The Limits of Language in Describing the Divine
Any verbal or figurative designation of God turns out to be approximate precisely because human modes of expression—language and images—are confined by finite, defined concepts and forms. A person is capable of naming God, attributing names to Him much as he names himself, that is, by projecting his own nature onto the divine. Thus, any naming of God carries an anthropomorphic character, reflecting only a part of His true essence, which remains transcendent, ineffable, and unnameable. This emphasizes that literal methods of describing the divine cannot encompass the infinity and boundlessness of God, as language can convey only that which is limited by the confines of form, measure, and the definitions of human experience.Supporting citation(s):"Every naming of God, obtained as a result of the revelation of the divine about Himself, natural or deliberate, is anthropomorphic in the sense that man, in himself or through himself, as the macrocosm or microcosm, apprehends the divine essence. And therefore such designations always carry a human meaning and significance, being a projection of the human onto the divine or, conversely, of the divine onto the human." (source: link txt)"According to Clement, the inability of human language to express the divine essence is linked to infinity, and consequently, to the indeterminacy of God. In language, one can only express something definite that possesses boundaries, measure, and form. But God is boundless, immeasurable, and not confined to any specific form; therefore, He remains unnamed." (source: link txt)