I already wrote quite a bit in detail giving you logical reasons that exposed why the premise behind your claim was fallacious and erroneous logic (the premise that a modern dictionary's definition of faith is an authoritative source for understanding what God's definition of faith as it is talked about in the Bible).
The onus is therefore now on you to demonstrate why you think my reasons aren't valid or provide new reasoned argumentation to bolster your position, in order to defend why the premise behind your claim is not invalidated.
Merely repeating your original claim, whilst ignoring the part of my post that undermines the premise of your claim, is itself a logical fallacy of argumentation. You don't defend your original claim as true by merely repeating it and ignoring that which already undermined it.
Since you have presented no new argumentation or counter arguments for me to deal with (You're merely repeating that which I already dealt with), there would be no reason for me to continue providing new argumentation that further bolsters my case. You haven't first dealt with what I already posted. I can simply repost what you ignored and ask you to first deal with that if you want to continue having a real discussion about what is the true definition of faith.
-----------------------
(The previous information you haven't dealt with yet)
Quite the opposite - That's what caused you confusion in the first place. I will give you several reasons why that definition is wrong and why you are committing logical errors by trying to rely on it.
Logical errors and bad presumptions:
1. Believing that modern word definitions are accurate representations of the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew words that were used 2000 years ago.
2. Believing that the modern definition of the the word "faith" has always been what it currently is, never changing.
3. Believing that you (as a modern English speaker deciding what the modern definition of a word is) get to tell God what the definition of "faith" (Pisteuo in Greek) is, rather than His word in the Bible telling you what your definition of "faith" needs to be. Especially when your modern definition contradicts what the Bible says about what "faith" is.
1. It should not require further expounding, but should be self evident to anyone who has opened a Biblical lexicon, that the English words used to translate the Bible rarely reflect perfect translations of the original languages. The reason is because there don't exist in English words that act as perfect translations that carry all the same connotations and range of meanings as the original words. That is why any serious Bible study involves knowing the original languages or at the very least relying on Lexicons and concordances.
2. Eytmologically the english word "faith" originally use to have a meaning that is more in line with what the Bible says "faith" is. Our modern definition of faith has been distorted over several hundred years so that it no longer accurately reflects the Biblical concept of "faith".
The Etymology Of Belief. | Faith | Thou
faith | Origin and meaning of faith by Online Etymology Dictionary
3. I already gave you some direct examples from the Bible of why your modern definition of "faith" is inconsistent with what the Bible says faith is. Logically, if the Bible introduces a concept to us, then the Bible gets to define for us what that means by it's context and definitions. If you want to insist that your modern definition of faith is the correct one that must be adhered to then you must first logically establish why your definition of faith is consistent with what the Scripture says faith is. You must be able to explain why your definition is not already contradicted by what the Scripture says faith is. I've started off by giving you several examples that disprove your claim that your definition of faith is consistent with the Biblical definition. You don't address those contradictions by merely appealing to a modern dictionary as authoritative because you're actually guilty of using circular reasoning at that point - all you're doing is saying; "the modern definition of faith is the correct one because it's the modern definition of faith". You must first establish that the modern definition of faith is actually consistent with what the Bible says faith is before you can appeal to that modern definition as an authority. I already gave you some starting examples as to why it's not consistent with that the Bible says.
You appear to have a definition of faith that is not consistent with the meaning and implications of the word as used in the Bible.
The definition of the Greek "Pisteuo" can be objectively determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy by contextual study of ancient sources. That's how linguistic sciences work. It is not something that people get to define however they want based on their own arbitrary or subjective "sensibilities". Ancient context hems in the range of possible conclusions you can logically draw about what the word was meant to communicate when it was written in the Bible.
Likewise, nobody has the ability to make up whatever definition they want for Biblical faith and have it stand up to scrutiny. The meaning of the word can be objectively and logically outlined b a contextual study of it's usage.
Case in point: I disproved your definition of faith by pointing to examples in James that contradict your definition. Objectively and logically we can conclude your definition of faith cannot be true and also be consistent with what the Bible says faith is.
Your comment is logically irrelevant to anything you or I posted.
Do you understand that when we are talking about Biblical Pisteuo we are talking about a word whose meaning and contextual usage was determined in the 1st century?
Do you realize how illogical it is for you to think a modern dictionary definition of "faith" should be extrapolated backwards in time to define what John or James meant when they talked about Pisteuo?
That's not how linguistics or history works.
The meaning of their usage of that word can only be rightly determined by a linguistic analysis of ancient Greek sources, a contextual analysis of how they use that word in the Bible itself, and aided by historical context. If you do that you come to objective conclusions that stand up to scrutiny.
When you understand that, you will realize why a modern dictionary is utterly irrelevant to that equation.
you can write what you want, you stick to your bronze age definition and i will stick to the modern definition that the majority of people use and understand. Is that fair enough?
Btw, you disproved nothing,you had an opinion that is not relevant in the 21st century
