From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 05 1997 - 21:51:37 EDT
IAKWBW KAI TOIS PISTOIS:
I agree with Jim that 1 Jn 2:19 is "conclusively" a universal negation,
but not because of the OU+VERB+PAS construction (which may yet support
this), but because of logical reasons.
The last part of verse 19, "but that they may be manifest that OUK EISIV
PANTES EC HMWN, is the contrapositive of the immediately preceding
conditional, "if they had been of us, then they would have remained with
us." For those of you unfamiliar with this reasoning - the contrapostive
is the only universal negation implied by a conditional ("If A, then B"
implies the universal negation "if not B, then not A").
Let A = "they were of us", B = "they remained with us."
Not B (~B) then = "they did not remain with us" and Not A (~A) = "they
were not of us".
Not B is certainly to be supplied by ellipsis after ALL' (it is stated at
the beginning of the verse and must be understood). Therefore, even if
the last part of the verse had not been stated, then it would logically
have followed that none of them were of us. It's statement, then, is all
the more emphatic.
Wow, this is exciting, but it is dinner time again and Bible study after
that, then hopefully back here to pursue this more. Many interesting
points to follow.
Paul S. Dixon, Pastor http://users.aol.com/dixonps
Ladd Hill Bible Church "Negative Inference Fallacies" /nif.htm
Wilsonville, Oregon "Evangelism of Christ ..." /evangelism.htm
"Evil Restraint in 2 Thess 2:6" /restrainer.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:18 EDT