Is Language Infallible?

What I mean to say is, does language save us? Does it unite us? St. Thomas Aquinas grapples with the problem of how to reconcile the indeterminacy of figurative language with belief in the ability of language to guarantee stable reference and access to truth and reality. When there is an obscure passage in the Bible, we must believe that deep down, under heavy exegesis, the truth exists, waiting for us to discover it. I could wonder if maybe some of the figurative language in the Bible is meant to be illusive and enigmatic for readers until they die and go to Heaven and can ask God, What did you mean by this? Or maybe God likes all the diverging and varied interpretations of His word, allowing for healthy debate and discussion about His guide to life...but I dont know if I believe this. I believe in multiple truths, but I also believe there is one ultimate Truth and that brings us to God and His love. So, the Bible then, and what it has to say, is one Truth because the Bible is the Word and the Word is God. So then I question along side Aquinas when he asks in his essay, How can language function as vehicle of knowledge if it cannot be understood? Wow, thats a tough question!

I know that Aquinas was a devout follower of Jesus, but I wonder what his true thoughts of the Bible were. I mean, I wonder if he got frustrated often with the problem of multiple interpretations. If he walked into my local Christian bookstore and saw all the different Bible translations, what would he think? Similarly, what would he say to the now tens of thousands of denominations that all fall under the religion of Christianity? He followed in Plato's disgust for poetry, based on the absurdity of the multiple meanings one poem could have, so did he approach the Bible in the same way?

I think it is interesting that I scoffed at the Romantics idea of the one, true Poet who would be the bearer of Truth (with a capital T) and Beauty (with a capital B) and he alone would impart meaning to the masses and they would unquestioningly believe what he had to say. Isnt that like my acceptance of the Bible, and even more particular, my eager willingness to choose an NIV translation above all others. I have made an authority for myself and submitted to it unquestioningly, but I wonder on what grounds? Maybe I think I understand parts of the NIV Bible, but then someone else comes along and tells me Im wrong and they understand it differently. Who is write? See, when Aquinas asked how a language could function as vehicle of knowledge if it couldnt be understood, I wonder if he meant that the language had to be understood universally, that is, everyone understood in the same way because I dont think that ever happens. And what of the meaning of "understand"? To what degree does one have to understand a text? Can we take into consideration our own assumptions and preconceptions of our realities when we are reading and interpreting to find the Truth? Does this Truth consist of multiple experiences, in multiple readers because, after all, we all bring something different to the text when we read it.

I just think that language is so broad, so open to interpretation by its very nature. I like to think of Roland Barthes essay "The Death of the Author" and how he wrote that the authority an author has over his words is lost as soon as they leave his mouth or are written on the page. Language enters this immense space, when it leaves our mouths, where anyone can grab at it and fit it into their own minds for interpretation. We are not alone in the world, though existential philosophy will say we are. Someone will always understand the language that comes out of our mouths and take some degree of knowledge from it. This is what we do with the Bible and its figurative passages; we take what we can from it, thinking that we are gaining knowledge for our spiritual lives. But is there more? Are we right in our interpretation? How would we ever know?