From: me22over7@gmail.com
On 15/03/2025 9:42 pm, MarkE wrote:
> On 15/03/2025 4:49 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova :
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of
>>>> Genesis, not the quoting of it.
>>>>
>>> Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means
>>> that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation
>>> allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.
>>>>
>> No comment? OK.
>>>
>
> You've misunderstood. The context was Martin inferring I was a
> literalist because I quoted Genesis.
>
>
Actually, I misunderstood your point. Can there be varying degrees of
literalism based on one's interpretation? More correctly, literalism is
one possible approach to the text overall? For example:
"As a part of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, conservative
Christian scholarship affirms the following:
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its
literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the
grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer
expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take
account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to
it meaning which the literal sense does not support."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
So, fair point.
Btw, I would generally align with that statement, but as I said
elsewhere, see evidence for an old earth and therefore room for a
nonliteral reading of "days" in the Genesis account.
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
