From: Jonathan Robie (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 16 1998 - 07:28:06 EDT
At 02:19 AM 5/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>Your reference to 1 Cor 11 is problematic. There is no way you can use
>that passage as a guiding light for interpreting 1 Tim 2. The 1 Cor 11
>passage says only that a woman who prays or prophesies with her
>head uncovered shames her head. It does not say a woman who prays
>or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her head, and it
>is logically invalid to deduce it (negative inference fallacy).
This confuses natural language reasoning with formal logic. If I say I'm
hungry, and you tell you that there is a restaurant around the corner, I am
right to assume that I believe it is also open, that they still serve food,
and that it is likely to be in my price range, even though none of this is
formally implied by your statement that there is a restaurant around the
corner. The whole reason you are telling me about the restaurant is so that
I can get something to eat.
If Paul doesn't believe that it is OK for women to pray or prophesy, why is
he telling us about the proper headgear for such activities?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT