Featured Two Approaches: Linguistics and Exegesis

You make some good points here.

I agree. Now if you'll notice, I used the term "modern linguistics." Back before the 20th century, the term "philology" was used for what we call linguistics. And many of those old guys were pretty sharp in the ancient languages. Translators like Jerome, William Carey, Adoniram Judson (Burma), and Nathan Brown (Japan) were absolute geniuses at language. Ulphilas back in his day (4th cent.) no doubt had his own version of what we call phonology and morphology.

In the early 20th century, linguists such as Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield (my parents were taught from his 1933 text, Language), etc. They got a lot right, but some things wrong: etymology for meaning, the bogus Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, etc. But linguistics as a scientific discipline was launched, and that is what scholars call "modern linguistics."

Again, I agree. I think that code theory is one of those theories. Sounds real cool, but it doesn't hold up. There is much more to communicating than simply coding and decoding.