Logical Fallacies in Biblical Interpretation

VERLE STREIFLING | Retired Pastor and Theologian

Having seen some 35 methods of scripture twisting which cults frequently use to pervert God’s truth (last issue), we will now review numerous logical fallacies which are easily made, yielding misinterpretations. 

1. Question Begging: Saying ‘A’ means or shows ‘B’ without giving the needed evidence to substantiate the claim. SDAs affirm the Sabbath is excluded from Col. 2:14-16 since the word for ‘Sabbath’ is plural, so speaking of the ‘other sabbaths’ of Lev 23. Yet they admit the plural spelling takes singular meaning as in Ex 20:8; and the seventh-day Sabbath is the first of the feasts in Lev 23, so their excuse fails. 

2. Red Herring: This speaks of raising a minor issue to avoid the main issue, like blaming the other driver for your hitting him, since his license expired. JWs go to extremes over the ‘torture stake’, to avoid dealing with why Jesus died, and what should be our response. SDAs raise the issue of whether or not the Millerites wore ‘ascension robes’ when waiting for Jesus to return in 1844. But the main issue was the false prophetic teaching, substantiated by Ellen’s visions—and their later false excuses.

3. Non Sequitur: Like the guy who drove into the ditch because the car ahead of him did, this means ‘not in sequence’ and speaks of reasoning from ‘A’ to ‘B’ when the supporting links for this logic are missing. SDAs teaching Paul or Jesus going to the synagogue proves they kept the Sabbath, so should we, is a good example, for the Bible shows Christ broke the Sabbath, (Jn. 5:16–18) and Paul repudiated it, in Col. 2. 

4. Ad Populum: Means appealing to the emotions of the public, like JWs calling all Christians ‘Pagan Christendom’ to draw people from the church and into their cult. Conversely, appealing to people’s ego, e. g., “Anyone with any religious horse sense knows that Jesus can’t be God”, is a ploy to make one feel stupid for even thinking Jesus is God! The words ‘Pro-Life sounds better than ‘Anti-Abortion’ and ‘pro-choice’ sounds better than ‘pro-killing the unborn.’

5. Ad Hominem is another kind of ‘name calling’ which refuses to hear what one has to say because of a fault found in the person, instead of his theology. An ex-JW won’t be heard because he’s part of an ‘evil slave class’. Many SDAs refuse to hear anyone who has left their church, even for God’s truth since they’re ‘apostates’. Sometimes even false allegations are made of one ‘living in sin’, for this reason. 

6. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a long Latin name for building a case before showing the evidence, then when it comes, it’s often inadequate. Seventh-day sects assume the seventh creation day was a Sabbath, then build their whole theology from this error. On a larger scale, a theological system which hangs from prophetic interpretation begins with many assumed but unproved doctrines. When these doctrines are refuted, the whole prophetic apparatus collapses! For example, since Rome didn’t change the Law or the Sabbath, it isn’t the ‘beast’ or Babylon, so Sunday worship isn’t the mark of the beast. 

7. Circular Argument: This describes an argument where ‘A’ is used to sustain ‘B’ when in fact ‘B’ is used to support ‘A’. Often these become complex with as many as a dozen links in the chain, when finally ‘M’ is used to sustain ‘A’ and each link depends on all the others. A good example is The Sabbath Under Crossfire by Dr. Bacchiocchi, which starts in the middle of SDA teaching, builds out from there assuming a ‘creation Sabbath’ and ‘24 hour creation days’ and patriarchs keeping the Sabbath, and two laws, etc. It builds on these assumptions, then uses its case to prove these assumptions! The JWs mistranslate Rev 3:14 to support misinterpreting Col. 1:15, 16 to sustain mistranslating Jn. 1:1 to uphold misinterpreting Prov. 8:22 which is used to validate their mistranslating Rev. 3:14! Sometimes they’ll add a few more into the circle, which largely depends on their highly unreliable New World Translation to exist!

8. Hasty Generalization describes drawing a conclusion from limited evidence, as in saying all women (or old men) drivers are bad, because one makes a mistake! Many of the ‘Hyper Faith Laws are drawn from two or three historic events, such as ‘Jesus always healed all who were sick’. But at Bethesda, He only healed one man, leaving the others around the pool. JWs teach ‘ho Theos’ (the God) never applies to Jesus, as seen from Jn. 1:1c where he is ‘Theos’without the article ‘ho’, so He’s a lesser god or ‘little god’. But some 20 NT texts call Him ‘ho Theos’, e. g., Matt. 1:23; Heb. 1:8; Jn. 20:28; and in Heb. 1:10. He is YHWH!

