Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

OUTLAW

Outlaw: I have stated before there is no concrete evidence that Fred Franz had a domain of biblical languages.....Wonderment
Duh!..
Nothing would support that..
I did state there is incidental or cimcumstancial evidence that Fred Franz had sufficient knowledge of biblical languages to tackle bible translation.
INCIDENTAL.... ? .......Circumstancial..... ?
How Stupid would you like Everyone,to Dumb Down to..
So you can "Pretend to be Intelligent"?..

My primary language, Spanish, is one of those I heard Fred use various times, which he learned on his own.
Fred Franz spoke Spanish..
So obviousley he was a Scholar of Ancient Koine Greek?..
How stupid do you think the Readers of JWN are?
No grease monkey could produce such quality translation without deep knowledge of Greek.
But..
Fred Franz couldn`t Translate Koine Greek..In a Scottish Court of Law..

You would Think..
That would be the perfect place to prove himself..
Fred Franz couldn`t do it..
Fred Franz was a Fraud..Fred Franz Looked like an Asshole..
It was Hard to Hide who Fred Franz really was,in a Court Room..

................... ...OUTLAW
Wonderment

Outlaw:
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?
Billen76

@Wonderment
It is one of the founding principles to the critical approach, that both the material AND the source are evaluated. If the source can be said to be biased, the reader should bear in mind, that the authors choices would be highly affected by this. In Furulis case in particular I have by studying his books concluded that the man is purposely deceptive. Meaning, he allready know the conclusion he intends to reach and select arguments that support the pre-destined conclusion. Perhaps one need to be a JW or former JW in order to be able to spot why he made the choices he have made. In any way, this is not the scholary way and his work is highly influenced by his relationship with JW. Perhaps that is why he have started to work with non-biblical documents in the later years. To avoid the conflict.
"The truth" you say. :) Dear dear Wonderment. You are not trying to pull our legs here, are you? We are talking translation, not religious messages in themselves. In order to have a religious message, one need not to be a scholar. In order to be able to translate an ancient language into modern language, one need to be highly trained in both languages. A proper formal training is highly needed here to be able to do a proper work.
Several oppinions are always welcome in the scholary circles (or should be). The base term though is, that the arguments must be properly weighted by the author and are used with a scientific approach. (do you know what this mean?). Therefore one cannot just say a JW version would be equal to a catholic or presbyterian version, nor that either of the parts automaticly have justifications to make the choices in translation they see fit. Argument must also be scientifically sound.
What is seen done in the NWT, that are not seen done in the mainstream translations is, that the translation commitee of the NWT have made "choices", that are neither grammatical or semantical sound. ex. In Genesis 1:2 the NWT directly translates the hebrew word "ruwach" to the english "active force". This translation have no basis in hebrew, where the correct translation would be "spirit". The translation here must have been SOLELY based on JW theology, but fails to be scientifically sound, why the NWT translation of this passage must be discarded. http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=07307
If one makes the research into the actual cases of mistranslations in the NWT, one will be better equipped to do a proper evaluation. I believe there are plenty of analysis to be found, that you could start out with. Get some concrete examples and learn to understand WHY the "choices" are faulty. Untill now, the only thing you have done is making "appeal to authority" arguments, using quotes taken out of context. I also doubt you understand why a scholar would say "a translation is an interpretation" and why this does not mean that serious translators have free hands to do whatever they feel like.
Terry

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?
There is a passage in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare where characters are looking up at an unusual looking cloud and are remarking on what they see.
One sees a crocadile another sees a famous general, etc.
We might well ask: "Who was right?"
But, the obvious answer is that it is JUST A DAMNED CLOUD!
Human imagination fills in the details!
A strong case can be made as to "why" one sees a beast while another sees a person, but, the logic of the argument is feckless to the reality.
This very strange book is a chimera. It never should have existed at all. But, human ingenuity, imagination and even superstitious certainty have crafted it into being.
The translations of it say more about the translators than about the reality of text.
It is only a cloud.
hamsterbait

Zeroli's book on the NWT shows from just ONE chapter the mistranslations, alterations and doctrinal slant the translation exhibits.
How many other chapters show the same?
Franz claimed you need to understand the Bible to translate it accurately. Since he obviously did not, he could not.
Freddie's college records and course tutors are now online, if you can be bothered to look for them.
Macmillan's claims of "Scholarship" for him are best selling fiction. Hislop's "scholarship" is supported by the Witchtower they dont have a very reliable shit detector do they?
HB
designs

I think Franz understood the Bible well enough its the problem of reading things into the Bible you personally want. He was raised a Presbyterian and then became a Bible Student Associate and then a JW, that's a lot of territory to cover and its going to color your world. Add to it a little voice you hear in your head you think is from God and watch out. But its little different than Christianity trying to read into the OT a mysterious Trinity, what's the word they use its 'suggested' or 'implied'. Oye!
OUTLAW

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.....WonderMent
ADJOURNED
Wednesday, 24th November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Cross Continued:
Q.You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A.I do not speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No.
Q.Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis? A. You mean here?
Q. Yes?
A.No, I won’t attempt to do that.
—Douglas Walsh Trial, Pursuer’s Proof, 1954, pp. 7-9, 88, 91-92, 102-103
This exercise which Franz was unable to do is something which the average first
or second year Hebrew student could have accomplished without any difficulty.
Is it any wonder the Society refuses to publicly reveal the people who were involved in the translation of their Bible? Would you put your trust in a doctor who refused
to give his credentials? Yet, this is what many Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing when it comes to vital Bible truth.
............................................................................................................................................................
While I do stand corrected about The Greek Translation in the Scottish court case
Fred Franz still did not have the proper education..To translate the Bible from Koine Greek,to any language..
A book many people consider to be the most important book in the world..
The Scottish court case shows he didn`t have a very good education in Hebrew either..

There are people with Real Educations..Qualified to Translate the Bible..
Fred Franz wasn`t one of them..
The fact is..Without a Proper education in Greek or Hebrew..
Fred Franz Rewote the Bible to suit WBT$ Doctrine..

................... ...OUTLAW
Wonderment

Outlaw: "This exercise [Scotland Court Trial] which Franz was unable to do is something which the average first or second year Hebrew student could have accomplished without any difficulty."
That has been the argument forwarded by Walter Martin which many have been parroting on the internet. He says he asked a teacher of Hebrew (whose name we are not given) at Talbot Theological Seminary if Genesis 2:4 was a "particularly difficult verse to translate." Martin claims that the professor stated he would "never pass a first year Hebrew student who could not translate that verse."
Both Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford have shown this scripture will pose some difficulty for even advanced Hebrew students.
OUTLAW

Both Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford have shown this scripture will pose some difficulty for even advanced Hebrew students....Wonderment
Rolf Furuli is a JW..
Furuli has no problem Propping up WBT$ Bullshit..
Like the WBT$ Doctrine of 607 BCE..
Parroting Furuli a Loyal WBT$/JW ..Gives you Absolutely No Credibility..
Making Excuses for a Poorly Educated Fred Franz doesn`t help you either..
................... ...OUTLAW
OUTLAW

Both Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford have shown this scripture will pose some difficulty for even advanced Hebrew students....Wonderment
I will trust in Jehovah that he will correct whomever needs correction and that he will adjust whomever needs adjusting
not for my sake, or for the sake of the organization, but for the sake of his holy and glorious name.....Greg Stafford
Greg Stafford is also a JW..LOL!!..
You use 2 JW`s..
To Prop up a Poorly educated Fred Franz.
Who re-Wrote the Bible to support WBT$ Doctrine..
???????????????????????????..

................... ...OUTLAW

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

Share this