Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?

a. interpret (change the meaning)
b. say it's not really saying that (change the meaning)you forgot:c. just accept that it's wrong and get the hell over it.see, there ARE literalists. i happen to be. i think the bible should be read literally, and that all good interpretion is based firmly on a literal understanding, not an attempt to correct what it literally says. i think there is more to the bible than just the literal, but that it's the place to start.i think that the people who call themselves literalists, but have to distort the text for it to be literally true are also distorting the meaning of "literal."

---

uh, sort of. i think the circumstances are probably favourable that the flood story is an incredibly distorted account of a real (though smaller) event. some have suggested the flooding of parts of mesopotamia, and the filling of the black sea, both of which we have geologic records of. but floods are common. more of the second. i try not to read things into the text that aren't there. we might be able to abstract some symbolism regarding satan from the snake. but when it says snake, it means snake.

---

i guess that's a way to phrase it. i do listen to opinions and read interpretations. but if it requires a lot of stretching of the text, or doesn't fit the context/details, i don't accept it.

---