Logical fallacies in the Bible?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

You hear a lot about contradictions in the Bible, but what about fallacious reasoning within the "holy scriptures"? I tried searching the web for some examples and couldn't find any.

Can you think of any passages in the Bible that might commit a logical fallacy or two? Share if you know of any.

[Cyberman]

Off the top of my head, I'd say "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God" is definitely poisoning the well, with maybe a touch of ad hom thrown in for good measure. I'm sure there are tons of non sequiturs going on as well.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You hear a lot about contradictions in the Bible, but what about fallacious reasoning within the "holy scriptures"? I tried searching the web for some examples and couldn't find any.

Perhaps have a go at actually READING the Torah and the New Testament, or look a bit harder on line.

You will find logical fallacies as well as contradictions.


Just off hand; one logical fallacy from the New Testament: A woman was found guilty of committing adultery. Under Mosaic law, the penalty was death by stoning. Jesus allegedly gets her off with "let those among you without sin cast the first stone". That's a common logical fallacy called 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. In essence it's a strawman; I may not use your crimes to justify or excuse mine.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

You hear a lot about contradictions in the Bible, but what about fallacious reasoning within the "holy scriptures"? I tried searching the web for some examples and couldn't find any.

Perhaps have a go at actually READING the Torah and the New Testament, or look a bit harder on line.

You will find logical fallacies as well as contradictions.


Just off hand; one logical fallacy from the New Testament: A woman was found guilty of committing adultery. Under Mosaic law, the penalty was death by stoning. Jesus allegedly gets her off with "let those among you without sin cast the first stone". That's a common logical fallacy called 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. In essence it's a strawman; I may not use your crimes to justify or excuse mine.

Um, I have read most of the Bible growing up as a Christian but I wasn't looking for fallacies obviously. Lol.

Good find too on that verse. A problem though is that passage happens to be one of the passages that wasn't originally part of the Bible. Even many conservative Christians accept that story was added later.

[The Grand Nudger]

All the stories were "added later" depending on what snapshot in time you wish to invoke Tea.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

All the stories were "added later" depending on what snapshot in time you wish to invoke Tea.

True. I'm just working within what's generally accepted as canon today in mainstream modern translations.

[Minimalist]

First mistake, Tea.

[The Grand Nudger]

-generally accepted canon was added later.....

[Minimalist]

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_...rvant.html

Why not see what the jews have to say? This is horseshit, too. But at least it is direct horseshit and not reprocessed.

Conclusion

In the days of Jesus, nobody ever understood Isaiah 53 to be predicting the death of the Messiah. When Jesus said, "I am going to Jerusalem where I will suffer and die," the Apostle Peter did not relate this in any way to the suffering described in Isaiah 53. Rather, Peter rebuked Jesus, saying, "Be it far from you Lord, this shall not be unto you." In other words, "God forbid – that cannot happen to you!" Peter never expected the Messiah to be tortured and killed (see Matthew 16:21-22).

Interestingly, the 20th century Christian New English Bible – Oxford Study Edition (annotation on Isaiah 52:13-53:12) clearly identifies the Suffering Servant as the nation of Israel which “has suffered as a humiliated individual."

If the context of Isaiah 53 so clearly refers to the Jewish people, how could so many Christian leaders have mistranslated the Bible? History shows that – for whatever motivation – many did so knowingly:

Origen, a prominent 3rd century Church leader, in an essay entitled “Contra Celsus,” conceded that Isaiah 53 “bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.”

Lucius Coelius Firmianes Lactantius, 3rd century Church leader: "Among those who seek power and gain from their religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it."

St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated."

Dr. Herbert Marsh, 19th century English Bishop: "It is a certain fact that several readings in our common printed text are nothing more than alterations made by Origen..."


Walter Brueggemann Ph.D., an ordained minister and author of 60 books on the Bible, writes: "[A]lthough it is clear that this poetry does not have Jesus in any first instance on its horizon, it is equally clear that the church, from the outset, has found the poetry a poignant and generative way to consider Jesus, wherein humiliation equals crucifixion and exaltation equals resurrection and ascension."

You have to hand it to "St" Gregory. He certainly had asshole believers like G-C figured out.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Neat info Min. I'm not sure what this has to do with fallacies in the Bible though. If I was trying to show that there are fallacies in the bible to a Christian, I don't see how discussing the real developmental history of the bible helps my case because the believer will almost never accept it. For the sake of argument (trying to show fallacies in the bible), it's best to assume the bible came the basic way the Christian thinks the bible came to be.