timberlandko wrote:Implicator, I submit again that a literal reading is a literal reading, and is that to which I allude. Any analysis of the words, in context or otherwise, that presents the words as saying other than what the words say is an interpretation.
Any analysis which presents
what the words say is, by definition, an interpretation (to interpret something is to "explain the meaning of"). The only exception is if your presentation is simply a verbatim recitation of the words in question.
Presenting the words as saying
other than what the words say is (by definition) an
incorrect interpretation. It means you evaluated what you read, concluded what the meaning of the words was (i.e. the concepts expressed), but came up with a meaning that is other than the author's intention.
An attempt to read the words in an entirely literal manner is not sufficient to guarantee that your interpretation (the meaning you derive from the words) is correct, because you are still ascribing meaning to the words - that is exactly what makes it an interpretation. Even if it were correct, however, it would still be your (correct) interpretation of what was written, because you derived meaning from the words by analyzing them.
Furthermore, if you choose to take an entirely literal approach then you are doomed to end up with an inaccurate interpretation
in the case that the author did not write in an entirely literal manner.
I
soemtimes it's difficult to read your 
because 
and the 
leaving me with 
and 
