Page 6 of 8 First ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last
Results 51 to 60 of 78

    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #51

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    Yes, you could use the author's passage.
    .... X does not say where it is 'revealed'. I submit that this is because it is not there!
    Of course, anyone has the right to "submit that this is because it is not there!", but that goes completely against what the author is communicating. The author says it is explicitly revealed in NT and implicit in OT, therefore he believes it is revealed throughout the Bible. This kind of statement would be one to show a view in opposition to the author's. At this point would you be using the author as "support"?

  1. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,519
    #52

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmer View Post
    Of course, anyone has the right to "submit that this is because it is not there!", but that goes completely against what the author is communicating.
    That's quite alright. The person is not trying to agree with the original author, and he is not distorting the original authors viewpoint. He is using the original author's words against him.

    The author says it is explicitly revealed in NT and implicit in OT, therefore he believes it is revealed throughout the Bible. This kind of statement would be one to show a view in opposition to the author's. At this point would you be using the author as "support"?
    Let's say I was a non-Trinitarian Christian.
    I could certainly take these words of a Trinitarian and point out that "X actually admits that the Trinity is not formulated in the Bible". That's an honest statement, and I could go on to speculate about why X did not make this claim - ie. because it isn't there.
    What to the original author is a statement of belief in the Trinity can be taken, if not distorted, as evidence against the Trinity.
    This happens all the time. It's valid argumentation.





    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #53

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    Let's say I was a non-Trinitarian Christian.
    I could certainly take these words of a Trinitarian and point out that "X actually admits that the Trinity is not formulated in the Bible". That's an honest statement, and I could go on to speculate about why X did not make this claim - ie. because it isn't there.

    If X says that the formulation - ie. [God(Deity)= F(Deity) + S(Deity) + HS(Deity)] - is not spelled out in any one verse in the Bible, but that you can find the substance - ie."F(Deity)" and "S(Deity)" and "HS(Deity)" - throughout many verses in the Bible (assuming X believes there is only 1 God in the class of Deity), than to say X is admitting the doctrine is not Biblical is a distortion of X's meaning. X's meaning clearly states (and restates) that he regards the doctrine as a Biblical based doctrine.

    What to the original author is a statement of belief in the Trinity can be taken, if not distorted, as evidence against the Trinity.
    This happens all the time. It's valid argumentation.

    I understand that argument, but I understand it to be a distortion of what X is communicating he believes. Of course you can use one's words against them in a way they did not intend, but that is not communicating the original intent of that author. Right?

    To say that X admits the doctrine is not Biblical, yet X believes the doctrine is Biblical, is nonsensical.


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #54

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Of these 2 sentences...


    "Though it (percussion solo) is not music in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the solo, it can be heard to bring out a rhythmic line, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the rhythmic line at the beginning, once the substance of the rhythm has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half."
    ...you could say to argue that the percussion solo isn't music (like in the example you used before):


    Even though X believes that the solo is founded upon musical principles, X also admits that there is no melodic line in the solo. What X gives us is a rather lame, and unsubstantiated, opinion that "the rhythmic line has been revealed in the piece". X does not say where it is 'revealed'. I submit that this is because it is not there!
    This tells me that you believe that I believe the percussion solo is music. And I gave a good reason why it is music, and to clear up any ambiguity I restated in another way, why it is music. To claim that I mean anything other than the percussion solo is music, would be a distortion and misrepresentation of my meaning.

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,519
    #55

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmer View Post
    Of these 2 sentences...

    "Though it (percussion solo) is not music in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the solo, it can be heard to bring out a rhythmic line, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the rhythmic line at the beginning, once the substance of the rhythm has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half."
    ...you could say to argue that the percussion solo isn't music (like in the example you used before):

    Even though X believes that the solo is founded upon musical principles, X also admits that there is no melodic line in the solo. What X gives us is a rather lame, and unsubstantiated, opinion that "the rhythmic line has been revealed in the piece". X does not say where it is 'revealed'. I submit that this is because it is not there!
    This tells me that you believe that I believe the percussion solo is music. And I gave a good reason why it is music, and to clear up any ambiguity I restated in another way, why it is music. To claim that I mean anything other than the percussion solo is music, would be a distortion and misrepresentation of my meaning.
    Yes, it would be.
    If I believed that percussion was not music, and if I believed that you believed that percussion was not music, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you in the first place.

