Communicating? or Just "fussin"

"Arguing A Position."
2. To argue a point of logic, is not the same as "arguing" a position. Many are the "positions" offered in debate, which are as remote from logic, as is the moon, from green cheese. One should state a simple premise, which can be sustained by supporting arguments. When one offers an argument to sustain a premise, it should be offered as a logical arrangement of thoughts based upon sound principles of debate, and understood within basic parameters related to all the areas of intercommunication involved.

I am dealing with the "Image of God."
3. The point at which I abandon this "Major" consideration, is the point at which the debate breaks down into "just fussin'."

"Logic" is a discipline:
4. There are rules to the discipline of "logic." Many folks think that if they understand the argument, it is logical; if they don't, it ain't. A good foundation course in logic, would go a long way toward eliminating much of the discordance, and would promote concordance, in discussion of issues..

5. Agreement as to the "meaning" of terms: (the words used in the course of the communication).
We think we understand that one and one is two. Then someone asks, "What do you mean by "and," which may severely alter the understanding. One and one equals two (addition); one and one is eleven (placed side by side); one and one is a pair (unmatched socks); several are the possiblilities to the understanding of what is meant by "one and one."

Agreement as to Authorities:
6. What constitutes "an authority," that to which appeal may be made, in an effort to resolve "impasse et discourse." Many are the arguments (read "fusses") over the concept "my authority is greater than your authority." "Greater" How? More education? More experience? More first-hand involvement? An understanding as to what is agreed upon as to authority, is essential to good debate. For me to insist upon a favorite professor's way of putting a phrase, does nothing for the man whose authority rests in a Pope. In like manner, the Pope holds no sway over those whose "Authorities" abide elsewhere.

7. Authority; what does it "mean"? "Authority" should be understood to be that ultimate source/resource to which one can appeal, as to the "meaning," as to the "relationship;" as to the "presentation," and etc., of the thing in dispute.

8. If I say "did you understand what the president said about the economy"? You Would not expect me to present the interpretation of one who disagreed with his policies on economics. Would there not be a clash as to the understanding of the terminology involved?

9. It is improbable that one could correctly represent the views of one with whom he disagrees, about anything. Shades of meaning, nuances, even "body language," play a part in communication, which is lost in a third party presentation. If I attempt to tell you what I believe, through a third party, even one with whom I agree; one who has a close rapport with me; much is lost in the shades of meaning, the nuances and the body language, if the third party fails to "display" my message, but relies solely upon verbage. And what then of my attempts to convey a message which was presented over two thousand years ago? Does not the passage of time, itself, give us reason for pause, to reflect upon our wonder, our position of "enquiry," as opposed to being a true "second party" to the conversation?

10. So, to tell you what someone "meant" by what he said, I must turn to some agreed upon "authority," to resolve the issue at hand. The best "authority" to which I can appeal, is the very words themselves, the record of precisely what was "said." For therein lies the "meaning" inherent within the framework of the message. There can be no "meaning" ascribed to the message, which is not found within the parameters of the meanings of the words employed.

The Basic Building Blocks Of Communication:
11.The words used used to express a communication, are proferred by many, to be the "basis" of communication. I disagree. (Surprise! Surprise!) I believe "thought" is the basis of communication. We select "alternate" words to better express our thoughts. We do not modify our thoughts just because of some precluded inventory of words, alloted for our use. Peter gives an example of this in Acts 2:40 "with many other words did he testify and exhort saying..."

12. Two thoughts, forming a "concept," are brought together in a coherent, logical manner, and conveyed to another individual. If the concept is to be understood by a second party, anything closely resembling the "intent" of the message of the first party, "agreement" must prevail as to the "meaning" inherent within the "words" selected to serve as the "conveyances" of the communication.

13. The "verb" was the first part of speech developed in the languages of men. The concept of "subject," followed soon after. If you just holler "jump," everybody jumps. If you holler "John! Jump!" everybody looks for John, to see if he made it. The original purpose for the development of the "subject" was as a "pointer." The purposes of the "pointer" are twofold; To "include," and to "exclude."

14. Modification and expansion of themes became soon popular, as grunts and rude noises fell into disuse as favored means of communication, (though there are certain exceptions; "football season" comes to mind). This "modification" came in the concept of Adjectives, Adverbs, and various and sundry devices of language which serve to modify. "Expansion" came in the form of clauses, and conjunction.

15. Once the "meaning" of a word is determined, it can be applied to thought. The thought can be related to another person, by use of that word which has been agreed upon to convey that narrow a concept; the thought. So that, for all intents and purposes, the word and the thought become almost interchangeable.

16. Once "thought" was expanded to "concept," the way was clear to go to the next logical step in language; the "context." The context modifies, or narrows, the concept. "Go next door" may be modified by a context which includes ..."to Mary's cookout," which provides much rich background to which "next door" is under consideration. And if there are, by chance, more than one "next door to Mary's cookout," available for consideration, one need simply ask, "Which one?"

17. From thought, to understanding symbols which represent the thought, to forming intelligible context, to sophisticated discourse, is a long and eventful journey. Yet man still struggles, as far too many of society's members fail to grasp the simple, in an effort to convey the complex. And they fail to grasp the complex, in an effort to convey the simple. Sometimes it is best to use small words to invoke understanding within a community. Other settings require other means. For instance, try to get a Kindergarten class to understand airplane lift. It can be done. But don't waste the Aerodynamic Engineer's time with the same explanation.

18. A "consensus" is a "symbol" sometimes mistaken for "everyone knows;" but it is not a dirty word. Concensus actually relates to the "consent" of the persons involved, to an understanding common to the group. There are many situations which call for an "everyone knows" solution. But the same solution may well be lost under other conditions.

19. While "everyone knows" may, under certain narrow circumstances, be fact, it never constitutes authority; Because "everyone knows" has no root "meaning," and no context for perception. If a thing is true, it is true for empirical reasons, or any one of many reasons, but the fact of common knowledge cannot effect the truth about anything. It can effect the "perception," but that is not the same thing.

20. We mostly agree with the statement in one form or another, but diversity of agreement is no agreement at all. In order to facilitate any perception of a binding agreement as to the meaning of symbols in combination, we must have a standard upon which we base this meaning, and this perception of agreement.

21. One may point to some object and grunt unintelligibly, satisfied that he has imparted his "meaning" to another who is within the immediate sphere of his influence. The other might reply with a high-pitched squeal, in agreement. They may even "agree" as to the cause of their understanding, but will a third party "understand" either of the first two? Grunts and squeals, while appropriate in some contexts, do not comprise the basis of "understanding" within a broader community.

22. Whenever a people gather, and attempt to communicate, one to another, they exercise caution, erudition, and a certain sophistication of thought, as they attempt to apply "meaning" to the symbols of speech in combination. If I were to walk into a market-place and say "I want to purchase that" while pointing to an ornate container in line with my pointing digit, does the merchant think that I am selling him some object which is lined up in the reverse direction to my pointing finger? Is it somehow "unreasonable" for him to count the fingers, and conclude that there more fingers pointing 'away" from the object of my choice, and therefore I must want the object to which most of the fingers point?

23. We must agree as to the "meaning" inherent within the "symbolism" of the "body language" which includes the pointing finger, before we can have anything as sophisticated as a commercial relationship such as buying and selling of commodities in an open market.

24. Grunts, whistles, squeals, gestures; even silence has a place in communication, but only in relationship to an agreed-upon standard, as it relates to symbols of speech or communication.

25. The symbols of speech are not the same as the symbols of writing; yet both are utilized in the implementation of communicating "meaning" between sophisticated peoples interested in understanding, beyond whistles and grunts.

26. If one man says "merci bouceau" while another says "if you please", each can be understood by the other, but only if there is a standard which relates to both. That standard is known by all, not by name, but by its rules. These rules pertain not to the translation necessary to understanding, but to the rules of interpretation thereof.

27. Without rules of interpretation as pertains to "symbols of communication", I might point to myself, give voice to the symbol "I", and think that I have imparted basic "meaning" to the symbol inherent within the parameters of the utterance. But when the Frenchman, in agreement, utters "oui", the untrained ear hears "we," and thinks he can now translate french because he understands" that the first person singular "I" in English, is equivalent to the third person plural "we" in French. What is lacking in this exchange, is that there was no effort made to determine the truth or veracity of the thing assumed, because it was labeled "understands".

