John Powell

POWELL:
Ok, again I snipped a lot.

Day = 24 hours


POWELL:
Let me explain again. If the "day" in "3 days" meant a civil day and if a part of a "day" counts as a whole then the minimum number of half-day onahs is 4. Not 5 or 6. The question on almost every Rabbis mind (except the one who mentioned that it could be 4 or 5 or 6 onahs) appeared to be what is the MINIMUM time.

However, if the "day" in "3 days" meant a continuous 24-hour time period then 4 onahs would not be enough to make parts of three 24-hour days, but at most only two complete 24-hour days. 5 onahs can be a minimum of 36 hours and a little bit, which is still not assured of at least 48 hours. However, if you require part of a sixth onah if the first onah isn't complete (which forces the fifth onah to be complete) then the elapsed time can't be less than 48 hours.

The fact that some Rabbis required a minimum of 5 onahs with a part of a 6th onah if the first onah is not complete implies they believed that the "day" in "3 days" meant a continuous 24-hour time period.

So, David, why did some Rabbis require a MINIMUM of 5 onahs plus some of a 6th onah if the first onah was not complete unless they thought that the "day" in "3 days" meant a 24-hour continuous time period rather than merely a civil day?


POWELL:
Possibly yes. Probably not.

Genesis 1 meaning of "day"


POWELL:
Don't you mean the Enuma Elish? Perhaps there was also some borrowing from the Egyptians. However, at the time of the writing of these myths did the Babylonians likely count a "day" as just the daylight period or sometimes also a civil day? Probably the former.


POWELL:
What in the Exodus account leads you believe that the Jewish "day" back then went from sunset to sunset?


POWELL:
No.

But David, "evening" was not "sunset." Evening was the time from about 3 p.m. to about the beginning of darkness. Likewise, "morning" was not "sunrise." Morning was the time from about dawn to about 10 a.m.

Furthermore, if the writer meant "day then sunset then sunrise = first day," THEN why didn't he say that instead of referring to time periods like "evening" and "morning" that merely INCLUDE sunset and sunrise, yet then he ignored the night?

Perhaps the writer meant to imply that God worked during the middle of the day (beginning at about 10 a.m.), then there was an evening, THEN THERE WAS A NIGHT, and finally, then there was a morning. However, I don't think so since that would have "God's" day (not work day) beginning at about 10 a.m.

Why did the writer ignore the night, David, if it was part of the first day?

I think it's because he didn't think of nights as being part of a day. The "day" was just the daylight period. People back then counted days while ignoring the nights. The nights just came or didn't come with the ride. It was like counting men instead of also women and children. If you wanted to count nights too then you said "x days and y nights." What I suspect he was saying is that if you take the middle of the day when God worked and add to it the late afternoon "evening" after God quit for the day and add the previous morning "dawn to about 10 a.m." before God started working then you have a complete daylight period.

A problem with this is why did he list evening first and then morning? Maybe for poetic reasons.


POWELL:
I suppose they could have interpreted it as the END of evening to the END of evening which would have occurred slightly later than sunset.


POWELL:
I take it you haven't read the Enuma Elish.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm


POWELL:
Sort of. I'm saying that the fact that he didn't mention the night in his calculation of the day suggests that it wasn't part of his day.


POWELL:
There would be five. How many do you count?


POWELL:
No. I'm saying the nights were unimportant. The writer was likely describing the creative days, not the creative nights, since nothing important happened at night.


POWELL:
Sure. However, if he meant "FROM sunrise TO sunset" then why did he say "evening and morning"?

If you were to say "Yesterday I was awake evening AND morning" would that imply that you didn't sleep that night?

Now, what if you said "Yesterday I was awake at sunset and sunrise" then would that imply that you were awake all night?

Grammar Argument


POWELL:
Unfortunately, what happens "usually" may not be good enough to resolve this controversy.

Tell me, David, which of the following matches what you think Eleazar meant?

"A day and a night are one onah."

or

"A day and a night are two onahs."

Now, tell me which of the following matches what you think Eleazar meant?

"A day and a night EACH IS one onah."

or

"A day and a night COMBINED ARE one onah."


POWELL:
He could have. The problem is that he also could have meant something else.

When the day begins and ends.


POWELL:
No, David. Under Jewish usage the Saturday morning predawn hours would belong to J Saturday night, not J Friday night.

Also no, David. Under American usage the Saturday morning predawn hours are not part of either Saturday DAYTIME or Friday night. They are part of the civil day of Saturday.


POWELL:
I suspect you conclude that because, by convention, we say noon = 12 p.m. and midnight = 12 a.m. We do that because 12:01 p.m. is in the afternoon, whereas 12:01 a.m. is predawn darkness.

Midnight is not the first moment of the new R civil day, but it's the moment when one R civil day switches to the next. It's where the previous day ends counting and the new day begins counting.


POWELL:
Perhaps these people should spend some time near the poles where it can get as bad as having to wait 6 months for the sun to set, where there are no "7 days in a week," but only one day in the whole year. Apparently, the Hebrew God didn't realize that the Earth is a spinning orb inclined with respect to its orbit around the Sun.

1 day + 1 night is > or = to 1 onah


POWELL:
But, David, you DON'T think Eleazar meant "A day and a night COMBINED ARE an onah," but you think he meant "A day and a night EACH is an onah."


POWELL:
Because of the additional rule that "a part counts as a whole," your equation should be D + N >/= onah. Otherwise, your claim that a night is a half-day onah would mean that unless you had all 12 hours of night it wouldn't count.


POWELL:
In this case, it defines the MAXIMUM time. An onah can be less than the maximum time.

Since your night onah includes not only R Friday night but also R Saturday predawn darkness, then why don't you need part of R Friday night AND part of R Saturday predawn darkness to count?


POWELL:
Because of their utility in scrutinizing arguments, here's another hypothetical for you.

If the law said "A night has 4 watches and is an onah. A day has 12 hours and is also an onah. A part of an onah counts as the whole." then would that imply that you needed parts of all 4 watches to count as a night onah and you needed parts of all 12 daylight hours to count as a day onah?


POWELL:
Since you think that a COMPLETE night is NOT just R Friday night, but ALSO R Saturday predawn darkness, then does that imply that you need parts of both to count as a night onah? No. That's because you don't need a COMPLETE night to count as a night onah.

Likewise, even though a COMPLETE civil day is NOT just the daylight period, but also the night, nevertheless that does not imply that you need parts of both to count as a civil day onah.


POWELL:
But a daytime period DOES consist of both those time periods, David. A daytime period is NOT just 6 hours long. It's the a.m. daylight period + the p.m. daylight period. Don't you agree?


POWELL:
You were the one who thought it was important enough to argue that even if the Christian apologists were right that Eleazar meant that an onah was a civil day then they would need parts of both the day and the night to make an onah. My argument is that even if they were right about what Eleazar meant it wouldn't help their Jesus argument.

On Hypotheticals


POWELL:
But Jack isn't a compulsive liar, David. He's a very honest person. So, your hypothetical is false.


POWELL:
Powell Fact 1: Onah meant half-days.
Powell Fact 2: Onah also meant 30 day menstrual cycle.
Powell Fact 3: Onah also may reasonably have meant a civil day.

Do you get it now?

Appeals to authority and related logical issues.


POWELL:
I assumed it was deductive since you were supposed to give a deductive example and because you didn't say "probably" in the conclusion.


POWELL:
The validity of an argument is independent of your knowledge of such things.

The Modus Ponens argument
If p then q
p
therefore
q

is valid regardless what p and q are. Well, they have to obey the laws of logic such as not being self-contradictory.


POWELL:
I assumed it WAS a deductive argument. However, the argument you need to justify believing that the premises ARE actually true would likely be an inductive appeal to authority.


POWELL:
The validity of the argument is independent of such things.


POWELL:
It is valid and perhaps is sound. However, the truth of the premises is likely determined by inductive arguments. Expert authority EA claims premise 1 is true so PROBABLY premise 1 is true.


POWELL:
Nonsense. "Valid" means the conclusion would be true, could not be false, if the premises happened to be true. "Sound" means valid with true premises. A valid deductive argument can, but a sound deductive argument cannot have a false conclusion.


POWELL:
By asking an authority. I would NOT ask an authority via a deductive argument, however, since such would be fallacious. A deductive argument claims CERTAINTY in the conclusion, given the truth of the premises. No human authority can reliably guarantee that they're never wrong.

This is basically the same answer to your questions in David 55.


POWELL:
Don't confuse distinct hypotheticals.

If David Mooney is a woman then David Mooney is female.

If David Mooney is a man then David Mooney is male.

See? The statements are NOT claiming that you're both a female and a male at the same time. In fact, the conditional statements are NOT claiming you're either.


POWELL:
Knowledge. If you don't have it by personal experience of the events then you might get it from an authority. If you already have it (say you were one of the Mexicans there) then you wouldn't need an authority.


POWELL:
There are only 2 premises and 1 conclusion in that argument. There are three PROPOSITIONS. It is a valid deductive argument. If the two premises are false, as you say, then the argument is not sound, by definition.

A "true" argument is something that's truly an argument as opposed to merely looking like an argument. An example might be an isolated claim.


POWELL:
No. I use them IN inductive arguments. Appeals to authority should not be IN deductive arguments or they are considered fallacious.


POWELL:
Not so, David. I would be using an INDUCTIVE appeal to authority to justify believing that a premise in a deductive argument is actually true. To argue that the premise 100% CERTAINLY is true since an authority claimed as much would be fallacious. Rather, to argue that the premise PROBABLY is true since an authority claimed as much MIGHT be justified if the authority is bonafide and other things.


POWELL:
Well, if you were someone with personal knowledge then you wouldn't have to ask an authority.


POWELL:
I don't need to know the truth values of the premises to determine the validity status of the argument. I do need to know the truth values of the premises to determine the sound status of the argument.


POWELL:
Not to the validity of the argument. You implied the argument was valid. You did NOT claim or clearly imply that the argument was sound. The truth value of the premises IS relevant to the soundness of the argument. A sound argument is valid with true premises.


POWELL:
Then why didn't you ask that question?


POWELL:
A modern person probably should resort to reliable authorities to determine the truth values of those premises. However, that reliance should be based on an INDUCTIVE appeal to authority rather than a DEDUCTIVE one.

Here's an example of a bad appeal to authority in a deductive argument:

Whatever expert authority EA seriously claims about a thing that's within his field of expertise and other stipulations OS is correct WITHOUT FAIL. EA seriously claims that the first premise of deductive argument DA is true which is part of his field of expertise and OS. Therefore (certainly) premise 1 of DA is true.

Here's an example of a potentially (depending on OS) very strong appeal to authority in an inductive argument:

Whatever expert authority EA seriously claims about a thing that's within his field of expertise and other stipulations OS is VERY OFTEN correct. EA seriously claims that the first premise of deductive argument DA is true which is part of his field of expertise and OS. Therefore VERY PROBABLY premise 1 of DA is true.

Logicians typically confine themselves to studying the validity of arguments, not the soundness. They typically leave determining the actual truth values of the premises to people like scientists.

John Powell

David Mooney

DAVID 1
Thanks. I needed a break. I don't see how you do it, but you
must be a fast typist. Can you do 60 wpm? I can do about 10 wpm,
I think. In any case, here it is my reply.

DAVID 2:
I am not sure I follow you here. Let's see how three Jewish days and
five Onah's could fit with one another.
. . .
Here we see that the five Onah period demanded at least two days and
two nights and a part or a whole Onah. Depeding on which part of the
first civil day the countdown began would depend on when the fifth
Onah began and ended.

DAVID 3
There was no difficulty here. The minimum depended on what ~part~ of
the day and ~which~ day the intimacy took place. If the intimacy took
place on Roman Wednesday sunset we would have six periods to the
~end~ of the sabbath day (Roman Saturday sunset). If the intimacy
took place Roman Thursday sunrise we would have five periods and
if took place Roman Thursday sunset we would have four periods. The
question of how many periods were required were dependent on what and
which day the intimacy occurred BEFORE the sabbath. The Tractate
Shabbath 86 a and b was discussing the time periods that fell in a
three day period between an act of intimacy and the ~end~ of the
sabbath.

This whole section is discussing periods of uncleanliness before a
sabbath. That is why it is found in the Tractate Shabbath. I will
elaborate more below, using the Tractate Shabbath as my main source.

DAVID 4
The Babylonian Talmud Shabbath 86 says this: Rabbi Ishmael said: "This
(interval [for unleanliness])sometimes comprises four periods,
sometimes five, and sometimes six periods." The Gemarists in their
commentary on this saying explain it as follows: He (Rabbi Ishmael)
holds that she is unlclean. Now if cohabitation took place at the
very beginning of Thursday evening whilst the discharge occurred at
the ~end~ of the sabbath, we have six periods; if at the end of
Thursday night, five; and if at the end of Thursday, four. In all
cases he is unclean."

DAVID 5
Rabbi Ishmael, when figuring how many Onahs can take place between
the very beginning of Thursday evening (Jewish reckoning which is
Wednesday sunset by Roman reckoning) and the ~end~ of the Sabbath,
we have six periods. If the cohabitation took place at the ~end~ of
Thursday night (Jewish reckoning which is Friday sunrise by Roman
reckoning)we would have five periods; and if the cohabitation
occurred at the end of Thursday day (Jewish reckoning which would
also be sunset Roman Thursday)we would have four Onahs.

DAVID 6
I believe the above is self-explanatory. The rabbi is reckoning
time from a specific time (Jewish Thursday sunset) to the end
of the sabbath.There would be six periods in that time span. He
also explains that the time period between the end of the Jewish
Thursday night(Roman Thursday sunrise)and the end of the Sabbath
would be five periods and the time between the end of the Jewish
Thursday daytime (Roman Thursday sunset)and the end of the sabbath
would be four periods.

DAVID 7
Moreover, Rabbi Akiba maintained: "it (the interval for uncleanliness)
is ALWAYS [up to] five periods." Notice he says it is ALWAYS up to
five periods. Not some of the time, but ALWAYS. Why the discrepancy?
Akiba explains that IF part of the first period was gone (when intimacy
took place) the SIXTH part was given to her. Akiba did not count a
portion of the first period for some unknown reason but instead gave
the sixth part to her and called it the fifth. Since the sixth would
be at the end of the sabbath we would still have portions of three
days of uncleanliness.

DAVID 8
Rabbi Eleazar, son of Azariah, held that abstention from intimacy was
effected on Thursday. Thursday would be day one, Friday day two, and
the sabbath, the day the law was given, would be the third day. Keep
in mind it is the period of uncleanliness before the giving of the law
which is being discussed here. The Jews believed the giving of the law
was on a sabbath. The Jews quoted from Exodus 19 in the Shabbath 86,
specifically Exodus 19:11. The quotes from the rabbis in Shabbath 86
are referring how to reckon a three day period before the end of the
sabbath (that is why these instructions are found in the Shabbath
Tractate). The Shabbath Tractate deal with rules and regulations
regarding the proper keeping of the sabbath, and periods of
uncleanliness were discussed as well.

DAVID 9
Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Jose held that abstention was effected on
Wednesday. Their reasons were not given why they held this position,
but they did hold this position. This would mean the three periods
of uncleanliness were accomplished before sabbath. It appears there
were some schisms amongst the rabbis as there are among modern day
Christians. Rabbi Akiba apparently agreed with Rabbi Jose according
to rabbi Addah, son of Ahabah, who pointed out the early morning
ascension and descension of Moses as proof texts (which are found in
Exodus 24:4 and 34:4). I fail to catch the connection, but so be it.

DAVID 10
According to this view, Moses descended from the mount early on
Wednesday morning which allowed five full periods until the beginning
of the sabbath, when the Jews purified themselves. The commentators
point out Moses could have given the command to abstain at the end
of the same day.

DAVID 11
Moreover, later on Shabbath 86b Rabbi Hiyya son of Rabbi Abba said
in the name of Rabbi Johanan's name: "These are the views of Rabbi
Ishmael and Rabbi Akiba; but the Sages maintain: We require six full
periods (to elapse before discharge shall have no effect)."

Rabbi Hisda claimed: "This controversy is (only) where it (the semen
issues from the woman; but if it issues from the man, it is unclean
as long as it is moist."

Rabbi Shesheth objected to this: "And every garment, and every skin,
whereupon is the seed of copulation, (shall be washed with water and
be unclean until the even [Lev 15:27] ): this excludes semen that
is foul."

The Gemarists asked: "Surely this refers [even] to that which issues
from a man?" -- No:[only] to that which issues from an woman."

DAVID 12
So, let's look at your question more carefully...

DAVID 13
The Tractate Shabbath 86 explains this. The minimum number of days
depended on which day the act of intimacy occurred. In this tractate
they are discussing three days in reference to the sabbath day. So,
the minimum number of days to the end of the sabbath would of course
depend of ~what~ day and ~when~ the act of intimacy occurred,
specifically a male orgasm where there was a discharge of semen from
the woman.

