In equivocation, one equates a meaning of a word with another meaning of that word.

Equivocations can be used as jokes which some people like and some do not. Some jokes equate meanings with the same spelling of the word. Some jokes equate the pronounced sound of the word with the spelling and meaning of a word. And so on.

In equivocation, one equates a meaning of a word with another meaning of that word. Note that the word "equivocation" has come to have a more general meaning.

Equivocations can also be used to hide double meanings as in a code or secret code.

More: Parables and secret codes explained by Jesus

Before I knew the name "equivocation" for this fallacy I coined the term "semantic slide" since the meaning or semantics of the word was made slippery. Another phrase I use for individual words is a "word slide".

More: Word slides

More: Word slide collection

The surviving works of Aristotle (about 2,500 pages of English) were put into a somewhat logical order and given references such as [1a]. Here are the very first few lines of those works.

Aristotle defines an "equivocation", or "names being equal", using the ancient Greek word "ὁμώνυμος" ≈ "having the same name" from the following words.

• "ὁμός" ≈ "same" and is related to the English word "same".
• "ὄνυμα" ≈ "name" and is related to the English word "noun".

According to Aristotle, there are two meanings for the same ancient Greek word "ζῷον" ≈ "animal, portrait". This can provide an interesting possibility, however remote it seems, for such words used, say, in the GNT (Greek New Testament) and LXX (Septuagint).

Note: Aristotle used a lot of pronouns. The English fills these out and is, consequently, generally longer than the Greek.

According to Aristotle, there are two meanings for the same ancient Greek word "ζῷον" ≈ "animal, portrait". This may not make sense in the context of Revelation 4:7, but even remote possibilities should be noted in case they prove useful at some point in the future.

Were these "beasts" actually "animals"? The Greek texts says that the "beasts" were "like" or "similar" to a description of an actual "animal". Might sufficiently advanced technology (e.g., "magic" according to Arthur C. Clarke) such as virtual reality provide such a "portrait" perception?

It appears that the "face" was very convincing but the "animals" were, like, just "like" the real thing.

The ancient Greek word "εἰκών" ≈ "picture, image" and is the source of the English word "icon".

The English saying "spitting image" means someone who looks just like someone else (e.g., their parent).

Granite is a rock. A grain of sand is a piece of granite, made in the image of granite. If Jesus is the rock, then a human sand hierarchy is a "chip off the old block".

More: Building a house on sand continued

Did Ezekiel see an "animal" or "living creature" or a "portrait"? No one knows for sure. The Hebrew here may help.

The late Latin word "aequivoco" ≈ "call or name in the same way" and is cognate with the English word "equivocate".

• The Latin word "aequus" ≈ "equal".
• The Latin word "voco" ≈ "call or name".

The "new" is not in some Greek manuscripts in Matthew and Mark (Peter's Gospel). Matthew and Peter were eye witnesses to that event. The "new" does appear in Luke who interviewed people some twenty years later as to what they remembered.

Does the "new" testament/covenant add to existing testaments/covenants or replace any older testaments/covenants?

Some pastors will emphasize "new" from Luke, not in some Greek manuscripts in Matthew and Mark, as in replacing any "old" covenant. This is often done to make "love thy neighbor" the primary testament/covenant that replaces all other testaments/covenant. The "as yourself" is often omitted so that anything the outside culture wants the outside culture gets in an attempt to get the worldly love for that church.

More: Both love your God and love your neighbor needed

"Things" exist in concrete reality truth.The ancient Greek word "πράγμα" ≈ "thing" as in an actual "thing", "entity" or "object" as in the English word "pragmatic". One might "reason" with "things" such as "counters". This becomes impracticable for all but very simple cases.

"Names" exist in abstract logical truth. The ancient Greek word "ὄνομα" ≈ "name, noun" is related to Latin "nomen" ≈ "name, noun" (semantic loan from Greek) and English "name".

Many deceptions are part of the human opinion truth. The ancient Greek word "δόξα" ≈ "expectation, opinion" and progressed from "opinion" and/or "appearance" to "expectation" to a narrowing of "glory".

Near the beginning of his work Sophistic Refutations, Aristotle outlines a fundamental source of deception of which he wants to investigate.

The "things" or "meanings" can be put into a correspondence with the "real numbers", while "names" or "symbols" can be put into a correspondence with the "integers".

So, the relationship of "things" to "names" is that of "infinity" to "1". That is, there are an "infinite" number of "things" compared to the "names" of those "things". By the pigeonhole principle, there exist "names" which have multiple "meanings" and there can be two "names" with the same "meaning".

This is one source of deception whereby one uses a name in reasoning.

A conclusion is reached through reasoning.

• Logic rules are then used to do formal reasoning which Aristotle does through syllogisms.
• Dialectical reasoning omits the logic rules, leaving more room for deception.

This conclusion can be mapped back into reality as it relates to "things". Thus, the mapping of "things" to "names" is an important part of the overall reasoning process.

5. Sometimes, the conclusion can be directly "refuted" by showing a counter-example. The refute Zeno's proof that motion is impossible, Diogenes is said to have gotten up and walked away, thus refuting the proof.
6. Whether or not the conclusion is refuted, one can "reprove" the reasoning. The Greeks at the time did not have sufficient logic to actually "reprove" Zeno's proof that motion is impossible.

7. Definitions are the key to detecting and avoiding ambiguity in reasoning, refutation and reproof.

According to Aristotle, it is not sufficient to show the deception - via refutation or reproving. If it is not immediately obvious, one should show why the deception appeared to work. That is, what was the essence of the deception.

The same idea of meaning and word changes have been present since language began.


This verse is the setup for the "euphemism" in the next verse. The word "Corban" was a way to say that one did not need to honor any obligations to father or mother.

In English in the KJV (King James Version) verse above, one has the following words.

• "tradition"
• "delivered"
• "such like"

These all sound somewhat different. Through tradition, the (Hebrew) word "Corban" came to mean a way to get out of providing for ones mother and father. Using such a word sounds so much better than saying that one is not going to honor (or provide for) ones mother and father.

Apparently there were "many such like things" that were done.

Consider the Greek words, where using similar words in juxtaposition was encouraged and not frowned upon, as anyone who has had an English writing class would have learned.

• The modern Greek word "παράδοσει" (pa-RA-tho-see) ≈ "tradition".
• The modern Greek word "παρέδωκατε" (pa-REH-tho-ka-teh) ≈ "delivered" .
• The modern Greek word "παρόμοια" (pa-RO-mee-a) ≈ "such like".

Notice the great similarity of the first two words and some similarity (common prefix) of the last word.

A "tradition" is something "handed over" or "delivered" to others (e.g., children, etc.).