28. "Acquiescence" is not "understanding". Sometimes, one will "give up" trying to understand because it just isn't worth the hassle. It is so much easier to agree, and let the problems, which arise from mis-statement, sort themselves out later. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that all birds are blue; and further stipulate that only birds are blue. Upon seeing a blue object, one may assume that what he is seeing is a bird, Except for one thing; "for the sake of the argument" is not the same as "truth". There are many such instances of mis-communication "for the sake of" some inferred "argument".

29. Also, many arguments are "inferred" which were never "implied" in the first place. The writer or speaker may imply whatever; the reader or listener may infer therefrom. But who listens? Really listens? Who reads with a sense of urgency, as regards understanding what it was the author wanted to communicate? If a book is perceived as "hard to understand," we simply discard it and move on to another, simpler in understanding, or more entertaining in content.

"Holy Men Of Old Were Inspired Of Ged."
30.I may simply state the proposition; I may define it; I may even pen a mountainous volume proving it. But if no one else agrees upon the terms, or "parameters" of my definition, have I "proved" my definition to be true, or of any value whatsoever? There must be a standard of interpretation by which we can agree as to "meaning" inherent within the parameters of definition, or we will never find common ground in our effort to communicate. And I suppose there are even some who would prefer to call the agreed-upon standard by some other name. I imagine that the number of terms of disagreement could easily surpass the number of terms of agreement by far.

31. Men argue about every aspect of "inspiration", but not from the same standard of interpretation. I perceive one of the first "rules" of understanding to be, "not everyone will agree." Dissent is not necessarily wrong, it is just "disagreeable", but tolerable, if handled correctly; and if the parameters of disagreement are as understood as the parameters of agreement; And if all concerned will adhere to the principles inherent within the parameters of the definition of the understood "disagreement". Otherwise, the discussion becomes one of "I said..; you said..; that's not what I meant; I thought that what you meant was...;" etc. ad-nauseum.

32. Without getting into the merits of various "theories" of inspiration, I offer a point of logic which I believe is of primary consideration when dealing with so important a concept. It is not reasonable to attribute to God, those parameters and factors which are strictly human by nature. I do not believe that God told the Holy Men of old to "put it into your own words, wordforms, style, etc., but remember that the spiritual lives of all men rest upon your abilities to communicate exactly what I mean by what I say. They will be accountable for your errors, slips, and mis-constructs of language, your missed jots, your misapplied tittles."

33. When we say that a word "means" what another word says or "means", how is "means" defined with relation to the context? Do we imply equivalence? Identical? Equal? Synonymous? And what then of a "translation"? Can we say that a word in one language which most nearly corresponds to the understood "meaning" of a word in another language "means" the same? Or does it simply most nearly approximate its "meaning"? And what then of the difference between `archaic' and `contemporary' "meaning"? At what point does the archaic "meaning" lose validity, and contemporary vernacular "meaning" take over?

34. In the New Testament "Psallo" [Strong's number 46] is translated "sing"; In King David's day it meant "to pluck a stringed instrument" (as accompaniment); but originally it meant "to pluck the eyebrows". So, what is the "meaning" of "Psallo"? Thus, we come to understand that "understanding" what a word "means", in itself, has a broad spectrum of application.

Compound-Word Forms
35. When a word is combined with another it becomes a "compound" word and must be understood in its new, altered form. And it must be understood within the parameters of the context. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the new compound form includes all that is inherent in the two original words. Jehovah-Jireh is compounded from two words; Jehovah, "meaning" the name of God, and Jireh, "meaning" provider. In compound the word could "mean" Jehovah will provide. And Jehovah-nissi "means" Jehovah my banner; Jehovah- shalom "means" Jehovah is Peace. There is no "meaning" other than that which is inherent within the root-words, and which the context supplies.

36. Sermons abound with reference to these compound-words as "names of God", but of one thing we are certain; they are not "names of God." A cursory contextual examination shows them to be names of "places," or memorials to events.

