Re: [asa] Thankyou!

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Tue Dec 16 2008 - 18:02:42 EST
George - this is a view/fact that is certainly confirmed in my conversations with a Jewish teacher friend who was a scribe in one stage of his life. His constant reinforcement of this point is in such stark contrast to our Western way of thinking. The language was smaller in vocabulary, and in the time just did not require the sort of precision that we expect and that has in part driven our larger vocabulary. Add to that the fact that this was a codification of an oral language and culture and you have a listening preset in the time that automatically heard several meanings and nuances simultaneously [e.g., wind/spirit], enriching the "story" of the writings. Moreover, virtually any story will intrinsically and culturally have several levels of meaning. This sort of ambiguity would drive me nuts, and I suppose that is the reason that this multidimensionality of meaning isn't widely understood among us occidentals. But it is a fact that in many cases requires that we hold less loosely to any particular single meaning for these scriptures.

That does not mean a relaxation toward meaninglessness, but an embellishment of message.

Blessings.   JimA

 

George Murphy wrote:
However many words have multiple meanings & their use in one sense can also call up other senses.  The fact that the term for an internet troll originated with a meaning from fishing doesn't keep it from calling up images of the trolls from The Hobbit, &c. 
 
It's a principle worth keeping in mind in reading the Bible.  It's a mistake, e.g., to think that Israelite who heard the word ruach in Gen.1:2 had to think of just one meaning, either "wind" or "spirit."  Maybe it meant primarily "wind" but with connotations of "spirit" - or vice versa.
 
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck
To: Vernon Jenkins
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Thankyou!

No, I meant the definition of an Internet Troll, which is derived from "trolling" for fish:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

The Harry Potter reference was a lame attempt at humor.




On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:
Just a word of thanks to those who have taken the trouble to write to me privately concerning my apparently outdated understanding of the word ' troll '.  However, David Opderbeck's use of the term was associated with a reference to Harry Potter * - which suggests that my original interpretation may well have been correct.  David might care to clarify the matter.
 
Vernon
 
* David wrote (13.12.08): "The best way to handle a troll is to ignore it.  They get stronger
with attention.  This truth, BTW, is revealed in the fifth Harry Potter movie."






To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Tue Dec 16 18:02:59 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 16 2008 - 18:02:59 EST