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 a study of logic, there is something which we call “undecidable propositions” or “meaningless sentences”, which are statements that cannot be determined because there is no contextual false.在对逻辑的研究，某些东西，我们称之为“不可判定命题”或“没有意义的句子”，这是无法确定，因为没有上下文虚假陈述。 One of the classic examples cited is the Epiminedes' paradox.经典举的一个例子是Epiminedes悖论。 Saul Kripke says:克里普克说：
Ever since Pilate asked, “What is truth?” (John XVIII, 38), the subsequent search for a correct answer has been inhibited by another problem, which, as is well known, also arises in a New Testament context.自从彼拉多问：“什么是真理？”（约翰十八，38），为以后寻找一个正确的答案已被另一问题，其中，众所周知抑制，也是在新约中出现。 If, as the author of the Epistle to Titus supposes (Titus I, 12), a Cretan prophet, “even a prophet of their own,” asserted that “the Cretans are always liars,” and if “this testimony is true” of all other Cretan utterances, then it seems that the Cretan prophet's words are true if and only if they are false.如果，作为书信的作者提多设（提多予，12），1克里特先知“，甚至是他们自己的先知”，声称“在克里特人总是说谎”，如果“这一证词是真实”所有其他克里特的言论，则似乎是克里特岛先知的话是真，当且仅当它们是错误的。 And any treatment of the concept of truth must somehow circumvent this paradox.[1]和任何真理的概念必须以某种方式规避处理这个矛盾。[1]
Epimenides was Cretan and he said that “Cretans always lie”.埃庇米尼得斯是克里特，他说：“克里特人总是说谎”。 Now, was that statement true or false?现在，这句话是真的还是假的呢？ If he was a Cretan and he says that they always lie, is he then lying?如果他是克里特岛，他说，他们总是说谎，那么他是说谎？ If he is not lying then he is telling the truth and therefore Cretans do not always lie.如果他没有说谎，那么他说的是实话，因此克里特并不总是撒谎。 We can see that since the assertion cannot be true and it cannot be false, the statement turns back on itself.我们可以看到，自断言不能真实，不能虚假，声明自己又倒退。 It is like stating “What I am telling you right now is a lie”, would you believe that or otherwise?这就像说：“我要告诉你现在是一个谎言”，你相信与否？ This statement thus has no true content.因此，这项声明并没有真正的内容。 It cannot be true at the same time it is false.它不能真正在同一时间它是假的。 If it is true then it is always false.如果这是真的那么它始终是假的。 If it is false, it is also true.如果是假的，这也是事实。
Well, in the New Testament, the writer is Paul and he is talking about the Cretans in 1 Titus, as follows:那么，在新约中，作者是保罗和他谈论克里特1提图斯，具体如下：
A prophet from their own people said of them “Cretens are always liars, wicked brutes, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true.从本国人民的先知说，他们“Cretens总是骗子，邪恶的暴君，又馋又懒。”这见证是真的。 For this reason correct them sternly, that they may be sound in faith instead of paying attention to Jewish fables and to commandments of people who turn their backs on the truth.基于这个原因，严肃纠正，他们可能会，而不是注重犹太寓言和人民谁打开真理的信仰戒律背着声音。 (Titus 1:12-14) （提多书1:12-14）
Notice that Paul says that one of their own men ?请注意，保罗说，自己的男人呢？ a prophet – said that “Cretans are always liars” and he says that what this man say is true.先知 - 说：“克里特总是骗子”，他说，这是什么人说的是真的。 It is a small mistake, but the point is that it is a human mistake.这是一个小错误，但问题是，它是人类的错误。 It cannot be a true statement at the same time that it is a false statement.它不能在同一时间，这是一个虚假陈述真实的陈述。 Thus, how can Christians claim that the writers of the New Testament – in this case, Paul – had “inspiration” from God?因此，如何能基督徒宣称，新约圣经的作家在这种情况下 - 保罗 - 有“灵感”来自上帝？
Some Christians have taken the position that a strictly logical approach to Epimenides' statement can result in it not being a paradox after all.一些基督徒所采取的立场，即严格的逻辑方法来埃庇米尼得斯的声明可以在它的结果毕竟不是一个悖论。 If it is not a paradox, one may argue that Paul's calling it “true” was a subtle bit of mockery with tremendous foresight regarding later developments in logic.如果不是一个悖论，一会说，保罗的称它“真正”是一个巨大的讽刺就在逻辑上与后来的发展眼光微妙位。 If that is the case, then maybe Paul's statement actually was inspired.如果是这样的话，那么也许保罗的声明实际上是启发。 For example, while discussing Paul's comments in the epistle to Titus, one Christian theological periodical concedes that “one of the very greatest of Christian thinkers enters the logic books wearing a dunce's cap”[2] but then argues that Christians can find recourse in the fact that the statement might not be paradoxical.例如，在讨论的书信保罗的意见提，一基督教神学定期承认，“20世纪基督教思想家最伟大的一进入逻辑书籍穿着傻瓜帽”[2]，但当时认为，基督徒可以在追索权事实上，该声明可能不矛盾的。 To back up this claim, the article calls to witness Quine, one of the greatest logicians that ever lived, thus it is important that we consider what Quine wrote:为了支持这项要求，文章呼吁证人奎因，逻辑学家之一，是有史以来最伟大的，因此它是重要的，我们考虑什么奎因说：
There is the ancient paradox of Epimenides the Cretan, who said that all Cretans were liars.有古老的埃庇米尼得斯悖论克里特，谁所有克里特人说，骗子。 If he spoke the truth, he was a liar.如果他说真话，他是一个骗子。 It seems that this paradox may have reached the ears of St. Paul and that he missed the point of it.看来，这个矛盾可能已经达到了圣保罗的耳朵，他错过了这一点。 He warned, in his epistle to Titus: “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said The Cretans are always liars.” Actually the paradox of Epimenides is untidy; there are loopholes.他警告说，在他的书信，以提图斯：“一个对自己，即使是他们自己的先知，说，克里特总是骗子。”事实上，埃庇米尼得斯的矛盾是乱七八糟;有漏洞。 Perhaps some Cretans were liars, notably Epimenides, and others were not; perhaps Epimenides was a liar who occasionally told the truth; either way it turns out that the contradiction vanishes.[3]或许有人克里特都是骗子，尤其是埃庇米尼得斯，和其他人没有，也许埃庇米尼得斯是一个骗子谁偶尔告诉真相;无论哪种方式，事实证明这一矛盾消失了。[3]
The question that arises now is how Quine was able to figure out that maybe other Cretans were liars or maybe Epimenides sometimes told the truth.现在出现的问题是如何奎因能够弄清楚，可能是骗子或其他克里特有时可能埃庇米尼得斯说了实话。 Epimenides is clearly saying that Cretans are always liars.埃庇米尼得斯说，显然是克里特总是骗子。 Every time a Cretan speaks, he is lying, so how could the statement ever allow for a Cretan (be it Epimenides or some other Cretan) to speak the truth?每次克里特说话，他在撒谎，怎么能允许的声明曾经为克里特（不论是埃庇米尼得斯或其他一些克里特岛），以讲真话？ The reasoning is genius, and goes as follows: the obvious assumption behind the belief that the statement is paradoxical is that if all Cretans lie, then Epimenides is lying, so if his statement is true, it is false.其理由是天才，再往下如下：背后的信念明显的假设语句是矛盾的是，如果所有的克里特人的谎言，那么埃庇米尼得斯是在撒谎，所以如果他的说法是正确的，它是假的。 In that sense it seems like any other pseudomenon.在这个意义上，它像任何其他pseudomenon似乎。 From here, if we consider the statement false, we are no longer forced into the kind of paradoxical vicious circle that a true pseudomenon (like “this sentence is false”) pushes us into.从这里，如果我们考虑虚假的声明，我们不再把这种似是而非的恶性循环，真正pseudomenon被迫像“这句话是假的”）（我们推入。 Commenting on a similar line of argumentation, Schoenberg writes the following:上线的论证类似评论，勋伯格写入以下内容：
We may feel intuitively that the argument is paradoxical; yet, from a formal logic point of view, it does not really have the look of a paradox.我们可以直观地感受到这是自相矛盾的说法，但是，从形式逻辑的角度来看，它并没有真正有一个悖论研究。 It looks simply like reductio ad absurdum proof of the falsity of 'All Cretans are liars.'[4]它看起来只是想归谬法虚假广告的'所有克里特荒谬证明是骗子。'[4]
Thus, as Quine noted, it is not inconsistent to assume that some other Cretan does not always lie, or that some other statement by Epimenides was true.因此，正如奎因表示，这不是自相矛盾的假设其他一些克里特并不总是说谎，或者一些其他的埃庇米尼得斯的声明是真实的。 Prior explains this quite well:在此之前这很好解释：
