On August 31, Sean Finnegan had a guest, Jerry Wierwille, on his podcast to discuss exegetical fallacies. Today, I’m going to examine this discussion. The fallacies discussed were the following:
Root Fallacy – Root word meaning = actual word meaning. This either shows up by taking compound words apart to get their meaning or looking at original meaning of simpler words. It’s a fallacy because language changes and this doesn’t factor in changes and context.
Time-Frame Fallacy – attaching meaning from different time period to a word. Usually this is to take a newer meaning and apply it to the word from an earlier time. This ignores changes and context in a way similar to the riot fallacy.
Misusing Parallels Fallacy – only considering evidences and parallel uses of a term or phrase that support a conclusion. Just because a word is the same in two places doesn’t mean the meaning parallels. Look for other reasons for parallel, such as same topic and multiple parallels in the same passage.
Single Meaning Fallacy – one meaning for all instances. Perhaps a word may have a technical meaning in some cases but this does not mean it has that meaning in all cases.
Word-Concept Fallacy – Knowing the meaning of a word = understanding the entire concept the word refers to. This can cause distinctions where none were intended two synonymous words are used.
Disjunctive Fallacy – of 2 choices proving 1 true proves other false, when it is possible both are true. Meanings may overlap and both be true.
Lexical Fallacy – totality transfer. All of the meanings of a word are intended in all instances. Unwarranted adoption of expanded meanings, or, by utilizing the expanded range, picking whichever meaning you like within the range, regardless of context.
At the end, Finnegan says that if you read widely, you get an idea of how people use words, so get better at interpretation. Applied to Scripture, he said to read widely in the Scriptures.
Now, I want to say at the outset that this podcast was a fairly straightforward examination of exegetical fallacies. Theological issues really didn’t enter into the discussion much, and when they did, I personally agreed with what was said. What I will do in this post is to share some examples of each of these fallacies as committed by Unitarians like Finnegan and Wierwille. Some definitely came to mind as I listened.
This fallacy didn’t bring anything to mind instantly because it’s usually based on the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew root and that is t my expertise. I didn’t have to go too far to find it, though.
Sean Finnegan released a paper called, “The Trinity Defined and Refuted“. Or rather, a couple papers and a talk on YouTube all by the same name. I’ll be referencing the one linked above. On page 12, while arguing against the externality of the Son, he makes reference to Psalm 2:7, which reads:
I will tell the decree; Yahweh said to me: “You are my son; today I have begotten you. Psalm 2:7
His exegesis is this:
There was a day when the Son was begotten. To be begotten means to become the child of someone else. The NIV brings this out nicely by translating it this way, “today I have become your Father.” Yet, the simple implication of this text is that yesterday, the day before the “today” mentioned, the Son did not exist, or he was not the Son of the Father. It is unthinkable to imagine someone existing before he was begotten (which is why the standard Trinitarian response is that the Son was begotten in eternity past). However, for me, the idea of an “eternal beginning” is impossible to grasp because the word “eternal” implies not having a beginning.
So, while he doesn’t get into the Hebrew, his argument is clear. “Begotten” means that before the “today” mentioned in the verse, the one who was “begotten” didn’t exist. Is this accurate understanding of the word? Well, it seems pretty straightforward that when Abraham “begat” Isaac, that it means he brought him into existence right? Look it up in a lexicon and you will surely find that meaning. It is the “root” meaning. But is that how the Psalmist is using the word?
Let’s look at a little more of the context of the Psalm.
“But as for me, I have set my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.”
I will tell the decree;
Yahweh said to me:
“You are my son;
today I have begotten you.
Ask from me and I will make /the/ nations your heritage,
and your possession /the/ ends of /the/ earth.
You will break them with an iron rod.
