by Quendi 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I want to add a comment to a previous post of mine on A.H. MacMillan.
MacMillan died way before The NY Times (1992) article on Fred Franz. What I meant was that it would not be unusual for the NY Times reporter to get information from a WT insider such as MacMillan was decades earlier.
Some clarifications, if you will....
One of Freddy Franz's teachers submitted his name as a CANDIDATE for the Rhodes Scholarship. Franz did NOT follow through.
Secondly, Franz never said, "I made an ass of myself." That was Judge Rutherford after the 1925 "return of ancient worthies to live in San Diego" flop predictions.
Third, newspapers allocate very little in the way money or staff to vet SUBMISSIONS or Press Releases concerning Obituaries. Especially would this be true
about a religious figure. The Watchtower undoubtedly created their own profile of Fred Franz with about as much attention to fact as their own self-history Proclaimer's book contains.
Finally, THE MESSAGE bible is the finest example of a rendering of scripture by one person I've ever read. It is so vastly superior in the tone, loving attention to the emotional warmth of contexts and straight forward 'telling' of the storylines no New World Translation inspired by Jehovah himself can touch it; much less a bootstrap effort by Franz. The be-all and end-all of purpose in Franz's rendering is to prop up crackpot Witness theology. If you don't believe it, read John 1:1 and all the wordy explanations, clarifications, apologetics issued by the Society concerning it.
Just my personal opinion, thank you.
What I meant was that it would not be unusual for the NY Times reporter to get information from a WT insider such as MacMillan was decades earlier.
That makes the information less reliable, not more reliable. Being in the religion and hearing what other fans of Franz said about the much adored Franz (within the religion) makes one a less reliable source, not more.
Having transcripts and evidence of exposure to what experienced scholars think, that would be helpful.
Franz, being inside the heart of the WT, would most likely be the continuing source of a literalist and fundamenalist approach to the Bible; this means he takes it as history, that all of what is written actually happened.
History from secular sources does not support the Bible's stories; archaeology does not support the Bible's stories, in spite of the misleading articles the WT and the Awake! published.
No support for the conquest of Canaan as described; no support for the destruction of Canaanite cities; no support for the existence of early monotheism as described in the Bible.
This means that the NWT, no matter how technically accurate it is to the translators belief about the original words, was done by those who continue the literalist bias, the misunderstanding about the Bible: that it was written to be taken as literal history, and the prophecies were written before their fulfillment.
It wasn't; they weren't.
That changes the entire complexion of the Bible; my point is that we can never completely know what the stories really were, and we can never fully know the intention of the redactors. Those closest to it, mainstream Jews, take the majority of it as fables and morality tales.
Fundamental christians misunderstand the nature of the OT; they take it differently from the group who was it's source, the Israelites and the Jews.
Fred Franz and the translators continue and magnify the misunderstanding, taking the position that the Jews had it all wrong.
Fred Franz's bio shows no exposure to mainstream scholarship about the OT.
What you see listed as references in the 1953 BI12 and subsequent Editions that list the reference material is the NWT committee was sending researchers to Libraries around the globe looking for favorable material from earlier translators.
Terry:
I stand corrected. Fred Franz, quoted Rutherford as saying regarding his own predictions: "I know I made an ass of myself." Cited by Raymond Franz in Crisis of Conscience, p. 137. Talking to a large audience in Australia in 1975, Fred related the same remark, but the words were Rutherfords. Thanks!
On a diferent note, I love The Message as much as you do. However, the NWT and The Message are two radically different versions of the Bible with different goals. Both are useful! And ALL translations should be checked against the Hebrew and Greek Text for accuracy.
Fred Franz was skilled at finding what he wanted to find in the Bible and making it sound plausible.
By contrast, when the current GB talks about "generations" or comes out with "new light" about the 10 toes, they leave even the most enthusiastic WT apologists scratching their heads as they try to figure out what they are saying.
Maybe it's because Fred painted the organization into a lot of theological and prophetic corners and then died, leaving the current group to muddle their way out.
Outlaw: The New York Times journalist is not likely to make such statement without seeing some evidence of it.....Wonderment
And..
Your evidence of that,would be What?..
It`s already been established Fred Franz was Self Taught in Greek..
One such insider was A. H. Macmillan. A. H. MacMillan, a former leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was one insider who had access to WT records,
and was able to publish a history of the religious movement, said of Fred Franz, "Besides Spanish, Franz has a fluent knowledge of Portuguese and German
and is conversant with French. He is also a scholar of Hebrew and Greek as well as of Syriac and Latin, all of which contribute to making him a thoroughly
reliable mainstay on [WT President] Knorr's editorial staff." (Faith On The March, 1957, p. 182, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.).....Wonderment
More BullShit..
Franz didn`t need to know Spanish/Portuguese/German or French to translate the Bible..
He needed a Proper education in Koine Greek..Something he didn`t have..
He certainly couldn`t prove he was a Greek Scholar in a Scottish Court of Law.
