Poisoning the well

The poisoning the well fallacy is a form of ad hominem argument: that is, it is directed against the person, rather than his arguments. Poisoning the well occurs when a debater attempts to bias the audience against his opponent by presenting negative, and probably unrelated, information about him.

Examples

I frequent the conservative news/chat forum Free Republic. Occasionally, someone will post an urban legend as news. Inevitably, another poster will point out that the rumour was debunked at snopes.com, the Urban Legends Reference Pages; inevitably, someone else will dismiss the snopes research because the site is "liberal." At this point, it has become irrelevant that snopes.com is one of the better-researched sites on the Web. Conservatives would not want to associate with their liberal views, thus it's best just to ignore the whole site.

Today on the CARM KJV-only forum, which is rapidly becoming my new favourite repository of all bad KJV-only arguments, an exchange with poster "JDS" began with him saying, in response to a statement that KJV-onlyism was a false way:

No, it is the narrow way and the strait gate. (Source)

To which I responded (and yes, admittedly used a little more snark than the author of a fallacies blog might be entitled to):

Oh, good grief. Jesus was speaking of himself as the way, not the KJV.

Do you have so little respect for the sacred that you can never treat the Bible with the care it deserves? Your interpretations are universally pitiful. (Source)

(Matthew 7:13 may, at some point, make it into my "eisegesis" category, if and when I get around to one.)

JDS responded thusly:

This from a man who thinks John 6:44 & John 15:16 applies to himself and whose salvation depends on it.

give [sic] me a break please. (Source)

What an odd response. Some context will help. JDS, in addition to being rabidly KJV-onlyist, is rabidly anti-Calvinist. By contrast, I have never made a secret of my Calvinist theological leanings, and in fact on CARM my user avatar consists of the word "REFORMED," that being the most concise summary of my beliefs from the small pool of avatars the site makes available. John 6:44 and 15:13 could be taken as key texts in support of Calvinism.

JDS' retort has nothing to do with his shoddy hermeneutics; it's just a sudden change of subject intended to bias people against me, in essence: "That RansomOttawa is a Calvinist, and you know what they're like."

Remedy

Point out how the poisoining the well fallacy works in the given argument, and note that it is actually an ad hominem fallacy: the debater has changed the subject from his opponent's arguments, to his opponent's character.

Quote mining

Quote mining or the fallacy of quoting out of context, occurs when an author selectively quotes a passage, in such a way that he distorts its original meaning to create an authority favourable to his argument.

Quote mining might result in a number of fallacies: straw man arguments, because they can misrepresent an argument the author is opposed to; appeals to authority, because they give the false impression that a secondary source agrees with the author when he may not; or fallacies of accent, since the incorrect emphasis of parts of the passage change its meaning from the intended one.

Examples

Back in 2001, on the Bible Versions Discussion Board, Brent Riggs, aka "Mitex," posted the following quotation from C. I. Scofield, the editor of the famed reference Bible:

After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions [RV, ASV, Darby, Webster, Young's, etc.] have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, give no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English speaking world. C.I. Scofield, The Holy Bible, The 1917 Scofield Reference Edition, Preface.

(Source, emphasis in original)

At the time of writing, I was home for Christmas, and my grandfather's 1917 edition of the Scofield Bible was in my parents' library. Turning to the preface, I read:

After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English-speaking world. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of the text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship.¹

A little context makes a whole lot of difference. Mitex selectively quoted Scofield's introduction in such a way that he suggests Scofield was an advocate of the KJV; he stops short of quoting the next sentence, in which Scofield commends the practice of textual criticism, including the work of favourite KJV-only bogeymen Westcott and Hort! In context, Scofield is saying merely that the KJV is his best choice because of its overwhelming popularity, which newer versions of the time had never matched. Unless Mitex was quoting secondary sources without checking his facts, he couldn't have missed the significance of these words, and must have realized that Scofield is not saying is not what he was suggesting.

Here is a print example, from Sam Gipp's Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible, in a section titled "Westcott's Mariolatry":

Another Roman Catholic doctrine is the adoration of Mary. Here also Dr. Westcott did not let the Roman Catholic Church down, as he reveals in a letter to his fiancee Sarah Louisa Whittard.

