From: cates_db@hotmail.com
On 2025-03-15 11:36 a.m., Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:42:19 +1100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :
>
> Never mind; I see you corrected your error in a later post.
> Thanks for doing so.
>
>> 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.
>>
> In this particular case, context is irrelevant; you made a
> declarative statement regarding the measure of literalism.
> That statement was incorrect; literalism allows NO
> interpretation. Stop trying to wiggle out; your were wrong.
> Admit it and move on.
>>
I'm a bit of two minds about this. The usual complaint about the misuse
of "literal(ly)" is associated with a counter-factual. ie "I literally
died when he said that." Clearly NOT literal. In other cases there is
clear room for interpretation. Language is not unambiguous. Take the
statement "God exists". What is the literal meaning? It is not clearly
counter-factual (even though I believe it is not true for many/most
interpretations of 'God') It surely depends on how both 'God" and
"exists" are defined and so interpretation is required.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
