Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak  David and Jeff, maybe this is not directly relevant to the topic of the thread, but the point is that "literal" language isn't. And saying that something isn't understood unless it can be put in literal language is a remarkable illustration of that fact. What does "understand" mean? Is there not a figure contained in that word? And if we vary the word (say to "comprehend" or "apprehend") we have really varied the figure. We have no wholly abstract way of speaking: and this is why it is a dead-end to assume that concrete language gives greater clarity or precision. If it gives the illusion of greater perspicuity that is only because insufficient attention is given to the "literal" words. |
Again, you're missing the point. No one said that figurative language can't be understood (I didn't, at least). This is the exact opposite of what I said on my last post, when I made the point that literal and figurative language describe the same thing. I understand the phrase "he is green with envy" as well as I understand the phrase "he is jealous."
Would you would explain what you meant when you said that concrete language only gives the illusion of perspicuity? The Confession itself says that some parts of scripture are harder to understand than others. Why do you think that is? Are you saying that it has nothing to do with language? The book of Revelation uses a lot of figurative language and I'm sure that this is partially why it's so hard to understand.