Re: Observe the trend

On 15/03/2025 9:42 pm, MarkE wrote:

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 <nospam@buzz.off>:
>

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>
<snip>

>
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.
 

Actually, I misunderstood your point. Can there be varying degrees of literalism based on one's interpretation? More correctly, literalism is one possible approach to the text overall? For example:
"As a part of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, conservative Christian scholarship affirms the following:
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
So, fair point.
Btw, I would generally align with that statement, but as I said elsewhere, see evidence for an old earth and therefore room for a nonliteral reading of "days" in the Genesis account.