Silly Arguments Part III

Well kids, we've been graced yet again by face palming Picard, which means it must be time again for another silly argument.

I saw the image on the left shared on social media. It's a sign held up that reads: "Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet." I thought I would provide a brief response to it.

Firstly, the analogy here makes no sense. A person is on a diet to abstain from food - they would only be angry at the doughnut eater because they might desire the doughnut themselves. By contrast, people opposed to same sex marriage are not desiring it (let alone homosexual fornication) for themselves. The reason one might oppose homosexuality based on religious beliefs is not because of personal preference or abstinence, but because it contradicts divine truths. Comparing it to a doughnut being eaten while someone's on a diet is truly comparing apples with oranges.

Secondly, no one's "angry." Well OK, the Westboro cult, maybe, but they're special any way.

Thirdly, some might contend that the picture is trying to say, "Religious people are against same sex marriage because they think it's wrong, same as those who follow a diet think eating a doughnut is wrong." Even with this understanding, however, the analogy completely fails, because even those on a diet might recognize a doughnut as a legitimate food to eat (even if unhealthy), whereas a person who upholds belief in a Divine Creator, who has designed the natural order, are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that it is completely contradictory to said natural order. A closer analogy would be a person on a diet advising another person not to eat a rubber tire.

Truth be told, and being perfectly blunt, this is a really, really, really, really, really, reeeeeeally bad argument. I saw this being shared and people saying "Wow, that's awesome!" in response, and couldn't help but think...really, people? And some of these people were individuals who claimed to be Christians - do they truly not understand the difference between being on a diet and believing in a just, holy, righteous God?

We seriously need to pray for them.

The "That's Your Interpretation" Fallacy

Oftentimes when someone quotes scripture to demonstrate their point, someone will contend it with the counterargument: "That's your interpretation." There are other versions of this, including "That's just your opinion" and similar wording. The problem is that if this is said simply as a blanket statement rather as the introduction to an argument which will demonstrate the point, then it is simply a fallacious response.

In my experience, the people who make such argumentation have one thing in common: they can never follow it up. They will tell you "That's just your interpretation" or "That's just how you see the verse," but when you ask them to demonstrate how you might be misrepresenting the verse, or you ask them to examine the verse, they almost always will refuse to do so.

Brothers and sisters, if anyone pulls this fallacy with you, do not permit it to them. If one wishes to suggest you have misused God's word, ask them to answer for it. Explain it. Demonstrate it. If they cannot, or they simply repeat themselves, or they present a very shallow response, then they will have shown themselves to be full of nothing but hot air. Stick to the word of God, show that the truth is there in the plain wording, and they will have nowhere else to go.

The Westboro Law

There is an internet adage known as Godwin's Law, which states that the longer a debate or conversation goes on, the more likelihood something or someone will be compared to Hitler or the Nazis (this is also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum). For example:

Person A: "I believe in tighter gun control laws."
Person B: "You know who else believed that? Hitler!"

Or as an another example:

Person A: "President Obama wears pants. You know who else wore pants? The Nazis!"

OK, that one was a little exaggerated, but you get the point. Some instances of this can be just as silly. It's basically a logical fallacy of responding to something by jumping to an extreme example of that position or opinion, and when there's very little to connect the two (or at the very least, a very slim connection). It is also an attempt to make the other side look bad by striking at the audience's or reader's emotions.

Might I now propose a new law? I call it the Westboro Law. What is this new law, you ask? It's the idea that the longer a debate or conversation either over morality or religion goes on, the more likelihood someone is going to make a reference or analogy to the Westboro Baptist cult (I refuse to call them a church). For example:

Person A: "I don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."
Person B: "You know who else believes that? The Westboro Baptist people!"

Or even (as I once personally experienced):

Person A: "[insert religious arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality at all]"
Person B: "Wow! You're just like the Westboro Baptist crazies!"

Just like Godwin's Law, this seeks to jump to an extreme analogy simply to make the other side look or sound bad. Because Fred Phelps and his cronies are the poster children for how to do your religion wrong, people cling to them whenever they want to make other religious people or certain moral beliefs look bad. This, likewise, is attempting to appeal to the emotional responses of those reading or listening to the conversation or topic. It is also just as fallacious.

Now what would we call this? Reductio ad Westborum, perhaps? Latin is not my strong point...

Your average online discussion about religion...

All credits to the original artist.

