First Principles

Recently, Jimmy Stephens wrote this in response to a video:

There are some good principles here, but many of the mistakes Rand made pop up in this video. There is too much here to cover for a mere youtube comment, but let’s consider logic and first principles. Take for example the recurring claim in this video that logic is “objective.” This is ambiguous. Although it is unpopular in the West to deny the objectivity of logical laws, the nature and content of those laws remains as controversial now as it was during the Classical Era. So then, what does it really mean to say logic is objective?

Is logic a sociological construct? Is it a conceptual framework or category of human psychology? Is it a natural law? Is it grounded in a Platonic form or timeless propositionality? Is it the wisdom of God? Is logic intuitionist or dialetheistic instead of classical? Is it fuzzy instead of binary? Is it normative or just descriptive? Without covering these more basic questions, it is unclear what “logic” really is, and so ambiguous to call it “objective.”

Consider also the naive foundationalism proffered to support the argument. Are there really first principles that do not need to be defended? If it is meant that people will just naturally agree with Shane’s view, then he is mistaken. Coherentists and foundherentists might accept some or all of his first principles without adopting foundationalism. Infinitists will reject his notion of first principles entirely. Foundationalists disagree not only on what makes a belief a “first principle,” including whether they should be defended, but on what our “first principles” include. Shane’s argument therefore is a lot less simple than he makes it out to be.

Consider his consistency principle (3). It is not obvious how Shane avoids special pleading when for some beliefs he deems them true without defense and then proceeds to defend other beliefs. If in principle one can just name some belief’s “first principles,” then one can simply call the negation of Shane’s position a “first principle” and call it a day. If Shane rejects these alternative “first principles,” he will have to provide us a reason for taking up his instead and will thereby undermine their nature as not needing a defense. So it appears Shane’s epistemology is not consistent with itself both in general and in the sense that Shane doesn’t follow (3), his own principle of consistency.**

First Guys Finish Last

There is a debate amongst Christians on whether Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. This debate goes across liberal Christians lines and enters into the conservative Christian camp aswell. I’ll try to highlight the arguments presented for the notion that Adam was the first human being.

1. Geanologies

Genesis 5:1-5

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 
He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

1 Chronicles 1:1-7

1 Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Diphath, and Togarmah. The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshishah, Kittim, and Rodanim.

Luke 3:37-38

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

An issue that arises with appeals to Biblical genealogies is that a fair amount of evidence is usually provided that they are open. That the authors select specific individuals for specific reasons. That doesn’t mean we can arbitrarily posit that a pre-adamite race of men existed. It very well may be the case that Adam is highlighted first in the genealogy because he is the first man. It is also very difficult to see where on an evolutionary view of history the Biblical account meshes together.

2. Genesis

Some think that the book of Genesis is a book that starts off with the origins of the world. If that is the correct understanding for the first 11 chapters of the book then it seems fitting that the first humans are mentioned.

This argument is only persuasive as far as the person accepts that Genesis has elements of a historical narrative. 

3. Image of God

Another issue that this is tied up with is the image of God. A biblical theme is that we are created with God image and God’s image is passed from Adam to his progeny.

1 Cor. 11:6-12

 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

We also looked at Gen. 5:1-5 and noticed that the image of God is passed from Adam to his wife and then to his progeny. The very idea that women possess the image of God is based on the fact that Eve received it from Adam. This argument tied in with the genealogy argument is much stronger. If humans existed prior to Adam, then it is difficult to see the biblical warrant is that those individuals were moral beings. Take capital punishment:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

The very reason someone is to be put to death is that they bear God’s image. They have moral standing because they possess the Divine image. That is what Adam passes to his progeny. How do these individuals outside the line of Adam possess the image of God? The person that rejects Adam’s priority as the first human being needs to make an ad hoc move by positing another unspoken about creation events where God passed his image to other humans. This also makes the Pauline appeal to Adam and Eve as unnecessary. If God just created various humans(or if they gradually evolved) with the image of God apart from Adam and Eve, then why is the fact that Adam passed his image to Eve and his children significant? 

