Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:Imageless images

[David Miller]

Judy, I think you should consider what is said in this post below that Lance quotes.  It is very awkwardly written, but it is classic Plato philosophy right down the line.  I will try and reword the concepts expressed within it.   There is a spiritual reality to which words point us, but the words themselves never exactly represent that reality.  Words are always an approximation at best, in the same way that a drawing of a person only approximates what that person looks like.  Some pictures are better than others; hence, some words are better than others.  Also, some pictures give a different angle or perspective of the object and in like manner, sometimes words are describing a different angle or perspective of the same object.   What I see happening with you that I am not sure is appreciated by your detractors on this forum is that you study the KJV Bible and find the word "Godhead."  You are curious about that word and so you pray and study the passages to gain understanding.  Eventually, your eyes move off of the word itself, the language, to the spiritual reality that it communicates.  You experience that "a-ha! Now I see."  From then on, the word "Godhead" carries a meaning for you that it might not carry for someone who has not gone through this process.  Then, somebody tries to tell you that you should be using the word "Trinity" instead of "Godhead" or "nature of God" instead of Godhead, or whatever.  However, that label does not carry the same meaning because it was through your prayer and seeking God that "Godhead" became something that had meaning assigned to it.  These other terms might even seem unnecessary to you when the word "Godhead" was just fine to get you to the level of understanding that you presently have.  So you ask questions to others along the lines of, "why change the terms?  I don't receive any better understanding simply by using these new terms."    Well, some of the other people have not grown up with a KJV Bible and find the word "Godhead" kind of confusing.  They had started with other phrases or terms.  It may be that they have not yet arrived at perceiving the same spiritual reality that you have, but whether or not they have or have not is not the real point that I think people like Debbie are trying to make.  It seems to me that they are trying to say that it is possible that other people might arrive at seeing the same spiritual reality that you do, but with different terms or words.    I suspect you might say, "well, why not use KJV words.  Why not stick with what has historically worked?"  These are valid questions, but such questions should follow after acknowledging an understanding of the point being made to you.  That point is that different words might be used to communicate the same spiritual reality.  Can you find agreement with this last sentence?  (Different words might be used to communicate the same spiritual reality.)  Can you find agreement with the idea that different UNBIBLICAL words might be used to communicate spiritual realities communicated by Biblical words?   Peace be with you. David Miller.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 10:41 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw:Imageless images   ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: June 30, 2005 10:43 Subject:  T. F. Torrance's concept of 'imageless images' is basic to his epistemology, in particular, his concept of the relation of language to being. In his book, Reality and Evangelical Theology (InterVarsity, 1999) for example, he talks about the way in which symbolic thinking leads to dualism (p. 27). That is, we use symbols to construct in our minds 'imges' of reality which we draw out of our experience and observation. He argues that this leads to epistemological dualism. Torrance's own view is that the images we use (words/ symbols) point beyond themselves to realities for which our 'images' are inadequate, but necessary. He often used the illustration in class that the relation between words and that which words represemnt cannot be expressed in words!  Also, the relation between that which a picture seeks to represent if it is a 'picture of something' and the 'thing itself' cannot be expressed by 'drawing another picture' (image). There is a 'zero point' he used to say in such an endeavor where we surrender our minds to the reality of the thing itself that exists beyond the images we use to represent it. Torrance argues that this is exactly what the physicist must do when using images to depict the invisible reality of sub atomic particles. "This involves the disciple of thinking in such a way that, through highly refined symbolic or formal structures, images are made to refer imagelessly to the realities intended." (p. 63}   "That is to say, all our theoretical statements fall short of the reality they indicate and are constantly revisable in the light of it." (p. 66).