Re: AUQENTEIN, 1Tim2.12

From: Paul S. Dixon (
Date: Mon May 18 1998 - 00:47:50 EDT

On Sun, 17 May 1998 23:33:00 "Stephen C. Carlson"
<> writes:
>At 08:13 5/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 May 1998 16:49:00 "Stephen C. Carlson"
>><> writes:
>>>As I understand him, speaking nothing in Jonathan's statement that
>>>"rejects the application of logical principles." What I reject is
>>>the apparent argument that an author never implies anything beyond
>>>what logically follows from his explicit statements.
>>Hmm, Stephen, this is an interesting statement. Usually the word
>>"implies" carries with it a logical connotation. I am not familiar
>>the idea that an author could "imply" something otherwise.
>I'll keep this short, mindful that a discussion about what is implied
>is not strictly directed to the Greek text (almost by definition!).
>The word "imply" need not, and often does not, merely mean logical
>implication. For example, the fourth definition of "imply" in my
>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary states: "to express
>indirectly <his silence IMPLIED consent>."

Stephen et al:

Yes, the word "imply" can mean something else besides logical
implication. My concern is how much stock do we want to put upon
an interpretation that is based neither upon what the text says, nor
upon what it logically implies? As for me, I would be extremely hesitant
to put any weight upon any such interpretation, let alone use that
interpretation as a guiding light for the interpretation of other

Thanks for the interaction.

Paul Dixon

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT