Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re. Bishop Ussher and the age of the earth,etc.
Message-ID: <1117@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 19:58:07 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1117
Posted: Sat Mar 16 19:58:07 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 04:47:28 EST
References: <1041@decwrl.UUCP>, <1094@utastro.UUCP> <4992@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 91
Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) writes,
>{Padraig Houlahan:}
>
>>OK. I understand now. When the bible says that the earth is flat then
>>the 'literal' interpretation is the earth only appeared to be flat.
>>And when the bible says that Jesus was the Son of God, the
>>'literal' interpretation is that He only APPEARED to be the Son of God.
>
>>Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>A real literary critic we have here, implying perspectival statements
>must be interpreted in the same sense as statements of identity. If the
>subject of your mockery wasn't the Bible your foolishness might be more
>apparent to you. I suppose you never speak of the sunset as such? And
>when you drive into a gas station asking directions you want them in
>stellar coordinates. Either that or, for consistency's sake, you only
>claim to *appear* to be Padraig Houlahan. Ken Arndt is making a lot
>more sense than you, fella (Maybe you should be worried? :-)).
>
>Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) cbscc!pmd
Now, I don't claim to be much of a literary critic, but I have picked
up a few useful pointers on literary criticism and debating style,
and am more than willing to share
them with you (on the off chance that they might prove useful.)
I strongly suspect that it is a definite "no-no" to take quotations out
of the context that puts them in very clear perspective. This is what
Paul Dubuc (not Dubois) has done, since, he conveniently omitted the
following from my article:
>[emphasis Arndt's] ... But 'literal' reading
>MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!!
>At the time the Old Testament was written the earth appeared flat to a great
>manny people. And geocentric too. Just how would you EXPECT someone from the
>tenth century BC to describe the earth???? And if God gave an ACCURATE
>scientific description of things, who would understand them????? Tenth
>century people, us, in the future???? The point is of course that as Calvin
>(of Geneva, not Klein) said "God lisps" when talking to man. Otherwise we
>wouldn't know what he was talking about, eh? The bible is not a scientific
>explanation of the world. But it does describe accurately what men saw and
>heard. We do the same today. Talk about things in not a strickly 'accurate'
>way. One MUST be less than entirely accurate to communicate!
>
> Ken Arndt
With this, it is evident that my comment is just an application of the
definition of 'literal' that Ken Arndt himself introduced.
If you feel uncomfortable with Ken's definition and its consequences,
then take it up with him, not me.
As far as implying that "perspectival statements must be interpreted
in the same sense as statements of identity", if this is a consequence
of his definition, then I can't be faulted for applying it,
and getting a result you don't like. You had better take this
one up with Ken also, since he seems quite happy interpreting a statement
of identity, (geocentrism, the identification of the earth with
the center of the universe) as a perspectival statement.
Another pointer is not to use ad hominem attacks as
Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) has done by calling me a 'literary critic'. :-)
- yeachh! the insult! :-)
Ad hominem attacks are not very persuasive, or useful, and are a poor
substitute for sound reasoning.
Putting words in your fellow seeker
of knowledge's mouth (I never said a thing about sunsets, or, whether
or not, I am, or just appear to be myself - Gee! that sounds deep)
is also not a desireable thing for aspiring critics and debaters.
It is of the utmost importance to stick to the
point and avoid digressing to new topics that are not at all necessary
to the topic being considered. Talk about "stellar coordinates" etc.
is not relevant in a discussion on definitions for
'literal' interpretations of the bible.
Literary criticism also requires that you read the article you aim
to criticize. Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) states that the subject of
my mockery is the Bible. Nowhere in my article did I imply that
such was the case. The subject was the definition of the term
'literal' that Ken introduced. The article merely showed the
inevitable conclusion that followed such a definition.
And as for being worried? nah! Not me. Thanks for your concern.
Padraig Houlahan.