It has been many years since I was a student of Dr. Daniel P. (Payton) Fuller at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. It has also taken many years to learn from reflection what exactly made him different from a crowd of many other teachers. One great impact alone that he had proves the value of his teaching: Dr. John S. Piper. Dr. Piper (former lead pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN) is on some lists one of the top 10 most influential preachers in the world, in case you are not aware of his name. I studied under him as well, but the main take away that I received was the approach to Scripture that Dr. Fuller had passed on the Dr. Piper. I would like to summarize their communication approach to the Bible in a way that maybe has not been fully perceived.
There is a vision that Dr. Fuller has for Biblical studies and that vision is that of a Biblical theology rather than the other kinds. An elusive goal to some, but to Dr. Fuller a task that you keep pursuing and pursuing with great joy! His vision is one that required great discipline. It required a commitment to the text that went beyond the ambivalence of differing interpretations.
In studying some materials from an unrelated field, I think I have stumbled upon a way to express his vision. The first set of words for his vision are these, when dealing with the Biblical text:
1) Ambivalence, facing it rather than avoiding it
2) Examination, performing it rather than quitting
3) Evoking a spirit in students of the Word, of cooperation rather than coercion
4) Way of reading, following a path all the way rather than another
5) Seeing, drawing out rather than imposing
Let me draw out his vision further through looking at two types of teaching (drawn up I realize in extremes and also differing as to when to apply them):
1) Collaboration versus confrontation
2) Autonomy versus authority
3) Completely prepared to read versus partially prepared
4) Way of reading versus technical jargon
5) Drawing out versus imposing ideas
I saw example after example of these things as a student under Dr. Fuller, under Dr. Piper, and under Dr. Piper's close associate, Tom Stellar. Dr. Fuller probably carried out the vision most fully, Dr. Piper most successfully, and Tom Stellar probably most gently. I wish I could have had them as teachers all at the same time with their relative strengths. Add Dr. Garwood Anderson from Nashotah House Seminary in Nashotah, WI to this bunch and then the discussion about Scripture would really be thrilling!
But also it would be deceptive to say that all this was easy or fun. Sometimes students didn't see the vision behind the method. I myself had my differences with some of what was taught by each one, though Tom the least. But in God's grace, I never lost the hold that Dr. Fuller's vision placed in my own spirit.
From my own experience of trying to teach people to "be Bereans" and search the Scriptures to see if these things are true, it is not an easy task to uphold Dr. Fuller's vision. His approach using a method called "ARCING" was not layperson friendly at first. It took awhile to grasp it and so the vision behind the method could easily be lost in frustration or lost in translation, if you like.
My own experience that taught me this the most, that was mostly due to a larger cultural gap, was that of teaching English-speaking Chinese college-age students this way of approaching Scriptures. They were very bright. I could tell that immediately. But also they were not immediately happy with me introducing Dr. Fuller's method into their class. You could say they were very frustrated. They just wanted the rote answers. I didn't give into that request, but persevered instead.
It happened that my wife and I at the time were the last people hired on staff and there was then a cash shortfall that followed not long after our hiring. Unfortunately, this meant letting us both go from this great church in Rosemead, CA. Then came the announcement that they would have a meeting in which people could express their gratitude to us before leaving. I was expecting that people would share with me some very awkward "thank you"s, since there had been some expressions of unhappiness with my teaching method. Boy, was I wrong!
I'll never forget that meeting as long as I live. One of the students stood up and tearfully shared their good-bye and how they would miss my teaching. I confess I was shocked. This happened more than once, I don't remember exactly how many times, but I knew afterward that I wish I could have stayed! Dr. Fuller's vision had again impacted another group of people, even as it impacted me. This idea of digging in the Word and reading it for ourselves really changes lives.
As stated above in short form, Dr. Fuller's method really meant facing ambivalence (more than one interpretation of a text) rather than hiding behind one view to avoid all the others. We really tried to face that in class. It was fun to watch student's faces light up when the light turned on in their minds. Examination had to be done patiently over time, but here again the text could surprise us. We waited patiently rather than quitting and settling for an authoritative note in a study Bible. Students also knew they could challenge me. I was not there to coerce them into my view, but to collaborate or cooperate with them in learning from Scripture. We also used an misunderstood skill called reading, reading, and reading again. It was simple in a way once the fear of reading fell away. The best part though was the drawing out from the passage rather than imposing on the passage. We could mention great Christian names in the class and their views, but it was in drawing out from the passage rather than imposing on the passage that people began to see things they didn't know they could see before. Those moments were fun! And the sharing in the end helped me realize that the students were just beginning to get good at seeing things in the text for themselves!
