Using literal texts in a non literal argument

[Desert Snake]

I'm not going to accept arguments made in a literal text format, without literal word correlation.

For example
'g-d' in a text, argued as having some other direct meaning

Lord, in a text, argued as having some other meaning.
'Even though this word is 'g-d' since it is interpreted as meaning something else, the argument will use it in the interpreted meaning'.

This is probably the most abstract and textually bad argumentation style, there. Aside from being completely subjective.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not going to accept arguments made in a literal text format, without literal word correlation.

For example
'g-d' in a text, argued as having some other direct meaning

Lord, in a text, argued as having some other meaning.
'Even though this word is 'g-d' since it is interpreted as meaning something else, the argument will use it in the interpreted meaning'.

This is probably the most abstract and textually bad argumentation style, there. Aside from being completely subjective.

I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about. Are you saying you don't like that people use G-d and L-rd interchangeably?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about. Are you saying you don't like that people use G-d and L-rd interchangeably?

Not necessarily, no. Not at all when the literalism actually does match scripture. However some names and words don't match, in meaning, though usually contextually. It's pretty much the contextual argument, that makes that a problem.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, why does this matter.

For example Adonai Elohim, would mean Lord God, and a non'literal argument might say, "lord yahweh", or such. That would be wrong, and especially in the Christian Bible, as we have more than one language [translated.