[...] Patton offered 7 common fallacies that people use when interpreting biblical texts (found here). A fallacy is simply an unsound argument that is based off of erroneous reasoning (i.e., it is [...]

[...] the True Meaning isn’t the True Meaning Last month, Bill Mounce, C. Michael Patton, and Clayboy all alluded to the issue of etymology, which is surely one of the biggest translation [...]

[...] blog as often anymore, but this is just too good to pass up. A male supremacist (MS) site lists Seven Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation, not realizing male supremacism commits every one of them in their [...]

Kristin, there are some semantic differences between agapao and phileo – languages eschew exact synonyms. But they’re not always sharply distinguished even by the biblical writers, since they do share a lot of semantic ground. The distinction has been run into the ground by preachers for years.

This becomes evident when reading John 21′s “Restoration of Peter” in which the two verbs are mixed up without significant change in meaning (cf. agapao in Jn 3.19 and phileo in Jn 5.20, 16.27). See http://is.gd/9ck6B for a good explanation.

so, for example, you’re saying that their is no linguistical difference between agapao and phileo? This is not the same as nuances between liking someone as a friend or liking someone as in wanting to date them. This is the same as saying their is no linguistical difference between like and love. They are two different words translated into the same word. The english here is what’s missing the nuance, not the original greek.

[...] rsolvd Thanks to C. Michael Patton for listing these fallacies of Biblical Interpretation. Click here for a much more extensive handling by [...]

In line with several other commenters here, let me thank you for this post. Number two is a legitimate concern, although one that is often abused.

Thanks again, Michael.

Thanks. I especially enjoyed the first point: that people approach with a perspective, if not a prejudice. My particular favorite is the old “grace vs law” argument. I have seen and participated in many of those.

I people have been TOLD that the Messiah came to provide redemption because the Torah FAILED to do so. That is a false argument. There is no scripture that shows Moses or the Prophets believed that they were delivered by the Torah.

However, having HEARD that we are “saved” FROM the Torah or that we are no longer “under the law”, the interpretation of many other scriptures are tainted.

Go on… see if you can “prove” that the scriptures teach that the Torah was intended to redeem. It was intended for a BETTER way of life, not to GAIN eternal life.

But if the Torah WAS intended to redeem, there should be some scripture, especially in the OT, that specifically says that it had the power to redeem. Considering the impact of that concept, there should be MANY such assertions.

So yes, I agree that once we are tainted with false teachings or cultural influences, it is very hard to read objectively. In fact most people I know reject the very words of the Messiah in order to maintain this particular fallacy.

People hear, “I came to FULFILL the law” as the intention to END the Torah, and they ignore the Messiah HIMSELF saying, “I did not come to abolish the Law”. So we don’t “abolish” it, but we are free from it, and we no longer observe it. Sounds pretty “abolished” to me.

Those are some amazing mental gymnastics needed to maintain a false teaching. Objectivity? Out the window! Believe every word of scripture? Not in this instance!

Thanks for you efforts.

Michael -

Thanks for the post. With your distinguishing between descriptive and prescriptive material, I definitely agree that we need to be careful with overdoing it with ‘incidental’ details. But I also find that many people utilise this argument in disregarding Acts, as well as other historical parts of Scripture, as didactic-teaching material. I don’t believe that’s healthy, since so much of Scripture is historical (even the Gospels). Scripture is a story. Also, we read passages like these:

Rom 15:4 – For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction…

1 Cor 10:11 – Now these things [historical happenings spoken of in the previous verses] happened to them as an example, but they [historical happenings] were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

And, of course, the famous one: 2 Tim 3:16 – All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Anyways, just some thoughts on how we can also move towards fallacy when we easily dismiss certain portions of Scripture as didactic because they are too ‘historical’. We need to guard against such as well.

Thanks again.

[...] February 12, 2010 by Dan Lowe I came across this blog post by C. Michael Patton on common errors in biblical interpretation.  It is worth reading and reflecting on while studying our Bibles.  You can find it here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/02/seven-common-fallacies-of-biblical-interpretation/. [...]