Talk:old man

Sense 8: "Unregenerate human nature". What? bd2412 T 01:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Human grumpiness (or similar) may be called "the old man", like how depression is the "black dog". Equinox ◑ 01:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that grumpiness can be called "the old man", but the phrase "unregenerate human nature" is ambiguous and opaque. "Human nature" is not a synonym for "grumpiness". bd2412 T 08:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February 2022

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

old man

Sense eight, "Unregenerate human nature". I have literally no idea what this is supposed to mean, so to me it fails as a "definition" of anything. bd2412 T 02:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:old man. Should go through RFV process, not RFD. Equinox ◑ 02:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

My argument is not that this is unverifiable. My argument is that the phrase "unregenerate human nature" is too opaque to be meaningfully verified. It's practically nonsense, and that fact that you can guess at what it might mean doesn't make it a definition fit for a dictionary. bd2412 T 08:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like one of those terms that should go to RFV, only for the resulting discussion to lead to the definition being amended. No doubt it will end up being tagged as RFV-resolved in the end. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say that if the definition is "amended" to make it a comprehensible definition, then it will be an entirely new sense, and not really an amendment of the riddle that is now there. bd2412 T 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The definition is refered to as biblical in dictionary definitions, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible. Here are the three verses that seem relevant, all from Paul's epistles in the Christian New Testament:

1. Romans 6:6:

   Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

2. Ephesians 4:22:

   That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

3. Colossians 3:9:

   Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

In all three passages, it corresponds to Ancient Greek τὸν (tòn, “the (accusative singular)”) παλαιὸν (palaiòn, “old (accusative singular)”) ἄνθρωπον (ánthrōpon, “person, human being (accusative singular)”), so could be a calque. At any rate, it refers to one's self or nature as it was before the spiritual transformation that Christianity attributes to Jesus. In the original Ancient Greek it was semantically gender-neutral, though grammatically masculine (the semantically masculine equivalent would use ἄνδρα (ándra)/ᾰ̓νήρ (anḗr)).

If kept, it definitely needs to be labeled as (Christian) biblical and archaic (maybe even obsolete). The writers and presumed audience of a century ago may have been exposed to it enough in their religious education that it never occurred to anyone that it needed more context. Even for those of us of a Christian background who were raised on more modern translations, neither the term nor the definition brings up any associations. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Greek ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos) is actually not epicene but bigendered, unlike Latin homo, which is epicene.  --Lambiam 14:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: So a clearer definition would be something like, "The negative aspects of human nature that can not be changed"? bd2412 T 23:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: no, it's more like "the old you" contrasted to "the new you". The implication is that the people in question are backsliding and undoing the transformation. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, help me out here, put it in the form of a definition line. bd2412 T 00:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a lot easier explaining it than putting it in a definition, especially one that's NPOV. How about "(Christianity) The state of human nature without the spiritual transformation that Christians believe is brought about by Jesus." It doesn't really mesh with the definition of unregenerate unless one contrasts what mortal humanity can do vs. what God can do- another important concept in Christian theology: in Matthew 19:26 the KJV quotes Jesus as saying "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." As you can see, it's all very deeply intertwined with Christian theology. It's not easy to lay out the concepts without a Christian POV. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm frankly not as concerned with the POV as with the definition being clear. The bottom line to me still seems that it is a negative state. bd2412 T 03:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The proposed definition looks fine except for the bit “that Christians believe is” – this should be omitted. The definition should reflect the meaning it has to people who use the term. We also do not define afterlife as “conscious existence after death that some superstitious people believe in”. For clarity, also replace “by Jesus” by “by redemption through Jesus Christ”. Together: “(Christianity) The state of human nature without the spiritual transformation brought about by redemption through Jesus Christ.”  --Lambiam 14:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn as rewritten per Lambiam. Although I don't intend to send the resulting definition to RfV, some citations would be a nice touch. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)