(THIS IS A CUT AND PASTE, BUT WORTH THE READ)

Whether it is verbal communication or written, how you structure your words can play an integral role. It is very important to emphasize the correct words if you do not want there to be any miscommunication. On which word the emphasis is placed can
completely change the meaning of what we are communicating. In any language, even the most simplest of sentences can have many levels of meaning based on the word you stress. We will illustrate this phenomenon using an example.

Consider the following sentence someone may have said upon having money stolen:

“I never said she stole my money”

Simply read, the sentence can be taken to mean that the person never said that their money had been stolen by the girl/woman. However, this sentence can have seven different meanings, depending on which word we put an emphasis on. We will explain each of them separately. “I never said she stole my money” When the emphasis is placed on “I”, the person means to say that THEY never said that she stole their money. Rather, someone else had said it and this person implicitly agreed with them. “I never said she stole my money” If emphasis is placed on “never”, the person may be trying to imply that the entire idea of someone stealing money is downright outrageous. In other words, they are denying ever blaming the girl/woman for stealing the money. “I never said she stole my money” When the emphasis is being placed on “said” the person may be implying that she stole their money but never said it out in these words. In other words, there is no way to prove that the person blamed her for stealing the money. “I never said she stole my money” If the person places emphasis on “she”,they are stating that they never implied that the girl/woman stole their money. Rather, they are trying to explain that someone did steal their money but not necessarily her. “I never said she stole my money” When the person emphasizes the word “stole”, they mean to say that they never considered their money STOLEN by the
girl/woman. Rather, the money had been missing and it was her who had it but it could have been borrowed. “I never said she stole my money” When emphasis is placed on the word “my”, the person considered the money stolen but not their own money. So when they said these words, they were trying to saying that they never said their own money was stolen, rather they were referring to someone else’s stolen money. “I never said she stole my money” If the individual is placing emphasis on “money”, they are trying to say that it was not money that was stolen. In other
words, they did not say that the girl/woman stole their MONEY, rather something else. The person may be trying to say that she stole stuff which cost them money to replace.

As we can see, there are many different ways in which this sentence can be understood. A simple act of shifting the emphasis can completely alter the meaning implied by the speaker or the writer. The important point to remember is that the true meaning of the sentence is also expressed through the stressed word or words. It does not just end at the emphasized words. In more complex sentences which employ punctuations, the placement of a comma or colons can also change the meaning of the sentence significantly. We can
illustrate this using a classic example:

• A woman without her man is nothing.
• A woman: without her, man is nothing.

The first sentence implies that a woman is completely dependent on a man i.e. she would be nothing without him. By just adding the colon and comma in the second sentence, we have changed the meaning of the sentence into something opposite. It now implies that it is the man who
is dependent on a woman, without whom he would be nothing. Using another example, we can show that even something as small as a hyphen can completely change the meaning of a sentence.

• You will be required to work twenty four-hour shifts.
• You will be required to work twenty-four hour shifts.

In conclusion, it is pretty evident that the words you stress and the placement of punctuations can fully modify the underlying meaning of a sentence. This is why we have to be very careful in making sure our words are not misinterpreted. This is especially important when it comes
to written communication where the tone cannot be judged easily. You never know when a small comma or an incorrectly emphasized word can end up causing a huge amount of misunderstanding

A large portion of the Christian world believes in the theory of “Bible Alone” or Sola Scriptura. The idea in the most basic of terms is that the Bible is sort of a “How To” manual and that all that one needs to do is read the Bible (under the influence of the Holy Spirit) and that one
will come to know truth. In my book, the 500 year experiment has failed. The most glaring evidence for this is that there are thousands of Protestant denominations, many at odds with opposing positions on key tenants of the faith, but all claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit and
containing all truth.

There are many reasons for this but here is one given by a priest recently. Interpret this sentence: “I never said you stole money.” What did this sentence mean to you?

Read this sentence again out loud in with the following emphasis added:

I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.

