Dr. John Harshman's embarrassing "literalism" claims
Ray Martinez
doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
damage) that our Atheist suffers from; or the degree to which he
engages in deliberate corruption of his enemy----the Bible.
Ray Martinez
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/575fd79a22804ab5
John Harshman:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a9c2ec1087208a95
Ray Martinez:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/179b4c122844d239
John Harshman:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d524b786a4860b57
Ray Martinez:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/188bb84c6abd211c
John Harshman:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f3bd2902efa983ef
Ray Martinez:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ef336ce5eab8c583
Ray Martinez:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c612f91d5d6eeb3
Ray Martinez:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0177992acc2542ce
John Harshman quits, comments equate to the inability to refute the
last three messages:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0228a0bf9f24b99f
Ray Martinez (short victory speech):
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bd13678de9c98c9
Ray
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<fe17a6d4-3cfd-43f4...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
Yes, all these are important. They show that someone should be embarrassed...
and it ain't Harshman.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Tim DeLaney
Ray, you suffer from the delusion that you are somehow the sole
arbiter of who bested whom in the debate you refer to. In point of
fact, John Harshman made you look foolish, and you apparently don't
comprehend that. For you to claim victory is fatuous.
Tim
Ye Old One
Your dishonesty and stupidity are showing again.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
In summary: according to the understanding of "literalism," as
advocated by John Harshman, when an author writes that one's brain is
in a fog or foggy; or the mind has cobwebs, he literally means that
the brain is enveloped in low clouds and thick strings of dust
contaminate the mind.
No one can be this stupid. What is obvious is that Harshman's view of
literalism is restricted to the Bible (= deliberate corruption). This
is why Harshman quit our debate. He has been caught red-handed
attempting to corrupt the Bible. What is also quite obvious is that
Harshman never gave his literalism views any thought. My rebuttals are
anything but unique. This fact favors Harshman to be really stupid or
he has made some very bad errors, unable to admit.
Harshman says that Genesis says that God did not know where Adam was
hiding. This "view" of literalism surely makes someone very stupid,
either Moses or Harshman. I have equated this "view" of literalism as
follows:
Jesus: "Our Father who art in heaven...."
Harshman: Jesus is admitting that He does not know who is in heaven.
No wonder Harshman quit the debate. He isn't that stupid. John is, of
course, an Atheist.
Ray (Creatorist)
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
One of three messages that have appeared in the first five, written by
howlers, attempting to comfort and prop John Harshman up.
Ray
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> In summary: according to the understanding of "literalism," as
> advocated by John Harshman, when an author writes that one's brain is
> in a fog or foggy; or the mind has cobwebs, he literally means that
> the brain is enveloped in low clouds and thick strings of dust
> contaminate the mind.
When literalists (as they sometimes do) talk and write about the Flood
being a global flood, killing all humans apart from Noah and his family
(and speculate about how it might have happend (the vapor canopy and the
like)), or about the Garden of Eden with Adam, Eve, a talking snake, and
so on, do they intend those things to be understood as metaphor? It
sure sounds like they explicitly *don't*, that they believe that those
things were literal events.
[...]
Spotted Owl
Wasn't it you who claimed that logic was invented in the 19th century,
by atheists, as a way to win arguments?
Nashton
J.J. sucking up again.
How do you feel about advocating for women abusers?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h406b2$blj$2...@aioe.org>):
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
>
>
> J.J. sucking up again.
Nope. Just stating the facts... not that a creationist cretin such as
yourself would know a fact if one bit him on the arse.
>
> How do you feel about advocating for women abusers?
>
Harshman abused poor Suzy too? Damn. I gotta get me some of that. Looks like
everyone's doing it.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> In summary: according to the understanding of "literalism," as
> advocated by John Harshman, when an author writes that one's brain is
> in a fog or foggy; or the mind has cobwebs, he literally means that
> the brain is enveloped in low clouds and thick strings of dust
> contaminate the mind.
John didn't say that. That was your own misrepresentation.
>
> No one can be this stupid.
Have you looked in a mirror lately?
> What is obvious is that Harshman's view of
> literalism is restricted to the Bible (= deliberate corruption).
That's hardly "obvious", just your own assertion.
> This
> is why Harshman quit our debate.
Where do you get the idea that John "quit" the debate, or that you had a
debate in the first place? John's last post pointed out that it was
difficult to communicate with you, because you lack a common frame of
reference. His is based on rationality, yours is based on fantasy.
> He has been caught red-handed
> attempting to corrupt the Bible.
Where did John attempt to "corrupt" the Bible?
> What is also quite obvious is that
> Harshman never gave his literalism views any thought.
Is that obvious, or just your own way of avoiding having to support your
claim?
> My rebuttals are
> anything but unique.
Your "rebuttal" was anything but effective.
> This fact favors Harshman to be really stupid or
> he has made some very bad errors, unable to admit.
Or, perhaps you are the one making the mistake. Your own refusal to admit
your own errors is legendary. Are you going to repeat your errors that
"All atheists are "Darwinists" or that evolution says that God doesn't
exist?
>
> Harshman says that Genesis says that God did not know where Adam was
> hiding.
The "plain text" of Genesis does tend to suggest that.
"And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? "
Gen 3:9
> This "view" of literalism surely makes someone very stupid,
again, I suggest you consult a mirror.
> either Moses or Harshman. I have equated this "view" of literalism as
> follows:
>
> Jesus: "Our Father who art in heaven...."
>
> Harshman: Jesus is admitting that He does not know who is in heaven.
John didn't say that, Ray. That was your own misrepresentation. Asking
"where are you" is different from saying "Our father, who is in heaven".
>
> No wonder Harshman quit the debate. He isn't that stupid. John is, of
> course, an Atheist.
Ray, considering the times you've run away from a discussion with me, don't
you think it's a bit ironic of you complaining of John "quitting" a debate
when he didn't respond within a short period of time
DJT
John Harshman
> One of three messages that have appeared in the first five, written by
> howlers, attempting to comfort and prop John Harshman up.
I doubt anyone thinks I need comforting or propping. I believe it's all
just a vain attempt to get you to see from someone else's viewpoint.
Andrew Cunningham
How do you feel about being sexist?
T Pagano
I can see how Spintronic came up with this nimrod's nick name and it
is well deserved.
spintronic
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:22:21 -0400, Nashton wrote
> > How do you feel about advocating for women abusers?
>
> Harshman abused poor Suzy too?
So you finally admitm she was abused.
spintronic
How do you feel about being a 3rd wheel in the "retard-retard-andrew"
love triangle?
Rolf
Seems to me Ray isn't even capable of comprehending that viewpoints other
than his own are possible.
His sophism isn't even deliberate - he is sophism incarnate.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<ead115ee-1bdb-43ab...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
Whatever you say, dear boy, whatever you say. You are Never Wrong. You said
so yourself.
What the facts say, now, that may be different.
Used any 8" 'scopes lately, laddie?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <apagano-i5j765h49ucpq...@4ax.com>):
Oh, the irony. Hey, Pags, is the Pope an atheist?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<585061a0-8627-43f9...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>):
Why are you saying those unkind things about Ray-Ray and Nastie?
Nashton
You just posted:
"So Harshman abused poor Suzy too."
If your comprehension and intellect )LOL) is at least equivalent to that
of a 10 year old, this is an admission that you admit to the fact that
YOO actually *did* abuse Suzanne.
Worse still, you defended him.
What a cretin.
>
Nashton
Oh dear, can someone explain to Andrew that even if it were true, it is
not a matter of sexism, but reverse sexism?
Another day, another occasion to take the goons by the hand and explain
things to them.
Burkhard
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:23:38 -0400, spintronic wrote
> > (in article
>
> >> On Jul 19, 11:57 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:22:21 -0400, Nashton wrote
>
> >>>> How do you feel about advocating for women abusers?
> >>> Harshman abused poor Suzy too?
>
> >> So you finally admitm she was abused.
>
> > Whatever you say, dear boy, whatever you say. You are Never Wrong. You said
> > so yourself.
>
> > What the facts say, now, that may be different.
>
> > Used any 8" 'scopes lately, laddie?
>
> You just posted:
>
> "So Harshman abused poor Suzy too."
>
> If your comprehension and intellect )LOL) is at least equivalent to that
> of a 10 year old, this is an admission that you admit to the fact that
> YOO actually *did* abuse Suzanne.
>
I think you'll find that tJJ's argument has the form of a redutio ad
absurdum, where it is indeed necessary "for the sake of the argument"
to adopt initially the position you later refute. This can indeed be
confusing for the careless/untrained reader who might take this as an
admission, but is a valid form of argument.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<b1086ba4-fb0c-4e3d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
Nastie knows not logic.
>
>> Worse still, you defended him.
>>
>> What a cretin.
That you are, Nastie, that you are.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:23:38 -0400, spintronic wrote
>> (in article
>> <ead115ee-1bdb-43ab...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 11:57 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:22:21 -0400, Nashton wrote
>>>
>>>>> How do you feel about advocating for women abusers?
>>>> Harshman abused poor Suzy too?
>>>
>>> So you finally admitm she was abused.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever you say, dear boy, whatever you say. You are Never Wrong. You said
>> so yourself.
>>
>> What the facts say, now, that may be different.
>>
>> Used any 8" 'scopes lately, laddie?
>
>You just posted:
>
>"So Harshman abused poor Suzy too."
Typical creationist. Unable to make a single post without a lie in it.
What he asked was a question "So Harshman abused poor Suzy too?"
The question mark give it away.
>
>If your comprehension and intellect )LOL) is at least equivalent to that
>of a 10 year old, this is an admission that you admit to the fact that
>YOO actually *did* abuse Suzanne.
Your stupidity is showing - as usual.
>
>Worse still, you defended him.
>
>What a cretin.
You are.
--
Bob.
Here we see the creationist in its natural environment, between a rock
and a hard place. We can tell it is of the young earth breed due to
the way it reaches, grasping for straws but only clasps thin air.
gusCubed
> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 6:22 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
> >> J.J. sucking up again.
>
> >> How do you feel about advocating for women abusers?
>
> > How do you feel about being sexist?
>
> Oh dear, can someone explain to Andrew that even if it were true, it is
> not a matter of sexism, but reverse sexism?
What the hell is reverse sexism? Does sexism have a direction? I
thought it was scalar... unless of course, you think that one sex
SHOULD be treated as superior to the other - then I guess 'reverse'
sexism implies the reversal of the 'natural' order of things, as you
see it.
spintronic
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:23:38 -0400, spintronic wrote
> Used any 8" 'scopes lately, laddie?
