But not all knowledge can be transmitted orally. And even not technically true. A Bach fugue can be written down but not transmitted solely by reading. The same is true of many things. Words are abstractions of things themselves, an effective means of communication, but not as effective as personal communication and instruction.
I'm inclined to believe that God arranged it so that His message and word could be fairly translated into any language that would exist or begin across time.
And I'm inclined to believe that's why He established His church - to transmit that which can be spoken and that which cannot.
But not all knowledge can be transmitted orally. And even not technically true. A Bach fugue can be written down but not transmitted solely by reading.
Now this I can agree with. And, I was not arguing against it. I would agree that some faith experiences are real and non-verbal (don't correspond to language). However, (and I know you weren't arguing this) I do not think that these can be a basis for faith in the normal case.
Words are abstractions of things themselves, an effective means of communication, but not as effective as personal communication and instruction.
I'm smiling because we Reformers are slammed all the time because we claim that the Holy Spirit personally communicates with us and instructs us on interpretation. It is never as in a secret message that comes across in written form. It is a non-verbal leading TOWARD something in written form. So, in this light I would say you are right on the money. :)