# FW: Mt 19:9

From: Paul, Doug (Doug.Paul@GSC.GTE.Com)
Date: Wed May 19 1999 - 15:14:40 EDT

On Thur, 13 May 99 Paul Dixon writes:
>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

The logic being described is true unless the author is forming a definition
or saying two things are equivalent. That is, if I make the statement:

"if I am sailing in Lake Superior then I am sailing in the Great Lakes"

that is true but the opposite is not true (i.e. the statement "not Superior
implies not Great Lakes" is false). However if I make the statement:

"if I am sailing in Lake Superior or Lake Michigan or Lake Huron or Lake
Erie or Lake Ontario then I am sailing in the Great Lakes"

the opposite in this case is true. The structure of the sentence is the
same yet the validity of the negative inference is different. The reason is
of course that this list of lakes is equivalent to the term Great Lakes but
you have to know this outside of the two statements made.

So, getting back to biblical greek are there syntactic constructions which
make the author's intention plain in the greek at the point of the
statement? Is there a unique syntax that means the author is making a
definition or saying two things are equal?

Doug Paul
doug.paul@gsc.gte.com

```---