Do words have a fixed meaning?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
May I suggest some good reading for you Scott?

No, but thanks for asking...

Anything published by the Institute of General Semantics would be a good place to start.

Do they use the King James Bible... you know you can't know anything about semantics without a KJ Bible. (This is a play off what an 8 year old once told my sons concerning salvation and the KJV).

It will rapidly disabuse you of the notion that words have intrinsic meanings. The word is not the reality just as the map is not the territory. The word is just a semantic symbol weighed by the hearer and understood in the context of the totality of his background and experiences.

I never said any different. Words have meanings... and communication only occurs when the speaker and hearer have a common understanding- at least of the concrete definitions. The implications to one or the other may be different due to experience et al. but unless words are representative "symbol(s)" then they are useless.

The word of course is not the thing it represents. But if it does not accurately cause the receiver to understand the transmitter, it is absolutely useless. The fact that language is useful to transmit ideas refutes your whole premise.... of course that presupposes that I understand what you mean.

 

[Ransom]

skanwmatos said:

It will rapidly disabuse you of the notion that words have intrinsic meanings.

So if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that words do have intrinsic meanings.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, Skan, you dislike coconuts the OBJECTS, not coconuts the word. If you were around someone who sometimes mentioned bungas, you most likely would have only curiosity as to what he meant. But if you asked him what a bunga was & he showed you what you call a coconut, then you'd have the same reaction from then on out that you have when you hear the word coconut now.

It's a CONDITIONED RESPONSE, & we all have them.For example, when I hear or see the letters ACLU, I immediately think of Communists, pagans, & New-Age-Liberals.

No matter what any given person thinks of coconut, the meaning of the word remains the same-the fruit of a certain species of palm tree. Now, whether that meaning will ever change or not is a matter of pure speculation right now.

 

[Dr. Bob]

skan's "to me blah blah blah" shows that Scott is correct in evaluating it as post-modern thinking.

Words have meaning. Words may be used symbolically or in idioms or metaphorically, but they do have basic root black-and-white meaning.

Going back to the word du jour "inerrant", it is from the Latin "inerrans" and means "not wandering, fixed, stable and absolute" (hence its shaky tie to astronomy where we are finding little inerrancy!)

It always HAS meant this. Caesar understood something inerrant was not erring, not fallible, not having a mistake.

Bob sees the word inerrant, the English derivative of this ancient word, and accepts the same basic meaning.

Words mean something. Neo-orthodox theology seeks to take these words and give them alternative "to me it means . . " meaning.

I really don't care what a word means to anyone.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Skan:

The fact that everybody brings emotional baggage into their understanding of words is the point so it can hardly be "self-refuting."

So how do we know this is true given your emotional baggage in saying this? I don't think you get that this statement is self-refuting. The claim itself that "everyone brings their emotional baggage into their understanding of words," if true, means that the statement itself can't be trusted because of the emotional baggage you brought to it. Maybe your emotional baggage makes you think that everyone brings emotional baggage to their understanding of words.

My hermeneutics professor said that if someone says, "everything we say is colored by our own views," a good response would be, "including that statement?"

If no one can be objective and words only mean subjective things to people, communication is impossible. Obviously that is not true, because here we are discussing the topic although, according to you, we all understand words differently.

 

[rsr]

I've seldom seen a thread with so many people saying the truth and disagreeing.

Yes, words have intrinsic meaning ... at least subjectively. I believe that any word I say is based in something more than my own subjectivety, but I am often wrong.

To have any intrinsic meaning culturally and collectively, there must be an agreement about what words mean. Or at least a final arbiter.

With tangible and concrete objects, this is much easier. It's likely that when we see a dog, we thin of it as a dog.

This is where I think Skan's analogy doesn't quite hold true, although I think it approaches the truth. When we enter the realm of ideas, philosophy and religion, then the exact definition of a word takes on supreme importance.

What is truth? What is beauty? What is salvation? What is grace? There are many who use these same words to describe entirely different things, and until we reach agreement on what they mean, we are all saying "blah-blah-blah."

So it is with inerrancy. We can say the word, but it makes no sense unless we explain what exactly we think it means.

And referring to the transmitter languages is no big help; "salary" derives from the salt that was part of the pay of the Roman soldier, but I doubt that helps us much in its modern usage.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
I really don't care what a word means to anyone.

Yes. Of course. The only real meaning of a word is what you think it means. That is a prime example of Aristotelian thinking. And is an excellent illustration of the problem. Well, that and calling anyone who disagrees with you "Neo Orthodox."

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by rsr:
When we enter the realm of ideas, philosophy and religion, then the exact definition of a word takes on supreme importance. . . .

So it is with inerrancy. We can say the word, but it makes no sense unless we explain what exactly we think it means.

