Comeback when one is at loss with an answer. The fallacy fallacy is not an accurate statement on fallacies but is itself a fallacy within the context applied here. It assumes that a fallacious statement can have a true conclusion. This in itself is a faulty argument. For a syllogistic statement to be a fallacy, it concludes from faulty premises or cannot draw a conclusion from the premises regardless if the conclusion is true or not. In the latter, a conclusion not able to draw from premises is a non sequitur. By drawing a faulty conclusion from a syllogism’s premises, the conclusion is faulty while presumably being true. However, the truthfulness of a conclusion in this case is presumption because a faulty conclusion is not true relative to the premises regardless if it is true in fact. The conclusion’s truthfulness in fact in a syllogism is irrelevant to the syllogism if the conclusion cannot draw from the premises. Besides, not being able to draw from the premises makes the conclusion logically untrue. A conclusion can be true in itself but untrue relative to the syllogism’s premises. Context rules. Additionally, if a conclusion has nothing to do with the premises, its truthfulness in fact is irrelevant to the argument, thereby making the fallacy fallacy a fallacy. Whoever derived the fallacy fallacy did not thoroughly reason through it with respect to non sequitur conclusions that could be true in fact.
Additionally, the person who originally posted about the fallacy fallacy in this discussion is a plagiarist by not giving proper credit to the source. The first citation that surfaced when I searched for it contained the exact same wording as the posting here. Now isn’t that strange? Not really, but just plagiarism. What are the odds? Additionally, identifying what someone says as a “pretentious deflection” is simply engaging in indirect name-calling. Such name-calling fails to address a claim. To accuse another of applying a “fallacy label” without support is also derogatory. Therefore, the persons using the fallacy fallacy argument are all in error and fail to show that they cannot defend their claims.
I used to love the NASB until in one Bible study someone was reading from their NASB and it didn’t match mine! They’d made changes to their translation without saying so, which struck me as dishonest. Since then they distinguish between some versions where they’ve changed their translation word choice.
When the audience – your “reader” – is the original one, audience understanding is the same as author intent.
Absolutely. It’s impossible to understand any literature properly without knowing its genre, and the only way to know what genre something is, is to match it to other literature in the culture it came from and see which genre it fits with.
Any other way of interpreting ancient literature is just mind games – and while the scriptures are more than ancient literature they are never less than that, and treating them as less insults the writer, the original audience, and the One Who inspired them.
LOL
Liberal readings of the Bible arise from the same foundation as YEC, which is forcing the text to conform to a scientific materialist worldview.
Having graded many high school and college test papers I can state firmly that fallacious statements can have true conclusions – people manage it all the time.
Interesting – when I searched for the term, none of the top three results used that same wording.
Nonsense – it was posted as a quote. When something is indicated to be a quote, it isn’t plagiarism.
Due credit missing. You can place quotes around something all you want, but unless you provide source, you fail to give due credit. Besides, after reviewing this discussion, I saw no quotation marks around the text unless it was edited. Just admit plagiarism. Plagiarism is unethical.
Nope – “historical narrative” wasn’t a genre in the ancient near east. The closest would be autobiography, but even that doesn’t pass muster for historical accuracy (pharaonic autobiography being a good example) because the point wasn’t to tell history but to proclaim how great the person is, so hyperbole abounds as do symbolic elements.
That’s an assumption. The most that can actually be said is that they affirmed the authority of what they cited – and authority in the ancient world did not rest on historical accuracy, it rested on who the material came from. Imposing the modern understanding of literary authority ends up misrepresenting the scriptures.
Wrong. Please cite sources. The Torah’s inclusion of historical narrative is obvious to any reader who understands literature! You do not appear to understand literature when you read it. You use ANE as your authority over Scripture, and that clouds your understanding of Scripture and rely too much on ANE at the expense of Scripture. Just because you claim it does not make it so. Besides, citing ANE is a non sequitur, because it fails to address what I said.
Looks like the powers to be are engaging in censorship by hiding my entire reasoned discussion above without warrant. These censorers are not doing that with others who engage in name calling and adhominem. I suppose that is the way they defend and protect their ideologies. I also received no notice of this censorship. So much for the free exchange of ideas on a public forum. With such censorship, I bid goodbye to those who do not want a free exchange of ideas.
That is exactly what you just expressed with your unbecoming vitriol. When you are unable to defend your position, you engage in backlash. With that and the censorship efforts I have received, I say goodbye. I have no interest in such backlash as yours and the censorers who find the free exchange of ideas detestable. There is no room for an exchange of ideas in this forum.
No one who isn’t reading it in the original language has any possibility of telling what genre it is in the first place.
LOL
Scripture comes from the ancient near east, so that’s its literary setting, I don’t put it “over” scripture, I use it to assess what kind of literature scripture is.
Of course, Walton is not an archeologist, but rather an Old Testament scholar, and his views of the ANE are consistent with the views of most scholars in that field. Many of his critics have not studied and devoted their lives to learning about that age and culture but rather throw their barbs from a very different perspective. His temple inauguration model of Genesis 1 is debated in many camps, and while useful, I myself see it as somewhat of a stretch, but in his defense, he does not discount other layers of meaning as having value in promoting his own from what I have seen.