<$BlogRSDURL$>

Friday, February 13, 2004

11385-Rob Limits the Discussions 

2/13/2004 - Rob Limits the Discussions - An Inadvertent admission of Evangelical Weakness

Does Carson Criticize the theological Interpretation of Evangelicals?
"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the Bible is authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with those who share an evangelical commitment) is self-defeating. " EXEGETICAL FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18


Both JWs and Evangelicals on the group are asking why Rob must limit discussion to only those that fit his definition of essential evangelical doctrine. A co-moderator has indicated that the list is not for the purpose of evangelicals to discuss their differences. This begs the question as to why there are so many differences if evangelicals have a consistent and appropriate method for interpreting the bible.


In Message 11385 Rob comes down hard on dissension amongst both JWs and Evangelicals on his decision to limit the topics to only those which he considers "Evangelical".


Subject: Re: Please note new policy statement on home page:
All,

I really don't understand why the list policy concerning topics of discussion is such a point of contention. The policy is the same as it has always been. When you joined this list, you joined a list dedicated to discussing the theological issues that divide all evangelicals from all JWs. Every list has its purpose, its focus, and its limitations. If you are unhappy about the parameters of this list, you are free to find yourself another one or start your own.

In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman

Thursday, February 12, 2004

RB11346-Rob removes Jessica and Yon from the group 

In Message 11346 (Jessica, Yon, and the Blog ) Rob has removed me (Jessica), and Yon from his group. Dave had already left. This blog has not been censored and summarizes the events that led up to this action. In the future it will likely show up in the archive section for the month of February 2004.


The list will likely be improved as a result of the events of the last few weeks if the list rules are fairly administered. Rob has promised only to place someone on moderation for violating the list rules ... what a novel concept!


I would like to state that I always tried to abide by the rules, the rule, which limits the posting to 10 per day, as well as the rules, which dictate courteous behavior between list members. I am not aware of any post where I have violated either the previous list rules or even the current more stringent list rules.


I am confidant that the cumulative record of my posting on this list since 2002, if examined, can stand up to scrutiny every bit as well as any current member including the moderators of this list.


One of Rob's complaints is that he does not want anyone to pressure or continually remind list members that they have not responded to a post. Rob and I started a discussion back in 2002, which he has never finished, on the subject of Hellfire and Eternal Punishment. I very patiently waited for responses to many of my questions which have not been forthcoming but have never become insistent or nagged Rob to complete the discussions even though his last postings on the subject indicated that he would continue as he had time. I will likely blog these discussions in the near future.


How did it come to this?


When Rob requested that I respond to a "riddle" that originated in a post between himself and Dave I was reluctant at first to interfere in an ongoing discussion. But Rob was insistent and because of my respect for him as moderator I complied.


I responded to his "riddle" which was based on Galatians 1:1 and a particular view that Dave had floated in the group. Dave pointed out that the literal interpretation of Galatians 1:1 where Paul says that he was an apostle not by men or a man but by Jesus and God would indicate that Jesus is no longer a man. This is such a straightforward reading that it caused quite a stir amongst evangelicals in the group.


Rob's "riddle" with respect to the literal reading of Galatians 1:1 was essentially how could someone like Peter who was appointed to the office of apostle be a true apostle because according to our view one cannot be an apostle if they are appointed by a man. I answered by saying that the "riddle" was not sound because it commits the Negative Inference Fallacy. Rob had taken Paul's statement and inverted the logic from "not from men or a man" to "a man."


Rob abandoned his "riddle" and attempted to reformulate his argument. However even in later postings he committed the fallacy on yet another part of Paul's statement. This time he claims that Paul said he would not be an apostle if he was appointed by a man. Thus he inverts Paul's statement one more time, but this time with regards to "apostle" and not "man." Rob even preceded this new formulation with the statement that I had yet to refute it! However being on moderation when I did refute it, he did not post it, continuing to characterize my response as related to his original "riddle." The record is intact in the blog for any to verify this if they wish.


Rob then insisted that I exegeticaly prove the view that Jesus is no longer a man from Galatians 1:1. I respectfully pointed out that my only interest in the discussion was to refute his "riddle", which I had done. Rob evidently interpreted this as an act of defiance on my part and continued up until when he removed me from the list to attempt to force me to post on a subject which I did not initiate. In effect he has done to me what he does not want done to him. In fact to do so violates his new list rules!


I will not be bullied in this fashion.


A more reasonable approach would be to allow both of us to select a subject for the other to defend and not to declare by fiat that a particular person must defend a particular position on a particular subject. For example, there are evangelical doctrines that are considered essential doctrines, which are documented on official evangelical sites. Any evangelical should be willing to defend any of these doctrines. (1Peter 3:15)

Likewise there are teachings which are documented in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses which can be found on http://www.watchtower.org and in our literature. A good source of essential doctrines would be What Do They Believe? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. The advantage for both sides would be that one would not be asked to defend an inaccurate or biased paraphrase of the other's beliefs.


I am confidant that the published theology of Jehovah's Witnesses would be easier to defend that the published theology of Trinitarian evangelicals. I have personally compared the teachings of both sides to the teachings of the inspired bible writers. Trinitarian evangelical doctrines are exposed by such a comparison.


In keeping with the theme of this blog and for as long as the project interests me, I may just monitor evangelical postings on evangelical_and_jws from time to time and comment on their fallacious hermeneutics -;)


Just me,
Jessica














Wednesday, February 11, 2004

RB11347- All list members now unmoderated! 

Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11347: "All list members now unmoderated!"


All, As noted in my previous post, we are going back to unmoderated status.


In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman


Response to post #11344: Jessica's blogger, censorship, and an invitation Compromise or Last Straw? 

(Response to post #11344: Jessica's blogger, censorship, and an invitation)

Robert M. Bowman, Jr. posted #11344 recently, announcing to all member of Evangelical and JW forum about the current situation by linking back to the site http://jessicacarter.blogspot.com/

Since his initial fallacy of [1] has been exposed in the link above, despite all his efforts of censorship in his own forum, Rob is taking a new approach to deal with this situation. IF his invitation in post #11344 gets rejected by the JWs, another big (I mean BIG) question arises:


Would he use the post #11344 to justify his actions and his current situation (regardless of what he did!) in an attempt to reverse the blame on JWs for not complying with his SEEMING reasonable request?

This seems like the easiest way out for Rob and IF this is the case, does that mean the JWs need to comply with his invitation? Is his request reasonable at all? It may seem like it but I think maybe not. This seems like some kind of WACKO situation where:

Courtroom = Evangelical and Jehovahs Witnesses forum owned by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.


Suspect = Robert M. Bowman, Jr. (for not admitting his fallacies and his irrationality with his own problems)

Lawyer = Robert M. Bowman, Jr. (for trying to defend himself and his fallacies when hes got no proof to defend himself with!)

