Jeremiah 16:21

[dadof10]

What makes you so sure that it's the JWs with a bias against "any verse that alludes to the trinity" as opposed to trinitarian denominations that have a bias against any verse that could possibly be construed as trinitarian (and any verse directly opposing the trinity)?

I don't read Greek or Hebrew, so I believe the scholars who do. I can check out the credentials of the people who translate the NIV, RSV, KJV, etc. and find out where they went to school, the extent of their education, their experience, who they have worked with in the past, etc. NONE of the scholars WHO'S NAMES ARE PRINTED ON THE FRONT FLAP OF THE BIBLES THEY TRANSLATE agree with the (last I heard) ANONYMOUS "translators" of the NWT. Do you know their names? If not, why do you trust ONLY them and not others who are willing to put their reputation on the line?

Catholics, Orthodox, Baptist, Calvinist, etc ALL disagree on points of doctrine taken from Scripture, yet EVERY ONE of their Scripture scholars knows the NWT is a convoluted translation.

For example, Jesus telling the Jews "Amen amen, lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi" ... the simple, contextually sound translation is a statement that Jesus pre-existed Abraham. Yet trinitarians see Jesus use "Ego Eimi" and say "that can be translated 'I am... therefore let's put it in all caps to insinuate that Jesus is using the same phrase his Father used when speaking through the burning bush (Ehyeh asher ehyeh)... and since Jesus is saying something (many other people have said) that can be translated to the same english phrase as the completely different phrase God said, we can use it to support the trinity!

"...prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi" is translated EXACTLY "...before Abraham was, I am." I don't understand why you ignore the plain words of scripture.

... yet, trinitarians can "conveniently overlook" simple verses such as John 17:3, where Jesus prays to God "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (notice Jesus calling the Father alone the "only true God" and specifying himself as the one God sent forth, not God)

You need to study the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and Jesus' two natures. We are not "overlooking" this verse, simply explaining it in light of the rest of Scripture.

The DEFINITION of "overlooking Scripture" is when JWs don't even ATTEMPT an explanation of John 20:28 "...mou kyrios kai mou theos". Only one way to translate that, "...my lord and my GOD." Would you like to give it a try? Maybe you could twist "mou" to mean "a". Your "translators" did something similar in John 1.

... I agree, -someone's- doing some "creative interpretation."

There are many instances of "creative interpretation" within Christianity, but not too many of creative translation, which is what we are discussing, and is the hallmark of the "translators" of the NWT.

 

[dadof10]

Every denomination I know of, uses the scriptures in such a way as to support their own view on certain subject matters. This is why Baptists and Methodist do not worship in the same building on the same day . Some of the differences are minor, but none the less, they all claim that their understanding comes from reading the bible. Baptism and the man made communion service is a great example of manipulating the reading of scripture to justifiy their acts of worship. And some denominations allow women to be pastors and still claim that they found their justification from the bible for allowing women to be pastors.

You can not show me one denomination that does not manipulate the scriptures for their own selfish and self righteous justification. This is why you are not rcc, or whatever denomination that does not follow your belief in the scriputres to the letter.

Again, he is not talking about INTERPRETATION, he is talking about TRANSLATION and the JW's mistranslation of the NWT. If he isn't, I am.

 

[Mysteryman]

Every denomination I know of, uses the scriptures in such a way as to support their own view on certain subject matters. This is why Baptists and Methodist do not worship in the same building on the same day . Some of the differences are minor, but none the less, they all claim that their understanding comes from reading the bible. Baptism and the man made communion service is a great example of manipulating the reading of scripture to justifiy their acts of worship. And some denominations allow women to be pastors and still claim that they found their justification from the bible for allowing women to be pastors.

You can not show me one denomination that does not manipulate the scriptures for their own selfish and self righteous justification. This is why you are not rcc, or whatever denomination that does not follow your belief in the scriputres to the letter.

Again, he is not talking about INTERPRETATION, he is talking about TRANSLATION and the JW's mistranslation of the NWT. If he isn't, I am.

Hi dadof10

It always boils down to the interpretation !

 

[Mohrb]

Quick response because I have to leave for work in 10 minutes, but I do want to touch on this one thing:

I don't read Greek or Hebrew, so I believe the scholars who do. I can check out the credentials of the people who translate the NIV, RSV, KJV, etc. and find out where they went to school, the extent of their education, their experience, who they have worked with in the past, etc. NONE of the scholars WHO'S NAMES ARE PRINTED ON THE FRONT FLAP OF THE BIBLES THEY TRANSLATE agree with the (last I heard) ANONYMOUS "translators" of the NWT.

