Fundamentalism...

[_richardMdBorn]

But he wrote of the inherent uncertainty of language. Does that apply to his own statement? If so, how can we ever know if what he meant was.

A) Language is inherently uncertain.
B) Language is not inherently uncertain.

Don’t you see that A is internally inconsistent.

Uncertain does not mean indecipherable. Context is everything. The meaning of language is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Can we ever attest to anything in his framework. Can any of his statements be considered as being proven true or false.

[_Runtu]

But he wrote of the inherent uncertainty of language. Does that apply to his own statement? If so, how can we ever know if what he meant was.

A) Language is inherently uncertain.
B) Language is not inherently uncertain.

Don’t you see that A is internally inconsistent.

Uncertain does not mean indecipherable. Context is everything. The meaning of language is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Can we ever attest to anything in his framework. Can any of his statements be considered as being proven true or false.

I take it you are a fundamentalist. :-)

What do you mean by "attest" and "proven true or false"?

I find it ironic that you have inadvertently supported Eagleton's position.

[_richardMdBorn]

But he wrote of the inherent uncertainty of language. Does that apply to his own statement? If so, how can we ever know if what he meant was.

A) Language is inherently uncertain.
B) Language is not inherently uncertain.

Don’t you see that A is internally inconsistent.

Uncertain does not mean indecipherable. Context is everything. The meaning of language is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Can we ever attest to anything in his framework. Can any of his statements be considered as being proven true or false.

I take it you are a fundamentalist. :-)

What do you mean by "attest" and "proven true or false"?

I find it ironic that you have inadvertently supported Eagleton's position.

I think he's undermined his own position. If all language is inhererently uncertain, then that statement is uncertain. Perhaps it means that some language is not inherently uncertain. How can he disprove my statement. If he says no, then he is claiming that his stamtnet is clear which is contradictory.

The only reasonable approach is that some sentences are clear in their meanings; other are ambiguous. But that destroys his argument here against inerrancy.

[_Runtu]

I think he's undermined his own position. If all language is inhererently uncertain, then that statement is uncertain. Perhaps it means that some language is not inherently uncertain. How can he disprove my statement. If he says no, then he is claiming that his stamtnet is clear which is contradictory.

The only reasonable approach is that some sentences are clear in their meanings; other are ambiguous. But that destroys his argument here against inerrancy.

Can you give an example of a sentence with clear and unambiguous meaning? One that means precisely the same thing regardless of context?

[_Fortigurn]

Can you give an example of a sentence with clear and unambiguous meaning? One that means precisely the same thing regardless of context?

Descartes liked to use mathematics as an example of a 'pure' and unambiguous language. But I'm not so sure.

[_richardMdBorn]

I think he's undermined his own position. If all language is inhererently uncertain, then that statement is uncertain. Perhaps it means that some language is not inherently uncertain. How can he disprove my statement. If he says no, then he is claiming that his stamtnet is clear which is contradictory.

The only reasonable approach is that some sentences are clear in their meanings; other are ambiguous. But that destroys his argument here against inerrancy.

Can you give an example of a sentence with clear and unambiguous meaning? One that means precisely the same thing regardless of context?

I'll try.

White can force a win here in all variations (I'm a chessplayer).

[_Runtu]

I think he's undermined his own position. If all language is inhererently uncertain, then that statement is uncertain. Perhaps it means that some language is not inherently uncertain. How can he disprove my statement. If he says no, then he is claiming that his stamtnet is clear which is contradictory.

The only reasonable approach is that some sentences are clear in their meanings; other are ambiguous. But that destroys his argument here against inerrancy.

Can you give an example of a sentence with clear and unambiguous meaning? One that means precisely the same thing regardless of context?

I'll try.

White can force a win here in all variations (I'm a chessplayer).

This sentence has meaning in context. You have to know, for example, what chess is, what white means in a chess context, what variations mean, and how something is forced. If I didn't know anything about chess, this sentence would be nearly totally meaningless.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think he's undermined his own position. If all language is inhererently uncertain, then that statement is uncertain. Perhaps it means that some language is not inherently uncertain. How can he disprove my statement. If he says no, then he is claiming that his stamtnet is clear which is contradictory.

The only reasonable approach is that some sentences are clear in their meanings; other are ambiguous. But that destroys his argument here against inerrancy.

Can you give an example of a sentence with clear and unambiguous meaning? One that means precisely the same thing regardless of context?

I'll try.

White can force a win here in all variations (I'm a chessplayer).

This sentence has meaning in context. You have to know, for example, what chess is, what white means in a chess context, what variations mean, and how something is forced. If I didn't know anything about chess, this sentence would be nearly totally meaningless.

Yes; without the context of chess, one could quite easily read it as a racist statement. Or the word "White" could be understood as somebody's surname. (E.g., it could refer to a tennis match.)

[_richardMdBorn]

I think he's undermined his own position. If all language is inhererently uncertain, then that statement is uncertain. Perhaps it means that some language is not inherently uncertain. How can he disprove my statement. If he says no, then he is claiming that his stamtnet is clear which is contradictory.

The only reasonable approach is that some sentences are clear in their meanings; other are ambiguous. But that destroys his argument here against inerrancy.

Can you give an example of a sentence with clear and unambiguous meaning? One that means precisely the same thing regardless of context?

I'll try.

White can force a win here in all variations (I'm a chessplayer).

This sentence has meaning in context. You have to know, for example, what chess is, what white means in a chess context, what variations mean, and how something is forced. If I didn't know anything about chess, this sentence would be nearly totally meaningless.

Hi Runtu,

But again, I don't see how "in context" is equivalent to language being inherently ambiguous. Just like folks who know the history of GPS will understand the sentence that, "TIMATION was 2-D."

[_Runtu]

Hi Runtu,

But again, I don't see how "in context" is equivalent to language being inherently ambiguous. Just like folks who know the history of GPS will understand the sentence that, "TIMATION was 2-D."

Simply put, to understand the meaning of the sentence, you have to know a lot that is outside the text. You have to know what the context is and then what the terms normally mean within that context. So, the "meaning" resides somewhere between the text and the reader, not in the text itself. Postmodernists, such as De Man and Derrida, would say that trying to get at meaning is impossible, that meaning is a construct made of "everything the words are not." A Marxist, such as Eagleton, would say that, despite the inherent uncertainty in language, language is "good enough" as long as we understand context and how meaning is constructed (see his example of measuring the Himalayas). What fundamentalists seem to be saying is that text, and in particular the Biblical Word, has certain, inherent meaning regardless of context and regardless of the reader. That is an untenable position.