Something that bothers me personally

Blotty

(I apologise if this is the wrong section for this - Its the one I think suits best)
This may sound really cliché (it does in my opinion) and a first world thing, but it bothers me someone can be like this and spout these "illogical" arguments (among others, Which I will list as questions in the near future)

I recently (as of 21/11/22) finished up a conversation with someone on a few things - I find one of their "implications" slightly concerning.. They wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars who seemingly didn't agree with their standpoint which is interesting.
I.E on the divine name, I listed scholars such as George Howard - I got the answer "try a real scholar"
or another example I cited Beduhn as (in my opinion) he is easy to understand but then got told "He doesn't teach Greek at a university so his opinion is not valid" - scholars may not cite Beduhn, but from looking at other factors he really gets nothing wrong (linguistically)

Once again I apologise if this is wasting anyone's time

Earnest

Blotty, you may find an earlier thread Prof. Jason Beduhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 1) and Prof. Jason Beduhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 2) addresses the prejudice to which you refer.

punkofnice

Blotty - They wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars

I'm not sure what you are referring to. People (including myself), are prone to 'confirmation bias'. In other words, you can provide evidence but if that person doesn't trust the evidence or wants to remain with their own personal leanings, you're wasting your time.

Anony Mous

Beduhn is a WTBTS apologist, he is a professor of religious studies, likewise Howard is not a scholar on the subject of translation. His point is that the WTBTS translated in accordance with what he believes is the correct viewpoint, not whether it is accurate word for word.

The truth is that the original writings of the Bible have been lost and most of the extant fragments are already adapted towards the viewpoints of a particular group. So it is possible, but unlikely given Jewish tradition, that the name of God was written down at all, however, what they “meant”, or everyone understood it to mean at the time, or what they did write vs. what was legal to write at the point is open for wide interpretation. Beduhn and WTBTS is one side of the argument, however the majority will say there is no such evidence.

You can argue, like the WTBTS does, by cherry picking from a few scientists that speak well outside the field. Sadly, that is how a lot of science reporting is being done today (especially climate science), you find someone that agrees with your viewpoint argued from eg. sociology and then make that soundbite the accepted narrative even though real scientists will put many disclaimers and say it’s not that easy.

TD

If you have a basic understanding of a subject, then don't argue with those who don't.

If you don't have a basic understanding of a subject, then don't argue at all.

You can't argue trigonometry with someone who doesn't understand a right triangle and you can't argue translation with someone who is not familiar with both languages.

-Not trying to be flippant and sorry if it sounds that way.

peacefulpete

Blotty, no doubt you've been around people who hold what's often called "fringe" ideas. Sometimes those ideas have merit but, as yet, not gotten the attention of the experts in the field. More often however the ideas have been reviewed and discredited or at least dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence. Humans in general have a hard time with changing, especially if the idea has emotional importance to the person. In the internet age fringe ideas run wild and are spread rapidly. The good thing is the responses to these ideas are also available. It generally takes 10 minutes of googling to get a perspective.

Those who wish to retain discredited ideas give lip service to the value of fact checking but seldom really pursue it. In fact often the believer in a discredited idea insists everyone else is guilty of ignoring evidence, the evidence they see as persuasive.

Learning how to detect bias, think critically, and openness to disproof are more important now than ever.

When it comes to deep religious history, the evidence may be inconclusive or not even heavily favoring one position. That is hard to accept, but disciplined minds have to.

Sometimes not having sufficient evidence for something can in it's own way be evidence.

eg. Since you seem to be focusing on the Jewish name for God, consider what the lack of evidence suggests. Maybe the name isn't all that relevant.. It apparently wasn't important to the writers and editors and manifestly not important to the God, assuming you see God involved in the writings.

Phizzy

"you seem to be focusing on the Jewish name for God", the problem with arguing about it is manifold, but YHWH is in all probability not a "Jewish" or Hebrew name anyway. The god YHWH came from a nearby people, who spoke a language no doubt closely related among the Semitic languages to Hebrew, but different even so.

If you are arguing about whether "Jehovah" should be in the N.T at all, Scholars are not in agreement at all upon this. The arguments both ways are good.

As Pete says above, it isn't important as far as its use in the NWT is concerned apart from two aspects, one is that it is obvious that the bias of the NWT producers/editors is obvious as to when they do put "Jehovah" in and when they do not, and the second is the JW org. contention that they bow to the authority of the earliest M.S , they do not in this case do they ?