Like a potter’s vessel you will shatter them.” Psalm 2:6-9
So, is God claiming to have begotten, in the normal sense, the king of Israel? Of course not. Did the king, prior to this enthronement day, not exist, as Finnegan claims must be meant when this word is used? Again, of course not. The language of begetting is being used metaphorically in this passage of enthronement as king. It doesn’t change the meaning of the word itself, which is why you won’t find “enthronement” as a meaning in a lexicon, but, as both Finnegan and Wierwille say several times in the podcast, “context is king.” You can’t just look up a word in the lexicon and decide the meaning in a passage. This passage is then quoted in Hebrews and applied to Jesus, and when we see the context, it is Jesus enthronement in heaven after his resurrection that is in view by the language of begetting, which is not at all an argument against the Trinity.
For a good example of this fallacy, we’ll look at a YouTube video done by John Schoenheit, found at his “Biblical Unitarian” website. The video is about the Angel of Yahweh, or the Angel of the Lord. One of the most powerful Old Testament testimonies that points forward to a Trinitarian God is the Angel of Yahweh, who appears many times, and often with language either said of Him or by Him that equates Him with Yahweh Himself. This video by Schoenheit is designed to combat this argument. The first statement he makes in the video is this:
One of the angels that shows up in the Old Testament is the angel of the Lord
Putting it this way, it is clear that for Schoenheit, this is just a created angel. The video goes on to simply assume that this is just an angel like any other, except for a specific role it takes in certain passages. The fallacy comes in the fact that the Hebrew word malak, which is translated as “angel”, simply means messenger. In the Old Testament, it refers to role. It is not a word for a particular type of spiritual being. For example it is used of prophets in Isaiah 42:19 and the priests in Malachi 2:7. While it often refers to spiritual beings we might think of today as angels, interestingly, it is never used in the Old Testament to refer to “sons of God”, like in Job, or “princes” like in Daniel, even when speaking of Michael, “one of the chief princes.” It is later, when the New Testament is written, that the Greek term used to translate malak, angelos, has taken on a more specified meaning similar to how we would use it today, where Michael is now called “the archeangel”, and there is some indication that the word is now used to refer to any spiritual beings who aren’t God.
The fallacy lies in the fact that Schoenheit is importing the New Testament usage of “angel” into the Old Testament without considering the change over time in how the word was used.
Misusing Parallels Fallacy
A big example of this fallacy comes into play when discussing the main Greek word for worship in the New Testament, proskuneo. It is clear that Jesus is worshipped throughout the New Testament.
And when they came into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. And opening their treasure boxes, they offered him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh. – Matthew 2:11
So those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God!” – Matthew 14:33
And I heard every creature that is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and in the sea and everything in them saying, “To the one who is seated on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power forever and ever.” – Revelation 5:13
The worship taking place in each of these contexts would seem to be a blasphemous practice if he isn’t God. The idea that religious worship is reserved to only Yahweh is a theme throughout both Old and New Testaments.
“You shall fear Yahweh your God, and you shall serve him, and by his name you shall swear. You shall not go after other gods from the gods of the peoples who are all around you, for Yahweh your God is a jealous god in your midst, so that the anger of Yahweh your God would be kindled, and he would destroy you from the face of the earth. – Deuteronomy 6:13-15
Then Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan, for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’” – Matthew 4:10
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles. – Romans 1:22-23
And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices in the Lycaonian language, saying, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us!” And they began calling Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes, because he was the principal speaker. And the priest of the temple of Zeus that was just outside the city brought bulls and garlands to the gates and was wanting to offer sacrifice, along with the crowds. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard about it, they tore their clothing and rushed out into the crowd, shouting and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, proclaiming the good news that you should turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things that are in them— And although they said these things, only with difficulty did they dissuade the crowds from offering sacrifice to them. – Acts 14:11-15,18
The argument given by Unitarians is to draw a parallel between the obvious worship of Jesus and the bowing down before other people in authority that happens in the Bible (1 Chron. 29:20, Matt. 18:26). It is said that the fact that the same Greek word used shows that worship is a more broad idea than just a religious service to God. Because of this, it is said Jesus can easily be worshipped since people bow down before kings and such all the time.
So the times Jesus is bowed down to are paralleled with the times something similar happens with other people. This is basically the same argument whichever Unitarian you read or listen to. Basically the passages are cited that show the same word being used of human-to-human interaction, and the fact that a parallel can be drawn is taken to be enough to show that the parallel is intended by the author.
