From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 16 1998 - 20:13:34 EDT
On Sat, 16 May 1998 16:49:00 "Stephen C. Carlson"
>At 12:47 5/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>If you reject the application of logical principles to the 1 Cor 11:5
>As I understand him, speaking nothing in Jonathan's statement that
>"rejects the application of logical principles." What I reject is
>the apparent argument that an author never implies anything beyond
>what logically follows from his explicit statements.
Hmm, Stephen, this is an interesting statement. Usually the word
"implies" carries with it a logical connotation. I am not familiar with
the idea that an author could "imply" something otherwise.
If in 1 Cor 11:5 you are saying Paul is implying the negation (that a
woman who prays or prophesies with her head covered does
not shame her head), but not that he is not implying it logically, but
some other way, then could I ask how that implication is determined?
This is a hermeneutical question, to be sure, and we should probably
not pursue it anymore, but it does get my logical fur up when I see
this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:5 being used as the guiding light to
interpret 1 Tim 2:12, or 1 Cor 14:34-35.
doing it by the rules of logic, but by some other criteria,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT