# Re: OU+PAS (1 John 2:19) (Romans 9:6 reconsidered)

• To: b-greek@virginia.edu
• Subject: Re: OU+PAS (1 John 2:19) (Romans 9:6 reconsidered)
• From: JohnBARACH@aol.com
• Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:01:43 -0400 (EDT)

```On Jun 3,  3:06pm, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:

> I question your differentiation, however, between "not all A is B" and
> "all A are not B".  Concerning the latter, you conclude that no A is B.
> In doing so, you are equating "All A are not B" to the conditional
> thought, "A implies not B."  The problem, however, is that this does not
> follow.  "All A are not B" can be interpreted to mean that some A are not
> B.  The key may be the meaning of PAS hO (or, PANTES hOI).  It is every
> member of the class individually that is being considered, rather than the
> class as a whole.  Thus, "not every one who is from Israel is a true
> Israelite" = "every one who is from Israel is not a true Israelite."  The
> former, to be sure, is better, but I fail to see a necessary difference.

Um ... I realize this is not a logic mailing list, but ...

There is a world of difference between "All A is not B" and "Not all A is B."
"All A is not B" can be converted into a conditional statement (as is
commonly done in logic exercises):  "If A then not B."  If "All cats are not
dogs" then "If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy is not a dog."  On the other
hand, "Not all A is B" leaves room for *some* A to be B.  There is no
possible way to conclude from "All A is B" that some A might not be B.

If we say, as you propose, "Everyone who is from Israel is not a true
Israelite" then we are saying that Paul, Matthew, John, Aquila, Priscilla and
countless others who are certainly in the class of EX ISRAHL (i.e., descended
from Israel/Jacob) are NOT true Israelites.  This is certainly not what Paul
is saying.  The question of what the NOT modifies, therefore, must be