Now, legitimate parallels are going to happen in Scripture, so how do we know if we are seeing the fallacy of misusing parallels? As the podcast says, you look for other evidence that the parallel is intentional by the author, such as the passages in question addressing the same topic or multiple parallels in the same passage that firm up the links. Space doesn’t permit a full treatment of this argument here, as we are focused on the exegetical fallacy. Is this truly a misuse of parallel? Let’s look at two examples of how this subject is treated to see how it is handled by John Schoenheit and Anthony Buzzard.
The verses above reveal a pattern that has caused many Christians to misunderstand “worship.” When the Hebrew or Greek words for worship refer to men “worshipping” men, the translators use the English words “bow down.” However, when the act of worship is toward God or Jesus, then the translators use the English word “worship” in their Bibles. This way of translating understandably leads the English reader to believe that only God and Jesus are “worshipped.” How can a person reading the English Bible be expected to know that biblical “worship” is not just for God and Jesus when in his Bible the word “worship” is only used in reference to them? He cannot. Thus, although it is sad, it is understandable that people reading the English Bible conclude that Jesus must be God because Jesus is “worshipped.” – John Schoenheit Can We “Worship” Jesus Christ?
Both the Father and the Son are addressed in prayer and both are worshipped, Jesus as the Messiah and the Father as the one true God. The biblical word “worship” is an “elastic” term with a meaning different from our English word “worship.” David was “worshipped” alongside the One God (I Chron. 29:20) and the saints are going to be “worshipped” by their former persecutors (Rev. 3:9). The Hebrew and Greek words for “worship” apply both to God and to persons who are not the One God, but superior human agents of the One God. – Anthony Buzzard Who is the One God of the Bible?
These excerpts reflect two slightly different takes on the subject of worshipping Jesus. For Schoenheit, the above quote shows that he is lamenting the differentiation between how /proskuneo/ is translated when it is directed to kings and nobility versus when it is directed to God and Jesus. This lament characterizes the entire article. He never articulates any distinction or difference between worship of God and respect of nobility. Based on this article alone, one would have to say that he simply has no special category for worship of God at all. How we relate to God just is the same kind of deference given to those properly above us in rank.
Buzzard’s position is different. Jesus is worshipped “as Messiah” while the Father is worshipped “as God”. He, too, argues from the parallel he sees in how people now down to other people as informing how we see worship applied to Jesus, but does still think that there is a special kind of worship reserved for God.
Again, my goal here is not to go into these arguments in great detail, but to ask if they are guilty of a misuse of parallel. Of course, that question is going to be answered differently depending on one’s precommitment to one side or the other in the argument, but I would point out one thing about both of these articles. While Schoenheit does mention some instances where worship is deemed inappropriate, neither article mentions Jesus’ own statement that we should only worship God, or the passage from Deuteronomy that he cited (also cited above). This is surprising if the goal is to understand what all of Scripture has to say on the topic, but not if a parallel is being argued for that wasn’t really intended in the Scriptures. Whatever Jesus is talking about, it is something reserved for God only. The question then is not whether Jesus receives worship at all, but whether we see Him receiving the highest form of worship only reserved for God. To answer that question, look again at Revelation 5:13 at what “every creature” is saying, of Him who sits on the throne, and the Lamb, Jesus.
Single Meaning Fallacy
The argument I picked for this fallacy is again put forward by John Schoenheit, but is very common among many Unitarians. On his website, in an article titled, 47 Reasons Why our Heavenly Father Has No Equals, or “Co-equals”, Schoenheit makes this argument regarding Jesus being called “Lord”:
It was God who made Jesus “Lord.” Acts 2:36 says: “God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ.” “Lord” is not the same as “God.” “Lord” (the Greek word is kurios) is a masculine title of respect and nobility, and it is used many times in the Bible. If Christ were God, then by definition he was already “Lord,” so for the Bible to say he was “made” Lord could not be true. To say that Jesus is God because the Bible calls him “Lord” is very poor scholarship. “Lord” is used in many ways in the Bible, and others beside God and Jesus are called “Lord.”
