Featured Faulty Logic, Faulty Theology

There are many reasons for faulty theology, and one of them is faulty logic.

Genesis 2:15-17. 'Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat [literally, 'eating you may eat']; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die [literally, 'dying you shall die']"'

So the obvious inference of verse 17 is, "If you don't eat of it, you won't die." But this has been described as the logical error of 'Affirming the consequent.' It is, of course, nothing of the sort.

'If A, then B.' So if A happens, B follows, and if A doesn't happen, B doesn't follow. This is absolutely logical and apparently carries the name of Modus tollens. So what is 'Affirming the consequent'?

It is this: 'If A then B.' If B happens, then A must have happened. This is faulty logic. 'If you die, you must have eaten of the tree.' But of course, that is not what God said. What would be even more illogical would be to imagine that God meant, "If you don't eat of it, you're still going to die. That would be making God out to be a liar.

1 Kings 2:36-37. 'Then the king went and called for Shimei, and said to him, "Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there anywhere. For it shall be, on the day you go out and cross the Brook Kidron, know for certain you shall surely die [literally, 'dying you shall die']. Your blood shall be on your own head."'

The obvious inference is, "If you don't cross the Brook Kidron, you won't die. What would be illogical would be to say, "If you die, you must have crossed the Brook Kidron." There might be all sorts of reasons for Shimei to die, including natural causes.

We read that for three years Shimei carried on living in Jerusalem, and, whadd'ya know? He didn't die. Had he continued to live there he would have died sooner or later, but Solomon would not have killed him. But he did cross the Brook, and Solomon had him killed forthwith.

Note that Solomon used the same term to Shimei as God used to Adam: 'In the day that you cross....' 'In the day that you eat....' And sure enough, Shimei died, if not the very same day, almost immediately afterwards, as quickly as Solomon could arrange it. Just sayin'.

 

Fortunately, someone kindly posted a link where logical fallacies are discussed.

It's found on Page 7 of the 'Spiritual Life' thread.
It explains things very well.
If you tell a child, "If you run out into the road, I'm will give you a wallop," he may reasonably and logically suppose that if he doesn't run into the road, he won't get a wallop. He might perhaps be walloped for another misdemeanor, but not for that one for the rather obvious reason that he didn't commit it.
What is not logical is to say that because he was walloped, he must have run out into the road (he might have been walloped for something else), or that because he wasn't walloped, he must not have run out into the road (his father might not have seen him).

I understand that the expressions are Hebrew idioms; that was my point. The question is whether 'in that day' can mean 'in 900 years time.' In the 1 Kings 2 example, it meant 'rather quickly.' If you can find an example of where 'in that day' means a long, extended period, I will be interested to read it. The Bible is a big book and I might have missed it.

My case is that in Genesis 2, the death spoken of was, in the immediate context, spiritual death. The physical death is announced in Genesis 3:19.

 

The comparison is purely in the language used. Comparing Scripture with Scripture is an accepted way of doing exegesis. See my answer to @MartyF above.

 

Yes. And your point is?

 

My main point is that to say that if Adam had not eaten the apple, he would not have died is not a logical fallacy. Since that fact has now been conceded, however grudgingly, the point is made and the thread may now be closed so far as I am concerned.
There were a couple of subsidiary points, but they can't be that important if you can't remember what they are. We can at least agree that there was a difference between God and Solomon, though I believe that comparing Scripture with Scripture is a helpful way of arriving at the truth.

 

All you have to do is read the Scriptures.
Romans 5:12. 'Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin......'
Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience to God's command. Death entered the world because of sin.
If there had been no sin, there would have been no death, for the wages of sin is death. Therefore if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died. QED, End of story.