Not to track a tin can in the glare of the moon, that would be just
plain silly.
spintronic
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:59:34 -0300, Nashton <n...@na.ca> enriched this
> What he asked was a question
>
> The question mark give it away.
Your powers of deduction are improving.
> >What a cretin.
>
> You are.
But your powers to form "logical arguments" are still "sadly lacking".
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2584c8b8-f8bc-418d...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
poke-poke-poke
use any 8" 'scopes lately, dear boy?
Ray Martinez
wrote:
You quit our little debate because I had you cornered, John.
You want the author of Genesis as saying that God does not know where
Adam was hiding, that this interpretation is the plain to see literal
sense of the verse in question. This rendering makes both the author
and God to be an incredibly stupid buffoon. Why would an author, who
has his God creating the heavens and earth in the opening verse, have
Him unable to locate a hiding man in the third chapter? In response,
in this precise context, I asked you if an author were to say that his
mind is in a fog or foggy, or has cobwebs, does he literally mean low
clouds and thick strands of dust are present? Of course, as you would
agree, the question is rhetorical.
Why not just admit that your view of literalism is limited to the
Bible?
Ray
Burkhard
I think you rather consistently misunderstood John's point. None of
the posts you cited commit him to the position that the bible (and
only the Bible) ought to be read literally. Rather, he shows that
people who _claim_ that the Bible ought to be read/can be read
literally face unsurmountable difficulties - the text becomes plain
silly.
Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
etc that we use with other texts as well.
All fine and dandy, but these are all examples of _human_ knowledge
and hence fallible. So the bible may or may not be gods words, may or
may not be infallible - the problem remains that _if_ strict
literalism fails, our understanding of it becomes fallible, and its
use as an authoritative source problematic.
Applied to the present discussion: For anyone who actually understands
the ToE and the associated science, to read Genesis at face value is
just as silly as , in your example , someone who thinks that an author
has literal cobwebs in his head. Hence it only can be meant as a very
florid description appropriate for stone age people of what we woudl
later find out are things such as evolution. big bang etc.
Now you can of course disagree with this interpretation, and make the
claim that it is possible to read tat specific part in a non-
metaphorical way, but any claim you make is a human, fallible, claim
that does not carry the authority of the Bible , but is just a
personal claim of you that is as good (or as bad) as the specific
linguistic etc evidence you give in its support, and subject to
revision as our knowledge of textual interpretation increases.
Tim DeLaney
Ray, Burkhard has gone to a great deal of trouble to explain to you
why you completely missed Harshman's point. You should read his post
very carefully.
This is what you said to Harshman: "Biblical literalism is acceptance
of the traditional understanding of the Scriptures." He pointed out
that in saying this, you redefined the meaning of "literalism".
Well, OK. For the moment, let's accept your view that literalism
*really* means something quite different from the plain meaning of the
English word. Let's suppose that it means what you say it means.
You are no doubt familiar with the fact that various Jewish and
Christian scholars understand different things from the same Biblical
passages, are you not? So, "traditional understanding" does not imply
that every scholar reaches the same conclusion from reading a
particular passage.
Some, for example, might hold that the great age ascribed to certain
Biblical characters has an allegorical meaning. Clearly, no human
being could possibly live to the age of 900 years. Others accept this
age as literally true, and invoke supernatural explanations of one
sort or another. Still others look to possible mistranslations to
explain the seemingly impossible.
So, you see Ray, it simply isn't possible to interpret the Bible in
exactly one way. Various humans interpret it in various ways. Humans
sometimes make mistakes.
You have two choices: You can hold that every passage in the Bible is
interpreted in its literal (meaning 'to the letter') sense. This
leads to rather comical consequences, as both you and Harshman point
out.
Or, you can choose to interpret certain passages in a metaphorical or
allegorical sense. Which passages? That seems to be left up to the
reader. If you don't agree with a strictly literal reading, you just
assign your own meaning.
Let me ask you the same question I asked Tony: Do you believe that
it's possible that your interpretation of the Bible could be in
error? If you say "yes", then it's quite possible that ToE is true.
If you say "no", then you are claiming to be infallible.
Which is it, Ray?
Tim
Ray Martinez
You are saying the Bible should not be read literally because many
passages then become absurd, if not ridiculous.
Once again, like I told Harshman, I completely disagree. Just the
opposite is true. When read literally (= the way we read any text) the
more the Bible is understood. Of course the problem here, like I told
Harshman, is your definition of "literalism." Harshman refused to
supply a definition that did not use the root word in the meaning.
What Harshman did was give an example of his view of literalism. He
said if taken literally God does not know where Adam was hiding. In
response, I made the fog and cobweb points. As I type these words no
one has yet to answer----NO ONE. Why is that?
> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
> that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
> as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
> etc that we use with other texts as well.
>
Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
"literalism" and "metaphor."
Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor. The Bible contains
metaphors. Darwin interpreted and explained his metaphor to correspond
with reality. Biblical scholars do the same. These facts expose a
false definition or view of both "literalism" and "metaphor" by my
opponents.
> All fine and dandy, but these are all examples of _human_ knowledge
> and hence fallible. So the bible may or may not be gods words, may or
> may not be infallible - the problem remains that _if_ strict
> literalism fails, our understanding of it becomes fallible, and its
> use as an authoritative source problematic.
>
Since I have challenged your understanding of "literalism," which
defies the way intelligent persons read any text (includes the Bible),
there is nothing more to say until we make progress. Your
understanding of literalism is restricted to the Bible. The preceding
point undermines your view of "literalism" to be subjective, ad hoc,
made-up on the spot to make the Bible look silly.
The remainder of your comments continue to use this false
understanding of "literalism." So there is nothing left to say.
> Applied to the present discussion: For anyone who actually understands
> the ToE and the associated science, to read Genesis at face value is
> just as silly as , in your example , someone who thinks that an author
> has literal cobwebs in his head. Hence it only can be meant as a very
> florid description appropriate for stone age people of what we woudl
> later find out are things such as evolution. big bang etc.
>
> Now you can of course disagree with this interpretation, and make the
> claim that it is possible to read tat specific part in a non-
> metaphorical way, but any claim you make is a human, fallible, claim
> that does not carry the authority of the Bible , but is just a
> personal claim of you that is as good (or as bad) as the specific
> linguistic etc evidence you give in its support, and subject to
> revision as our knowledge of textual interpretation increases.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Woland
Literal simply means a plain reading of the text without metaphorical
or figurative interpretations. You can't make up definitions for
words. If you read some parts of a text as metaphorical then you are
not reading it literally (by definition).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal
Caranx latus
Is it because you seem to live in a world where words can mean
whatever you want them to?
<snip>
wf3h
> On Jul 21, 1:14 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I think you rather consistently misunderstood John's point. None of
> > the posts you cited commit him to the position that the bible (and
> > only the Bible) ought to be read literally. Rather, he shows that
> > people who _claim_ that the Bible ought to be read/can be read
> > literally face unsurmountable difficulties - the text becomes plain
> > silly.
>
> You are saying the Bible should not be read literally because many
> passages then become absurd, if not ridiculous.
>
> Once again, like I told Harshman, I completely disagree. Just the
> opposite is true. When read literally (= the way we read any text)
actually we don't read any text 'literally'. we read each text in
context. some are literal. some are not. it's apparent creationism is
unable to differentiate these concepts.
in fact there's no reason for creationism to exist apart from its self
imposed, ridiculous idea that, if the bible is not 'literally true'
then you can't rely on it to mean you can be saved by belief in
jesus.
that such a cramped style destroys the bible is something
creationists....like ray...simply ignore.
>
> Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor. The Bible contains
> metaphors. Darwin interpreted and explained his metaphor to correspond
> with reality. Biblical scholars do the same. These facts expose a
> false definition or view of both "literalism" and "metaphor" by my
> opponents.
'bible scholars' do not interpret the bible literally. to do so
eliminates the need for scholarship. the very existence of scholarship
itself testifies to the fact it's nonsense to intpret the bible
literally.
for 2000 years people have tried to interpret the bible literally. for
2000 years they've been shown to be wrong. it's a wrong way to look at
the bible.
Tim DeLaney
<snip>
> Once again, like I told Harshman, I completely disagree. Just the
> opposite is true. When read literally (= the way we read any text) the
> more the Bible is understood. Of course the problem here, like I told
> Harshman, is your definition of "literalism." Harshman refused to
> supply a definition that did not use the root word in the meaning.
> What Harshman did was give an example of his view of literalism. He
> said if taken literally God does not know where Adam was hiding. In
> response, I made the fog and cobweb points. As I type these words no
> one has yet to answer----NO ONE. Why is that?
<snip>
It is evident to me that you are simply ignorant of the meaning of the
English word "literal". It does NOT mean "the way we read any text".
What it means, to those of us who have not redefined the word, is "to
the letter" If I say "He literally blew his top", it means that he
somehow caused his head to explode. Brain tissue, blood, bone and
hair heading for the ceiling. Instant death, of course.
Now, this event is perfectly possible; all it would take is a
sufficiently powerful shotgun. But most of the time, we actually
mean: "He figuratively blew his top." which means roughly "He became
enraged."
You cannot have a rational conversation with an English speaking
person unless you know the ordinary English meaning of the words you
are using. You cannot redefine "literal" to mean "the way we read any
text" any more than you can redefine "water" to mean "blood".
Harshman rightly pointed out that certain Biblical passages cannot
rationally be taken literally. This implies that any reader must --
of necessity -- interpret what is actually meant. And as I pointed
out in my previous post, different people interpret the Bible
differently.
It is perfectly possible to write text that is meant to be taken as
literally true. Why is the Bible written in such a way as to require
extensive interpretation?
Tim
Burkhard
The "=" is unwarranted. To read a text literally is just one way to
read a text - that is why we have the expression, to distinguish it
from other ways to read a text (e.g. historically, purposively,
metaphorically, contextually, figuratively.)
the
> more the Bible is understood. Of course the problem here, like I told
> Harshman, is your definition of "literalism."
Not really "my" definition. The way the term is used in the relevant
discipline, hermeneutics. In particular the literature on legal
hermeneutics/statutory interpretation provides you with plenty of
examples where "literal interpretation" the way I and John understand
it (and, apart from you, really everybody else is using this term)
is contrasted with other, typically more natural forms of
interpretation.
For a couple fo references to the relevant literature:
A particularly clear and influential example is P. Grice (1989).
Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, which argues that cognitively, we first process almost
subconsciously the literal meaning, based on the surface value of the
words alone (cobweb really as cobweb) before we on the basis of this
proposition and general conversational principles infer what the
speaker really means.
see also: F Recanati: The alleged priority of literal
interpretation, Cognitive Science, 1995
M. Dascal (1987). Defending Literal Meaning. Cognitive Science 11,
259-81
R. Gerrig & A. Healy (1983). Dual Processes in Metaphor Understanding:
Comprehension and Appreciation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 667-675.
R. Gibbs (1984). Literal Meaning and Psychological Theory. Cognitive
Science 8, 275-304
R. Harris (1976). Comprehension of Metaphors: a Test of the Two-Stage
Processing Model. Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society 8, 312-14.
D. Rumelhart (1979). Some Problems with the Notion of Literal Meaning.
In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
I. Sag (1981). Formal Semantics and Extralinguistic Context. In P.
Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
J. Searle (1978). Literal Meaning. Erkenntnis 13, 207-24.
SJ Popiel, K McRae: The figurative and literal senses of idioms, or
all idioms are not used equally Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
1988
In addition to the use in linguistics and cognitive linguistics that
you find in these articles, you find the same distinction and the use
of "literal" in the doctrine of legal interpretation, going back at
least to the days of Cicero.
You find this typically under the keyword "canons of interpretation"
which tends to start with "literal interpretation" or textualism,
followed by context, historical, purposive interpretations. Again,
literal interpretations used throughout in the way john and I use it,
and _not_ as the "way all texts are read" - that woudl only be the
combination of all the canons.
Your "cobweb" example woudl be analysed by this doctrine of "golden
rule" (Grey v. Pearson (1857; 6 HL CAS 61),)
We first read it, well, literally, as actual cobwebs, we then see that
this leads to absurd results. then and only then do we decide that the
literal reading is inadequate, and repace it by a figurative reading.
"the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to,
unless that would lead to some absurdity or inconsistency with the
rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary
sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity or
inconsistency, but not farther." (Lord Wensleydale in Grey v. Pearson)
see for an overview e.g.
Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction, 6th Edition, Vol.
1A, §20.12 (West Group 2000)
see also:
J Gibbons: Language and the Law, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 2003
D McBarnet, C Whelan: Elusive Spirit of the Law: Formalism and the
Struggle for Legal Control, The
Modern Law Review, 1991
Llewellyn, K. N. (1950). Remarks on the theory of appellate decision
and the rules or canons
about how statutes are to be construed. Vanderbilt Law Review, 3,
395-406.
Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417
(1899)
Sinclair, Michael, "Llewellyn's Dueling Canons, One to Seven: A
Critique". New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006.
Daniel A. Farber, The Inevitability of Practical Reason: Statutes,
Formalism, and the Rule of Law, 45 Vand. L. Rev. 533 (1992)
And of course, you find the same in divinity, where scholars
distinguish literal from metaphorical and other forms of
interpretation, none of them claiming that "literal" equates "the way
we read any texts).
see e.g. :
Hyers, Conrad "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance",
Christian Century, August 4-11, 1982, p. 823.
Ethelred Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), (for a
catholic perspective)
John Barton: The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon
(1997, SPCK, London)
Laurence Wood, 'Theology as History and Hermeneutics', (2005)
John Bartkowski; Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy:
Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of
Scripture. Journal article by Sociology of Religion, Vol. 57, 1996
Harshman refused to
> supply a definition that did not use the root word in the meaning.
> What Harshman did was give an example of his view of literalism. He
> said if taken literally God does not know where Adam was hiding. In
> response, I made the fog and cobweb points. As I type these words no
> one has yet to answer----NO ONE. Why is that?
>
> > Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
> > text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
> > that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
> > as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
> > metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
> > type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
> > legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
> > are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
> > combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
> > etc that we use with other texts as well.
>
> Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
> "literalism" and "metaphor."
see above, with plenty of academic resources
>
> Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor. The Bible contains
> metaphors.
Which is why I woudl not read the entirety of the orign literally,
that woudl be vertyy daft indeed.
> Darwin interpreted and explained his metaphor to correspond
> with reality. Biblical scholars do the same. These facts expose a
> false definition or view of both "literalism" and "metaphor" by my
> opponents.
Your use of the word "literalism" and metaphor " is highly unusual.
> > All fine and dandy, but these are all examples of _human_ knowledge
> > and hence fallible. So the bible may or may not be gods words, may or
> > may not be infallible - the problem remains that _if_ strict
> > literalism fails, our understanding of it becomes fallible, and its
> > use as an authoritative source problematic.
>
> Since I have challenged your understanding of "literalism," which
> defies the way intelligent persons read any text (includes the Bible),
> there is nothing more to say until we make progress. Your
> understanding of literalism is restricted to the Bible.
Don't know what gives you this idea. See above. The differentiation
between literal and non-literal (e.g. figurative, contextual,
purposive) readings is part of the methodology of all hermeneutic
disciplines.
>The preceding
> point undermines your view of "literalism" to be subjective,
where did I say it is subjective?
> ad hoc,
where did I say it is ad hoc?
> made-up on the spot to make the Bible look silly.
The literal interpretation of almost every text, with the possible
exception of
highly formalised texts in mathematics, will result in silly results.
When I enter a cold class room and say to the student next to the open
window: it is quite chilly today" and he answers "yes" rather than
closes the window, he reads me literally, which is silly.
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<b4aed8b9-2b00-427c...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
But as you yourself stated in
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/df884fed2da8431c :
Literalism is derived from "literary", or literature. It is
assumed that a source not written as fiction means what it says
and says what it means unless certain obvious exceptions are
employed.
It would seem that you yourself prefer a definition that uses "the
root word in the meaning". So, why don't you assume that the passage
where God doesn't seem to know where Adam and Eve were hiding "means
what it says and says what it means"? What "obvious exceptions" are
there?
>> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
>> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
>> that the bible provides them � with infallible authority. For as soon
>> as you (quite reasonably) �concede that parts of the bible are
>> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
>> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
>> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) �and those that
>> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
>> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
>> etc that we use with other texts as well.
>
>Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
>"literalism" and "metaphor."
Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
>Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
Really? Can you quote it?
>The Bible contains
>metaphors. Darwin interpreted and explained his metaphor to correspond
>with reality. Biblical scholars do the same. These facts expose a
>false definition or view of both "literalism" and "metaphor" by my
>opponents.
But now that I've reminded you of a definition of "literalism" that
you yourself have advocated in the past, we can use that one, right?
>> All fine and dandy, but these are all examples of _human_ knowledge
>> and hence fallible. So the bible may or may not be gods words, may or
>> may not be infallible - the problem remains that _if_ strict
>> literalism fails, �our understanding of it becomes fallible, and its
>> use as an authoritative source problematic.
>
>Since I have challenged your understanding of "literalism," which
>defies the way intelligent persons read any text (includes the Bible),
>there is nothing more to say until we make progress. Your
>understanding of literalism is restricted to the Bible. The preceding
>point undermines your view of "literalism" to be subjective, ad hoc,
>made-up on the spot to make the Bible look silly.
>
>The remainder of your comments continue to use this false
>understanding of "literalism." So there is nothing left to say.
Can we all use your definition of "literalism" that I've reminded you
of from now on?
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is the point I am making against the Darwinists.
My other point is: the meaning they are holding to is restricted to
the Bible.
Ray
Ray Martinez
I have.
He simply assumes an ad hoc meaning of "literalism."
> This is what you said to Harshman: "Biblical literalism is acceptance
> of the traditional understanding of the Scriptures." He pointed out
> that in saying this, you redefined the meaning of "literalism".
>
Yes, he said that, but it's not true.
> Well, OK. For the moment, let's accept your view that literalism
> *really* means something quite different from the plain meaning of the
> English word. Let's suppose that it means what you say it means.
>
> You are no doubt familiar with the fact that various Jewish and
> Christian scholars understand different things from the same Biblical
> passages, are you not? So, "traditional understanding" does not imply
> that every scholar reaches the same conclusion from reading a
> particular passage.
>
Of course not.
> Some, for example, might hold that the great age ascribed to certain
> Biblical characters has an allegorical meaning.
Your comments define "allegory" to mean other than literal. I
completely disagree with this rendering.
> Clearly, no human
> being could possibly live to the age of 900 years.
The textual evidence says otherwise.
> Others accept this
> age as literally true, and invoke supernatural explanations of one
> sort or another. Still others look to possible mistranslations to
> explain the seemingly impossible.
>
The claim that men lived a better part of a thousand years is either
true or false. To entertain other "interpretations" presupposes the
claim to be false.
> So, you see Ray, it simply isn't possible to interpret the Bible in
> exactly one way. Various humans interpret it in various ways. Humans
> sometimes make mistakes.
>
Your point elevates every interpretation to possibly be valid. You
would not tolerate misrepresentation of ToE the same way. The
traditional understanding is that these passages say men before the
Flood lived a better part of a thousand years.
> You have two choices: You can hold that every passage in the Bible is
> interpreted in its literal (meaning 'to the letter') sense. This
> leads to rather comical consequences, as both you and Harshman point
> out.
>
Harshman and I disagreed bittterly.
> Or, you can choose to interpret certain passages in a metaphorical or
> allegorical sense. Which passages? That seems to be left up to the
> reader. If you don't agree with a strictly literal reading, you just
> assign your own meaning.
>
False trichotomy.
Metaphor and allegory presuppose correspondence with reality, as does
literal (of course). Again, the Darwinists here do not understand any
of these three concepts.
> Let me ask you the same question I asked Tony: Do you believe that
> it's possible that your interpretation of the Bible could be in
> error?
In some peripheral issue----yes. But not in foundational or general
structural areas. For example: the main claim of Genesis 1 and 2 is
that Divine power, operating in reality, causes living and non-living
things to exist. This is a foundational claim spread out over two
chapters so my mind is made up. I am open to correction on a
peripheral issue, like: the literal meaning of the words "great
whales" in chapter 1. Some translators say the Hebrew only relates
"large sea-based creatures" Do you see my point?
> If you say "yes", then it's quite possible that ToE is true.
> If you say "no", then you are claiming to be infallible.
>
> Which is it, Ray?
>
> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your question is much too ambiguous as I have shown in my last reply.
Ray
Caranx latus
Unjustifiably, as nearly as I can tell.
> My other point is: the meaning they are holding to is restricted to
> the Bible.
Of course it isn't, you silly person.
> Ray
Caranx latus
Not likely...
lit⋅er⋅al⋅ism /ˈlɪtərəˌlɪzəm/
–noun
1. adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in
translation or interpretation.
lit⋅er⋅al /ˈlɪtərəl/
–adjective
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict
meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the
literal meaning of a word.
> > This is what you said to Harshman: "Biblical literalism is acceptance
> > of the traditional understanding of the Scriptures." He pointed out
> > that in saying this, you redefined the meaning of "literalism".
>
> Yes, he said that, but it's not true.
Sure it is. Literalism has *nothing* to do with tradition.
> > Well, OK. For the moment, let's accept your view that literalism
> > *really* means something quite different from the plain meaning of the
> > English word. Let's suppose that it means what you say it means.
>
> > You are no doubt familiar with the fact that various Jewish and
> > Christian scholars understand different things from the same Biblical
> > passages, are you not? So, "traditional understanding" does not imply
> > that every scholar reaches the same conclusion from reading a
> > particular passage.
>
> Of course not.
>
> > Some, for example, might hold that the great age ascribed to certain
> > Biblical characters has an allegorical meaning.
>
> Your comments define "allegory" to mean other than literal. I
> completely disagree with this rendering.
Of course you do, because you want words to mean whatever you want
them to mean.
al⋅le⋅go⋅ry /ˈæləˌgɔri, -ˌgoʊri/
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through
concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under
the guise of another.
Do you see above, in the "allegory" definition where it says
"figurative treatment ...", and do you see further above under the
"literal" definition where it says "not figurative or metaphorical"?
Words mean something, Ray. That you want something to be both
figurative and non-figurative at the same time is telling.
<snip>
Mike L
Augray wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <b4aed8b9-2b00-427c...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
[...]
>
> But as you yourself stated in
> http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/df884fed2da8431c :
>
> Literalism is derived from "literary", or literature. [...]
I don't see how you got that idea, which is not only wrong, but seems
also to be contradicted by what follows.
> It is
> assumed that a source not written as fiction means what it says
> and says what it means unless certain obvious exceptions are
> employed.
>
> It would seem that you yourself prefer a definition that uses "the
> root word in the meaning". So, why don't you assume that the passage
> where God doesn't seem to know where Adam and Eve were hiding "means
> what it says and says what it means"? What "obvious exceptions" are
> there?
[...]
--
Mike.
Tim DeLaney
<snip to get to the nub of the matter>
> > Let me ask you the same question I asked Tony: Do you believe that
> > it's possible that your interpretation of the Bible could be in
> > error?
>
> In some peripheral issue----yes. But not in foundational or general
> structural areas. For example: the main claim of Genesis 1 and 2 is
> that Divine power, operating in reality, causes living and non-living
> things to exist. This is a foundational claim spread out over two
> chapters so my mind is made up. I am open to correction on a
> peripheral issue, like: the literal meaning of the words "great
> whales" in chapter 1. Some translators say the Hebrew only relates
> "large sea-based creatures" Do you see my point?
Yes, Ray, I see your point. You have clearly claimed that you are
infallible when it comes to "foundational or general structural
areas." IMHO, to claim that you are beyond the possibility of error
in these areas is the height of arrogance.
Question: What are ordinary mortals to make of this audacious claim?
Why should we accept it? Can you perform miracles? Change water into
wine? Raise the dead? Feed multitudes on a few scraps? Should we
just accept as fact that you are infallible?
Or should we dismiss your claim as the ravings of one who suffers from
delusions?
Tim
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <b4aed8b9-2b00-427c-a7e8-590c8c0d8...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
>
> Literalism is derived from "literary", or literature. It is
> assumed that a source not written as fiction means what it says
> and says what it means unless certain obvious exceptions are
> employed.
>
> It would seem that you yourself prefer a definition that uses "the
> root word in the meaning".
My quote is not a definition. It is a mini "etymology" followed by a
short explanation.
> So, why don't you assume that the passage
> where God doesn't seem to know where Adam and Eve were hiding "means
> what it says and says what it means"? What "obvious exceptions" are
> there?
>
Comments presuppose as true, Harshman's goofy rendering. The literal
or Bible (get that?) says that Adam was hiding. It says nothing about
God not knowing.
Do you understand that John Harshman is an Atheist attempting to
discredit his enemy, the Bible?
> >> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
> >> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
> >> that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
> >> as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
> >> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
> >> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
> >> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
> >> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
> >> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
> >> etc that we use with other texts as well.
>
> >Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
> >"literalism" and "metaphor."
>
> Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
>
> >Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
>
> Really? Can you quote it?
>
Breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material nature
minus the intelligence.
> >The Bible contains
> >metaphors. Darwin interpreted and explained his metaphor to correspond
> >with reality. Biblical scholars do the same. These facts expose a
> >false definition or view of both "literalism" and "metaphor" by my
> >opponents.
>
> But now that I've reminded you of a definition of "literalism" that
> you yourself have advocated in the past, we can use that one, right?
>
Sure.
> >> All fine and dandy, but these are all examples of _human_ knowledge
> >> and hence fallible. So the bible may or may not be gods words, may or
> >> may not be infallible - the problem remains that _if_ strict
> >> literalism fails, our understanding of it becomes fallible, and its
> >> use as an authoritative source problematic.
>
> >Since I have challenged your understanding of "literalism," which
> >defies the way intelligent persons read any text (includes the Bible),
> >there is nothing more to say until we make progress. Your
> >understanding of literalism is restricted to the Bible. The preceding
> >point undermines your view of "literalism" to be subjective, ad hoc,
> >made-up on the spot to make the Bible look silly.
>
> >The remainder of your comments continue to use this false
> >understanding of "literalism." So there is nothing left to say.
>
> Can we all use your definition of "literalism" that I've reminded you
> of from now on?
>
Sure, but like I pointed out: it is not a definition.
Ray
>
>
> >> Applied to the present discussion: For anyone who actually understands
> >> the ToE and the associated science, to read Genesis at face value is
> >> just as silly as , in your example , someone who thinks that an author
> >> has literal cobwebs in his head. Hence it only can be meant as a very
> >> florid description appropriate for stone age people of what we woudl
> >> later find out are things such as evolution. big bang etc.
>
> >> Now you can of course disagree with this interpretation, and make the
> >> claim that it is possible to read tat specific part in a non-
> >> metaphorical way, but any claim you make is a human, fallible, claim
> >> that does not carry the authority of the Bible , but is just a
> >> personal claim of you that is as good (or as bad) as the specific
> >> linguistic etc evidence you give in its support, and subject to
> >> revision as our knowledge of textual interpretation increases.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
[snip]
> Comments presuppose as true, Harshman's goofy rendering. The literal
> or Bible (get that?) says that Adam was hiding. It says nothing about
> God not knowing.
In Genesis 3:9, "Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him,
'Where are you?'". The literal interpretion is that God wants to know
where Adam is. You may prefer a non-literal interpretation. Then again,
you also seem to be claiming that God has feet; that too is a literal
interpretation, but a highly non-standard one.
> Do you understand that John Harshman is an Atheist attempting to
> discredit his enemy, the Bible?
No, the bible isn't my enemy. It's a book. Enemies are people. Nor am I
trying to discredit the bible, just a literal interpretation. You have
in fact agreed that in the case at hand a literal interpretation is
silly. (At least in the context of belief in an omniscient god, it is;
it's not silly in the context of a myth derived from older sources,
whose gods are not omnipotent.) Anyway, your major problem here is in
the claim that your interpretation is literal, when it isn't.
Then again, your claim that god has feet is also pretty silly for an
omnipotent being. Your view of god seems more like Galactus than
anything else.
>>>> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
>>>> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
>>>> that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
>>>> as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
>>>> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
>>>> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
>>>> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
>>>> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
>>>> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
>>>> etc that we use with other texts as well.
>>> Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
>>> "literalism" and "metaphor."
>> Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
>>
>>> Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
>> Really? Can you quote it?
>
> Breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material nature
> minus the intelligence.
I believe the problem here is your use of "began". We were all expecting
the metaphor to be in the first paragraph of the book. Instead what you
seem to have meant is that he used a metaphor to label one of his two
main ideas. Some of the time your inability to write clearly and
precisely is your main communication problem.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Comments presuppose as true, Harshman's goofy rendering. The literal
> > or Bible (get that?) says that Adam was hiding. It says nothing about
> > God not knowing.
>
> In Genesis 3:9, "Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him,
> 'Where are you?'". The literal interpretion is that God wants to know
> where Adam is. You may prefer a non-literal interpretation. Then again,
> you also seem to be claiming that God has feet; that too is a literal
> interpretation, but a highly non-standard one.
>
Peroof that you have zero understanding of the concept of literalism.
> > Do you understand that John Harshman is an Atheist attempting to
> > discredit his enemy, the Bible?
>
> No, the bible isn't my enemy. It's a book. Enemies are people. Nor am I
> trying to discredit the bible, just a literal interpretation.
The Bible (= source of Theism) has always been the enemy of Atheists.
To deny is to confirm the degree of brazen liar that you are. Your
handling of the Bible corresponds to an enemy. Atheists like yourself
live to misrepresent the Source which tells the world that the Atheism
worldview is a lie.
> You have
> in fact agreed that in the case at hand a literal interpretation is
> silly.
Totally false.
I explained your moronic "interpretation" by pointing out the obvious:
that you are an axe-grinding Atheist. Since your view of literalism
remains undefined, except by example, and since this view is limited
to the Bible, nothing is left unexplained.
If anything is left to explain it is your evasion of my rebuttal seen
in the fog or cobweb point. My claim that your view of literalism is
restricted to the Bible is supported by said rebuttal.
> (At least in the context of belief in an omniscient god, it is;
> it's not silly in the context of a myth derived from older sources,
> whose gods are not omnipotent.) Anyway, your major problem here is in
> the claim that your interpretation is literal, when it isn't.
>
No one, except the Atheist, says that God did not know where Adam was
hiding. The passage establishes that Adam was hiding, that something
was terribly wrong. By your "rendering" a writer means low clouds and
thick strands of dust have somehow invaded the mind. You are
attempting to have things one way. Again, I look forward to an answer
right here.
> Then again, your claim that god has feet is also pretty silly for an
> omnipotent being. Your view of god seems more like Galactus than
> anything else.
>
Jesus didn't have feet?
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
> >>>> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
> >>>> that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
> >>>> as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
> >>>> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
> >>>> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
> >>>> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
> >>>> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
> >>>> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
> >>>> etc that we use with other texts as well.
> >>> Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
> >>> "literalism" and "metaphor."
> >> Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
>
> >>> Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
> >> Really? Can you quote it?
>
> > Breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material nature
> > minus the intelligence.