"After leaving the monastry, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill . . . Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place, and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ) . . . Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours."²

Westcott's own words, as presented by Gipp, certainly seem to suggest that Westcott was a devotee of the Virgin Mary. But is that really the case? Here is the entire letter as published in Westcott's Life and Letters. I have put Gipp's citation in boldface, and italicized a certain portion of it myself:

ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH,

2nd Sunday after Epiphany, 1847.

My dearest Mary - As I fancy that we shall go out to-morrow, I will begin my note now without a longer preface. Yesterday we had a splendid walk to the monastery, going the same road as you went in summer; but now all the trees and hedges are covered with a delicate white frost, and the craggy rocks seemed gigantic in the mist, and all the country looked more lovely and wild and un-British than I have ever before seen it. We went into the chapel, but I cannot say that I was so much pleased with it as before, and the reason was that I did not hear the solemn chant of those unearthly voices which seem clearly to speak of watchings and fastings, and habits of endurance and self-control which would be invaluable if society could reap their fruits; as it was, the excessive finery and meanness of the ornaments seemed ill to suit the spiritual worship which we are told should mark the true church. After this we went round the cloisters and into the Refectory, but I felt less than ever to admire their selfish life. After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighbouring hill, and by a little scrambling we reached it. Fortunately, we found the door open. It is very small , with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a "Piéta" the size of life. The sculpture was painted, and such a group in such a place and at such a time was deeply impressive. I could not help thinking on the fallen grandeur of the Romish Church, or her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours. On leaving, we followed a path across beautiful rocks fringed by firs loaded with hoar-frost, and, passing by many a little deepening glen, came to the road, above which stood a large crucifix. I wish it had been a cross. I wish earnestly we had not suffered superstition to have brought that infamy on the emblem of our religion which persecution never could affix to it. But I am afraid the wish is vain.

I thought I had spoken to you of the fearful distress in Ireland (and in parts of Scotland too). I am sure you will feel as I do. I have very little money to spare, but if there is any collection I wish you would give five shillings for me, and I will pay you when I return; and let us not only think of the temporal wants of our unfortunate sister isle, but also of her spiritual degradation, which is, I am sure, closely connected with its present miseries. . . .³

Again, seeing Westcott's words in their original context makes all the difference. Whereas Gipp would have us believe that Westcott was secretly loyal to the Roman church and a devotee of the Virgin Mary, Westcott is actually strongly criticl of the "spiritual degradation" in the "Romish church," calling its traditions "superstition." Gipp suggests that Westcott knelt in front of the Piéta out of devotion to Mary, but Westcott himself says that he was driven to prayer by contemplating the errors of the Romanists. He further discusses the current "distress in Ireland" (the potato famine then under way) and links it to the "spiritual degredation" of the Irish Catholics. Are these the sentiments of a devoted Roman Catholic?

This raises a question: why has Gipp tried to make Westcott say practically the opposite of what he obviously meant? Unless Gipp was himself working from a secondary source that misquoted the letter, he cannot claim ignorance: he couldn't have read the letter without seeing the parts he omitted. Unfortunately, it looks like Gipp is being deliberately dishonest in an attempt to discredit Bishop Westcott, and thus also discredit modern Bible versions based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

Remedy

Research is your friend. Go to the source, find a fuller quotation of the same material, and provide enough context to represent the original's point accurately.

Footnotes

¹ C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford UP, 1917) i-ii (emphasis added).

² Samuel C. Gipp, Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible (Miamitown, OH: DayStar, 1987), http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08b.asp (accessed July 21, 2011).

³Arthur Westcott, ed., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1903) 80-81.

Doggedness

I can be a very stubborn person sometimes. I'm sure many people who know me can attest to this, when it comes to arguing a particular point. I appreciate viewpoints that are succinct, and conversely have little tolerance for arguments that wander down endless rabbit trails - and little patience for those whom I feel are missing (or avoiding) the point. I want people to be concise, I want them to focus, and I'm not afraid to say so. "Answer the question" is often repeated on many forums. I'm stubborn that way.

But I am not stubborn in this way, I hope: the bullheaded refusal to accept facts that militate against a position I hold. I would like to think I am intellectually honest enough to change my opinion when it is clear it has become untenable in light of the facts. Unfortunately, this is not so for everyone.

By doggedness, I mean the stubborn refusal to accept what everyone else considers to be adequately proven. We could also call this "pigheadedness." When you can actually imagine your opponent saying, "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up," then he is being dogged.

Examples

A good example of contemporary doggedness comes from flat-earthers, geocentrists, and other proponents of alternative cosmologies. The Earth is a giant spheroid; that has been obvious since Eratosthenes devised a method to measure its circumference in the third century BC. It's an observable fact and an empirically testable one. When NASA engineers send probes to Mars, their calculations assume a heliocentric (i.e. sun-centred) solar system. The space agency's occasional failures are not attributable to a flawed cosmology! Nonetheless, flat-earthers, geocentrists and the like refuse to accept what everyone else believes has been pretty well established for centuries. Some groups, such as the Association for Biblical Astronomy, claim this is the biblical understanding of the universe - as though humanity's biblical significance depends on where we are, rather than who we are in relationship to the One who fashioned us and put us there.

I see a similar stubborn streak in many KJV-onlyists, particularly those who lend a lot of credence to the claims of Gail Riplinger. Her first book on the subject, New Age Bible Versions (NABV), purports to expose a conspiracy to corrupt the Bible with New Age thought. However, it doesn't take very long at all for a careful fact-checker to discover that the whole argument is a house of cards, built with half-truths, faulty generalizations, circular reasoning, out-of-context quotations, character assassination, and just plain dishonesty. NABV is, in short, a 690-page intellectual fraud. A comprehensive review of Riplinger's misrepresentations would be a book in itself. Even other KJV-onlyists, such as Daivd Cloud and D. A. Waite, have remarked on Riplinger's deceit.

But in the 18-odd years since NABV was first published, I can't count the number of times some KJV-onlyist has said something to me along the lines of, "Yeah, but never mind all that. You people focus way to much on the details of what Mrs. Riplinger has said about whom. Look at the bigger picture, and you have to admit that she has exposed a clear pattern of New Age influence and/or corruption in the modern Bible versions."

Well, actually, I don't have to admit anything of the sort. A conclusion is only as good as the premises that support it. Pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf talks about a debating tactic he calls "raising the roof." Just as a roof needs walls, an assertion needs good evidence to support it. If an opponent makes an assertion, you are entitled to demand evidence for it. If the evidence does not support the conclusion, then it comes crashing down. Riplinger's smorgasbord of sophistry does not support her conclusion that there is a New Age conspiracy against the Bible.

Riplinger's supporters are dogged: they agree with her conclusions not because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence. Once the flimsy, paper-thin walls of misrepresentation are kicked down, they expect the roof to magically float over their heads.

Special pleading

Special pleading is an informal fallacy, in which the author attempts to exempt his own arguments from standards to which he holds his opponents. This may take various forms: for example, appealing to some irrelevant difference between his own arguments and his opponent's, or dismissing arguments or evidence that weakens his case.

Examples

In recent months and years, radio preacher Harold Camping predicted Judgment Day on May 21, 2011. He claimed that the day would be marked by massive earthquakes and millions of deaths: "the Bible guarantees it," he said. Of course, nothing happened, and we're still here. On May 23, Camping held a press conference, claiming that Judgment Day did happen - only it was "spiritual" rather than literal. This is special pleading: Camping ignored all evidence that refuted his original claims (namely, that nothing actually happened on May 21, 2011) and reinterpreted the evidence to maintain that he was right all along.

Perhaps a corporation has a by-law stating that no one who has been bankrupt is eligible to sit on its board of directors. It is discovered that one would-be board member has been bankrupt. "But that was years ago," he replies. This is special pleading because the rule forbids anyone who has been bankrupt from sitting; the time since the bankruptcy happened is not a mitigating circumstance.

Of course, not every exemption from the general rule is fallacious. We recognize, for example, that it is necessary sometimes for emergency vehicles to break traffic laws. There is a relevant difference between everyday motorists and ambulance drivers: the latter may be rushing to save a life. Self-defense is a valid legal defense against a charge of murder, because the law recognizes that lethal force might sometimes be necessary to defend oneself from an attack.