Each reading completely changes the meaning of the text. What did the author have in mind when he wrote it? Well, it is helpful to have an authority that states “this is what he meant.” This is like the “international prototype of the kilogram; a cylindrical chunk of platinum-iradium kept in a safe at Sevres in France” reported today in the Plain Dealer. This chunk of metal is designed to always bring us back to the exact measurement of what a kilogram is should we go astray.

Tradition is our prototype of interpretation of Sacred Scripture. What was true today was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow. Truth cannot be determined by popular vote or current trends in our culture. The Holy Spirit cannot say one thing one day, (birth control is a sin) and
something else the next (abortion is a right.)

Today the Catholic Church stands virtually alone in the teaching that was taught by St. Peter, by St. Sebastian, by St. Francis, by the Church Fathers, by Saint Scholastica, by Pope John Paul II, by (hopefully) your parish priest, and will be taught by your children. Tradition stands as a great gift
and not a burden. It keeps us on track.

Good to see you back, this board has been dead recently.

As I read that sentence I was listening to a podcast that was quoting Genesis.  " He knew his wife". That's also a sentence that can be used as an example.


Anyways, since this topic ,Sola Scriptura, has been beaten to death many times over, can I shift the object of the paragraph?  I am understanding, from previous threads, that the RCC has the sole authority to infallibly interpret scripture.  Namely the Pope.  ( correct me at anytime, I am not Catholic and do not wish to misrepresent the beliefs of the RCC) How many verses have been infallibly interpreted?  Is there a list of them?  I ask not to start a fight, but because if we disagree on a verse, and you say I am wrong, is your proof because the Pope infalliably said so? Or if not, because the RCC said so?

Also, getting back to the article, we need to differentiate between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.  See, I, being Presbyterian, have a church heichary, believe and recite the creeds, and use a liturgy.  Traditions.  And believe that they are very important.  We have a structure of discipline.  

Solo on the other hand rejects all of these traditions and says that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority. This is what most of the non denominational churches lots of evangelical churches today follow.  Sola would say that scripture and tradition are both sources of authority, but if they contradict, the scripture has the final say.

Thanks for an interesting article.

The Pope pretty much has little or no direct part in interpretation of scripture. The teaching authority of the Church as carried through the centuries is the source of our understanding of scripture.

I have NEVER heard anyone professing to the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' say that tradition is a source of any authority. It's a rather blatant, unreconcilable contradiction to says 'sola' (alone, only) means 'not alone.'

Sole infalliable Authority. We obviously must have other authority's or we could have no discipline.  The Creeds could be considered an authority.  They state what is stated in Scripture. However, if one was found to contradict Scripture it loses that authority.  Probably not the best explanation....I may be misusing the word authority in this context.

I guess that makes a little more sense.

Which creed's do you profess at your church.

Obviously we use the Nicene creed.

Benny Hill-ism:

Song titled: What Is This Thing Called Love?

Benny:  What Is THIS Thing Called, Love?

Nicene and Apostles

Interesting. I think I mentioned it before. In a classroom at First Bible Church in my town, they had the apostles creed on a poster on the wall. There was a piece of masking tape over the word 'catholic.' I got a chuckle out of that one.

Twire = Teacher.

Not really. I thought myself to be a marvelous guitarist at one time, though.

Seriously, I happened upon two variations of this 'I never said..' sentence this past weekend and in conjunction with some recent posts involving the differences between Christian belief, I thought that the subjects dovetailed nicely. In short, Christianity is not 'one body' as instructed in scripture, and at least a healthy portion of this division is due to the exercise of a sense of entitled free license in the reading of scripture. Make no mistake, scripture can and does speak to us individually, but in a more corporate (corpus=body) sense, if personal interpretation leads us significantly askew from the meaning espoused and practiced by the Church through the centuries, a strong re-examination should be in order.

Twire= ROCKING GUITARIST... I mean, I could list ALL of your talents but Goatboy would kick me off the site for using all the sites resources. 

You've made an excellent point about the importance of interpretation with regards to scripture and seemingly minor grammatical intricacies. It's always enlightening.

Is there a scriptural basis for one unified church on this side of things? Jesus spoke of bringing division. He chastised the apostles for being upset with someone outside their group casting out demons as, though he was not one of their group, he was still doing the work of God and doing so through the belief in Jesus