>
> I believe the problem here is your use of "began". We were all expecting
> the metaphor to be in the first paragraph of the book. Instead what you
> seem to have meant is that he used a metaphor to label one of his two
> main ideas. Some of the time your inability to write clearly and
> precisely is your main communication problem.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What about the metaphor, John?
Why is the Bible any different?
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=1
"CHAPTER I.
VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.
Causes of Variability — Effects of Habit — Correlation of Growth —
Inheritance — Character of Domestic Varieties — Difficulty of
distinguishing between Varieties and Species — Origin of Domestic
Varieties from one or more Species — Domestic Pigeons, their
Differences and Origin — Principle of Selection anciently followed,
its Effects — Methodical and Unconscious Selection — Unknown Origin of
our Domestic Productions — Circumstances favourable to Man's power of
Selection. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7-43"
Like I said: Darwin began chapter one of "The Origin" with a metaphor;
"breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material
nature minus the intelligence" (Ray Martinez).
Also, see the scholarly standard:
http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html
Ray
Rich Mathers
Because it was silly, meaningless or at minimum obtuse.
Now given your literalism. The following is unambiguous and not
metaphorical:
thus why aren't you practicing the following Biblical edict? Mark 16:
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. 18 They
shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover. The Jolo sect of W Va religiously practice this literal
interpretation. They bring rattlesnakes to handle, strychnine to
drink, speak in tongues, and lay on hands during their services. Why
aren't you doing this? What is your literal excuse?
Snip
> Ray
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray thrashes about, acutely aware that he has made a total fool of
himself. The whole newsgroup understands that he has no understanding
of common English words such as "literal", but he pretends
differently.
His explicit claim of infallibility in matters of faith is an
albatross around his neck. This arrogant claim leaves no doubt that
he is not a man to be taken seriously.
Ray, my best advice to you is to abandon the "Ray Martinez" persona,
and to start anew. You are so thoroughly discredited that only a new
identity makes any sense for you.
Tim
Reddfrogg
> On Jul 21, 5:35 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > Comments presuppose as true, Harshman's goofy rendering. The literal
> > > or Bible (get that?) says that Adam was hiding. It says nothing about
> > > God not knowing.
>
> > In Genesis 3:9, "Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him,
> > 'Where are you?'". The literal interpretion is that God wants to know
> > where Adam is. You may prefer a non-literal interpretation. Then again,
> > you also seem to be claiming that God has feet; that too is a literal
> > interpretation, but a highly non-standard one.
>
> Peroof that you have zero understanding of the concept of literalism.
Or that John understands the term, and you don't. That appears to be
the case.
>
> > > Do you understand that John Harshman is an Atheist attempting to
> > > discredit his enemy, the Bible?
>
> > No, the bible isn't my enemy. It's a book. Enemies are people. Nor am I
> > trying to discredit the bible, just a literal interpretation.
>
> The Bible (= source of Theism) has always been the enemy of Atheists.
The "source" of theism is a belief in some kind of deity. The Bible
isn't the source of theism, as theism existed long before there was a
Bible. Your assertion that the Bible has "always been the enemy of
atheists" is also mistaken. Atheists don't believe the Bible, so
they have no reason to consider it an enemy. ..
> To deny is to confirm the degree of brazen liar that you are.
Actually, denying your claim only confirms that John is of sound
mind. Your claim is absurd.
> Your
> handling of the Bible corresponds to an enemy.
How is John's "handling" of the Bible similar in any respect to the
treatment of an enemy? Do people go around pointing out that their
enemies should not be read literally?
> Atheists like yourself
> live to misrepresent the Source which tells the world that the Atheism
> worldview is a lie.
Again, Ray, you seem to not grasp the simple concept that atheists
don't believe the Bible, so what the Bible says is irrelevant to
atheists, or their "world view".
>
> > You have
> > in fact agreed that in the case at hand a literal interpretation is
> > silly.
>
> Totally false.
How so? You yourself claimed that such an interpretation would be
silly. Your exact words were:
"That's exactly my point: YOU have made the Bible to look silly in
service to the Atheism agenda."
All John did was report the "plain meaning" of the text. If that
makes the Bible look silly, how much more do you, Ray, make the Bible
look silly by claiming it refutes the solid scientific fact of
evolution?
>
> I explained your moronic "interpretation" by pointing out the obvious:
> that you are an axe-grinding Atheist.
Of course, your "explanation" was merely your own hatred and inability
to address John's point. The passage from Genesis, if taken as
God's literal words, suggests he didn't know where Adam was
hiding.
> Since your view of literalism
> remains undefined, except by example, and since this view is limited
> to the Bible, nothing is left unexplained.
You can make up whatever rationale you want, but that doesn't make it
true. John never claimed, or asserted, or even suggested his view of
literal sense is confined only to the Bible.
>
> If anything is left to explain it is your evasion of my rebuttal seen
> in the fog or cobweb point. My claim that your view of literalism is
> restricted to the Bible is supported by said rebuttal.
Your 'cobweb" point misses the mark. The passage in Genesis wasn't a
metaphor, it was supposedly a report of what God was asking. Why
should God have to ask where someone is?
>
> > (At least in the context of belief in an omniscient god, it is;
> > it's not silly in the context of a myth derived from older sources,
> > whose gods are not omnipotent.) Anyway, your major problem here is in
> > the claim that your interpretation is literal, when it isn't.
>
> No one, except the Atheist, says that God did not know where Adam was
> hiding.
Note that John didn't say that God did not know where Adam was, but
that if you take the passage literally, that's what it implies. To
John, God is a fictional character in a story, not an omnipotent
being. He's also pointing out that the Adam myth was likely a hold
over from earlier myths, when gods were not thought of as omnipotent
beings, but essentially super powered humans, with all the human
failings and human limitations.
The point is, that the passage literally suggests that God doesn't
know where Adam and Eve are hiding, if you believe that the Bible is
reporting actual events.
> The passage establishes that Adam was hiding, that something
> was terribly wrong.
Yes, it establishes that by saying that Adam was hiding. God, on the
other hand should have known where Adam was. Why would God have to
ask where he was? Why not say ''Oh, there you are behind the
Hydrangea bushes".
> By your "rendering" a writer means low clouds and
> thick strands of dust have somehow invaded the mind.
Ray, the writer of the Bible here was not employing a metaphor for
Adam hiding, he was, if the text is to be taken as such, reporting
what God said. God didn't say "It's like you were hiding from me,
and I didn't know where you were", or "It's like playing hide and seek
with you". The Bible reports that God asked Adam where he was.
> You are
> attempting to have things one way.
He's attempting to show you how absurd it is to take the Bible's text
over the physical evidence. Of course, you miss the point.
> Again, I look forward to an answer
> right here.
An answer you will undoubtedly not understand.
>
> > Then again, your claim that god has feet is also pretty silly for an
> > omnipotent being. Your view of god seems more like Galactus than
> > anything else.
>
> Jesus didn't have feet?
Jesus wasn't born at the time of the Garden of Eden, according to the
text.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
> > >>>> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
> > >>>> that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
> > >>>> as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
> > >>>> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
> > >>>> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
> > >>>> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
> > >>>> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
> > >>>> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
> > >>>> etc that we use with other texts as well.
> > >>> Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
> > >>> "literalism" and "metaphor."
> > >> Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
>
> > >>> Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
> > >> Really? Can you quote it?
>
> > > Breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material nature
> > > minus the intelligence.
>
> > I believe the problem here is your use of "began". We were all expecting
> > the metaphor to be in the first paragraph of the book. Instead what you
> > seem to have meant is that he used a metaphor to label one of his two
> > main ideas. Some of the time your inability to write clearly and
> > precisely is your main communication problem.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What about the metaphor, John?
What about it, Ray? It doesn't relate. The passage from Genesis
wasn't a metaphor, it was a supposed report of God's question.
There's no indication that the passage was to be taken as a metaphor
for Gods inability to find Adam.
>
> Why is the Bible any different?
Because the passage in the Bible isn't a metaphor. When the Bible
talks about "roaring like a lion" for example, that's a metaphor.
God asking a question is not.
DJT
Reddfrogg
>
> "CHAPTER I.
>
> VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.
>
> Causes of Variability — Effects of Habit — Correlation of Growth —
> Inheritance — Character of Domestic Varieties — Difficulty of
> distinguishing between Varieties and Species — Origin of Domestic
> Varieties from one or more Species — Domestic Pigeons, their
> Differences and Origin — Principle of Selection anciently followed,
> its Effects — Methodical and Unconscious Selection — Unknown Origin of
> our Domestic Productions — Circumstances favourable to Man's power of
> Selection. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7-43"
>
> Like I said: Darwin began chapter one of "The Origin" with a metaphor;
> "breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material
> nature minus the intelligence" (Ray Martinez).
as if there were any point to it, some education for Ray on why an
analogy is distinct from a metaphor:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/analog.html
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030623.html
http://www.copyblogger.com/metaphor-simile-and-analogy-what%E2%80%99s-the-difference/
http://www.teachervision.fen.com/pro-dev/skill-builder/48891.html
http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/gentner/papers/Gentner82a.pdf
>
> Also, see the scholarly standard:
>
> http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html
Of course Ray wouldn't know the 'scholarly standard' if it bit him.
DJT
John Harshman
> On Jul 21, 5:35 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Comments presuppose as true, Harshman's goofy rendering. The literal
>>> or Bible (get that?) says that Adam was hiding. It says nothing about
>>> God not knowing.
>> In Genesis 3:9, "Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him,
>> 'Where are you?'". The literal interpretion is that God wants to know
>> where Adam is. You may prefer a non-literal interpretation. Then again,
>> you also seem to be claiming that God has feet; that too is a literal
>> interpretation, but a highly non-standard one.
>
> Peroof that you have zero understanding of the concept of literalism.
Apparently the proper definition of literalism, at least applied to the
bible, is "whatever accords with Ray Martinez' view of proper
interpretation". Is that the definition?
>>> Do you understand that John Harshman is an Atheist attempting to
>>> discredit his enemy, the Bible?
>> No, the bible isn't my enemy. It's a book. Enemies are people. Nor am I
>> trying to discredit the bible, just a literal interpretation.
>
> The Bible (= source of Theism) has always been the enemy of Atheists.
> To deny is to confirm the degree of brazen liar that you are. Your
> handling of the Bible corresponds to an enemy. Atheists like yourself
> live to misrepresent the Source which tells the world that the Atheism
> worldview is a lie.
>
>> You have
>> in fact agreed that in the case at hand a literal interpretation is
>> silly.
>
> Totally false.