He made a complete Ass of himself in front of the entire Court Room..
It is likely that The New York Times interviewed one such insider who provided some proof of his language capabilities.....Wonderment
"LIKELY"..Is that like "Evidently"?.........
Show us the Evidence..You haven`t provided any so far..
There are People right here on JWN ..
Who are better Qualified to Translate Koine Greek than Fred Franz..
Fred Franz Sucked..His WBT$ Bible Sucks..
The WBT$ Organization he Re-Wrote the Bible for..Sucks..
You Defend the InDefensible..And..
You Suck at it..LOL!!
................... 
...OUTLAW
Outlaw: I have stated before there is no concrete evidence that Fred Franz had a domain of biblical languages. I did state there is incidental or cimcumstancial evidence that Fred Franz had sufficient knowledge of biblical languages to tackle bible translation.
Besides the two years of Greek he took at Cincinnatti University, we have his own testimony and that of Ray, his nephew, that Fred was self-taught in those languages other than English. Ray said he continued his studies in private. English is a secondary language for me, because I was not brought up listening to English at home. My primary language, Spanish, is one of those I heard Fred use various times, which he learned on his own. The man spoke the language with accuracy, and fluently. At one time while I was in Chicago, Fred gave a speech in two other languages, which I was not familiar with. I was curious about his language ability, so I queried a few brothers who spoke those languages about Fred's ability with them. They assured me it was good. He had no Ph.D to show, but he had what it took to learn them well.
Ray Franz was the principal translator of the Kingdom Interlinear, according to Ray Franz. No grease monkey could produce such quality translation without deep knowledge of Greek. Yes, I know some who criticize the KIT, such as Mantey, but Mantey focused on "theological perversions" of the NWT and KIT. It is so strange that Mantey having a command of Greek would mostly focus on controversial theological passages, instead of other grammatical issues which are easier to prove. With theology, you could go both ways, as is reflected by various Greek experts offering different renderings of such passages.
In grammar, Mantey could have made a pretzel of Fred Franz, but he didn't do that. Most of his objections were "theological." I mentioned before in another thread, that when Walter Martin before Mantey ridiculed "the only person who could read Greek in the Watchtower" (Gangas), Mantey asked Martin, "Isn't he Greek?" Martin responded, Yes! Then Martin proceeded to poke fun of Gangas' grammar of John 1:1 (what is the subject?) to confirm his perception of Gangas "ineptness." Thus, both Mantey and Martin confirmed that Gangas spoke Greek.
Jason BeDuhn (Ph.D) uses the Kingdom Interlinear when he teaches Greek to his students. He has stated that "the Kingdom Interlinear is the best NT interlinear available."
Thomas N. Winter: “ The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate . (Professor of Greek at the University of Nebraska) Winter has also used the KIT in his classes with his students.
Edgar Foster: The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation _par excellence_." (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
Edgar J. Goodspeed: "Strange such good scholars as your people evidently are should not have noticed that apate Mt. 13:22 etc., is now known to mean 'pleasure.'" (Note: Translators do not agree with the translation of apate.) Goodspeed is a recognized scholar of NT Greek.
Paul Johnson was the actual graduate from a Seminary but he split with Russell's group and Rutherford's group to form his own following.
@Wonderment
No, there is no circumstancial evidence, that F. Franz had sufficient knowledge of koiné to produce a proper translation. You cite some scholars without even examining the background for their statement. ex. Rolf Furuli is Magister in semitic languages (not koiné) at Oslo Uni. He is also a practizing Jehovahs Witness! (biased). Maxmillian also wrote that F. Franz was a scholar. Now where did he get that piece of misinformation from? Have you examined Jason BeDuhn's belief and educational path to etablish WHY he seems to like some passages in NWT/KIT? aso
To evaluate the NWT we must both be able to establish the translators credentials. This is needed in order to get replies to critical questioning to the choices made in the translations. If the scholars do not know who to ask, a critical dialoque can not be properly initiated and scholars questions after a critical examinination cannot be answered.
ex. the koiné word "charis" is in NWT translated to "undeserved kindness" instead of the normal translation to the word "grace". Since there may be some justification in doing this, there are numerous questions to be raised to the translators on why they made that choice. One of the problems is, that "charis" is a quality that marks the giver, whereas "undeserved kindness" adresses the reciever's viewpoint. Thus "grace" would be the proper word to use.
I do not doubt that the WTS did put much effort into producing the NWT. Is suspect though, that NT is a patchwork of numerous of "worldly" scholars work and that "The Translation Commitee" would not be able to answer critical questions. By being anonimuos they avoided this.
Let me also remark, that OT and NT was produced seperately; a fact that seems to have avoided your attention. The OT of NWT was an earlier work done by hired scholars from outside Jehovahs Witnesses. They left in protest due to demanded revisions by the WTS. There were no scholars involved in the translation of the NT in NWT. It is the latter that is most in question as the OT in NWT is somewhat a decent translation done by scholars (early edition only. Later revisions destroyed this)