Exactly! We are dealing with "religion" in this discussion and thus the theological (what you call "exact") definition of the word is of supreme importance. If we allow the KJVOs to define "inerrant" to mean "letter perfect in everything" then we have already lost the battle. We have also abandoned the historic orthodox position, which never applies letter perfection to scripture, but only to that which scripture affirms.

For those who demand "letter perfection" - even for the autographs - let me pose a question. Was the penmanship of the autographs also "letter perfect?" If not, were there errors of penmanship in the autographs? How far do you carry this concept of "letter perfection," even to the letters and the forms of the letters?

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Skan:
For those who demand "letter perfection" - even for the autographs - let me pose a question. Was the penmanship of the autographs also "letter perfect?" If not, were there errors of penmanship in the autographs? How far do you carry this concept of "letter perfection," even to the letters and the forms of the letters?

Good question, Mr. Coconut!
(You will forever be, Mr. Coconut to me! )

The words were inspired, not the men. Just as God used the personalities of each author (they did not write as zombies or robots), so the penmanship would vary from writer to writer. I think the words were probably readable so the copies could be made.

There were mistakes with some of the copies because copyists missed words, later added some in, misspelled things, got some numbers wrong, etc. but this was not the case with the originals. In other words, Paul or other writers of the Bible did not add their own words or take away God's words or change words.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
I really don't care what a word means to anyone.

Yes. Of course. The only real meaning of a word is what you think it means. That is a prime example of Aristotelian thinking. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you missed it, brother! The only real meaning of a word can be found in the dictionary, in its etymology.

Not what "I" want to think it means, or "YOU" or anyone rewriting definitions. Words have meaning whether I like them or agree with them.

BTW, words having meaning came way before Aristotle. And I wasn't calling YOU neo-orthodox.

That would be doing a disservice to the neo-orthodox.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The only real meaning of a word can be found in the dictionary, in its etymology.

Do the dictionary and theological definitions always agree?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The only real meaning of a word can be found in the dictionary, in its etymology.

Do the dictionary and theological definitions always agree? </font>[/QUOTE]That would depend on your theology. From what I have seen too many people change meanings to suit their theological bent or reaction to what others are doing.

For example why should anyone us the word “inerrant” for scripture rather than “inspired by God.” Inerrant is wrong by the English definition. Scripture is much much more than inerrant. Scripture is inspired by God. To say scripture can be defined by the word inerrant is to blaspheme God. Because He said it was inspired by Him, not just inerrant. If it is inspired by God then it is implied by its very authorship that it is much more than just accurate. God is more than just inerrant. To say it is inerrant is much more like saying scripture is precise. It is not an accurate statement just to say scripture is just inerrant. By teaching inerrancy one is teaching heresy. Inerrancy is only a partial truth.

Why react by naming scripture as inerrant when the inspired version says inspired. Scripture encompasses much more than being inerrant.

Just look at Heb 4:12. It tells what scripture is. 2 Timothy tells where it came from. Is that not sufficient.

An inerrant document can be absolutely worthless to change lives. But scripture is powerful.

Inerrancy is an intellectual argument for those who do not know the power of God. But scripture goes far deeper into the person’s deepest part. One who knows God knows the power of scripture. An inerrant document by itself has no power.

 

[aefting]

God is good. That does not reflect everything that God is but it is a necessary component of who He is. Likewise, inerrant does not reflect everything that the Scriptures are but it is a vital component. Of course, you need accurate definitions of "good" and "inerrant" to be theologically correct.

Andy

 

[Pastor Larry]

The only real meaning of a word can be found in the dictionary, in its etymology.

But why? Because people hold the dictionary as a common source, not because there is inherent meaning in a set of letters. A set of letters is a symbol for whatever it represents, whatever the speaker intends by it. If I use the letters "horse" to refer to a four wheeled, gasoline powered, mechanized method of transportation, I can do that. But I won't have much success communicating because you wont' understand that meaning. YOu will think of something else. If I use that word in Brazil, I won't have much success communicating for the same reason, but with a different underlying problem. They will not think of something else; they won't think of anything at all.

If I, as an American, use the word "diaper" in South Africa, you will find that words have no inherent meaning. They mean something entirely different by it. Which meaning is legitimate? Depends on the context.

If I as the dignified pastor that I am use the word "great," it means I am excited about something. If I, as the smart aleck sarcastic that I sometimes like to be, use the word "great," I mean "This is nothing but trouble." When I use that word in the latter sense, you probably won't find it in the dictionary, but everyone who hears me will know just what I mean. You see, context is everything.

Etymology is not a good determiner of meaning. Contextual usage is. Etymology might contribute, but words change over time. Just look at "let" or "prevent" in the KJV. Use them as the KJV translators used them, and you will not get what you expect out of the hearer.