>
> I explained your moronic "interpretation" by pointing out the obvious:
> that you are an axe-grinding Atheist. Since your view of literalism
> remains undefined, except by example, and since this view is limited
> to the Bible, nothing is left unexplained.
>
> If anything is left to explain it is your evasion of my rebuttal seen
> in the fog or cobweb point. My claim that your view of literalism is
> restricted to the Bible is supported by said rebuttal.
The problem is that you are incapable of rational argument and don't
recognize it when you see it. Do you know what "ad hominem" means? That
word gets bandied about frequently here, and frequently wrongly, but
this is a perfect example: you don't attack my claims; you attack me,
and say that my claims must be wrong because I'm the one who made them.
That's a logical fallacy.
You have been given the dictionary definitions of literalism and literal
several times. What's wrong with them?
And in fact I don't limit my (the dictionary's) definition of literalism
to the bible.
>> (At least in the context of belief in an omniscient god, it is;
>> it's not silly in the context of a myth derived from older sources,
>> whose gods are not omnipotent.) Anyway, your major problem here is in
>> the claim that your interpretation is literal, when it isn't.
>
> No one, except the Atheist, says that God did not know where Adam was
> hiding. The passage establishes that Adam was hiding, that something
> was terribly wrong. By your "rendering" a writer means low clouds and
> thick strands of dust have somehow invaded the mind. You are
> attempting to have things one way. Again, I look forward to an answer
> right here.
Sure. Clouds and cobwebs in your head are obviously figurative, because
they make no sense if interpreted literally. However, the bit about God
asking where Adam is makes perfect sense in the context of that story. A
literal interpretation is possible. You are interpreting it
non-literally, which is perfectly fine. Just don't say you're
interpreting it literally.
>> Then again, your claim that god has feet is also pretty silly for an
>> omnipotent being. Your view of god seems more like Galactus than
>> anything else.
>
> Jesus didn't have feet?
We weren't talking about Jesus.
>>>>>> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
>>>>>> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
>>>>>> that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
>>>>>> as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
>>>>>> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
>>>>>> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
>>>>>> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
>>>>>> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
>>>>>> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
>>>>>> etc that we use with other texts as well.
>>>>> Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
>>>>> "literalism" and "metaphor."
>>>> Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
>>>>> Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
>>>> Really? Can you quote it?
>>> Breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material nature
>>> minus the intelligence.
>> I believe the problem here is your use of "began". We were all expecting
>> the metaphor to be in the first paragraph of the book. Instead what you
>> seem to have meant is that he used a metaphor to label one of his two
>> main ideas. Some of the time your inability to write clearly and
>> precisely is your main communication problem.
> What about the metaphor, John?
>
> Why is the Bible any different?
What about the metaphor? We all understand that it's a metaphor, and in
fact Darwin explains its meaning at great length. The bible contains a
great deal of language that's obviously figurative. But the bits of
Genesis we were discussing is not obviously so. It has a literal sense
that makes sense. The only problem with that interpretation is that it
doesn't fit most modern ideas of what God ought to be like. And thus
most believers interpret at least some of Genesis non-literally.
John Harshman
I know you think you have shown something here, and that it makes some
important point for you. But I don't know how to disabuse you of either
of these silly notions.
gregwrld
>
> > "CHAPTER I.
>
> > VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.
>
> > Causes of Variability — Effects of Habit — Correlation of Growth —
> > Inheritance — Character of Domestic Varieties — Difficulty of
> > distinguishing between Varieties and Species — Origin of Domestic
> > Varieties from one or more Species — Domestic Pigeons, their
> > Differences and Origin — Principle of Selection anciently followed,
> > its Effects — Methodical and Unconscious Selection — Unknown Origin of
> > our Domestic Productions — Circumstances favourable to Man's power of
> > Selection. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7-43"
>
> > Like I said: Darwin began chapter one of "The Origin" with a metaphor;
> > "breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material
> > nature minus the intelligence" (Ray Martinez).
>
> > Also, see the scholarly standard:
>
> >http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html
>
> I know you think you have shown something here, and that it makes some
> important point for you. But I don't know how to disabuse you of either
> of these silly notions.
Of course, according to Ray you're really
"bitter" about it, too.
gregwrld
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<c126f5cb-9fcc-4615...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
>> But as you yourself stated in http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/df884fed2da8431c :
>>
>> � � �Literalism is derived from "literary", or literature. It is
>> � � �assumed that a source not written as fiction means what it says
>> � � �and says what it means unless certain obvious exceptions are
>> � � �employed.
>>
>> It would seem that you yourself prefer a definition that uses "the
>> root word in the meaning".
>
>My quote is not a definition.
Then why did you imply that it was, in the post I pointed to?
>It is a mini "etymology" followed by a
>short explanation.
But in an earlier post in that thread, you wrote:
Topic Title:
WHY A PRESUMPTION OF LITERALISM ?
Answer: Because the Holy words of God are presumed to mean what
they say ?
The topic title places the word of God on the defensive and
assumes a record written as truth does not mean what it says.
What else would a Darwinist say about the Bible ?
See http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/781919ae3ae44d66
>> So, why don't you assume that the passage
>> where God doesn't seem to know where Adam and Eve were hiding "means
>> what it says and says what it means"? What "obvious exceptions" are
>> there?
>
>Comments presuppose as true, Harshman's goofy rendering.
Actually, they presuppose your earlier definition of Literalism as
true.
>The literal
>or Bible (get that?) says that Adam was hiding. It says nothing about
>God not knowing.
Then why does God call out?
>Do you understand that John Harshman is an Atheist attempting to
>discredit his enemy, the Bible?
No, I don't. I see no reason to believe that Harshman believes the
Bible to be his enemy.
>> >> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
>> >> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
>> >> that the bible provides them � with infallible authority. For as soon
>> >> as you (quite reasonably) �concede that parts of the bible are
>> >> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
>> >> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
>> >> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) �and those that
>> >> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
>> >> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
>> >> etc that we use with other texts as well.
>>
>> >Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
>> >"literalism" and "metaphor."
>>
>> Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
>>
>> >Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
>>
>> Really? Can you quote it?
>
>Breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material nature
>minus the intelligence.
That's not a quote. And "analogy" is not synonymous with "metaphor".
>> >The Bible contains
>> >metaphors. Darwin interpreted and explained his metaphor to correspond
>> >with reality. Biblical scholars do the same. These facts expose a
>> >false definition or view of both "literalism" and "metaphor" by my
>> >opponents.
>>
>> But now that I've reminded you of a definition of "literalism" that
>> you yourself have advocated in the past, we can use that one, right?
>
>Sure.
So is there any reason to assume that God knew where Adam and Eve
were? Is there any reason not to assume that the passage in question
"means what it says and says what it means"?
>> >> All fine and dandy, but these are all examples of _human_ knowledge
>> >> and hence fallible. So the bible may or may not be gods words, may or
>> >> may not be infallible - the problem remains that _if_ strict
>> >> literalism fails, �our understanding of it becomes fallible, and its
>> >> use as an authoritative source problematic.
>>
>> >Since I have challenged your understanding of "literalism," which
>> >defies the way intelligent persons read any text (includes the Bible),
>> >there is nothing more to say until we make progress. Your
>> >understanding of literalism is restricted to the Bible. The preceding
>> >point undermines your view of "literalism" to be subjective, ad hoc,
>> >made-up on the spot to make the Bible look silly.
>>
>> >The remainder of your comments continue to use this false
>> >understanding of "literalism." So there is nothing left to say.
>>
>> Can we all use your definition of "literalism" that I've reminded you
>> of from now on?
>
>Sure, but like I pointed out: it is not a definition.
Then why did you imply that it was at the time?
Karel P
news:LqadnSfa4qk...@giganews.com:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
[snip]
>> No one, except the Atheist, says that God did not know where Adam was
>> hiding. The passage establishes that Adam was hiding, that something
>> was terribly wrong. By your "rendering" a writer means low clouds and
>> thick strands of dust have somehow invaded the mind. You are
>> attempting to have things one way. Again, I look forward to an answer
>> right here.
>
> Sure. Clouds and cobwebs in your head are obviously figurative,
> because they make no sense if interpreted literally. However, the bit
> about God asking where Adam is makes perfect sense in the context of
> that story. A literal interpretation is possible. You are interpreting
> it non-literally, which is perfectly fine. Just don't say you're
> interpreting it literally.
[snip]
Well, perhaps he might, although not under the common
meaning of literally. Ray seems to be arguing from
the "four senses" scheme, where the alternatives for
literal are analogical (persons and objects are seen
as referring to Christ, the Church etc), moral (applied
to the christian life) or anagogical (referring to
heaven and the last things). The literal meaning could
therefore very well allow for the proper use of metaphor,
as long as the metaphor is applied to the actors and
objects in the text.
I don't care very much for this ""four senses" scheme
myself, but it *is* a traditional position.
Regards,
Karel
--
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them (Asimov)
Burkhard
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote innews:LqadnSfa4qk...@giganews.com:
I briefly considered that this could be what he means, but discarded
the option, not only because the "four senses" are as far as I know a
very Catholic thing that was always rejected by Protestants, but also
because it is intentionally and explicitly Bible specific. You can't
use the four senses method to read a Jeffrey Archer novel, e.g. or
Origins. but part of Ray's criticism of John and me was that _our_
understanding was "Bible specific". So he can't possibly mean himself
a notion of "literal" that only makes sense in a methodology of bible
studies. Furthermore, the three other senses are of course for a
Christian just as real and important as the literal reading, whereas
he seems to reject other approaches. That woudl make his theology even
odder than it already is, committing him to reject the notion that he
bible is about redemption. (anagogical level)
So no, whatever he means, I don't think it can be that.
Karel P
news:550ca5a9-e2f8-4311...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
Well, only he can say. And he may not have realized that
the four senses came with it, only that "literal need not
be purely literal." That is not unproblematical, but it
might explain where he comes from. Consistency would be
the next problem.
Tim DeLaney
If Ray had indicated in some way that "literal need not be purely
literal.", I could live with that. Almost every day we hear
expressions like "He literally went bananas" in which the word
"literal" is used incorrectly. It may even be that the word is
undergoing a shift in meaning. I don't think it would be the first
time a word evolved to mean its opposite.
But even when the correct meaning (i.e. the dictionary meaning) was
pointed out to him, Ray persisted in using the word incorrectly. Even
this could be overlooked if it were not for the fact that "Biblical
literalism" has a very special meaning in the jargon of this
newsgroup. In fact, it has a meaning that goes to the very core of
the debate.
I truly believe that Ray has a reading comprehension problem. He
lacks the ability to read an English sentence and determine what the
writer meant to convey. Sad.