Of course, there really is no argument here about the meaning of kurios. Schoenheit follows this quote with some examples where the Greek term is used of masters and owners, etc. who are in positions of authority. The argument is that this is all it means when Jesus is called “Lord” in the New Testament. This is a single-meaning fallacy because it insists that this meaning is the only meaning the word ever has with regard to Jesus.
The Trinitarian notes that the word has another meaning, or more properly, another referent. You see, in addition to the exegetical fallacy we’re discussing here, this argument also commits the meaning-referent fallacy. This is when an argument confuses the meaning or definition of a word with what the word refers to. Schoenheit made the same mistake in one of his videos on John 1:1 about logos. He showed that there is no lexical definition of logos that includes “Jesus Christ”. Of course there isn’t. As I said in my response, the Greek word for “door” doesn’t mean “Jesus” either, but Jesus still said, “I am the door.” The lexical meanings of a word do not exhaust how the word is used in language.
The same is true here of kurios. Of course it means just what Schoenheit says, but what or who does it refer to? How is it actually used in the New Testament? It isn’t just this one way. Another way it was used prior to the coming of Jesus was as a stand-in for the name of God, Yahweh. Throughout the Old Testament, as translated into Greek in the septuagint, it is the consistent word used to translate God’s name. Interestingly, the meanings are actually quite different. “Yahweh” speaks of God’s existence, not His rulership. Nevertheless, it is the word used in place of the personal name of God.
And so when, in the New Testament, we see, not only the word kurios, but see it in a quote of an Old Testament passage about Yahweh, we know that it is not just being used to say “master” or “ruler”. Unitarians have no trouble with seeing /kurios/ this way in Mark 12:29-30 when Jesus is discussing the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-5 with the scribe.
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength.’ Mark 12:29-30
Here, each instance of “Lord” is kurios in the Greek, but is quoting Deuteronomy where it is Yahweh. No one claims that Jesus is here changing the “meaning” of Yahweh to the common definition of “lord” as expressed in kurios. Everyone agrees that Jesus is using the term as the Septuagint does, to refer to Yahweh.
However, the Unitarian fails to be consistent in his interpretation when other clear quotes of Old Testament passages about Yahweh apply the Name of God to Jesus, such as in the following.
“He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” – John 1:23
A voice is calling in the wilderness, “Clear the way of Yahweh! Make a highway smooth in the desert for our God! – Isaiah 40:3
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:10-11
I️ have sworn by myself; a word that shall not return has gone forth from my mouth in righteousness: ‘Every knee shall kneel down to me; every tongue shall swear.’ ‘Only in Yahweh,’ one shall say to me, ‘ are righteousness and strength.’ He shall come to him, and all those who were angry with him shall be ashamed. – Isaiah 45:23-24
This is what shows that Unitarian theology cannot be consistent with itself. When it approaches Scripture, it cannot apply a consistent method of interpretation. They believe /kurios/ stands in for Yahweh when an obvious Old Testament quote is not being applied to Jesus, but when it is, they have to change interpretive methods and introduce all sorts of concepts like representative deity or the Messiah having the name of God symbolically. None of these concepts is to be found in any of the texts, like the ones above, where this happens. This inconsistency shows that it is maintaining Unitarianism, not fidelity to the Scriptures, that drives interpretation.
Word – Concept Fallacy
The way this was described in the podcast, that the fallacy consisted of failing to realize that a concept could be found in the text even if a particular word wasn’t present, was astonishing to say the least. For two men to say that you don’t need a word there to have the concept there, who come from a tradition that almost always starts any presentation about the Trinity with the statement that the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, is truly amazing.
Virtually all of the arguments Unitarians use concerning what they see as missing evidence for the Trinity in Scripture are guilty of this fallacy. You see this most clearly when they attack explanations of the Trinity that use more philosophically precise language than that found in Scripture.
For an example, let’s look again at Sean Finnegan’s paper, cited earlier, now looking at pp. 13–14, but especially this section:
In either case, the closest the Scripture does come to talking about the shared substance of Father and Son is found in the introduction of Hebrews.
Hebrews 1.1-3 1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
The key phrase to focus on is “the exact representation of his [God’s] nature.” The Trinitarian asserts that since the word translated as “nature” means “essence” or “being,” this text is proof that the Son shares the exact same essence as the Father. It is certainly understandable, presupposing the doctrine of the Trinity, that one could see this verse as supportive. But, did the writer of Hebrews have the homoousios concept in mind when this was originally written? I think that it is more likely that the writer of Hebrews was expressing in different words what had been said several times in the Scriptures—that Jesus was God’s representative.
This is followed by his argument for what is happening in Hebrews 1. Again, this post won’t be going into that, but rather the first sentence in this quote. Finnegan argues that the “closest Scripture comes” to talking about the concept of the Father and Son sharing the same nature is in this text. Now, it’s understandable when someone who comes from a non-Trinitarian tradition is looking at creeds and trying to match them up to Scripture, that they would look for the same words. I would have done the same thing when I held to the theology Finnegan does. But to do so is to commit the fallacy of confusing word and concept.
Trinitarians who talk about the Father and Son sharing a “nature” or “essence” aren’t saying that Scripture usually puts it this way. The reason they say this is that Scripture repeatedly describes Jesus, either specifically as God or in ways wholly inappropriate for any created being. Since there is only one Yahweh God, and hence Jesus cannot be a second God beside the Father, the only way to be faithful to everything Scripture says is to say that, while they are distinct in some way, they must be the same God. Saying they share the same nature or essence is just to use different words to communicate the same concept.
Because Finnegan is focused on the word and not the concept, he misidentifies the “key phrase” in the passage he quotes. There are actually several “key” phrases:
1. through whom also He made the world.
2. He is the radiance of His glory
3. the exact representation of His nature
4. upholds all things by the word of His power
#1 and #4 simply cannot apply to any created thing. And the only uncreated thing is God. #2 and #3 differentiate the Son from the Father, but only work if the Son has the same nature as the Father. Again, space does not permit a deep dive into all the specifics here, but the fact that there is much more to say within this short quote should give enough evidence that Finnegan is focused on a word and not addressing the whole concept of the Deity of the Son and why Trinitarians hold to it and how it fits in to the overall doctrine of the Trinity.
This one is perhaps the easiest to come up with multiple examples for. Probably in the top three arguments for just about any Unitarian against the Trinity is to challenge the Deity of Jesus on the basis that He is human and displays human characteristics, while God is not human and displays the characteristics of Deity. The passages are easy to find that affirm the humanity of Christ and then all you have to do is show that is different from how God is described and you’ve got an open-and-shut case, right?
Jesus was born, but God is eternal. Jesus grew in strength and wisdom, but God is all powerful and all knowing. Jesus obeyed God, but Hod is the source of all authority and obeys no one. Jesus worshipped God but God is the one worshipped. Jesus was seen but God is invisible. Jesus died but God is immortal. Any of these just prove Jesus can’t be God, right?
Here is where we find the disjunctive fallacy at work. Not all either-or situations are such that if one of the disjuncts is true, the other must be false. If you took a class in logic, this is something you would learn on the first day. A disjunctive, or either-or, statement is true if one of the disjuncts is true. But it is also true if both disjuncts are true. Consider the statement:
* Either it will rain today or it will be rain mixed with snow.
This is an easy example to see that it is certainly possible that both parts of a disjunctive statement can be true. The issue is whether there is some reason to believe the additional statement that, in the case at hand, if one half is true, the other must be false.
In the case of Jesus, the Unitarian says that either Jesus is human or Jesus is God AND it is not the case that He is both. The Trinitarian affirms that He is both God and man, and so of course affirms every Scripture put forward by the Unitarian about His humanity, but rejects that this entails He cannot be God as well. Unitarians, of course, will give various reasons why He can’t be both, and this would be interesting to discuss, but we won’t be going over those here, partly be cause we are looking at the fallacy, but mostly because it is actually pretty rare to have a Unitarian give a reason why their text about Jesus’ humanity proves He isn’t God, other than, “well, if he’s human he isn’t God.” if that’s the depth of the argument, then it is an example of the disjunctive fallacy. Let’s look at a representative example to show what I mean.