Judge = Robert M. Bowman, Jr. (for taking full advantage of all the final BIASED decisions as the owner, unlike Louise who is a very kind and reasonable person, well respected amongst JWs despite her theological differences in her beliefs)

Accusers = Jessica Carter, Dave Barron, Yon Seo Yoo

Now if this was some kind of real life situation where the very same person was the Suspect, Lawyer and a Judge ("3 personalities in one being" something Bowman is famous at defending), he would be talking to himself most of the time wouldnt he?

WACKO indeed!

Joseph Conrad (1857-1924) once wrote:

"I can't tell if a straw ever saved a drowning man, but I know that a mere glance is enough to make despair pause. For in truth we who are creatures of impulse are creatures of despair."


Let us Review his 5 pointers (not Calvinism) together to see if this is the case with Rob:


Robs point #1



1. Post one message (per person) to this list setting forth position and your argument regarding the relevance of Galatians 1:1 for the question of whether the resurrected Christ is human. This was the original issue (Dave argued that Galatians 1:1 proves that Christ is not human) to which I had responded. In these posts, say anything you like (within the bounds of respectful discussion), but keep your comments focused on what YOUR position is on this question and how you think it refutes the evangelical view of Jesus' resurrection. Don't address past posts, whether to defend your statements or criticize mine. Just say what you believe about Galatians 1:1 and defend your position.


New rules or something? Very interesting indeed Rob. So what REALLY made up your mind to do this? Did you develop new arguments you want to offer to prove you refuted JWs? Do you think restarting this thread will solve this matter? Can you remember my post #11299? (A post you used as an example to put me to blame for your decision to moderate all posts) where I said:

It was a wise decision for you to close this thread because the JW’s are unwilling to focus on your subsequent posts (even though they have dealt with it) until they feel you are being honest with the "one point" you started with. Since you say that "one point" you made was NOT a Negative Inference Fallacy, the JW’s here have no choice but to let it go as well and refuse to deal with the subsequent issues you raised after your "one point".


I COMPLIMENTED your final decision to end the thread and yet this post of mine has to be one of the blame as a cause for your decision to moderate all posts. Your point #1 is making a similar request to what you wanted before which JWs here cannot comply to, since I explained why in my post #11299


The problem here Rob is that JW’s (including myself) DO think you made a Negative Inference Fallacy with that "one point" you made in the beginning. You keep trying to divert peoples attention to the subsequent posts on the subject. They don’t need to care about your newer arguments UNTIL that "one point" is properly dealt with FIRST, without diverting peoples attentions to your newer arguments.

Cant you see the problem Rob? Your point #1 does not solve the problem but creates further problems (especially to yourself). Do you know why? JWs here will most probably expect new arguments you have developed recently BUT what if another fallacy is found? Are you going to keep creating new arguments just like you did with [1] and go around in circles? This is what is likely to happen! Because you NEVER admit your fallacies as you create new arguments nor did you admit the fallacy of [1] before creating new arguments, hence we cant move on. So if the JWs end up complying with your point #1, you are still sidestepping the fact that you made a fallacy with [1]. This is something you REALLY seem to want to hide.



Robs point #2

2. If either of you submits such a message, I will be happy to allow it to be posted in its entirety. I will not censor anything you write. Again, all I ask is that your post address the issue of theological controversy and not whether you were right or I was wrong in this or that past statement. Let's start fresh.

What?!? Is leaving posts moderated starting fresh?!? It started fresh when Dave and Jessica provided responses without being moderated and when neither was anyone else moderated. You moderated both of them for minor reasons (When you don’t deal with people like TheBerean who always lowers himself to make hateful remarks about the JWs) with respect to your own feelings and censored their posts which exposed your errors and fallacies. To hear the remark: "Lets start fresh" coming from someone who caused all this… what more can I say?


Rob’s point #3

3. I will respond in kind, focusing only on what you write in this new post, and restricting my comments to the substantive theological and interpretive issues, not on past posts or complaints

<>How about you reconsider your point #1 and understand the situation before claiming that you will respond in kind?

Rob’s point #4

4. If a discussion of the kind proposed here takes place, I WILL PUT THE ENTIRE LIST ON UNMODERATED STATUS and invite *all* list members to participate unencumbered by having to wait for their posts to be moderated. In the future individuals will be put on moderated status only for violation of list rules.


Rob, it wasnt the MAJORITY who caused this to happen. You are still making decisions to your own advantage if possible, even though you yourself were the one involved in this to start off with. So this doesn't sound reasonable at all.


Rob point #5


5. Finally, I would ask that if you, Jessica, take me up on this invitation, and if I follow through as I have promised here, that you would post something on your blogger acknowledging that our differences over the moderation of your posts have been resolved.

Rob, this point #5 explains basically everything about this post doesnt it? This seems like the ULTIMATE point of your post. You must really be more concerned with looking good to people of your ilk since your previous points you made SEEM compromising in order that you can justify what you did in the past. Its really not in your shoes to make such a request in the first place; it’s really up to Jessica to see if you really are being reasonable this time, so she would acknowledge that these differences over the moderation of your posts have been resolved. Your points #1, #2, #3 and #4 dont even seem reasonable to start off with and your #5 is nothing more but trying to saving your own face or perhaps creating your LAST STRAW.


In Jehovahs service:

Yon Seo Yoo




Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Yon makes a final appeal to Rob 

Hi Jessica,
This is probably my last contribution to Rob's actions. You may blogger it if you want.

Yb
Yon Seo Yoo


From: Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2004 7:42 AM
To: Yon Seo Yoo
Subject: Message not approved: Radical policy changes (Questions and Suggestions)



Yon,
If this is a duplicate, I apologize--I seem to have lost my earlier attempt to reply to you.

<>You asked:

<<>>


The purpose of the list is to discuss our theological differences, not to discuss my motivation. But I already stated my reasons. You just don't like them.


You wrote (evidently quoting Jessica):


'If events such as recorded http://jessicacarter.blogspot.com/ (Containing the whole history of events in accurate order including both the posts you allowed and disallowed) didn't occur, would you made this new policy? >>


Jessica's web site doesn't give 'the whole history of events' because it omits my posts. And the Galatians 1:1 thread was a major factor in my decision. I haven't tried to hide this fact.


[All of the posts where Rob either attempts to defend his fallacy or deny his fallacy have been linked to these exchanges to make it easy for all to follow the chain of events. In addition the posts that have been blocked have been included. As the haze clears from Rob's obfuscation the posts that have been blocked actually document the fallacy and Rob's evasiveness in more clarity than what he allowed to be posted earlier.


If Rob provides links which he feels are missing from this blog I will be glad to add them.


I have repeatedly asked Rob where he refutes my exposure of the second instance where he commits the Negative Inference Fallacy on 2/4/04 after I was moderated. I'd like to see that as well!


-- Jessica]


Jessica's web site doesn't give "the whole history of events" because it omits my posts. And the Galatians 1:1 thread was a major factor in my decision. I haven't tried to hide this fact.

<>
Your quote continued:

"Turning the tables a little, if the EXACT same matter happened where a JW was stuck in the exact same situation as you (Rob) because an Evangelical accused the JW of making an exegetical fallacy providing all the necessary proof required, would you have decided to make this new policy?"