Tim
Karel P
news:be765004-a463-4e00...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 23, 1:46�am, Karel P <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote
>> innews:550ca5a9-e2f8-4311-9f10-ea90c3
> 7f9...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
Well, even if Ray has a reading comprehension problem,
it might still be useful to try and salvage at least
something of his meaning, if only to understand better
where he comes from. And Biblical Literalism is a bit of
a misnomer, as "[i]t does not, however, mean a complete
denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech
within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or
metaphor)", at least with a view to the dictionary meaning
of the word literal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
Tim DeLaney
>
> Regards,
>
> Karel
>
> --
> If knowledge can create problems, it is not
>
> - Show quoted text -
I could not agree with you more. From the same article you linked to:
"Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly
intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be
interpreted as literal statements by the author. Fundamentalists
therefore treat as simple history such passages as the Creation
according to Genesis, the Deluge and Noah's ark, and the unnaturally
long life-spans of the Patriarchs given in genealogies of Genesis, as
well as the strict historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient
Israel, the supernatural interventions of God in history, and Jesus'
miracles. Literalism does not question that parables, metaphors and
allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual
interpretations based on the author's intention." [references
deleted]
Without ascribing to Wikipedia any special insight, I think this is a
reasonable interpretation of the term "Biblical literalism" But
Harshman's point (if I read him correctly, and which I believe Ray
missed) is that the reader of the Bible must make judgements as to
which passages are to be taken strictly literally. Ray thought it
silly and insulting that the deity could be unaware of Adam's
location, but it's not clear, for example, what he might have thought
about a talking serpent. The necessity of making these judgements
means that interpreting the Bible (supposing that you believe it is
really the word of God) is subject to error.
Well, maybe I expect too much of Ray. Rather than engaging Harshman
in a real discussion, he preferred to attempt to score debating
points. (unsuccessfully, IMO)
Tim
Burkhard
Essentially, this slightly more vague definition makes the distinction
between metaphorical vs non-metaphorical reading a problem _of_
literalism rather than _for_literalism. In the standard hermeneutical
doctrine, you have to decide between literalism and other modes of
understanding which gives yo the typical layered model, in this
version you have to make the decision simultaneously at every step. As
a linguistic or cognitive model of understanding, it does not hold
water. But more to point, it does not solve Ray's problem. It is still
a question of human and not divine knowledge how to read a specific
passage.
Karel P
news:5d7109bc-3456-45ab...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com:
Yes, but how great is the problem really? I do not think
that the God-doesn't-know-where-Adam-is example really
is so very strong. Literalists could argue: The Bible
explicitly claims that God is all-knowing and this is not
denied by equally explicit claims denying this; when we
are confronted with a text that seems to indicate implicitly
that God is not all-knowing, we might be justified to look
for an alternative interpretation. In this case that
interpretation could be that God wanted to give Adam the
chance to present himself, for pedagogical reasons, before
hunting him out; not excluding other possible interpretations.
How did I do as a Biblical Literalist?
Burkhard
No bad, but not a Cardinal yet ;o)
First, I don't think that all Christians would agree that omniscience
is explicitly in the Bible, to cope with the free will problem. - and
I vaguely remember that Ray himself has something similar to that
position.Isn't that also something that Swinburne argues? So if a
literal reading elsewhere requires you to accept at least some
modification of 2omnisicnet", the question then comes back at this
point to decide if this passage qualifies. Not that it matters much
per se, but it shows that a literal readig in one place can have
unfporseen problems in anoher place - of course a typical problem of
complex theories. Where you make the adjustments requires some
judgement and choice.
In any case, I'm unsure if you really solve the problem. The issue is
not that it is _arbitrary_ where you decide on a "not quite totally
literal" reading, though Ray seem to claim that his would follow.
Rather, the issue is that the choice is based on human knowledge, and
hence _fallible_ in principle. So typically, we would find in the
rather clear cut example you mention a "rational agreement" for your
interpretation, but we would also know that it may need revising in
the light of future arguments, insights or discoveries - e.g. if it
causes insurmountable problems elsewhere. So even if we can make
these interpretative decisions with high accuracy, and overwhelming
agreement, they are still human choices. Again, the Bible might be
fallible, we aren't and hence none of our interpretations can be,
unless we read really everything in a purely mechanical, "strict
literal" way.
Karel P
news:e375ac75-ad44-4925...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 23, 1:38 pm, Karel P <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote
>> innews:5d7109bc-3456-45ab...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 11:30 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Jul 23, 5:36 am, Karel P <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote
>> >> > innews:be765004-a463-4e00...@y7g2000yqa.googlegrou
>> >> > ps. com:
Thank you for the compliment (but how many cardinals
would be Biblical Literalists?), and I agree that
such a line of reasoning is not immune to criticism.
But interesting as it would be to dive into this
a bit further (what would real BL's answer to a
criticism like yours? they might even agree), it
appears that Ray has lost interest, and it really
was his baby. So I'll prefer to stop here.
Tapestry
> It is important to note that John Harshman holds some type of
> doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
> paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
> damage) that our Atheist suffers from; or the degree to which he
> engages in deliberate corruption of his enemy----the Bible.
>
> Ray Martinez
I agree he is brain dead, ray.
I hate to burst your bubble in taking out a evolutionary biologist,
but
you might want to watch seinfeld where cantstandya claimed to be a
marine
biologist.
Harshman is actually robert f golaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
idol.
He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
Of course they may cliam their IPs dont match, but since he is a govt
agent, they
can use the usenet programs to forge headers and their deception is a
ok
or so they say ...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/575fd79a22804ab5
>
> John Harshman:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a9c2ec1087208a95
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/179b4c122844d239
>
> John Harshman:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d524b786a4860b57
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/188bb84c6abd211c
>
> John Harshman:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f3bd2902efa983ef
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ef336ce5eab8c583
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c612f91d5d6eeb3
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0177992acc2542ce
>
> John Harshman quits, comments equate to the inability to refute the
> last three messages:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0228a0bf9f24b99f
>
> Ray Martinez (short victory speech):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bd13678de9c98c9
>
> Ray
Augray
<estr...@gmail.com> wrote in
<6da35023-9c91-4787...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> :
>On Jul 19, 4:10�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It is important to note that John Harshman holds some type of
>> doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
>> paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
>> damage) that our Atheist suffers from; or the degree to which he
>> engages in deliberate corruption of his enemy----the Bible.
>>
>> Ray Martinez
>
>I agree he is brain dead, ray.
>
>I hate to burst your bubble in taking out a evolutionary biologist,
>but
>you might want to watch seinfeld where cantstandya claimed to be a
>marine
>biologist.
>
>Harshman is actually robert f golaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
>ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
>idol.
>
>He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
This might be a good time to point out that an evolutionary biologist
named John Harshman has had several scientific papers published, and
some people here have actually met him.
>Of course they may cliam their IPs dont match, but since he is a govt
>agent, they
>can use the usenet programs to forge headers and their deception is a
>ok
>or so they say ...
Why would government agents bother?
[snip]
Mike L
Augray wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Tapestry
> <estr...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <6da35023-9c91-4787...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> :
[..]
> >
> >Harshman is actually robert f golaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
> >ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
> >idol.
> >
> >He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
>
> This might be a good time to point out that an evolutionary biologist
> named John Harshman has had several scientific papers published, and
> some people here have actually met him.
You fell for the cover legend, eh? But beware this new poster's
tunicate bluff: I can only say these things because I'm not me at all.
>
>
> >Of course they may cliam their IPs dont match, but since he is a govt
> >agent, they
> >can use the usenet programs to forge headers and their deception is a
> >ok
> >or so they say ...
>
> Why would government agents bother?
They need to keep a close eye on Ray, because he's too damned clever.
--
Mike.
Ray Martinez
48 hours of inactivity does not equate to a loss of interest, Karel.
I have no intention of letting "Dr." John Harshman off the hook.
Ray
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 23, 11:51 am, Karel P <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>48 hours of inactivity does not equate to a loss of interest, Karel.
>
>I have no intention of letting "Dr." John Harshman off the hook.
>
>Ray
So much so that you have to post the same 267 lines no less than SIX
BLOODY TIMES!!!!
You really are VERY stupid Dishonest Ray.
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
snip
> 48 hours of inactivity does not equate to a loss of interest, Karel.
Note that you accused John of being "on the run" when he didn't reply is
less time.
>
> I have no intention of letting "Dr." John Harshman off the hook.
Ray, John isn't on any hook. You were wrong, again.
DJT
John Harshman
> On Jul 19, 4:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It is important to note that John Harshman holds some type of
>> doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
>> paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
>> damage) that our Atheist suffers from; or the degree to which he
>> engages in deliberate corruption of his enemy----the Bible.
>>
>> Ray Martinez
>
> I agree he is brain dead, ray.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble in taking out a evolutionary biologist,
> but
> you might want to watch seinfeld where cantstandya claimed to be a
> marine
> biologist.
>
> Harshman is actually robert f golaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
> ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
> idol.
>
> He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
>
> Of course they may cliam their IPs dont match, but since he is a govt
> agent, they
> can use the usenet programs to forge headers and their deception is a
> ok
> or so they say ...
OK, this is a new one on me. Questions:
Was that a joke?
Who is this Tapestry person?
Have I ever had any contact with him/her/it before?
Augray
<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
<b59d5a3e-62a7-4e00...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Tapestry
>> <estr...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <6da35023-9c91-4787...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> :
>[..]
>> >
>> >Harshman is actually robert f golaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
>> >ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
>> >idol.
>> >
>> >He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
>>
>> This might be a good time to point out that an evolutionary biologist
>> named John Harshman has had several scientific papers published, and
>> some people here have actually met him.
>
>You fell for the cover legend, eh?
I fell for the papers too.
>But beware this new poster's
>tunicate bluff: I can only say these things because I'm not me at all.
That might get confusing.
>> >Of course they may cliam their IPs dont match, but since he is a govt
>> >agent, they
>> >can use the usenet programs to forge headers and their deception is a
>> >ok
>> >or so they say ...
>>
>> Why would government agents bother?
>
>They need to keep a close eye on Ray, because he's too damned clever.
Clever like a fox hole.
Inez
wrote:
I don't know, but I recommend a shot of penicillin just in case.
Eric Root
> It is important to note that John Harshman holds some type of
> doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
> paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
> damage) that our Atheist
"Atheist" wasn't a proper noun the last time you misspelled it, and it
isn't one now, either.
