Do words have a fixed meaning?

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Skan,

What is the point of your thread? What does it have to do with Bible Translations?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Marcia]

To try to impugn my position by implying that I do not consider the word of God an Absolute is simply dishonest. It is what I would expect from a Texe Marrs or a Peter Ruckman. Unfortunately, I now have to add Marcia to that list. Please, Ed, don't place yourself on that list of unwholesome characters.

I think I pointed out some fallacies in the views of the General Semantics line of thinking and showed they are not totally accepted as experts. I also showed how some of their views go against a Biblical worldview (that was the point of the statement on absolutes which apparently you did not get). I think you just don't like what I pointed out so you are personally attacking me.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. And using the "R" word (Ruckman) is really bad!!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
What is the point of your thread? What does it have to do with Bible Translations?

It shows that understanding is often subjective. Many KJVOs will say "The NIV does such and so to the doctrine of blah blah blah." What is really happening is that they have such an emotional attachment to the reading of the KJV that they are unable to understand the NIV (or other modern version) to be saying the same thing.

It also happens within the church in which all the people use the same translation, of course, which explains why two people can read the same passage and come to completely different understandings.

If we really examine our own emotional assumptions, and consciously (and conscientiously) try to avoid the pitfalls inherent in them, we just might learn to communicate more effectively, and the KJVO issue might die a long over due death.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I think I pointed out some fallacies in the views of the General Semantics line of thinking and showed they are not totally accepted as experts.

No, what you did was cut and paste some uninformed opinions by unknowns who failed to understand the concept of General Semantics. Then, based on those unknown's opinions, you declared victory.

I also showed how some of their views go against a Biblical worldview (that was the point of the statement on absolutes which apparently you did not get).

What you did was show that your misunderstanding of their views contradicts your understanding of the biblical world view, a world view that is not necessarily shared by all biblicists. And, of course, I understand exactly what you were saying and implying regarding my position. Had you not been making such an implication, it would not have been part of your response to me.

I think you just don't like what I pointed out so you are personally attacking me.

I have not personally attacked you or anyone else. I pointed out that your methodology resembles some of the most biased spin masters currently spewing forth their moronic theories. As to not liking what you pointed out, as it was inaccurate and untenable, there was really nothing to not like. Rather like reading Homebound's posts. All lather and no substance.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Let me get this straight. You are not advocating the Post-Modern philosophy of rejecting objective meaning of words and objective truth? All you are saying is that different cultures, dialects, etc...have subjective meanings of words and subjective truth based on what they know? And, you also acknowledge that even though there may be subjective understandings of words and truth, that doesn't change objective meanings of words and truth? There is absolute truth, correct? There are absolute meanings of words, correct? Even though, we may have subjective misunderstandings of truth and words, it doesn't change the objective standard? Are you trying to say that we need to understand the subjective misunderstandings of words and truth before we can more effectively communicate the objective truth? Am I getting this correct? What are we arguing about?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Let me get this straight. You are not advocating the Post-Modern philosophy of rejecting objective meaning of words and objective truth?

No. That was Marcia's ad hominem accusation based on her inability to understand the discussion while refusing to admit it and ask questions toward clarification.

All you are saying is that different cultures, dialects, etc...have subjective meanings of words and subjective truth based on what they know?

Not only that, but to a lesser extent, different people, due to different backgrounds and experiences, often do the same thing.

And, you also acknowledge that even though there may be subjective understandings of words and truth, that doesn't change objective meanings of words and truth?

Correct, but what is "objective" to you might not be "objective" to me. Of course we both know that "objective" is a neutral position without bias of any sort, but our emotional state may not allow us to admit that.

There is absolute truth, correct?

Of course. "Thy word is truth."

There are absolute meanings of words, correct?

Yes, but our finite minds are usually incapable of comprehending the absolute meaning.

Even though, we may have subjective misunderstandings of truth and words, it doesn't change the objective standard?

Correct.

Are you trying to say that we need to understand the subjective misunderstandings of words and truth before we can more effectively communicate the objective truth?

We not only need to have a better understanding of what others hear when we say the words, but we have to have a better understanding of what we mean when we say the words.

Am I getting this correct?

Pretty close.

What are we arguing about?

It seems that some people can't see things as clearly as you do.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
[qb] Let me get this straight. You are not advocating the Post-Modern philosophy of rejecting objective meaning of words and objective truth?

No. That was Marcia's ad hominem accusation based on her inability to understand the discussion while refusing to admit it and ask questions toward clarification.

[qb]


I pointed out that some of the views of people associated with the Inst. of General Semantics were denying absolutes. I also pointed out that the implication of some of their statements. I was right in my initial reaction to what you were saying because it turned out that some of the people associated with the Inst. do have those views.