From: Rich Blinne (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 14:03:21 EST
George Murphy wrote:
> If again I may interject, Graham didn't say "no language" but "no sacred
>language." The same gospel can be proclaimed in Hebrew, Greek, Old Church Slavonic &c.
>& its "covariance" is even wider than the possibility of linguistic translation. There
>are different theological ways to express the gospel, different "theories of the
>atonement" &c. This is not to say that anything goes, but we simply aren't tied to one
>way of communicating the gospel.
> The Word is, fundamentally, Jesus Christ, & the gospel is, in Luther's phrase,
>_was Christum treibt_, what "pushes" or "promotes" Christ. That may almost always have
>a linguistic component, but such a component isn't always the most important feature.
If what he means is that there is no "official" language for Scripture,
fine. What I would like to know, however, is how you got the covariance
is wider than linguistic translation. The evangel is by definition a
message -- literally good news. Thus, to say that the linguistic
component is not the most important feature of a message I find
bizarre. This reminds me of when Richard Gere at the Oscars told
everybody to have "good thoughts" for the Tibetan people in order to
stop their oppression by the Chinese Government. I seriously doubt
without an explicit linguistic communication with Dong Chou Ping that it
would do any good.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 14:03:49 EST