Ketching up with Dr Bob
19.04.202517:25
30.01.202520:02
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.
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.
21.01.202516:45
Even if we read Paul's words as "might as well," we hit a logical wall, I think. This is in reference to also as used in verse 6.
First, look at how this Greek word katakalupto is used elsewhere in Scripture. In Esther 6:12, Haman "covered his head" in shame. He didn't suddenly grow long hair - he put something on. Same word, clear meaning: adding a covering.
Now consider Paul's parallel command about men. They must "uncover" to pray. If covering just means long hair, how does a man instantly "uncover" his head for prayer? Does he get a quick haircut every time he needs to pray? Obviously not. The covering must be something removable.
If covering just means hair, Paul's logic completely breaks down. He'd essentially be saying:
"If woman does not have long hair. she might as well cut her hair short."
Do you see the problem? You can't use the threat of removing something to show the shame of not having that very thing. That's like saying "If you don't have any money, you might as well empty your wallet." It's nonsense.
In fact, Paul's argument only makes sense if he is referring to two different things: a natural covering of hair, as well as a separate covering that can be put on and taken off.
First, look at how this Greek word katakalupto is used elsewhere in Scripture. In Esther 6:12, Haman "covered his head" in shame. He didn't suddenly grow long hair - he put something on. Same word, clear meaning: adding a covering.
Now consider Paul's parallel command about men. They must "uncover" to pray. If covering just means long hair, how does a man instantly "uncover" his head for prayer? Does he get a quick haircut every time he needs to pray? Obviously not. The covering must be something removable.
If covering just means hair, Paul's logic completely breaks down. He'd essentially be saying:
"If woman does not have long hair. she might as well cut her hair short."
Do you see the problem? You can't use the threat of removing something to show the shame of not having that very thing. That's like saying "If you don't have any money, you might as well empty your wallet." It's nonsense.
In fact, Paul's argument only makes sense if he is referring to two different things: a natural covering of hair, as well as a separate covering that can be put on and taken off.
21.03.202501:55
“If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain ‘souls lived’ at the first, and the rest of the ‘dead lived’ only at the end of a specified period after that first, - if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hardy enough to maintain. But if the second is literal, then so is the first, which in common with the whole primitive Church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope.”
Henry Alford
Henry Alford
29.01.202521:24
1. Observing God's pattern in the Word: Noah in the flood, Israel in Egypt, Daniel's friends in the furnace-why God always seems to opt to take His people through tribulation, as opposed to taking them out of tribulation. What could that say about His character and purposes for allowing or sending tribulation?
2. How does this cry of these martyrs, under the altar in Revelation 6:9-11 saying, "How long until You avenge our blood?", referring to when God's actual wrath really begins inside the tribulation period, be possibly influencing thoughts on rapture timing?
3. The trumpet judgments are always limited to "one-third" destruction while the bowl judgments are complete. What theological purpose might this serve, and how does it parallel God's dealings with Egypt during the Exodus?
4. How do we properly distinguish between tribulation, which Jesus promised believers would face, and divine wrath, which Scripture promises believers will be protected from? What scriptural principles help us make this crucial distinction?
5. If you read through the detail of Revelation, you notice believers actively witnessing and serving purposes throughout this period of time. How does this consistent presence of the church align with pretribulation's views that the church must be taken out? What purpose might God have for His people at this time?
2. How does this cry of these martyrs, under the altar in Revelation 6:9-11 saying, "How long until You avenge our blood?", referring to when God's actual wrath really begins inside the tribulation period, be possibly influencing thoughts on rapture timing?
3. The trumpet judgments are always limited to "one-third" destruction while the bowl judgments are complete. What theological purpose might this serve, and how does it parallel God's dealings with Egypt during the Exodus?
4. How do we properly distinguish between tribulation, which Jesus promised believers would face, and divine wrath, which Scripture promises believers will be protected from? What scriptural principles help us make this crucial distinction?
5. If you read through the detail of Revelation, you notice believers actively witnessing and serving purposes throughout this period of time. How does this consistent presence of the church align with pretribulation's views that the church must be taken out? What purpose might God have for His people at this time?
21.01.202502:24
Should I make a post about head coverings and hair length in 1 Corinthians 11?
