From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:04:13 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>>>wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >>>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means   
   >>>>>>>that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation   
   >>>>>>>allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>That's right.  Everybody knows the Bible was originally written in   
   >>>>>>English.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the   
   >>>>>meaning of "literal", or his error (an error he has   
   >>>>>admitted).   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Check your jerky knees.  My comment is an *affirmation* of your point   
   >>>>to his error.  That means it has everything to do with your point,   
   >>>>contrary to your point to me.   
   >>>>   
   >>>I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>The literal point is that it's silly to argue about THE literal   
   >>meaning of THE Bible when THE Bible being referenced is an   
   >>interpretation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation.   
   >>Children who play telephone know this.  Even if there was a literal   
   >>omni-everything God who literally quoted Its pearls of wisdom   
   >>literally directly to some mortal, finite humans in their limited   
   >>native languages, there is literally zero chance they would have   
   >>literally understood what It literally meant.   
   >>   
   >I don't disagree; arguing about the "real" meaning of any   
   >religious text is a fool's game, as nonproductive as   
   >conjectures about angels dancing on pinpoints.   
      
   I disagree. Science is a particularly useful way of finding out stuff   
   that we can verify through testing and experimentation but there are   
   many things that are simply not open to scientific investigation and   
   it is an inherent part of human nature to try to figure out how those   
   things work, how those things have happened.   
      
   That is where approaches like theology and philosophy come into play;   
   whilst they are very limited in verification techniques in comparison   
   to science, reasoning and debating can give us better understanding of   
   areas not open to science - not perfect understanding but still   
   better. For example, it is theology and reasoning, not science, that   
   has pushed the Western world to try to move away from warfare as a   
   means of settling disagreements   
      
   The problem comes when someone tries to hold onto a theological or   
   philosophical idea when science throws up contradictory but clear-cut   
   evidence. That is the problem with Bible literalism, there is so much   
   contradictory evidence against a 7-day creation or God creating man   
   directly by breathing into dust that it is outright foolishness for   
   someone to try to hold out against that evidence which damages   
   religious belief in the way St. Augustine warned about.   
      
      
      
   >But *my*   
   >point was that I didn't comment about the content, only   
   >about the meaning of "literal" (or, of course, "literally"),   
   >and MarkE's assertion that "The measure of literalism is in   
   >the *interpretation* of the text of  Genesis, not the   
   >quoting of it.". I thought I made that clear with my further   
   >comments made in reply to him and others. IOW, he misused   
   >"literal", which is defined (OED online) as (paraphrased)   
   >"exact or actual meaning, not allegorical or figurative".   
   >"Exact or actual meanings" do not allow of interpretation,   
   >regardless of how the word may be misused ("literally   
   >Hitler"; "I literally died"). At least that's how I see it,   
   >and the OED seems to agree.   
   >>   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)