4. Archetypal

A biblical theme is the theme of restoration. The Bible teaches that God will reverse the effects of the fall and return us to a state like the Eden. The notion behind such a doctrine seems to be that God’s original creation was good and thus God is returning us to something like that state(Phil. 3:20-21, Rom. 8:28-30, 2 Cor. 3:18). The theme in 1 Cor. 15 is that Christ did what we could not(including Adam). Christ is the last Adam in the sense that he did what the first couldn’t do.

Ecclesiastes 7:29

“Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.”

I take this verse to be also referring to man’s initial creation. I’m not alone on that notion. As one commentator states:

The word Only that begins the verse heightens the importance of the concluding discovery. This is because it is the principle that lies behind the previous points he has made. Why is woman more bitter than death (v. 26)? Why could he not find a woman and only a single man out of a thousand (v. 28)? The answer in the present verse is that, though God made the human race upright, they have all gone astray. The verse is an obvious reflection on the first few chapters of Genesis,142 though the vocabulary is different. For instance, as God completed his acts of creation, including the creation of humanity, he pronounced the results “very good”; there were no problems with the work of his hands. This, I would argue, relates to Qohelet’s statement that humanity was created “upright,” and the connection with the creation lends strong support to the usual understanding that upright here is a moral and not an intellectual characteristic.143 However, while God created humanity without moral blemish, men and women sought out many devices (bigsu hissebonot rabbim). We hear in this phrase verbal echoes that remind us of Genesis 6:5: “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” The italicized word is related to the word translated devices here in Ecclesiastes in that both are words formed from the verbal root hsb (“to think, to calculate”). The form of the word in Ecclesiastes does present some difficulties, however. It is a plural form of the word that appears twice in this context (vv. 25 and 27), but not with the same meaning that those contexts demand, “sum of things.” Here there is an obvious contrast with upright, which determines the morally negative tone of the word. This is confirmed by the versions (see Septuagint logismous pollous “many arguments,” and Vulgate infinitis quaestionibus “infinite questionings”). Otherwise, it appears that these contexts (further including 2 Chron. 26:15) have in common only the verbal root “to think, calculate.”

Tremper Longman. The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 3825-3840). Kindle Edition.

If the pre-adamite race of humans suffered death and committed sins, then it is hard to see how they are created initially upright. In an evolutionary timeline, humans would be murdering and raping each other prior to Adam in the garden. The theme of restoration seems to presuppose that Adam was originally good and was the original man. 

Another example of this Archetype nature that Adam and Eve have is in reference to marriage. Paul’s case in Romans 1 makes allusions to it as being God’s original creation and design(contra the homosexual Christian movement). Jesus grounds his notion of proper sexual relations in the Genesis account:

Mark 10:6-12

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:4

Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said,‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus grounds his understanding of marriage in Adam and Eve. But it is hardly realistic to think humans prior to Adam and Eve was fine to be sexually immoral. The point is that marriage is grounded in God’s design plan that started with Adam and Eve. 

5. Original Sin

This takes us back to Genesis for a moment. When Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from Eden they were not allowed to return. Why was this the case? We have no reason to speculate about the question because the text(Gen. 3) gives an answer:

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Adam and Eve are sent out of the garden to suffer the consequences they brought on themselves and their descendants. Another reason the text emphasizes the fact that Adam was created from the dust of the earth and so that is where he will return(vs. 17-19). This is again teaching that physical death of mankind is a ramification of the fall. This now takes us to the most important text regarding Original Sin. Romans 5:12-19:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

1 Cor. 15:20-23

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

I agree with Pauline scholar Dr. Thomas Schreiner on the teaching of Rom. 5:12-19:

The interpretation of 5: 12 plunges us into a thicket of difficulties, but the first part of the verse is clear, setting the stage for all that follows. Paul asserts that sin entered the world through one man (cf. 1 Cor. 15: 21– 22), and he clearly refers to Adam’s sin in the garden (Gen. 3: 6). The word κόσμον (kosmon, world) focuses on humanity here instead of the natural world (Schnabel 2015: 553). Death (θάνατος, thanatos) is not perceived as a natural result of living in the world. Instead, it became a reality “through sin” (διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, dia tēs hamartias). Adam died when he sinned, for upon sinning, he was immediately separated from God. Adam’s hiding from God and his expulsion from the garden signal his spiritual separation from God. Some scholars have restricted death here to physical death (Sanday and Headlam 1902: 132– 33; Murray 1959: 181– 82; Ziesler 1989: 145), but such a limitation should be rejected, for the context clarifies that death is both spiritual and physical (cf. Beker 1980:1959: 181– 82; Ziesler 1989: 145), but such a limitation should be rejected, for the context clarifies that death is both spiritual and physical (cf. Beker 1980: 224; Lohse 2003: 174). 5 The death introduced by Adam is conjoined with “condemnation” (vv. 16, 18), and it is also contrasted with “eternal life” (v. 21). Thus it can hardly be restricted to physical death. 6 Physical death and spiritual death can’t ultimately be separated, since the former is the culmination and outworking of the latter.

Schreiner, Thomas R.. Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (pp. 526-527). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

6. Descendants 

Acts 17:26

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

 In ancient times people didn’t think they had a common origin. They often would associate groups as descending from other deities. Humans shared no common source of origins. Paul polemically challenges that notion by referring back to Genesis:

Contrary to the Athenians’ boast that they had originated from the soil of their Attic homeland and therefore were not like other men, Paul affirms the oneness of all people in their creation by one God and their descent from a common ancestor. And contrary to the primitive “deism” that permeated the philosophies of the day, he proclaimed that this God has determined specific times (prostetagmenous kairous) for humanity and “the exact places where they should live” (tas horothesias tēs katoikias, lit., “the boundaries of their habitation”), so that men and women “would seek him  … and find him” (v. 27).

Longenecker, Richard N.. Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 10387-10391). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

The reference to Adam is intended to show that all people have their roots in the Creator God. Indeed, humanity is to seek God.[5] Johnson (1992: 315–16) notes a similar argument in Philo, Spec. Laws 1.6–7 §§32–40, especially 1.7 §36: “Nothing is better than to seek the true God.” This affirmation would be hard for the Athenians, who prided themselves in being a superior people, calling others barbarians.

Bock, Darrell L.. Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Kindle Locations 12429-12432). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


Why I’m not Eastern Orthodox

Eastern Orthodoxy is a non-existent issue in the western world. It has a few pockets in this section of the world. It is mainly popular amongst people on the internet with “True-Church” Syndrome. This isn’t a complete list of reasons why I’m not Eastern Orthodox but a few reasons why I reject it. I’m not an expert on Eastern Orthodoxy but I have interacted with some of them.

1. The Gospel:

Many EOs deny that we are justified by faith in the way Protestants teach. They often maintain similar views about soteriology to Roman Catholics. That baptism infuses God’s grace into individuals and that other acts like the sacraments. They think grace is a substance and not in reference to Divine favor.

2. Metaphysics:

In Eastern Orthodoxy, there is something called the Essence-Energy distinction. This is how they explain the immanence of God. God’s essence is transcendent but his uncreated energies are imminent and that is why we can speak about theophanies as if God is there in his essence. It arose in the background of the debate about Hesychasm. This distinction is to explain how we have experiential knowledge of God. The historical analogy that is used is the sun and the rays of the sun. There are two objections to this idea. The first being that it makes God unknowable:

Orthodox says that “The [essence/energy] distinction allows us to experience God, really and truly,” but this is an assertion which is contradicted by the distinction itself.
Either the energies are identical with the essence or distinct from the essence. If identical, then in what sense is there a distinction? If identical, then what’s the function of the distinction?
But if the energies are not identical with the essence, then what we experience is not what God is really and truly like, but something else. And we’re in no position to compare the energies with the essence to judge the degree of correspondence.

