From: Ted Mann (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 27 2001 - 23:52:23 EDT
I have a problem with the application of the rules of logic to Bible
translation and exegesis. My views are not an appropriate subject for
b-Greek, but if anyone is interested, I will be happy to share them
Dr. Theodore H. Mann
----- Original Message -----
To: "Biblical Greek" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 7:19 PM
Subject: [b-greek] Re: The Logic of Acts 2:38
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 12:38:49 -0400 "Harry W. Jones" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Dear Paul,
> > You posted:
> > > The logic of Acts 2:38 can be expressed simply as:
> > >
> > > If A and B, then C and D (if you repent and get baptized, then
> > > you will have your sins forgiven and you will receive the Holy
> > > Spirit).
> > >
> > > This is all it says. It does not say, nor does it imply the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > If not (A and B), then not (C and D).
> > I found you post very interesting.But I think you have missed the
> > real question. The real question is, if(A but not B) then not(C or D)?
> > Or maybe stated this way, if(A but not B) then (C but not D)?
> > You see Paul, these are the real questions we are interested in.
> > Do you think you might be able to help us?
> The statement, if (A and B), then (C and D), is the logical
> representation of Acts 2:38, "if you repent and receive baptism, then
> your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the Holy Spirit. What so
> many are erroneously inferring from this is the negation, if not (A and
> B), then not (C and D). The logical error is simply that a conditional
> does not imply its negation.
> Now the statement: if not (A and B), then not (C and D) translates into
> one of several possibilities:
> 1. If not (A and B), then not (C and D), or
> 2. If (A but not B), then (C but not D), or
> 3. If (not A and not B), then (not C and not D), or
> 4. If (not A but B), then (not C but D).
> Any of these 4 statements translates back into the original, if not(A and
> B), then not (C and D). Hence, if the original statement cannot be
> inferred from, if A and B, then C and D, then neither can the other four
> be inferred. The real question you mention above, if (A but not B) then
> not (C or D) is the same as # 2 above. Hence, this does address the real
> I know this does not deal directly with Greek syntax, but it does deal
> with an exegetical concern which if properly understood should free some
> from feeling they have to use the Greek to defend a certain position and
> others from erroneously drawing theological conclusions, as has been
> Paul Dixon
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:58 EDT