I mentioned that Fred Franz spoke Spanish as well as some other languages which he learned on his own. You missed the point. Fred had no Ph.D to account for, so we can't rely on him producing formal training evidence. I can just mention some things that could point to him as having the competence to learn new languages, and presumably, biblical languages, which he would reasonably be interested in, even more so than Spanish or Portuguese. I reasoned that if he was able to dominate Spanish extremely well, my primary language, (I heard him speak the language several times), it is not unreasonable to think that he would do no less with Greek or Hebrew. Ray confirmed this.
You mentioned the Scotland Court Trial. Greek was not the issue there. Hebrew was. As I have indicated in other threads, some in the Evangelical community have distorted the trial statements, to the point that many NWT haters fondly and wrongly quote the infamous Court case. It should be noted that Fred was never asked to translate Gen 2:4 from Hebrew to English as is the custom, the court examiner asked him if he could translate Gen 2:4 from English to Hebrew, an unusual request, more so in that court setting. And Fred Franz answered that ‘he would not attempt to do that.’ That's it! He never said he couldn't do it, but that ‘he would not attempt to do that.’ Fred knew the difference between translating from Hebrew to English and viceversa. All bible translators make copious use of bible helps when doing bible translation, they do not engage casually in that work, much less to play a court examiner's game of dubious tactics.
I have responded to your statements not to convince you, but I do so with the hope that some in the board would appreciate this information. It is very possible that there are some in the board who welcome some of these details.
Billen76: "Rolf Furuli is Magister in semitic languages (not koiné) at Oslo Uni. He is also a practizing Jehovahs Witness! (biased)"
Rolf Furuli has also studied Greek and Latin as well. You say that Furuli by being a JW is biased. Does that mean that we should ignore his knowledgeable opinion because of him being a Witness? If we were to use your argument, then it would mean that a Baptist cannot quote a Baptist scholar without running the risk of bias. Does that make sense to anyone?
James Moffatt and others: "A real [bible] translation is in the main an interpretation."
Thus, a Catholic version reflects a Catholic orientation.
A Presbyterian version will reflect a Presbyterian persuasion.
A JW version will convey their theological message. And so on...
What is the difference? The Catholics and Protestants have their degrees, and the JWs don't. Jesus' disciples were not required to go to formal training to communicate the truth. Were they? Were they rejected by the Lord for their lack of formal training?