"Assailment-by-Entailment"
Do you know what this fallacy is? If not, I encourage you to learn what it is so that you will not engage in it and will be able to confront it when it might be used against you.
Arguments that use this fallacy have been used more than once against me in discussions about worship music (here on SI and elsewhere). I recognized what was argued against me as faulty but now I should be able to confront it more skillfully. I also intend to be even more careful that I do not engage is this faulty practice myself.
Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with everything that this article or its author, etc. says.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/12/a-new-name-for-an-old…
- 68 views
Rajesh, here are the actual uses of the word. The only places where possible fornication is referred to is in Genesis 39, and in verses 14 and 17, the word is translated in terms of “sport”, “mockery”, “make fools of”, and the like. In other words, it’s being used in its central meaning “to laugh”, and the sexual nature of the mockery alleged by Potiphar’s wife is inferred not from the word, but the context.
So the reason that “fornication” is not used as a central meaning of the word, let alone an appropriate translation for Exodus 32:6, is because it’s simply not what the word means in that context.
In other words, your so-called “refutation” is merely you reading something into the text which clearly is not there. You do this a lot, and then when people like me (and a bunch of others on this forum) call you on it, you start with ludicrous personal attacks. You want to see someone who is intellectually dishonest? Look at the guy who started this thread by endorsing a made-up logical “fallacy” that would tend to contradict the principle of logical conclusions. Shave. He’ll be there.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]You missed the point. The refutation that I made in that previous thread on 8/15/2019 was of your nonsense claim in that thread that I had engaged in “sad excuse for exegesis” and should be ashamed “for not even looking up the Hebrew word.” In that previous thread, I proved with a direct quote from 12/6/2018 (with a link) that shows that I did look up the Hebrew word in a much better Hebrew lexical source than the one that you used.Rajesh, here are the actual uses of the word. The only places where possible fornication is referred to is in Genesis 39, and in verses 14 and 17, the word is translated in terms of “sport”, “mockery”, “make fools of”, and the like. In other words, it’s being used in its central meaning “to laugh”, and the sexual nature of the mockery alleged by Potiphar’s wife is inferred not from the word, but the context.
So the reason that “fornication” is not used as a central meaning of the word, let alone an appropriate translation for Exodus 32:6, is because it’s simply not what the word means in that context.
In other words, your so-called “refutation” is merely you reading something into the text which clearly is not there. You do this a lot, and then when people like me (and a bunch of others on this forum) call you on it, you start with ludicrous personal attacks. You want to see someone who is intellectually dishonest? Look at the guy who started this thread by endorsing a made-up logical “fallacy” that would tend to contradict the principle of logical conclusions. Shave. He’ll be there.
And, for the record, I am not the one who was arguing in the quote from 12/6/2018 that I provided in that previous thread (8/15/2019) that it means fornication. I was answering someone else who was making that claim. I should have indented that in the quote in this thread to make that clearer, but anyone who is interested in checking can go back and check it out.
As for actually discussing now with you the meaning of that word in that verse, etc., you have proven yourself to be dishonest and one who frequently misrepresents what I say. There is zero chance that I am going to give you another opportunity to do more of the same by trying to discuss with you further a disputed point about the lexical meaning of a Hebrew verb.
So when confronted with the fact that he’d tortured the definitions of Hebrew words and, in doing so, completely misrepresented Exodus 32, Rajesh points out that he had indeed looked up the Hebrew. So he did, sort of.
Now what the base meaning is is, as I noted, “to laugh” or “mock”, and Rajesh sort of points to his source’s sub-definition of “fondle” or “play around with”. Note, however, that his definition does not include what he wonders; to fornicate. So in his “expert Hebrew analysis”, he actually injects his own concept in place of what his own source states. That’s precisely the point many on this forum have been making about his thoughts ever since he joined this forum.
And he has the chutzpah to call other people dishonest.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Wrong again. The source (HOL) that I provided clearly says for Exodus 32:6 that they think that it means “amuse onesf.” [meaning ‘amuse oneself’]:So when confronted with the fact that he’d tortured the definitions of Hebrew words and, in doing so, completely misrepresented Exodus 32, Rajesh points out that he had indeed looked up the Hebrew. So he did, sort of.
Now what the base meaning is is, as I noted, “to laugh” or “mock”, and Rajesh sort of points to his source’s sub-definition of “fondle” or “play around with”. Note, however, that his definition does not include what he wonders; to fornicate. So in his “expert Hebrew analysis”, he actually injects his own concept in place of what his own source states. That’s precisely the point many on this forum have been making about his thoughts ever since he joined this forum.
And he has the chutzpah to call other people dishonest.
Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (HOL)
Hol7153
צחק: qal: pf. צָֽחֲקָה, צָחָֽקְתְּ; impf. יִֽצְחַק־ Gn 216, וַיִּצְחַק, וַתִּצְחַק: laugh Gn 1717 1812f•15, w. l® at 216.piel: impf. וַיְצַחֵק; inf. לְצַחֵק, לְצַ֫חֶק; pt. מְצַחֵק: — 1. abs. joke Gn 914, play 219, amuse onesf. Ex 326; — 2. w. °¢t fondle (a woman) Gn 268; w. b® play around with 3914•17; w. lifnê amuse onesf. before Ju 1625. † (pg 305) [bold added]
And your attempt in this thread to try to assert that I was trying to show that it means “to fornicate” does not work because in the original quote, my saying that “I wonder …” was directed to push back at the person who was trying to say it means “fornication” because he had wrongly argued from Numbers 25:2 that it means “fornication” in Exodus 32:6.
The fact stands that you falsely claimed earlier that I had not looked up the verb in Hebrew, but the truth is that I had then and have even more so now studied the verb in Hebrew and in the LXX rendering of it very carefully.
All of the following statements are false statements that various people have claimed I hold, argue for, etc or are false assertions about me concerning my views about music and my writing and speaking about those views:
1. I very frequently use guilt-by-association fallacies to argue for my views about music.
2. My views about music are basically a rehash of the views of certain other people with a little added “spin” of my own.
3. I hold that “all drums are out of line” and am against the use of all percussion.
4. I downplay or reject or ignore, etc. the teaching of Psalms 149 and 150 concerning divinely commanded use of percussion instruments.
5. I hold that listening to rock music leads to demon possession.
6. I teach that we must reject all or almost all modern music because either it sounds like what the music of the GCI sounded like or the music of the GCI sounded like what all or almost all modern music sounds like.
7. I have especially targeted the music of one particular group of people from one particular part of the world.
In addition, I do not have “ulterior motives,” I am not a “wolf,” and I am not a racist.
In one manner or another, all of these false claims (and more) have either been made or suggested about me or to me by one or more people on SI. I am not interested in discussing these matters any further with anyone.
I hope that all such unethical tactics, claims, and statements against me will completely stop. Those who continue to use them will answer to God someday.
[RajeshG]So have you decided not to answer this post of mine from three days ago? It does seem to me that using the testimonies of rock musicians about their use of rock music is guilt by association when using these testimonies to condemn the music of contemporary Christian musicians.No it is not. I will answer your claim further when I have more time this evening, D.V.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, I have decided that I am not going to discuss anything related to these matters any further in this thread.So have you decided not to answer this post of mine from three days ago? It does seem to me that using the testimonies of rock musicians about their use of rock music is guilt by association when using these testimonies to condemn the music of contemporary Christian musicians.
Discussion