by means of what they call reason is impossible. That being so, it is established that what is sound cannot be distinguished from what is unsound in what they call rational arguments by means of what they call reason. If this distinction cannot be made, one cannot believe or affirm what those arguments entail.

Since this is the very basis on which they hold that the texts must be reinterpreted, this constitutes a conclusive proof that the basis requiring such reinterpretation is false. Once the basis for reinterpretation is invalidated, the reinterpretation itself is invalidated, because, were it not for the conflict between reason and these texts, reinterpreting them would not, by common agreement, be invalid. Thus, their reinterpretation is established to be invalid.

This demonstrates two things: that such reinterpretation is forbidden, since it amounts to speaking without knowledge; and that it is false, in the sense that it does not correspond to the truth. For a speaker who utters words that have an apparent meaning and an underlying meaning contrary to that apparent meaning