Re: Observe the trend

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
<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...

 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