The question implies that the policy was instituted to censor criticism of my argument. But in fact I allowed Jessica to express the same (erroneous) criticism of my argument numerous times before I called an end to the thread. Since my calling the thread over was not respected (for example, you posted on it after I said not to do so), I decided to moderate all posts.


No, I won't take a poll and ask list members if they want all posts moderated. I started the list for a specific purpose, which is plainly stated on the home page, and I will do what I think is right to accomplish those goals.


In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman






From: Yon Seo Yoo
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 5:33 PM
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Radical policy changes (Questions and Suggestions)


Rob,


You wrote:



From now on, *all* posts will be moderated. This includes everyone, whether evangelical, JW, or other. I may at some point make an exception for a few members whose posts are reliably well-informed and appropriate. However, for now all list members will find their posts being moderated.


So what is your real motive behind this big decision? I (and other JW’s and Evangelicals who most probably dislike this new decision) feel that some reasons relating to your intentions behind this new policy should be explained publicly and reasonably. This is simply because everyone who’s been carefully reading the threads are well aware of what has been happening recently before you made this ultimate decision.


Usually in situations such as these, the causes of such decisions are nonetheless related to most recent events. And the reason is simple. Your decision on this new policy raises the question:


“If events such as recorded http://jessicacarter.blogspotcom/ (Containing the whole history of events in accurate order including both the posts you allowed and disallowed) didn’t occur, would you made this new policy?


Another thing worth taking notice is that there have been matters MUCH worse than this recent event through out the times ever since I joined this forum, especially during the times when only Louise was playing the role of being the moderator because you were busy elsewhere. And I’m sure EVERY member in this group would agree that Louise did a superb job as a moderator and dealt with matters without the need to enforce a policy such as this one.


HOWEVER this time, it’s a matter involving you (Rob) and a JW member who has theological disagreements with you to begin with. And because one of the persons (Rob) involved in the matter has the absolute authority to make a decision which seems to benefit the current situation he is in but not really others who participate in this forum regularly, HENCE it then raises the question:


“Turning the tables a little, if the EXACT same matter happened where a JW was stuck in the exact same situation as you (Rob) because an Evangelical accused the JW of making an exegetical fallacy providing all the necessary proof required, would you have decided to make this new policy?” (The difference with this example is that the JW doesn’t have the authority to make such a policy since you (Rob) do)


Now that you ended the Gal 1:1 issue and decided to make this new policy straight after, I believe the above two questions are very important and the members in your forum (Both JW and Evangelical) should know how you would respond so that they can see EXACTLY why you think this new policy will lead to a more fruitful and productive experience.


Since you wrote:


I hope these changes will make this list a more fruitful and productive experience for all involved.


Even though you are the Owner, I do suggest making a poll with the title “Should all posts in Evangelical and JW forum be moderated?” at least to see what the majority of the members here think about the new policy. This is simply because of 3 reasons:



If you have an idea for a poll, submit it privately to one of the moderators.


Although this idea for a poll is not private, I gave you legitimate reasons for making suggestions and questions. I hope you are reasonable to do the same. I believe its fair play to AT LEAST see or hear the opinion of others even if you’re not going to make a decision which favors the majority here.


In Jehovah’s service:
Yon Seo Yoo






From: Yon Seo Yoo
Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2004 10:58 PM
To: 'Robert M. Bowman, Jr.'
Subject: RE: Message not approved: Radical policy changes (Questions and Suggestions)


Rob,
You wrote:

If this is a duplicate, I apologize--I seem to have lost my earlier attempt to reply to you.


No need for an apology because this is the only post and not a duplicate. Since you wish to address my points privately without letting the post go through, that is also fine with me since you are providing a response. I believe matters should be straightened out before it creates further doubts.


The purpose of the list is to discuss our theological differences, not to discuss my motivation. But I already stated my reasons. You just don't like them.


I like the purpose of your group. But I haven’t seen clear reasons for your new policy. When you first enforced this policy, all you did was make points on what kind of posts will be rejected. It was a pretty big decision which resulted in already losing a JW member who is a regular poster and an Evangelical member giving signs that this policy is not a very good idea. Why else would I have posted asking you for reasons?


Jessica's web site doesn't give "the whole history of events" because it omits my posts.


Well what’s the title of Jessica’s site? “Exposing The Exegetical Fallacies of Evangelical Apologists”


So when I say whole history of events, I’m referring to the “whole history of fallacious events” she exposed from you when this Galatians 1:1 thread started. Jessica is exposing and focusing on the erroneous components of your arguments, not every argument you are presenting.


Put it this way, if some WT detractor (not necessarily you Rob even though you did write 4 books that oppose JW beliefs) had a website called Watchtower exposed or something (which is quite common on the web anyways), would you expect them to deal with EVERY point of the WT teaching? Of course not! Because they are only exposing the components which they dislike or think that are in error. But they are willing to expose EVERY error they can lay their hands upon throughout the whole history of the WT.


And the Galatians 1:1 thread was a major factor in my decision. I haven't tried to hide this fact.


Oh really Rob?


But if you admit that Galatians was a major factor in your new decision, and claim that you haven’t tried to hide this fact? Why not acknowledge it in the post where you enforced the new policy? You didn’t let my post get through either or else I would not have posted asking why.


I have asked:
"Turning the tables a little, if the EXACT same matter happened where a JW was stuck in the exact same situation as you (Rob) because an Evangelical accused the JW of making an exegetical fallacy providing all the necessary proof required, would you have decided to make this new policy?


You answered:
The question implies that the policy was instituted to censor criticism of my argument. But in fact I allowed Jessica to express the same (erroneous) criticism of my argument numerous times before I called an end to the thread. Since my calling the thread over was not respected (for example, you posted on it after I said not to do so), I decided to moderate all posts.


I’ll break your answer down into 3 parts with keywords in CAPS:


The question implies that the policy was instituted to censor criticism of my argument.


That’s EXACTLY how it seems Rob, because it involved yourself when you made the decision. The decision you have made SEEMS to be based on your own emotions and your own image in the apologetics society rather than the rationality of the actual situation at hand, and the fact that you have the authority to do anything in the forum that puts you in a better position to deal with your own situation regardless of any errors you make.


Which is why I’m asking you for a simple YES or NO question, which you have not answered. So what is it?


But in fact I allowed Jessica to express the same (erroneous) criticism of my argument numerous times before I called an end to the thread.


And she had VERY good reasons for doing so and her criticism of your argument is NOT erroneous. Now that you are accusing her criticism as erroneous, I have no choice but to explain to you WHY it isn’t.


I’ll point out the situation logically and as clearly as possible:


Jessica Carter and the other JW’s felt that you made a fallacy with your original point from your initial post. The post you INITIATED was #10960 which made the point.


[1] “Was Simon, later named Peter, called to be an apostle by a man?"