Silly Arguments Part I

Hello, gentle readers. You're probably wondering why Facepalm Picard has graced the posts of this blog again. Well, similar to the post he was in before, we've got a doozy of a discussion for you today. Let me ask you...is there something evil behind the name of Jesus? I don't mean Jesus himself was evil - no no no. That would be too much! I just mean the name "Jesus" itself is evil. Yup, that's what someone brought forward to me. Let's start reviewing this argument:

In Scripture - names have meaning.

"Joshua" or Yah-u-shu-ah - means "YAHUAH is salvation" - the name itself points to the NAME of YHWH. It contains the FATHER'S name. It points to the Father as Savior.

True, most Hebrew names carry a meaning, as most names in any language do. For example, Isaiah's original Hebrew name (Yesha'yahu) means "the LORD is salvation." Jesus' original Hebrew name was indeed Yahushua, which means "The LORD saves." All right, so far so good.

The name "Jesus", and as you correctly say Iesous, since there was no "J" in either Greek or Hebrew means something else.

Yes, Jesus is taken from the Greek Iesous, and there is no "J" in the Greek or Hebrew alphabet. Neither is the sound related to the letter. Again, so far so good.

Transliterated - Iesous - or "H'sus" - in Hebrew means "horse".

Wait, what? Hold on a moment...you don't transliterate words backwards! The Hebrew name came before the Greek, so you generally transliterate words from the Hebrew to the Greek. Transliterating backwards makes about as much sense as putting something in English into Google Translate, translating it into Chinese, then translating it back into English and defining the English context by what comes out. Here, let's have some fun:

English (Before): I need to go down to Office Max and buy a stapler.
Chinese: 我需要去办公室最大，买一个订书机。
English (After): I need to go to the office to buy a stapler.

Ah, see? "Office Max" must refer not to a store chain that sells office supplies, but a specific office somewhere that apparently sells staplers, because when you translate the Chinese backwards, it comes out that way. Aha!

In all seriousness, the Hebrew word for "horse" used in the Old Testament is indeed sus. The form mentioned here, hassus, is, as far as I can tell, merely one such form of the word found in the Bible, and is used only eleven times out of 139 occurrences. The more popular forms are susim (used 34 times) and the regular form of sus (used 22 times).

By the way, the only connection between Iesous and Hassus is they kind of sound the same. Man, that's some hardcore etymology, I must admit.

Do you think that is a coincidence?

Why yes I do. Thank you for asking. It's just as coincidental as the fact that English word "meme" is close to the Turkish word for "boob."

In Latin it gets worse. "Sus" means pig. Greek "Geo" or "Ge" means "earth".

...wait, what? What was the relevance of going to the Hebrew? Now we're going to Latin? Also, "horse" is kind of a nice name. I mean, I'd love to have my name mean "horse." Horses are cool, man. You can ride 'em and charge into battle on 'em and leap over fences and stuff and stuff. What's wrong with your name meaning horse?

By the way, Iesous is a Greek name, not a Latin name. And why are we chopping the name up like this? So the first part of Jesus' name refers to "earth" in Greek (even though there's no "G" sound in the name), but the latter part refers to "pig" in Latin? Why does this matter? This makes about as much sense as me cutting up my name into two parts in two different languages. Observe:

"Did you know that in the name Tony, the word 'to' in Japanese is a quoting particle, whereas 'ni' means 'you' in Chinese? Don't you see! The name Tony is telling us to quote ourselves! We're our own authority, not God! OH MY GOODNESS TONY IS SUCH AN EVIL NAME D'AAAH SAVE YOURSELVES!"

See how silly that is? The name "Tony" is merely the shortened form of "Anthony," in this case specifically from the Italian António, which stems from the Latin Antonius, which means "priceless" or "praiseworthy." There's no grand conspiracy behind the name. It really is as simple as that.

In like manner, there is no grand conspiracy behind the name Jesus. The name Iesous is merely the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yehushua. There were many others in the New Testament named Iesous, but the use predates even the time of Christ. There are countless others in the Greek Septuagint (both in the Law, the Prophets, and the other books) whose names, usually seen as Joshua in the Greek, are rendered Iesous.

Do you think that is a coincidence? Could this be the name above all names?

Yes, it is a coincidence, and one you invented, by cutting the word up and picking and choosing what you wanted the bits to mean. You do this to try to prove that a bunch of third century BC Jews, desiring to preemptively insult the Messiah they had been longing for, took a Greek word that sounded kinda like "horse" in their language and just so happened to mean "pig" in a foreign language that wasn't that widely used at the time, and then combined it with the Greek word for "earth," then applied this new word to the name "Joshua," with no one in the entire Jewish community taking notice at all regarding the degrading change.

