Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:54 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> Yitzhak:
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> James, this is not a PhD theory.  It is a standard view accepted by all
>> scholars, even someone as conservative as Kenneth Kitchen.
>
> Since when is Kenneth Kitchen conservative?
> The moment anyone contradicts the Bible, as Kenneth Kitchen does, he is not
> conservative.
> Further, your sentence above contains two logical fallacies: the appeal to
> authority logical fallacy, and the bandwagon logical fallacy. Do you expect
> to wow us using logical fallacies?

Karl, even if you view Kenneth Kitchen as a heretic, that tells us about your
position rather than about Kitchen's.  Kenneth Kitchen only
contradicts the Bible
according to your understanding of the Bible.  Kitchen himself views the Bible
as extremely reliable and some even call him a fundamentalist.

Also, I know you disagree with Kitchen, Karl.  I wrote it clearly in
the post that
dealt with Kitchen's views on the subject.  However, I don't see how your 
views
on Kitchen voiced above have anything to do with the list.

What I wrote above does not intend to suggest that the standard argument is
correct.  It just seeks to clarify that the position I voiced is the standard
position.  Had I said that because it is the standard position, or
that because it
is Kitchen's position, it must be correct, then that would be a
logical fallacy.
But I didn't say that.

Karl, I am all for people pointing out logical fallacies in list
discussions. But I
think you are over-doing it, and also not doing it correctly.  The mere 
mention
of a scholar's name or the standard position is not a fallacy, and really, 
these
consistent interruptions on fallacies are not contributing anything to the 
list.

Let us focus on the subject of Biblical Hebrew and epigraphic Hebrew,
instead of whether Kitchen is a conservative by your standards.

Yitzhak Sapir