I have long observed the way many who say that the King James Bible is the only legitimate translation of the Bible into English, if not the only proper Bible available today, try to prove their claim: they take passages from the King James translation and put them side by side with other translations, note the difference, and say that proves other translations are wrong. That is, they think the fact that others translate various difficult passages differently prove that those other translations have tampered with and changed the meaning of the text. Sometimes, those who do this show they do not understand the verses in question because they read the King James text anachronistically, that is, they do not understand the original meaning of the words and read them based upon how they are presently interpreted instead of what they meant when the King James Bible was produced. If they understood what the words meant when they were originally used, they would realize how modern translations are often saying the same thing. But, at other times, there is a difference, and it is either because there now exists better Greek and Hebrew texts which translators use, or because translators using those texts have to determine which of a variety of meanings are intended by the words used in the original text, and different translators will make different determinations, resulting in different translations of the same text. To me, what is important is the way the argument is made, because it is a really bad argument: it starts with the assumption that the King James translation is a good and accurate one, without knowing this to be true. Then they conclude other translations must agree with the King James version if they are to be correct, because the King James text is correct. If a translation does not, it must be deemed as wrong. This argument is begging the question: it assumes the conclusion as the foundation for their argument, the conclusion being the King James version is the only correct version. What they never do is prove this.
What I have seen is that many apologists in debates, and in their writings, often argue in the same fashion. They assume their conclusion. It serves as a given. They do not work to prove it, but rather, they point out what they believe and then say anyone who doesn’t agree, anyone shown to think differently, must therefore be wrong. This is often done in intra-Christian debates, but it is also often done by apologists debating people of other religions or no religion at all. I have experienced this quite often when reading anti-Catholic polemics, but to be sure, I’ve seen many of the same arguments in reverse, with Catholics doing the same thing. And, of course, I’ve seen it when Christians debate other religion. Even if I agree with a particular teaching being debated, I do not agree with that kind of argument, because it is not a valid argument. At best, it is a rhetorical flourish which only impresses those who already agree with a given conclusion.
Now, to be sure, it can be good to show various positions, and how they compare with each other, showing where they align but also where they differ. Similarly, if everyone in a given debate agrees with a particular authority, such as Scripture, then, in such a situation, it can serve as a given and its authority does not need to be established when people in a debate try to prove they are the ones who properly align with that authority. This is why I have no problem presenting the way some people differ from an authority they claim to follow, such as those Christians who seem to go against basic principles found in Scripture (as when I deal with Christian nationalists), or those Catholics who deny social justice; this is because it is not a circular argument.
Certainly, as I have made clear in my various writings, I am not a fan of debates, especially apologetical debates, because I do not think they seek the truth as much as the illusion of truth. Just because a person is good at debates does not mean what they claim is true. A very common tactic in debate is to make a bad faith argument against one’s opponent, and then suggest if their opponent is wrong, they must be correct, which, of course, does not logically follow (just because a horse is not blue does not mean it is purple). Moreover, people in debates tend to speak past each other because they are not willing to listen to and actually engage each other. They are giving a performance for the crowd. This is why I prefer dialogue instead of debate, for dialogue is not about trying to prove the other wrong, but for people to come to know each other better. They present their beliefs and practices to each other, not to prove to each other what is right or wrong, but for everyone to come to a better understanding not only what they believe, but also why they believe what they believe. No one assumes what a participant finds credible will be seen as credible for others. Dialogue is about learning to listen and gaining greater insight with one’s dialogue partner, and through that insight, to form better social bonds with them. Sometimes, in inter-religious dialogues, those involved in them will learn something which will make them consider what they have heard and convert to a new faith, but that is not the point of the dialogue.
This is why I like inter-religious dialogue; its participants know it is not about making an argument for their faith, trying to prove themselves right and everyone else wrong; it is about sharing the insights they have gained thanks to their faith. It is about explaining what their faith is about, helping to make sure others do not have a wrong understanding of it. Such understanding is easier when people are not pitted against each other seeking to downplay each other, as happens in debates (or apologetical writings). And, because people come to better understand each other, they can even begin to learn from the other, finding not only that they have many beliefs and practices in common (which they did not know they had), but that they might also gain some insight from someone from another faith, an insight which, when properly adapted, they can apply to their own lives and faith tradition, leading them to have a richer faith as a result.
Thus, inter-religious dialogue is to have members of different faiths come to a better understanding of each other, and not for converting people who come into the dialogue. Nonetheless, some might, through such a dialogue, come to understand another faith and come to believe it. That is, conversions can happen, but they are never the point; oddly enough, conversion is a rare result of apologetical debates, even if it is seen as the desired result of such a debate. Dialogue is much more honest, which is why it can be much more transformative. Debates, though they claim to be interested in the truth, are not. For, as long as we seek to prove ourselves right and the others wrong, we are closed off from learning as to what the other might get right, and so lose the opportunity to learn from them, but when we are not so defensive or offensive, then, even if we do not agree with everything we hear, we will be more receptive of it and give it a much fairer chance to teach us something.
* This Is Another Post From My Personal (Informal) Reflections And Speculations Series
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In