Biblical Flood II

juvenissun said:

How many literal meanings could be included in the blue-colored quote?

Is the primary meaning also the strict meaning? Or could they be different?

Could the primary meaning of A word be different from that when the exact word is used with other words? If yes, then which one is the literal meaning of that particular word?

Click to expand...

Why not just cut to the chase and explain which piece of semantic wordplay is required for a "proper" understanding of the Bible... let alone salvation.

juvenissun said:

How many literal meanings could be included in the blue-colored quote?

Click to expand...

One.

Is the primary meaning also the strict meaning? Or could they be different?

Click to expand...

In this case, they are the same.

Could the primary meaning of A word be different from that when the exact word is used with other words? If yes, then which one is the literal meaning of that particular word?

Click to expand...

Obviously. That is called 'context'.

If I say 'That girl is hot', it can mean one of two things:

1. That female currently exhibits an elevated temperature.
2. That female has a pleasing physical form.

The first utilizes the literal meaning of the word 'hot'. The second does not. Context is important in every situation, which is why a literal interpretation of the bible (which does not take context into account) does not make sense.

I suspect that you know exactly what 'literal' and 'non-literal' mean, and that you are mearly playing semantic games to elude answering questions honestly. This is exceptionally childish, and makes you look pretty foolish.

Orogeny said:

One.


In this case, they are the same.

Obviously. That is called 'context'.

If I say 'That girl is hot', it can mean one of two things:

1. That female currently exhibits an elevated temperature.
2. That female has a pleasing physical form.

The first utilizes the literal meaning of the word 'hot'. The second does not. Context is important in every situation, which is why a literal interpretation of the bible (which does not take context into account) does not make sense.

I suspect that you know exactly what 'literal' and 'non-literal' mean, and that you are mearly playing semantic games to elude answering questions honestly. This is exceptionally childish, and makes you look pretty foolish.

Click to expand...

In some cases, they are different. Right? (if not, why two terms?)
If so, which one is the literal one in those cases?

Of course I know what is literal to me. But you may not agree. That is the issue.

The Lady Kate said:

Why not just cut to the chase and explain which piece of semantic wordplay is required for a "proper" understanding of the Bible... let alone salvation.

Click to expand...

You just made the situation worse.

Papias said:

News flash for Juvie - metaphors do actually use words. All metaphors will be subject to your question about whether or not other metaphors (other birds in this case) would work better or worse. That doesn't mean they aren't metaphors.

Besides, even if by "new english", something was part metaphor and part literal, that would still show that your Bible is not 100% literal. Juvie - are you admitting that your Bible is not 100% literal?

Papias

Click to expand...

It has to be specific.

If the Bible has 1,000,000 words, I have no problem to accept (admit) that 10,000 (probably too many) of them are not literal.

Accordingly, the whole Bible is, in average, about 90% literal. But the 990,000 words in the Bible are 100% literal.

You may adjust the numbers, but the argument style is the same.

juvenissun said:

You just made the situation worse.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that's possible.