<$BlogRSDURL$>

Sunday, February 08, 2004

RB020804 - Rob does not approve the message. 

Rob does not approve the message or show where he has addressed my refutation of his newer points


Subj: Message not approved: NO MORE POSTS--Galatians 1:1, "negative inference," etc.
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:00:11 -0000
From: "Robert M. Bowman, Jr."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica,

I'm sorry, this message is not being posted.

You wrote:

In my latest post to you I outlined a number of problems with your analysis. You made a few good points but you completely skipped the section which I titled "The Negative Inferences in your restated position."

Actually, I explained what I saw to be the error in your response to my argument when I commented on earlier parts of that post, and then stated that you continued making the same error in later portions--which includes the section you say I skipped.


One reason why I have called this thread, besides the fact that you (and recently Dave and Yon) keep repeating this same criticism, is that you never have responded to what you call my "few good points." It isn't a discussion when one side consistently keeps hitting one note while ignoring what the other side is saying.

You wrote:
In #11210 you outlined logic which you claimed I had "yet to refute." Yet when I refute it (and quite adeptly I might add) you do not comment on it. Is if fair of you to claim that I have not refuted it and then not comment on my refutation? Is it fair for you to close the thread down when you have not answered this?

Jessica, I have answered it, several times, and in fact you have NEVER answered or even commented on the logical analysis I made of the text.

You wrote:
I can understand your consternation. You very clearly state that Galatians 1:1 can be construed that Paul is speaking about how he would NOT have been an apostle (emphasis by you). How can this be anything other than the Negative Inference Fallacy?


My logical analysis of the argument explained this, as did my discussion of the larger context of Galatians 1. Since you refuse to discuss these matters, there's no reason for the thread to continue.


In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?