Have you ever given thought to how an 'official' definition is arrived at for a word/term? What is the basis for which a word is "defined" in a standard secular dictionary?
Perhaps an example from Webster's Dictionary will provide the answer.
The definition of "TRUTH" as defined by Webster's Dictionary has drastically changed or evolved since 1850.
In 1850, Webster defined "TRUTH" as:
~ That which can be proven to be true or that which is authorized by Jesus Christ.
Note that just a mere 168 years ago truth was based on things pertaining to the Bible.
However, in 1914, Webster gave this definition of "TRUTH":
~ A statement that can be proven true based upon concrete facts. For example truth based on scripture.
In the early 1900’s we see that truth still had "scriptural roots".
But notice that in 1996, Webster gave a much different definition for "TRUTH":
~ A statement believed to be true based upon the beliefs and experiences of the speaker.
Dictionaries, such as Daniel Webster's, define terms AS IS RECOGNIZED/USED BY SOCIETY, IN A GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME.
In 1996, "TRUTH" is no longer based on anything other than one's personal opinion. "TRUTH" is now relative.
Why the change in the definition? Let us ponder the basis or standard by which each definition was put in the dictionary by Mr. Webster.
Would you not agree that dictionaries, such as Daniel Webster's, define terms AS IS RECOGNIZED/USED BY SOCIETY, IN A GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME?
If not, what would be the basis?
Secular dictionaries should be used with caution when applying definitions to bible terms. The Bible is its own best dictionary. If we will commit the time and effort to comparing a term in one passage IN ITS CONTEXT, to the same term in other passages IN THEIR CONTEXT, we can determine what the meaning of that particular term is.
The meaning of a term ought not change or "evolve" over time. Truth, in the Bible has NOT changed, even though man's attitude has toward it. Jesus said it best in John 17:17 ~ "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth."
Did Daniel Webster's definition cause people to change their attitude toward TRUTH as defined in God's word, or was societies "evolution" in attitude toward TRUTH over time, merely reflected in the definitions printed by Mr. Webster?
Consider:
In a recent poll of Americans who considered themselves to be "Christians", 78% felt there was NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
A separate poll of "Christians" (used loosely), ages 25 and under yielded an even greater number who thought "TRUTH" to be relative.
This general feeling of relativism in our nation has obviously become popular over the years. It is little wonder that there is no appeal for authority in religious worship or work.
TRUTH, as found in the Bible, is NOT a relative standard, as any one person may determine for himself; rather, it is an absolute standard to which all men should submit.
copyright 2018
rdb
No comments:
Post a Comment