31.01.202503:55
In deconstructing the latter half of the debate in which Welch argued in the affirmative and Falls took a negative argument, several onsets occurred that continued to prove the strength of Falls' argumentation.
When Welch took the affirmative position, he conspicuously moved toward the cultural arguments concerning modern hair practices and rebellion and did not keep a close, textual-based argument. A lot of his effort was put forth in trying to discuss how "long hair that the men have in this land today speaks or stands for the sign of rebellion." Even if this would carry some kind of cultural significance, it detracted from the actual exegetical question under examination.
It was particularly the negative responses of Falls that brought out this weakness. He said he did agree with Welch that men wearing long hair was not appropriate, but such an agreement did not answer the real textual questions concerning the coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Falls wrote incisively: "Mr. Welch is supposed to be in the affirmative, but he has spent most of his time telling us about the rebellion of people with long hair."
A critical moment was when Falls confronted Welch's use of the woman who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair. Welch had presented this account as if it proved his argument, but Falls refuted him once and for all by pointing out that this incident happened before the New Testament church and its order of worship had been established, and more to the point, the woman wasn't praying or prophesying at the time.
Falls was even more methodical in his approach as he nailed Welch, in his final negative, to five questions that he had not answered. Welch's inability or unwillingness to answer these questions, especially those dealing with the meaning of "also" in verse 6 and whether the covering requirement was temporal, seriously weakened his affirmative position.
The final exchanges in the debate drove the point home: Welch continued with cultural applications and modern practices, whereas Falls stuck with the Greek text, logical consistency, and systematic theological reasoning. This reality accounted for why, even though having to argue the negative, Falls' position was more convincing.
What made the negative responses from Falls particularly effective in this latter portion of the debate was that he could both defend his position and expose the weaknesses in Welch's arguments, all while sustaining scholarly rigor and respect. The fact that he systematically dismantled Welch's affirmative arguments while further strengthening his own position demonstrated great debating skill.
When Welch took the affirmative position, he conspicuously moved toward the cultural arguments concerning modern hair practices and rebellion and did not keep a close, textual-based argument. A lot of his effort was put forth in trying to discuss how "long hair that the men have in this land today speaks or stands for the sign of rebellion." Even if this would carry some kind of cultural significance, it detracted from the actual exegetical question under examination.
It was particularly the negative responses of Falls that brought out this weakness. He said he did agree with Welch that men wearing long hair was not appropriate, but such an agreement did not answer the real textual questions concerning the coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Falls wrote incisively: "Mr. Welch is supposed to be in the affirmative, but he has spent most of his time telling us about the rebellion of people with long hair."
A critical moment was when Falls confronted Welch's use of the woman who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair. Welch had presented this account as if it proved his argument, but Falls refuted him once and for all by pointing out that this incident happened before the New Testament church and its order of worship had been established, and more to the point, the woman wasn't praying or prophesying at the time.
Falls was even more methodical in his approach as he nailed Welch, in his final negative, to five questions that he had not answered. Welch's inability or unwillingness to answer these questions, especially those dealing with the meaning of "also" in verse 6 and whether the covering requirement was temporal, seriously weakened his affirmative position.
The final exchanges in the debate drove the point home: Welch continued with cultural applications and modern practices, whereas Falls stuck with the Greek text, logical consistency, and systematic theological reasoning. This reality accounted for why, even though having to argue the negative, Falls' position was more convincing.
What made the negative responses from Falls particularly effective in this latter portion of the debate was that he could both defend his position and expose the weaknesses in Welch's arguments, all while sustaining scholarly rigor and respect. The fact that he systematically dismantled Welch's affirmative arguments while further strengthening his own position demonstrated great debating skill.
25.01.202520:29
16.01.202505:31
I am now engaged y’all. I’ll get back to posting next week I have lots of material on some very interesting topics y’all may find insightful.
30.01.202520:02
This is my analysis of the first half of the debate I’ll give thoughts in 2nd half tomorrow or Saturday.
24.01.202504:38
Scripture interpretation requires archaeological precision - dig deep through language and history before building doctrine.
24.12.202418:43
What month y’all think Jesus was born?
Shown 1 - 13 of 13
Log in to unlock more functionality.