From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   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. 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.   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)