On the Fighting Fundamental Forums, KJV-onlyist "OneBook" has been attempting for several months to discredit the English Standard Version (ESV) by noting similarities between it and the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For example:

Does altering the word of God matter? Is it good to ignore red flags? Have you ever seen so much commonality between the ESV and the NWT? A good question at this point would be did the NWT come first or the ESV? Who was copying who? What was lost in the change?

ESV – Romans 5:11

More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

NWT – Romans 5:11

And not only that, but we are also exulting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

KJV – Romans 5:11

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

[Source; emphasis in original]

This is a textbook case of guilt by association: taking a superficial similarity and using it to draw a connection between two otherwise unrelated things. We can note three things about this argument: First, that just because a particular rendering is to be found in the NWT does not automatically make it wrong; second, that "reconciliation" and "atonement" are synonyms, and thus OneBook is drawing a distinction without a difference; and third, the rendering "reconciliation" dates back to the Revised Version of 1885, as well as the Revised Standard Version of 1952 - which predates the NWT by a decade, and of which the ESV is a revision. In other words, for the ESV to be connected to the NWT, someone would require a time machine.

However, frequently the wording of the KJV agrees with the NWT as well. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? Not according to OneBook:

John 3:1 in the ESV, NWT, and the KJV read basically the same. What does this prove? It simply proves even corrupt translations like the NWT and the ESV can sometimes get it correct and match the AV1611.

[Source]

In other words, when the ESV resembles the NWT, it's because the ESV is wrong. When the KJV resembles the NWT, well, that's different - sometimes the NWT gets it right. Ignore the incriminating evidence! Full steam ahead!

Remedy

Point out the double standard, and restate the counter-argument that incriminates the sophist's own arguments.

Fallacy of Equivocation

An author commits the fallacy of equivocation when he uses two or more definitions of a word interchangeably, as though they were identical.

In syllogistic logic, the equivalent fallacy would be the fallacy of four terms.

Examples

Puns work because they are deliberate uses of equivocation. In Romeo and Juliet, for example, Romeo's flippant friend Mercutio is mortally wounded by his enemy Tybalt. Mercutio remarks that "to-morrow . . . you shall find me a grave man" (III.i.97-98). Grave means either "serious" (in contrast to Mercutio's usual levity) or "burial plot" (because Mercutio will soon be dead).

Fallacious equivocation, however, is usually much more subtle, and obviously more dangerous than innocent wordplay. Years ago, on the moribund KJB Vs The Modern Version group on Yahoo, I made a remark to one particularly short-fused KJV-onlyist named George Calvas about believing in "the actual God of the actual Bible," or words to that effect. In response, poster "warrior_of_the_sword" asked: "And that would be WHICH BIBLE according to you?" To this, I answered that I was unaware of there being more than one.

This is a subtle example of the fallacy of equivocation. When I referred to the Bible, I meant the literary work known as "the Bible": the anthology of Jewish and Christian works comprising the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. However, when "warrior" asked me "WHICH BIBLE" I meant, he used the term to mean a particular edition, translation, or version of that literary work. Put another way, my use of "Bible" was universal; his was particular.

Here's another one. KJV-onlyist author Timothy S. Morton has an online book titled Which Translation Should You Trust? A Defense of the Authorized King James Version of 1611. In a section named "Are Translations Inferior?" he attempts to argue that a translation can be superior to its source text by appealing to the Bible:

Another fact concerning translations is that in the three verses the word "translate" (or forms of it) is found in the Bible, the object translated is BETTER than it was to start with! . . . The first verse is 2 Samuel 3:10. There, the kingdom is to be "translated" from the house of Saul to David. When one reads the context of this passage, and of the reign of David after, he finds the kingdom becomes better than it was in its original state! . . . The second translation is found in Colossians 1:13. The translation here is the conversion of a lost sinner to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. No Christian can say this is not a translation for the better! The last mention is in Hebrews 11:5 where Enoch is spoken of as being "translated." Again, no believer in his right mind can say a person would not be better off to bypass death and go directly to Heaven. . . .