No one responded to that post so you repeat it again in #11069 requesting a response. Jessica didn’t take your question [1] seriously at the time so she just asked you if the question was a riddle in the post #11071. Then you respond in post #11073 by saying:


[2] In past posts, Dave Barron has leaned very heavily on Galatians 1:1 to prove that Jesus is not a man, because Paul says that he was not called by a man. So, I asked, was Simon Peter called to be an apostle by a man?


Your NEW INITIATION to the post #11139 under the title “Objection to Christ's present humanity apparently refuted” unnecessarily REPEATS your statements [2] and [1] from your previous posts #11071 and #10960 and #11069. Notice the title of your OWN post where it says APPARENTLY REFUTED and the only key point you addressed was [1]. You initiate a post PUBLICALLY announcing to ALL that you APPARENTLY REFUTED the objection of Christ’s present humanity and only address [1] and nothing more.


When it comes to your ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, post #11139 ALONE says ALOT doesn’t it?


The [3] KEY OBSERVATION is to be made is here:


[3] After you made your post #11139 under the title “Objection to Christ's present humanity apparently refuted” you did not present a SINGLE NEW ARGUMENT related to Galatians 1:1 before Jessica Carter brought up the issue of Negative Inference Fallacy. As soon as you made that post, only Dave and Chris were making comments from your [1] (As can be seen from posts #11140 - #11145 the consecutive posts after #11139)


From #11161 we see Jessica bringing up the Negative Inference Fallacy without quoting the page from the book Exegetical Fallacies by D.A Carson. Jessica then shows that she is waiting for your response in post #11171. So what can be seen here? Anything new arguments you bring up other than [1] was AFTER Jessica brought up the issue of Negative Inference Fallacy of your [1]. That is an important fact and because that only leaves you FOUR likely choices when Jessica asks you the question about [1] in the post #11225 where she asks:


Do you admit that your original argument commits an exegetical fallacy of the negative inference?


Here are the possibilities:



  • [A] Admit your fallacy of [1] and use your subsequent arguments made after Jessica pointed out to Negative Inference Fallacy of [1]. This way the JW’s can let go of [1] and deal with your subsequent arguments. And the conversation continues.
  • [B] Make it seem as if your admitting [1] is a fallacy but quickly divert Jessica’s and the Readers attention to your new arguments in order that you can attempt to limit the fallacy of [1]. Then try to make them respond to your newer points
  • [C] Deny that [1] alone was a fallacy, attempt to change the subject to your subsequent arguments by answering Jessica’s question with a question in order that you divert Jessica’s and the Readers attention. Then try to make them respond to your newer points
  • [D] Just request the thread to end, since you’re the owner of this forum.


To Jessica’s question you responded in post #11227:


I see how you took me that way, Jessica. However, that wasn't my meaning, and in several posts--I think four or five--I repeatedly and very carefully clarified my meaning. For my trouble, you accused me of writing too-long posts filled with irrelevancies.


I acknowledge that the way I stated the argument in the quotation above could be plausibly understood in the way you took it. Do you acknowledge that the argument as I restated it at least four or five times afterward does not commit that fallacy?


Few things can be observed from your response to Jessica’s question. Firstly it seemed like you were doing [B] which is why I sent a post in order to clarify the situation in post #11283. Secondly your clarified meaning of your argument was NOT in your original post #11139 under the title “Objection to Christ's present humanity apparently refuted” which is different to [1] anyways. Thirdly the second paragraph of your response seemed sort of like [A] but your last sentence is obviously answering the question with a question in order to divert attention to arguments other than [1].


When I noticed this, this was when I posted #11283 in order to get a straight answer with my the question:


Is your ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT (i.e Simon Peter called to be an apostle by a man?) an exegetical fallacy of the negative inference? (I am not asking about the arguments you brought up later on like Acts 5:4. Just the argument you had presented right from the beginning)


In which you responded in post #11285:


No. The argument I presented at the beginning was worded in an informal fashion, but it was not the argument that Jessica has been claiming I intended.


I see that you have all decided to keep harping on this one point while refusing to deal with all of my subsequent posts on the subject. I am therefore calling this thread. There are to be no more posts on this argument over Galatians 1:1. See the separate message I will post in a minute or two that states this for everyone.


This came to the conclusion that your choice was [C] and then decided to end it with [D].


What can clearly be seen is that you’re making the JW’s look ignorant by trying to talk as if we failed to understand your main argument in post #11139. This is not true because JW’s didn’t misunderstand your original argument. We know what you said and we know what you did as soon as Jessica spotted your fallacy in [1]. You should realize that if you simply took the choice of [A], none of this would have happened. You cant claim Jessica is making erroneous criticism because you were the CAUSE of [1] with the post title containing the words “APPARENTLY REFUTED” and claiming how wrong JW’s were and then JW’s brought out the EFFECTS.


Since my calling the thread over was not respected (for example, you posted on it after I said not to do so), I decided to moderate all posts.


JW’s know WHAT arguments you changed WHEN you changed your arguments and BECAUSE you confirmed that your [1] was NOT a fallacy in your post #11285, I had no choice but to write up a conclusion post #11299 explaining to you WHY JW’s don’t have to deal with your subsequent posts even though they did. I even acknowledged that your decision to close the thread was probably a wise decision because what you expected from the JW’s (i.e ignore [1] but deal with your newer points) was something you did not get because what JW’s expected (i.e acknowledge your [1] was a fallacy regardless of the newer arguments you presented after the fallacy was pointed out.) was something we did not get. So you can’t blame me for you deciding to moderate all posts because it was YOUR choice and not mine. My last post was just a concluding thought which was mainly focused on commenting on your decision to end the thread, and I acknowledge that it was a wise decision. If you were the cause of all this starting from a post title “Objection to Christ's present humanity apparently refuted” at least have the courtesy to let the JW’s make a final comment when you yourself decide to end it. If you wanted to have the last word, that’s fine since you’re the owner anyway but trying to imply that I caused you to moderate all posts is just not on.


No, I won't take a poll and ask list members if they want all posts moderated. I started the list for a specific purpose, which is plainly stated on the home page, and I will do what I think is right to accomplish those goals.


Yes Rob you may think everything you do is right, because you have the authority here and it was your own emotions and your own involvement which led down to all this. Obviously you have made decisions that will make yourself feel better and regardless of what you have caused.


If a poll existed, even with your intellect capacity you know better that such a poll will go AGAINST what you think is right. You disappoint me Rob about what you have done and caused. I hope you really meant it when you said to Stafford:


BOWMAN>>>
Hating to make mistakes as I do, it is my sincere hope that this was the worst mistake in my paper! If there is nothing worse in it, I'd have to say that its conclusion would be quite safe. But I am fallible, and I appreciate having mistakes pointed out to me. I'm even open to changing my exegetical conclusions about texts such as this, or even changing my theological beliefs, if the evidence warrants. I try to admit my mistakes and errors as they come to light, because I care more about the truth than about looking good. So if there are any serious errors in my paper I will be glad to have them pointed out to me.>>


To me it seems it’s either this remark is you at face value or you have changed through the years. If the events I explained to you in orderly fashion above aren’t reasonable enough to you, then I guess I shouldn’t bother at all. Have a nice day.