This is called an Ad Verecundiam fallacy. Do you believe in Evolution? What if you hear a scientist who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars going to a top notch school that teaches evolution? What if he has a Ph.D. in biology (specializing in a LOT of classes dealing with evolution? What if he's gone to many conferences with scientists from around the world who support evolution?

If you saw this expert say "Evolution is a fact because I say so, and I'm an expert" ... would you believe it because of his fancy white coat? Of course not. Now if he presented valid evidence that was repeatable, falsifiable, and supported a specific theory, you should listen to that. But, the point is, a statement is as valid as the evidence that supports the statement. Regardless of who says it.

There is no substitute for education. Yes, the NWT was translated by an anonymous committee. But "who" translated it is irrelevant. Anyone can do a bit of research, get a greek>english dictionary, look into the sentence structure a bit, and get a fairly good understanding about the proper translation. (Translation is -not- some science that takes a Ph.D. I was an exchange student at a high school in germany where you were -required- to be fluent in 3-4 languages just to graduate high school).

To compare the accuracy of a translation... compare the words that were translated. Not the "person who translated them." Doesn't take long. And, it's worth the time.

Do you know their names? If not, why do you trust ONLY them and not others who are willing to put their reputation on the line?

Of course we don't. JWs regularly compare many different translations. However, when there's a significant difference between how two translations are worded, we have a lot of research (Such as the "insight book") available that goes into the history of that subject, and why the NWT decided to translate it a certain way. That -reasoning- is why it's considered trustworthy. Not "well, the KJV's been around for centuries, so it must be correct, therefore anything that disagrees with it must be wrong.

(that's called argumentum ad antiquitatem, btw.)

... perfect timing, 10 minutes is up, off to go crawl around in an electronics bay all day.... again...

 

[dadof10]

It always boils down to the interpretation !

True, if the verses say the same thing. Take these two translations of John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

As is quite obvious, the first one leaves NO room for doubt that Jesus "was God", the second can easily be interpreted to say He was one of many lesser "gods".

Translation matters immensely, which is why we should be able to check the credentials of the translators, don't you think?

 

[dadof10]

Quick response because I have to leave for work in 10 minutes, but I do want to touch on this one thing:

I don't read Greek or Hebrew, so I believe the scholars who do. I can check out the credentials of the people who translate the NIV, RSV, KJV, etc. and find out where they went to school, the extent of their education, their experience, who they have worked with in the past, etc. NONE of the scholars WHO'S NAMES ARE PRINTED ON THE FRONT FLAP OF THE BIBLES THEY TRANSLATE agree with the (last I heard) ANONYMOUS "translators" of the NWT.

This is called an Ad Verecundiam fallacy.

No it isn't. You are mistaken.

I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.
A. Occasionally, this argument is called the "argument from prestige" and is based on the belief that prestigious people cannot be wrong. In these cases, the fallacy is best termed the "snob appeal" variety of the ad populum.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

If you are arguing financial topic, it would be an "ad Verecundiam" fallacy to appeal to the authority of a medical doctor or Biblical scholar. They both may be very learned in their respective fields, but not experts on financial matters.

Also, you'll notice the assumption that we actually KNOW WHO THE PERSON IS, and what "special field" he is in. Do we know these two facts about the translators of the NWT? Nope.

I'm the one appealing to the authorities WITHIN the field of Greek and Hebraic languages, can you say the same?

There is no substitute for education. Yes, the NWT was translated by an anonymous committee. But "who" translated it is irrelevant.

Seriously? Irrelevant? It's irrelevant if they actually know Greek or Hebrew? Irrelevant if they have access to the oldest and most accurate manuscripts? Do you want to rethink this?

Anyone can do a bit of research, get a greek>english dictionary, look into the sentence structure a bit, and get a fairly good understanding about the proper translation. (Translation is -not- some science that takes a Ph.D. I was an exchange student at a high school in germany where you were -required- to be fluent in 3-4 languages just to graduate high school).

You are appealing to yourself with a Greek to English dictionary as an expert? Would this be an "Argumentum ad Verecundiam"? You are fluent in 3-4 languages, but are two of them the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew?

To compare the accuracy of a translation... compare the words that were translated. Not the "person who translated them." Doesn't take long. And, it's worth the time.

You might want to rethink this, also. I know you were in a hurry, so I'll wait on your response.

