No, what he's saying is that they have to be interpreted in light of the kind of literature they are. You don't interpret the laws of Leviticus in the same way as the poetry of the Psalms. You don't read the apocalyptic books (which are deeply couched in metaphor and symbolism) in the same way as you read the history books (which are basically straight prose). Proverbs are wise generalizations about the way the world works, and so if you treat them either as case law or promises, you're missing the point. And so forth.
How do you know what he meant?
He decried those who teach the bible LITERALLY instead of LITERARILY.
That is the teaching method of liberal churches.
lit·er·al·ly
In a literal manner or sense; exactly.
literarily
In a literary manner
lit·er·ar·y
Concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, esp. of the kind valued for quality of form.
His words were not explained. However, his words speak for themselves. If he meant something different he should have used different words. Perhaps he was just trying to be cute. Or perhaps he could only think of 9 good reasons and threw in this one just to make an even 10.
Personally I think people who teach the bible literarily rather than literally are the more dangerous. Most liberal churches are pastored by the former.