Re: FW: Mt 19:9

From: Paul S. Dixon (
Date: Wed May 19 1999 - 22:07:37 EDT

On Wed, 19 May 1999 15:14:40 -0400 "Paul, Doug" <Doug.Paul@GSC.GTE.Com>

>The logic being described is true unless the author is forming a
>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
>Superior implies not Great Lakes" is false). However if I make the
>"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
>Lakes but you have to know this outside of the two statements made.
>So, getting back to biblical greek are there syntactic constructions
>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?


You are not suggesting that the protasis is identical with
the apodosis in Mt 19:9, are you? Yes, if they were, then
we would have a bi-conditional and the negation would be
a valid inference.

But, are you ready to say that if a man commits adultery,
then he divorces his wife not for (MH EPI) fornication and

No, there is no indication from the text that the apodosis
is identical with the protasis. Therefore, it is not valid to
infer the negation.

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]

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:27 EDT