Talk:of biblical proportions

RFV discussion
Supposed to be a prepositional phrase that functions as an adjective. But definitions and translation are for nouns. SemperBlotto 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-worked the definition of to reflect it's adjective. I've attested it's use going back 24 years in sources as diverse as Ghostbusters and Time Magazine and speakers as diverse as Tedd Kennedy, George H. W. Bush and Henry Kissinger.  I have not found a widely consulted dictionary to reference the usage.  (AHD uses it as an example sentence under biblical in the sense of very great in extent; enormous. (This sense falls flat, I think.  One's ambition might be "very great in extent" but to call it "biblical ambition" would not convey the same thought.  And calling the Hindenburg a "biblical blimp" would not communicate that your opinion that the blimp was enormous.  But using the phrase "of biblical proportions" to describe either ambition or a blimp, conveys the meaning of that particular sense of the definition."


 * Okay, so what else does the entry lack in terms of verification?
 * SonPraises 09:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing. Well done, it's fine now. SemperBlotto 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, SonPraises. —Ruakh TALK 23:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September–December 2014
There are many adjectives that fit into the slot occupied by biblical. Some examples are epic (the most common), historic, apocalyptic, Freudian, mythical, mythological, brobdingnagian.

Biblical is used in this sense of "large" with nouns like scale, size, deluge, flood.

This just looks like a typical effort to memorialize a phrase some contributor found fascinating. shows that we stand alone among the references they include. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * keep : it's idiomatic and the exact meaning can't easily be gleaned from SoP. I would change PoS to 'Prepositional phrase' however Leasnam (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WHY do you say it is idiomatic, when the components seem to clearly have the meanings needed? Is the key word in your objection "readily"? Does that mean someone having to consulting [[biblical]] might also have to consult [[proportion]]? That they would have to scan more than one definition at each entry (ie, to definition 3 at [[biblical] and 6 at [[proportion]])? DCDuring TALK 15:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * whoops, i should have checked biblical first--its covered there. Changing my nom to Delete. Normally i dont think of biblical in this sense in any other phrases, hence my original conclusion. Leasnam (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; of Koranic proportions should go the same way. bd2412 T 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems a peculiar and unexpectedly common phrase: . Many OneLook dictionaries do not have the sense of "large" in "Biblical": . --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 'What exactly does "of Biblical proportions" mean?' is a question someone asked at answers.yahoo.com; the asking person had that phrase in mind as the lexical unit of unclear meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to biblical. It’s common, but it’s more or less synonymous with sense number three. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirected as proposed (there is consensus against having the entry, and no objection was raised to the proposed redirect). I have moved the citations supporting the phrase to Citations:biblical. bd2412 T 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)