In Jehovah’s service:
Yon Seo Yoo


Sunday, February 08, 2004

Radical policy changes: Evangelical & JW Theologies list



Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11311

All,


I have made some changes--and I've discussed them with my co-moderator, Louise--to the group settings for this list. These changes will most likely result in a dramatic drop in the number of posts and, I am hoping, a raising of the overall level of the quality of the posts.


From now on, *all* posts will be moderated. This includes everyone, whether evangelical, JW, or other. I may at some point make an exception for a few members whose posts are reliably well-informed and appropriate. However, for now all list members will find their posts being moderated.


Posts will be scrutinized for content and tone. Posts that break list rules will be sent back with a brief comment explaining why they were rejected. It will then be up to you to submit a new post that doesn't break the rules. We may edit the posts by cutting out material from previous posts (this has been a constant source of aggravation), but we won't edit your own content. That will be your responsibility, should we reject your post.


Here are some of the kinds of posts that will be summarily rejected:


* Criticisms of the personal failings of religious leaders and members, whether JW, evangelical, or other. To be relevant, the behavior must be documented to be behavior officially sanctioned by the religion's doctrine.


* Personal criticisms of other list members, including vague or unsubstantiated complaints about not being answered, about posts being too long, about not being honest, etc. It is legitimate to quote (as briefly as possible) something you said and then point out that another member's reply didn't deal with that point.


* Posts with attachments.


* Posts in a thread that a moderator has announced is closed.


* Posts containing links to web sites or web articles that contain inflammatory, irresponsibly false accusations against list members or their religions (again, whether JW, evangelical, or other).


In addition, posts that simply repeat points already made are likely to be rejected.


If we make a mistake and let a post through that violates these restrictions, please email one of the moderators privately and bring it to our attention. Do *not* simply send a message to the list complaining about it.


Furthermore, members will no longer be allowed to upload files to the Files section or to initiate polls. If you have a document that you think is worthy of the members' attention, please send it privately as an attachment to one of the moderators. JWs and evangelicals are both welcome to submit such files. As I have time, I will be reviewing the files that we currently have available and I will very likely be removing some of them. If I remove your file, please do not take this personally or think I removed it because of bias--I expect to be removing some evangelical files as well. I am looking for well-reasoned, respectful papers or resources that are not already on other web sites and that are better suited for the files section than for posting to the list.


If you have an idea for a poll, submit it privately to one of the moderators.


Moderating all posts means that in some cases hours will pass before your post appears in email or on the web. If you have not received your post back as rejected or seen it posted, please wait at least 12 hours before asking about it. Do not send a duplicate post--just send a moderator a brief email privately asking if we've seen your post.


These changes will mean that the list will be a slower, more leisurely conversation. This is a good thing, as it will encourage all of us to take a bit more time with our posts and make sure they are well considered before sending them. With fewer posts, Louise and I will actually be able to do a better job reviewing all of the posts and making sure that the discussions stay within the bounds.


Keep in mind that the list also has a Chat feature that allows you unmoderated discussions with one another. Feel free to use this feature.


I hope these changes will make this list a more fruitful and productive experience for all involved.


In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman


Jessica reminds Rob that he could not have addressed it because she has been moderated since she TRIED and he keeps rejecting the posts!



Subj: Re: Message not approved: NO MORE POSTS--Galatians 1:1, "negative inference," etc.
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 01:29:22 +0100 (CET)
From: jessica
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob:
< 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.


Jessica:
Rob, you might have a point if you had not on 2/4/04 restated your view that Paul said he would not be an apostle if he had been appointed by a man.


To top it off you claimed that I had not yet addressed that point and when I do you skip over it and do not respond saying that you had already addressed it!


< 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.


Jessica:
This is the point where you had claimed I had never addressed the point. I have been on moderation since I addressed the point and so it is impossible that you have answered it!


< 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


Rob, I did not make the original argument. Dave made the original argument. My only involvement has been with regards the fallacious manner of your challenge. Remember when I asked if it was a riddle and you said yes?


Well I have responded to your riddle. However, not before you fess up to your fallacy you want to expand the discussion with me.


I say, first things first. Fess up first and then we will talk.


Just me,
Jessica


--
Name: Jessica M. Carter
Email: jessica_m_carter@yahoo.com
Blogger: http://jessicacarter.blogspot.com/
RSS sitefeed: http://jessicacarter.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Web page: http://www.geocities.com/jessica_m_carter/index.htm
Yahoo profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/jessica_m_carter


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


Negative Inference Fallacy - CONCLUSION



Yon Seo Yoo does a very nice job of summarizing the reluctance of many to continue to attempt to rebut Rob Bowman's reformulated posts. After all, if one spends time rebutting those new points and Rob follows this pattern of changing his argument or changing the subject and then finally using his power of moderation to enforce his position what is the point?

Read Yon's summary at Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11299


Rob
You wrote:


No. The argument I presented at the beginning was worded in an informal fashion, but it was not the argument that Jessica has been claiming I intended.


Since I asked you a specific ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question with no ‘Buts’ or ‘Why’s’, and since you are explaining Why’s, I’ll just take your answer as a No. (i.e “Simon Peter called to be an apostle by a man?” is not a Negative Inference Fallacy according to you)


The link http://jessicacarter.blogspotcom/ is the lists the threads Including the ones you have allowed and the ones you haven’t allowed. Maybe the reader can decide with his own discernment.


You also wrote:


I see that you have all decided to keep harping on this one point while refusing to deal with all of my subsequent posts on the subject. I am therefore calling this thread. There are to be no more posts on this argument over Galatians 1:1. See the separate message I will post in a minute or two that states this for everyone.



The problem here Rob is that JW’s (including myself) DO think you made a Negative Inference Fallacy with that “one point” you made in the beginning. You keep trying to divert peoples attention to the subsequent posts on the subject. They don’t need to care about your newer arguments UNTIL that “one point” is properly dealt with FIRST, without diverting peoples attentions to your newer arguments. The JW’s here have just the equal rights to not bother with your subsequent posts until they feel you are being absolutely honest with your previous one about that “one point” you made. You can’t blame us Rob, you made the “one point” to start it off.


It was a wise decision for you to close this thread because the JW’s are unwilling to focus on your subsequent posts (even though they have dealt with it) until they feel you are being honest with the “one point” you started with. Since you say that “one point” you made was NOT a Negative Inference Fallacy, the JW’s here have no choice but to let it go as well and refuse to deal with the subsequent issues you raised after your “one point”.


In Jehovah’s service:
Yon Seo Yoo



To this I (Jessica) add:


I agree with what Yon has written here with one exception. Rob's later posts do indeed still contain the Negative Inference Fallacy. See my last post which so far has been ignored.


Just me,
Jessica



Saturday, February 07, 2004

Post by Dave Barron blocked by Rob Bowman



Subj: FW: Message not approved: Galatians 1:1 - Your post to Dave and your Negative Inferences
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:27:40 -0600
From: dave.barron@bitboys.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob definitely doesn't like being exposed.....


