From: 69jpil69@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. 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.   
      
      
   Your point, as you say above, is the literal meaning of "literal". The   
   specific reference here is to texts from Genesis, which are alleged to   
   be The Literal Word of God.  Therefore, whether any *interpretation*   
   of those texts is literal depends entirely on the literal meaning It   
   actually meant when It allegedly transmitted those words to Moses, or   
   whatever other human that claims Revealed Truth.   
      
   As I pointed out previously, those words are not present in English   
   translations, or translations in any modern languages. There are   
   Bibles which cross-reference some Hebrew words, but that still doesn't   
   address the larger problems I previously identified:   
      
   1. whether those Hebrew words are the literal Hebrew words God used.    
   2. whether those Hebrew words correctly convey the meanings God   
   literally meant.   
      
   Even a simple phrase like "the image of God" can have multiple literal   
   interpretations.  For example, does that mean humans follow the   
   physical laws God established?  Or does it mean God has a bellybutton?   
      
   Given the above, I stand by my original point: It's silly to argue   
   which Biblical translations are "literal", as all alleged Biblical   
   translations are necessarily interpretations; the literal meaning of   
   "literal" notwithstanding, which moots your criticism of my post.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)