That makes perfect sense.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter by what rendition of his name you call upon him. Whether you speak English and you call him Jesus, whether you speak Serbian and call him Isus, or whether you speak Cantonese and call him Yasu, he will hear you. He will hear you. This is because it is not according to the specific form of his name by which he is called, but by his grace alone. Christ is not a magical being who can be summoned by a magical incantation that requires an exact pronunciation of exact words - he is the Son of the Living God, who died on the cross and rose again, suffering for the sins of his people, so that they may know true life. On the day of resurrection there shall be "a great multitude...from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb" (Rev 7:9). These shall be believers, and they shall be united not by language, but by faith, and they shall all call on the Lamb by his beautiful name, even if it be in its rendition from their own tongue. I can promise you that, to the Lord, every single rendition and pronunciation shall be beautiful, for the desire to speak such a name came from a beautiful source.

Bad Arguments Often Used Regarding Moral Issues

These are just some things I've encountered in the past few months I felt like commenting on. I might update or expand on this as time progresses.

Argument #1: Who cares if a person does x if they don't hurt anybody?

The idea here seems to be that, if no physical pain is involved, then there is really nothing bad happening. For example, who cares about same sex marriage if the two individuals in a same sex relationship aren't "hurting anyone"?

Of course, speaking generally, this argument fails because most people might recognize that there are certain immoral acts which do not cause any pain or "hurt" on an individual. A kleptomaniac, for example, doesn't "hurt" anybody, but his stealing of items that aren't his is still a crime and an immoral act. A vandal who does graffiti on the side of a highway bridge doesn't "hurt" anybody, and yet it is still considered wrong.

If we were to likewise apply this across the board, I think we would find that those who make this argument are not consistent. Let's return to our earlier example of same sex marriage. Would those who use this argument to support that likewise use it to support incestuous relationships? After all, if a brother and sister are in love, can't they be accepted by society, since they aren't "hurting anybody"? If a 50-year old man meets with a 15-year old boy and they engage in physical relations that are completely consensual, why should the 50-year old man be arrested and charged with a crime? He isn't "hurting anybody." There are even some today who will argue that in such situations (ie., a 50-year old man engaging in a consensual relationship with a 15-year old boy) there is absolutely nothing wrong as no one is being hurt and it's entirely consensual. Why is such argumentation invalid in this case but not in select others?

The fact is, physical (or even mental) pain does not need to be inflicted for something to be labeled "wrong." Anyone can recognize that some things which are immoral likewise do not inflict physical harm against a person. Furthermore, refusing to apply this reasoning to a similar situation for superficial reasons is simply special pleading.

Argument #2: You shouldn't be concerned with x because it doesn't directly affect you.

This very notion, that something has to directly affect the person before they can declare it good or bad, is simply fallacious. There were many Americans who wanted to get involved in World War II despite the fact that the war, in and of itself, was not directly affecting America the way it was other nations. There were many white Americans not directly affected by the Jim Crow laws, and yet they spoke out against them. There are many in the west today who see atrocities committed in African or Asian countries and yet speak out, despite the fact they are not directly affected by it. A person might hear about the husband of a woman they know who is cheating on her, and - despite the fact they may be able to keep a safe distance from the drama - may choose to call out adultery for the evil that it is.

A person does not have to be directly affected by an issue in order to say it is wrong or immoral. A moral question is not dependent upon the relative distance (literal or metaphorical) to the person pondering the moral question, nor on how the individual issue affects the person making the argument.

In fact, there is much inconsistency in this position, in the sense that the person making it is oftentimes defending an act or world view which likewise doesn't affect them. Hence we are led to conclude that it is all right to pontificate on a subject so long as it is in the positive, but it is not all right if it is in the negative. This presents us a case of special pleading.

Argument #3: You shouldn't be so concerned with x. You should be worried about something like y.

This is the red herring fallacy, where the person attempts to shift the topic to another that might be somewhat but not entirely related. Even if someone might argue that y is indeed worse than x, a dilemma is still present: that y is worse than x does not negate the qualities of x, and hence both are still bad. For example, arguing "rape is not as bad as genocide" does not negate that rape is still bad, and hence bringing genocide into the equation contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Argument #4: Who cares as long as the person is happy?

The idea here is that, if the individual person has reached a subjective level of happiness, what they have done can be perceived to be right and proper, even if just for them..

Of course, a person doesn't have to be a master rhetorician to see just how bad this kind of argumentation is. There are those who get happy causing physical pain. There are those who get happy over seeing someone else suffer. There are those who get happy committing crime. There are some who make horrible life decisions with the excuse that they "just want to do what makes them happy." There are some who suffer from what is known as body identity disorder, where they cannot truly feel happy unless an arm or leg which they believe does not belong is amputated.

Just because an individual thing or action makes a person feel happy does not mean it is automatically right. Happiness should not be made equatable with morally correct.

Argument #5: This person can do whatever they want!

This is the classic "It's a free country!" argument. The reader has probably heard various modes of it. "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it." "It's my life, I can do anything I want with it." Etc.

Here's the fallacy with this position: that a person has a certain ability to do something does not automatically mean they are above criticism in regards to that action. Let me put it this way: I am perfectly free to go out, get a loan I can't possibly afford for a super expensive car, then go out and purposefully, just for the kicks, total that car in a wreck. I'm perfectly free to do that of my own will...however, someone has just as much right to tell me to my face, "Dude, that had to be the dumbest thing you could have done." Someone else might say to that person, "Leave him alone! He's free to do as he pleases!", but that doesn't deny what the first person said. It neither contradicts the argument that what I did was dumb, nor does it even directly address it.

Responding to an argument with what amounts to "I'll do what I want!" is a response that is common among ten-year olds, but shouldn't be common among adults.

Argument #6: These people didn't ask to be born under this moral code.

Is that so? Did you also know that no one ever asked to be born under any moral code or system of law? I didn't ask to be born under the Constitution - should I consider the Constitution to be irrelevant to what my rights should be? When I moved to Virginia, no one asked me, as I crossed the border, "Are you OK with Virginia's laws? Oh, you aren't? OK, they don't apply to you, then." When a murderer is sent to court, he doesn't get off free simply by telling the judge, "Hey wait, I never got asked to be placed under these rules regarding murder!"

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that a law or moral code is right simply because it exists or it has jurisdiction; I am arguing that it is fallacious to say someone should be free from their obligation or applicability to a law or moral code simply because they've "never been asked."

Bad Arguments to Support False Teachers

Some of the following are arguments I have encountered or dealt with in the past few years while responding to or discussing false teachers and their teachings. I provide a brief, but hopefully edifying, response to each one.

"Jesus said not to judge others!"

This is perhaps the most common excuse made, but it is ironically one of the most fallacious and the most scripturally unsound. It is an appeal to Matthew 7:1 and is in essence demanding that we not point any fingers or launch any criticisms at anyone. The problem is that anyone who quotes Matthew 7:1 completely ignores everything that comes after it.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." [Matt 7:1-5]

The full context here is not that we should never pass any kind of judgment ever on anyone - rather, it's that we should not pass judgment upon a person when we have a greater sin of which we have yet to repent. Examples: I shouldn't pass judgment on a brother for stealing a pen from work (the speck) if earlier that day I robbed a bank (the log); I shouldn't pass judgment upon a brother struggling with lust (the speck) if I'm actively cheating on my wife (the log). Note how Christ ends the instructions: first "take the log out of your own eye," and then we will see clearly enough "to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Christ commanded the Pharisees to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24), and this mindset is what we see being expounded upon here. Christ is not saying "Don't ever pass any kind of judgment, ever," He's saying "Don't try to help your brother with his sins when you can't even see your own sins."

The fact is, scripture gives clear commands in regards to rebuking. Christ organized a system by which you could rebuke a brother in the church (Matt 18:15-20). The repentant thief on the cross rebuked the blaspheming one (Luke 23:40). Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11-14). Paul likewise commanded believers to rebuke (1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:13, 2:15, 3:10-11), and even said that was one of the duties of church leaders (Titus 1:9).

Now, are there wrong ways to rebuke or reprove? Of course, but we shouldn't jump to extreme examples to dismiss rebuking and reproving altogether. We also should not jump to Matthew 7:1 as an answer to every kind of rebuking out there. That not only shows ignorance in regards to what Matthew 7:1 says, but what scripture says as a whole.

"They've blessed a lot of people."

This is essentially an argumentum ad populum - that is, a person is a good teacher/minister/pastor/prophet if they have a large following, congregation, or a lot of people have supposedly been saved by them. It's also a pragmatic fallacy in that it essentially argues, "Who cares if the person commits error so long as someone gets saved?" This is most often used in defense of those with megachurches, large ministries, or generally those with a huge following.

The problem is that sheer numbers does not equal right. Scripture makes it clear that true believers are often in the minority when compared to the number of false believers or unbelievers (Gen 6:5-8; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5). Also, if anyone is saved, it is not because of the teacher, but because of the grace of God. No one deserves any credit for the salvation of a person but God and God alone. Soli Deo Gloria.

I might add that this line of reasoning introduces a kind of pragmatism - that is, how cares about the teachings or the methods so long as numbers are growing? This forsakes sound biblical doctrine, which by its nature offends (1 Cor 1:18), to make room for methods and teachings that attract larger numbers.

"Don't criticize it until you've experienced it!"

This is the classic "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" fallacy, and is commonly used in regards to Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal heresies which place a heavy emphasis on experiential worship. The point of this argument is to discredit the other side by arguing that they have no right to make any declaration until they have experienced the very thing they're criticizing.

Of course, this entire argument is a red herring that completely jumps from the argument, ignores everything said by the other person, and makes a mold declaration that has to be met. It places the weight of evidence upon the other person and demands they defend their position when there is no need. It's likewise an overarching argument that can be used to defend anything. Permit me to give one example:

Person A: "Boy, I sure enjoy sniffing glue!"
Person B: "Dude, you realize that will kill your brain cells and lead to greater drug use, right?"
Person A: "DON'T CRITICIZE IT UNTIL YOU'VE EXPERIENCED IT!"

Do we now see how irrational this kind of argumentation is? Person A completely ignored everything Person B had said and simply jumped to an emotional argument. A person does not have to experience something to tell whether it is right or wrong.

"They're a nice person."

I've actually had people use this excuse. It's as if we should throw out bad teachings, bad ministry practices, or immoral character simply on the basis that, upon being met, the person was overall agreeable. Are we supposed to presume a person holding heretical views will automatically have bad personal traits, and likewise presumes that a good personality covers heretical views? This is a false equation: that a person is "nice" does not mean they will are orthodox; likewise, that a person is "mean" does not mean they are also heretical. Some of the worst heretics in history were said by their contemporaries to have been nice or had some redeeming qualities - that does not negate their error.

"Who cares as long as they talk about Jesus?"

This is perhaps the worst argument to make. Our Blessed Lord taught:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" [Matt 7:22-23]

It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your statement of faith. It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your ministry. It is not enough to simply claim you believe in a man named "Jesus." In this day and age when statements of faith are often put up simply as a front to appease critics, we must go deeper and understand what a person really means when they call themselves Christian or refer to a belief in Jesus. Faith has to also display regeneration, and it has to show a love for God's word and an adherence to what God calls the truth. If the person shows none of this, then they do not have Christ, and do not deserve to mention His name even in passing.

"You're being mean!"

This is oftentimes the last card played by the individual supporting the false teacher. Granted, there are wrong ways to approach error (see my post here), but generally this is said when there is nothing left for the person to say, and in the spirit of true emotionalism will attempt to simply accuse the other person of being a jerk.

Aside from being emotional, it is also a red herring. Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that the person really is mean. Does that automatically negate everything they say? If it's a sunny day, and a mean person says it's sunny in a mean way, does that mean it's no longer sunny? Of course not. In like manner, truth does not stop being truth simply because of the delivery.

"You don't know this person personally!"

The gist here is, since we don't know the person on personal terms, we shouldn't comment on their teachings or motives, and to do so is premature.

The problem is that you don't have to know every ounce of a person to know something they've done is wrong. If a man cheats on his wife and is caught red-handed, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're guilty of adultery? If a man is proven a murderer by the law and sent to jail, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're a murderer, or guilty of murder? The most obvious to all these things is: no. The requirement to know the person on a personal level is a condition added on to avoid responding to the situation. If a person teaches doctrine contrary to or removed from scripture, then they are teaching falsely and hence are false teachers. We don't need to have a few beers with them before we can say this.

The apostle Paul, speaking to the Ephesian elders, said:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. [Acts 20:28-30]

Paul does not say: "After my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; but make sure you know them personally and if you do, then you'll know if they're wolves or not." On the contrary, he says that they will know them because they will be "men speaking twisted things." If the Ephesian elders encountered men speaking twisting things, how well they knew them personally was a moot point - they were wolves. Scripture always distinguishes false prophets by their teachings and not their personality.

The worst thing we can do is forgo sound doctrine for the sake of superficial peace. As the apostle Paul wrote:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. [2 Corinthians 11:3-4]

Some of the worst arguments against the Bible

The following is just a meditation on things I've heard in the past few months. I'd been joking over them with some friends, and thought it worth sharing.

"It's an old book!"

Yes, people have actually used this argument. It's fallacious for a few reasons:

For one, the Bible itself is not necessarily an old book, but a collection of old books, some older than others.

For another, the very idea that the accuracy of a book is negated by its age is quite obviously fallacious. Should an astronomer be banned from ever quoting the works of Isaac Newton because they're old books? Should a literature major be banned from quoting the works of Chekhov because they are all old books?

Furthermore, if what a book teaches is negated for being old, then how old would a book have to be in order to be considered irrelevant? Fifty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? A million years? At what point can we consistently say a book is no longer relevant based solely on the fact it's "old"? Is this something which can truly be measured by age? Again, this argumentation is clearly fallacious.

"It's written by dead men!"

Yes, sadly, I have also had this thrown at me as a reason to reject the teachings of the Bible.

Let's ponder on just how fallacious this thinking is: does the state of death of an author negate everything he has ever written? Should we throw out the teachings of Galileo, Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein solely on the fact that the men themselves are dead? Let me put it this way: if a local meteorologist reports that Monday's high was in the 70's, then the next day he passes away...does that make it untrue that Monday's high was in the 70's? Does a fact automatically become untrue simply because the person who stated it has died? Of course not. Again, obviously fallacious.

"It was written by fallible men!"

This is actually a common argument by some against the Bible: either that it was written by men, or that it was written by fallible men. Unfortunately for them, most Christians are already aware of this. Read the book of Jeremiah and see why Jeremiah was known as the "weeping prophet." Read the psalms and tell me the psalmist wasn't like any other person who's ever lived.

The fact is, it is not the men themselves that make the words of scripture infallible - it is the source of their words and teachings, which is the Lord our God. 

"It's been translated so many times! It has to have error!"

I think these people need to study the difference between translation and manuscript history. A translation is merely taking a text and rewriting it into another language, whereas transcription is the copying of a text for use.

Let me put it this way: John 1:1 reads in the original language:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

It has been translated in various ways in the English, but in all ways (save for the Jehovah's Witness's NWT) it means the same thing. It has likewise been translated every which way in every which language, but still maintains the same meaning. Even if it were mistranslated or the original context had to be explained to someone, the original language would be the same. To put it another way, if I wrote the sentence "I went shopping," the original context and wording of that sentence would remain the same no matter how many times it was translated.

If someone wishes to argue manuscript history and how the various books of the Bible have been copied by scribes down throughout history, that is one thing. If they want to say we shouldn't believe the Bible because of so many translations...well, that thinking is fallacious to begin with.

Two Easy Ways to Make Someone Mad

Over time, I have found there are two easy ways to make someone mad:

1) Ask someone to demonstrate their argument.

People these days love to make bold claims. "You're wrong! It's this way!" or, "I believe this and that's the way it is!" Many times, this is because we are taught simply to repeat what we are told rather than being able to defend what we are told.

Recently I went into a conversation with someone who, wanting to disprove my argument, accused me of mishandling scripture. I asked him to show how I had done so. He refused to answer, so I pressed him again. He again refused to answer, saying that wasn't the topic (even though that was what he was using to say I was wrong). I pressed him again, and he simply ended the conversation then and there.

I heard a story recently of a Jehovah's Witness woman who gave a biblical scholar a long, memorized speech regarding John 1:1 and why they translate it as "the Word was a god" because of the lack of a definite article. The scholar then handed her a Greek New Testament and asked her to show him what a Greek definite article looked like. The woman didn't even know how to hold the book up straight. She had a memorized argument, but when asked to demonstrate the argument, she fell on her face.

2) Ask someone to back up their argument with sources.

If you ask a person this, they might do one of a few things.

1. Throw the weight of the evidence upon you. That is, say something like, "Well, you can figure it out," or, "Well, you can do research for yourself." The weight of the evidence falls on the person making the claim. There is a good reason why, in the United States, a charged person is "innocent until proven guilty" - the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
2. Demand you prove a negative. Example: someone claims that their horn scares away burglars, and when asked how they know it does, they reply, "Well, can you prove it doesn't scare away burglars?" This is a cop out because they are: 1) not giving a response; 2) forgetting that by nature you cannot prove a negative.
3. Get very, very irate with you. I had one person tell me literally: "I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING!" If a person gets emotional, it's a good sign that their argument has no substance.