Ketching up with Dr Bob

Ketching up with Dr Bob

Photo

Put in perspective, the Falls-Welch debate brings a number of statements on the strength of argumentation presented by Falls. Probably the most striking moments that reveal why he won include, among others:

First Telling Moment: At this point, Falls, through verse 6, showed the logical fallacy in Welch's argument. Falls observed: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." So Falls was able to show just how ridiculous Welch's interpretation was by reading what it would say: "If a woman has short hair, let her also cut her hair short." This simple yet explosive observation fell from Welch unanswered.

Linguistically, the most convincing argument by Falls came when he penned these words: "The covering of 1 Corinthians 11:5, 6, and 13 is from the Greek word kalumma, which is the corresponding noun for the Greek verbs katakalupto. But in 1 Cor. 11:15, 'For her hair is given her for a covering [Greek, peribolaion].' This difference in terms was never satisfyingly dealt with by Welch.".

A telling moment came when Falls pointed out, "These verses deal with men and women. It deals with them when they are praying or prophesying. A man may cover his head when he is not praying or prophesying, and a woman does not have to cover her head when she is not praying or prophesying. The covering is one to be 'put on' sometimes and 'taken off' at others. It is removable!!! This cannot be said of the hair."

This weakness in Welch's position finally emerged when Falls pressed the obvious point that Welch had consistently avoided answering direct questions during the exchange. Thus Falls observed in his last negative: "Now he utterly avoided answering, or even mentioning any of them. If Mr. Welch was interested in the truth on this subject, he would have dealt with each question knowing that if he was wrong it could be pointed out to him so he could accept the truth."

Perhaps most damaging to Welch's position was his inability to explain why Paul would specify timing for the covering if hair was the only covering under consideration. This point Falls pressed: "If the hair is the only covering of 1 Cor. 11, why did Paul command the putting it on or taking it off only when praying or prophesying?" This was a fundamental question that was not answered in this debate.

In that context, Falls systematically laid out eight separate explanations as to why a head covering is needed; this far surpassed Welch, who tried to speak in very modern terms about cultural relevance without a text-driven focus. The structured presentation was a contrast to the generalized observation of Welch and thus presented a different level of rigor both participants of the debate brought with themselves into the discussion.

www.group-telegram.com/sg/Ketching_up.com/28

59 viewsJan 30 at 20:02

Put in perspective, the Falls-Welch debate brings a number of statements on the strength of argumentation presented by Falls. Probably the most striking moments that reveal why he won include, among others:

First Telling Moment: At this point, Falls, through verse 6, showed the logical fallacy in Welch's argument. Falls observed: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." So Falls was able to show just how ridiculous Welch's interpretation was by reading what it would say: "If a woman has short hair, let her also cut her hair short." This simple yet explosive observation fell from Welch unanswered.

Linguistically, the most convincing argument by Falls came when he penned these words: "The covering of 1 Corinthians 11:5, 6, and 13 is from the Greek word kalumma, which is the corresponding noun for the Greek verbs katakalupto. But in 1 Cor. 11:15, 'For her hair is given her for a covering [Greek, peribolaion].' This difference in terms was never satisfyingly dealt with by Welch.".

A telling moment came when Falls pointed out, "These verses deal with men and women. It deals with them when they are praying or prophesying. A man may cover his head when he is not praying or prophesying, and a woman does not have to cover her head when she is not praying or prophesying. The covering is one to be 'put on' sometimes and 'taken off' at others. It is removable!!! This cannot be said of the hair."

This weakness in Welch's position finally emerged when Falls pressed the obvious point that Welch had consistently avoided answering direct questions during the exchange. Thus Falls observed in his last negative: "Now he utterly avoided answering, or even mentioning any of them. If Mr. Welch was interested in the truth on this subject, he would have dealt with each question knowing that if he was wrong it could be pointed out to him so he could accept the truth."

Perhaps most damaging to Welch's position was his inability to explain why Paul would specify timing for the covering if hair was the only covering under consideration. This point Falls pressed: "If the hair is the only covering of 1 Cor. 11, why did Paul command the putting it on or taking it off only when praying or prophesying?" This was a fundamental question that was not answered in this debate.

In that context, Falls systematically laid out eight separate explanations as to why a head covering is needed; this far surpassed Welch, who tried to speak in very modern terms about cultural relevance without a text-driven focus. The structured presentation was a contrast to the generalized observation of Welch and thus presented a different level of rigor both participants of the debate brought with themselves into the discussion.

BY Ketching up with Dr Bob