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert M. Bowman, Jr. [mailto:faithhasitsreasons@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:35 AM
To: Dave Barron
Subject: Message not approved: Galatians 1:1 - Your post to Dave and your Negative Inferences



Dave,


I approved your other message this morning, but I am turning this one down. All you are doing is repeating Jessica's criticism of one of my first posts on this subject and--just as she has been doing--ignoring what I have said in half a dozen posts afterward clarifying my argument.


Let's move on, shall we?


--Rob Bowman




> Rob,
>
> You write: "The fourth line of the argument, "Not A, but B," represents
> what Paul actually wrote in Galatians 1:1. And "not A" stands for "not
> sent by men." Therefore, I did not reverse Paul's statement. You are
> simply wrong in your representations of my argument, even after a
> half-dozen attempts to set you straight."
>
> Now, some time ago you said: "If you say that Simon Peter *was* called
> by a man, then Paul's comments about his being a true apostle because he
> was *not* being called by a man and not receiving his gospel from a man
> (Gal. 1:1, 11-12) would show that Simon Peter was not an apostle--or at
> least not as authoritative an apostle."
>
> It seems to me that you have reversed Paul's statement. If Paul is an
> apostle because he was not called by a man, Peter is not a true apostle
> if he was called by a man. But of course that is not what we are saying.
> One can be a true apostle if the one who has the right to all one as an
> apostle is a man. However, if that one is not a man, then a
> man cannot call them to be an apostle. When Peter was called to be an
> apostle Jesus was a man, when Paul was, Jesus was not a man.
>
> -Dave
>


[I snipped my post to evangelicals_and_jws where Rob does not answer the part which shows he has continued to appeal to logic which exemplifies the Negative Inference Fallacy well beyond his initial challange where he claims to have been misunderstood. --Jessica ]


JC11290- Jessica Polls the group 

Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11290

From: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 6:18 pm
Subject: New poll for evangelicals_and_jws


Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the evangelicals_and_jws group:


On post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/message/11109 I humorously proposed a new egroup calledex_evangelicas_and_ex_jws group. If the majority of the group were offended by this post I will publicly apologize.


Just me,
Jessica


Q. Were you offended by the post.


o Yes, I am JW
o Yes I am Evangelical
o Yes, I am Ex-JW
o Not all all
o Laughed my head off.


To vote, please visit the following web page:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/surveys?id=430118


Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above.


Thanks!



Rob ends the thread not allowing Jessica to reply. 

Rob ends the thread without allowing me to reply to his last post! AMAZING! At Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11286 of Subject: NO MORE POSTS--Galatians 1:1, "negative inference," etc. he says:



I am calling an end to the thread on Galatians 1:1, the matter of "negative inference," and so forth. No more posts on this subject, please.


I will tactfully post that he skipped over the statement in my last post documenting his clear Negative Inference Fallacy and see if he considers that "fresh" enough for him.


Rob's New Negative Inference Fallacy. This is not the same one we have discussed before and therefore he has yet to answer this!




Dear Rob,
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." 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? 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?

    This is What I posted to which you did not reply.

You also said in post #11210:

You have yet to refute this analysis, either.


"Let me restate my argument in yet another way. I am NOT here construing Paul's claim as the "negative inference" that because he was not sent by men he was therefore an apostle. I am construing Paul as agreeing that if he HAD been sent by mere men then he would NOT have been an apostle."

To which I replied:
Your latest reformulated statement negates what Paul said about being an apostle and creates a logical statement about how he would not be an apostle. Thus now you commit the fallacy on yet another part of Paul's statement at Galatians 1:1.



Just me,
Jessica

Rob continues to deny that he has violated the Negative Inference 

At Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11279 he defends himself by stateing that "No. I have explained this many times, and this simply was not what I was "attempt[ing]" to do."

<>Rob has admitted that his initial challenge which involved a comparison of Peter who was appointed by Jesus when he was a man could be construed as violating the negative inference fallacy. However when pressed for a clear admission he continues to deny it. This can be found at Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11285

What is more revealing is the in his most recent reply he completely skipped over the proof that he repeated the negative inference.


At Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11274 I said with respect to his new revised logic:


The Negative Inferences in your restated position


You also said in post #11210:


You have yet to refute this analysis, either.


"Let me restate my argument in yet another way. I am NOT here construing Paul's claim as the "negative inference" that because he was not sent by men he was therefore an apostle. I am construing Paul as agreeing that if he HAD been sent by mere men then he would NOT have been an apostle."


To which I replied:


Your latest reformulated statement negates what Paul said about being an apostle and creates a logical statement about how he would not be an apostle. Thus now you commit the fallacy on yet another part of Paul's statement at Galatians 1:1.

<>
In Rob's reply he harps my first statement that he uses A = by a man when he uses it as "not A." Rob may have a point here. In looking at his convoluted logic if he uses A as not A, this in itself is not a Negative Inference Fallacy, but it is an effective smoke screen to attempt to distract us from his initial fallacy.

However, when he says in post #11210 that Paul is stating something about being sent by a man that is most certainly the Negative Inference Fallacy!
<>It is quite telling that Rob complains about my section "The Negative Inference from your first posts" and skips to "Your latest post on Galatians 1:1" without addressing this.

Rob must think that if he does not admit to it and skips over it that it really did not happen. Rob has committed the Negative Inference Fallacy in at least two ways during this thread.


Just me,
Jessica


Friday, February 06, 2004

Rob's new Exegetical Fallacies 

Subj: Galatians 1:1 - Your post to Dave and your Negative Inferences

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:57:49 +0100 (CET)
From: jessica2@phenix.rootshell.be
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rob,
I will now address two topics briefly. First the matter of your Negative Inference Fallacy and then your latest post to Dave on Galatians 1:1.



The Negative Inference from your first posts



Your first challenge with your reference to Peter and how he could not be an apostle if he was a man is a clear example of the abuse of the Negative Inference Fallacy.


You have inverted Paul's statement of "not a man" to "a man" with respect to Peter and also taken the phrase "an apostle" and inferred he was *not* an apostle. This is an attempt to form a proposition by negating the statement Paul made.


In your most recent posts (e.g 11210) you defined "A" as "from men" when Paul's statement at Galatians 1:1 is "not from men." Thus you have reversed his statement.



The Negative Inferences in your restated position



You also said in post #11210:
"Let me restate my argument in yet another way. I am NOT here construing Paul's claim as the "negative inference" that because he was not sent by men he was therefore an apostle. I am construing Paul as agreeing that if he HAD been sent by mere men then he would NOT have been an apostle."
<>
Your latest reformulated statement negates what Paul said about being an apostle and creates a logical statement about how he would not be an apostle. Thus now you commit the fallacy on yet another part of Paul's statement at Galatians 1:1.


Your latest post on Galatians 1:1


In your latest post on Galatians 1:1 at #11266 you commit at least three more fallacies.


