From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:38:00 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
      
   As this very topic shows, different people use "literal" to mean very   
   different things, which is the case with almost all words.  That other   
   people accept and use different meanings than you do doesn't make   
   their meanings incorrect or inconsistent, or your meaning the only   
   correct one.  I know you know this.   
      
   More to the point, that isn't even my point, which you continue to   
   conveniently ignore, as usual.  WRT the original context, and once   
   again, my point remains: the meaning of "literal", whatever it may be,   
   doesn't sensibly apply to any interpretations of Genesis texts, any   
   more than does the meaning of "orange".   
      
   --    
   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)