Google| Subject | Re: OT:Christianity |
| From | James Bell |
| Date | 2002-05-02 02:53 (2002-05-01 20:53) |
| Message-ID | <3CD08E07.C3DDAADF@naxs.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Graeme |
Graeme wrote:
You make good sense, Graeme. I didn't notice the "100%" implication in AC's post. It seemed to me that he meant *any* literal translation of Revelation is dangerous rather than a 100% literal translation is dangerous. If he meant 100%, then naturally there is danger of making an error. I don't believe that he meant dangerous in that sense, either.GraemeI don't believe literal translations are any more dangerous than religious
intolerance. Your post has made that much crystal clear to me.
JimThe danger is the danger of making an error. And it's almost guaranteed if you insist on taking every word of something literally. It isn't possible to discuss things beyond the range of the five senses without resorting to figurative language. If you insist that "every word must be taken litereally", you'd be in danger of being logically compelled to regard Christ as a plant, because he said straight out "I am the true vine."
do you believe that when he said that, somebody tried to water him, or do you think maybe they regarded it as metaphorical? Insisting on 100% literalness is the flipside of the error of simply regarding everything one doesn't like as a metaphor for nothing in particular and disregarding it.
As you say, language is figurative, even in newsgroup posts.
Jim
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