You equivocate between "mere" and "merely" from Galatians 1:1 and Acts 5:4. You abuse the "obviously" fallacy in your insistence that Herod was considered a god-man by the people and you commit the preposition-case fallacy in your use of KATA ANQRWPOS compared to ANQRWPOS.

<>
I have the complete details on my blogger which you can access from my signature file.

I have decided to use the blogger to eliminate the inconvenience of being moderated.

Just me,
Jessica


--
Jessica M. Carter
jessica_m_carter@yahoo.com
http://jessicacarter.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/jessica_m_carter/index.htm
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jessica_m_carter


Rob Trys another approach on Galatians 1:1 and commits three more fallacies. 

At Yahoo! Groups : evangelicals_and_jws Messages : Message 11266 Rob Bowman takes a different approach to prove that Galatians 1:1 does not prove Jesus is no longer a man of flesh and blood. However in doing so, he commits at least three Exegetical Fallacies, Equivocation, the abuse of "Obviously" and the "preposition-case" fallacy.


Equivocation

Dear Rob,
At Galatians 1:1 you have said that you consider ANQRWPOS to be “mere” man. However at Acts 5:4 you say “of course, what Peter was saying was that Ananias had not lied *merely* to men; they had in fact lied also and more importantly to God.”


When one says that someone is “mere” man there is the sense that the man is himself more than a man. With respect to Acts 5:4 when you say that Ananias had not lied “merely” to men it means that you consider that he lied both to a man and to God.


However you equivocate with the stem “mere.” In this context “mere” and “merely” are not the same thing at all. While Peter was filled with the holy spirit, he was not more than a man in reality, a “mere” man, not a god-man.


At Acts 5:4 the contrast is to two direct objects in the dative. When one considers the context it is apparent that there is a true contrast between ANQRWPOS and QEOS.


The fact that this is a true contrast between two polar opposites does not help you here. At Galatians 1:1 there is also a complete contrast between two opposites, ANQRWPOS and QEOS.


Abuse of “obviously” and similar expressions

Acts 12:22 is also a contrast between QEOS and ANQRWPOS. Here QEOS is used in the sense of pagan emperor worship. Deification of the Roman Emperors occured after death although during their life they would receive divine honor. Vespasian supposedly said when he realized that he was dying, "Uh oh, I'm turning into a god, I think." Despots would sometimes claim this before their death but no one really considered them more than human.


Yet you say:
By your reasoning, the people must have believed that Herod Agrippa wasn't human at all. This is highly unlikely (since they knew his Herodian ancestry); it is almost certain that they were hailing him as a god as distinct from a *mere* man.


In doing this without proof you have fallen into the “obviously” fallacy. D.A. Carson discusses this on page 122 of his book, Exegetical Fallacies. According to Carson one should not use words indicating a view is certain unless “he or she has marchaled such overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of readers would concur that the matter being presented is transparent, or that the argument is logically conclusive.”


The preposition-case fallacy

The application of KATA ANQRWPON at Galatians 1:11 as “literally” eliminating the possibility that a human being is involved is flawed. You said “If this is taken literally, it would mean that the gospel that Paul preached was not the gospel "according to" any man. However KATA followed by the accusative ANQRWPON means “according to human standards.” Your example at Romans 2:16 KATA TO EUANGELION MOU has the sense of men being judged according to the standards set by the gospel and therefore does not support your theory.


You miss the point of KATA A. as opposed to A. in the rest of your citations as well. In addition you commit a fallacy when you compare a word in a particular case with that same word which preceded by a preposition. This is related to the fallacy that Wallace describe of the “fallacy of lumping preposition + case uses with simple case uses (a practice followed in more than one intermediate grammar). “ [Wallace GGBB]


Just me,
Jessica






Bowman -- Fallacious to the End! 

This brings us to the end of the thread as it stands. Since Rob Bowman has put me on moderation there is no guarantee that a reply to his question will reach his board if it is not to his liking. Thus I dedicate this blogger to Rob Bowman.


Apparently Rob would like me to validate his newly formulated arguments in light of the fact that he feels he has abandoned the logic which violates the Negative Inference Fallacy.


However, as I have already pointed out in comments between his latest arguments he has inverted the first part of Paul's statement from a negative to a positive. His exhibit "A" is stated as "from men" when Paul states it as "not from men." This is still a negating of what Paul said.


It is a fallacy to make a negative inference from a statement no matter how the statement is worded. The negative inference refers to the negating of the statement, not upon whether or not the statement includes a negative particle! It is also apparent that it is impossible to take Paul's statement and infer that Peter could not be an apostle since he was appointed by a man without negating Paul's statement and falling into the Negative Inference Fallacy.


Even with the somewhat nuanced approach Rob is now using he admitted the following at post#11210:

Let me restate my argument in yet another way. I am NOT here construing Paul's claim as the "negative inference" that because he was not sent by men he was therefore an apostle. I am construing Paul as agreeing that if he HAD been sent by mere men then he would NOT have been an apostle.”


Either way you analyze this statement, Rob continues to commit the Negative Inference Fallacy in at least two ways. It is irrelevant to the fallacy that Rob supplies the adjective “mere” to the word “man” when Paul does not. That might be yet another fallacy -;)


Let us count the ways:

  1. The most recent reformulated argument inverts Paul's statement from "not by men or a man" to "by men or a man."
  2. Rob’s latest reformulated statement negates what Paul said about being an apostle and creates a logical statement about how he would not be an apostle. Thus now Rob commits the fallacy on yet another part of Paul’s statement at Galatians 1:1.


Rob, sorry about that, but you remain refuted. You continue to formulate your argument by appealing to the Negative Inference Fallacy.


Just me,
Jessica


Thursday, February 05, 2004

RB11227- Rob Admits his earlier argument could have violated the Negative Inference Fallacy 

Now that Rob has been presented the evidence that he committed the Negative Inference Fallacy will he admit to it? He answers at post#11227. where he finally admits that his early posts could have been interpreted in that fashion. He also asks for an admission from me that his newly formulated arguments no longer appeal to the fallacy. In addition he also admits that I have been on moderation for the past few days. In fact I had noticed a considerable lag in posting which resulted in quite a bit of inconvience for me. I will continue to give Rob the benefit of the doubt. It is the Christian thing to do.


Jessica,

First of all, I need to tell you that your posts have been on moderated status for a day or two. There may be some delay, then, in your posts showing up.

I had written in an early post on Galatians 1:1:


"If you say that Simon Peter *was* called by a man, then Paul's comments about his being a true apostle because he was *not* being called by a man and not receiving his gospel from a man (Gal. 1:1, 11-12) would show that Simon Peter was not an apostle--or at least not as authoritative an apostle.


If you say that Simon Peter was *not* called by a man, you contradict the Gospels, which report that Christ called Simon Peter to be an apostle during his earthly ministry, while Christ was beyond dispute a man (Luke 6:13-14)."


You now comment:
You are clearly making negative inferences to arrive at a dilemma for JWs who say that Jesus is not a man because of Galatians 1:1. It was to this argument that I replied. You have apparently abandoned your original arguments or at least modified them to a great extent.

