From: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk   
      
   On 25/03/2025 20:35, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > On 3/24/25 2:37 PM, 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...   
   >   
   > Or it could mean "The cat-o-nine-tails followed the gripping device as   
   > both rolled on the pitching deck" (speaking of boats). So context is   
   > important too. But without interpretation, you don't have *any* meaning,   
   > only a series of squiggly line designs.   
   >   
      
   Or, I suppose, it could refer to a lion driving a jackal off a kill.   
      
   --   
   alias Ernest Major   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)