Posted by Matt Berry on June 23, 1998 at 22:39:27:
In Reply to: You definitely need to move beyond your "word" theory. posted by blue on June 19, 1998 at 04:28:59:
You definitely need to move beyond your "word"
theory.
The only validity to your point is that it would be beneficial to all debate if everyone spoke an identical, static language.
"Static language" is exactly what I am speaking out against. There is no such thing. The definition held behind a word is culturally dependent ... and often individually dependent as well ... it is in constant flux.
I never suggested this "static language", but the opposite: that we must learn the language of the one we are communicating with and adapt accordingly.
Perhaps you've heard of the convenience of using Latin or even synthetic language in certain situations. When we discuss the Bible, it would be nice if we all spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, since translating from them into English has
caused no small trouble.
Here again you assert that one language is better than another. This stresses the importance of certain words and certain cultures over others. "If we all spoke Hebrew and understood the cultural definitions of the Hebrew words, well then we would be closer to the truth," ... this is what you seem to be saying in the above.
Beyond this, however, your point seems misguided. In any serious debate one first establishes a common vocabulary, and
then proceeds. Truth does not vascillate based upon the terms used to describe it.
Now, a complete reversal from your previous passage. According to this statement, one language is NOT superior to another. Securing a common vocabulary is what permits two people to discuss and reach the "Truth." "Truth does not vacillate based upon the terms used to describe it" ... does this apply to Hebrew as well? Could we also say, "Truth does not vacillate based upon the cultural icons used to point to it?" ... or could we also say, "Truth does not vacillate based upon the cultural stories used to illustrate it?" ..... meaning, "Truth does not vacillate based upon whether or not we use Christian stories of Buddhist stories."
Now, I realize that you are starting with the Bible, and that in order to begin with the Bible, it would be helpful to understand the Bible in its original language. But why should I begin with the Bible and not with science, or the Upanishads, or some other document? Beginning with the Bible, for me, is simply accepting my cultural inheritance without question. Why must I begin and end with my accidental cultural inheritance?
This "common vocabulary," by the way, was the point of my previous post and not the "static language" you have mentioned in your first sentence.
The Theist believes that he can actually sponge away or alter reality. (Evolution is sponged away in order to protect the
"Word of God," for example. The words used "make this so." This is akin to belief in magic. Another example, the Book of
Mormon places iron into early America, ... etc.).
This seems to be the crux of your misconception. There is no need to deny what you are terming "reality" to accept the Bible.
So you accept Evolution?
Nor is there any redemptive power of particular words. Words are, and always have been, a tool of communication. Nothing
more.
So learning Hebrew won't really do anything for me. If I am after truth, I need only look at reality. Words are of secondary importance. If there is no "redemptive power" in words, then I do not have to use the Christian word-set in order to be "saved."
You can bias an argument by framing it a certain way, since certain words illicit a certain emotional response.
So we never want to be confused by emotional responses? ... and we never want to give up reason, right? A faith based upon sophistries is not a genuine faith, right? circular reasoning is not faith, right?
But in any serious debate, especially about theology, you quickly rise above syntax.
Syntax: