Quote:
Originally Posted by Larv
For any voice to have meaning there must be a symbolic language with syntax to communicate said meaning.
|
I find this to be inaccurate. Voice could sing inaudible words with uncommon 'meaning' and still communicate.
Clicking languages don't rely on typical syntax in order to communicate.
Quote:
|
If God ever spoke without words or sound how could we ever know what he said?
|
Via feelings. This actually precedes symbolic languages.
I would also say via Revelation, though would reckon some here may not understood this intellectually, even while I know you know. Revelation that is transcribed as textual doctrine, is after the fact, and is indirect. It is symbolic of the actual communication that occurred. Revelation is knowing without words. IMO, this happens often.
Quote:
|
Even if one hears voices that aren't there one needs to hear them via a symbolic language. Otherwise it would just be noise.
|
Au contraire. Symbolic language when spoken aloud is literally noise. Divine communication is entirely silent, where no noise is heard (by human faculty or senses). Also 'noise' is subjective interpretation. Is human voice singing a song with inaudible words only "noise?"
Interesting dialogue. Thanks for sharing.