Do you know their names? If not, why do you trust ONLY them and not others who are willing to put their reputation on the line?

Of course we don't. JWs regularly compare many different translations.

Who does the comparing? Do you know their names?

However, when there's a significant difference between how two translations are worded, we have a lot of research (Such as the "insight book") available that goes into the history of that subject, and why the NWT decided to translate it a certain way.

Why don't you post the relevant parts of the "Insight Book" so I can research it and get back to you?

That -reasoning- is why it's considered trustworthy.

What reasoning? Could you be more specific?

Not "well, the KJV's been around for centuries, so it must be correct, therefore anything that disagrees with it must be wrong.

That's a straw man argument. I never made the appeal to longevity. I claimed that the translators were Greek and Hebrew scholars and we don't know who the JW translators were.. Please get back to this subject when you have more time. Also, I'll repost the following question.

The DEFINITION of "overlooking Scripture" is when JWs don't even ATTEMPT an explanation of John 20:28 "...mou kyrios kai mou theos". Only one way to translate that, "...my lord and my GOD." Would you like to give it a try?

 

[dadof10]

However, when there's a significant difference between how two translations are worded, we have a lot of research (Such as the "insight book") available that goes into the history of that subject, and why the NWT decided to translate it a certain way.

I did a search and couldn't find any info on the "insight book". Could you post the link, if it's available? Thanks.

 

[Mysteryman]

It always boils down to the interpretation !

True, if the verses say the same thing. Take these two translations of John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

As is quite obvious, the first one leaves NO room for doubt that Jesus "was God", the second can easily be interpreted to say He was one of many lesser "gods".

Translation matters immensely, which is why we should be able to check the credentials of the translators, don't you think?

Hi dadof10:

Here is what is obvious ----- Your explanation here, is not about translating, it is about interpretation.

What if Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, thus making him the spokesperson from God instead of God himself. How would you translate or interpret this verse in this case ?

 

[Mohrb]

True, if the verses say the same thing. Take these two translations of John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

As is quite obvious, the first one leaves NO room for doubt that Jesus "was God", the second can easily be interpreted to say He was one of many lesser "gods".

Translation matters immensely, which is why we should be able to check the credentials of the translators, don't you think?

Leaves no doubt... if you ignore all but the last few words of the sentence. One cannot be what one is "with." Saying "Joe is with Bob and Joe is Bob" is contradictory. ... IS Joe Bob (indicating they are the same person)? Or was Joe WITH Bob (indicating they're not the same person)? More to the point, the "and the word was God" "translation" is based off completely ignoring the difference between anarthrous nominative "theos" and accusative "ton theon"... BIT of a difference there.

 

[dadof10]

It always boils down to the interpretation !

True, if the verses say the same thing. Take these two translations of John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

As is quite obvious, the first one leaves NO room for doubt that Jesus "was God", the second can easily be interpreted to say He was one of many lesser "gods".

Translation matters immensely, which is why we should be able to check the credentials of the translators, don't you think?

Hi dadof10:

Here is what is obvious ----- Your explanation here, is not about translating, it is about interpretation.

It is absolutely about the TRANSLATION. If the verse is TRANSLATED as "...was God" it has a COMPLETELY different meaning than "...was A god".

What if Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, thus making him the spokesperson from God instead of God himself. How would you translate or interpret this verse in this case ?

The verse says nothing about Jesus being a "spokesperson", so I would not even use the word in relation to this verse. The question is, why would you? Why can't you take the verse as written and interpret it in that light?

AGAIN, don't you think the translators CREDENTIALS should be subject to scrutiny, especially if there is a controversy, as in John 1? Why do you find it acceptable that the JW church keeps the names of the translators of the NWT secret?

 

[dadof10]

True, if the verses say the same thing. Take these two translations of John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

As is quite obvious, the first one leaves NO room for doubt that Jesus "was God", the second can easily be interpreted to say He was one of many lesser "gods".

Translation matters immensely, which is why we should be able to check the credentials of the translators, don't you think?

Leaves no doubt... if you ignore all but the last few words of the sentence. One cannot be what one is "with." Saying "Joe is with Bob and Joe is Bob" is contradictory. ... IS Joe Bob (indicating they are the same person)? Or was Joe WITH Bob (indicating they're not the same person)? More to the point, the "and the word was God" "translation" is based off completely ignoring the difference between anarthrous nominative "theos" and accusative "ton theon"... BIT of a difference there.

