Re: Observe the trend

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:43:05 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:37:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:12:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>

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 <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.

>
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.
>

Not sure why I bother, but try this:

Replace "the definitions you prefer" with "the definitions
found in the OED", which I noted and you ignored. Again.

>
For most adults, this isn't hard to understand.
>

I agree, but you seem to have problems with it.

>

--

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