Think about it, why do biologists will use the word “phylum” instead of “class?” Obviously, semantic purity is important and achievable.

Does it not seem incredibly illogical to insist upon a precise taxonomy to the point of using a dead language so as to avoid confusion in one situation (classifications) and not in another potentially more confusing?

Therefore, you want an impossibly high standard, which the Bible falls far more short of than science.

As noted above the standard is not impossibly high, just labor intensive.

Nonetheless, I do agree that the Bible falls well short of semantic purity for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, the Bible was written for theological, spiritual, philosophical and historical reasons rather than scientific communications. Second the Hebrew Scriptures were (obviously) in Hebrew, which until the invention of the modern state of Israel had no need to express semantically pure scientific concepts. Third, the New Testament which was in Greek had the capability to be semantically pure in many cases but this purity was lost in translation in many cases, e.g., English translation of the Greek words, agape, philos, and eros all come out as “love” losing the individual distinctions of purity, brotherhood and sex.

However, Biblical purity of semantics is an issue only if one wishes to try to harmonize theological and historical wording with modern science. Even in this instance, the semantics of the Bible are usually broad enough, or, vague enough, if you will, to accommodate more semantically pure language of our day when such is correct.

"Agreed. However, in an academic debate, if one party exclusively controls the “terms” of the debate, that party will always win."

Unfortunately, scientific definitions are quite precise. That is why you will always lose pitting the Bible against science.

"Even in this instance, the semantics of the Bible are usually broad enough, or, vague enough, if you will, to accommodate more semantically pure language of our day when such is correct."

Exactly the point of scientific theists, like myself.