If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新这里，你可能想通过定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!谢谢您的访问！

In response to our argument that Paul's fumbling of the Epimenides paradox is proof that the ad-hoc “apostle” was not inspired after all, one Christian has raised为响应我们的论点，保罗的悖论的埃庇米尼得斯摸索证明，特设“使徒”，并不是所有的启发后，提出了一个基督教 an objection反对 . 。 The attempted rebuttal acknowledges the paradoxical nature of Epimenides' statement, but then makes the bizarre claim that Paul's statement is true nonetheless due to other elements attributed to the Cretan “prophet” by the “apostle”.试图进行辩驳承认，埃庇米尼得斯的声明自相矛盾的性质，但奇怪的要求，然后使保罗的说法是真实不过由于其他因素归因于克里特岛“先知的”使徒“”。

While it is true that external factors can sometimes help us solve a paradox, the elements brought to witness by the Christian author of this defense of Paul fail to help us in any way, and worse, demonstrate that the critic raising this objection does not understand logic.虽然这是事实，外部因素有时可以帮助我们解决一个矛盾的要素所带来的这种防御基督教作家保罗见证不以任何方式帮助我们，更糟的是，证明了评论家提出这个异议不明白逻辑。 The critic writes as follows:批评家写如下：

We notice that Paul, who was probably very aware of the PURE logical meaningless sentence “Cretans are always liars” told by a Cretan, uses a more complex form of the sentence, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” We can now use the additional FACTS to prove or disprove the testimony. 我们看到保罗，谁知道可能是非常克里特的纯逻辑意义的句子“总是骗子”克里特告诉一个，使用一个更复杂的句子形式，“克里特人总是撒谎，乃是恶兽，又馋又懒。”我们现在可以使用更多的事实证明或者反驳的证据。

The critic tries to further elucidate this point by giving the analogy of a person in a court of law testifying: “I always lie, I am an evil bully and I am a lazy worker.” The critic's point is that while the statement “I always lie” is paradoxical, the sentence overall is true (or its truth can be determined by checking the other qualities noted).批评家试图进一步阐明赋予一个人在作证的法庭比喻这一点：“我总是撒谎，我是一个邪恶的欺负，而我是一个懒惰的工人。”评论员的一点是，虽然该声明说：“我总是说谎“是自相矛盾的，整体的句子为真（或它的真理可以通过检查来确定的其他素质说明）。 While some readers may not have caught it yet, the shocking reality is that in this discussion on whether or not Paul understood logic, the defender has himself exhibited deep logical deficiencies.虽然有些读者可能无法赶上它，但令人震惊的事实是，在这次讨论是否不保理解的逻辑，展示自己的后卫已经深深的逻辑缺陷。 The problem here is that the critic does not realize that his statements involve logical conjuncts which he has not properly interpreted.这里的问题是，影评人没有意识到，他的讲话还涉及他没有适当的解释逻辑并列。

In logic, for a conjunctive proposition to be true all its conjuncts must be true.在逻辑中，为合取命题是真实的一切必须是真实的并列。 So, what is a conjunctive proposition and what is a conjunct?那么，什么是一个合取命题，什么是一个契合？ Well, if I say “my name is Mohd and I am a Muslim”, that is a conjunctive proposition.好吧，如果我说“我的名字是穆罕默德，我是一个穆斯林”，这是一个合取命题。 The proposition has two conjuncts, the first being “my name is Mohd”, the second being “I am a Muslim.” If my name is Mohd, but I am not a Muslim, the sentence is false, and if my name is not Mohd, but I am a Muslim, the sentence is again false.这个命题有两个并列，第一次是“我的名字是穆罕默德”，第二是“我是一个穆斯林。”如果我的名字是穆罕默德，但我不是一个穆斯林，这句话是假的，如果我的名字是不莫哈末，但我是一个穆斯林，这句话是假的。 The sentence “my name is Mohd and I am a Muslim” can be true if, and only if both conjuncts are true; ie if my name is Mohd and I am a Muslim.这句话“我的名字是穆罕默德和我是穆斯林”，可真，当且仅当两个并列为真，即如果我的名字是穆罕默德，我是一个穆斯林。

So, if a man says “everything I say is a lie, I am lazy, and I am a bully”, the statement cannot be true on the grounds that in order for it to be true, all three of its conjuncts must be true, but the first conjunct is clearly untrue.所以，如果一个人说：“所有我要说的是一个谎言，我很懒惰，我是一个恃强凌弱”的语句不能，理由属实，为了它是真实的，它所有的并列三，必须是真实的，但第一个契合显然是不真实的。 So, in response to the Christian who defended Paul, if we assume the sentence “all Cretans are liars” (or “Cretans are always liars”) is meaningless, or even false, combining it with other statements in a conjunction does not create a true sentence.因此，在应对谁捍卫基督教的保罗，如果我们假设这句话“所有克里特人撒谎”（或“克里特人总是说谎的人”）是没有意义的，甚至是虚假的，结合在一起的其他陈述它不创建真正的句子。 This is because the original statement in question is still not true, thus it being a conjunct in a larger sentence results in the sentence also being untrue.这是因为原来有问题的声明仍然是不正确的，因此它是一个在一个较大的句子也被判刑结果契合不真实。

