Re: Observe the trend

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
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 <nospam@buzz.off>
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 <nospam@buzz.off>
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 <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>
<snip>

>
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.

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.

>