The type of teaching that Dr. Fuller did really was the type described above. Please bear in mind that these contrasts can be taken to ridiculous extremes, because there is a time for every purpose under heaven and some like to think every time is sunny side up (or sunny side down), but still the overall positive vision under Dr. Fuller was carried out as well as I think any teacher I have had could. He really tried to live by collaboration versus confrontation as far as we as human beings working together under God to understand God's word and be confronted not so much by one another as by God and his word.
He showed too that placing even the greatest of authorities of Scriptural interpretation, like the great commentators of the past like John Calvin, could be dangerous. He gave us some autonomy with Scripture to read it for ourselves and develop our own liberty and perhaps then find agreement or the liberty to disagree when Scripture made it necessary. He also came to class rather completely prepared to read the text with the class versus partially prepared. He gave us questions to answer, but we also looked further into the text and he had his reading tools ready and he knew that passage beyond what his previously prepared questions required. I can tell you from doing ARCing myself in a modified form that it really does get you completely ready for questions. He also gave us some tools to teach us the skill of reading the text versus falling into some technical jargon. He used Mortimer J. Adler's book, How to Read a Book, as a great tool for how to read. He used others as well, but Adler's methods do work. Finally, and maybe the best, he was an expert at helping his students draw out ideas from the text (he called this being inductive versus deductive). This idea of inductive is all over his material. I will tell you he was good at it even when I disagreed with conclusions. He wanted us in the end to be drawing out from Scripture rather than imposing our ideas.
Until this day, he still struggles in some of his interpretations of some of his texts that he has read. He had or has a theological bias, but his efforts to overcome them were a great model of a great goal of a great vision. I am honored to be able to call up "Dr. Fuller". I've had many doctors, even language doctors, but He was my doctor of the Bible.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reading. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Monday, February 11, 2013
Communication 101: Using it to Read the Bible (and every other book)
I grew up a "chapter and verse" guy, before I ever entered school. That meant that reading was important. In my parents' house, if you had an opinion on religion, then you had better know the chapter and verse you are getting it from. But as one of my former college professors points out that means the rules of interpretation or the rules of communication are very important. It comes down to method to help remove some of the differences in interpretation.
I am currently writing a great deal about the meaning of holy. It is a topic above the basics, but it is also built on a basic method. The basics come first, but they also are there in the highest and most complex projects as well. It is a good idea to start with them to handle all the complexity of communication that is going to come our way in a lifetime.
My method is basically semantic. It deals with meaning. It begins with classes of meaning. It does not begin with grammatical categories, though it certainly thinks they are valid for the average adult. But before grammar really gets very clear to us, meaning has already gained the primary foothold.
I learned this through my linguistics classes in college, especially when we learned about how children learn language and also when we learned about how people learn a second language. They both really expose the importance of meaning over grammar, but not without some consideration for grammar as well.
It is not meaning versus grammar, it is meaning followed by grammar, that is, meaning and grammar in that order. My method of going from one language to another is as follows (from Nehemiah chapter 8):
Translate
Transfer
Total
Train
Teach
This is my basic method in communicating from one language to another. The total is necessary of the four other Ts. It is that simple. You need them all.
I agree with those who say translating the Bible is not enough. It is though the beginning and an important one. Total is used in this method not as a separate step so much as the summary and reminder that the four other T's are required and not just one.
So for basic translation workers, it is important to realize that even communication 101 has not happened, unless all four as a total are present. Then we can talk about communication that works between languages. Thank you for taking some time to read this entry.
Sincerely,
Jon
I am currently writing a great deal about the meaning of holy. It is a topic above the basics, but it is also built on a basic method. The basics come first, but they also are there in the highest and most complex projects as well. It is a good idea to start with them to handle all the complexity of communication that is going to come our way in a lifetime.
My method is basically semantic. It deals with meaning. It begins with classes of meaning. It does not begin with grammatical categories, though it certainly thinks they are valid for the average adult. But before grammar really gets very clear to us, meaning has already gained the primary foothold.
I learned this through my linguistics classes in college, especially when we learned about how children learn language and also when we learned about how people learn a second language. They both really expose the importance of meaning over grammar, but not without some consideration for grammar as well.