John 1 is used as an example. If you would like to start yet ANOTHER "Trinity" thread, go ahead. I would like answers to my questions here first. Please answer the question about the TRANSLATORS and why I should believe the anonymous JW translators over everyone else. Also, please answer the questions left over from your last post. Thanks.

 

[Mysteryman]

It always boils down to the interpretation !

True, if the verses say the same thing. Take these two translations of John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

As is quite obvious, the first one leaves NO room for doubt that Jesus "was God", the second can easily be interpreted to say He was one of many lesser "gods".

Translation matters immensely, which is why we should be able to check the credentials of the translators, don't you think?

Hi dadof10:

Here is what is obvious ----- Your explanation here, is not about translating, it is about interpretation.

It is absolutely about the TRANSLATION. If the verse is TRANSLATED as "...was God" it has a COMPLETELY different meaning than "...was A god".

What if Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, thus making him the spokesperson from God instead of God himself. How would you translate or interpret this verse in this case ?

The verse says nothing about Jesus being a "spokesperson", so I would not even use the word in relation to this verse. The question is, why would you? Why can't you take the verse as written and interpret it in that light?

AGAIN, don't you think the translators CREDENTIALS should be subject to scrutiny, especially if there is a controversy, as in John 1? Why do you find it acceptable that the JW church keeps the names of the translators of the NWT secret?[/quote]

Hi dadof10:

If you do not already know, I prefer my KJV over the many other translations. However, I also find faults within the KJV. But when it comes to John 1:1 , I find no fault with how this verse is translated in John 1:1 in my KJV.

Where I do have a problem, is with those who impose their private interpretation upon this verse.

You are correct in saying that verse one does not say anything about Jesus Christ being a spokesperson of and for God. But the context of four gospels suggest otherwise. Jesus Christ was a Prophet of/for God, and this is very evident throughout the four gospels.

When one tries to interpret one verse as saying something that is not mentioned, then they are super imposing their private interpretation upon just one verse of scripture.

 

[Mohrb]

No it isn't. You are mistaken.

I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.

Correct, Ad Verecundiam is most commonly referring to an appeal to someone who holds an authority (although not a proper one). However, like the ad populum fallacy, there are variations. If an "expert" makes a claim with no evidence beyond their opinion, it's not necessarily true. What makes an expert's opinion valid is that it's based on evidence. In this case, it still falls under an Ad Verecundiam fallacy (an improper appeal to a proper authority).

Think of it like an ad populum fallacy. There may actually be a majority of people that hold an opinion. That doesn't make it true if the evidence doesn't support that opinion.

Likewise, a person may actually have expertise in the field in general... but if they make a claim that has no factual basis, the fact that -they- said it makes no difference if they have no specific, logical reason for saying it.

Example... Darwin was an expert in biology... and he accurately noted that different animals with slightly different features likely had a common ancestor. This is factually sound. However, just because he's an "expert" doesn't mean that he's correct in assuming that ALL life shares a common ancestor (meaning a common ancestor between anaerobic single celled bacteria... and birds.



A. Occasionally, this argument is called the "argument from prestige" and is based on the belief that prestigious people cannot be wrong. In these cases, the fallacy is best termed the "snob appeal" variety of the ad populum.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

If you are arguing financial topic, it would be an "ad Verecundiam" fallacy to appeal to the authority of a medical doctor or Biblical scholar. They both may be very learned in their respective fields, but not experts on financial matters.

Also, you'll notice the assumption that we actually KNOW WHO THE PERSON IS, and what "special field" he is in. Do we know these two facts about the translators of the NWT? Nope.

I'm the one appealing to the authorities WITHIN the field of Greek and Hebraic languages, can you say the same?

There is no substitute for education. Yes, the NWT was translated by an anonymous committee. But "who" translated it is irrelevant.

Seriously? Irrelevant? It's irrelevant if they actually know Greek or Hebrew? Irrelevant if they have access to the oldest and most accurate manuscripts? Do you want to rethink this?

Anyone can do a bit of research, get a greek>english dictionary, look into the sentence structure a bit, and get a fairly good understanding about the proper translation. (Translation is -not- some science that takes a Ph.D. I was an exchange student at a high school in germany where you were -required- to be fluent in 3-4 languages just to graduate high school).

You are appealing to yourself with a Greek to English dictionary as an expert? Would this be an "Argumentum ad Verecundiam"? You are fluent in 3-4 languages, but are two of them the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew?

To compare the accuracy of a translation... compare the words that were translated. Not the "person who translated them." Doesn't take long. And, it's worth the time.

