Revelation 3:12 (Latin Vulgate)

The resurrected Lord Christ Jesus utters these words to the first-century Christian congregation in Philadelphia (western Asia Minor):

"qui vicerit faciam illum columnam in templo Dei mei et foras non egredietur amplius et scribam super eum nomen Dei mei et nomen civitatis Dei mei novae Hierusalem quae descendit de caelo a Deo meo et nomen meum novum" (Revelation 3:12 Biblia Vulgata)

Freed on Colossians 1:15

 

Chomskyan Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processing (Deep Structure and Surface Structure)

In any conversation or discourse,  there normally is a lingual sender and a receiver. How does the lingual sender convey ideas/messages to the receiver? How does the receiver decode the message initiated by the sender and in turn send reciprocating messages? Chomsky's answer appears to be or have been top-down and bottom-up processing. When producing speech, the sender engages in top-down processing: he or she gradually moves from abstract and regulative meaning (deep structure) to lingual structures like phrases, sentences, morphemes (words, prefixes, and suffixes) and phonemes (minimal units of sound). In essence, the speaker glides from the abstract underlying representation of a sentence to the surface structure when producing speech. Conversely, when decoding the message of the sender, the receiver decodes the phonemes and deciphers the morphemes of the sender (and so forth). Only after decoding the basic sounds and words of a sentence can the receiver unravel sentential meaning. While this process sounds complex, it remarkably happens in a matter of seconds (Morris 236-240). What is responsible for this remarkable procedure? What are the mechanics of this process?

Ever since the nineteenth century, psychologists have been aware of two significant cerebral areas that could potentially explain Chomskyan transformations via top-down and bottom-up processing. These two areas respectively are Broca's and Wernicke's areas. Wernicke's area is located in "the left posterior superior temporal gyrus." and seems to be responsible for understanding speech. Broca's area is located in the left frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex and could be vital for the utilization of language. Some describe the location of Broca's area as "a cortical region in the posterior inferior frontal gyrus" and note that the area "is still considered to be critically involved in speech production." See  https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1414491112?doi=10.1073%2Fpnas.1414491112 and https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/brocas-and-wernickes-areas#:~:text=Broca%27s%20and%20Wernicke%27s%20areas%20are%20cortical%20areas%20specialized%20for%20production,left%20posterior%20superior%20temporal%20gyrus.

Some psycholinguists have likewise posited that entities labeled images, concepts, and prototypes are the building blocks of thought. For instance, seeing a cat generates the image of a cat; nevertheless, the mind does not merely catalog the cat as a single instance or token, but the human intellect conceptually places specific animals or events into ontological categories. Eleanor Rosch states that we construct mental prototypes, which help us to distinguish one animal from another. For example, we know the difference prototypically between a mouse and rat. But although these prototypes evidently originate from our somatic experiences and may be derived by dint of induction, they still remain ever "fuzzy."

The processes hitherto described seem complex, yet George Yule insists that the description given here is a "massively oversimplified version of what may actually take place" (164). Language largely remains mysterious to linguists and there is not a "logical, internally consistent theory that neatly ties up brain, language, and mind" (Restak 230231).

See https://corpling.hypotheses.org/252

Is Greed, Avarice or Covetousness Good?

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people" (Ephesians 5:3 NIV).

Contra Gordon Gekko, greed is not good.

The Reliability of Jehovah God's Spoken Word (Gary V. Smith)-Isaiah 40:8

The Hebrew text does not mention the “glory” (NIV follows the Old Greek translation here)52 of the grass or humanity that will wither and fade. Humanity's “faithfulness, dependability” 53 fades and is like the dependability of a bloom on a flower. The people who oppose God's plans will fall just like the flower petals of a rose when God comes in all his glory. In contrast to man's fading lack of dependability is the sure and totally dependable word of the Lord (40:5,8). One should not trust other people or put any hope in them, for God's promises are man's only solid and a sure source of strength (55:10-11). The contrast is clear; flowers “fall,” but God's word “will stand.” What he promises will happen.

Smith, Gary V. The New American Commentary - Isaiah 40-66: 15B (Kindle Locations 2548-2554). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

[Applies to the written Word too-EF]

Hebrews 6:19

Greek (WH): ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος,

"We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain" (Hebrews 6:19 ESV)

Smyth's Greek Grammar: 2989. Relative ὡς as, how is originally an ablative (in which way) from the relative stem [ιγλιδε]ο-, whence come also ὅς, ἥ, ὅ. For the -ς, see 341. Relative ὡς has various uses as an adverb or a conjunction, all of which represent the primitive meaning.

The occurrence of ἣν tells us that ὡς functions as a relative in Hebrews 6:19.

ἄγκυραν signifies an anchor or hook (Acts 27:29-30, 40).

Do the words ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν modify "anchor" or "hope"?

Christopher W. Cowan answers:

While ἄγκυραν is the closest noun in agreement, commentators have frequently found the image of an anchor entering through the curtain into the heavenly holy place to be problematic.96 As a result, many have argued that either (1) “sure and steadfast” are modifying “anchor,” while the participle, “enters,” reaches back to modify “hope,”97 or (2) all three attributes modify “hope.”98 But such concerns seem unnecessary. Of course anchors do not reach up into the heavens, nor do they enter into the holy place! But the imagery accomplishes what the author intends: to illustrate and reinforce his message of a hope that is firmly secured.99 Moreover, attempts to argue that the attributes modify “hope” but not “anchor” seem hollow since the author identifies the two—hope is “like an anchor.”100

See Cowan, “Confident Of Better Things”: Assurance Of Salvation In The Letter To The Hebrews, page 148 (2012 Ph.D. Diss.).

Compare https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/jesus-entered-within-curtain-how.html

Morphology, Syntax, and the Wonder of Language

Morphemes are minimal units of meaning,  but what a difference they make. The Greek morpheme δελφύς/Δελφός means "womb." However, if one prefixes an alpha to it, the word refers to a brother. Conversely, ἄτομος contains an alpha-privative so that the prefix negates the morpheme to produce the meaning, "uncuttable" or "indivisible," etc. The same phenomenon occurs in Latin with the morpheme utilis. By simply adding in to this adnominal, a "useful" tool becomes a "useless" one. These shifts in morphological signification take place due to the derivational feature of morphology.

On the other hand, syntax refers to word order or the architecture of linguistic signs. Cambridge Dictionary defines syntax as "the grammatical arrangement of words in a sentence." The importance of syntax depends on the extent of lingual inflection that a language possesses, yet this does not mean that syntax goes out the window when languages are less inflected with respect to morphology: syntax is still important whether one speaks English, German, French or Spanish.

For example, English, Greek, Latin and other languages distinguish between grammatical subjects and objects (e.g., "The dog bit the man") but the latter tongues indicate which word is the subject or object by means of morphological inflections. For example, in the Latin sentence canis mordet hominem, one knows which word is subject primarily through recognizing morphemic inflections such that canis is the subject and hominem is the direct object of mordet. Furthermore, Latin and Greek display syntactic patterns that are recurrent (subject--verb-object), so syntax is important even in highly inflected languages.

Language is a fascinating wonder that is unique to human beings: it is "one of the skills that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom" (Pat Kuhl qtd. in Restak 230). The human ability to utter meaningful sentences is another indication that we are made in a wonderful and awe-inspiring way (Psalm 139:14).

Further Reading:

Fasold, Ralph W., and Jeff Connor-Linton, eds. 2006. An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Restak, Richard. The Mind. New York: Bantam, 1988.

https://petaa.edu.au/litportal/litportal/Resources-for-Curriculum/Upper-primary/Spelling/Morphemic-awareness-upper.aspx

Job Was Chaste (Modified Talk)-Job 31

James 3:17 states that divine wisdom (the wisdom from above) is first of all "chaste" or clean. As we consider Job's example of chasteness tonight, our focus will be on moral and spiritual chasteness. Furthermore, we'll focus on chastity when it comes to our personal behavior and entertainment choices. So let's consider how Job remained chaste, then discuss how we can imitate his example.

Job 31:1 (read): Job made a covenant with his eyes. The Insight book gives this definition for "covenant": "An agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing some act; a compact; a contract." We could equally define covenant as a binding or solemn agreement. The point is that covenant-making is serious; it is not something that we should take take lightly.

Job concluded a contract with his eyes; he refused to look improperly at another woman. Job recognized the strong link between seeing and desiring.

How can imitate Job?

[Show picture]

We too can strike a covenant with our eyes by making a firm resolve to avoid looking at others improperly and we can avoid pornography, which is implicitly designed to stir up improper desire via the eyes.

A second way that we can remain chaste is found in Job 31:2-3 (read).

We need to think about the potential consequences of our actions. Notice the powerful question that Job posed in verse 3.

Before violating Jehovah's laws on fornication or his principles on viewing unclean entertainment, we could ask ourselves, what are the potential consequences of committing porneia? Some of the bad results could be sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, ruined relationships, a guilty conscience and a damaged relationship with Jehovah. Like Job, we need to think seriously about the potential consequences of our actions. Are a few minutes of pleasure worth losing our eternal inheritance?

To further assist us, Job mentions a final safeguard in Job 31:4 (read).

The eyes of Jehovah are everywhere (Proverbs 15:3). If we keep this attitude, it can be a protection for us. Whether at school, at work or alone at home, may we always remember that Jehovah considers our steps and he can read our hearts. 

Job's example teaches us how to remain chaste. An essential part of keeping clean is making a firm resolve to avoid impropriety with our eyes. In line with Job, Jesus later warned that anyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have passion for her in his heart has already committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:28). This scripture reveals that chastity is not just a matter of the mind, but it's a heart matter as well. By imitating Job, we'll be happier and experience the joy of pleasing Jehovah our God. 

Words of the Month (June 2024)

1. Kakistocracy (noun)- "government by the worst citizens." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kakistocracy

The word has a Greek etymology.

2. Apodeictic-"unquestionably true by virtue of demonstration"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apodeictic

The adjective has Latin and Greek roots.

3. "Pusillanimity" which means "Want of that firmness and strength of mind which constitutes courage or fortitude; weakness of spirit; cowardliness; that feebleness of mind which shrinks from trifling or imaginary dangers" (Webster's 1928 English Dictionary. From the Latin abstract noun "pusillanimitas.")

4. Egoism-"Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/egoism