On 10/03/2025 6:27 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:14:27 +1100, MarkE <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/03/2025 8:59 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:48:41 +1100, MarkE <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
You're finally getting it! To creatures like us, special creation by God >>>>> looks like magic, yes. God conceives in his mind and speaks into existence.
""Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and
orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about
the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years
and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so
forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and >>>> experience.
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a >>>> Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking
nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such >>>> an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a >>>> Christian and laugh it to scorn."
St Augustine
Augustine is referring to the _what_, not the _how_, right?
He is referring to exactly what you are doing.
Once again we disagree.
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appearedNo comment? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
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.
On 15/03/2025 4:49 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appearedNo comment? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
You've misunderstood. The context was Martin inferring I was a
literalist because I quoted Genesis.
On 15/03/2025 4:49 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appearedNo comment? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
You've misunderstood. The context was Martin inferring I was a
literalist because I quoted Genesis.
On 14/03/2025 16:19, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
Biblical literalists claim not to interpret the Bible; they deceive >themselves. Even flat-earth creationists don't adopt Babylonian cosmology.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:42:19 +1100, the following appearedI'm a bit of two minds about this. The usual complaint about the misuse
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
Never mind; I see you corrected your error in a later post.
Thanks for doing so.
On 15/03/2025 4:49 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:In this particular case, context is irrelevant; you made a
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appearedNo comment? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
You've misunderstood. The context was Martin inferring I was a
literalist because I quoted Genesis.
declarative statement regarding the measure of literalism.
That statement was incorrect; literalism allows NO
interpretation. Stop trying to wiggle out; your were wrong.
Admit it and move on.
On 2025-03-15 11:36 a.m., Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:42:19 +1100, the following appearedI'm a bit of two minds about this. The usual complaint about the misuse
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
Never mind; I see you corrected your error in a later post.
Thanks for doing so.
On 15/03/2025 4:49 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:In this particular case, context is irrelevant; you made a
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appearedNo comment? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>>>> Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
You've misunderstood. The context was Martin inferring I was a
literalist because I quoted Genesis.
declarative statement regarding the measure of literalism.
That statement was incorrect; literalism allows NO
interpretation. Stop trying to wiggle out; your were wrong.
Admit it and move on.
of "literal(ly)" is associated with a counter-factual. ie "I literally
died when he said that." Clearly NOT literal. In other cases there is
clear room for interpretation. Language is not unambiguous. Take the >statement "God exists". What is the literal meaning? It is not clearly >counter-factual (even though I believe it is not true for many/most >interpretations of 'God') It surely depends on how both 'God" and
"exists" are defined and so interpretation is required.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
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.
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.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
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.
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.
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.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:04:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don't disagree; arguing about the "real" meaning of any
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
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.
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
That's right. Everybody knows the Bible was originally written in >>>>>>>English.
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.
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.
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.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:56:35 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:08:32 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<[email protected]>:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Your prerogative.
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:04:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:I don't disagree; arguing about the "real" meaning of any
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>wrote:...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the >>>>>>>>meaning of "literal", or his error (an error he has
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
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.
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>>>>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
That's right. Everybody knows the Bible was originally written in >>>>>>>>>English.
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.
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.
religious text is a fool's game, as nonproductive as
conjectures about angels dancing on pinpoints.
I disagree.
I don't know how long it will be until the idea that
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.
religious belief can be addressed by the methods of science,
or that science can be addressed by the tenets of religion,
can be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas, but it can't
come any too soon.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that science can be used to
directly uphold religion or vice versa but I do think both can be used >collaboratively to give us a bigger picture. That's where I think >organisations like Biologos, the Templeton Foundation and the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences make important contributions.
--
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.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
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.
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.
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.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 09:21:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:22:39 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<[email protected]>:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:56:35 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I suppose that's theoretically possible, but all such
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:08:32 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<[email protected]>:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Your prerogative.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:04:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:I don't disagree; arguing about the "real" meaning of any
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>wrote:I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the >>>>>>>>>>meaning of "literal", or his error (an error he has >>>>>>>>>>admitted).
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>>>
<snip>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
That's right. Everybody knows the Bible was originally written in >>>>>>>>>>>English.
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.
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.
religious text is a fool's game, as nonproductive as
conjectures about angels dancing on pinpoints.
I disagree.
I don't know how long it will be until the idea that
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.
religious belief can be addressed by the methods of science,
or that science can be addressed by the tenets of religion,
can be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas, but it can't
come any too soon.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that science can be used to
directly uphold religion or vice versa but I do think both can be used >>>collaboratively to give us a bigger picture. That's where I think >>>organisations like Biologos, the Templeton Foundation and the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences make important contributions.
"collaborations" of which I'm aware tend to devolve into >>cross-justification, usually by ignoring those pesky
contradictions.
I don't see that in the three organisations I mentioned but that is
possibly due to me being more familiar than you with their work and
ideas, especially the religious slant to it. The important factor is
that they start by accepting science and seek ways to fit their
religious views around that science. Despite Ron's vehement but >unsubstantiated claims, they do not try to adapt science to fit around >religious beliefs.
--And until people become perfect and
perfectly rational I don't see that changing. They're
philosophically distinct (and frequently contradictory)
things; best to keep them that way, at least for now.
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.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:28:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:26:45 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<[email protected]>:
I suspect a lot of that may be based on what you see here on TO but
bear in mind that TO attracts more than a normal share of kooks;
that's what it was actually set up to do :)
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:04:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don't disagree; arguing about the "real" meaning of any
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
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.
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of >>>>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.
That's right. Everybody knows the Bible was originally written in >>>>>>>English.
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.
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.
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.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:38:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
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".
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 16:28:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:43:54 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:38:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course. But if literally (sorry...) *any* meaning applies
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.
and is equally valid, all meaning is lost. I tend to go with
the current dictionary definition as "correct", while
acknowledging that it changes over time, and that others may
use the word differently (the example I noted were
"literally Hitler" and "I literally died", both of which are
false usage according to the OED definition). I simply don't
accept a definition by which "literal" and "figurative" are
synonymous.
I didn't "conveniently ignore" it; it simply had no bearing
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".
on the point I was trying to convey.
And "as usual" was uncalled for, since I don't ignore points
which are relevant to my comments.
The point you intended to convey, which you repeated, is that MarkE
used "literally" with a different and therefore incorrect meaning than
you use. The point I conveyed, which you again conveniently ignore,
as usual, is that "literally" doesn't sensibly apply to any
interpretations of Genesis texts, regardless of the meaning being
used. That point literally bears directly on the point you say you
were trying to convey.
Your Humpty Dumpty reference is no more relevant to my point than is
the meaning of "literal" and "orange" to Genesis texts, a point which
you also conveniently ignore, as usual. Apparently your only interest
in this topic is to repeat ad nauseam that my point isn't relevant to
your point.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
On 3/14/25 9:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
Note that interpretation and literalism are not mutually exclusive. For >example, if I say, "The cat chased the dog" and you think, "It must have
been a pretty mean cat," that's interpretation, even though you still
read it literally.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:37:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:12:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak >><[email protected]>:
On 3/14/25 9:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:So if I interpret "chased" to mean "played poker with", and
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
Note that interpretation and literalism are not mutually exclusive. For >>>example, if I say, "The cat chased the dog" and you think, "It must have >>>been a pretty mean cat," that's interpretation, even though you still >>>read it literally.
you interpret it to mean "had sex with", "chased" is
literally true for both? Seems like a not very good way to
ensure accurate communication, but whatever floats your
boat...
Not sure why I bother, but try this:
You are correct, that it's important to agree on definitions.
You are not correct, that the definitions you prefer are necessarily
the correct ones for a given context.
For most adults, this isn't hard to understand.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:12:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<[email protected]>:
On 3/14/25 9:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:So if I interpret "chased" to mean "played poker with", and
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
Note that interpretation and literalism are not mutually exclusive. For
example, if I say, "The cat chased the dog" and you think, "It must have
been a pretty mean cat," that's interpretation, even though you still
read it literally.
you interpret it to mean "had sex with", "chased" is
literally true for both? Seems like a not very good way to
ensure accurate communication, but whatever floats your
boat...
On 3/24/25 2:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:12:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<[email protected]>:
On 3/14/25 9:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:So if I interpret "chased" to mean "played poker with", and
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <[email protected]>:
<snip>
Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
Genesis, not the quoting of it.
that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
Note that interpretation and literalism are not mutually exclusive. For
example, if I say, "The cat chased the dog" and you think, "It must have >>> been a pretty mean cat," that's interpretation, even though you still
read it literally.
you interpret it to mean "had sex with", "chased" is
literally true for both? Seems like a not very good way to
ensure accurate communication, but whatever floats your
boat...
Or it could mean "The cat-o-nine-tails followed the gripping device as
both rolled on the pitching deck" (speaking of boats). So context is important too. But without interpretation, you don't have *any* meaning,
only a series of squiggly line designs.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:13:44 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,294 |