You might want to rethink this, also. I know you were in a hurry, so I'll wait on your response.

Do you know their names? If not, why do you trust ONLY them and not others who are willing to put their reputation on the line?

Of course we don't. JWs regularly compare many different translations.

Who does the comparing? Do you know their names?

However, when there's a significant difference between how two translations are worded, we have a lot of research (Such as the "insight book") available that goes into the history of that subject, and why the NWT decided to translate it a certain way.

Why don't you post the relevant parts of the "Insight Book" so I can research it and get back to you?

That -reasoning- is why it's considered trustworthy.

What reasoning? Could you be more specific?

Not "well, the KJV's been around for centuries, so it must be correct, therefore anything that disagrees with it must be wrong.

That's a straw man argument. I never made the appeal to longevity. I claimed that the translators were Greek and Hebrew scholars and we don't know who the JW translators were.. Please get back to this subject when you have more time. Also, I'll repost the following question.

The DEFINITION of "overlooking Scripture" is when JWs don't even ATTEMPT an explanation of John 20:28 "...mou kyrios kai mou theos". Only one way to translate that, "...my lord and my GOD." Would you like to give it a try?[/quote]

 

[Mohrb]

[quote:36v43vzm]There is no substitute for education. Yes, the NWT was translated by an anonymous committee. But "who" translated it is irrelevant.

Seriously? Irrelevant? It's irrelevant if they actually know Greek or Hebrew? Irrelevant if they have access to the oldest and most accurate manuscripts? Do you want to rethink this?[/quote:36v43vzm]

Yes, irrelevant. For example, the German word "ja" translates as "yes." Now, I've studied German for 5 years in High School and College, I was an exchange student for a while, president of the German club, and I'm from a German family. ... So, if I say "Ja" means "no." ... am I right because "I" said it? No. Because that's not what it means. Now, if someone who hasn't had any formal german schooling at all told me "Ja" means the same as "yes." ... they'd be right, even if they had no "expertise" ... they're right based on the content of what they say, not "who says it."

Likewise with the greek. "Who translated" a particular translation is really irrelevant. What makes a translation accurate... is the accuracy of the translation. If the english words have the same meaning as the greek words, it's a good translation. If the english words do not have the same meaning as the greek words... it's a bad translation. Even if it was funded by the Vatican, and translated by the pope himself. If he says "ego eimi" means "Fried chicken" ... he's wrong.

You are appealing to yourself with a Greek to English dictionary as an expert? Would this be an "Argumentum ad Verecundiam"? You are fluent in 3-4 languages, but are two of them the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew?

I never said "I'm fluent in 4 languages" ... I was stating that it's common for high school students in some places (such as in Gustrow, Germany). However, I have a functional enough comprehension of how language works in general to understand how to use a greek>english dictionary. Doesn't take much. I'm sure you can do it too.

And yes, I take an unbiased, secular Greek dictionary to be a more trustworthy source for unbiased translation than the interpretation of someone pushing a personal theory that disagrees with the context.

[quote:36v43vzm] Do you know their names? If not, why do you trust ONLY them and not others who are willing to put their reputation on the line?

Of course we don't. JWs regularly compare many different translations.

Who does the comparing? Do you know their names? [/quote:36v43vzm]
I don't understand the question? Are there Christians who don't compare different translations for themselves? Do people really take a single interpretation at face value and do no further research into the topic for themselves?

The DEFINITION of "overlooking Scripture" is when JWs don't even ATTEMPT an explanation of John 20:28 "...mou kyrios kai mou theos". Only one way to translate that, "...my lord and my GOD." Would you like to give it a try?

[/quote]
Gladly. However, 1 rule. If I go into detail and stay on the topic of John 20:28 without dismissing it in favor of a scripture that "I like better" ... will you do me the same favor for a scripture of my choosing? Will you promise to directly address a scripture without saying "well some other scripture says something else, and that's more important?"

 

[Mysteryman]

My choice of scripture would be John 20:17

I know nobody asked me for my opinion on which scripture should be used.

I will be the referee

 

[veteran]

I think what's most important, is why some would create a Bible version that supports denial of the Triune Godhead, God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. In John 8 Christ says, "Before Abraham was, I am" and the unbelieving Jews very well understood our Lord Jesus was using God's sacred names applied to Himself. That's why they took up stones to try and stone our Lord Jesus.

Belief that Christ Jesus was not "God with us", Immanuel, but instead the angel Michael, is not a valid reason to create a different Bible that denies The Godhead manifested in Three Persons.

 

[dadof10]

Correct, Ad Verecundiam is most commonly referring to an appeal to someone who holds an authority (although not a proper one). However, like the ad populum fallacy, there are variations.

I don't see any "variations" except in the definitions from websites that start with "Wiki". Here are three full definitions and the links.

I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.

A. Occasionally, this argument is called the "argument from prestige" and is based on the belief that prestigious people cannot be wrong. In these cases, the fallacy is best termed the "snob appeal" variety of the ad populum.

B. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the ad verecundiam and the ad populum (q.v., ad populum) when the authority cited is a group with status.

Consider this example from an popular logic text: "Those who say that astrology is not reliable are mistaken. The wisest men of history have all been interested in astrology, and kings and queens of all ages have guided the affairs of nations by it."

C. The informal structure generally has the basic pattern:

Authority on subject x, L says accept statement p.
p is outside the scope of subject x.
p is true.

D. Many advertising campaigns are built on this fallacy. Popular sports figures, musicians, or actors endorse products and, in proper context, this fact is offered as a reason we should use those products.

E. Examples of the ad verecundiam fallacy:

1. The brilliant William Jenkins, the recent Nobel Prize winner in physics, states uncategorically that the flu virus will be controlled in essentially all of its forms by the year 2,050. The opinion of such a great man cannot be disregarded.

2. The United States policy toward mainland China was surely mistaken because Shirley McLaine, the well known actress, said, at the time, she had grave misgivings about it.

III. Uses of the ad verecundiam.

A. Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should be believed when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds.

B. To qualify as an authority, the individual must be generally recognized by peers in the same field when the peers hold a similar view. (Examine, for yourself, why this condition is not an instance of the ad populum fallacy.)

IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad verecundiam.

A. Former President Bush said that America would be much stronger if the people would return to traditional American values, and indeed he argues that we should.

B. Although the following passages are considered fallacies by a popular logic textbook, note why they are not fallacious.

1. "But can you doubt that air has weight when you have the clear testimony of Aristotle affirming that all the elements have weight including air, and excepting only fire?" (Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences)

2. "In that melancholy book The Future of an Illusion, Dr. Freud, himself one of the last great theorists of the European capitalist class, has stated with simple clarity the impossibility of religious belief for the educated man of today." (John Strachey, The Coming Struggle for Power)

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad verecundiam

Fallacies of Relevance > Appeals to Authority

Explanation:
An appeal to an Unqualified Authority looks much like a legitimate appeal to authority, but it violates at least one of the three necessary conditions for such an appeal to be legitimate:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.

2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.

3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.

People don’t always bother to think about whether these standards have been met. One reason is that most learn to defer to authorities and are reluctant to challenge them — this is the source of the Latin name for this fallacy, Argumentum ad Verecundiam, which means “argument appealing to our sense of modesty.†It was coined by John Locke to communicate how people are browbeaten by such arguments into accepting a proposition by the testimony of an authority because they are too modest to base a challenge on their own knowledge.

Authorities can be challenged and the place to start is by questioning whether or not the above criteria have been met. To begin with, you can question whether or not the alleged authority really is an authority in this area of knowledge. It isn’t uncommon for people to set themselves up as authorities when they don’t merit such a label.

For example, expertise in the fields of science and medicine require many years of study and practical work, but some who claim to have similar expertise by more obscure methods, like self-study. With that, they might claim the authority to challenge everyone else; but even if it turns out that their radical ideas are right, until that is proven, references to their testimony would be a fallacious.

Examples and Discussion:
An all-too-common example of this is movie stars testifying on important matters before Congress:

4. My favorite actor, who appeared in a movie about AIDS, has testified that the HIV virus doesn’t really cause AIDS and that there has been a cover-up. So, I think that AIDS must be caused by something other than HIV and the drug companies are hiding it so that they can make money from expensive anti-HIV drugs.

Although there is little evidence to support the idea, perhaps it is true that AIDS is not caused by HIV; but that is really beside the point. The above argument bases the conclusion on the testimony on an actor, apparently because they appeared in a movie on the topic.

This example might seem fanciful but many actors have testified before Congress based on the strength of their movie roles or pet charities. This doesn’t make them any more of an authority on such topics than you or I. They certainly can’t claim the medical and biological expertise to make authoritative testimony on the nature of AIDS. So just why is it that actors are invited to testify before Congress on topics other than acting or art?

