Begging the Question

Okay, time to squeeze in a post:


As I mentioned earlier, every argument has to stand on two legs: it must be true and it must be valid. The Gospel is already a foolishness in the eyes of the unsaved (as foolish as, say, spending 120 years building a landlocked boat?); we don't ever want our inept handling of It to be an excuse for the lost to reject it.


One prominent example of really bad reasoning -- in fact, a prevalent one -- is the fallacy of begging the question. This happens when we assume our conclusion in our premises. I'm going to give an example that I encountered recently, but as I do so please remember the difference between TRUE and VALID. I am pointing out that the argument is INVALID, that the author is begging the question. I am not saying his argument is untrue--that is a separate issue entirely.


Here is the substance of the argument: the modern translations of the Bible are to be rejected because they (or, in some forms of the argument, their underlying texts) contain deletions or changes from the correct text.


Do you see how this is begging the question? How do we know the King James Version (or its underlying texts) is "the" Word of God for English-speaking people today? Because it does not contain deletions or changes. How do we know that the more-modern translations do contain deletions or changes? Because they do not contain words found in the King James, or they contain different words. It's begging the question; it's arguing in a circle. The fact is, modern translations contain differences. Whether or not they are deletions is a factual question that cannot be answered by arbitrary declarations.


Slipshod arguments such as these do nothing but swell one's ranks with the gullible. And it is unfortunate, since this opens a grand masterpiece of the translators' art to ridicule when it is not the King James Version that is ridiculous -- it is the sloppy thinking of a (thankfully) few.