Gnosticism and the point in time fallacy

Got it! This site "creationpie.com" uses cookies. You consent to this by clicking on "Got it!" or by continuing to use this website. Note: This appears on each machine/browser from which this site is accessed.

A "pit" as a hole in the ground. It could be a "well" with or without water. It could be "bottomless" as in an "abyss".

Genesis 37:24 And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. [kjv]

και λαβοντες αυτον ερριψαν εις τον λακκον ο δε λακκος κενος υδωρ ουκ ειχεν [lxx]

Daniel 6:19 Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions. [kjv]

τοτε ο βασιλευς ανεστη το πρωι εν τω φωτι και εν σπουδη ηλθεν επι τον λακκον των λεοντων [lxx]

Well, a well is a pit. There are many Greek words for a pit or a well.

It can be a source of water.
It can be dry, perhaps having been a source of water.

The ancient Greek word "λάκκος" ≈ "pond, cistern, pit" and is related to the English words "lake" and "loch" as in the Loch Ness Monster. This is the pit into which Joseph and Daniel were thrown. The modern Greek word "λάκκος" (LAK-kos) ≈ "pit".

More: Tartarus and the bottomless pit

PIT (Point In Time) fallacy: Any theological idea, theory, etc., that comes into being at a certain point in time and, by implication, leaves everyone who existed prior to that point in time "out of luck" is not to be believed without careful analysis and thought.
The term Gnosticism comes from the ancient Greek word "γνωστικός" ≈ "knowledge" which is related to the English word "knowledge". The idea of Gnosticism is that one needs special knowledge to be saved, etc., of which the Gnostic has that knowledge and others do not.

Justin Martyr had a good response to Gnosticism such that the PIT fallacy is a form of Gnosticism.

Details are left as a future topic.

More: Ignorance of agnostic lack of belief

In Christian historical terms, the name "gnostic" is used to refer to someone who claims to have "special" knowledge that one needs to be a Christian.

The word "gnostic" means someone who has special knowledge.
The word "agnostic" means to not know.

The gnostic ideas were not prevalent until later. Think about it. It is hard to claim that one needs special knowledge about Jesus when there were eye witnesses still alive. One would not get very far.

What was prevalent at this time were those who would claim that extra work was needed.

Paul does not appear to be addressing "gnostics" in chapter 3 of Philippians. It is hard to start a "gnostic" movement when eyewitnesses are still alive. Any "gnostic" (false) beliefs were addressed to the leadership in chapters 1 and 2.

More: Philippians 3:1-4 shifting gears to work the others

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. [kjv]

εν τουτω γνωσονται παντες οτι εμοι μαθηται εστε εαν αγαπην εχητε εν αλληλοις [gnt]

… cognoscent … dilectionem … [v]

The ancient Greek word "γνῶσις" ≈ "inquiry, knowledge" and is related to the English word "knowledge" where the "gn" and "kn" are linguistically related. By the end of the first century, this Greek word became associated with those who claimed a "special knowledge" of Jesus, God, etc.

Greek: gno-sis
English: know

The Latin word "dilectio" ≈ "love" and is the source of the Latin word "delicatus" ≈ "alluring, charming" as in the English word "delicacy".

To "know" is not to be "ignorant".

More: Philippians 3:1-4 shifting gears to work the others

The modern Greek word "γνώσις" (GHNO-sees) ≈ "knowledge" which is related to the English word "knowledge". Historically, a "gnostic" is someone who believes they have "special knowledge".

The modern Greek word "άγνωστος" (A-gno-stos) ≈ "unknown" as in "not known" from which we get the English word "agnostic".

More: Ignorance of agnostic lack of belief

More: A prefix alpha to negate

James 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. [kjv]

νυν δε καυχασθε εν ταις αλαζονειαις υμων πασα καυχησις τοιαυτη πονηρα εστιν [gnt]

The ancient Greek word "ἀλαζονεία" ≈ "pretense to superior knowledge or skill". This definition appears to be along the lines of what would later be called a "Gnostic". It appears to be similar to the English term "know it all".
The KJV (King James Version) usually translates this word as "boast" even though ancient Greek had a more common word for "boast", used 57 times in the GNT (Greek New Testament).

"καυχάομαι" ≈ "boast".
"καύχημα" ≈ "boast".
"καύχησις" ≈ "boast".

This word appears to be onomatopoeic in that it sounds like what it describes. Interestingly, Jesus does not use either word in the Gospels nor in Revelation.

More: Word sounds like onomatopoeia

More: A pretender to superior knowledge

PIT fallacy: Any theological idea, theory, etc., that comes into being at a certain point in time and, by implication, leaves everyone who existed prior to that point in time "out of luck" is not to be believed without careful analysis and thought.
Does believing something make it true?

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [kjv]

Discuss: When Jesus makes this statement to Pilate, is it restricted to a PIT?

More: John: The reason for the season

Here are some examples.

Suppose that a particular Bible translation is advocated by a group as the one and only inspired word of God. Does that mean that everyone in prior times was "out of luck"?
Suppose a particular viewpoint is adopted for part of the Bible. Does that mean that everyone in prior times was "out of luck"?

Aristotle, Eratosthenes, etc., talk about the earth being round, providing various levels of evidence and/or proofs. If one decides, for example, that the Bible says that the earth is flat, does everyone before who did not believe this "out of luck"?

Any group that has or requires beliefs that only started to exist at a point in time after the time of Jesus is a candidate for the PIT fallacy.

There are some examples of the PIT fallacy.

... more to be added ...

The King James Only movement or Onlyism claims that the KJV translation of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible into English.

Some claim that it is the only inspired translation and is superior to the original (as much as possible) Greek manuscripts. The KJV is based on the TR (Textus Receptus) which has a number of issues in that it appear to have been modified and not always consistent with the original Greek manuscripts.

The original 1611 KJV was in middle English and not readable by most people today.

The apologist James White has summarized these segments of the KJV only movement. See Wikipedia for more information.

I like the KJV best. This is a personal (opinion truth) preference.
The Hebrew and Greek texts used in the KJV are more reliable. This is questionable at a number of levels.
The Textus Receptus or Received Text is superior for NT translations. This is questionable at a number of levels.
The KJV is divinely inspired. This is in line with the PIT fallacy as a form of Gnosticism.
The KJV is a new or advanced revelation. This, again, is in line with the PIT fallacy as a form of Gnosticism.