    But going back to the previous example, I don't want to distort the author's opinion about the Trinity. I want to accept that he believes in it, that he has given his honest opinion; and I then want to show that his honest opinion actually argues for my viewpoint. In giving his opinion, he is misinterpreting the facts - the facts that the Trinity is not formulated in the Bible. I admit that he believes this, and without distorting his viewpoint at all, I point out that admitting that the Trinity is not in the Bible is actually a point in favour of my argument, and so we can move onto his other assertions about the 'substance' of it being somewhere.


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #56

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    ...I point out that admitting that the Trinity is not in the Bible is actually a point in favour of my argument, and so we can move onto his other assertions about the 'substance' of it being somewhere.
    Yes, you can use his words as an argument in your favor, but in doing so in the manner you have chosen, you are distorting his words and his meaning. He is not admitting the Trinity is not in the Bible, in fact he goes on to define clearly how he believes the Trinity is in the Bible. Now if you point out that he admits that the formulation of the Trinity is not in the Bible, that would be more accurate, however, I believe it should also indicate that that isn't his complete message - ie. "...move onto his other assertions about the substance". In my opinion, this would keep the integrity of the author's intent.

  3. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,519
    #57

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmer View Post
    Yes, you can use his words as an argument in your favor, but in doing so in the manner you have chosen, you are distorting his words and his meaning. He is not admitting the Trinity is not in the Bible, in fact he goes on to define clearly how he believes the Trinity is in the Bible. Now if you point out that he admits that the formulation of the Trinity is not in the Bible, that would be more accurate, however, I believe it should also indicate that that isn't his complete message - ie. "...move onto his other assertions about the substance". In my opinion, this would keep the integrity of the author's intent.
    OK, just to mix it up let's say you're right. It's twisting his words.
    What then?


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #58

    Re: Newbie needs help

    I will answer, but first I will back up and take a look at where we’ve come from. We agree that the author makes two statements:
    1. In a specific sense, the Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine (the Trinity formulation is not in the Bible)
    2. The doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical (the Trinity substance is in the Bible)

    By analyzing the sentence structure and language/grammar, I believe we can answer the following questions:
    · Does the author put equal weight on both of these claims, or is there more emphasis on one over the other?
    · Does each point carry the same degree of significance with regard to the terms involved?
    As for the first question, I say there are some clues the author gives, including the construction of the sentence. Point #1 is in a dependent clause, whereas point #2 is in the independent (main) clause. That fact alone allows us to determine that the full intended meaning of #1 cannot be determined without considering point #2, hence the “Although” at the beginning. This fact has already tipped the scale towards point #2 which is in the main clause. But, if that isn’t enough, to be sure to clear up any ambiguity as to the author’s intended meaning, s/he rephrases and clarifies point #2 in the following sentence.

    As for the second question, we must define the terms the author uses. If you look in the Bible from cover to cover, this author claims that you will not find the formulation of the Trinity. From Webster’s Dictionary, formulation means “to formulate”. Formulate- 1 a: to reduce to or express in a formula; b: to put into a systematized statement or expression. This author has just claimed in point #1 that, in the entire Bible, you will not find the Trinity reduced to a formula or a systematized statement or expression. If you look in the Bible from cover to cover, this author also claims that you will find the substance of the Trinity (explicit in some areas and implicit in others). Substance- 1 a: essential nature; 2 a: ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change. This author has just claimed in point #2 that, in the entire Bible, you will find the essential nature or ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations of the Trinity. When examining the two terms the author chooses to include, it certainly looks like ‘substance’ carries more significance in definition compared to ‘formulate’.
    If we put these facts together in context, we can see how the author does not put equal weight on both claims – ie. S/he clearly makes point #2 the intended meaning – and the author uses terms and structure that support his/her emphasis.
    I think, if anyone claims this author’s intent is to admit the Trinity is not Biblical, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical, it is a distortion of the Author’s intended meaning. Like you pointed out, anybody can debate the points the author makes, even argue against them and use his/her words to attack his/her belief. I completely agree. But to claim the author intended anything other than his/her full meaning in the context s/he gave, is a distortion.
    So what is my point now? I was hoping to gain further knowledge about the structure of these sentences and ideas that provide integrity to intended meanings. I am not an expert on the English language by any means, but am willing to take in as much information as possible. You (and others) have provided valuable information and insight. I then wanted to apply the same construction or “structure” to a relatively non-controversial topic. This all has proven to be informative, yet difficult, and has shown how bias can creep in, even when a goal is to avoid bias, in analysis.

  4. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,519
    #59

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmer View Post
    I agree with your summary of what we discussed, and your interpretation.
    Good luck with writing a comparable paragraph if you still think it's a worthy goal. Possibly you could post it when you think you have achieved a perfectly comparable sentence!


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #60

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Thank you for your time and your input.

Page 6 of 8 First ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •