To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to know the exact meaning of the words we hear, read and use. Studies show that there is a direct relationship between our vocabulary and our reading speed. Words are essentially linguistically encoded sounds that represent the ideas we use to communicate thoughts both intra-mind and inter-mind. It is impossible to think in any meaningful way without using words.
Knowing the exact definition of the words we use it is not only vital for good communication, it is a good measure of one’s brain power. Since words are linguistically encoded ideas, the more words we know, the more ideas we have in our brain pan to use as building blocks for thought. Intelligence is defined as the ability to think, reason, plan, and comprehend. Thus, the more exact definitions we possess, the better we can process and analyze. To that end, studies confirm that we actually increase our intelligence when we increase our vocabulary.
This is why reading is considered absolutely vital for those who seek more brain power and deeper understandings. It is far easier to think important thoughts when we don’t have to reinvent the “thought wheel.” Knowing the exact definition of more words allows us to make important connections between ideas instead of having to think the ideas in the first place. The simplest way to acquire new linguistically encoded thoughts is to read those of others.
Importantly, to learn from what we read, we must already know the definitions of the words we’re reading. Otherwise, it’s like me reading Chinese. If we don’t know or misunderstand a word’s exact meaning, we either miss or misconstrue the point they are intended to encapsulate. For this reason, learning the exact definition of words is key to better understanding.
When, as receivers, we do not acquire the understandings imbued in words, either because we don’t know the word’s meaning or the sender misuses his words, a communication breakdown results. Sometimes, serious contentious arguments arise that could have been avoided if the parties exchanging ideas understood the linguistic encodings being exchanged.
This problem is compounded when going from one language to another. When translating an idea encoded in one linguistic format into another, both languages must have the idea in common. The problem is complicated by the fact that every language has common words that aren’t directly translatable. Ideas exist in one language that don’t exist in others because they have no linguistically encoded analog to convey them. And how can one discuss an idea for which there are no words?
Other related difficulties exist in the effort to translate words, thoughts and ideas from one language to another to gain an exact understanding of the word:
1) When a word in two languages sounds the same but has a completely different meaning in each language confusion is likely. Numerous examples of this are found in the King James Bible between its Old English and Modern English. Passages in the KJV, which uses words from over 400 years ago, do not always say what they appear to say. And that problem doesn’t even take into consideration the problem of going from Greek, which is an explicit language, to English which is not. A great number of new translations have been spawned to correct this difficulty over the last few centuries. But the problem remains.
2) When one language uses an all-encompassing, generalized word with many definitions, e.g., love (in English the concept has 15 different definitions), while in another language (Greek) love has a different word for each separate definition. As a result, languages that create more words to facilitate understanding are far more precise as to the definitional meaning intended. Ergo, theologians learn Greek.
3) Words can have meanings that are far removed from their formal definition, e.g., If I say, “She is cool, but she is hot!” or “She is hot, but she is cold!” a Chinese person learning English might think this is crazy talk. Thus, using jargon to convey a precise understanding doesn’t always eliminate the problems of misinterpretation. The definition I imply may not be the linguistically encoded idea you infer.
Real-life examples of misunderstandings caused by differing definitions both within languages and between languages are found in the New Testament (NT). The word sin in English and the same concept in Greek is a prime example. Because the NT was written in Greek, the original text is far more explicit and far more revealing as to exactly what was intended to be conveyed, than when reading the same passage in English.
In the original Greek, the NT uses 33 different words from ten different roots for the single English word sin. Each different use changes the meaning of the passage. The most common word for sin in the original is Hamartia, which is an archery term that means: to err and/or miss the miss the mark. Importantly, Hamartia, which is used pervasively in the NT, does not reference evil.
Yet the word is used so pervasively, the theological term for the study of sin is hamartiology. The Apostle Paul used its verb form, hamartano, when he wrote, “For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). When the meaning behind sin is viewed in this context, does it change your understanding of the passage?
Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of this type (meanings skewered in translation) in the OT is the word for kill in the passage “Thou shall not kill.” The word used in the Hebrew text is ratzach (sounds like ra-shaw) and it means murder. In OT times, Jewish Law had at least 12 different legitimate reasons for killing people. The chief of which was capital punishment for the crime of murder and was to be carried out by either stoning, decapitation, burning or strangulation.
The following are the Old Testament reasons for killing:
1) Self-defense;
2) An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth response;
3) A Jew who attempts to turn another Jew into a non-Jew;
4) Idolatry;
5) Adultery;
6) Sex with animals;
7) Raping a betrothed virgin;
8) Witchcraft, i.e., cavorting with evil spirits;
9) Kidnapping; 10) premeditated Murder;
11) A woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night;
12) Giving false testimony in a trial where the punishment is death;
13) And of course, children who dishonor their parents (seriously).
Needless to say, if Americans were living under Old Testament law (or even Sharia Law today such as with their honor killings), we would be put to death in astounding numbers by the very book that said in English: Thou shall not kill. The larger point is that the Hebrew understanding of this verse is radically different than how it is understood in English. The OT Jews found killing necessary and killed a lot of people in the process (killing Goliath is still celebrated). In point of fact, Jewish law had the death penalty attached to far more crimes than do we in America. ;
Were they right? Who is to say? Scholars have studied this question for centuries. Was Jewish Law largely a cultural necessity? Or was all the killing required by Jewish Law exactly what it was purported to be, edicts from Jehovah. Clearly, God takes a very different approach to killing in the NT than the one attributed to him in the OT. Interestingly, this same word translation discrepancy exists in the first chapter of Genesis. The Jewish version of the OT does not use words whose definition reference 24-hour days. But that discussion is best left for another time.
The bottom line on this discussion is that when we do not take the time to learn the exact definition of the words we use, we will inevitably send/receive wrong messages. What’s worse is that we will harbor wrong ideas as a result - when we think we’re right. In the final analysis, I have learned from long experience that it is best to keep our words soft and sweet just in case we used the wrong ones and find that we must finally eat them.