Critiquing: Does Hebrews 1:5 Indicate Jesus Was Created?

March 16, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Hebrews 1:5 Interpretation — Begotten Language — Testing God — Word and Creation — Conclusion

---

Overview of the Content

The content addresses two main topics:

1. The interpretation of Hebrews 1:5 in the context of a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness, and whether it indicates Jesus was created.
2. The appropriate and sinful ways of testing God.

Interpretation of Hebrews 1:5

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

• “That is a corrupt translation”: The claim that the New World Translation is a corrupt translation lacks specific evidence or scholarly consensus to substantiate it. While it’s a common critique, presenting supporting evidence from neutral, authoritative sources would strengthen this assertion.
• “No other Greek scholars agree with their take”: This broad statement lacks citation of scholarly sources or specific examples of Greek scholars who dispute the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation. Without this, the claim remains unsubstantiated.

Logical Inconsistencies

• Selective Textual Interpretation: The argument primarily hinges on the comparison of translations and the assumption that certain translations are inherently superior. This approach can be seen as cherry-picking evidence that supports a preconceived conclusion while ignoring other plausible interpretations. For example, when discussing the New World Translation versus the New American Standard, there is an implicit bias without a comprehensive examination of why one is deemed more accurate over the other.
• Begotten Language Confusion: The content admits confusion around the term “begotten” yet proceeds to make definitive statements about its meaning. This inconsistency undermines the argument’s credibility: “But sometimes with hermeneutics…you can eliminate options about what you can make, you could show what it doesn’t mean by eliminating options, okay?” This approach is logically flawed because eliminating options without a clear understanding of the term does not provide a solid foundation for any conclusive statement.

Testing God: Appropriate and Sinful

Testing God’s Promises

• “Testing God in the inappropriate sense”: The distinction between sinful and appropriate testing of God is logically inconsistent within the provided examples. The content suggests that testing God by putting oneself in harm’s way is sinful, while relying on God’s promises in dire situations is not. This delineation can appear arbitrary and lacks a clear, objective criterion: “Now, I don’t, I think God knew what he was doing all along…”.

Cognitive Biases

• Confirmation Bias: The explanation of acceptable versus unacceptable testing of God shows signs of confirmation bias. The content interprets examples in a way that aligns with preexisting beliefs without critically examining contrary evidence or interpretations. This bias is evident in the selective use of biblical examples to support the notion of acceptable testing, while dismissing or not addressing counterexamples.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Need for Evidence

The obligation to substantiate all claims is essential for logical coherence and credibility. Many assertions in the content lack supporting evidence, weakening the overall argument. For instance, the claim that “no other Greek scholars agree” is stated without reference to specific scholars or studies, making it a dubious and unsubstantiated claim.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

• “Taste and see that the Lord is good”: This statement is presented as evidence for testing God’s goodness. However, personal experience and anecdotal evidence do not meet the standard of substantiating claims in a logically coherent argument. The degree of belief should be proportional to the degree of evidence available. Thus, using subjective experiences as evidence falls short of rigorous substantiation.

Potential Methods to Test Alleged Promises of God

Empirical Testing

One approach to test alleged promises would involve empirical, repeatable methods. For example, if a specific promise is that God will provide in times of need, this could be tested through controlled studies comparing outcomes for those relying on this promise versus those who do not.

Logical Fallacies

Straw Man Fallacy

• “They change the translation”: The content sets up a straw man argument by oversimplifying the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ position and then attacking this oversimplified version. This fallacy detracts from a fair and balanced critique.

Ad Hominem

• “That’s a corrupt translation”: Labeling the New World Translation as corrupt without providing substantial evidence or addressing the translation process directly attacks the credibility of the translators rather than the content of their work.

Conclusion

The content presents a number of logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. For a more robust argument, it is essential to substantiate claims with credible evidence, avoid logical fallacies, and ensure that the degree of belief is aligned with the available evidence. Testing the promises of God through empirical methods and addressing counterarguments in a fair and balanced manner would enhance the logical coherence of the content.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.