From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:12:26 -0700, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak   
   :   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   So if I interpret "chased" to mean "played poker with", and   
   you interpret it to mean "had sex with", "chased" is   
   literally true for both? Seems like a not very good way to   
   ensure accurate communication, but whatever floats your   
   boat...   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)