A second basis for challenge is whether or not the authority in question is making statements in his or her area of expertise. Sometimes, it is obvious when that is not happening. The above example with actors would be a good one - we might accept such a person as an expert on acting or how Hollywood works, but that doesn’t mean they know anything about medicine.

There are many examples of this in advertising — indeed, just about every bit of advertising which uses some sort of celebrity is making a subtle (or not-so-subtle) appeal to unqualified authority. Just because someone is a famous baseball player doesn’t make them qualified to say which mortgage company is best, for instance.

Often the difference can be much more subtle, with an authority in a related field making statements about an area of knowledge close to their own, but not quite close enough to warrant calling them an expert. So, for example, a dermatologist might be an expert when it comes to skin disease, but that doesn’t mean that they should be accepted as also being an expert when it comes to lung cancer.

Finally, we can challenge an appeal to authority based on whether or not the testimony being offered is something which would find widespread agreement among other experts in that field. After all, if this is the only person in the entire field making such claims, the mere fact that they have expertise doesn’t warrant belief in it, especially considering the weight of contrary testimony.

There are entire fields, in fact, where there is widespread disagreement on just about everything — psychiatry and economics are good examples of this. When an economist testifies to something, we can be almost guaranteed that we could find other economists to argue differently. Thus, we cannot rely upon them and should look directly at the evidence they are offering.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority_3.htm

I know this is a lot to wade through. You'll notice NONE of these definitions mention any "variations". If you have a source that mentions these, paste it. I'd be happy to look it over.

Also, please note that in all these definitions (and the Wiki ones) they assume that the person or group of experts is NOT ANONYMOUS. They assume you can somehow check their credentials to find out if they are, indeed EXPERTS. Does this sound like the JW way to you?

If an "expert" makes a claim with no evidence beyond their opinion, it's not necessarily true. What makes an expert's opinion valid is that it's based on evidence.

Quite true.

In this case, it still falls under an Ad Verecundiam fallacy (an improper appeal to a proper authority).

No it doesn't. The Fallacy assumes that the expert is being appealed to, not actually making the statement. You would have to ask why the person is considered an "expert" if he makes untrue statements within his field.

Think of it like an ad populum fallacy. There may actually be a majority of people that hold an opinion. That doesn't make it true if the evidence doesn't support that opinion.

Argumentum ad Populum doesn't apply to our discussion. I have not appealed to popularity, only to expertise, accuracy and openness.

Likewise, a person may actually have expertise in the field in general... but if they make a claim that has no factual basis, the fact that -they- said it makes no difference if they have no specific, logical reason for saying it.

Example... Darwin was an expert in biology... and he accurately noted that different animals with slightly different features likely had a common ancestor. This is factually sound. However, just because he's an "expert" doesn't mean that he's correct in assuming that ALL life shares a common ancestor (meaning a common ancestor between anaerobic single celled bacteria... and birds.

You are missing the point. We are not talking about "A" person or expert. We are talking about ALL Greek and Hebrew scholars, from ALL decades, from ALL denominations coming to the same conclusion. These people have access to the most accurate manuscripts and the most recent techniques. They study for YEARS in the best schools and they put their reputations on the line by actually putting their NAMES out there to be hyper-criticized by their peers for "every dot and tittle".

Compare these people to the ones you trust. They are....??? What? Do they even know Greek or Hebrew? Have they even been to school? Do they have access to ANY manuscripts at all? For all you know, Charles Darwin could be one of your anonymous "translators".

Every time I talk to a JW, it amazes me that this doesn't seem to bother them. It would certainly bother me.

 

[dadof10]

There is no substitute for education. Yes, the NWT was translated by an anonymous committee. But "who" translated it is irrelevant....

Yes, irrelevant. For example, the German word "ja" translates as "yes." Now, I've studied German for 5 years in High School and College, I was an exchange student for a while, president of the German club, and I'm from a German family. ... So, if I say "Ja" means "no." ... am I right because "I" said it? No. Because that's not what it means. Now, if someone who hasn't had any formal german schooling at all told me "Ja" means the same as "yes." ... they'd be right, even if they had no "expertise" ... they're right based on the content of what they say, not "who says it."

Again, you are talking about an anecdotal episode. You need to compare apples to apples. If EVERY EXPERT in the German language, with thousands of years of data to draw from comes to the same conclusion on a word or group of words, and one ANONYMOUS group draws a different conclusion, which one would you say is right?