Do you admit that your original argument commits an exegetical fallacy of the negative inference?


It was to this argument that I replied. You have apparently abandoned your original arguments or at least modified them to a great extent.


Do you admit that your original argument commits an exegetical fallacy of the negative inference?



I see how you took me that way, Jessica. However, that wasn't my meaning, and in several posts--I think four or five--I repeatedly and very carefully clarified my meaning. For my trouble, you accused me of writing too-long posts filled with irrelevancies.


I acknowledge that the way I stated the argument in the quotation above could be plausibly understood in the way you took it. Do you acknowledge that the argument as I restated it at least four or five times afterward does not commit that fallacy?


In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman


Wednesday, February 04, 2004

JC11225- Revisionist History attempted 

Rob accuses me next of misconstruing his argument at post#11210. where he says: "Now, Jessica, I have stated and restated my argument several times for you, and I have pointed out specifically and repeatedly how you have misconstrued my argument. I expect you not to continue doing so."


My reply at post#11225 p provides proof for all to see that Rob has indeed expressed his arguments by misusing the Negative Inference Fallacy.



Rob said:
In your original reply to me on Galatians 1:1, you wrote:


Jessica:
Rob, you have not gone back far enough in the history of this discussion. You initially said at


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/message/11073
In past posts, Dave Barron has leaned very heavily on Galatians 1:1 to prove that Jesus is not a man, because Paul says that he was not called by a man. So, I asked, was Simon Peter called to be an apostle by a man?


Then you said at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/message/11139
The reason is easily recognized: the question poses a dilemma for the JW who uses Dave's argument.


If you say that Simon Peter *was* called by a man, then Paul's comments about his being a true apostle because he was *not* being called by a man and not receiving his gospel from a man (Gal. 1:1, 11-12) would show that Simon Peter was not an apostle--or at least not as authoritative an apostle.


If you say that Simon Peter was *not* called by a man, you contradict the Gospels, which report that Christ called Simon Peter to be an apostle during his earthly ministry, while Christ was beyond dispute a man (Luke 6:13-14).


Jessica:
Rob, You are clearly making negative inferences to arrive at a dilemma for JWs who say that Jesus is not a man because of Galatians 1:1.


It was to this argument that I replied. You have apparently abandoned your original arguments or at least modified them to a great extent.


Do you admit that your original argument commits an exegetical fallacy of the negative inference?


Just me,
Jessica


JC11207- Jessica explains the Negative Inference Fallacy to Rob 

Rob denies my allegations that he has used a negative inference and considers the matter closed. at post#11204. It is clear that Rob does not want to admit that he has argued in this manner. However this time I am not inclined to allow him to deny it. My reply at post#11207


> Jessica,
>
> You wrote:
>
> <<> for exegesis. He then gives two examples. >>
>
> Actually, he gives at least three (including his exegetical example
> from Calvin's use of 2 Corinthians 13:5).


Rob,
He states the fallacy as "It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negative inference from that proposition is also true. The negative inference may be true, but this cannot be assumed, and in any case is never true _because_ it is a negative inference. This can easily be presented in syllogistic form."

Carson goes on to give the examples but does not tie the fallacy to any particular syllogism.

>
> You wrote:
>
> <<> negative inferences. The use of a negative inference is a fallacy,
> not because of a particular formula such as if A and B then C but a
> principle that the negative inference is not a valid exegetical
> technique. >>
>
> Sorry, but you don't understand what Carson means by a negative
> inference. He's talking about a kind of invalid syllogism, and I
> explained what it was and why it is invalid in my last post.

I do not need you to explain something to me when I have his book right in front of me. After his first example he says "This clearly does not hold up, because the conclusion depends on a negative inference from the major premise." He does not tie the fallacy to any specific formula.



> As long as you fail to engage my arguments closely and specifically,
> I see no reason to continue answering your criticisms of those
> arguments. Thus, you wrote:

Have you ever asked someone for the time and had then explain how to make a watch? That is what you have done. It is absurd for you to expect that I must wade through a bunch of irrelevant details when the concept is much simpler that the complex maze you built to insulate your fallacy.


> <<> your logic. Paul states that he is an apostle not through 'men or
> a man but through Jesus and God.'
>
> You then state a negative inference only on the first part of Pauls
> statement. In reality you are doing what you claimed earlier I had
> done that is to ignore part of the phrase.
>
> The negative inference for Galatians 1:1 would be to be appointed
> by 'men or a man and NOT appointed by Jesus and God' thus negating
> BOTH parts of the clause. When you negate the first clause and
> not the second, inverting only part of the clause you violate even
> the fallacious technique you are attempting to use. >>
>
> All of the above simply ignores the actual argument I presented. No
> further comment is needed.

Actually you have not addressed the fact that you have created a negative inference with only half of what Paul said. That is clearly inappropriate. You act as if you have answered this but you clearly have not. I just brought it up. Your problem of inverting only half the proposition has NOT been addressed.

I am content that thinking people reading these exchanges will see our respective posts for what they are, and not for what we wish them to be.


> In Christ's service,
> Rob Bowman
>
>


Just me,
Jessica


RB11195- Rob unsuccessfully tries to Limit the Fallacy 

Rob largely repeats himself at post#11195 and attempts to limit the application of the Negative Inference Fallacy, to which I reply at post#11201



Dear Rob,
Carson states that one cannot use a negative inference as proof for exegesis. He then gives two examples. He does not state that his examples exhaust the category of negative inferences. The use of a negative inference is a fallacy, not because of a particular formula such as if A and B then C but a principle that the negative inference is not a valid exegetical technique.


I do not need to look at Carson’s two examples to see that what you have done is to propose a negative inference. It is not exactly rocket science. Do you deny that to turn the phrase not of 'men or a man' with respect to Paul into of 'men or a man' with respect to Peter is a negative inference????


[ I would like to note that Rob Bowman never actually answers this question - note added 2/6/04 by Jessica]



Lightbulb goes off!



Even your fallacious negative inference is flawed!


It dawned on me this morning that this is another fatal flaw in your logic. Paul states that he is an apostle not through 'men or a man but through Jesus and God.'


You then state a negative inference only on the first part of Paul’s statement. In reality you are doing what you claimed earlier I had done that is to ignore part of the phrase.


The negative inference for Galatians 1:1 would be to be appointed by 'men or a man and NOT appointed by Jesus and God' thus negating BOTH parts of the clause. When you negate the first clause and not the second, inverting only part of the clause you violate even the fallacious technique you are attempting to use.


In conclusion it is NEVER appropriate to assert an exegetical proof based on the inverse of a statement. This is the negative inference fallacy.


Sometimes the negative inference might be true, but it cannot be proven by the original phrase. However even this is an impossible inference on your part because you have violated the integrity of the phrase by only inverting the first part of the clause.


Rob, you cannot have it both ways. If you want the entire first phrase to be considered as a unit then you must invert the entire phrase. It is that simple.


You remain refuted.


Just me,
Jessica



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