If we treat the Cretan's assertion as true, and so assume that nothing true is ever asserted by a Cretan, it follows immediately that the Cretan's assertion is false.如果我们把克里特作为真正的断言，所以没有真正的假设是有史以来一个克里特宣称，它遵循立刻克里特的说法是错误的。 If, however, we treat it as false, there is no way of deducing from this assumption that it is true.然而，如果我们把它看作虚假，没有从这个假设，这是真正的推导方法。 We can, therefore, consistently suppose it to be false, and this is all we can consistently suppose.我们可以，因此，一直假设它是假的，这是所有我们可以一直猜想。 But to suppose it false (considering what the assertion actually is) is to suppose that something asserted by a Cretan is true; and this of course can only be some other assertion than the one mentioned.[5]但是，假设它是伪造的（考虑什么说法实际上是），是假设的东西声称由克里特岛的是真的，当然，这只能是一些比一提及的其他主张。[5]
A paradoxical statement has no discernable truth value, but the statement by Epimenides can be seen as having a truth value (ie it is false), and if that is the case we can reinterpret the statement as not being paradoxical.一个似是而非的陈述没有可辨真值，但由埃庇米尼得斯的声明可以被看作是具有真值（即它是假的），如果是这样的话，我们可以重新解释为不被似是而非的陈述。 However, establishing a truth value for the statement does not escape the problem with Paul's claim since the saying of Epimenides is false.但是，建立一个真值的语句不逃避与保罗的自埃庇米尼得斯说的索赔问题是虚假的。 As Prior noted above, we cannot consider the statement true (as Paul did).正如前文所述，我们可以不考虑真正的声明（如保罗一样）。 If sophisticated analysis determines after all that this statement by Epimenides is not paradoxical, and thus has a truth value, the only consistent supposition we can make is that it is false.如果复杂的分析确定，毕竟这是由埃庇米尼得斯言不矛盾的，因此有一个真值，唯一的一致，我们可以假设是，它是假的。
Conclusion 结论
In the end, the following seven-point syllogism completes our argument:最后，下面的7点三段论完成我们的论点：
- Paul claims a Cretan uttered a certain proposition.保罗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, as held on by Muslims.武侠圣经经文是不是启发，因为在穆斯林举行。
- Therefore, Paul was not inspired.因此，保罗是没有灵感。
Hence, whether the statement is meaningless or false, the basic argument which we have raised still stands.因此，无论是毫无意义的或虚假陈述，是我们的基本论点提出仍然有效。 The conclusion of the seven point syllogism given above still rings true: Paul was not inspired.在真正的环以上仍然给予7点三段论的结论：保罗不是启发。
And only God knows best!而且，只有上帝知道最好的！
2 Responses for 2回应为 "Epimenides Paradox: Was Paul "Inspired"?" “埃庇米尼得斯悖论：保罗”灵感“？”
I remember coming across this statement by Paul in 1 Titus having a chuckle at how this paradox seems to have gone right over his head.我记得在路过这个声明保罗在提多有1笑着这个矛盾如何，似乎都有权在他头上了。
I used to imagine him sitting in a Roman cell while the guards would entertain each other with jokes or the latest brain twisting paradox going about.我以前想象他在罗马的细胞，而坐在警卫将招待每个笑话或最新的大脑扭曲的矛盾将会对其他。 In my minds eye I would see Paul catching a snippet of the conversation as the first guard told the paradox to the second guard, and while the second guard's brain was starting to mull it over, Paul would scurry to the back of his cage, oblivious to the rest of the debate, grab a scrap of parchment and scribble with righteous indignation.在我心中的眼睛，我看到保罗受凉，作为第一后卫谈话片断告诉悖论第二后卫，虽然第二个后卫的大脑开始仔细考虑这件事情，保罗将斯卡里到他的笼子，不经意回在辩论的休息，抢占羊皮纸和义愤涂鸦废料。 “I knew it” he would be thinking, “I knew Cretans were all lying scum. “我知道”他会想：“我知道克里特人都是说谎的败类。 Now even a Cretan admits it!!”现在连一个克里特承认它！“
I think this was probably a quality that helped him become a success in religious endeavours.我觉得这可能是一个质量，帮助他成为一个宗教工作中取得成功。 When you're busy trying to start a religion you need the ability to grab onto any sliver of evidence that supports your preconceived notions and to never let logic get in the way.当你忙于启动宗教你需要能够抓住到任何证据支持你的先入为主的观念，并且永远不要让逻辑的方式得到条子。
In surfing the web I periodically happen upon those trying to discredit the Apostle Paul (and by extension Christianity) via the claim his statements in Titus 1:12, 13 illustrate his error, naiveté or lack of divine inspiration.我在网上冲浪时发生周期性那些试图抹黑使徒保罗（以及通过延长索赔基督教）在提多书1:12他的声明，13说明他的错误，天真或神圣的灵感不足。 I have also come to regard those making such claims to be too clever by half as well as in error themselves.我也慢慢地对那些提出这种要求太聪明了一半，以及在自己的错误。
Studies have shown that about a third of three-year-olds will knowingly make false statements.有研究表明，大约有三分之一的3岁儿童会故意作出虚假陈述。 By four years of age or slightly older, 80% of children will have done the same and, by the age six, 95% of children will have knowingly made false statements.由4岁或年龄稍大，80％的儿童年会也做了同样由6岁，95％的儿童，将有故意作出虚假陈述。 Why?为什么？
Children become cognizant of the fact that other people's beliefs, knowledge and feelings are separate from their own.儿童成为事实，其他人的信仰，知识和感情，是从他们自己单独的认识。 They can understand the concept of a false belief about reality and learn quickly that false belief can be used to accrue benefit in their favor by manipulating others.他们可以理解一个关于现实的错误观念和学习观念快，错误信念可以用来产生有利于他们通过操纵他人的利益。 As cognitive sophistication develops, children are able to maintain their lies for far longer and will go so far as to even change their very behavior to make the falsehood appear plausible.由于复杂的认知发展，儿童能够维持的时间长，将他们的谎言竟然甚至改变他们的行为很让谎言看起来有道理。 Lying peaks around the ages of four to six.躺在围绕4至6岁的高峰。 At this age, children will lie indiscriminately.在这个年龄段，孩子会说谎乱。 They devise strategies and test various lies, remembering when they'll work and when they won't.他们制定的战略和测试各种谎言，他们会记住工作时，当他们不会。 By trial and error, they soon come to the realization that one cannot always get away with a lie and will, in large part, gradually modify their behavior according by limiting lies to situations in which they will appear plausible.通过试验和错误，他们很快就要认识到，不能总是摆脱谎言和意志，在很大程度上，逐步改变他们的行为是限制的情况，他们将出现在合理根据。
As children grow older the reasons for lying become more complex.随着孩子的成长变得更为复杂说谎旧的原因。 Avoiding punishment is still a primary catalyst for lying, but lying also becomes a way to increase a child's power and sense of control.避免惩罚仍然是一个说谎的主要催化剂，但也成为一个说谎的方式来增加孩子的权力和控制感。 Manipulating friends with teasing, bragging to assert status and learning that parents can be fooled are all examples.操作与朋友开玩笑，夸张地断言状态和学习，家长可以被愚弄，都是例子。 Many children will lie to their peers as a coping mechanism, as a way to vent frustration or get attention.许多孩子会说谎，以作为他们的同龄人应对机制，以此来发泄挫折或引起别人的注意。
On the basis of empirical studies then, I'd have to conclude the idea that anyone can reach adulthood without having ever knowingly made a false statement is untenable.在实证研究的基础上的话，我不得不得出结论认为任何人都可以达到，而不必过故意作出虚假陈述成年的想法是站不住脚的。 There's no need to take my word for it, however, as plenty of experts will attest to this.有没有必要采取我的话，但是，由于大量的专家将证明这一点。
Julian Keenan, a Montclair State University professor and director of the university's Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, has been researching the world of deception for 10 years and believes everyone knowingly makes false statements.朱利安基南，一蒙特克莱尔州立大学教授和该大学的认知神经成像实验室的主任，已经研究了10年的欺骗世界，相信每个人都明知而作出虚假陈述。 Keenan states the average person knowingly makes at least one false statement per day.基南国家的平均每人至少明知而作出虚假陈述每一天。
