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. 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