Biblical understanding of the "earth"

[John Reece]

The fact that you sometimes only have 1 or 2 of these components mentioned in scripture doesn't give me enough to expand the above definitions.

It's not a matter of expanding definitions; rather, it's a matter of not arbitrarily restricting the sense of a word in one context to the sense of the word in a different context.

You are taking the sense of a word in one context and assuming that that must be the sense in every other context.

Thus you commit the exegetical word-study fallacy identified by D. A. Carson (in Exegetical Fallacies) as "Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field":

There are many different ways of misunderstanding the meaning of a word in a particular context by illegitimately restricting the word's semantic range. [...] We sometimes fail to appreciate how wide the total semantic range of a word is; therefore when we come to perform the exegesis of a particular passage, we do not adequately consider the potential options and unwittingly exclude possibilities that might include the correct one. [...] my point is that the unwarranted and premature restriction of the semantic field of a word is a methodological error.

[TyRockwell]

It's not a matter of expanding definitions; rather, it's a matter of not arbitrarily restricting the sense of a word in one context to the sense of the word in a different context.

You are taking the sense of a word in one context and assuming that that must be the sense in every other context.

Thus you commit the exegetical word-study fallacy identified by D. A. Carson (in Exegetical Fallacies) as "Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field":

There are many different ways of misunderstanding the meaning of a word in a particular context by illegitimately restricting the word's semantic range. [...] We sometimes fail to appreciate how wide the total semantic range of a word is; therefore when we come to perform the exegesis of a particular passage, we do not adequately consider the potential options and unwittingly exclude possibilities that might include the correct one. [...] my point is that the unwarranted and premature restriction of the semantic field of a word is a methodological error.

John, Do you see how the distinction between "land" and "earth" can have substantial consequences as to interpretation?

Have you noticed that when Isaiah speaks of a 'destruction determined upon the whole land' and instead it is translated 'destruction determined upon the whole earth' then it seems to be interpreted as a future event, rather than one that took place with the Babylonian invasion and captivity of Israel around 586 BC?

[John Reece]

John, Do you see how the distinction between "land" and "earth" can have substantial consequences as to interpretation?

Yes, I do.

[TyRockwell]

Yes, I do.

You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman!

[Calminian]

It's not a matter of expanding definitions; rather, it's a matter of not arbitrarily restricting the sense of a word in one context to the sense of the word in a different context.

You are taking the sense of a word in one context and assuming that that must be the sense in every other context.

Thus you commit the exegetical word-study fallacy identified by D. A. Carson (in Exegetical Fallacies) as "Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field":

There are many different ways of misunderstanding the meaning of a word in a particular context by illegitimately restricting the word's semantic range. [...] We sometimes fail to appreciate how wide the total semantic range of a word is; therefore when we come to perform the exegesis of a particular passage, we do not adequately consider the potential options and unwittingly exclude possibilities that might include the correct one. [...] my point is that the unwarranted and premature restriction of the semantic field of a word is a methodological error.

I wish you would point out where I've assumed this. In fact I think there are instances where earth means things like the inhabited earth, etc.. I'm not disagreeing with D. A. Carson about arbitrarily restricting the sense of a word. I'm simply saying that there is no place in the new or old testament where erets or ge is used in the sense of a land/sea unit. If you feel the passages you cited warrant this, all I can say is, I don't get it. For instance Daniel at one time mentions heaven and the sea but not the earth. Do you assume from this that land is included as part of the sea? That seems to be akin to the argument you are making.

Dan. 7:2 Daniel spoke, saying, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea.

[John Reece]

From LSJ (the standard lexicon for ancient Greek):

[greek]gh[/greek] : earth (including land and sea, Sapph.Supp.5.2) opposite heaven, or land opposite sea, [...]

According to LSJ, the semantic field occupied by [greek]gh[/greek] (gē) has within it this definition: "earth (including land and sea) opposite heaven".

The fact that you "don't get it" is not a sufficient warrant for restricting the semantic field of gē to something less than the LSJ definition; so, your denial is an example of the word-study fallacy noted by Carson: 'Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field'.

From Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Louw and Nida:

[greek]o ouranoV kai h gh[/greek] (a more or less fixed phrase equivalent to a single lexical item) the totality of God's creation — 'heaven and earth, universe.' [greek]o ouranoV kai h gh pareleusontai, oi de logoi mou mh pareleusontai[/greek] 'heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away' Mk 13:31. There may be certain complications involved in rendering [greek]o ouranoV kai h gh[/greek] as 'heaven and earth,' since 'heaven' might be interpreted in some languages as referring only to the dwelling place of God himself. The referents in this passage are the sky and the earth,' in other words, all of physical existence, but not the dwelling place of God, for the latter would not be included in what is destined to pass away.

To insist that bodies of water are not included in a term that includes "all of physical existence" certainly qualifies as an unwarranted restriction of the semantic field of the word earth in that context.

[Calminian]

From LSJ (the standard lexicon for ancient Greek):

[greek]gh[/greek] : earth (including land and sea, Sapph.Supp.5.2) opposite heaven, or land opposite sea, [...]

