To claim that an argument is poor because its main proponents have a vested interest in it is not a logically sound argument.

I never claimed it was a poor argument. I don't know enough about the original language used to make that judgment. For all I know it could be terribly insightful or a bunch of poppycock. What I said was that his argument would carry more weight if it were proposed by someone who didn't have a vested interest in the different translation.

Pointing out that most people who have a certain point of view have a vested interest in seeing things that way is not a sound argument.

It's a completely sound argument. If you were going to purchase some product or service, would you more faith in the recommendations of someone who made the same money from the sale regardless of how much you spend or whether or not you bought anything at all? Or would you put more faith in the recommendations of someone who made more if you spent more; In other words, had a vested interest in your spending habits? In the same way, when someone WANTS something to be true, that person is more likely to "see" this truth where others don't. Bias has always had the potential of clouding one's perceptions.

Dakota