NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

Actually the command is not to judge hypocritically or contrary to evidence. You simply made the statement that the SBC is "steeped in ecumenicism" which is a false statement. In 2000 the SBC cut off its relationship with Catholics, and whent they shared a relationship it was usually for the purpose of standing together politically, not theological. True ecumenicim calls for the melding of theologies not just politics. The moderates are the only ones that have favored any measure of true ecumenicism within the SBC, and they are literally forming their own denominations as we write, many have already left. You have falsely accused your neighbor.

 

--------------------------------------------------
No, you made an assertion about church history and did nothing to document it.
--------------------------------------------------

What Bible/s did the majority of english speaking churches use before the advent of the NIV? To what does their Bible version indicate for this word in this passage of Isaiah?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Logical fallacy number 4: Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Can you make an argument without resorting to logical fallacy?

 

What Bible/s did the majority of english speaking churches use before the advent of the KJV? To what does their Bible version indicate for this word in this passage of Isaiah?... and what relevance does popular usage have to accuracy? I submit- NONE.


The word Lucifer comes from the Latin of the RCC. It may not be an inaccurate word choice but its origin is not from God nor the original language texts.

 

copied from www.carm.org

There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so that you can point them out in a discussion thereby focusing the issues where they belong.
I have discovered numerous times that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, that it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not the point. Truth is the point. Nevertheless, it is logical fallacies that hide the truth. So, pointing them out can be very useful.

Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.

Example: You are so stupid you argument couldn't possibly be true.
Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example: If you don't want to get beat up, you will agree with what I say.
Example: Convert or die.

Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him.

Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.

Circular Argument - see Begging the Question

Division - assuming that the what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.

Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
Example: Do you still beat your wife?

Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not by a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example: Frank's just got out of jail last year and since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.

Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today, because I washed my car.
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a looser.

Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.

Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.
Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: Those rules don't apply to me since since I am older than you.

Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.
Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

______________________________________________

My edit:

Logic exists as a necessary concomitant of God's existence. God is a God of perfect logic. Therefore, what is logical is of God if it avoids logical fallacy. That is why we say that faith in God is also a logical faith.

Faith is still faith even it is not in God. The object of faith is what makes faith godly faith. However, godly faith will never, ever be illogical and employ logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are, by definition, not of God. If one says that one's faith is in God's character, then one must still prove one's statements without resorting to logical fallacies, because God is not a God of logical fallacies. He is a God of perfect logic and faith is always logical for that reason, if it is truly placed in God. Even the belief that "Because God says so," as a statement of faith has a logical basis as an argument of last resort, because it is ultimately based on logical premises, not illogical premises. However, the statement, "I believe it because God says so," is not a statement that can stand alone without backing it up with sufficient reasons that do not employ fallacies of logic. Simply saying one is stating facts does not make them facts. They are suppositions. If one leaves them, as in the case about the use of the KJV in church history, they are simply appeals to the popular, which is a type of logical fallacy and therefore, inherently, illogical.

The employment of logical fallacy and claiming faith apart from logic is subjectivism, not Christian faith.

 

If you ever get her to do so, please pm me so I won't miss it... miracles are rare these days.

 

michelle asked:

What Bible/s did the majority of english speaking churches use before the advent of the NIV?

False cause fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because as an accident of history there was one English Bible for 350 years, it does not follow that it therefore had some special divine stamp of approval that the NIV lacks.