[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 1 Jn 2:19 and universal negation - yes!
- To: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet.org>, b-greek <b-greek@virginia.edu>
- Subject: Re: 1 Jn 2:19 and universal negation - yes!
- From: Micheal Palmer <mwpalmer@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 18:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970605182912.15568A-100000@iclnet.org>
At 6:51 PM -0700 6/5/97, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
>IAKWBW KAI TOIS PISTOIS:
>
>I agree with Jim that 1 Jn 2:19 is "conclusively" a universal negation,
>but not because of the OU+VERB+PAS construction (which may yet support
>this), but because of logical reasons.
>
>The last part of verse 19, "but that they may be manifest that OUK EISIV
>PANTES EC HMWN, is the contrapositive of the immediately preceding
>conditional, "if they had been of us, then they would have remained with
>us." For those of you unfamiliar with this reasoning - the contrapostive
>is the only universal negation implied by a conditional ("If A, then B"
>implies the universal negation "if not B, then not A").
Surely you don't mean that
If Fido is a dog, then he is a canine
[If A , then B]
implies the universal negation
If Fido is not a dog, then he is not a canine
[If not A , then not B]
do you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer mwpalmer@earthlink.net
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mwpalmer/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-Ups:
References: