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 an objection.為響應我們的論點，保羅的摸索的埃庇米尼得斯悖論證明，特設“使徒”畢竟不是啟發，一個基督教提出了一個反對。 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”.試圖進行辯駁承認矛盾的性質，埃庇米尼得斯的聲明，但奇怪的要求，然後使保羅的說法是真實不過由於其他因素歸因於克里特島“先知”的“使徒”。

If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via RSS feed.如果你是新這裡，您可能希望獲得定期更新RSS提要。 Thank you for visiting!Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi感謝您訪問！莫哈末Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
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.在一項研究的邏輯，有些事，我們稱之為“不可判定命題”或“沒有意義的句子”，這是聲明，不能確定，因為沒有上下文假的。 One of the classic examples cited is the Epiminedes' paradox.其中一個典型的例子是Epiminedes引用'悖論。 Read more ..閱讀更多..

In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says that在他的第一書信向哥林多前書，保羅說，

“However, as it is written: 'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.'” (1 Corinthians 2:9) “不過，因為它是寫：'沒有眼睛未曾看見，耳朵未曾聽見，人心也未曾想到什麼上帝已準備為那些誰愛他。'”（林前2:9）

It is claimed that Paul had paraphrase the above citation from Isaiah:據稱，保羅的意思是從上述引文以賽亞：

“Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.” (Isaiah 64:4) “自古以來沒有人聽到，耳朵未曾知覺，眼睛也沒有看到任何神，除了你，誰的行為代表誰等他。”（以賽亞書 64:4）

This is actually inaccurate, as Paul had actually quoted the above from the 'apocryphal books of Elijah' and not Isaiah 64:4.這實際上是不準確的，因為實際上保羅引述上述從'猜測書籍以利亞'，而不是以賽亞書 64:4。 Apostolic Christians such as Origen and Jerome had confirmed the following about the source of Paul's quote.使徒的基督徒，如奧利和杰羅姆證實了以下有關源保羅的報價。