<$BlogRSDURL$>

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Bowman-Fallacies-and-Unresolved-John_8_58 

This is the beginning of a summary list of issues which Rob Bowman has yet to address. This is by no means a complete list but it is an interesting one. Please consider it a work in progress.


Things Rob Bowman must unequivocally address before he is done - In Progress


  1. Jason has asked Rob Bowman what he considers out of the ordinary in the word order of the Greek grammar of John 8:58. Jason again challenges Rob Bowman and notes that he has never replied to this question. - Oct 23, 2004
  2. In Jason #24, Jason BeDuhn again reminds Rob Bowman that he has not provided any evidence for his assertion that the Greek "wording" at John 8:58 is unusual Greek and says that Rob bears the burden of proof. - Jan 17 2005
  3. Rob hints that the PPA can be considered a valid category for John 8:58. Jason presses him to openly acknowledge this. Rob has yet to do this.
  4. Rob attempts to blur the distinction between various types of "broadband presents," one of which is the PPA and Jason challenges him to demonstrate this aledged overlap between the PPA and other broadband presents..
  5. Jason accuses Rob of committing a fallacy - You are here committing the fallacy of postulating a distinct theological grammar, that the semantic significance of grammar and syntax is different in theological discourse than in non-theological discourse. This is the foundation of the circularity inherent in modern Christian reading of the Bible.
  6. Jason challenges Rob Bowman in his conclusion to Jason #18: So, as you can see, you have misunderstood in what sense gnomic presents are "timeless," and you have not even attempted to demonstrate any overlap whatsoever between gnomic presents and PPAs (or with John 8:58 for that matter).
  7. Jason points out that if Rob maintains (Jason #26) that EGW EIMI (I am) is absolute and is not modified by the temporal PRIN clause that this would be a simple present (e.g "I exist.") If it is modified by the temporal PRIN clause then it is modified temporally and limits the existence. IF the PRIN clause does not modify EIMI then Rob needs to account for how this dependant clause can function without the main clause in John 8:58. Rob has done none of this.
  8. Jason challenges Rob to answer what he has never answered. == If the present EIMI is absolute and the PRIN clause does not modify it then there can be no implcations of "transtemporal" "eternal existence." Rob has not address this. The post to which Rob has not adequately applied is Jason #20 from 8/26/2004.
  9. Jason AGAIN asks Rob regarding verses like John 15:27: Will you answer this question now? By reverting to talking about the PRIN clause as an adjunct at the end of your post #30, you deliberately avoid conceding its complementary character, and give the false impression that if it is not an obligatory complement, then it must be an adjunct. This is simply an incomplete, and therefore false, set of choices.

Comments: Post a Comment

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