As mentioned before, we agree that no translation can be "word-perfect" with the original, but this in no way means, as scholars assume, that a translation is of a lesser quality. It could just as easily be (as we have just seen) BETTER in quality than the original! The word of God does NOT lose its purity and authority by being translated.¹

Here's the problem. In the English of the KJV, the word "translate" is synonymous with the word "transfer." In 2 Sam. 3:10, the "translation" is a transfer of power: Saul's kingdom was given to David. In Col. 1:13, it is a transfer of citizenship: from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Son. Finally, in Heb. 11:5 it is a transfer of location: Enoch was removed from the earth and brought, body and soul, into heaven.

In no case in the KJV does the word translate mean, for example, to render a text or speech of one language into another language. When the Bible referred to that kind of "translation," the KJV translators used a form of the word interpret (see, for example, Matt. 1:23 and John 1:41). To say that since Enoch was "translated" to a better place, therefore the KJV as a translation is superior to the texts it was translated from, is an equivocation, and therefore sophistry.

Remedy

Show how your opponent has redefined a term. Demand that he defines how he is using that term, and make sure he commits to that defition. If he wavers between meanings, call him on it.

Footnote

¹ Timothy S. Morton, "Which Translation...II," PreservedWords.com, http://www.preservedwords.com/kjv2.htm (accessed January 5 2010).

Guilt by Association

Gult by association is an attempt to discredit an argument or idea by associating it with something the audience would not approve of.

This is a fallacy of inductive reasoning, which means it argues from particular examples to the universal. This is the opposite of syllogistic arguments, which are deductive,, moving from universals to particulars: for example, All men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal. A typical inductive argument might look something like this:

Premise. I have seen hundreds of swans, and they were all white.
Conclusion. Therefore, all swans are white.

In a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises: if they are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion must be true. Obviously, this isn't the case with an inductive argument: it's possible for the conclusion to be false even if the premises are true. (All it takes is to find a black swan: they do exist.) Inductive reasoning relies on probability: the stronger the premises, the greater the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

More specifically, guilt by association is a form of hasty generalization, in which the sample size isn't large enough to support the conclusion. Just because a certain position or thing and something unpleasant share one characteristic, doesn't mean they share enough characteristics to be actually connected.

Guilt by association is very similar to the formal fallacy of the undistributed middle term.

Examples

This is one of those fallacies that's simple enough to concoct, simply by invoking Nazis:

Why would I want to be a vegetarian? Hitler was a vegetarian, you know.

The wrongheadedness of this argument is easily exposed simply by pointing out many of the other innocent things Hitler did: breathe, love his mother, drive in cars, and so forth. You wouldn't want to be like Hitler, would you?

Terry Watkins of the KJV-onlyist Web site Dial-the-Truth Ministries commits this error on a page titled "The New King James Version: Counterfeit":

NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's [sic] no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.

The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager's [sic] refer to him as the "the Coming One" - AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are You THE COMING ONE. . ." In the [sic] "The Great Invocation", a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One."

And to REALLY show their sympathy with the satanic New Age Movement - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - in Acts 17:29 the New Age NKJV changes "Godhead" to "Divine Nature"! (ditto NIV, NASV [sic]) (all emphases in original)

Watkins apparently expects us to believe NKJV is a "New Age" Bible simply because of a superficial similarity in wording: New Age sources also use a few of the same, fairly common, words. If I rewrite Watkins' argument syllogistically, the undistributed middle becomes obvious:

Premise 1. The NKJV uses the term "the Coming One" [or "age" or "Divine Nature"].
Premise 2. New Agers use the term "the Coming One."
Conclusion. Therefore, the NKJV is New Age.

True or not, the conclusion simply doesn't follow.

Watkins apparently is unable or unwilling to entertain alternatives as to why the NKJV reads as it does: for example, that "age" is a proper translation of the Greek term aion, which refers to an age of time, and from which we get our English word eon (and arguably a better rendition than the KJV's "world"); "the coming one" is a proper (and literal) translation of erchomai (and is it really any less accurate than the KJV's "he that should come"?), and "Divine Nature" is a valid rendering of theios. Indeed, the last is in fact synonymous with "Godhead": the suffix -head is an archaic form of -hood, which denotes state or quality. In other words, "Godhead" means "the state of being God" - in other words, divine nature. It's also fair to point out that 2 Pet. 1:4, uses those very words. Is it also a New Age Bible?

My first experience with Dial-the-Truth and Watkins was their page titled "Christian Rock: Blessing or Blasphemy?" in which (amongst other things) Watkins criticized DC Talk - primarily by avoiding discussing DC Talk, and talking primarily about Nine Inch Nails. Why? Because the director of NIN's "Closer" video, Simon Maxwell, also directed DC Talk's video for "Jesus Freak." I'm inclined to think that if guilt by association didn't exist, Watkins would have nothing to say.

Remedy

As with the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, the proper rebuttal to guilt by association is to point out that surface similarities do not a connection make. Point out any relevant dissimilarities that weaken the case. And, if possible, expose the argument's absurdity.

Ad Hominem (Tu Quoques)

Ad hominem arguments are those that are directed against the person, rather than his points. We've already seen the most blatant form of ad hominem, abuse. Nearly as blatant is the tu quoques form. Tu quoques is Latin for "you're another." This fallacy dismisses another person's argument on the grounds that since he does the very thing he is arguing against.

Examples

Suppose a gym teacher were to teach an entire "health" class on the dangers of smoking, only to have a student ask, "Why should I believe you? We all know you smoke." Regardless of whether the information being taught is true or useful, the subject has been changed to the teacher himself.

On the Bible Versions Discussion Board, poster "DocCas" once posted the following:

I don't think it is at all inappropriate for Brent to post his questions which are of the same style and type that have been posted by the proponents of the modern versions. I too think many of Brent's questions/characterizations are straw men, but isn't that the whole point? The modern version proponents ask for chapter and verse proving the KJV is the only word of God, or the word of God at all, and Brent asks the same questions of the modern version proponents. Both are straw men.

[Source]

The original discussion was about finding theological justification for KJV-onlyism in the Scriptures. Note how DocCas has changed the subject away from whether the KJV-only postiion has any support, to whether it is equally appropriate for KJV-onlyist and non-KJV-onlyist alike to post "straw man" questions.

Not every single use of a tu quoques argument constitutes a fallacy. It's appropriate to point out your opponent's double standards. However, it is fallacious to respond to an argument with nothing more than, "Well, you're not better."

Case in point: Many KJV-onlyists make a big deal about the involvement of Virginia Mollenkott on the NIV translation committee. Mollenkott is a feminist theologian and an open lesbian. Thus, according to the KJV-onlyists, her involvement with the NIV taints that translation and gives it a pro-homosexual bias.

A sound rebuttal to this claim is to state the facts as presented in the statement released by Kenneth Barker of the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation. In short, he states:

• Mollenkott's role was as a stylistic consultant, not a translator.
• Her sexuality and theology were not generally known at the time.
• When they became known, she was removed from the work.
• A survey of the relevant verses shows that the NIV is not "soft" on homosexuality as is claimed.

But having taken the valid response out of the way, I think the inconsistency in the KJV-only position can be exposed via a well-laced tu quoques. The very man who commissioned the KJV to be translated (and after whom it is nicknamed), James I of England, is generally believed to have been at least bisexual.¹ If the KJV-onlyists condemn Virginia Mollenkott for what they ignore or excuse in James I, then they are guilty of a double standard.

And that, in general, has been the response of the KJV-onlyists. Faced with the evidence of James I's homosexuality, they will deny it by re-interpreting the evidence, or excuse it by reminding the non-KJV-onlyists that James had nothing to do with the translation itself. In fact, ironically, the KJV-onlyists' position on James I begins to look an awful lot like the NIV translators' position on Virginia Mollenkott. In seeking to avoid the double standard, they only affirm it all the more.

Remedy

If the charges made against you by your opponent are true, then for the purpose of the debate I see no harm done by acknowledging it. You might even win some rhetorical brownie points for conceding that you are, in fact, inconsistent on that point. Nonetheless, the subject at hand is not your inconsistency. Remind your opponent that even if you were the most inconsistent hypocrite ever to walk the planet, that does not change the truth or falsity of your arguments, and he must still deal with their substance.

Footnote

See, for example, Otto J. Scott, James I (New York: Mason, 1976), and David Moore Bergeron, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire (Iowa City: Iowa UP, 1999).

Ad Hominem (Abuse)

Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man." An ad hominem argument is one that is directed against the person, rather than his arguments.