Words have meaning to be sure ... but they have meaning in context, not apart from that context. And meaning is determined by authorial intent.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"The only real meaning of a word can be found in the dictionary, in its etymology."

I'd have to disagree with this statement. This is exactly the way we would LIKE to see things because it makes it nice and neat.

In truth words have ranges of meaning. For example hate and dislike have similar meanings although hate is generally more strong. This will not always be the case however.

"Oh man I hate that this happened to you!"

That's not necessarily a STRONG statement! The CONTEXT of use is of paramount importance!!

Regarding word meanings I would suggest that a word IN A PARTICULAR SENTENCE has a DISCRETE MEANING in THAT sentence. But that meaning is more dependent on the context of use than it is on a dictionary definition. A dictionary generally will give a definition which accurately encompasses the potential range of meanings possible.

 

[robycop3]

Skan originally asked about words having fixed meanings. I say they don't. Maybe for us, the words we know will have a meaning fixed in OUR minds, but some of them WILL change, or take on a new meaning. One example is "gay". This used to be an insult to homosexuals, but now is considered simply a term for a HS, especially a male, while still retaining its original meaning of "happy, merry". The context determines its meaning.

I can imagine a Japanese reader of schoolbook English coming across "gay boy" in a sentence. He's gonna hafta read a good deal of the work to discover the proper meaning in that particular instance if the context isn't immediately evident.

But do we still use "conversation" as "lifestyle"? Do we still wear decorative "ouches"? These are just two words whose meanings have changed over the generations.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK how about what is "torture" and what is not "torture" when done by our troops in Iraq?

Is that a thing settled forever or open to debate over nuances?

Such as depriving a prisoner of sleep. Acceptable behavior? Or torture?

 

[gb93433]

I would say that the menaings of many words do change over time. But words today have accepted meanings as defined by some committee. Certainly there is a standard.

However there are subjective meanings that are not accepted by everyone.

All the more reason why to have a revised translation to keep up with the changes in word menainghs. This way it keeps the translation accurate and up to date without compromising the meaning of the words and message.

 

[Travelsong]

The argument isn't so vague when discussing tangible things like coconuts and cars. We can all get by just fine communicating through symbols which reference the temporal world. "If you want to get to the library on Jefferson street turn left at that stop sign and walk three blocks" can be communicated effectively with or without spoken language and in any foreign country. I think we can all agree that these types of mundane details are not related to the argument of innerancy or inspiration at all.

To explain to a man that he is a creature born with a sin nature and faces the worst possible kind of judgement is far more complicated than giving him directions to the library. To talk about God's love for His son and His chosen people will no doubt present an even greater challenge. The concepts of love and guilt and depravity and righteousness etc. etc. which Christianity is centered on are all extremely abstract ideas, and until the Holy Spirit truly reveals the truths of love and life and salvation all we have to go on in understanding these concepts is our very own subjective life experience. You can tell someone that love is a strong form of like, that it's a commitment, that it's a million different wonderful adjectives, but until a person genuinely experiences love no dictionary can properly convey the meaning because love is so much more than the meaning words can convey.

There's a girl my wife and I have known for years. She never had a decent father figure in her life. Her family was pretty dysfunctional so she turned to guys outside the house for attention and she's been through dozens of abusive relationships, drug rehab, miscarriages and a myriad of all kinds of terrible things I can't even talk about on this board. Her only idea of love comes from her own horrendous experiences.

Now you tell me, is this girl in need of the correct wording and proper grammar of the Gospel message of salvation, or does she need the living breathing truth of God in her life? Does she need to be told that there's a God out there who won't give up on her when everything single person she's ever known has discarded her like so much trash, or does she need to learn by experience and a good measure of tough love that such a being could even exist?

I agree to an extent that subjective interpretation of doctrines is wrong, but I believe the greatest truths are those which are revealed by our living, not by our words.

A hearty Amen to gb934433343434334

who quotes:

Heb. 4:12, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

No one understands this passage until one has experienced its truth first hand. The Word of God is not the actual symbols stamped on onion paper and wrapped in plush leather. The Word of God is the meaning and the truth behind those symbols. It's not the abstract symbol or representations, God's word is the very thing itself. It's living testiomony of the Holy Spirit in our lives, it's the knowledge that we have been saved from damnation. For me this is exactly where the whole KJVO myth falls flat on it's face.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
OK how about what is "torture" and what is not "torture" when done by our troops in Iraq?

Is that a thing settled forever or open to debate over nuances?

Such as depriving a prisoner of sleep. Acceptable behavior? Or torture?

Here is a better word perchance our
mercenary military should discover:
Decimation.

Torture is not an American virture
and not an efficient way to collect data.