9. Mistaking Signs for Causes: This is like supposing a car will stop because the traffic light turned red, when it’s the brakes that stop the car, if they’re applied! Sometimes we assume one has repented from sins, because we see him crying;  or someone received baptism with the Holy Spirit as we hear her speaking in tongues. But crying could evidence homesickness or strained emotions, and even the occult and Mormons speak in tongues, having anti-Christian religion with counterfeit gifts!

10. Unreasonable Extrapolation: Though similar to hasty generalization, this describes extending a pattern, etc., beyond the limits of the variables. SDAs teach the Sabbath will be observed throughout eternity, but in eternity, time will be no more, there’s no night, sun or moon. So there are no sabbaths there! In Women in Today’s Church, George Watkins turns Phoebe (Rom 16:1) from a ‘servant’ into a ‘deaconess’, a ‘powerful woman’, a ‘ruler’, an ‘evangelist’, a ‘bishop’ over 2 churches who spiritually ministered to Paul. While ‘diakonos’ meant both a deacon and servant in 55 AD, the church only had deaconesses after 100 AD; the word never meant ‘bishop’ nor were women ordained as elders until after the reformation!  It was ‘Phoebus’ who was bishop over 2 churches in the end of the 2nd century. 

11. Cognitive Dissonance: This speaks of refusing to accept point ‘A’, even though proven, as it will lead to point ‘B’ which one doesn’t want to deal with, or it will upset a point ‘B’ which I must cling to in blind faith, to escape disillusionment. For example a JW refuses to accept the Deity of Christ, since it may lead to ‘the pagan Trinity’. He’ll be even more tenacious against the Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit for the same reason. So their NWT never gives the article ‘the’ before the Holy Spirit. 

12. Logical Proof over Bible Proof: This is refusing to accept a Bible truth, since ‘that’s not logical! We fail to realize that our ‘logic’ is part of our fallen human nature and thus it must submit to God ’s objective truth. It wasn’t logical that Jesus should die for our sins, yet we should receive His Salvation any way!  Cults say it ’s not logical that God should send those who reject Christ to Hell, for they fail to see Christ paid an infinite sacrifice for our infinite sin against an infinitely Holy God. So rejecting His infinite sacrifice is an infinite sin worthy of infinite punishment! (Matt. 25:41, 46;  Rev. 10:20; 20:10). 

13. Emotional Proof over Bible Proof is holding one ’s emotions over Truth in the course of action he takes. After learning of their cult ’s Anti-Christian teachings, some stay there as their ‘loved ones’ are there, or they’ll be disowned from their families or inheritance if they should leave the organization. Early Christians made such stand for Christ without hesitation for they loved Christ first and foremost! 

14. Charisma /Character vs. Bible Proof speaks of accepting a teaching you know isn’t true because of the ‘charm ’of the teacher, or not accepting truth because of the bad reputation of the teacher. Waco Texas, or Jones town are good examples of the first, while people leaving a good Christian church for the JWs because of a pastor’s sins, fits the second. Jesus’ warning in Mk. 9:40 is very significant!  

15. False Balances speaks of taking a nickel today for a dime tomorrow, or not rightly weighing out values. Those teaching presumptive hyper faith healing messages affirm ‘if only one person is healed by hearing this message, it will be worth it!  ’Yet, they fail to see the cost of the shattered faith of the ones not healed, especially since they’re told they didn’t have enough faith or there’s secret sin in their life! Many elders or circuit servants of the JWs have a hard decision to leave the organization because of their high position. It’s more difficult for those whose years of service affords a retirement benefit to leave the organization for Bible truth! Yet, Rea, Ford, Prescott, Ballenger, Canright, and hundreds of others have done this. 

16. Authoritarianism becomes a logical fallacy (as #14 above) in accepting something just because a ‘Dr.’ is the teacher. Sadly, in the SDA prophetic seminars, most there don’t check out what the evangelist says, simply because he sounds like he knows what he’s saying is true, while it may really be in error, but he thinks he’s preaching ‘Sabbath truth’. Often, to discourage listeners from checking the Biblical references, the presentations are made with slide projectors, so the Bible’s words can be cited selectively from their verses and contexts, which, if they were checked out, may give a different story! Thus, authorities must be weighed out and carefully evaluated, for even scholars make mistakes. So we must account for which authorities are right, and why their opinion is preferred over others. 

17. Indirect Close: This is when the minor point being consented to, really gives consent to a major point. The car salesman will ask ‘When do you want it delivered?’ or ‘What color would you like it?’ instead of ‘Do you want to buy it?’ Some affirm the story of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable, instead of a true story. But when they read Jesus’ words “There was a certain rich manÖ” and are asked ‘Was there?’ and ‘Why don’t you want to believe Jesus?’ this forces an indirect close to the issue if there’s a hell, or not, which they try to evade. Rom. 3:5–7 shows Jesus spoke the truth! 

