Re: Mt 19:9

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Wed May 12 1999 - 21:34:20 EDT

On Wed, 12 May 99 23:00:59 ben.crick@argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick) writes:
>On Wed 12 May 99 (13:54:50), dd-1@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> "hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA
>> KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI"
>
> Dear Danny:
>
> Yes, I am familiar with Wenham's take on this issue. To me, it seems
> that we have a "logical conjunction" here; two propositions conjoined
> with the Boolean operator AND. So we have {[P] AND [Q]} = R :
>
> {[hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA]
> KAI
> [GAMHSHi ALLHN]}
> MOICATAI
>
> So on these grounds I would disagree with Wenham. IF someone divorces
> another BECAUSE OF adultery, and marries another: THEN s/he does NOT
>
> IF (P AND Q) THEN R; IF NOT-P AND Q THEN NOT-R. IYSWIM.
>
> ERRWSQE
> Ben

I couldn't help but notice the misuse of logic here. Ben,
what you are affirming is the negative inference fallacy.
If P, then Q does not imply, if not P, then not Q. If a man
is a resident of Oregon, then he is a resident of the USA.
This does not imply, if a man is not a resident of Oregon,
then he is not a resident of the USA.

Likewise, if (P and Q), then R does not imply if not P and Q,
then not R. That is, if a man is a resident of Oregon and does
not beat his wife, then he is a resident of the USA. This
does not imply that if he is a resident of Oregon and beats
his wife, then he is not a resident of the USA.

No, we must not infer from Mt 19:9 that if a man divorces
his wife because she commits adultery, then remarries,
then he does not commit adultery himself. It is not valid
to infer this, and the text does not say it.

For more read my paper, "Negative Inference Fallacies"
http://users.aol.com/dixonps

Paul Dixon

___________________________________________________________________
```---