It is not meaning versus grammar, it is meaning followed by grammar, that is, meaning and grammar in that order. My method of going from one language to another is as follows (from Nehemiah chapter 8):
Translate
Transfer
Total
Train
Teach
This is my basic method in communicating from one language to another. The total is necessary of the four other Ts. It is that simple. You need them all.
I agree with those who say translating the Bible is not enough. It is though the beginning and an important one. Total is used in this method not as a separate step so much as the summary and reminder that the four other T's are required and not just one.
So for basic translation workers, it is important to realize that even communication 101 has not happened, unless all four as a total are present. Then we can talk about communication that works between languages. Thank you for taking some time to read this entry.
Sincerely,
Jon
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Communication 101: Basics for Bible Readers
I love to outline sermons that I hear in church to see if their is an organizational pattern of some kind to what they are saying. Recently, I outlined a sermon as it was being preached that had some great individual pieces of content, but that had nearly no organization other than an opening and a closing. It was hard to listen to from that standpoint both for me and others, but also everyone of us agreed there was valuable content. It is too bad that the sermon did not have both together! I want to say something about organization of speaking or writing on a basic level.
Now when I say basic I mean something that even children shortly before age 13 can grasp. I also mean something that all of them can grasp assuming there is not some form of disability associated with their learning. Some of the words that I will use today will go beyond that level, but I want to reduce those ideas to a more basic level and I want to do it with a solid form of organization. So I want to simplify content and also outline it.
I recently ran across a fairly great book for exegesis. What it boils down to is the rules for reading the Bible. Usually exegesis does not get much press outside that arena. I say fairly, because it belongs alongside some of the best books on exegesis. I also want to clarify that when I call it great what I mean is that:
1) it has great content
2) it has practical use
3) it has simplicity in comparison to its competitors, and
4) it is comprehensive.
The only thing that is not as strong as these areas of strength is that of its own outline or organization. It is somewhat like the sermon that I and others heard. It too has great content, but it lacks organization.
The name of the book is: A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. The authors are: Craig L. Blomberg (he is not among my Blomberg relatives for those concerned with bias) and Jennifer Foutz Markley. I want to repeat that there is a great deal of good in this book.
This is how they outlined their book:
Acknowledgements ix
Introduction xi
Abbreviations xix
1. Textual Criticism 1
2. Translation and Translations 37
3. Historical - Cultural Context 63
4. Literary Context 93
5. Word Studies 117
6. Grammar 143
7. Interpretive Problems 167
8. Outlining 195
9. Theology 219
10. Application 239
Summary 269
Appendix: Checklist for Doing Biblical Exegesis 273
Select Bibliography 277
Scripture Index 285
Subject Index 291
From the start they make an error in starting with textual criticism. This is typical since many evangelical scholars consider themselves to be part of the grammatical-historical tradition of interpretation. The key word is "historical". Due to the battles over the bible and due to the historical critical tradition, history tends to get the front seat. I disagree with that tendency, because it puts history in the wrong organizational position.
To re-organize the book, I will use five universal classes of things to determine the best organization for the book. Those five classifications are the following (notice the italics in the examples):
Amounts (ex. the big kitty)
Relationships (ex. mom and dad are here)
Wholes (ex. the tail of the doggy is wagging)
Actions (ex. run Spot run)
Things (ex. the car is gone)
Let me give you some of the support for this system of classification. Eugene Nida of the United Bible Societies, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Wycliffe Bible translators have used these universal categories with slightly different names (Things, Events, Attributes, and Relations) and lacking one category (wholes) for a long time in the field as translators. It has been field tested in many languages and many cultures. I have never seen one person who is skeptical of this method produce one language or one culture where it does not work. It is universal unless there is an example of failure among the data available in translation. This is the empirical proof for its universal use.
There is also another source of support. All of these are included a longer list of what are called semantic universals. So if the l longer list is universal (it is more debatable), then certainly the shorter list is universal as well. You can find that longer list in: Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings. That will have to suffice for the evidence at this point.
Let me now reorganize their list in two steps. The first step is to classify each section according to its primary category and the second step is to then create a new outline. I am also going to clarify each class a little further with what I call the ten universal questions in English.
Here is step one (listed in order that they are found in the book under each classification):
Amount [Am] (How many? How much?)
1. Translation and Translations [R] of {Am}
Relationship [R] (Where? When?)
1. Textual Criticism [T] of [R]
2. Historical-Cultural Context [R] of [R]
3. Literary Context [T] of [Ac] of [R]
4. Select Bibliography [Am] of [R]
5. Scripture Index [T] of [Am] of [R]
Whole [W] (Who? Whole?)
1. Acknowledgements [W] of [R]
2. Introduction [W] of [W]
3. Grammar [T] of [W]
4. Outlining [R] of [W]
5. Summary [Am] of [W]
Action [Ac] (How? Why?)
1. Application [R] of [Ac]
2. Appendix: Checklist for Doing Exegesis [Ac] of [Ac]
Thing [T] (What? Which?)
1. Abbreviations [Am] of [T]
2. Word Studies [T] of [T]
3. Interpretive Problems [Am] of [R] of [T] of [T]
4. Theology [R] of [W] of [T] of [T]
Now you might argue that this is not simple! That is absolutely correct. If there is more than one (the simplest), then the argument can be made that these words are not simple. I warned earlier about this issue. Sometimes to make things simple, you also have to expose actual complexity. Bot writers of this book assume that what they are saying is quite simple. We can all see that is not quite true though I do not question their motives. What is simple still is the primary or core classes that each one of these complex words can be simplified into by using the basic classes of meaning from Eugene A. Nida and other translators.
The way that I have classified each category is where the basics can be discussed. You and I may disagree on some of these classifications, but at least we now have a simple way to discuss the issues. We also have our basic ideas fully out in the open. We cannot hide behind unnecessary complexity any more. I now have revealed to you what I am thinking at the most basic and universal level. The work of discussion now will be easier than it was before, without denying any complexity where it honestly exists. Try this, you will like it! It does take time to acquire this skill, but it is not difficult after a little practice.
Here is step two (my re-organization of the book):
Whole
Acknowledgments (Who?)
Introduction (Whole?)
Amount
Translations (How many?)
Translation (How much?)
Clear and Meaningful (How many?) (How much?)
Relationship
Literary Context (Where?) [internal] (When?)
Historical-cultural Context (Where?) [external] (When?)
Textual Criticism (Where?) (When?) (Which?)
Whole
Grammar (Who?) (Whole?)
Outlining (Who?) (Whole?) (Where?) (When?)
Action
The Motive Behind Exegesis (Why?)
Checklist for Doing Exegesis (How?)
Application from Text to Today (How?) (Why?) (Where?) (When?)
Thing
Interpretive Problems (What?) (Which?) (How many?) (How much?)
Word Studies (What?) (Which?)
Theology (What?) (Which?) (Where?) (When?) (Whole?)
Whole
Summary (Who?) (Whole?) (How many?) (How much?)
Select Bibliography (Where?) (When?) (How many?) (How much?)
Scripture Index (Where?) (When?) (How much?)
Subject Index (What?) (Which?) (Where?)
Abbreviations (What?) (Which?) (How much?)
In this section, you will notice that I used questions to help classify things rather than the class labels themselves. I did this to test which method of classification is more effective. I think a combination of both together words the best, especially since the questions break out the two major aspects of each class. I also have yet one other way to test where a word should be classified, but that is dealt with elsewhere (ex. Culture and Revolution, etc.).
I did split a title into both "Translations" and "Translation" to answer both questions individually. I also added a chapter on motivation for exegesis since I think motive is always critical to providing an incentive for "why" anyone should use exegesis over another method.
I should make one other note. I do think there is an awareness in their book of the contribution of linguistics and semantics (a sub-set of linguistics), but I also think it could use a little additional discussion of the modern study of languages and its terminology. That would demonstrate more the contributions of people like Nida, Black, Silva, Barr, and others. I would have to read with a closer eye on this issue to give a better evaluation of this topic. I plan on adding this book to my library, so maybe I will have more time to evaluate this then,
So back to the issue of basics. Their book is much simpler than many that I have examined. It is also highly practical. But I think simplicity gets overused. There are 4 personality types for the Myer-Briggs approach to personality differences. That is pretty basic. But it is also a bit more complicated, when you produce 16 types by taking into consideration combinations of these 4 basics. It can also go beyond just 16 types to even more complexity, since personality can vary widely beyond just 16. Just look at how many different temperaments there are in the world! The same holds true here.
The 5 basic classes of definition or meaning are basic. But that does not mean that no words refer to a combination of more than one of these. That is where things can get more and more complex as needed to fit with reality. Just look at the complexity of technology in the 21st Century and the technical terminology that has developed with it. I'm for simplicity where it applies and for complexity where it applies. We can use more simplicity, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible or any book. The book A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis moves exegesis in that direction. We need to keep working on simplicity and organization so that there is both great content and great organization. Both will make the reading more enjoyable!
Sincerely,
Jon
Now when I say basic I mean something that even children shortly before age 13 can grasp. I also mean something that all of them can grasp assuming there is not some form of disability associated with their learning. Some of the words that I will use today will go beyond that level, but I want to reduce those ideas to a more basic level and I want to do it with a solid form of organization. So I want to simplify content and also outline it.
I recently ran across a fairly great book for exegesis. What it boils down to is the rules for reading the Bible. Usually exegesis does not get much press outside that arena. I say fairly, because it belongs alongside some of the best books on exegesis. I also want to clarify that when I call it great what I mean is that:
1) it has great content
2) it has practical use
3) it has simplicity in comparison to its competitors, and
4) it is comprehensive.
The only thing that is not as strong as these areas of strength is that of its own outline or organization. It is somewhat like the sermon that I and others heard. It too has great content, but it lacks organization.
The name of the book is: A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. The authors are: Craig L. Blomberg (he is not among my Blomberg relatives for those concerned with bias) and Jennifer Foutz Markley. I want to repeat that there is a great deal of good in this book.
This is how they outlined their book:
Acknowledgements ix
Introduction xi
Abbreviations xix
1. Textual Criticism 1
2. Translation and Translations 37
3. Historical - Cultural Context 63
4. Literary Context 93
5. Word Studies 117
6. Grammar 143
7. Interpretive Problems 167
8. Outlining 195
9. Theology 219
10. Application 239
Summary 269
Appendix: Checklist for Doing Biblical Exegesis 273
Select Bibliography 277
Scripture Index 285
Subject Index 291
From the start they make an error in starting with textual criticism. This is typical since many evangelical scholars consider themselves to be part of the grammatical-historical tradition of interpretation. The key word is "historical". Due to the battles over the bible and due to the historical critical tradition, history tends to get the front seat. I disagree with that tendency, because it puts history in the wrong organizational position.
To re-organize the book, I will use five universal classes of things to determine the best organization for the book. Those five classifications are the following (notice the italics in the examples):
Amounts (ex. the big kitty)
Relationships (ex. mom and dad are here)
Wholes (ex. the tail of the doggy is wagging)
Actions (ex. run Spot run)
Things (ex. the car is gone)
Let me give you some of the support for this system of classification. Eugene Nida of the United Bible Societies, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Wycliffe Bible translators have used these universal categories with slightly different names (Things, Events, Attributes, and Relations) and lacking one category (wholes) for a long time in the field as translators. It has been field tested in many languages and many cultures. I have never seen one person who is skeptical of this method produce one language or one culture where it does not work. It is universal unless there is an example of failure among the data available in translation. This is the empirical proof for its universal use.
There is also another source of support. All of these are included a longer list of what are called semantic universals. So if the l longer list is universal (it is more debatable), then certainly the shorter list is universal as well. You can find that longer list in: Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings. That will have to suffice for the evidence at this point.
Let me now reorganize their list in two steps. The first step is to classify each section according to its primary category and the second step is to then create a new outline. I am also going to clarify each class a little further with what I call the ten universal questions in English.
Here is step one (listed in order that they are found in the book under each classification):
Amount [Am] (How many? How much?)
1. Translation and Translations [R] of {Am}
Relationship [R] (Where? When?)
1. Textual Criticism [T] of [R]
2. Historical-Cultural Context [R] of [R]
3. Literary Context [T] of [Ac] of [R]
4. Select Bibliography [Am] of [R]
5. Scripture Index [T] of [Am] of [R]
Whole [W] (Who? Whole?)
1. Acknowledgements [W] of [R]
2. Introduction [W] of [W]
3. Grammar [T] of [W]
4. Outlining [R] of [W]
5. Summary [Am] of [W]
Action [Ac] (How? Why?)
1. Application [R] of [Ac]
2. Appendix: Checklist for Doing Exegesis [Ac] of [Ac]
Thing [T] (What? Which?)
1. Abbreviations [Am] of [T]
2. Word Studies [T] of [T]
3. Interpretive Problems [Am] of [R] of [T] of [T]
4. Theology [R] of [W] of [T] of [T]
Now you might argue that this is not simple! That is absolutely correct. If there is more than one (the simplest), then the argument can be made that these words are not simple. I warned earlier about this issue. Sometimes to make things simple, you also have to expose actual complexity. Bot writers of this book assume that what they are saying is quite simple. We can all see that is not quite true though I do not question their motives. What is simple still is the primary or core classes that each one of these complex words can be simplified into by using the basic classes of meaning from Eugene A. Nida and other translators.
The way that I have classified each category is where the basics can be discussed. You and I may disagree on some of these classifications, but at least we now have a simple way to discuss the issues. We also have our basic ideas fully out in the open. We cannot hide behind unnecessary complexity any more. I now have revealed to you what I am thinking at the most basic and universal level. The work of discussion now will be easier than it was before, without denying any complexity where it honestly exists. Try this, you will like it! It does take time to acquire this skill, but it is not difficult after a little practice.
Here is step two (my re-organization of the book):
Whole
Acknowledgments (Who?)
Introduction (Whole?)
Amount
Translations (How many?)
Translation (How much?)
Clear and Meaningful (How many?) (How much?)
Relationship
Literary Context (Where?) [internal] (When?)
Historical-cultural Context (Where?) [external] (When?)
Textual Criticism (Where?) (When?) (Which?)
Whole
Grammar (Who?) (Whole?)
Outlining (Who?) (Whole?) (Where?) (When?)
Action
The Motive Behind Exegesis (Why?)
Checklist for Doing Exegesis (How?)
Application from Text to Today (How?) (Why?) (Where?) (When?)
Thing
Interpretive Problems (What?) (Which?) (How many?) (How much?)
Word Studies (What?) (Which?)
Theology (What?) (Which?) (Where?) (When?) (Whole?)
Whole
Summary (Who?) (Whole?) (How many?) (How much?)
Select Bibliography (Where?) (When?) (How many?) (How much?)
Scripture Index (Where?) (When?) (How much?)
Subject Index (What?) (Which?) (Where?)
Abbreviations (What?) (Which?) (How much?)
In this section, you will notice that I used questions to help classify things rather than the class labels themselves. I did this to test which method of classification is more effective. I think a combination of both together words the best, especially since the questions break out the two major aspects of each class. I also have yet one other way to test where a word should be classified, but that is dealt with elsewhere (ex. Culture and Revolution, etc.).
I did split a title into both "Translations" and "Translation" to answer both questions individually. I also added a chapter on motivation for exegesis since I think motive is always critical to providing an incentive for "why" anyone should use exegesis over another method.
I should make one other note. I do think there is an awareness in their book of the contribution of linguistics and semantics (a sub-set of linguistics), but I also think it could use a little additional discussion of the modern study of languages and its terminology. That would demonstrate more the contributions of people like Nida, Black, Silva, Barr, and others. I would have to read with a closer eye on this issue to give a better evaluation of this topic. I plan on adding this book to my library, so maybe I will have more time to evaluate this then,
So back to the issue of basics. Their book is much simpler than many that I have examined. It is also highly practical. But I think simplicity gets overused. There are 4 personality types for the Myer-Briggs approach to personality differences. That is pretty basic. But it is also a bit more complicated, when you produce 16 types by taking into consideration combinations of these 4 basics. It can also go beyond just 16 types to even more complexity, since personality can vary widely beyond just 16. Just look at how many different temperaments there are in the world! The same holds true here.
The 5 basic classes of definition or meaning are basic. But that does not mean that no words refer to a combination of more than one of these. That is where things can get more and more complex as needed to fit with reality. Just look at the complexity of technology in the 21st Century and the technical terminology that has developed with it. I'm for simplicity where it applies and for complexity where it applies. We can use more simplicity, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible or any book. The book A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis moves exegesis in that direction. We need to keep working on simplicity and organization so that there is both great content and great organization. Both will make the reading more enjoyable!
Sincerely,
Jon
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Communication: Its Importance as an Action
I ran across a quote recently that I could not pass up as a post on this blog. It is from Stephen R. Covey. It reads: "Communication (human and divine) is the most important single activity of man". This quote is an important one to ponder.
The quote is found in Covey's early book titled The Spiritual Roots of Human Relations. It is a fascinating read from the standpoint of understanding Covey's own roots for his later 7 Habits and The 8th Habit.
I am not endorsing all aspects of this book, but simply putting forward ideas from him that I do agree with. His idea that communication as an activity that is very important has exciting implications, if true and if it can be proven. For myself, I choose to ponder his idea and keep my eyes open for evidence of this idea.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