(snip)
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:57:36 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
>
>
> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:22:21 -0400, Nashton wrote
> >(in article <h406b2$bl...@aioe.org>):
>
> >> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
> >> J.J. sucking up again.
>
> >Nope. Just stating the facts... not that a creationist cretin such as
> >yourself would know a fact if one bit him on the arse.
>
> >> How do you feel about advocating for women abusers?
>
> >Harshman abused poor Suzy too? Damn. I gotta get me some of that. Looks like
> >everyone's doing it.
>
> I can see how Spintronic came up with this nimrod's nick name and it
> is well deserved.
He's a mighty hunter?
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Jul 19, 11:57 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:22:21 -0400, Nashton wrote
>
> > Harshman abused poor Suzy too?
>
She was? How did somebody find out her whole name and where she
lives?
Eric Root
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<676c4d27-28f7-4e6b...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>):
I can certainly catch creationist cretins without much effort.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Eric Root
> On Jul 19, 2:42 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 5:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > It is important to note that John Harshman holds some type of
> > > doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
> > > paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
> > > engages in deliberate corruption of his enemy----the Bible.
>
> > > Ray Martinez
>
>
> > > John Harshman:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a9c2ec1087208a95
>
> > > Ray Martinez:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/179b4c122844d239
>
> > > John Harshman:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d524b786a4860b57
>
> > > Ray Martinez:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/188bb84c6abd211c
>
> > > John Harshman:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f3bd2902efa983ef
>
> > > Ray Martinez:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ef336ce5eab8c583
>
> > > Ray Martinez:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c612f91d5d6eeb3
>
> > > Ray Martinez:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0177992acc2542ce
>
> > > John Harshman quits, comments equate to the inability to refute the
> > > last three messages:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0228a0bf9f24b99f
>
> > > Ray Martinez (short victory speech):
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bd13678de9c98c9
>
> > > Ray
>
> > arbiter of who bested whom in the debate you refer to. In point of
> > fact, John Harshman made you look foolish, and you apparently don't
> > comprehend that. For you to claim victory is fatuous.
>
> > Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> howlers, attempting to comfort and prop John Harshman up.
>
> Ray
What is the predicate of that sentence?
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Jul 20, 10:35 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:23:38 -0400, spintronic wrote
> > Used any 8" 'scopes lately, laddie?
>
> Not to track a tin can in the glare of the moon, that would be just
> plain silly.
I think he means a proctoscope.
Eric Root
Karel P
a02685...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
[big snip]
> 48 hours of inactivity does not equate to a loss of interest, Karel.
>
> I have no intention of letting "Dr." John Harshman off the hook.
>
> Ray
OK, that is clear. I got you messager the first time,
though, no need to repeat it ;)
Rolf
> On Jul 23, 11:51 am, Karel P <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote
>
> I have no intention of letting "Dr." John Harshman off the hook.
>
And what purpose will that serve? What about working on the paper instead?
> Ray
Tapestry
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT), Mike L
> <b59d5a3e-62a7-4e00-a120-6651ba7b1...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
>
>
> >Augray wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Tapestry
> >> <6da35023-9c91-4787-8678-6e166a9d1...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> :
> >[..]
>
> >> >Harshman is actually robert fgolaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
> >> >ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
> >> >idol.
>
> >> >He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
>
> >> This might be a good time to point out that an evolutionary biologist
> >> named John Harshman has had several scientific papers published, and
> >> some people here have actually met him.
>
> >You fell for the cover legend, eh?
>
> I fell for the papers too.
He is also DIG.
Burkhard
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Tapestry
> <6da35023-9c91-4787-8678-6e166a9d1...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
> >On Jul 19, 4:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> It is important to note that John Harshman holds some type of
> >> doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
> >> paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
> >> damage) that our Atheist suffers from; or the degree to which he
> >> engages in deliberate corruption of his enemy----the Bible.
>
> >> Ray Martinez
>
> >I agree he is brain dead, ray.
>
> >I hate to burst your bubble in taking out a evolutionary biologist,
> >but
> >you might want to watch seinfeld where cantstandya claimed to be a
> >marine
> >biologist.
>
> >Harshman is actually robert f golaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
> >ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
> >idol.
>
> >He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
>
> This might be a good time to point out that an evolutionary biologist
> named John Harshman has had several scientific papers published, and
> some people here have actually met him.
>
He probably _thinks" himself that that's what it is. In reality
though, he is a former government assassin whose memory was wiped out
in an induced coma to protect his identity. He lives a seemingly
normal life as teacher, but one day, when a CIA killer will attempt
to murder him, his memory will slowly return and in a series of
adventures with a wisecracking, likeable yet ethically challenged
private detective called Mitch, he will embark on a journey of
discovery, killing lots of enemies in the process and saving his
daughter from an exploding truck. This I saw, and thus it will
happen, the oracle has spoken.
Augray
<estr...@gmail.com> wrote in
<e31695b9-a016-4f87...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
I've met DIG, and no, he isn't.
Augray
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
<60534e1f-c2fb-414d...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
I'd believe you, except for the suspicious lack of ducks and ninjas in
your story.
Mitchell Coffey
I'm likeable?
Mitchell
John Harshman
Who is he anyway?
Burkhard
Very possibly! And are you always frank and earnest to woman? That
would be a bonus.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 5:35 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>> Comments presuppose as true, Harshman's goofy rendering. The literal
> >>> or Bible (get that?) says that Adam was hiding. It says nothing about
> >>> God not knowing.
> >> In Genesis 3:9, "Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him,
> >> 'Where are you?'". The literal interpretion is that God wants to know
> >> where Adam is. You may prefer a non-literal interpretation. Then again,
> >> you also seem to be claiming that God has feet; that too is a literal
> >> interpretation, but a highly non-standard one.
>
> >>> Do you understand that John Harshman is an Atheist attempting to
> >>> discredit his enemy, the Bible?
> >> No, the bible isn't my enemy. It's a book. Enemies are people. Nor am I
> >> trying to discredit the bible, just a literal interpretation. You have
> >> in fact agreed that in the case at hand a literal interpretation is
> >> silly. (At least in the context of belief in an omniscient god, it is;
> >> it's not silly in the context of a myth derived from older sources,
> >> whose gods are not omnipotent.) Anyway, your major problem here is in
> >> the claim that your interpretation is literal, when it isn't.
>
> >> Then again, your claim that god has feet is also pretty silly for an
> >> omnipotent being. Your view of god seems more like Galactus than
> >> anything else.
>
> >>>>>> Now, that would not be a big issue, as you said, we do rarely read any
> >>>>>> text literally. It does however create a problem for people who claim
> >>>>>> that the bible provides them with infallible authority. For as soon
> >>>>>> as you (quite reasonably) concede that parts of the bible are
> >>>>>> metaphorical etc (your cobweb example), the question becomes: what
> >>>>>> type of knowledge allows us to distinguish those parts that can
> >>>>>> legitimately be taken at face value (read literally) and those that
> >>>>>> are metaphorical. Well, the obvious answer seems to be the same
> >>>>>> combination of common sense, literary criticism, linguistic analysis
> >>>>>> etc that we use with other texts as well.
> >>>>> Comments above are built on a false or unagreed upon definition of
> >>>>> "literalism" and "metaphor."
> >>>> Let's use your definition of "literalism" that I referred to above.
> >>>>> Darwin began "The Origin" with a metaphor.
> >>>> Really? Can you quote it?
> >>> Breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material nature
> >>> minus the intelligence.
> >> I believe the problem here is your use of "began". We were all expecting
> >> the metaphor to be in the first paragraph of the book. Instead what you
> >> seem to have meant is that he used a metaphor to label one of his two
> >> main ideas. Some of the time your inability to write clearly and
> >> precisely is your main communication problem.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > "CHAPTER I.
>
> > VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.
>
> > Causes of Variability — Effects of Habit — Correlation of Growth —
> > Inheritance — Character of Domestic Varieties — Difficulty of
> > distinguishing between Varieties and Species — Origin of Domestic
> > Varieties from one or more Species — Domestic Pigeons, their
> > Differences and Origin — Principle of Selection anciently followed,
> > its Effects — Methodical and Unconscious Selection — Unknown Origin of
> > our Domestic Productions — Circumstances favourable to Man's power of
> > Selection. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7-43"
>
> > Like I said: Darwin began chapter one of "The Origin" with a metaphor;
> > "breeders selecting their traits analogizes algorythmic material
> > nature minus the intelligence" (Ray Martinez).
>
> > Also, see the scholarly standard:
>
> >http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html
>
> I know you think you have shown something here, and that it makes some
> important point for you. But I don't know how to disabuse you of either
> of these silly notions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The embarrassing ignorance of "Dr. John Harshman is seen----again. But
in fairness to John his purported degree is in "evolutionary biology"
and not History/Philosophy of Science.
Ray
Picasso Renoir Hilton
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Tapestry
> <e31695b9-a016-4f87-aeb7-7e28d4aa0...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>
> - Show quoted text -
When?
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 19, 4:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It is important to note that John Harshman holds some type of
> > doctorate degree in evolutionary biology. I have taken the time to
> > paste links (in order) which show the degree of stupidity (= brain
> > damage) that our Atheist suffers from; or the degree to which he
> > engages in deliberate corruption of his enemy----the Bible.
>
> > Ray Martinez
>
> I agree he is brain dead, ray.
>
Like most Atheists.
> I hate to burst your bubble in taking out a evolutionary biologist,
> but
> you might want to watch seinfeld where cantstandya claimed to be a
> marine
> biologist.
>
> Harshman is actually robert f golaszewski, usenet troll for lo these
> ten years, and he has a degree in philosophy and neitze (sp) is his
> idol.
>
> He also posts here under another sockpuppet will in new haven.
>
> Of course they may cliam their IPs dont match, but since he is a govt
> agent, they
> can use the usenet programs to forge headers and their deception is a
> ok
> or so they say ...
>
>
>
>
LOL!
Harshman's nickname around here is Bonehead. He has a creepy following
of devoted howlers who pretend not to notice his infallibility. The
fact that Harshman's degree is in "evolutionary" biology dictates the
adjective to predetermine all interpretations, explanations and
conclusions. Harshman is totally clueless to the fact that this degree
automatically announces the status of his mind: closed.
Also: We are forced to treat Harshman the exact same way he treats
scholars who oppose his lunacy, whether he actively participates or
remains silent while his monkey band slings their slander.
Ray
Ray Martinez
I was posting from an Internet cafe and the terminal I was using
malfunctioned. But again: I am glad to be viewed and rejected as
dishonest by Atheists and Darwinists.
Ray (Christian)