After giving a similar list to the one I wrote above, Sean Finnegan writes this in the paper we have quoted already to argue against the two natures of Jesus:
This short list makes the point that although there are some areas where compatibility exists, there are also several characteristics that contradict. It would appear that either the deity of Christ must be diminished by his humanity or his humanity must be elevated by his deity. Still, if he is diminished or elevated, he is no longer fully either, much like the milk and water analogy. Yet, both of these ideas have been historically repudiated by Trinitarians. A portion of God and Man can fit in the same person, but not all of both at the same time—it is simply impossible. emphasis mineHere, we have a good example of what you will find again and again in Unitarian argumentation. After showing that indeed human nature and divine nature are different, he then goes on to simply assert, as if describing those differences is enough, that it is a contradiction and it cannot be that Jesus is both God and man. Notice, though, that the contradiction in Trinitarian thought was not explicitly stated. It almost never is. And I say almost only because I haven’t read everything ever written on the subject. In my reading, I have never come accross a Unitarian employing this argument that didn’t just assume that two natures in one person is impossible without offering any argument.
Technically, the differences listed only.prove that human nature itself cannot be divine nature. They say nothing of whether a person could have both. Sure, at our human level it seems reasonable to say that we could not take on the nature of something else, but we aren’t talking about a human doing anything of the sort. We’re talking about the infinite and infinitely powerful God adding a fully human nature to Himself in order to become a man. To say he cannot do that is to claim knowledge either of the limits of His nature or the limits of His power that we simply do not possess.
And since Unitarians who use this argument think it proves that if Jesus is man, He cannot be God, we have a clear disjunctive fallacy in play every time.
And we come to the final fallacy discussed in the podcast. Wierwille gave two versions to consider. One where an attempt is made to apply all of the possible meanings into a single text, or the other, where all of the possible meanings are consulted, and the one picked is based on what the interpreter wants, instead of being based on the context.
Of this second type, a great example is the one we have in the case of Anthony Buzzard in his argument from Jesus’ affirmation of the Shema in Mark 12 to the conclusion that Jesus was a Unitarian. The following was taken from a 2v2 debate he did against James White and Michael Brown. First, from his opening statement:
What did Jesus believe about God? And I think it’s quite simple. He recited the Shema of Israel which says that God is one Lord, single Lord…He agreed with the Jewish expert…that the Lord our God is one Lord /kurios eis/, one, single Lord. That should be the end of it.
He says in another video, discussing echad as found in the Shema:
One God means one person.
He says repeatedly that it is a mathematical term and that it just means numerical “one”. In Strong’s the range of translations include: one, first, the same, unique, and alone. There is no question that the word has a range that is wider than Buzzard so often insists. From the context of Deuteronomy 6, there is very good reason to think that the best translation of verse four is either “alone” or “unique”. But that is discussion for another post.
Not that it does him much good to be so particular on this point. Even if echad were limited to just the numerical “one”, it really doesn’t get all the way to Unitarianism. Buzzard talks about one nose, one horse, one family, but how does that make a case for a Unitarian God? Numerical one doesn’t mean there aren’t others. One horse, but there can be other horses. If this passage is saying Yahweh is “one”, even one God, that says nothing of the persons. Buzzard just has to assert that, without any supporting argument. Check the video. The statement that one God means one person is buried in a bunch of other statements that do not support that statement. He’s just stating Unitarianism’s central tenet with no support at all, as if he’s shown it to be true when he hasn’t.
But I get off the topic again. The truth is any concordance or lexicon proves he is committing the lexical fallacy here. As related as they may be, “one” and “unique” simply do not mean the same thing. Echad has a wider range than Buzzard will allow.
So there you have some examples of exegetically fallacious reasoning from those teaching on fallacies. Of course, none of us is perfect and we can all get taken in by these fallacies. The question is, when they are carefully pointed out and shown, will the heart be soft enough to admit the fallacy and abandon the argument?