The article also quotes Robert Letham mentioning the quaternity objection to the doctrine:

“The questions to be addressed to these developments are whether, firstly, a yawning chasm has not been opened between the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity, and secondly whether there is not a tendency towards a quaternity—the unknowable divine essence plus the three revealed persons. Along these lines, Fairbairn suggests that the distinction tends to create ‘a crisis of confidence in God’s character. If we insist that we can know nothing of God’s inner life…then can we really be confident that God’s outer life is consistent with his inner life” R. Letham, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective (Mentor 2007), 234.

Some Eastern Orthodox folk hold to a form of panentheism(or Neoplatonism). That seems to result in pantheism and other issues regarding ethics:

I’ve objected to Catholicism about Eternal Generation. The issue is worse on Eastern Orthodox thought. While they maintain the creeds original teaching they ascertain more issues. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Father is the fons deitas(Fountain of Deity). The persons are generated by the Father causing the other persons of the Trinity to possess the divine essence. The paradigm is that the Father is unoriginate and underived. The Son and Spirit are derived and originate.

The issue with the Eastern Orthodox view of eternal generation is that it fails to solve the issue it was invented to solve. It is supposed to distinguish between the person of the Godhead. The issue is that it only distinguishes the Father from the Son and Spirit. The underived from the derived. The unoriginate from the originate. The issue is that it leaves the Son indistinguishable from the Holy Spirit.

It also provides an exegetical issue for them. They argue that since the Son was sent by the Father that means the Son must have been eternally generated by the Son(John 3:34-35; 6:38;17:1-5;20:21,1 John 4:14). The issue is that the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit(John 14-16). Why the double standard?

I’ve dealt with other issues with Eternal Generation elsewhere:

3. Epistemology:

The issues with the epistemology of EO is the same with RCC.

Some Orthodox apologist go as far to reject the historical-grammatical method. I’m not sure that that position is coherent.

4. Original Sin:

Eastern Orthodox reject the concept of Original Sin in favor of a view called Ancestral Sin. That being Adam and Eve were guilty of their own sins alone and that they passed to progeny death and the inclination to sin. They basically share the same view as Leighton Flowers:

Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia, the more familiar term for sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) “Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him,” writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became “diseased…through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a). It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.

This is just another occasion where Eastern Orthodox thought just abandons the Biblical witness concerning the events that occur in the garden. The result is that Eastern Orthodox have a false anthropology.

The Atonement:

Many Eastern Orthodox reject penal substitutionary atonement as a later doctrine made up by Anselm.

Black Hebrew Israelites

This will be some resources for those interested in the cult movement known as the “Black Hebrew Israelites”.

Joe Carter(The Gospel Coalition):

9 Things You Should Know About Black Hebrew Israelites


Blue-eyed Jesus


Black Hebrew Israelites

Exegetical Apologetics:

Black Hebrew Israelites Debunked

Response to IUIC’s “Critique”

Sam Shamoun Refutes “Black Israelites” on Salvation by Law

Vocab Malone:

Exposing the Black Hebrew Israelites

Dr. James White and Vocab discuss BHI issues

7 questions that BHI can’t answer about Deuteronomy 28

Deuteronomy 28 Irrefutable Interpretation

King James Version Bible & GOCC Hebrew Israelites

Dr. James White:

BHI and the Apocrypha

Full Debate with GoCC Elder Elder Rawchaa Shayar

Is Agnosticism Possible?

Jimmy Stephens shares his thoughts on the issue of whether someone can be an agnostic:

The agnostic is committed to the position that he does not know whether God exists. With respect to worldviews, the agnostic is pluralistic, believing that no worldview sufficiently answers whether God exists or not, at least none that he knows of, at least not yet. All the while, agnosticism presupposes the autonomy of humankind. The agnostic holds that he does not know whether God exists, that he does not have access to any worldview capable of answering the question, and that in the meantime, he is quite capable of reasoning, of analyzing worldviews, and adjudicating about facts whether they support God’s existence.

Quintessentially, the agnostic defense of autonomy is that there might be a worldview out there that explains the independence of reason from God. Somewhere across the buffet of worldviews sits that special sauce that proves man’s ability to reason without relying on God’s revelation, and the agnostic has caught a whiff of it. The problem is that this defense is self-defeating.

In principle, the argument is that because it is possible there is an explanation yet to be found or offered why autonomy is the case, agnosticism is warranted. It is then alleged that the Christian has the duty of disproving this possibility. Instead, the Christian replies in kind. It is possible there is an explanation yet to be found or offered why agnosticism is incoherent or otherwise impossible. Therefore, it is up to the agnostic to show otherwise and thus directly or indirectly defend autonomy.

Papal Poison

This is a collection of arguments against Sola Scriptura from Catholics. They really will be the same old arguments used by them but a collection of the refutations to them.

The place to start is with the issue of the definition of Sola Scriptura:

On the Meaning of Sola Scriptura

Does sola Scriptura mean sole authority?

1. Scripture is meant to be read in a community:

Reading Scripture in community

Communal reading

2. The papacy is needed for proper interpretation of the Bible and to reject it leads to “chaos”:

Clashing with Catholicism

If sola scriptura is the problem, is the magisterium the solution?

Imperspicuous objections to perspicuity

The perspicuity of Scripture

Is background information necessary?

Bryan’s stalled chess game

The “real” reason why sola Scriptura is untenable

“Scripture interprets Scripture” through the centuries

Dodo bird Catholicism

The a priori argument against sola Scriptura

When sola scriptura “fails”

3. Prooftext for Apostolic Succession and the Papacy:

Prooftexting apostolic succession

Catholic prooftexts

Matthew 16 and the Papacy

The Pillar of Truth

Hold to the traditions

4. Private Interpretation:

Private Interpretation

5. The Church gave us the Canon:

The Issue of Canon and Sola Scriptura

Peter Williams on the Canon

How To Argue For Sola Scriptura

The question of sola Scriptura

6. Sola Scriptura isn’t in the Bible:

Is sola scriptura in scripture?

Principles of sola Scriptura

Is sola Scriptura self-refuting?

Sola Scriptura and textual criticism

Sola Scriptura By Implication

7. Sola Scriptura is ad hoc:

Is sola scriptura ad hoc?

8. This contains most of the criticisms in two articles:

Ten objections to sola scriptura-1

Ten objections to sola scriptura-2

Presuppositionalism and TR Priority

I don’t know much about the debates in textual criticism but I know a small amount about Presuppositionalism. But I know that a group uses presuppositionalism to argue for TR priority. I think the position has issues that would possibly push it towards being Clarkianism and not Van Tilian. In TR priority thought is that God preserves his word by later and possibly throughout time giving us a document with no mistakes. This is to because it ties in with the doctrine of preservation. Now, TR priority folks don’t like that Textual Criticism done by a few folks are an inductive and abductive method to figure out what was originally written. They think this undermines the certainty of the Christian faith. The issue with that notion is that interpretation often requires both abductive and inductive methods to get to the original meanings of the Bible. Suppose they provided a complete manuscript of the Bible, call it X. Suppose we knew X was original but didn’t know the ancient languages that X was written in. That is because we know the Bible from a series of inductive and abductive inferences. Mixed in with deduction from understanding what was stated but we only know what the words mean through historical studies of other documents to figure out what the terms in their times meant. So, the TR priority proponent is set with a dilemma. He either grants induction is valid in figuring out the meaning of the Bible and grants its validity for other areas concerning the Christian faith(manuscripts) or he denies induction can be used for an ultimate standard and leaves himself unable to interpret the Bible. All interpretations of the Bible become merely probabilistic. Another option is to become Clarkian and maintain you know what the Bible means via intuition. But I doubt they wish to do that.

TAG is used in reference to saying God is necessary for preconditions of intelligibility. It isn’t against induction but rather grounds our ability to use inductive methods. It is difficult to say why the TR priority proponent finds an issue between the two.

The other issue has been that it seems a bit arbitrary to say that the TR is needed to ground rationality itself. Why suppose the NASB, ESV, ISV can’t ground rationality? In what way does the TR specifically do such? Why is their alternative superior to KJV onlyism?