Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin
  • Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 21:15:57 -0500


Interesting logic, though I don't know the technical terminology. But
your appendectomy argument only works if there is the opportunity of a
full examination of your abdomen. If the only evidence of the state of
your abdomen is a few damaged photographs of some parts of it, and
there is no scarring visible, there is no proof that you have not had
an appendectomy because the evidence is not complete. Similarly, we do
not have complete evidence about what people were thinking in the 1st
century or whatever, but only a few "snapshots". And so (for example)
we cannot argue that people did not have a concept of virgin birth
just because there is no evidence for such a concept in the surviving
documents.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin
Author: <Joseph.Crea AT worldnet.att.net> at Internet
Date: 29/10/99 23:52


Hello Ken!

At 04:56 PM 10/29/99 -0700, kdlitwak wrote:
>There are two large methodological problems with the following:
>
>1. Don't we all know that arguments from silence are completely invalid?


CREA
Are you arguing for the INvalidity of Modus Tollendus Ponens or that
"denying the consequent" carries no weight? If I were to claim to have had
an appendectomy and can produce no evidence whatsoever of abdominal scarring
consistent with customary surgical procededures, such lack definitely falls
into the category of an "argument from silence", but is is hardly invalid or
non-evidential.


With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea AT worldnet.att.net>







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page