I wasn't ignoring the other definitions. I was simply pointing out that my intended use of the word is in fact valid.
Yeah, a valid
equivocation...
In fact, all of the definitions apply in this case.
No, when people talk about reading the Bible literally, they are talking about either this:
quote:
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.
(It even says right there, the literal meaning of a word.)
Or this:
quote:
following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
The second definition refers to translating.
The definition you're using:
quote:
true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
...has nothing to do with reading or translating the Bible.
Now, if we do accept your incorrect definition, the questions in the OP become:
quote:
1. How can a text which contains obvious contradictions be taken literally as truthful? This appears to create a logical dilemma which cannot be solved with a literal truthful interpretation.
2. How can one resolve these logical contradictions while maintaining a literal true interpretation?
The answer to those questions then becomes:
By not reading them literally. (as per definition 1 or 2)
™ Version 4.2