Jehovah-Jireh is the name Abraham gave to the "place" where he was commanded to sacrifice his son, Isaac.(Gen 22:14)

Jehovah-nissi is the name Moses gave to the "altar" he built at Rephidim.(Ex 17:15)

And Jehovah-shalom is the name given to an "altar" Gideon erected in Ophrah. (Jdg 6:23). To include these compound-word-forms in any list of "names of God" is to show disregard for the "meaning" of "words-in- compound, And contextual considerations as regards exegesis, hermeneutics, and interpretation of scripture.

The "Perception" of "Scholarship" And Truth:
37. In order to earn a Doctor's Degree, it becomes necessary to research and quote "X" number of "Authoritative Sources", sometimes called simply, "Authorities". When sufficient accumulation compounds, one has "proved" his thesis, and becomes, in turn, an "Authority". That's fine for Scholarship, Degrees, and all that goes with it. But two things must be remembered: Degrees don't make the holder thereof smart, and it has nothing to do with understanding God's Word, not God's will, nor truth.

Presupposition, Or Preconditioning? .....Which Is It?
38. What becomes viewed as "Presuppositions" are in fact the result of "Preconditioning". Which of us today has done original research with "Original Documents" to determine for ourselves which books belong in the Bible, the official "canon" of Scripture. Few, to None. It may be that upon occasion one will attempt the study, only to concur with the findings of those who predate them. With this I do not find fault. Nor do I accept it as an element of "truth." While it may properly be regarded as "Probable", and I don't have the time nor background, nor ability to search it for myself, I continue regarding their work as "probably" sound. But if I have reason to re-evaluate the concept, I shall not hesitate solely upon the basis of "everybody knows...".

39. We are "Preconditioned" to believe about 90% of our prevalent doctrines. Arguments by theologians and commentators abound, taking almost every point of view about almost every conceivable doctrine. Most of us defend the doctrine handed down by our parents. Because we are "Preconditioned" by affection, by tradition, by disposition, by training, by every trait of man. And schools do not help the situation. Error is compounded when a professor is wrong, but insists that his students learn it "his way" in order to get a grade, or to further one's career, or to advance ones academic pursuits. And study from Scripture goes wanting. Many will study books "about" the scriptures but won't study the Scriptures because they feel somehow "inadequate". If one is "Inadequate" to study Scripture, how does he become "adequate" to reach conclusions based upon some other inadequate "human" consideration?

40. To properly evaluate scripture, with a view to "interpretation," one must start with the basic "meaning" within the words used; proceed to their inter- relationship with each other, within the limits of the sentence. Then the sentence is considered in view of its "basic meaning" by virtue of the words contained therein. After which they are understood in relation to other sentences proximately posited; and the context begins to emerge. The context determines the "meaning" ONLY in the event a word is "ambiguous" in meaning.

41. If the meaning of a word in a sentence has two possible "meanings," then, and ONLY then does the context come into play as a determiner of "meaning" of the word involved. Otherwise, the word-meaning will rule the context.

42. If we return to the first order of debate, "I am dealing with the image of God," I probably will not resort to chicanery, nor foul language, nor subterfuge in dealing with those with whom I disagree. My argument should be in rebuttal to the argument of my opponent. And his argument should be in rebuttal to my argument. "Argument" should remain in the realm of logic, whence it originated.

43. Personalities tend to get defensive, when challenged. Fear is usually the first reason. Fear of rejection; fear of mis-speaking a position; fear of failing to adequately develope a rebuttal; fear of doubt. And when we feel inadequate to the challenge, we tend to change the focus of attack to the personality which we perceive has placed us in such an untennable position. This is a normal reaction.

44. We, however, are not in a "normal" arena. We speak as Christians. We are read as Christians. We are accepted or rejected as Christians. There is a world of readers out there who stand ready to judge your ability to "handle aright the word of truth." We must not resort to the world of "normalcy" in our dealing with each other. We must see, at all times, the image of God.

45. Just as we depend totally upon the mercy of God, so we must be ready to extend mercy to those over whom we perceive a "victory." It is not our place to declare such "victory," as the victory was Jesus Christ's in the beginning, and only ours as we carry the fight into the arena. Our ego must not prevail, for "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

Peace!

© 1998 Theophilus Book

RETURN TO CHAPTER AND VERSE © 1997 by Theophilus Book