18. Assumed Sale refers to statements made, which if not rejected, imply agreement. A question like “Why does God say we [New Covenant Christians] should keep the Sabbath?” implies He does say We are to keep it, but He does not!  So the unsuspecting will be caught and begin looking for reasons to answer the ‘why’. A question like “How many more things must I show you before you’ll leave the JWs?” assumes one is leaving. 

19. Limited Choice: This speaks of giving two alternatives, either ‘A’ or ‘B’, when there may be other choices, and even these two give four choices: either ‘A ’, or ‘B’, or both, or neither! The statement “If Jesus didn’t keep the Sabbath, then He was a sinner” is a good example of this. Here neither is right, for He admitted breaking it (Jn. 5:18; 9:16) yet He challenged “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (Jn. 8:46; 1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). D. A. Carson speaks of this as “Unwarranted Disjunction ” in Exegetical Fallacies. This usually describes choices that are opposites, while our reference is to choices, which may really be not related but are given because of presupposed logical fallacies. To illustrate, a Christian reads “the Word was God” so a JW responds “Satan is the god of this earth”. Now the Christian must ask, “Are you saying Jesus is a false god like Satan, or is He a true God?” Now the JW must say whether Jesus is a Devil, or is He a True God. Yet if He’s a true God as the Father, there are two Gods! 

20. Loaded Statements and Question Framing: These are statements that have multiple assumptions in them. Any statement or question that assumes a when, where, who, how, why, to whom, especially a what, or several of these at once, is a ‘loaded statement’ or ‘question framing’. These are more hazardous when several of these are assumed at once, for whichever you try to deal with, the other not being rejected is foisted upon you. In the practicum (Apx. 2 C [of unpublished book ]) we uncover many of these regarding the Sabbath.

21. The Sharp Angle: This is gaining hypothetical commitment to something on the basis of evidence yet to be given óif and when it is given. For example, when a JW says ‘You can’t prove Jesus is God’, a Christian should ask ‘Will you believe and accept it if I do?” There ’s importance to this, if it’s used to evaluate the sincerity of the JW studying with you. If he says ‘No’ then your study is wasting time, unless you can lead him to holding Jehovah’s Word above his cult, which is his false god!

22. Grinding one’s Axe describes someone preaching his facet of truth to such extreme it leads to an imbalance or becomes heretical. Some denominations refuse to accept other Christians as ‘Christians’ or ‘saved’, since they don’t hold to their ‘Truth’. For example, Ellen White’s teaching that the Sabbath is God’s mark or seal and that He’ll ‘never, never’ bring one into heaven who does not bear His mark. So, accordingly, only Sabbath keepers can be saved!  But sadly, while their ‘Sabbath Truth’ becomes all-important, yet believing in the Deity of Christ or the Bible as God’s Inerrant Word is immaterial!

23. Witness Leading: This is often a complaint in a court, where a lawyer leads a witness to make the conclusions he wants the witness to make, instead of his own from the objective facts at hand. Ministers may do this at the expense of their hearers or readers, e. g., SDA’s George Vandeman’s book Planet in Rebellion where he composes and carries on a dialogue with you his reader, by using lines like “‘But how’, you ask, ‘will it all come about?’” (p. 319); then the obvious fallacy “you can readily see that” (p. 320); “let me take youÖ” and “for instance we read that” (ibid. ); then assuming control over you in the conversation he dictates “Now listen” (p. 321) and asks “Is that clear?” (p. 322); and he stuffs more words in your mouth “‘Oh’, you say, ‘it came from _ and you are right’”. In this manner he leads you, his reader in stately ‘pied-piper’ fashion down into the sea of Seventh-day Adventism!

24. Accepting Categorical Statements: This refers to blindly accepting the many statements that are made as being universally true, when many are not. For example, E. G. White’s vision that Satan had taken full possession of the churches as a body, all their prayers and professions are an abomination to God. Yet Joseph Smith of the Mormons had the same vision 20 years earlier. Since professing the Deity of Christ is not an abomination to God, the categorical statement is in error, as shown by the SDAs accepting this doctrine half a century after she wrote this! Too often we’ll accept blanket statements without question, for a scholar has made them, as when Matthew Henry’s Commentary says “In all Roman Catholic catechisms and devotional books, the command forbidding images is left out”. Their many books, Bibles and catechisms world-wide when he wrote this should impugn his statement. Had he seen them all? Today it’s not true, for we listed seven catechisms having that command, in Apx. #1 [in unpublished book]. 

