From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 04:30:03 -0400, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by jillery <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.   
   >   
   In my initial response I intentionally snipped everything   
   except his statement in order to make it clear that I was   
   responding to *only* that statement. What you say is correct   
   by some incorrect usages of "literal", but it's not what I   
   was referring to.   
   >   
   >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.   
   >   
   If the literal meaning of "literal" is irrelevant, the   
   phrase has no meaning and the accepted definition of the   
   word itself might as well be "a word means whatever I want   
   it to mean, no more, no less" a la Humpty Dumpty. It's   
   always been my understanding that agreement regarding   
   meaning is important for communication, but perhaps I was   
   mistaken.   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)