Does "only if" mean "never except when"?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Context:

Not all Christian interpretations have been so supportive of this scientific view of the universe, however. Those who inter-
pret Genesis in absolutely literal terms conclude that the earth is only six thousand years old, and therefore reject most of the conclusions just cited. Their position is in some ways under-standable as an appeal to truth: believers in a religion that is undergirded by sacred texts rightly object to loose interpreta-tions of their meaning. Texts that seem to describe historical events should be interpreted as allegory only if strong evidence requires it.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 584 • Replies: 8

No top replies

@oristarA,

Your phrase 'never except when,' doesn't really make sense. What the writer is saying is that a religious text that purports to show historical events, should be treated as a historical record unless there is very strong evidence that proves it to be false. In this case the strong scientific evidence that shows the world is considerably older than six thousand years.

I don't agree with the writer, I think any religious text that portrays historical events should be taken with a pinch of salt.

1 Reply

"except if" would fit your sentence better, IMO.

1 Reply

@PUNKEY,

PUNKEY wrote:

"except if" would fit your sentence better, IMO.

It wouldn't make sense with "except if".

0 Replies

Looking at the entire paragraph, I am reading the last sentence to mean:

Texts should be interpreted as parables except if strong evidence is required.

1 Reply

@PUNKEY,

PUNKEY wrote:

Looking at the entire paragraph, I am reading the last sentence to mean:

Texts should be interpreted as parables except if strong evidence is required.

The final sentence is a description of the fundamentalist position (world created 6000 years ago etc):

Texts that seem to describe historical events should be interpreted as allegory only if strong evidence requires it.

This means "Texts that seem to describe historical events should not be interpreted as allegory, unless there is strong evidence that the texts are intended to be allegory".

Your suggestion:

"Texts that seem to describe historical events should be interpreted as parables except if strong evidence requires it" is the opposite point of view.

1 Reply

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

PUNKEY wrote:

Looking at the entire paragraph, I am reading the last sentence to mean:

Texts should be interpreted as parables except if strong evidence is required.

The final sentence is a description of the fundamentalist position (world created 6000 years ago etc):

Texts that seem to describe historical events should be interpreted as allegory only if strong evidence requires it.

This means "Texts that seem to describe historical events should not be interpreted as allegory, unless there is strong evidence that the texts are intended to be allegory".

Your suggestion:

"Texts that seem to describe historical events should be interpreted as parables except if strong evidence requires it" is the opposite point of view.

Good catch, Contrex.

Some members are as confusing as mine. Very Happy

My first impression of reading your explanation is that it was better.

But my understanding is still not crystal clear at this moment.

My intuition tells me your interpretation is right.

But I'd wait for PUNKEY and others to argue further to make it clearer.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Your phrase 'never except when,' doesn't really make sense.

Quote:

Texts that seem to describe historical events should be interpreted as allegory only if strong evidence requires it.

Maybe it makes sense if the negation found in 'never' sits in a different location.

Texts that seem to describe historical events should never be interpreted as allegory except when strong evidence requires/illustrates it.

I'll leave it to Ori to say whether that was the intended meaning.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Your phrase 'never except when,' doesn't really make sense.

Quote:
Texts that seem to describe historical events should be interpreted as allegory only if strong evidence requires it.

Maybe it makes sense if the negation found in 'never' sits in a different location.

Texts that seem to describe historical events should never be interpreted as allegory except when strong evidence requires/illustrates it.

I'll leave it to Ori to say whether that was the intended meaning.

This is clearer.
It echoes Contrex's explanation.

0 Replies

Does "only if" mean "never except when"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know