This fallacy takes many forms, as we'll see. However, the abuse variant is easily the most blatant of its kind. Inventing examples of abuse is all too easy. This should be pretty self-explanatory:

If you believe in God, you're an idiot.

Examples

Years ago I was fairly active in various Christian forums on Yahoo! Groups. In its heyday, groups devoted to the KJV were plentiful. Today, with the ubiquity of forum software, Yahoo! Groups has declined, and while there are still a fair number of "King James Bible" groups there, they appear to either be dormant, overrun with spam, or restricted to members only - mainly, I suspect, to keep people like me out. Nonetheless, I've managed to keep a few good samples of ad hominem (abuse) from those days - not that it's difficult to find contemprary examples, mind you.

In the very early 2000s, I had had some dealings with a KJV-onlyist named Scott Cowie. I think he is probably the earliest example of a "9/11 Truther" that I encountered, because I had been posting responses to his conspiracy theories concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center a mere two weeks after Sept. 11, 2001. As a rebuttal of sorts, Cowie managed to tie in his Trutherism with his KJV-onlyism and respond to me:

As for my posting "conspiracy theories" it is obvious Mr. McClare you are a gullible fool who will believe anything BUT the truth. You are just goosestepping to the NWO tune of our fearless leaders.

Note that Cowie has sidestepped the issue of his "conspiracy theories," which I had previously addressed directly, and come after me personally, accusing me of being a "gullible fool" and a New World Order lackey. Abuse of this kind is, in fact, a very common form of "argument" used by conspiracy theorists when confronted with skepticism: disagreeing with their theories is proof that you're on the payroll of someone even more insidious.

A couple months later on another Yahoo! group, a KJV-onlyist named Chuck Hilton (going by the handle "kjbhilton") posted the following after another poster answered a common claim by KJV-onlyists, that modern version users don't believe the KJV is the Word of God:

Well then if you do beleive [sic] that the KJV is God's word, you can't possibly beleive [sic] the other versions are Gods [sic] word, unless you have the IQ of a sled track!

I don't know what the IQ of a sled track is, but Hilton is ignoring the issue at hand (correcting his error) in favour of insulting someone's intelligence.

I suspect I'm not alone in this, but this is the fallacy that the KJV-onlyists have tried on me more than any other. Rather than attempt to deal with any substantial issues I have raised, the first thing the KJV-only zealots want to do is rush off to Google and dig up a whole bunch of dirt. (Since I've had a presence on the Web since 1996, there's no shortage of personal information about me out there!) They will discover that I am a fan of 70s progressive rock such as Pink Floyd, and rather than debate KJV-onlyism, will declare me "worldly." They learn that some bands I enjoy contain members who are homosexuals, and rather than debate KJV-onlyism, will call me a "limp-wristed supporter of queers." They find out I enjoy beer and wine, and rather than debate KJV-onlyism, will denounce me as a drunkard.

Over the years I have had KJV-onlyists call me, amongst other things, "liberal," "apostate," a "heretic" (or, just as commonly, a "heretick" as many of these folks seem to like to affect the archaic spellings of the KJV). These are accusations of theological error, and yet when pressed for the specific errors I am guilty of, my accusers are strangely silent. I have been accused of both "Romanism" and "Calvinism" in the same thread, the contradictory nature of these two accusations apparently going completely unnoticed. (I am a Calvinist, and don't know why being accused of it should bother me.) And because I won't accept the must absurd unreason preented as Christian fundamentalism, I've been called stupid, idiotic, and (as we see above) a "gullible fool."

The key to understanding this raving is simply to remember this rule of thumb: To a KJV-onlyist, these labels don't actually mean anything. A KJV-onlyist calling me a "liberal" is not accusing me of liberalism. "Scott is a liberal" has no more content to it than "Scott is a poop head."

It's too bad. You'd think that attacking a person rather than his opinions would be the last resort, but for the "defenders" of the King James Bible, it's often the first weapon they fire. It's good evidence that KJV-onlyism is unsupported by facts or logic.

Remedy

My favourite response to ad hominem (abuse) is simply to acknowledge the truth of the claims, sometimes in as hyperbolic a fashion as possible: "All right, I admit to being an NWO stooge. But my evil overlords have asked me to ask you if you would please address my arguments, instead of my intelligence."