Interestingly, this exact sort of sentence was touched on by Dr. Laurence Goldstein of the University of Hong Kong, in an article on Epimenides, written for a scholarly journal more than fifteen years ago.有趣的是，这句话确实有点感动劳伦斯博士在香港大学德斯坦，对埃庇米尼得斯在文章逾15年以前的学术刊物撰写。 An example of a simple pseudomenon would be the proposition 'x', where proposition 'x' is “x is false”.一个简单的例子是pseudomenon命题的'X'，其中命题的'X'为“x是错误的”。 Goldstein, however, brings in an extra proposition, creating a conjunction.戈尔茨坦，但是，带来了额外的建议，建立一个同时使用。 Goldstein gives the example of sentence 'E', and sentence 'E' is “E is not true and q” where 'q' is some other proposition.戈尔茨坦给出了一句'E'和一句'e'是“E是不正确的和Q”其中'Q的例子是一些其他的建议。 From there, he writes the following:从那里，他写道如下：

Here 'q' is both conjoined with a statement about E, and also part of E (so, although 'q' is arbitrary, it is not independent of E).这里'q'已经有两个连体关于E声明，也是E部分（所以，虽然'Q的是任意的，它不是独立的E）。 If 'q' is not true, then, in virtue of E containing 'q' as a conjunct, E is not true, and this is consistent with what the first conjunct (the statement about E) says.如果'Q的是不正确的，那么，电子控制作为一个合取Q的美德，E是不正确的，这是与第一次合相（即关于电子报表）说是一致的。 However, if 'q' is true then we have the absurd (and thus to be rejected) implication that E is both true and not true.但是，如果'Q的是真的话，我们有荒谬（因此被拒绝）暗示E是既真实，不正确的。 ^{1 一}

Thus we see that conjoining a paradoxical statement with other statements (regardless of their truth value) does not result in the creation of a true statement.因此，我们看到，交接与其他陈述（不论其真实价值似是而非的陈述）并没有导致建立一个真正的声明。

It should be further noted that this methodology still applies even if it is argued that the statement is not paradoxical, but merely false.应该进一步指出，这一方法仍然适用，即使有人认为这种说法并不矛盾，只是假的。 In bivalent logic, statements are either true or false.在二价逻辑，陈述或真或假的。 In trivalent and multi-valued logics, statements can be true, false or have some other truth-value.在三价和多值逻辑，语句可以是真实的，虚假的或有其他真值。 Nonetheless, in all realms of logic the rule of conjunction is still the same: in order for a conjunctive proposition to be true, all its conjuncts must be true.然而，在所有领域的逻辑规则的同时，仍然是相同的，为了使一个结膜命题：是真实的，其所有并列必须是真实的。 If a conjunctive statement has some conjuncts that are true, and one that is meaningless or false, the statement is not true; rather it is meaningless or false.如果有一些并列连接词声明是真实的，而且是毫无意义的或虚假的陈述是不正确的，而是它是毫无意义的或虚假的。 Note that the statement “my name is Mohd Elfie and I like to gergleplex with Jabberwockies” cannot be considered logically true since one of the conjuncts is meaningless.请注意，声明“我的名字是莫哈末Elfie，我喜欢真实的gergleplex逻辑与Jabberwockies”不能被视为自并列之一是没有意义的。

Thus either way, the following seven-point syllogism still applies:因此无论哪种方式，下面的7点三段论仍然适用：

• Paul claims a Cretan uttered a certain proposition.保罗声称克里特说出某一个命题。
• The proposition is not true.这个命题是不正确的。
• Paul claims the proposition is true.保罗声称主张是正确的。
• Paul's claim is an error.保罗的说法是错误的。
• Paul's writings are errant rather than inerrant.保罗的著作是犯错误，而不是无误。
• Errant scripture is not inspired scripture (a common assumption among Christians and Muslims).聚散两依依不启发圣经经文（1基督徒和穆斯林共同的假设）。
• Therefore, Paul was not inspired (or at least not when he wrote the epistle to Titus).因此，保罗没有灵感（或者至少不是在他写的书信，以提图斯）。

And only God knows best!而且，只有上帝知道最好的！

1. Laurence Goldstein, “Epimenides and Curry,” Analysis , Vol.劳伦斯戈德斯坦，“埃庇米尼得斯和咖喱， 分析 ”，卷。 46, 1986, p. 46，1986，页 121 [ 121 [ back背面 ] ]