Critiquing: Is the Bible Merely Unreliable Translations Written by Men?

January 23, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Unreliable Translations — Mere Men — Authority of Texts — Reliability of Books — Intellectual Integrity

---

Introduction

The content titled “Is the Bible Merely Unreliable Translations Written by Men?” addresses common objections to the Bible’s authority. This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the arguments presented, identifies logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases, and outlines potential methods to test any alleged promises of God. This critique is structured in a combination of outline and detailed explanations, using direct quotes from the content to support the analysis.

Logical Inconsistencies and Fallacies

1. Misrepresentation of Objections

The content begins by addressing two common objections: “It was written by mere men” and “It’s a bunch of unreliable translations.” The initial response to the first objection misrepresents the skeptic’s stance:

• Quote: “They are making a presumption and you want them to cash that out, express that clearly.”
• Critique: The assumption that the skeptic’s stance is inherently “ridiculous” (“I think it turns out to be a ridiculous complaint.”) is a straw man fallacy. This tactic dismisses the skeptic’s concerns without adequately addressing the substance of their arguments.

2. False Equivalence

The argument employs a false equivalence by comparing the Bible to other books written by humans:

• Quote: “Do you have any books in your library? … Were they written by God? No, of course not.”
• Critique: This comparison overlooks the unique claim that the Bible is divinely inspired, a claim not made by other books. Thus, equating the Bible with ordinary human-authored texts fails to address the unique nature of the Bible’s claim to divine authority.

3. Circular Reasoning

The content falls into circular reasoning when addressing the Bible’s divine authority:

• Quote: “He’s just saying, ‘I reject this divine authority because it isn’t divine.’”
• Critique: By asserting that dismissing the Bible’s divine authority is circular, the argument itself becomes circular. It presumes the Bible’s divine authority to argue against objections to that authority, which does not provide an independent justification.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Several claims within the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

• Quote: “The statement that you can’t trust things that are written by human beings…is something that is given by a human being.”
• Critique: This claim implies a universal skepticism of human-authored texts, which the skeptic likely does not hold. Instead, the skeptic questions specific texts, like the Bible, based on historical and textual evidence. The obligation to substantiate such claims is crucial, and the content fails to provide such substantiation.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias

The speakers exhibit confirmation bias by selectively interpreting evidence to support their pre-existing beliefs:

• Quote: “Most of the things we know or think we know and probably do know, we know because somebody else told us.”
• Critique: This approach ignores contrary evidence and alternative explanations that might challenge the reliability of the Bible. A balanced evaluation would consider both supporting and opposing evidence.

2. Anchoring Bias

The argument relies heavily on the initial position that the Bible is reliable:

• Quote: “Just because a book is written by men doesn’t mean it can’t tell you the truth, even the truth about God.”
• Critique: This anchoring bias skews the evaluation of subsequent evidence and objections. The argument does not sufficiently adjust its stance in light of potential flaws in the Bible’s transmission and translation.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises

To assess the Bible’s reliability, one could employ empirical and historical methods:

1. Textual Criticism: Analyze the consistency of manuscript evidence.
2. Archaeological Evidence: Correlate biblical accounts with archaeological findings.
3. Historical Analysis: Evaluate the historical accuracy of events described in the Bible.
4. Scientific Inquiry: Examine any scientific claims made in the Bible.
5. Ethical Consistency: Assess the moral teachings for internal consistency and alignment with contemporary ethical standards.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

A critical aspect of evaluating religious texts is mapping the degree of belief to the degree of available evidence:

• Quote: “If I could show you that we actually have a reliable text, and we can demonstrate that, would that resolve this for you?”
• Critique: Belief should be proportionate to the strength of evidence. This principle calls for robust, empirical evidence to substantiate the Bible’s claims, rather than relying solely on faith or tradition.

Conclusion

In summary, the content “Is the Bible Merely Unreliable Translations Written by Men?” exhibits several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. It employs fallacious reasoning, misrepresents objections, and relies on confirmation and anchoring biases. To foster a more rigorous evaluation, it is essential to apply empirical methods, substantiate claims with evidence, and proportion beliefs to the strength of the available evidence.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section. Let’s delve deeper into the critical examination of this content and explore the nuances together.