From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:37:15 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >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...   
      
      
   Not sure why I bother, but try this:   
      
   You are correct, that it's important to agree on definitions.   
      
   You are not correct, that the definitions you prefer are necessarily   
   the correct ones for a given context.   
      
   For most adults, this isn't hard to understand.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)