From: richZIG.e.clayZIGton@gmail.com   
      
   On 24-Mar-25 12:12, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > On 3/14/25 9:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Note that interpretation and literalism are not mutually exclusive. For   
   > example, if I say, "The cat chased the dog" and you think, "It must have   
   > been a pretty mean cat," that's interpretation, even though you still   
   > read it literally.   
      
   Agreed. It's even more an interpretation if the language has changed or   
   the origin culture differs from the culture doing the interpreting. Even   
   in a single culture and time, words and phrases can have multiple   
   meanings: In "the cat chased the dog," "cat" could refer to a cool or   
   admirable human. Even if it almost certainly doesn't given the context,   
   it's still is an interpretation.   
      
   --   
   [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]   
   Kestrel Clayton   
   "Every normal woman must be tempted, at times, to stoke the fire,   
   host the black mass, and begin eating hearts." — Rose Bailey   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)