Jgnat..wow i think i will take TD s advice " theres something quisotic when a layman attempts to debate someone with formal credentials in a field" and i am that layman.
i would love to debate
by new hope and happiness 39 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
jgnat
I'm a layman too.
-
Justitia Themis
Here is a link to a page that explains how to craft a logical argument and that provides examples of logical fallacies. It is a good starting point.
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html
-
new hope and happiness
thanks J. T
-
whathappened
My advice is never get personal or nasty and insulting. Some posters on here have taken a lot of heat and some have been kicked out as a result of personal insults and profanity. When someone is losing a debate, they switch from stating the facts and start personally attacking their opponent. That's the sign they have lost and the debate is over.
-
jgnat
If my opponent has slam-dunked my argument, I'll own up to it. On a good day. On a bad day, I'll slink away and hope they didn't notice.
-
Larsinger58
TD:
Gary,
If you were unable to compose a simple three word sentence in ancient Greek, would you debate an esoteric point of translation with someone holding a doctorate in linguistics? That has actually happened on this forum.
LARS/GARY:
ROFL! Nobody has called me "Gary" in a long time. But, of course, if it is applicable, I will debate points. Not in word meaning but in USAGE. That's because language is not all black and white. Language is colorful and subjective. Idiomatic expressoins occur that require us to apply USAGE in the context of what others would understand and not the actual meaning of a word.
For instance, Jesus said that it was more difficult for a rich man to get into the kingdom than for a "camel" to get through the eye of a needle. Now, was Jesus referring to the dromedary, a literal large animal getting through the eye of a needle, or was "camel" a term the locals understood to refer to something else? In the context of sewing, sometimes the thread bunches up behind the eye of the needle. When you pull out the few strands that got through, you have something that looks like a camel. That is a long neck followed by a big body. So likely when the thread bunched up behind the needle like that, they were colloquially called "camels" because that's what they looked like, little camels.
So, considering that Jesus liked to use common illustrations in the every-day life of individuals to make his point, you have to ask whether or not a literal camel would ever be used in sewing? The answer is: NO. On the other hand, could Jesus' point be made if a "camel" was a lump in the thread? Sure. So why wasn't Jesus talking about a lump in the thread versus a literal camel? A translator has little input here because the answer lies in USAGE.
Same with when Jesus accused the Pharisees of straining out the gnat from their wine but gulping down the "camel." Now. Was "camel" a local reference to the local camelfly which is what we call a huge "horsefly"? Or was it to the dromedary? Point being, how likely would it be that a camel would end up in your wine glass versus a camelfly? Was Jesus thus saying they strained out the tiny little gnat but gulped down the huge camelfly, or was he saying they gulped down a 4-legged dromedary that somehow got into their wineglass? The answer is obvious to me, but this is not a matter of linguistics, but interpretation.
Fact is, the meaning of words don't always give us the correct interpretation. If I said, "That woman had on a BAD dress last night!" most would understand that I was giving a compliment. But if you looked up the word, "bad" it would seem I was being critical. Whether I meant something positive or negative would depend on how I used the word and the context. I could say: "That woman had on a bad dress last night. It was the best out of anybodys!" or I could say, "That woman had on a bad dress last night. It didn't fit."
So scholarship only goes so far. Other things have to do with interpretation and that sometimes requires knowledge of the culture and local circumstances to understand correctly.
Anyway, I'm not impressed with scholars -- trust me.
-
Larsinger58
I know I'll get flack for this, but it is pertinent. Let me give you two examples of why I'm not impressed with "scholars"
CARL OLOF JONSSON: This man wrote "Gentile Times Reconsidered" which is a brilliantly written work covering lots of detailed artifacts from ancient history. Plus he's very likeable and just as charming as can be once you get to interact with him. But my first experience with him was when he posted a rebuttal to an article I wrote about ancient eclipses and I pointed out that the "SK400" was a phony document because it mentioned "Year 9" of Kambyses. Kambyses didn't reign for 9 years. COJ wrote that I was lying about this reference. He posted this as an expert in the field. Only later when he was posting in an XJW discussion board did I confront him about this and he apologized and admitted that, indeed, there was a "Year 9" reference in this text. But if he was such an expert, he should have either known about the "year 9" reference or looked it up when I claimed it was there. Why would he post that I was lying about the "year 9" reference without looking it up? So as an "expert" he not only didn't know about it, but also didn't check it out? I find that inexcusable. Then only when confronted about it directly did he admit that he was wrong. But I'm thinking I'm just a researcher and an amateur, why do I have to correct experts in the field?
HERMANN HUNGER: Herman Hunger is like an incon in the field of archaeoastronomy. He and Abraham Sachs translated most of the astronomical texts we have available. But in line 18 of the VAT4956 he put "the moon" instead of "Venus" was below the "bright star at the end of the Lion's foot." The text itself was broken off, so that left it up to the translator to fill this in. All Hunger had to do to fill in the blank was to look at the astronomy for that date and see that it was a reference to Venus. Insread, he put "the moon" there! Now he translated the entire text so he knew how all the plenets moved and would have been aware of the movement of Venus and the Moon. Further in two previous lines, he noted the Moon had long moved out of Virgo and was in LIBRA and SCORPIO, respectively. How could he think the "moon" had somehow backtracked and was now back in Virgo? The moon was in Virgo on the 5th per Line 14. Point being, though, after contacting him, he readily admitted his "error" claiming he didn't know why he inserted the moon there. So llike COJ, he did admit to his mistake or misrepresentation when confronted.
So how impressed am I with these "scholars" and "experts"? Not very! Once you double-check their work, you find they make errors as well. But some of the "errors" look like dishonesty to some.
Now these examples are not just me having my own dogmatic opinion and disagreeing with the experts. These are two examples of where the scholars/experts have admitted to their error and been corrected. Now I respect scholarship. But I'm upset I'm the one who has to go behind them to clean up their errors! It's annoying! Scholars have agendas like everybody else -- like the WTS!
-
Larsinger58
WHATHAPPENED: My advice is never get personal or nasty and insulting.
LARS: Absolutely right. I believe that if you are confident in your own view, that you can accept the views of others even if they disagree with you. There is no reason to be rude or nasty. Those who are threatened by your view or your stance on your view tend to get emotional and then that shows up in an angry response.
But..... (grin)... I also think profanity can be colorful and may be the only language available to express a strong point. You know, Jesus did not refrain from namecalling. He called someone "offspring of vipers." Was that like calling someone in our day an SOB? I mean, in his day, was it an insult. YOU SON OF A SNAKE!!
So I think some words that are profanity add the true intensity to something, whereas there is no "polite counterpart." But I don't defile myself by actually saying the words. I just use the initials, like: WTF!!! Which I can later say means: "Why the fuss?" ROFL!
Anyway, I agree. Point well taken. Be polite and respectful. In my mind, we are all fellow "survivors" from the WTS cult. You know? We're all lost and trying to find our way. We're here to support each other. That's the main thing, right? What topic is so urgent that it preempts our humanity toward one another?
-
new hope and happiness
Thanks lars58... nowvthats a debate.