Your examples assume that YOU are right, therefore making YOU personally the arbiter of what the words mean, whether you have any expertise in the field or not. I think I'll take it on the authority of the experts. The ones who vouch for their work.

Likewise with the greek. "Who translated" a particular translation is really irrelevant. What makes a translation accurate... is the accuracy of the translation.

According to who? The Catholic and Protestant scholars claim their translations are accurate, and their work can be verified. Can you say the same?

If the english words have the same meaning as the greek words, it's a good translation. If the english words do not have the same meaning as the greek words... it's a bad translation. Even if it was funded by the Vatican, and translated by the pope himself. If he says "ego eimi" means "Fried chicken" ... he's wrong.

Who's TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK WORDS? Translation is what we are discussing.

I never said "I'm fluent in 4 languages" ... I was stating that it's common for high school students in some places (such as in Gustrow, Germany). However, I have a functional enough comprehension of how language works in general to understand how to use a greek>english dictionary. Doesn't take much. I'm sure you can do it too.

And yes, I take an unbiased, secular Greek dictionary to be a more trustworthy source for unbiased translation than the interpretation of someone pushing a personal theory that disagrees with the context.

So do I. It's called Thayer's Greek Lexicon. It's accepted as the STANDARD, and highly thought of by all denominations. What's your "secular" dictionary called?

Of course we don't. JWs regularly compare many different translations.

Who does the comparing? Do you know their names?

I don't understand the question? Are there Christians who don't compare different translations for themselves? Do people really take a single interpretation at face value and do no further research into the topic for themselves?

I may have misunderstood you. I thought you meant your translators compared different versions.

The DEFINITION of "overlooking Scripture" is when JWs don't even ATTEMPT an explanation of John 20:28 "...mou kyrios kai mou theos". Only one way to translate that, "...my lord and my GOD." Would you like to give it a try?

Gladly. However, 1 rule. If I go into detail and stay on the topic of John 20:28 without dismissing it in favor of a scripture that "I like better" ... will you do me the same favor for a scripture of my choosing? Will you promise to directly address a scripture without saying "well some other scripture says something else, and that's more important?"

Sure. If you'll agree that Thayer's is the authority.

 

[dadof10]

The verse says nothing about Jesus being a "spokesperson", so I would not even use the word in relation to this verse. The question is, why would you? Why can't you take the verse as written and interpret it in that light?

AGAIN, don't you think the translators CREDENTIALS should be subject to scrutiny, especially if there is a controversy, as in John 1? Why do you find it acceptable that the JW church keeps the names of the translators of the NWT secret?

Hi dadof10:

If you do not already know, I prefer my KJV over the many other translations. However, I also find faults within the KJV. But when it comes to John 1:1 , I find no fault with how this verse is translated in John 1:1 in my KJV.

Where I do have a problem, is with those who impose their private interpretation upon this verse.

Why do you keep ducking this question? AGAIN, John 1 was used as an example. I would prefer you answer the question asked instead of starting a sub-topic.

When one tries to interpret one verse as saying something that is not mentioned, then they are super imposing their private interpretation upon just one verse of scripture.

We are talking about TRANSLATION, not interpretation. If you think the JW TRANSLATION is the most accurate, simply explain why.

 

[Mysteryman]

The verse says nothing about Jesus being a "spokesperson", so I would not even use the word in relation to this verse. The question is, why would you? Why can't you take the verse as written and interpret it in that light?

AGAIN, don't you think the translators CREDENTIALS should be subject to scrutiny, especially if there is a controversy, as in John 1? Why do you find it acceptable that the JW church keeps the names of the translators of the NWT secret?

Hi dadof10:

If you do not already know, I prefer my KJV over the many other translations. However, I also find faults within the KJV. But when it comes to John 1:1 , I find no fault with how this verse is translated in John 1:1 in my KJV.

Where I do have a problem, is with those who impose their private interpretation upon this verse.

Why do you keep ducking this question? AGAIN, John 1 was used as an example. I would prefer you answer the question asked instead of starting a sub-topic.

When one tries to interpret one verse as saying something that is not mentioned, then they are super imposing their private interpretation upon just one verse of scripture.

We are talking about TRANSLATION, not interpretation. If you think the JW TRANSLATION is the most accurate, simply explain why.

Hi

What can I say ? You want to controll the conversation, so be my quest. :biglol

I like my KJV but no one is listening - :biglol

We are talking about INTERPRETATION - but who is listening ? :rolling

You are talking to Chris about TRANSLATION, not MM - but who is listening ?

Maybe if I type in English, would that help ?