DAVID 14
The context is the key John. When you lift quotes out of context
confusion can ensue. By putting the quotes back into their context
you grasp at once why there was a difference of days. Since the
end of the sabbath was the ~terminus ad quem~ the only question was
what was the ~terminus a quo~ within a three day period of the end
of the sabbath. The rabbis are not talking about just any period of
the week but a time period whose ~terminus ad quem~ is defined as
the end of the sabbath. So, once that context is understood, the
answers as to why some periods in this three day period contained
anywhere from four to six periods becomes very clear. Read the
Tractate Shabbath 86 a and b very carefully and the comments from
the Gemarists and you will see your questions answered.

DAVID 15
Not so. Only one Rabbi held this view. Rabbi Akiba held that the
period was ALWAYS five. And the reason he did was if the first portion
was a part, he refused to count it. Instead, the sixth period was
"given" her and it was called the FIFTH. So you still had six
periods, only the first was not counted by this ONE rabbi. Had the
first part been a complete one (the orgasm occurred on Roman Wednesday
sunset) there would be no sixth period needed as the fifth period
would be at the beginning of the sabbath (sunset Roman Friday) and you
would still have your third day. See David 7.

DAVID 16
The Jews knew that days like Tuesday or Monday were irrelevant to
the three day period to the end of the sabbath count so the whole
controversy whirled around whether the act of intimacy occurred on
either a Wednesday sunset(Roman)to just before sunset Thursday Roman
time. If the sexual act occurred at sunset on Thursday Roman time
you would have four time periods, Thursday sunset to Friday morning,
Roman time (time period One); Friday morning to Friday sunset Roman
time (time period two); Friday sunset Roman time to Saturday sunrise
Roman time (time period three); Saturday sunrise Roman time to
Saturday sunset, Roman time,ending the sabbath.


DAVID 16
It is explained in the Tractate Shabbath 86 a and b in the Babylonian
Talmud. The Gemarists expand on the comments and explain them. One
rabbi (not SOME as you keep saying) would not count the first period
if it was only a partial but would give the sixth to the woman and it
was called the FIFTH but it was still ended on the sabbath which was
the whole point in the first place.

In David 11 I quote Rabbi Hisda where this whole controversy only
mattered if the woman issued semen, and not the man. This whole debate
is moot. It deals with counting the three days ending at the end of
the sabbath and is only applicable when the woman issues semen.

DAVID 17:
. . . Problem is this...is an Onah a 24-hour continuous period?

POWELL 17:
Possibly yes. Probably not.[/quote]

DAVID 18
There is no evidence for the 24-hour Onah. So I would say very
likely not, like maybe one in a million.

DAVID 19
The Genesis 1 account was probably borrowed from the Gilgamesh Epic
and as such counted days Babylonian style, morning to morning.

POWELL 19:
Don't you mean the Enuma Elish? Perhaps there was also some borrowing from
the Egyptians. However, at the time of the writing of these myths did the
Babylonians likely count a "day" as just the daylight period or sometimes
also a civil day? Probably the former.[/quote]

DAVID 20
I have read some commentaries that state the Babylonians counted days
from sunrise to sunrise.

DAVID 21
So the Genesis account supports a sunrise to sunrise reckoning butwe
know that at the time of the alleged Exodus the reckoning was from sunset
to sunset.

DAVID 22
There is no one verse but a combination of several. I would suggest
picking up a Strong's concordance and begin with looking up references
with the Hebrew word "even" with the number #6153. Then, look under
the Greek word "even" beginning with Greek word #3798. This will
keep you busy for awhile.

DAVID 23:
The daytime portion in Genesis 1 is the time of God's creative acts,
followed by an evening (sunset) and morning (sunrise): SECOND DAY.
Just because the writer doesn't mention the nighttime between the
evening (sunset) and morning (sunrise) doesn't mean the night didn't
exist. If I spent three days in the hospital does my failure to
mention nights mean there were no nights?

DAVID 24
Evening had more than the meanings you gave above. That is why I gave
you some advice to invest in a Strong's concordance and do a
word study. Not only that, go to the library and research the
word "day" in a Bible Encyclopedia. It will be well worth your
time. Not only that, you will remember it better than if I did
your homework for you.

DAVID 25
How can anyone KNOW what the writer was thinking nearly 4,000 years
ago? Are you serious? Do you really think I know why the ancient
writer did or did NOT use the phrase in a certain way? Have you
ever studied anything about ancient languages? If the writer chose
to refer to sunset as evening and morning as sunrise then why
judge him so harshly? The bottom line is this: Genesis 1 has a
certain order. First there is a creative act. Second, there is an
evening, then a morning, SECOND DAY. Then comes another creative
act, then an evening, then a morning, THIRD DAY.I am not going to
pass such judgement on a story that is probably 3,000 years old.
There is no way to know what was in the writer's mind when he
wrote what he did, we can only guess at why he wrote what he did.

DAVID 27
If there was an evening, then there was a morning, then any logical
mind would know that a night had passed as well. If I said there was
five springs and four winters in the Civil War would you seriously
believe that there were NO summers during that period? How can you go
from evening to morning without a night in between?

DAVID 28
Well John, cross your fingers, hope for an afterlife, then you can ASK
the writer himself why he didn't use night! Are you claiming if
I wrote that I spent three evenings and three mornings in the
hospital there were no nights included? Just because I didn't use
the word night? If I wrote "I was in Iowa for six days" would that
mean I had no nights? According to you, if I didn't mention nights
then I ignored the nights because there weren't any? Or you serious?

If an ancient writer chose a certain writing style that was common
to him, and seems awkward to us, how in the name of all that is
good could I know WHY he wrote it the way he did? And how would my
inability to know WHY he wrote what he did mean there were no nights
in his account?

DAVID 29
Would you provide some evidence for this? I know sometimes writers
did not mention nights but that most certainly did not mean they
meant for their readers to understand there were no nights.

DAVID 30
You will learn John. You need to do a lot more study on this. I
am surprised you would even be making such assertions. This is
when you begin to enter that Joe-Alwardish world and appear
that you are baiting others to do your homework for you. Get
the conncordance and you do some word studies on morning and
evening. Then you will see your assertions above are not based on
fact. Morning could mean anytime from the pre-dawn hours until
a period just after sunrise while an evening could mean anytime
from 3 pm to just after sunset.

DAVID 31:
In the "Bible Days" evening could be either late afternoon or
sunset. In Leviticus 23:32 there is a reference to the sabbath being
observed from "evening to evening". The Jews have reconized this to
be from sunset to sunset.

DAVID 32
Suppose all you like. Do more study than I will listen to more of
what you have to say on this issue.

DAVID 33
This was a mythological telling of the creation of the world.
According to mythology, God doesn't sleep.

[/quote=POWELL 33]
I take it you haven't read the Enuma Elish.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

ENUMA ELISH:
They consulted on a plan with regard to the gods, their sons.
Apsu opened his mouth and spake,
And unto Tiamut, the glistening one,
he addressed the word:
...their way...
By day I can not rest, by night I can not lie down in peace.
But I will destroy their way, I will...[/quote]

DAVID 34
Yes, you are correct. It is the ENUMA ELISH.

DAVID 35
There was simply a daylight period in which God is said to have
created something significant then came the evening and the morning:
FIRST DAY. You seem to feel that the writer had to specifically
mention the word "Night" for the night to be there.

DAVID 36
So since I don't mention nights in many of my letters then that
suggests that nights are not part of my day? Do you know what
a non sequitur is? How does his failure to mention nights between
an evening and a morning mean there were no nights?

DAVID 37
How many nights were there from the first day to the sixth day?

DAVID 38
I count five.

DAVID 39
According to you, there were zero nights because the word night was
not even used as following each creative day.

DAVID 40
An improvement over your earlier statement.

DAVID 41
Instead, the writer chose to use the words "evening and morning". If
I slept from evening to morning then it would be understood there
was a night whether I used the word night or not.

DAVID 42
Again John, how am I to determine why an ancient writer chose certain
words than others? Poetic license maybe? I don't know, but I use a
Thesaurus and use different words with very slight variation of
meaning. Why a writer chose to use a certain word 4,000 years ago
is beyond my ability to determine.

DAVID 43
It would depend on whether I was asleep that night or awake. Since I
am not Jewish I would say, "Yesterday I was awake morning and evening."
And since I don't sleep every night it would depend on whether I
actually slept or not.

DAVID 44
I wouldn't say that. I would say, "Yesterday I was awake at sunrise
and sunset."

DAVID 45
I think that since compound words that are considered as a unit
usually take a singular verb then it is more probable that day and
night in Aleazar's defintion of Onah are not thought as a unit but
separate terms.

DAVID 46
Unfortunately for you, the first quote was referring to compound
subjects that are joined by words other than "and" such as "neither"
or "nor" and lifted from a post that was sent to me by a Jew back in
1998. The second sentence was lifted from the same author who claimed
that when two subjects are joined by "and" refer to a single thing
or a unit the subject is singular and it REQUIRES a singular verb.
So it does settle it UNLESS you just like arguing. The "usually" did
not apply to the sentence where "and" joins two subjects into one
unit. It would require a singular verb if it referred to a unit.

DAVID 47
Notice, the words joined by "and" and that refer to a single
thing then there are no qualifications added. It emphatically
states "the subject is also singular and REQUIRES a singular verb."

DAVID 48
It doesn't matter. The rule states that if the two subjects joined by
"and" refer to a single thing the subject is also singular and REQUIRES
a singular verb." Since the verb is plural, we can know that the writer
is referring to a day and a night as separate subjects in a compound
subject from.

DAVID 49
I believe " A day AND a night ARE an Onah" is what Eleazar meant,
which grammatically refers to two separate subjects. If a single
unit was meant it would read, "A day and a night IS an Onah." Sorry
John, but that is the correct grammatically way to say it if he
meant it as a unit. You can twist it anyway you want and be stubborn
as a mule, but the grammar demands it be understood as two distinct
subjects. If a day and a night was meant as a single unit, it would
have been written, "A day and a night IS an Onah." I would strongly
suggest you do some grammatically research instead of asking questions
that are totally unnecessary.

English is similar. Do a Google Search and type in "compound
subjects" and "singular verb" (without the quotation marks and
you will find our language is strikingly similar). In fact John,
the phrases "X and Y IS P" where X refers to a subject and Y refers
to a subject and P is a predicate is not uncommon even in our
language and yet you seem confused by it. You are a college
graduate? And you are unaware of this usage? Read some examples
on the Grammar Sites on Google. They will show you that a compound
subject that is thought of as a unit and separated by "and" uses
a singular verb.

If you do not make an effort to study a little on your own I will
be severely disappointed. You have no awareness on how even our
compound subjects are constructed. Do a Google search. Then send
them a letter and ask them the questions you asked me. See what
kinds of answers you will get.

You can ask them:
1. Which is the proper way to express a "day and night" as a 24-hour
day unit?

1. A day and a night is a 24-hour time period.
2. A day and a night are one 24-hour time period.
3. A day and a night are two 24-hour time periods.
4. A day and a night ARE a 24-hour time period.

DAVID 49
Already answered it. A day and a night are a time period. The
plural verb means the day and night are reckoned separately and
a plural verb with two or more subjects were sometimes used with
a single predicate. That is the way Jews sometimes wrote.
In Leviticus 11:13 "...they ARE an abomination unto you" and
Leviticus 11:42, "...for they ARE an abomination." Using such words
as "combined" and "each" are unnecessary. Grammar settles the issue,
but not with you. You will find something to argue about.

DAVID 50:
Or, he coud have used the compound sentence structure as outlined in
Jewish grammar in 17 above, couldn't he? I could say, "my best
friend is my girlfriend and my worst critic is my girlfriend" or I
could use a compound stucture and legitimately say, "My best friend
and worst critic is my girlfriend." Since grammar allows for that
usage, why couldn't have Eleazar have used a sentence with a
compound subject?

[/quote=POWELL 50]
He could have. The problem is that he also could have meant something
else. [/quote]

DAVID 51
Not according to grammar. Just look at the way Americans even use
it. Use "compound subjects" with "singular verb" and do a Google
Search. I have found similar usages in English that show the
proper use. Your usages are incorrect and unnecessary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO

DAVID 52
Depends on whether I was employing Jewish usage or American usage.
Under Jewish usage the Saturday morning predawn hours would belong
to the Friday night and be part of the whole Jewish night. By
extension, it could belong to Saturday daytime as the rest of the
Jewish civil day. Under American usage, the predawn Saturday hours
would belong with Saturday daytime and up to Saturday night at
midnight.

DAVID 53
I told you already that when I use Jewish days I would use the Roman
terminology for days unless otherwise stated. Please stay focused and
stop trying to make it look like I am some idiot. I stand by my
statement above. The Jewish usage of when a day begins and ends and
the Roman terminology for days has been used by me since the
beginning of this discussion. Only when I specifically say otherwise
do I intend otherwise. I asked you to accede to this usage since it
is the way that bible scholars operate. Your method is cumbersome
and different than the common vernacular. When discussing Jewish
days and when referring to their beginning and ending points I will
use Roman usage. Please try to cooperate and stop trying to be a
loose cannon in the debate field. I am trying to help you John because
this approach you use and the unique way you approach this topic
will win you few friends. And you ARE the one out of step on this
topic. The others, whom you think are out of step, are actually the
ones in step.

DAVID 54
Say what? Here is American usage John...from Saturday 12am to
Saturday sunrise is the first part of a 24-hour Roman day. This first
part of the 24-hour Roman day belongs to the Saturday daytime which
follows it. After Saturday sunset,it extends to 11:59:59 pm
Saturday night. That is an American day. Accept it or try to
find fault. I did not say it was part of Friday night.

DAVID 55
At 11:59:59 pm you are still in Friday night, Roman time. The moment
it rolls over to 12:00:00 you are in Saturday morning Roman time.

DAVID 56
Huh? Midnight IS the dividing point between Roman day July 29 and
Roman day July 30.You claim that midnight is not the first moment
of the new Roman civil day but the moment whe one Roman day switches
to the next. That is exactly what I am saying! At 11:59:59 pm you
were still on Roman day July 29. The moment the clock rolled over to
12:00:00 am you entered Roman day July 30. As such, the predawn hours
from 12:00:00 am to sunrise belog to Roman day July 30 and the
afternoon and evening of Roman day July 30 is part of this time
period as well. Finally, the pre-midnight dark hours from 9 pm to
11:59:59 pm belong to July 30 as well.

David 57
. . . This topic came up because some members would literally wait
and watch until the exact moment the sun dipped below the surface or
wait until the exact time of sunset given in the newspaper so they
could begin to turn on the TV or go out and eat or begin to do
housework. The church said this was wrong and it was better to wait
a few minutes past the sun set or the time given in the newspaper
before you began to do whatever it was that you felt was so dang
important that you had to watch the sun setting.

DAVID 57
Yes, I know. As a sabbath keeper in the WCG we kept the sabbath
every seven days but we were living in the United States. I
often wondered about those who lived in climates where there
were no seven day periods as we experienced in the United States.

Herbert Armstrong told us that if God "called" someone from these
polar regions it would be recommended to them to move to a region
where you would have the seven day cycle. I didn't buy this, as it
seemed unfair to expect someone who had grown up in their region
to change it to another where they were like a fish out of water.

DAVID 58
Grammatically, if a day and a night were a unit, or thought as one,
a singular verb would be used. The fact that a plural verb was used
makes one highly suspect that the day and the night in Eleazar's
Onah were a combined unit.

DAVID 59
Read it again John. Let's take the first sentence first.
1. "Grammatically, if a day and a night were an unit, or thought
as one, a singular verb would be used."

Now what is wrong with that sentence? Here is the second:

2. "The fact that a PLURAL verb was used makes one highly suspect
that the day and a night in Eleazar's Onah were a combined unit."

I think the meaning of the word "suspect" has thrown you. I will
quote my Oxford 2001 dictionary and the fifth definition of "suspect"
It says: "Doubt the genuineness or truth of". Webster's (1984) second
definition for "suspect" is "to be suspicious about; distrust."

The word "suspect" can mean to believe something is the case or
to doubt that something is the case. It can mean either and I
thought you were aware of the dual usage of suspect.

DAVID 60:
I believe that if D+N = O then conversely O = D + N.

[/quotePOWELL 60]
Because of the additional rule that "a part counts as a whole," your
equation should be D + N >/= onah. Otherwise, your claim that a night is a
half-day onah would mean that unless you had all 12 hours of night it
wouldn't count.[/quote]

DAVID 61
A part counts as a whole of what? Remember if the Eleazar Onah was
O=D+N then a part of the Onah would have to be D+N since that was
a definition of an Onah.

A part of O(D+N)is as the whole.
D is not O; N is not O. D+N is a O.
Therefore, a part of D is not O, and a part of N is not O.
Therefore, a part of D+N is as the whole.

DAVID 62
As stated earlier, this is a moot point. 1) The plural verb means
the day and night were not thought of as a combined unit. 2)all
the other definitions of Onah has it as either a day or a night.
Therefore, since I believe the Eleazar Onah was actually two
separate entities I will not argue this senseless point over and
over and over ad nauseum. The Eleazar Onah was not a combined unit
and you can prove that with a plural verb, as well as all the other
commentary that show that an Onah is either a day or a night. So
I have provided the evidence. It is up to you to either accept it
or reject it. If you don't accept it, fine, just don't bother me
with it. I have given you enough evidence over the last four
posts to educate you on the use of Onah but you will continue to
argue, argue, argue.

David 63
If two things were required to define an object, then it seems
logical to believe that you would need at least a part of those two
definitions to retain the definition.

DAVID 63
As I said above, I have provided the evidence that the plural verb
refers to two separate compound subjects and all the links I
have given in my three previous posts amply testify the Jews
believed the day to refer to either a day or a night. So instead
of beating a dead horse, let's discuss more productive things than
a topic that has already been argued through with all its' pros
and con's given.

DAVID 64
It isn't "my" Onah. I am not the one arguing for it to be a 24-hour
unit; you are. If anything, it is "your" Onah. I don't believe
your Onah has insufficent evidence to support it so it doesn't
matter what I think since I believe an Onah was either a day OR a
night. As far as why a night Onah doesn't need both 9 pm to
11:59:59 pm AND 12:00:00 to sunrise reckoning to be counted as
an Onah: 1) the rabbis did not divide the nights into two separate
Onahs and 2) they declared a portion of the whole night was as
a portion of the whole. So I am constrained by rabbinical law to
1)concede that any portion of a daytime or any portion of a nighttime
counts as the whole and 2) to realize that the rabbis didn't have a
habit of dividing nights and days into two separate Onahs each.

DAVID 65
There is no rabbinical law that says "the first two watches and the
last two watches of the night is an Onah". If there were, then you
would need the first two watches and the last two watches or a
portion of the two to count it as a nighgttime Onah.

DAVID 66
The "part counts as the whole" is dependent on what makes the Onah.
In the example of the 30-day Onah, you need at least parts of 30
days to make it legal. The same would apply it a 12-hour day if the
law stated it as such. If an Onah was specified as 12-hours instead
of the generic term "day" then you would need at least part of the
12 hours just as a woman needs part of the 30 days in the 30 day
Onah. Moreover, if the law stated "a night Onah IS four watches"
then I would know I would need at least a portion of the four
Onahs were needed. A single watch is not an Onah, neither are
two watches,or three for that matter. So if you were awake only
the first watch, you would not have reached your goal to stay
awake the nighttime Onah, since legally an Onah is in your
hypothetical definition four watches.

DAVID 67
Well, as I pointed out, grammatically it is two Onahs. Just because
you don't like the way it is expressed you deny that the plural
verb is irrelevant when it isn't. The rule states when a compound
subject tied togehter with and refers to a unit it REQUIRES a
singular verb. Since your Onah has a plural verb it is referring
to two separte Onahs. I have provided scripture (David 49) that
show when the Jews are referring to plural items in a compound
sentence they still sometimes used a single noun in the predicate.
Hence, "a day AND a night ARE an Onah" refer to two separate entities.
If you cannot catch this by the time you have finished this post,
forget about arguing with me as it will be obviously to anyone
watching that there is NOTHING that will shake you from your
position. NOTHING. I have provided evidence, you provide only
questions and hypotheticals.

DAVID 67
No, I don't need parts of both to count as a nighttime Onah because
our laws don't demand that we need both to count a night as a whole.
If the law stipulated a night was, by definition, a combination of
the two and not either alone, then I would know the first half
would NOT be reckoned as a night. But since our laws do not go
there, it is again a moot point. It is just another tiresome
hypothetical based on lack of information on the subject.

[quote=POWELL 68}
Likewise, even though a COMPLETE civil day is NOT just the
daylight period, but also the night, nevertheless that does not
imply that you need parts of both to count as a civil day
onah. [/quote]

DAVID 68
Are we discussing "days" or "Onahs"? Any portion of a day could be
reckoned as a day but could not be reckoned as a DAY and a NIGHT
(a POWELL Onah) unless it had parts of both a day and a night.
Likewise an Eleazar Onah under the Powell usage would not be
reckoned as an Onah (DAY and NIGHT) unless it had parts of both.

DAVID 69
Since a daytime Onah does NOT consist of a separate morning 6-hour
period and a afternoon 6-hour period then the analogy doesn't apply.

DAVID 70:
Well gee Louise, of course. But where in Jewish law do they split the
daytime Onah into two separate periods and demand that you have to
keep both for it to be a single Onah? They don't. Never. All they do
say is that a portion of the day is as the whole. Now if they wrote
a law like this: "A daytime Onah must have both the forenoon and
the afternoon hours to be reckoned as a Onah" then we would be
compelled to accept that under Jewish law, a daytime Onah would
require at least a portion of both periods to be considered an Onah.

DAVID 71
. . . And I probably will never see your point of view at all, so
this is rather a moot point, don't you think, especially since this
use of Onah is false in the first place?

DAVID 72
Well John, it doesn't mean a unit, it has a plural verb and therefore
means the two nouns are thought of as two separate subjects.
Remember, if the connective "and" is found between two nouns that
express a single unit grammar REQUIRES a singlular verb. There is
no singular verb here but a plural verb. This argument is dead meat.

DAVID 73
If Jack claimed he made a three day road trip why in the name of
Zeus would you want to argue the point and drag in more
hypotheticals? Why do you argue just for the sake of arguing?
If someone told me he took a three day road trip I will not assume
he is lying except if had a reputation as being a habitual liar.
So, if Jack claimed he took a three day road trip and you spoke
up and said "Let's assume Jack took only a two day road trip."
I would say, "Jack just said he took a three day trip. Are you
implying he is a liar? If not, then why ASSUME he took a two day
trip instead of three? What are your motives for disputing everything
someone says? If Jack said he took a three day road trip then I need
good reasons to assume he took a two day trip. What are your reasons
to assume he took a two day trip?"

You can ASSUME he spent two days on the road but that would not mean
he did not spend three days on the road. If Jack said he had a
corvette and I said "Let's assume he has a Mustang then that would
mean he had a Mustang" it would mean nothing of the sort. If someone
told you "Let's assume Jehovah exists then that would mean Jehovah
does exist" would you accept that? What about if a Muslim said, "Let's
assume Allah exists then that means he does exist" would you agree that
Allah does exist?

DAVID 74
I agree that the hypotehtical is false so it wouldn't change the
actual 3 day trip into a 2-day trip. I would rather opt for the
reality and not the hypothetical. Now if Jack was a compulsive liar
I would probably accept your hypothetical.

DAVID 75
Well that is good to know. So now we know Jack is an honest person,
no, a VERY honest person. He said his trip took three days so your
hypothetical two day trip for John is false.

DAVID 76
Statement One: Fact: Onah means half days according to John
Statement Two: Logically, Onah means a civil day instead according
to John

I don't get this one. Sorry.

DAVID 77
BY civil day you mean a 24-hour day? How may have Onah reasonably
have meant a civil day? What makes you think it is reasonable?
What is your evidence for this "reasonable" alternative?

DAVID 78
Yes, they are sometimes good. For example, 1) all the men
defending the Alamo were killed in the battle; 2) Jim Bowie
was a man defending the Alamo; 3) Therefore, Jim Bowie was
killed in the battle.

DAVID 79
Well, since I needed an appeal to authority to determine the truth
of the premises, I think deductive arguments do sometimes require
appeals to authority to determine the truth of the conclusion. I
already knew I had a valid argument (based on appeals to authorities
on logic that I studied years ago) but what I needed to know was
whether the valid argument was correct in its' conclusion. So the
first step was trying to find out if premise 1 and premise 2 were
both truthful. And for that I had to appeal to the authorities to
detemine whether premse 1 and premise 2 were indeed true. Generally
speaking, you don't need authority to determine the VALIDITY or the
SOUNDNESS of a deductive argument, just the truth of the premises
in some cases.

However, before you ever use a deductive argument, you must learn
what one is, either at the high school level, college or university
level, or through personal study. Before you learn what a deductive
argument is, you wouldn't recognize a deductive argument if you saw
one. So even knowing what a deductive argument is requires learning
what it is from some kind of authoritative source at some point
in your life, unless you are the type of genius that can learn these
kinds of things on his own. Most people have to study logic to come
to learn what a deducitve logic is and that requires appeals to
authorities in logic. The rules of logic and meanings of deductive
and inductive arguments just don't pop into your head when you
reach a certain age. You LEARN them through one of the five senses,
and that usually requires an appeal to an authority in that field.
Try learning logic from someone who has never studied it or knows
what it is. To know what logic is and what constitutes a deductive
argument you must LEARN from SOMETHING or SOMEBODY.

Then, once you have been taught how to formulate valid and sound
arguments on your own without further appeals to authoriity, there
will be times when you need to appeal to authorities to determine
the truth of the premises so you can know whether your valid argument
has a truthful conclusion.

Without reading the authorities on the Alamo, I wouldn't have known
whether premise 1 was true or not. Without reading the authorities I
wouldn't have kown whether premise 2 was true or not.

A.
Premise 1. All the men defending the Alamo were killed in the battle.
Premise 2. Jim Bowie was one of the men defending the Alamo.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jim Bowie was killed defending the Alamo.

B.
Premise 1. All of the men in Custer's regiment were killed in the
battle of the Little Big Horn.
Premise 2. Colonel Benteen was one of the men in Custer's regiment
in the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
Conclusion: Therefore, Colonel Benteen was killed in the battle of
the Little Big Horn.

C.
Premise 1. Over 1600 people on the Titanic died the night she sank.
Premise 2. Rebecca Clemmons was one of the 1600 people on the Titanic
when she sank.
Conclusion:Therefore, Rebecca Clemmons died the night the Titanic sanke.

All the deductive arguments above (A thru C) are valid. But are the
conclusions true? How do you know? Does this information just pop
into your head or did you learn the information at one time or the
other through some kind of authority on the subject?

-----------------------------------------------
DAVID 80
Explain to me the following. How would you establish the truth of:

1. All the men defendng the Alamo were killed.
2. Jim Bowie was one of the men in the Alamo.
3. All the men in Custer's regiment were killed at the battle of the
Little Big Horn.
4. Colonel Benteen was one of Custer's men at the battle of the Little
Big Horn.
5. Over 1600 people on the Titanic died the night she sank.
6. Rebecca Clemmons was one of those 1600 people on the Titanic.


Now show me, if I knew nothing about the above three events, how I
would determine the truth or falsity of the premises.

DAVID 81
Is the Alamo argument in "DAVID 79 A" above a deductive or
inductive argument?

DAVID 82
The classic outline of a valid deductive argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Now, tell me, since I didn't say "probably" in the conclusion, does
that mean it is not a deductive argument? Wouldn't you ASSUME this
is a valid deductive argument? We know the premises are true in this
case through experience. But that's not to say sometimes we may be
called on to search for evidence from the authorities to establish
the truth of the premises.

DAVID 83
If deductive, then how would I know that all the men in the Alamo
were killed in the battle? How would I know that Jim Bowie was a man
defending the Alamo?

DAVID 84
We weren't discussing the validity of the argument, but determing the
truth of the premises and therefore the truth of the conclusion. You
seem to be saying that appeals to authority have no place in deductive
arguuments anywhere. I already knew the three deductive arguments I
gave you were valid and sound, but were the premises true? And how
would you know without an appeal to authority?

DAVID 84
Yes, go back and read what I wrote on my previous posts. I already
knew they were VALID arguments. What I was asking is how do you
determine the TRUTH of the premises? I know what validity means and
what soundness of a deductive argument means but what I am saying is
how do you determine the TRUTH of a deductive argument's premises
without some kind of appeal to authorities as in the cases of
the ones found in DAVID 79, A, B, and C?

You asked me a question in your previous post "Are appeals to
authority sometimes good in deductive arguments David, or always
bad?" (see POWELL 51 in your last post). You said nothing about
whether authorities good or bad in determing the validness of a
deductive argument, but whether appeals to them were good or
bad in deductive arguments. If I don't see you qualify the phrase
as in "...the validity of deductive arguments" then I will believe
you are referring to more than the validity but determing the
truth of its premises as well. That is where authority comes in.

You stated my deductive argument about the Alamo was NOT based on
an appeal to authority (last post, POWELL 52). Again, you obfuscate
the issue by trying to turn the focus to the VALIDITY of the
deductive argument, and not the truth of its' premises. Your
original question was whether appeals to authority sometimes good
or always bad in deductive arguments (see last post, POWELL 51).

You made no mention about determing the validity of the argument so
I believe you meant the argument itself, the truth of the premises
which would establish the truth of the conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID 85
Why do you think that DAVID 79 A above is not a deductive argument?
DAVID 79 A refers to the Alamo syllogism so I will repeat it here:

1. All the men defending the Alamo were killed in the battle?
2. Jim Bowie was a man defending the Alamo.
3. Therefore, Jim Bowie was killed in the battle.

DAVID 86
So, to determine the truth of the premises of the Alamo syllogism
above, you admit that an appeal of some kind to authority is needed?
At least to determine the truth of the premises?

DAVID 87
If it is, why do you not think that the premises are not taken from
authoritative writings on the subject?

DAVID 88
I repeat: I am not referring to the validity of the arguments.
(see my last post [DAVID 53, 54, 57, 58). I already acknowledge
they are valid. What I am asking you are appeals to authority
important in determing the truth of the premises, not the validity
of the premises?

DAVID 89
In DAVID 85 above, the argument is both sound and valid. But is its'
premises true and how do we know?

DAVID 90
What are you doing consulting an authority? You implied it doesn't
matter what Expert authority EA claims about premise 1 because you
said arguments to authority were not needed for deductive arguments.
I know they are not needed to determine the validity of one, but for
the truth of the premises you sometimes need authorities to help.

Ironically, when you were born, you knew very, very, little. When you
first began to learn about logic, you learned some of it the hard
way, through experience. But when you went to college to learn
the meatier aspects, deducitve and inductive arguments, Venn diagrams,
syllogisms, inference, logical fallacies, you relied on authority to
even learn that. But I don't worry about that.

DAVID 91
Whether it is true or not is another matter. An argument of the
deductive nature can be both sound and valid but be untrue.

DAVID 92
My brain was too tired when I wrote that so score one for you. What
I wrote was (supposedly) from Irving Copi's book of logic. I'll
just quote and not rely on my own tired brain to translate.

I quote from Irving M. Copi's
"Introduction to Logic" (MACMILLAN, 1978) on page 32.

"Arguments are traditionally divided into two different types,
~deductive~ and ~inductive~. Although every argument involves the
claim that its premisses provide some grounds for the truth of its
conclusion, only a ~deductive~ argument involves the claim that its
premisses provide ~conclusive~ grounds. In the case of deductive
arguments the technical terms "valid" and "invalid" are used in
place of "correct" and "incorrect." A deductive argument is ~valid~
when its premisses, if true, do provide conclusive grounds for its
conclusion, that is, when premisses and conclusion are so related
that it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless
the conclusion is true also. Every deductive argument is either
valid or invalid; the task of deductive logic is to clarify the
nature of the relation between premisses and conclusions in valid
arguments, and thus allow us to discriminate valid from invalid
arguments."

On page 41, he continues...

"Truth and falsehood may be predicated of propositions, but never
of arguments. And the properties of validity and invalidty can
belong only to deductive arguments, never to propositions. There
is a (page 42) connection between the validity or invalidity of an
argument and the truth or falsehood of its premisses and conclusion,
but the connection is by no means a simple one. Some valid arguments
contain only true propositions, as, for example,

All whales are mammals.
All mammals have lungs.
Therefore, all whales have lungs.

But an argument may contain false propositions exclusively, ~and be
valid nevertheless~, as, for example,

All spiders have six legs.
All six-legged creatures have wings.
Therefore, all spiders have wings.

The argument is valid because if its premises are true its conclusion
would have to be true also, even though they are in fact are all
false."

And later, same page,
"The preceding examples show that there are valid arguments with
false conclusions , as well as invalid arguments with true
conclusions. Hence the truth or falsehood of its conclusion does
not determine the validity or the invalidity of an argument. Nor
does the validity of an argument gurantee the truth of its conclusion.
There are perfectly (page 43) valid arguments which have false
conclusions--but any such argument must have at least one false
premiss. The term "sound" us introduced to to characterize a valid
argument all of whose premisses are true. Clearly the conclusion of
a sound argument is true."

So you are correct on this.

DAVID 93
. . . John, how do you inductively determine the truth of premise 1
without any prior knowledge of the subject? You had never heard of
the Alamo before, or Jim Bowie, or even Dave Crockett? You claim you
can determine the truth of the argument in 85 above with inductive
reasoning alone. Could you show me how?

DAVID 94
No need to ask an authority to show you what the Alamo was through
deduction, or who Bowie was, through deduction. I wouldn't expect
that to happen.

DAVID 95
. . . You said the following mouthful...
SAY WHAT?

DAVID 96
That's why using hypotheticals mean so little to me. There are millions
of hypotheticals and maybe only a handful are meaningful. A
hypothetcal usually isn't true. I have heard in my lifetime very
few hypotheticals that turned out to be true. Usualy, people
that use hypotheticals by the ton do so because they have so little
truth to go on. When you have the truth, use it, don't use a
hypothetical because it doesn't establish truth. Actually, I take that
back becuase sometimes it can get one thinking of other things as
well. So, some hypotheticals may serve a useful purpose. But when
you hear someone constantly using hypotheticals, chances are they
don't have much evidence in their arsenal.

DAVID 97
1. Over 1600 people died on the Titanic the night she sank.
2. Rebecca Clemmons was one of the 1600.
3. Therefore, Rebecca Clemmons died the night the Titanic
sank.

Now tell me how you know this valid argument is true without
having some knowledge of the event?

DAVID 98
It's not a true argument, it's a valid and sound argument. There is
quite a difference between a valid and sound deductive argument and
a true argument. All three premises are false even though the
argument is valid and sound.

DAVID 99
So, you do need appeals to authority in a deductive argument.

DAVID 100
Well, I am not ashamed to admit sometimes I must consult the authorities
to find out whether the premisses are true. If I hadn't consulted
the authorities, I could never have determined the truth of the
Custer syllogism.

DAVID 101
The inductive appeals to authority to determine the truth of a
deductive argument pretty much answers your question.

DAVID 101
You would still be making an appeal to an authority, inductive or not,
wouldn't you?

DAVID 102
How would I know that David 85 above is false in both of its
premises and conclusion without an appeal to authority, whether or
not I used inductive methods? I still need to make an appeal to
authority.

DAVID 103
And if I weren't?

DAVID 104
In other words, before you can even make an argument, valid or not,
you need some life experience and have accumulated some knowledge.
Without such knowledge and experience, you could never tell whether
the Titanic argument above was false.

DAVID 105
I should hope not.

DAVID 106
1. All Jewish scholars are well trained in Jewish terminology.
2. David Lee is a Jewish scholar
3. Therefore, David Lee is well trained in Jewish terminology.

In this valid argument, would my background be irrelevant?

DAVID 107
If the person proposing the argument was the person IN the argument
would his background be relevant?

DAVID 108
Yes, an argument can be valid but have a false conclusion (see quote
from Copi above at DAVID 92). A sound argument is both valid and has
two correct premisses with a correct conclusion. No problem here.

DAVID 109
I am not talking of the argument's validity (it IS a valid argument)
but whether or not the background of the person in premise 2 has any
relevance to the truth of the conclusion?

DAVID 110
I did. Quoting from my last post, DAVID 63, 64, and 65...

David 63
1. All Jewish Scholars are well trained in Jewish terminology.
2. David Lee is a Jewish scholar.
3. Therefore, David Lee is well trained in Jewish terminology.

In this valid argument, would my (David Lee's) background be
irrelevant?

David 64
If the person proposing the argument was the person IN the
argument would his background be relevant?

David 65
I'm not talking about the argument's validity...but whether or
not the background of the person in premise 2 has any relevance
to the truth of the conclusion?
--------------------------------------------
DAVID 110
What about this one?
1. All the men in Custer's regiment were killed in the Battle of the
Little Big Horn?
2. Colonel Benteen was in Custer's regiment during the Battle of
Little Big Horn.
3. Therefore, Colonel Benteen was killed in the Battle of the Little
Big Horn.

Try determing the truth of the conclusion without resorting to any
authorities, whether you use inductive reasoning or whether you use
a spirit medium, or just common sense. We both know the arguent is
VALID. But I am not asking for you to show the validity of the
argument.

DAVID 110
That is what Copi said in his book.

To sum up, it has been shown to my satisfaction that the "Eleazar Onah"
plural and consited of two Onahs, a daytime and a nighttime. The grammar
tells us if a compound subject is joined by 1)"and" and the compound
subject is a unit or one thing, 2) a singular verb is REQUIRED. Since
Eleazar used a plural verb, he was not referring to day and night as
a unit. Sure, he could have worded it differently, but languages have
evolved to the point that now days many of hte greater languages have
many more times the words the ancient writers had at their disposal and
modern writers use Thesaurus's to even help them express themselves
in various shades of meaning that was not availible to ancient
writers.There are less than 9,000 Hebrew words found in the entire
Tanach. The Unabridged Oxford Dictionary in London contains many
volumes and has over 100,000 words.

Arguing that A x and a y ARE an Onah (singular) doesn't change the
fact that the verb is still plural and as such requires two different
and distinct subjects. The Bible uses expressions like "such and such
are an abomination." The Jewish writers sometimes used a singular
predicate noun even when the subject is compound and plural. This
presents no difficulty.

Moreover, all the other evidence points toward an Onah as being a day
or a night, unless it was the monthly menses that was under
consideration or one or two other things that are clarified as
necessary. The periods that were being discussed referred to a
woman's uncleanliness between Wednesday sunset Roman time and the
~end~ of the Sabbath, and only if she discharged semen. From
Wednesday sunset Roman time to the ~end~ of the sabbath were six
time periods. The reason that some time periods were shorter depended
on what time of the day and what day the intimacy took place before
the final Onah (~end~ of the sabbath).

The Tractate Shabbath 86 pertains to the sabbath. Specifically in
Tractate Shabbath a and Tractate Shabbath b about the uncleanliness
of a woman from time x to the end of the sabbath day. There had to
be three days,even if they were partial ones, from time x to the
end of the sabbath.

I believe I have accumulated enough evidence to convince any reasonable
person, but more important, I have accumulated enough to convince
myself. So this subject is closed as far as I am concerned. I will
leave it up to readers to decide whose position prevails in this
post. The other side discussions about deductive and inductive arguments
bore me to tears so I am not interested in pursuing them anymore
either. I think we should both take a breather John (I sure need one)
so we can pursue other interests for awhile. Do you have any other
interests other than debate? Or, are you just a blazing fast typist
that you can type one of these posts in a half hour and still have time
to pursue other hobbies? If so, I envy you. Responding to you takes so
long I have fallen behind in my baseball hobbies. I will still
discuss things in the future, but right now I need a break.If we
could only keep it to about three standard size pages per post it
would be good.

In the meantime, hang in there. You'll still see me post from time
to time.

Regards,
David

John Powell

POWELL:
I snipped a lot.


POWELL:
I could when I was in high school copying. Not now.


POWELL:
This is an interesting idea, David, but I'm confident that you're mistaken. The question as I see it is if a woman has sex and discharges semen then is she unclean? The Rabbis apparently decided she WOULD be clean if she discharged the semen "on the third day" but not if she discharged it earlier than that. It doesn't matter whether that third day was the Sabbath or not. Apparently, the relevance to the Sabbath is that the basis for their decision concerning semen discharging uncleanliness comes from a passage in the Torah in which the third day happened to be the Sabbath day that the Torah was given.

Here is part of the Jerusalem Talmud at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acad...habbat-9-3.htm


POWELL:
Notice that the writer has the woman clean if she discharges the semen ON FRIDAY. That's not Saturday. What day of the week she discharges is irrelevant.


POWELL:
Well, here's another example that has her discharging ON SUNDAY which is AFTER the Sabbath and she's still unclean.


POWELL:
Apparently, you just found an example that, for convenience, fixed the end of the time to be the end of the Sabbath and you decided that was the ~terminus ad quem~ as you call it, for all cases.


POWELL:
I explained the likely reason for Akiba's treatment of the incomplete first period. I figured it out, see?

First of all, however, note that it's not ALWAYS 5 onahs if sex occurs at the end of one civil day and discharge occurs barely into the third day. That's only 4 onahs.

Apparently, Rabbi Akiba believed that the "day" was NOT merely a civil day as others thought, since by that rule you could get by with only 24 hours and a little bit, but the "day" there was a 24-hour time period, so 4 onahs would never be more than 48 hours, so he claimed that 5 onahs were required. However, that doesn't guarantee 48 hours either, but only 36 hours and a little bit so he added the extra rule of needing part of a 6th onah if the first onah was not complete to make the equivalent time of 5 complete onahs. On the other hand, apparently if one started counting at the beginning of an onah then you only needed 4 complete onahs and part of fifth onah.


POWELL:
It's good that you're thinking freely, David, but I think you're mistaken in this case.

Let's test your understanding by posing two easy hypotheticals and then two harder ones. These have nothing to do with the Sabbath. If you do understand this Talmudic issue then you should be able to give reasonable answers.

Easy Hypothetical 1.
If a woman had sex on Sunday and discharged semen on Monday would she be clean or unclean according to the Talmud? My answer is unclean.

Easy Hypothetical 2.
What if she discharged on Wednesday, would she be clean or unclean? My answer is clean.

Now, for the hard ones. If you really understand what the Rabbis were saying you should be able to answer these harder questions too.

Medium Hypothetical 3.
Let's suppose that the "day" = "R civil day" and sex was at 10 p.m. on R Sunday night. What would be the EARLIEST moment that she could discharge semen, yet be clean? My answer: A few minutes past midnight on R Tuesday. There would be R Sunday night (day 1), then R Monday (day 2), and then a sliver of R Tuesday (day 3).

Now, for the really hard one.

Very Hard Hypothetical 4.
Let's suppose that we follow R. Akiba's 5 + 1 onah rule and sex was at 10 p.m. on R Sunday night. Then what would be the EARLIEST moment that she could discharge semen, yet be clean? My answer: Wednesday at 10 a.m. (assuming sunrise is at 6 a.m.).

R Sunday night and Monday dark morning (8 hours of onah 1). Monday day (onah 2). Monday night and Tuesday dark morning (onah 3). Tuesday day (onah 4). Tuesday night and Wednesday dark morning (onah 5). Wednesday day at 10 a.m. (4 hours of onah 6 to complete the partial first onah.)


POWELL:
I'm arguing that an important schism in this case is whether the "day" in "3 days" was a civil day or any continuous 24-hour time period beginning at the moment of sex.


POWELL:
I think you're referring to someone's conclusion that Moses went down from the mountain at the same time of the day (morning) as he went up the mountain because of parallelism in the language. The Rabbis seem to be straining so they have an answer to the question "What time of the day did Moses come down from the mountain?" Just because you go up the mountain and come down from the mountain and you went up in the morning does not imply that you came down in the morning.


POWELL:
That first day would have been Thursday if Saturday was the day God appeared. The Jews washed their clothes and were "sanctified" = "set apart" by Moses on the same day that God ordered Moses to do that (Thursday) and again the following day (Friday). On the third day (Saturday) they went early to the mountain to see God.


POWELL:
No, David. The number of days in Exodus 19:11 is "three." How many onahs that comprises depends on whether the day is a civil day or 24-hours and whether you mean the minimum number of onahs or the maximum or something in between.

Some Rabbis in the Talmud claimed that Moses, on his own authority, added another day. The Torah neither says nor clearly implies this.

Genesis 1


POWELL:
In other words, the answer is "no." Just because you were awake evening and morning does not imply that you were awake during the intervening night UNLESS you said something like "I was awake from evening to morning." Likewise, just because the Genesis writer mentions "evening" and then mentions "morning" does not clearly imply that he meant "from evening to morning."

Part of Grammar Argument.


POWELL:
Among those choices, 1 is the best, but 4 is also acceptable if "a day and a night" is thought of as "they" rather than "it."

Which is the proper way to express a "day and night" as two onahs, as you insist that Eleazar believed?

1. A day and a night is an onah.
2. A day and a night are one onah.
3. A day and a night are two onahs.
4. A day and a night ARE an onah.

Beginning and endings of days


POWELL:
Again, David, no. Midnight to sunrise is part of SaturDAY, but it's NOT part of Saturday DAYTIME. DAYTIME is between sunrise and sunset and is opposed to "night time". The reason for me pointing this out is that your counting method "Friday day then Friday night then Saturday day" calls the pre sunrise darkness of Saturday as part of Friday night rather than any part of Saturday unless you're implying that nights are 6 hours long and days are 18 hours long.


POWELL:
Sort of. The time PRIOR to midnight is part of July 29 and the time AFTER midnight is part of July 30. Midnight itself is not part of either.

Let me ask a related question. Is noon part of the morning or part of the afternoon? Will you say "morning" just because it can't be part of "after noon"?

The D + N = onah Rule.


POWELL:
A part of an onah counts as the whole onah. Since the onah, under this hypothetical, is the combined time of a day + a night, therefore the maximum time that such an onah could be would be 24 hours. However, the minimum time would be as short as minutes of either the daytime or the night.


POWELL:
That's a big problem with your argument, David. Eleazar is NOT saying or clearly implying that "a civil day onah must have both the daytime and the night hours to be reckoned as an onah." You're claiming that's what the words "a day and night is an onah" would mean rather than realizing that those words would merely mean that it's the MAXIMUM time that a civil day onah can be.

On Hypotheticals


POWELL:
Don't confuse truths in the hypothetical world with truths in the actual world. In the hypothetical world that Allah exists then Allah exists in that hypothetical world. Whether Allah exists in the actual world is a separate question.

The conditional statement "If Allah exists then Allah exists" is true regardless whether Allah exists in the actual world.


POWELL:
Sort of, but I mean to make a distinction. A "24-hour day" in this discussion is any 24-hour time period, say from 3 p.m. to the following 3 p.m. A "civil day" is the specific 24-hour day that begins at midnight for us and began at about sunset for the Jews. According to my analysis, Rabbi Aqiba, likely believed that the "day" in "3 days" did not mean the civil day, but any 24-hour day beginning at the time of sex.


POWELL:
"Onah" just means "time period." A civil day is a common time period. Based on what he said, Rabbi Eleazar may have thought this.

Appeals to Authority


POWELL:
Again, David, a sound argument has two necessary parts: the deductive argument must be valid and the premises must be true. You cannot determine that an argument is sound if you cannot determine that the premises are true.


POWELL:
Logic is innate, hard-wired, in humans. Children think logically before they ever take a class to improve their abilities. The meaning of words like "deduction" is by convention.


POWELL:
You should make an inductive appeal to authority.


POWELL:
By making an inductive appeal to authority.


POWELL:
If you posted that argument then I would conclude that you probably meant for it to be a deductive argument. You should put something like "probably" in the conclusion if you meant it to be an inductive argument.


POWELL:
I would conclude that it's a valid deductive argument because if the two premises were true then the conclusion would be true, could not be false.


POWELL:
Irrelevant. The validity of an argument is independent of the actual truth values of the premises. A valid deductive argument can have false premises and true conclusion, false premises and false conclusion, or true premises and true conclusion, but it CANNOT have true premises and false conclusion.


POWELL:
You wouldn't. A merely valid deductive argument does not tell you what the truth values of the propositions are. It just correctly affirms that the conclusion would be true, could not be false, if the premises happened to be true.


POWELL:
That's right. The appeals should not be IN the premises of the deductive argument nor IN the conclusion. Such appeals should be IN the premises of an inductive argument.


POWELL:
If the arguments were sound then the premises were true by definition.


POWELL:
I probable would not. I should make an inductive appeal to authority.


POWELL:
Maybe you do now that you've checked with Copi.


POWELL:
Do some archaeology perhaps. Travel in a time machine maybe.

If the argument is determined to be sound then I don't need to determine the truth of the premises since that is part of what it means to be sound.


POWELL:
A valid argument is one for which the claim is correct that if the premises were true then the conclusion would be true. In a valid argument, the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion.


POWELL:
I didn't say or imply "needed" but "fallacious." Deductive appeals to human authority are always fallacious. Inductive appeals to authority are sometimes ok.


POWELL:
Yes. However, if I were to use an appeal to human authority IN a deductive argument then it would automatically be fallacious. If I were to use it IN an inductive argument then maybe it would be ok.


POWELL:
Then you would.

Why do you keep asking hypotheticals, David? You aren't an authority, so quit asking hypotheticals. Live with the facts, not the logic of might be facts.


POWELL:
Bummer. That means you, a fellow skeptic, wouldn't believe me until you read it from an authority. I can't seem to persuade people by logical argument alone. I have to make appeals to authority. Well, that's what we critize inerrantists for doing. They say "the Bible says-so so is-so."

Summary

POWELL:
Language is more flexible than that.


POWELL:
Other native speakers dispute that claim.


POWELL:
The examples I gave from the Jerusalem Talmud help to show that you're mistaken. This cleanliness issue was not restricted to a Saturday ending, but could refer to any weekday ending. The point was how long after sex that she discharges semen would she be unclean.


POWELL:
I guess you could just pick one of the questions you think is still worth discussing and we can focus on that.


POWELL:
Have fun with your other interests.

I sometimes enjoy teaching and participating in ballroom dancing and playing computer games.

John Powell