25. Syllogism Fallacies: A syllogism is a method of deductive reasoning that begins from a categorical statement, then applies it to a specific situation, then draws a conclusion from this. We illustrate below: Categorical statement, (called “Major Premise”): All men are mortal Specific situation, (called “Minor Premise ”): I am a man Conclusion, or, “Deduction ”: Thus, I am mortal As long as the syllogism takes this form, it will reveal truth, and is a proper tool of deductive reasoning. But many fallacies can beset such a syllogism, to turn it into faulty logic. We explain eight of these below:

a. Four figure fallacy: Sometimes called ‘Equivocated Middle Term ’, this happens when the ‘middle term ’is changed or redefined (given a different sense)in the syllogism. An illustration of this is: The creator of Heaven and Earth is God. The Bible calls Satan ‘the god of this earth’ Thus, Satan is the creator of Heaven and Earth. Here, the term ‘God’ in the major premise is speaking of the True God by nature, having all the attributes of deity, while in the second line it is applied to Satan as merely the ‘ruler’ of this earth, for Adam surrendered dominion to him. Similarly ‘Ye are gods’ has an equivocation of ‘god’ from the first line. 

b. Undistributed Major Premise: To remain universally true, the Major premise must cover all situations. As soon as it changes from ‘all’ to ‘most’ or ‘some’, the deduction is illogical, such as: Some men are rich. I am a man, Therefore I am rich! This shows the error of ‘Mortal’ and ‘Venial’ sins, as it allows me to commit ‘some’ sins and yet have eternal life. But the Bible’s saying ‘the Wages of sin is death’ is universal, so all sin and all sins yield death. ‘So death passed upon all, for all have sinned’. Thus all must come to Christ for salvation, and when they do, ‘the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin! 

c. Illicit Major Premise: This speaks of making a categorical statement which is not true, like ‘All animals are vicious’, or ‘God has cast off all Jews forever’. In such cases, because the Major Premise is in error, then any syllogistic logic which deducts from this would be in error. 

d. Illicit Minor Premise: Similarly, if the Minor Premise is not true, the deductions are erroneous, e. g. : ‘Dogs won’t go to heaven ’ (Rev. 22:15) ‘Gentiles are called dogs ’(Mk. 7:28) So I won’ t go to heaven. The error here is that though the Jews called the Gentiles ‘dogs’, yet they aren’t really so at all. Also, ‘dogs’ in Revelation has a different sense than in Matthew, so here is an equivocated middle term. But Jesus used this ‘Jewish cultural expression’ as a testónot as a truism, for the Cananite woman. 

e. Positive deduction from a Negative Major, like turning the ‘Don’t Walk’ Sign into ‘Run!’ or as in: ‘No man deserves to be saved.’ I am a man. Thus, I deserve to be saved!

f. Negative deduction from a Positive Major: This is the reverse of the above, as in: “Jesus said we must worship God alone. Thus we must not worship Jesus.” Here we have (. ) for the minor premise, for to be true the minor premise must say ‘Jesus is not God and this must be absolute truth. The Bible shows Jesus IS GOD, so the negative deduction is wrong!  

g. Fallacy of Two Majors: This is drawing a deduction from two Major Premises, with no minor premise to link them to a specific situation. For example “All Jews are sinners. All Gentiles are sinners. Thus I am either a Jew or a Gentile.” The deduction may be true, but the process isn’t complete.

h. Undistributed Middle Term: The ‘Middle Term’ must become the subject in the Minor Premise to make the syllogism correct. The example below is incorrectly structured: ‘All Jews are Sinners’ ‘All Gentiles are Sinners ’ ‘Thus all Jews are Gentiles ’ Here ‘sinners’ (the middle term of the first statement) is not the subject of the second line. The correct way would be ‘All Jews are sinners. All sinners will die, thus All Jews will die.’ They need the gospel!

26. Errors in Hypothetical Syllogisms: The above errors can be made in hypothetical syllogisms that begin reasoning with “If”, such as “If I am a man, then I am mortal. I am a man. Thus I am mortal”. 

27. Errors in Disjunctive Syllogisms: The above errors can be made in disjunctive syllogisms as in: ‘I am either mortal or immortal. I am not immortal. Therefore I am mortal.’ But there can be added hazards in these syllogisms, for both sides of the statement must be able to be universally true, and free of all the fallacies #1 to 25 above, as well as the Scripture Twisting methods that may belie them. 

So what is the conclusion? We must be careful to read Scripture in its contextual setting using an accurate translation of the Bible. Equally important, we must use sound methods of hermeneutics and logic as we interpret it. †