nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Petrus' and my edits: explaining my latest reversion
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
----
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".
However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)