University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman has conducted experiments in which two strangers are placed in a room together and videotaped while engaging in conversation.美国马萨诸塞大学的心理学家罗伯特费尔德曼曾在这两个陌生人在一个房间放置在一起，而在谈话录像进行实验。 In subsequent interviews, Feldman had the individuals watch the videotape and identify any statements they made that were not entirely accurate.在随后的采访，费尔德曼有个人观看录像带，并确定他们作出的任何陈述了不完全准确。 Interestingly, subjects that initially commented that their statements were entirely accurate were genuinely surprised to discover that they had in fact knowingly made inaccurate statements.有趣的是，学科，最初的评论，他们的发言是完全准确的真正惊讶地发现，他们实际上已明知而作出不正确的说法。 The inaccuracies ranged from pretending to like someone actually disliked to falsely claiming to be the star of a rock band.不准确介于假装去喜欢一个人真的不喜欢虚假声称是一个摇滚乐队的明星。 Ultimately, the study – published in the “Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology” – found that 60% of people had knowingly made false statements at least once during the 10-minute conversation, making an average of 2.92 inaccurate statements.最终，研究 - 在“基础与应用心理学杂志” - 发现，60％的人明知而作出了至少一次在10分钟的谈话发表虚假陈述，作出不正确的说法，平均2.92。 Just as professor Keenan had determined in his studies, Feldman discovered that men tended to make false statements in order to make themselves look better while women were more likely to make false statements in order to make others feel better.正如肯南教授曾在他的研究确认，费尔德曼发现，男子往往作出虚假陈述，以使自己看起来更好，而妇女则更有可能作出虚假陈述，以使别人感觉更好。
As it's a near certainty that each and every one of us has at one time or another (most likely during childhood) knowingly made a false statement and that knowingly making a false statement is defined as lying, we have all lied.由于这是一个几乎可以肯定，每个和我们每个人都在同一时间或另一个（在儿童时期最可能）有故意作出虚假陈述，而故意作出虚假陈述的定义是说谎，我们都撒了谎。 Moreover, as we have all lied, we are all – by definition – liars.此外，正如我们都说谎，我们都 - 定义 - 骗子。 Although we may later come to regret, confess and ask forgiveness for having told a lie, telling a lie is a unique temporal event that cannot be undone – once a false statement has been knowingly made, it cannot be taken back as it becomes the intellectual property of the past.虽然我们可能会晚点来后悔，承认并要求有宽恕说谎，说谎是一种独特的时空事件无法复原 - 一旦虚假陈述已被故意制造，它不能被收回，因为它成为知识分子财产的过去。 As a lie can never be taken back, we will always be liars even if we never tell another lie.作为一个谎言永远无法收回，我们将永远是骗子，即使我们从来没有告诉另一个谎言。 As an unfortunate result, all of us (not just the inhabitants of Crete) are always liars.作为一个不幸的结果，我们（不只是对克里特岛的居民）都始终骗子。
Therefore, when Paul in quoting a Cretan wrote “The Cretans are always liars” and buttressed the claim by further stating “This witness is true,” he was precisely correct irrespective of who made the statement and its obvious he fully thought the matter through by virtue of his seemingly ironic insistence the statement was true when many would think it a paradoxical statement.因此，当保罗在引用了克里特说：“在克里特总是骗子”和支撑，进一步指出“这是真正的证人声称，”他正是正确无论谁的发言，并充分考虑其明显的问题，他通过他似乎具有讽刺意味的坚持下，声明是真实的美德时，很多人会认为这是一个似是而非的陈述。 Although all of us will always be liars by virtue of knowingly making at least one false statement in the past, this cannot by any means be taken to mean that every statement we will ever make will be a known falsehood.虽然我们都将永远受到故意制造至少一个在过去虚假声明而撒谎，这是不以任何方式被理解，每一个发言，我们将做将是一个已知的谎言。 This is why it's possible for a Cretan to accurately state that Cretans are always liars.这就是为什么有可能为克里特准确地指出，克里特总是骗子。