According to LSJ, the semantic field occupied by [greek]gh[/greek] (gē) has within it this definition: "earth (including land and sea) opposite heaven".

As far as I know these lexicons are not inspired and therefore can be subjected to scrutiny from the word of God. I realize how arrogant this may sound, but it's not my intent. I just think that perhaps many theologians throughout history have misunderstood the waters of Genesis 1:1-8 and therefore assumed those waters to be the sea. But I don't think this is what's going on in these passages (as the sea isn't formed until verse 9). Therefore, dare I say it, maybe, just maybe the lexicons are wrong about this one issue. Blasphemy? Maybe. Pray for me.

The fact that you "don't get it" is not a sufficient warrant for restricting the semantic field of gē to something less than the LSJ definition;

You are right. My not getting something should never alter your or anyone else's opinion on any given matter. But it does warrant me, myself, rejecting an argument that seems to follow no logical rules whatsoever. I could blindly accept these definitions, but would have to ignore what the text seems to indicate.

so, your denial is an example of the word-study fallacy noted by Carson: 'Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field'.

I don't disagree with Carson that words can mean many things depending on their context, and should never be restricted to a particular meaning if context indicates otherwise. I acknowledge that erets and ge can mean things other than dry land in various contexts. But so far I've not seen a good logical biblical argument as to the earth being a land/sea unit. This doesn't mean a good one is not out there, but the ones you've provided just don't pan out.

In fact, in a very ironic way, it seems you are asking me to accept lexicon definitions and ignore contextual arguments. Isn't that the opposite of what Carson wants me to do? Even if he disagreed with me on this particular passage, I don't think he would come down on me as hard as you are, being that I am striving to allow scripture to define scripture. You seem to want to ignore contextual evidence due to the fact that it doesn't fit with current lexical evidence.

From Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Louw and Nida:

[greek]o ouranoV kai h gh[/greek] (a more or less fixed phrase equivalent to a single lexical item) the totality of God's creation — 'heaven and earth, universe.' [greek]o ouranoV kai h gh pareleusontai, oi de logoi mou mh pareleusontai[/greek] 'heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away' Mk 13:31. There may be certain complications involved in rendering [greek]o ouranoV kai h gh[/greek] as 'heaven and earth,' since 'heaven' might be interpreted in some languages as referring only to the dwelling place of God himself. The referents in this passage are the sky and the earth,' in other words, all of physical existence, but not the dwelling place of God, for the latter would not be included in what is destined to pass away.

Again, perhaps there is more upon which they base this, but if Mark 13:31 is all I have to go on, it just doesn't follow. Heaven is where God dwells and land is where man dwells and therefore it is natural for these to be the focus of particular statements. People are land dwellers and therefore the destruction of the land is what would be applicable to us in many contexts. That makes a lot more sense to me than including the sea as part of ge or erets in light of the numerous passages in which they are distinct.

To insist that bodies of water are not included in a term that includes "all of physical existence" certainly qualifies as an unwarranted restriction of the semantic field of the word earth in that context.

I get the feeling your argument is "if the lexicons say it, I believe it, that does it for me." I think they are valuable tools but should never replace reasoning from the scripture.

Forgive the blasphemy, but at this point I believe the lexicons above may have it wrong. I don't know what else to say.

[John Reece]

I get the feeling your argument is "if the lexicons say it, I believe it, that does it for me."

No, not at all. I read and re-read the Hebrew and Greek texts in context, prayerfully seeking to understand what they say and mean.

I use the learned judgment of eminent scholars (including lexicographers) as reality checks on the limitations of my own subjectivity, and as referees when I am challenged by someone who contradicts what I see in the Hebrew and Greek texts.

I invested five years of full-time study of the Hebrew and Greek texts under the tutelage of eminent scholars (at Duke University and Union Seminary) just so I would be able to judge for myself what the texts actually say, without being dependent on the work of translators, commentators, and lexicographers.

Not being dependent on the works of scholars is one thing; ignoring them — or contradicting a consensus among them — is quite another.

It's quite rewarding when one's own reading of the Hebrew and Greek texts, the witness of eminent scholars, and the witness of the Spirit are all in perfect harmony.

[Calminian]

No, not at all. I read and re-read the Hebrew and Greek texts in context, prayerfully seeking to understand what they say and mean.

I use the learned judgment of eminent scholars (including lexicographers) as reality checks on the limitations of my own subjectivity, and as referees when I am challenged by someone who contradicts what I see in the Hebrew and Greek texts.

I invested five years of full-time study of the Hebrew and Greek texts under the tutelage of eminent scholars (at Duke University and Union Seminary) just so I would be able to judge for myself what the texts actually say, without being dependent on the work of translators, commentators, and lexicographers.

Not being dependent on the works of scholars is one thing; ignoring them — or contradicting a consensus among them — is quite another.

It's quite rewarding when one's own reading of the Hebrew and Greek texts, the witness of eminent scholars, and the witness of the Spirit are all in perfect harmony.

Fair enough.